Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA-08-081_Report 1· . Kathi Bresler PARTIES OF RECORD New Life Church LUA08-081, SA-A, ECF Ivana Halvorsen Church Development Consultants 3623 -324th Avenue SE New Life Church at Renton 15711 -152nd Avenue SE Renton, WA 98057 18215 -72nd Avenue S Kent, WA 98032 Fall City, WA 98024 tel: (425) 443-9660 eml: consultantscdc@msn.com (contact) Claudia Donnelly 10415 147th Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 tel: (425) 255-4340 (party of record) Updated: 08/18/08 tel: (425) 226-0880 (owner / applicant) tel: (425) 656-7487 (party of record) (Page 1 of 1) i,-. ~--! i _ ... i i I sw 23-23-05 «'"" . ~ - "" ... '-'200 ,,--100' -""---::;=--" ... ,-. -, Sijl6.!l I o a: :::::> Iii I ~~O ~ & ...J 3: w z --------IW::= ---___ .La< f r .. ,.,-r-'- ~~ i i JC)IIDID un ... .... ;u,a aatI:I.ER3.AI:IWNN"B:W - k___ rJ\-- sc.;:_ --= -=== _w· _ __ II&I.Clal CD UJ ! , : . / / u... :,t;; I ------[" ;~-- , --I I l......-..... ) ------_ i ---------_ i I I _ ----__ -------W.I:::= ---_"-CIC(SUII' ... _~tItIIoI -----...... .-_ .. m' ... ... -c.!_ -: WI:::: ID*.'_ __ II&tBI:III t II t" II " II III: Ii II '-... ! ! J o ~ 4~ o o .0 I ! ! ! ! I " • I I , . . -------WJ:::::l _.'-1UIIII __ 1IIDI ! ~~ .~ I • I I '" I I I I II , I i • I!I! !I . .. ... I ' • • • - ~---',:" ,r--"-1 !--- ; "-1 [' L, '" i ~, I "I / . c i - ;UIIII,,,'_'.!\1 "I '0', / -"-> ;-'--- ---- '. -- . ,~ \-(~1;·: a~aS5 UQjVUIUSDM 'uDlu~t! 1:; HJJ~~ pUZ£l l\L~1 , / /,', ---:"~::":':-~':':: ,,:> t:'. coh" @-. . , ., e: ~! e-., i I 0-.. 1 _-""~, -"'~. 1 ._ .............. ,"'" o. .""Id",,,,,,,fIJI"'JI'oIPlI"&. 'M~Jf1WO) l .... ~O;-~~~)' - 8 8 8 ------------ ....... -... t ....... . f: ,I, il I' , I, -----J---f i" " " .' n 11 ", . , "'., '. ..~ k'" ~'" ~-----o 8 @ o e B5Q96 uOlh!~nM 'U01U~~ H HUH., PU~~I Illli o 8 8 i .". __ . ,___ ~ ~----.F,--. :' " _____________ JOOfj jIi!) H'-'1:'I!1H:J ,3.-.>1,0.. .:!if:I~ 8 \ / , ®oo ® • " ~ ~~ 1 -I , 8 I ! f J J ! !, ~ 'I~I-i ' -1 « 8 .'@ I .. 0 !; , f i ~ .il l ~ OOIH ®1· ~. '~."." .. """Il"",,_o'.:.' . • ""'d'"'I"""q" ... H"'PI .... 1 _--~.,~-~. 1 . --.~' ~1IIn!11SlJO)~i.ao4'JrnI) I, tH r .j @J~ @k "' --"r , ..,...... ..................... ~ , " . i ! j 1 1 . ___ o._"j j , r~t ®i' . "'r .".' .' r:'(/ = = = = = = = = = = = = = .~ " ---"'TL .... - I L I"'·'" u· ••.•• ~ ....... . ••.•.••••.•••. 1 .......... . ..C'-D .. , •. .,. ...... .... J o + ~ + , '" i~ I h I, n 0 2'~ ~,~ ~f ~~ e ~ '" e G ., 8 e- e e-- 8~U& ~o.h!~nM 'UOIU~~ 3S .nUHV pUHI 11l1'1 h ~<!; I ~·I : -! I • I , !; • • I ~i I.n ", r .. ~- I' II I I: 11 I I I I! I· ' , .... 0 o • . ~~ :;;-' e ~, r .;: e a e- o © e---------~~~ I 0' I: o @ e e ~~]~m~~c~~ ~! I, ,i I, • , n ~~====i ~ !" i o : : , '---~, ... ,1 --.--r 1;1 , ~ 0 q !:J Ii Ii . __ i , '----, -~·i .. ~· --+- , ... e e @ e e + , • . ·'--:ITt " .' I~) ~ ] , ~ : -<- ~. i rri 'r~ . I . I --,)-- e ~ HOa6 UOl&UI~I!M 'uOlua~ lS ~~U~IV pun I IILSI I fq='.l =#1 ~" ' ;-:-1 i I 'io ': , 'I r: ! ', • ~ 1~=;::::=c=1cr-00 : ;' ~ "I ~, ~ , ,,: ; , : f;1 m ~ e o , , , , ------\' ;~ . , i '" . " ~-i! : I i I j --I-~--' --,-~ i!~L I,i-~'_i "j~'il ' r l"J , ! , " I I' j : ~ ; :-- : i 1 , I i -",.,,. DD ""' ................ """'" I ~1O-Ft'l(61i1 J:III!~·~~IIW~~~ \..OV 1 --.. ,-~-. ._ ... ."...,''''''.".-Od .""<d ",,_f .. JO/&.,p""", 'lIJnl""UO)l~I"M(I~' ~",i:l,~I'i','" ---=----- .t::.~" ~ ,~ .' • • ,~-#.--' ----,;,,--- 8~OH UOl1UI41!M 'uOlH~ 3S anUHV punl IIl51 • ~ • I, 0:, J ~~ ~.-" J; t: • • • h g~ i 1~ --~- " " , It ~ ~ • . • ~l " " " ,. .. c " '= L - :~ • 00 ,~.,' '.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ fUO!IIUIJ JO!Jn X ] ---- .{ , • '~ J ,. ~~ h ~ :.i~ ,t @ ~; ~~ ;: ~ "1 ~ t e ~ "~ "' '" , ... <9 00, ?; ..:;;:; @- "'-: r OJ e ,al'~ '1><0 ~YE"': 'OUT" WIT, .... "'",,, 1"')2"_"" (,,,),"-"",,""" .. ----. ... i1~'1 L:~ -=.§, ~::::-.,.-__ ._.j I~j c _! C -=:;[: ';,1::._ .. :_" - -l~-!j . ~1 ~ ~i~:~l~e.~~: _r::;:;~~: --- '-----.-~ r-EW LFE CI-l.RCH 1571! 152r>O AVENUE SE RENTON, WA. 98058 Pf!ELIw-lARY LAl'D8CAPE FLANrNG PLAN NEW UFE CHURCH , I', ...... -~~ -'---'---~~-=-.-::.--~ ...... _--.::- ill ~ I::' .... i;;:=' I , ;, <~-1'/> \~\ : /((/ l!ii;!:'.fl ,i ~~';!f I !i 'I:!j n ii di ! \ '1 ;;!I~!~ II';'. !1!! ;h~ .~ il!m l,,!! 'I'll 'I~' ! ~ !i'~' .1 .. "i I': ' I' !~ , il ~ . • ' ,,,,,r' ' ~'!Jl:'!1'5 ~ , 8 ,":,'~" ~ i ~ g ", ~~i:::lq.i~ ~ i £'If I' ~ !ir-_tl .I ~_ 0"::' 1 ' ;'1 .' " fH~" , .. 'Jj' ,-lj!~t:!r ['! 1·~.t~-1., I I !~.. J1' "~.< '1 1 !'!~: -, '\~ ~~,,' ~ t;f ,,\\\ I ' , ~ it; i;~;q 1 '1':,\ ",,[I ' I'~ S"~·! ;~1 ~ql !~Li~ .!. • .. ~ , , I' i [1 IS ,~~ < 5i !;J!j;: ,~, f!l I Ji~t~'1 -""--:i.-~ 'I' '~ ['l :, I Rt ~j I' 'I ~._ ;;:('))" .. ,.. ~ f!U~ ~ m~ ~m~~n~ ~ ~ d~~~~ ~ !I ~31 ~~~~~ i ni~ ~;:~~i~~~~~~::~ .;,~g ~b~~ i 1 ~ :~~£~F if 2 i ; ;:~;<~; {;: § ~~:3~ t ~~ 3~~>~",1~~~,,<~~ ~.' ~ !~zH;; ~~~~r~~HJ~ ~~~DD; " ;I~~ ~ ~"'~~~~~~ ~. ~~~~~ ~ iii I ~ '"! :~~~~~~i~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ! ~~~~~,~~;, ~~~~~~~. ~ ~!~~f'~ ~ t • '. ijjlli! 1im!il !! -~~l! ~ ~ p~~;~r': '.)~ " nn~DD p. ~i ~ ~~ ~a ,I .. 'i'i!illl ~.. :~~~~ > r~~-~~ H o I il~ 1 -";--1 'I g ~ii! ~!~~;!I ..... I~P;; 1 ; ~ ~.~h. • I ',I ~ !iI'." '~"') ~ , < P!~': 'I ,:-,;;1' " .. '-I~;' iii ;!!;~ ;",.:.' ~ c 1. ! ; I )~ft -iii , . -. , ' -I ,,; il! C'" r i ~\-'f,' ~ !!; ;~ii~',"~ i:; i;~ ~ "i'.;,', ';! \;'~;\! i/l' '> !' !' 1 ; r ' t ~i I ;(;11' ~lt~~; ij . ""I ,', ~ 'Ii _ l II ;!~ " ;' "!:W.'i ';.I",'~': ... "i" : ~q; , I ~ , .. , ' 'I "1\ ii" .' , !t~~': ":,~" ,I, ~~!':' ,'~'-~:j'~ i; [ , ,/ . 'y: I; "'vfT-' ' ,r if:L"'~~,:l 1 rr~:!n '0' I 1 'I' 'I:' ~ , ~ I In ~ 1::)81 -,II '. ,:J I l~" !:lNO WE"U, ,,~cT" ,00 "" Mel" ('2'5:,)51-'1') ('Z')l)1-~/~ FA> <:Ml "",",'"",,, "'" "--~,,,,,,,,,,,",,,"-,,,,,,,,,, ... '~~". '. flEW LF£ CHURCH 157t1152N) AVENUE S.E RENTON, WA 98058 '--- " . .p' '-1: J ,?:-~-=-:.:" " "1 I.. :~ , ~ - >r :}'''' ~~ ""2 .;-," r' I-=-- !c" PRELIIANAAY lANDSCAPE 1ftOAT<lN FUN NEW UFE CHURCH 'I",' i ,(-~-.., \ ) j [ , , ,:JIIi ~ Denis law Mayor C [I --=-......-""",.,.~. r October 10,2013 . Ricardo Quintana, Executive Pastor New UfeChurch 15711152"d Avenue SE Renton, WA 98058 --' "" ..... "--...... ,,.,..;;..,... ..... ~ Department of Community and EconomicDevelopment C.E. "Chip"VinCent, Ad mi nistrator Subject: Requestfor First Annual Wetland/Stream Maintenance·and Monitoring Report New Ufe Church Wetland/Stream Mitigation . City of Renton File LUA08-081 Dear Mr. Quintana: This letter is to inform you that the first annual monitoring report for the wetland/stream mitigation project at New Life Church was due to the City on Septeillber 28, 2013. As of the date of this letter the report is 11 days past due as the City has not received the report. Two copies of the required report should be submitted to my attention by October 31. 2013. Thank you for your timely assistance in this matter. If you have any questions I can be reached at (415) 430~7314. Sincerely, Vanessa Dolbee Senior Planner cc: City of Renton File No. LUA08·081 Renton City Hall • lOSS South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057· • rentonwa.gov Denis Law Mayor · November 5, 2013 Ricardo Quintana, Executive Pastor · New Life Church 15711152nd Avenue SE Renton, WA 98058 r t :.-... "'" ..... (#;..-... '~ .... .,,;..;; ...... Department of Community and Economic Development c.E. "Chip"Vincent, Administrator SUBJECT: Receipt of FirstAnnual Wetland/Stream Maintenance and Monitoring Report New Life Church Wetland/Stream Mitigation City of Renton File LUA08-081 Dear Mr. Quintana: I received and reviewed the iirst annual Maintenance and Monitoring Report for the New Life Church, 15711152nd Ave. SE, mitigation project .. The project appears to be meeting · its established performance standards and is considered in compliance, Two copies of your·next scheduled maintenance and monitoring report are.due to the city by September 28, 2014. If you have any questions, please contact me at (425) 430-7314. Sincerely, . . ~-DJksL Vanessa Dolbee,Planner Planning Division ce; City of Renton File LUA08-014 Renton City Hall • 1 OSS.south Grady Way • Renton,Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov . October 24,2013 Ricardo Quintana New Life Church 15711 152 00 Avenue SE Renton, WA 98058 RE: New Life Wetland/Stream Buffer Enhancement Year 2 Monitoring Report Sewall WetJancl Consulting, Inc. 27641 o:M1gb1 way SE, iI:2, CoWgJm, WA 90042 (253) 859-{)515 SWC Job # 99-101, City of Renton File #LUA08-081 Dear Mr. Quintana, This report describes the results of Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. Year 2 monitoring of the New Life Church mitigation project. The site is located at 15711152nd Avenue SE, in the City of Renton, Washington. 1.0 WETLAND MITIGATION CONCEPT AND GOALS 1.1 Mitigation Concept RE: New Life Buffer Mitigation Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. #99-101 October 24, 2013 Page 2 of7 The proposed project included the expansion of the existing church, which included buffer impacts. To compensate for the reduction of the 50-foot wetland buffer, buffer averaging was used and the portion of the buffer remaining located adjacent to the driveway was enhanced through the installation of native trees and shrubs. Additionally, the buffer area along the south side of the stream along SR 169 was to be enhanced with a mix of native tree plantings as well as installation of L WD and snags. 1.2 Mitigation Goals 1.2.1 Enhance the wetland buffer though planting of native trees and shrubs. 1.2.3 Remove invasive/ exotic plants from the mitigation area. 2.0 INTRODUCTION Although the success and fmal outcome of wetland mitigation, restoration and enhancement projects is never guaranteed, certain procedures can be utilized to increase the probability of success. One of the most important procedures for success folIowing proper design and installation is the establishment of a monitoring plan to track changes and developments within the system. Monitoring provides the opportunity to evaluate the success of planted material within the system and observe early establishment of pioneer and volunteer species. By observing the success of planted and vohmteer species during the first five years of the project, it may be possible to speculate on the successional pathway taken, and general success of the project. Monitoring at the New Life Church mitigation area is to be conducted eight times over a five year period. Monitoring wilI be conducted four times the first year, and once a year for the following four years. This report represents the monitoring results for Year 2. During each site visit the overall success and rigor of the installation plantings is to be evaluated. Observations will also be made for any exotic/invasive species or native volunteer vegetation which may have entered the area. In addition, the wetland creation areas will be monitored during the early growing season for proper wetland hydrology. Sampling methodology is described in section 4.0 below. 3.0 STANDARDS OF SUCCESS RE: New Life Buffer Mitigation Sewall Wetlond CoruruJting, Inc. #99-101 October 24, 2013 Page 3 of7 3.1 Evaluation of the success of the mitigation project will be based upon 95% survival through Year 1 and 80% survival for all planted woody vegetation at the end of year 5. 3.2 Not more than 10% cover of exoticlinvasive species within mitigation area after year 5. 3.3 Volunteer native, non-invasive species will be included as acceptable components of the mitigation. 4.0 SAMPLING METHODOLOGY Monitoring will be conducted using the techniques and procedures described below to quantify the survival, relative health and growth of plant material as well as the successful enhancement of the buffer. 4.1. Vegetation The vegetation monitoring consists of inspection of the planted material to determine the health and vigor of the installation. All the planted material in the wetland and buffer will be inspected during each monitoring visit to determine the level of survival of the installation. A hand count of species was conducted to determine survival 4.2 Invasive Species A percent aerial coverage of invasive species will be determined during each monitoring visit. This is an estimated visual coverage with no specific plot or transect due to the small size and simple character of the mitigation site. 5.0 OBSERVATIONS AND DISCUSSION OF SITE CONDITIONS The following is our observations of the mitigation site taken on October 21,2013. 5.1 YEAR 2 5.1.1 Survival Statistics for Installed Plant Material The Table below indicates the current survival status for the mitigation areas for the Year 2 monitoring visit conducted on October 9 and 21 of 2013. The required Standard of Success in areas planted with native vegetation is at least 95% in Year I and 80% survival at the end of Year 5. As can be seen, due to replanting of the mitigation area, survival exceeds the original specified numbers for many species. At this point the survival statistics still exceed 95% overall survival for the two mitigation areas. Changes since the 4th quarter report include some minor mortality in the stream buffer enhancement area. To maintain good survival rates, an additional 5 big leaf maple, 5 douglas fir, and 5 cottonwood were installed in early October. RE: New Life ButTer Mitigation Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. #99-101 October 24, 2013 Page 4 of? Table 1 Reduced buffer area alonl! buildinl! Survival Specified # Alive % TREES Western Crabapple 3 5 166 Cascara 5 7 140 Douglas Fir 2 3 150 SHRUBS Vine Maple 11 9 81 Black Hawthorne 3 4 130 Nootkarose 23 21 91 Thimbleberry 14 14 100 Salmonberry 5 5 100 TOTAL 66 68 103 T bl 2 S 169 I a e R mprovement S tream Btl u er Enhancement Survival Specified # Alive 0/0 TREES Big Leaf Maple 25 16 64 Sitka Spruce 18 23 127 Douglas Fir 24 27 112 Black Cottonwood 25 22 88 Western Red Cedar 14 11 78 TOTAL 106 99 93 5.1.2 Invasive vegetation Maintenance efforts for weedy species have continued through Year 2 to maintain invasive species below the 10% threshold. The landscaper has controlled these weedy species so coverage within the area along the school is <5% meeting the requirements of the Plan. The landscaper will continue to maintain these weedy species. The northern stream buffer enhancement area continues to have some thistle present but it has been maintained to stay below the 10% coverage threshold. 6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS & CONCLUSION RE: New Life ButTer Mitigation Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. #99-101 October 24, 2013 Page 5 of7 Overall the New Life mitigation area seems to be thriving and new plantings seem to be doing well. Invasive species have been controlled and will continue to be controlled to keep weedy species below the required 10% cover. The Year 3 monitoring is scheduled to take place in September 0[2014 with a report to the City by September 28, 2013. If you have any questions or need any additional information please contact me at (253) 859- 0515 or by email at esewall@sewallwccolll. Sincerely, Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. Ed Sewall Senior Wetland Ecologist PWS #212 RE : New Life Buffer Mitigation Sewall Wetland Consultin g, Inc . #99-101 Octobt..-r 24 ,2013 Page 6 of7 Ahave: Photos on 10-9-13 depicting enhancement area along th e side of the school R.E : New Life BuOcr Miligution Sc\va ll Wetland Consull ing , In c. #99-10 1 Ocl0hcr 24 , 2013 Pagc 7 of7 Above: Looking east a c ross enhan ced huffe r along south side 0/ stream 10-9-13 . , Denis Law Mayor March 21, 2011 Kathi Bresler Department of Community and Economic Development Alex Pietsch, Administrator CA~FeA Devel9(3ffieRt C9Rs~ltaRts 3623 -324th Avenue SE Fall City, WA 98024 RE: S-year Maintenance and Monitoring period New Life Church City of Renton File LUA08-081 Dear Ms. Bresler: This letter is to confirm the City of Renton project manager has inspected and approved the stream and wetland plant installation and that a letter was received from Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. on January 18, 2011 confirming that the plant installation and habitat features were installed per the approved plan "Final Phase 1 Wetland Mitigation and Enhancement Plan" dated October 2008 and revised March 5, 2010. In addition, the City received an Assignment of Funds on April 12,2010, in the amount of $27,500.00 to cover the cost of a minimum five years of successful maintenance and monitoring The site inspection was conducted on March 17, 2011; this date marks the beginning of your minimum 5-year maintenance and monitoring period. As a reminder, reports are due quarterly for the first year and annua lIy thereafter. Your first quarterly monitoring report is due to the City on June 17, 2011. Please send three copies of the report to my attention. In order to assure the quickest possible release of your surety device, please ensure prompt monitoring and maintenance are performed for the duration of your monitoring period. The mitigation project shall be monitored for a period necessary to establish that performance standards have been met, but not for a period less than five (5) years. If at any time during your minimum five-year monitoring period the mitigation project falls below performance standards, the monitoring period will be placed on hold. Once the mitigation project regains compliance with approved performance standards, the maintenance and monitoring timeframe will restart for a period necessary to establish that performance standards have been met. Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton.Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov Ms. Bresler Page 2 of 2 March 21, 2011 I look forward to receiving your first quarterly maintenance and monitoring report. Sincerely, Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner Current Planning Division cc: New Life Church/Owner(s) Ivana Halversen, Contact City of Renton File LUA08-081 1 • Return Address: City of Renton Attention: Vanessa Dolbee 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 LUAO~-oB\ ·r .". -... . City of Renton Planning Division APR 1 9 1011 Document Title(s): Assessor's Property Tax ParceliAccount Number: Native Growth Protection Area Easement 232305-9021 Reference Number(s) of Documents assigned or released if applicable: Additional reference numbers are on page of document N/A Grantor(s) (Last name first, then first name and initials): 1. New Life Church, a Washington non-profit corporation 2. 3. Grantee(s) (Last name first, then first name and initials): 1. City of Renton, a Washington municipal corporation 2. 3. . Legal Description (abbreviated: i.e., lot, block, plat or section, township, range): Additional legal is on page 4 of document. SW 1/4 Section 23, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M. The Auditor/Recorder will rely on the information provided on the form. The staff will not read the document to verify the accuracy or completeness of the indexing information provided herein. Page 1 of 8 EXCISE 1170S.037.doc. TAX NOT REQUIRED tQ'~J Co. Raoorda DM&JC}fl B~ s::> ~. , Deputy· V-~/iif;F Native Growth Protection Easement The Native Growth Protection Easement (NGPE) on the New Life Church Property is hereby created for the purpose of protecting native vegetation in a critical andlor sensitive area such as steep slopes, wetlands, streams, and buffers. . I The creation of the NGPE hereby conveys to the public a beneficial interest in the land within the easement area. This interest shall be for the purpose of preserving native vegetation for the control of surface water and erosion, maintenance of slope stability, visual and aural buffering, and protection of plant and animal hab~at. The NGPE hereby imposes upon all present and future owners and occupiers of the easement area an obligation to leave undisturbed all trees and other native vegetation w~hin the easement area. The obligation to leave undisturbed all trees and native vegetation within the easement area shall be enforceable on behalf of the public by the City of Renton. . As a result of this NGPE, the native vegetation within the NGPE may not be cut, pruned, covered by fill, removed or damaged without express written permission from the City of Renton. Right of entry granted herein shall apply to the agents, representatives and employees of the owners or subsequent owners of the underlying property. GRANTOR Signature 8yTro Jones Printed Nam Its Senior Pastor TiUe STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Troy Jones is the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that he signed this instrument, on oath stated that he was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the Senior Pastor of New Life Church to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. 4/5/1 ( Dated NO~ anA~tate of Washington Printed Name {\. Residing at: K.1 DB l.Al' J Wlk Appointment Expires: 2.. zq , 1'2.. Page 2 018 11706.037.doc • LEGAL DESCRIPTION . SENSITIVE AREA EASEMENT ThaI portion of the West half of the Southwest quarter of Section 23, Township 23 North, RangeS East, W.M., in King County, Washington, lying Southerly of the South margin of the Renton-Maple Valley highway, more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at the Southwest comer of said Southwest quarter; THENCE South 87" 47' 20" East, 522.84 feet; THENCE North 27' 07' 42" West, 11.93 feet; THENCE North 60' 09' 03" Wes~ 11.12 feet; THENCE CONTINUING North 60' 09' 03" West, 37.21 feet; THENCE North 78' 19' 04" West, 57.31 feet; THENCE North 27' 50' 07" East, 47.77 feet; THENCE North 07' 06' 23" East, 43.43 feet; THENCE North 31' 42' 07" East, 78.32 feet; THENCE North 07' 22' 30" West, 50.34 feet; THENCE North 01' 41' 58" East, 42.57 feet; THENCE North 57' 16' 58" West, 69.57 feet; THENCE North 43' 11' 02" East, 37.89 feet; THENCE North 85' 41' 51" East, 56.93 feet; THENCE North 73' 31' 22" East, 60.33 feet; THENCE South 67' 48' 28" East, 33.36 feet; THENCE South 51' 46' 00" East, 44.93 feet; THENCE South 44' 43' 14" East, 40.26 feet; THENCE South 43' 02' 09" East, 40.45 feet; THENCE South 62' 24' 48" East, 38.57 feet; THENCE South 59' 34' 48" East, 43.24 feet; THENCE South 68' 53' 37" East, 38.53 feet; THENCE North 85' 17' 21" East, 51.73 feet; THENCE South 76' 53' 59" East, 52.23 feet; THENCE South 09' 49' 07" East, 24.34 feet; THENCE South 66' 09' 18" East, 50.50 feet; THENCE South 40' 58' 41" East, 45.09 feet; THENCE North 89' 53' 01" East, 46.00 feet; THENCE South 87" 08' 07" East, 55.93 feet; THENCE North 83' 50' 58" East, 35.01 feet; THENCE North 73' 57' 21" East, 48.25 feet; THENCE North 69' 53' 19" East, 64.88 feet; THENCE South 81' 12' 11" East, 70.45 feet; THENCE South 80' 53' 43" East, 20.46 feet to the East Line of said West half; THENCE North 01' 45' 54" East, 531.95 feet along said East line; THENCE North 88' 51' 17" West, 29.21 feet; THENCE North 64' OS' 58" West, 36.27 feet; THENCE South 79' 48' 35" West, 45.53 feet; THENCE South 65' 10' 58" West, 42.45 feet; Project Name: New Life Church March 10,2011 BDG 117061.002.doc Exhibit: 11706-2EXH02.DWG Page 1 of 5 THENCE South 65" 20' 43" West, 53.79 feet; THENCE North 89" 18' 32" West, 57.90 feet; THENCE North 70" 22' 21" West, 42.37 feet; THENCE North 82" 03' 20" West, 77.36 feet; THENCE North 86" 21' 03" West, 63.83Jeet; THENCE, North 79" 52' 36" West, 63.86 feet; THENCE North 48" 17' 21" West, 74.57 feet; THENCE North 28" 11' 21" West, 26.95 feet; THENCE North 18" 43' 32" West, 46.52 feet; THENCE North 30" 17' 55" Wes~ 35.56 feet to a point on a non-tangent curve, the radius of which bears North 12" 31' 25" East; THENCE Northwester1y along the arc of a curve concave to the Northeast, having a radius of 24.83 feet, through a central angle of 55" 32' 04"; and an arc length of 24.07 feet to a point on a non- tangent curve, the radius of which bears North 60" 34' 22" East; THENCE Northerly along the arc of a curve concave to the East, having a radius of 88.79 feet, through a central angle of 55° 15' 51", and an arc length of 85.64 feet to a point on a non-tangent curve, the radius of which bears North 50" 40' 47" West; THENCE Northerly along'the arc of a curve concave to the West, having a radius of 28.60 feet, through a central angle of 55" 25' 59", and an arc length of 27.67 feet; THENCE North 16° 02' 02" West, 7.36 feet to a point on a non-tangent curve, the radius of which bears North 07" 21' 45" East; THENCE Northeaster1y along the arc of a curve concave to the Northwest, having a radius of 50.00 feet, through a central angle of 87" 03' 35", and an arc length of 75.97 feet;. THENCE North 10" 18' 10" East, 10.43 feet to a point of tangency; THENCE Northwesterly along the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 50.00 fee~ through a central angle of 84" 12' 52", and an arc length of 73.49 feet; THENCE North 01" 27' 53" West, 36.52 feet to a point of tangency; THENCE Northerly along the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 25.00 feet, through a central angle of 32°,20' 05", and an arc length of 14.11 feet; THENCE North 33" 47' 58" West, 20.44 feet to a point of tangency; THENCE Northwesterly along the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 25.00 feet, through a central angle of 35" 51' 46", and an arc length of 15.65 feet; THENCE North 69" 39' 44" West, 21.66 feet to a point of tangency; THENCE Wester1y along the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 25.00 feet, through a central angle of 04" 39' 26", and an arc length of2.03 fee~ . THENCE North 74" 19' 10" Wes~ 17.23 feet to a point on a non-tangent curve, the radius of which bears North 47" 02' 50" West; THENCE Northeasterly along the arc of a curve concave to the Northwes~ having a radius of 100.00 feet, through a central angle of 06" 02' 02", and an arc length of 10.53 fee~ THENCE North 36° 55' 08" East, 31.11 feet to a point of tangency; THENCE Northeasterly along the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 100.00 feet, through a central angle of 11" 18' 53", and an arc length of 19.75 feet; THENCE North 25" 36' 15" East, 45.90 feet; THENCE North 26° 41' 26" East, 22.09 feet; THENCE North 31 ° 57' 54" East, 73.88 feet to a point of tangency; THENCE Northeasterly along the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 100.00 fee~ through a central angle of 09" 47' 23", and an arc length of 17.09 feet; THENCE North 22" 10' 31" East, 20.63 feet; . Project Name: New Life Church March 10, 2011 BDG 117061.002.doc Exhibit: 11706-2EXH02.DWG Page 2 of 5 THENCE North 53° 14' 17" East, 2.12 feet to a point of tangency; THENCE Northeasierly along the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 100.00 feet, through a central angle of 24° 18' 59", and an arc length of 42.44 feet; THENCE North 28° 55' 19" East. 32.36 feet to a point of tangency; THENCE Northeasterly along the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 100.00 feet, through a central angle of 12° 03' 30", and an arc length of 21.05 fee~ THENCE North 16° 51' 49" East, 3.26 feet; THENCE North 32° 21' 09" East, 1.56 feet to a point of tangency; THENCE Northeasterly along the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 100.00 feet, through a central angle of 05° 03' 31", and an arc length of 8.83 feet; _ THENCE North 27" 17' 38" East, 20.28 feet to a point of tangency; THENCE Northerly along the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 100.00 feet, through a central angle of 14° 3~' 36", and an arc length of 25.32 feet; THENCE North 12° 47' 02" East, 30.94 feet; THENCE North 15° 03' 56" East, 98.67 feet to a point of tangency; THENCE Northerly along the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 100.00 feet, through a central angle of 01° 37' 20", and an arc length of 2.83 feet; THENCE North 13° 26' 35" East, 81.98 feet to a point of tangency; THENCE Northerly along the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 100.00 feet, through a central angle of 02° 26' 36", and an arc length of 4.26 feet; THENCE North 10° 59' 59" East, 44.73 feet to a point on a non-tangent curve, the radius of which bears North 79° 10' 37" West; THENCE Northerly along the arc of a curve concave to the West, having a radius of 100.00 feet, through a central angle of 09° 22' 20", and an arc length of 16.36 feet; THENCE North 01 ° 27' 02" East, 7.48 feet; THENCE North 20° 21' 14" East, 21.34 feet to a point of tangency; THENCE Northerly along the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 100.00 feet, through a central angle of 16° 08' 02", and an arc length of 28.16 feet; THENCE North 04° 19'11" East, 16.24 feet; THENCE North 09° 42' 46" East, 20.67 feet; THENCE North 08° 05' 12" East, 59.78 feet; THENCE North 14° 10' 06" East, 16.37 feet; THENCE North 34° 52' 47" East, 23.22 feet to a point of tangency; THENCE Northerly along the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 100.00 feet, through a central angle of 53° 49' 22", and an arc length of 93.94 feet; THENCE North 18° 56' 35" West, 34.75 feet to said South margin; THENCE North 75° 41' 42" West, 83.38 feet along said South margin; THENCE South 14° 18' 18" West, 15.00 feet along said South margin; THENCE North 75° 41' 42" West, 439.61 feet along said South margin; THENCE South 13° 01' 15" Wes~ 127.48 feet; THENCE South 46° 28' 10" East, 23.74 feet to a point of tangency; THENCE Southeasterly along the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 100.00 feet, through a central angle of 23° 21' 37", and an arc length of 40.95 feet; THENCE South 69° 55' 47" East, 29.60 feet to a point of tangency; THENCE Easterly along the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 100.00 feet, through a central angle of 21 ° 56' 40", and an arc length of 38.30 feet; THENCE North 88° 01' 34" East, 29.18 feet; THENCE South 59° 51' 11" East, 45.84 feet to a point of tangency; Project Name: New Life Church March 10,2011 BOG 117061.002.doc ExhiM: 11706-2EXH02.0WG Page 3 o{ 5 · THENCE Easterly along the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 100.00 feet, through a central angle of 43' 46' 20", and an arc length of 76.40 feet; . THENCE North 76' 16' 29" East, 60.24 feet; THENCE North 68' 39' 58" East, 7.55 feet; THENCE South 06' 30' 36" West, 43.15 feet; THENCE South 12' 55' 31" West, 55.80 feet; THENCE South 20' 55' 13" West, 10.78 feet to a point of tangency; THENCE Southerly along the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 100.00 feet, through a central angle of 11' 58' 50", and an arc length of 20.91 feet; ·THENCE South 08' 56' 23" West, 22.83 feet; THENCE South 09' 54' 41" West, 41.14 feet to a point of tangency; THENCE Southerly along the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 100.00 feet, through a central angle of 18' 42' 46", and an arc length of 32.66 feet; THENCE South 13' 38' 01" West, 22.93 feet; THENCE South 12' 23' 45" West, 83.82 feet; THENCE South 17' 43' 32" West, 91.99 feet to a point of tangency; THENCE Southerly along the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 100.00 feet, through a central angle of 04' 55' 37", and an arc length of 8.60 feet; THENCE South 12' 47' 54" Wes~ 15.19 feet; THENCE South 30' 40' 32" West, 5.37 feet to a point of t,mgency; THENCE Southwesterly along the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 100.00 fee~ through a central angle of 08' 20' 56", and an arc length of 14.57 f~t; THENCE South 22' 19' 37" West, 11.41 feet to a point of tangency; THENCE Southerly along the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 100.00 feet, through a central angle of 03' 11' 57", and an arc length of 5.58 feet; THENCE South 19' 07' 40" West, 9.80 feet; THENCE South 24' 35' 34" West, 5.75 feet; THENCE South 51' 03' 40" Wes~ 2.86 feet to a point of tangency; THENCE Southwesterly along the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 100.00 fee~ through a central angle of 18' 50' 31", and an arc length of 32.89 feet; THENCE South 32' 13' 08" West, 24.72 feet to a point of tangency; THENCE Southwesterly along the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 100.00 feet, through a central angle of 08' 11' 08", and an arc length of 14.29 feet; THENCE South 24' 02' 00" Wes~ 18.54 feet; ., THENCE South 32' 49' 24" Wes~ 67.45 feet to· a point of tangency; THENCE Southwesterly along the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 100.00 feet, through a central angle of 06' 07' 35", and an arc length of 10.69 feet; THENCE South 26' 41' 48" West, 37.95 feet; THENCE South 22' 56' 35" West, 32.04 feet; THENCE South 89' 26' 57" West, 0.69 feet; THENCE North 79' 16' 38" West, 24.02 feet to a point of tangency; THENCE Westerly along the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 100.00 feet, through a central angle of 30' 23' 03", and an arc length of 53.03 feet; THENCE South 70' 20' 19" Wes~ 38.94 feet to a point of tangency; THENCE Southwesterly along the arc of a curve to the le~ having a radius of 100.00 feet, through a central angle of 38' 05' 38", and an arc length of 66.49 feet; THENCE North 85' 22' 17" West, 5.95 feet; THENCE North 83' 54' 15" West, 20.73 feet; Project Name: New Ufe Church March 10, 2011 BOG 117061.002.doc Exhibtt: 11706-2EXH02.DWG Page 4 of 5 THENCE North 74° 26' 50" West, 81.85 feet; THENCE South 13° 01' 15" West, 71.44 feet; THENCE North 75° 42' 00" West, 139.00 feet; THENCE South 13° 42' 00" West, 274.24 feet to the West line of said Southwest quarter; THENCE South 02° 08' 28" West, 979.66 feet along said West Line to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Project Name: New Life Church March 10,2011 BDG 117061.002.doc Exhibit: 11706-2EXH02.DWG Page 5 of 5 N'!J'~RENrr _!2 ~N~I~A ::: ~ ''''"PLE . ~LE}' --§i~) I I I 22 27 26 ----- JOB NUMBER 11706 SCALE; HORIZONTAL 1"=400' VERTICALN/A . NEW LIFE For: ~ ""' ... """ CHURCH llJ~· ~ {425l251.-6222 •. _ {425 251-8782 FAX \. . i CML LAND SENSITIVE AREA ~\"."~I"';··~~§~#. ~E[:A:JjSKEM:IEmN~T EXHV<'"IB..,IT=-~1 =7TF1=-j SHm January 18,2011 Ricardo Quintana New Life Church 15711 152 nd Avenue SE Renton, WA 98058 Re: New Life Church Installation Sign-off SWC Job #99-101 Dear Mr. Quintana, LUIi0 fJ-()8 / Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. City of Renton Planning Division ,';' .' :0 •• Per your request we have inspected the installation ofthe mitigation area at the New Life Church mitigation site. The site is located at 15711 152nd Avenue SE, in the City of Renton, Washington. The site was visited on June 24, 20 I 0 to conduct the plant installation and habitat feature inspection. All plants and habitat features were generally installed per the approved plan; "Final Phase 1 Wetland Mitigation and Enhancement Plan" dated October 2008 and revised March 5, 2010. Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. conducted an additional site investigation on December 20, 20 I 0 to inspect the split rail fence per the conditions of approval. Some minor modifications were implemented at that time and the mitigation area is now in compliance with the approved mitigation plans and conditions of approval. Monitoring at the New Life Church mitigation area is to be conducted eight times over a five year period. Monitoring will be conducted four time the first year with one monitoring report submitted at the end of the year 1 monitoring period. Additionally, the mitigation area will be monitored once a year for the following four year with monitoring reports submitted for agency review at the end of the subsequent years. With acceptance of the installation, the five year monitoring period will begin. The first year monitoring report will be conducted in the fall/winter of 2011. If you have any questions or need any additional information please contact our office at 253.859.0515 or bye-mail atawill@sewallwc.com . Sincerely, Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. /~ ... k::tt J. Aaron Will Wetland Scientist Denis law Mayor March 17,2010 Department of Community and Economic Development Alex Pietsch, Administrator cc:'~~~~ Ivana Halversen, Senior Planner Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. 18215 nnd Ave. S. ~. 1NJ1WJI)A11' " Vi rtc.e'It <:::£'11 51'; ~I Kent, WA 98032 ,JH<-.,,vc tll"1 nrt\:t/1Z l~ ''''itetee.· .3 n VOo11a. \10 Bin SUBJECT: NEW LIFE CHURCH, REQUEST FOR MINOR MODIFICATION OF APPROVED SITE PLAN (FILE NO. LUA08-081,ECF, SA-A) Dear Ms. Halversen, I am in receipt of your letter and attachments dated February 5, 2010 wherein you request revisions to the approved Site Plan for the following changes: 1) A looped fire I.ane that would be located on the west side of the auditorium proposed in the original site plan approval; 2) A revised north site access road near the drainage pond;3) A revised driveway from 152nd Avenue SE across from SE 155'h Place; 4) A modified parking lot to eliminate one row of parking; and 5)A parking lot connection in the southwest portion of the surface lot. All of the proposed modifications to the . previously approved site plan relate to site circulation for private vehicles and for fire access. The fire access road would encroach on a category 2 wetland buffer area; as . such, the applicant has proposed buffer averaging. This change requires that the. subject project amel'ld the SEPA decision to include this minor impact; as sOch, the' applicant has also applied for a SEPA Addendum. The requested revisions are summarized below: 1) The addition.of a looped fire lane that would be constructed along the west side of the new proposed sanctuary building. The proposed fire lanewould be 20-feet wide andrun the length of the building~Aportion ofthe proposed fire lane would impact the buffer of a Category 2 wetland, reducing the buffer wic!th from 50-feet to 2S~feet at this .Iocation. ". 2) Permit a north site access road/point from of lS2nd Avenue SE approximately 100- feet south of the intersection of lS2nd Avenue SE and Maple Valley Highway. The new access would be limited to right-in/right-outtraffic movements only. 3) Modify the existing site access located across from 1SSth Place SE to allow fluid two-way parking lot circulation by eliminating sections of parking lot landscaping and 40 Pilrking spaces • . 4) Improlie parking lot circulation by providing a vehicular connection between two rows of parking along the west edge of the existing parking lot. This would result in the el.imlnation of four parking spaces with the addition' of anew 420 square foot parking lot landscape island. . Renton CitY-Hail .-.l055 South GradyWay • Renton,Washington 98057.,. rentonwa.gov I o Denis Law Mayor March 23, 2010 Department of Community and EconomicDevelopment Alex Pietsch, Administrator Ivana Halversen, Senior Planner Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. 1821S nnd Ave. S. Kent, WA 98032 SUBJECT: NEW LIFE CHURCH, REQUEST FOR MINOR MODIFICATION OF APPROVED SITE PLAN (FILE NO. LUA08~081, ECF, SA-A) Dear -Ms. Halversen: I am in receipt of your letter and attachments dated February 5, 2010 wherein you request revisions to the approved Site Plan for the following changes: 1) A looped fire lane that would be located on the west side ofthe auditorium proposed in the original site plan approval; 2) A revised north site access road near the drainage pond; 3) A revised driveway from 152nd Avenue SE across from SE 155,h Place; 4) A modified . parking lot to eliminate one row of parking; and 5) A parking lot connection in the southwest portion of the surface lot. All oftheproposed modifications to the previously approved site plan relate to site circulation for private vehicles and for fire access. The fire access road would encroach on a category 2 wetland buffer area; as such, the applicant h~s proposed buffer averaging. This change requires that the subject project amend the SEPA decisionto include this minor impact; as such, the applicant has also applied for a SEPA Addendum .. The requested revisions are summarized below: 1) The addition of a looped fire lane that would be constructed along the west side of the new proposed sanctuary building. The proposed fire lane would be 20-feet . wide -and run the length of the building. A portion of the proposed fire lane would impact the buffer of a category 2 wetland, reducing tile buffer width from SO-feet to 2S-feet at this location • . 2) -Permit a north site access road/point from of 152nd Avenue SE approximately 100- feet south of the intersection of 152nd Avenue SE and Maple Valley Highway. The- new access would be limited to right-in/right-out traffic movements only. Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa_90v Ivana Halversen Page 2 of 5 March 23, 2010 3) Modify the existing site access located across from lSSth Place SE to allow fluid two-way parking lot circulation by eliminating sections of parking lot landscaping and 40 parking spaces. 4) Improve parking lot circulation by providing a vehicular connection between two rows of parking along the west edge of the existing parking lot. This would result . in the elimination of four parking spaces with the addition of a new 420 square foot parking lot landscape island. Renton Municipal Code Section 4-9-2001, allows minor adjustments to an approved site plan, provided: 1. The adjustment does not involve more than a ten percent (10%) increase in area or scale of the development in the approved site plan; or 2. The adjustment does not hove a significantly greater impact on the environment and facilities than the approved plan; or 3. The adjustment does not change the boundaries of the originally approved plan. Analysis of Request The site plan modification requested and as shown in your March 4, 2010 submittals have been compared to the Site Plan as approved by the Planning Director on February 13,2009, and the Site Plan Modification approved on September 30,2009. Overall, the Site Plan Modifications proposed for New Life Church focus on providing effective and efficient vehicular circulation throughout the site. The results of the proposed site plan modifications would increase vehicular mobility when the parking lot is at its peak usage, between Sunday services. The fire lane is currently designed (under the original Site Plan approval) to end in two hammer-head turn-a-rounds, one in front and the second in the rear of the new auditorium building. As a part of the proposed modification, the fire protection access would be re-designed to provide fire access and circulation around the entire New Life facility. The proposed modifications would reduce parking numbers, increase access points and Widths, change landscaping, and impact a wetland buffer. It should be noted that the connection of the fire lane (modification request 1) is a mitigation measure ofthe.5EPA Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated, for the first site plan approval. Mitigation measure number 9 states "within one year from the date of SEPA determination, the applicant shall complete an amended SEPA with an .. approved wetland mitigation plan to connect the fire access road on the west side of the new building". This site plan modification is a City process requirement that is intended to document the changes and verify satisfaction of SEPA mitigation measure 9. Ivana Halversen Page 3 of 5 March 23, 2010 Although, the applicant has included additional modification requests and therefore staff will evaluate the impacts of these additional requested modifications separately. The addition of the subject fire lane would result in impacts to the wetland buffer, which would be mitigated if the applicant complies with the additional SEPA mitigation measures applied to the project under the SEPA Addendum. As such, staff recommends as a condition of approval that the applicant comply with all the mitigation measures identified through SEPA review including but not limited to those mitigation measures identified through the SEPA Addendum process . . As proposed, the modification requests would not change the building area or coverage. The impervious surface coverage would change by less then 10 percent, increasing by 1,112 square feet. The parking lot recirculation would impact the number of existing and new parking spaces approved through LUA08-081. The existing approved site plan for New Life Church permitted additional parking beyond the minimum standards for the uses located on the subject site. As approved the subject site is over parked by 177 parking spaces based on the current parking standards in the Renton Municipal Code. After the proposed modifications, the parking area would be reduced by another 44 parking spaces resulting in New Life Church remaining over parked by 133 spaces. The reduction in parkirg spaces would bring the approved site plan closer to compliance with the maximum parking requirements identified in RMC 4-4-080. Modification requests, 2 and 3 above, propose changes to site access as well as changes to the internal site circulation system. Modification 2 would provide a new access point south of the drainage retention ponds. This access road would be 12-feet wide and would be limited to right-in/right-out traffic turning movements. The 12-foot width would be permitted for one-way traffic only. Additionally, this access point would be approximately 100-feet from the signalized intersection of Maple Valley Highway and lS2nd Avenue SE. Because of the proximity of the access to the intersection, staff recommends a condition of approval that the applicant install aC-curb in lS2nd Avenue SE to prevent left-in and left-out traffic movements at this location. Modification 3 would widen the access located across from SE lSSth Place from 30-feet toA1.2-feet. RMC 4-4-0801.3.c restricts driveway widths to 30-feet; as such, staff recommends denial of the widening of the access driveway to 41.2-feet. Because the 41.2-foot driveway access is not consistent with RMC, staff recommends a condition of approval that the applicant submit a new site plan that depicts the south access width in compliance with RMC 4-4-0801.3.c. The second portion of this modification request includes the re- configuration ofthe parking and landscaping along this internal drive to provide for a 30-foot wide drive aisle. Staff recommends approval of this portion of modification request 3. Modification requests 2 through 4 would result in changes to the approved landscaping plan (new landscaping) and existing site landscaping (existing landscaping); Historically New Life Church has been located at the subject site; the site plan review that was Ivana Halversen Page 4 of 5 March 23, 2010 completed, as a part of LUA08-081 permitted an additional auditorium building and associated required improvements. Most of the proposed landscape changes are associated with the site plan that was approved under LUA08-081, although a small portion of the changes affect parking lot landscaping that was not reviewed under LUA08-081. The changes that would affect the existing landscaping result in the addition of 889 square feet of parking lot landscape islands with nine purple leaf plum trees. In addition, the proposed modification would reduce some sections of existing landscaping, although the addition of trees and square footage provided through the new landscaping would exceed the amount of eliminated landscape area. Furthermore, Renton's standard for parking lot landscaping is calculated based upon the number of parking stalls provided (35 square feet per parking space). This proposal would reduce parking on the site by 44 spaces and increase landscaping; as such, staff recommends approval ofthe proposed landscaping as designed. The proposed modifications would eliminate some areas of new landscaping, although these areas would be replaced with equal amounts of trees, shrubs, ground cover and square footage resulting in no net change. If the conditions of approval are met, the proposed changes would not result in more than a 10 percent increase in area or scale ofthe development as building area would not increase and impervious coverage would only increase minimally. The proposal would not have a greater impact on facilities, nor would it change the boundaries of the· original approved site plan. The impacts to the environment that would occur as a result ofthe looped fire lane have been mitigated in the SEPA Addendum, and the remainder of the requested modifications would not result in any additional environmental impacts. The project site is zoned Residential 14 (R-14) dwelling units per net acre with a land use designation of Residential Multi-family. All applicable setbacks, lot coverage, and landscaping standards would be achieved if the conditions of approval are met. Decision Based on staff's analysis, I have determined the proposed revisions are within the parameters defined by the Renton Municipal Code. Therefore, the proposed modification to the site plan is approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with all the mitigation measures identified through . -SEPA review including but not limited to those mitigation measures identified through the SEPA Addendum process. Ivana HalverSen Page S of S March 23, 2010 2. The applicant shall install a C-curb in 152nd AvenueSE to prevent the left~in and left-out traffic movements at this ingress/egress. The design and installation shall be approved by the Plan Review Project Manager prior to Final Building Occupancy. 3. The applicant shall submit a new site plan that depicts the south access width in compliance with RMC 4-4-0801.3.c. and the required C-curb in 152nd Avenue SE. The revised site plan shall be submitted to the Current Planning Project Manager prior to Final Building Occupancy. 4. The applicant is advised that all code requirements and conditions of the site plan approval are still applicable to the development of the site. The applicant should also understand that Environmental SEPA Review and Site Plan RevieW may be required for future modifications to the site plan. This determination wilLbe final unless a written appeal ofthis administrative determination -accompanied by the required filing fee -is filed with the City's Hearing Examiner within 14 days ofthe date of this decision. Should you have any questions regarding this determination or the requirements discussed in this letter, please contact Vanessa Dolbee, (Acting) Senior Planner, at (425) 430-7314. ~~~v~ C. E."Chip" Vincent Planning Director cc: LUAOS-oSl, ECF, SA-A lennifer Henn}ng -Current Planning Manager Vanessa Dolbee -(Acting) Senior Planner Jan lilian -Plan Reviewer Parties of Record , DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED (DNS-M) Pursuant to WAC 197-11-600 (4) (c) and WAC 197-11-625 Addendum to New life Church LUAOS-OS1. ECF. SA-A Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M) Date of Addendum: March 15, 2010 February 13, 2009 Date of Original Issuance of SEPA Threshold Determination: Proponent: Application File: Project Name: New Life Church, 15711-152nd Avenue SE, Renton, WA 9S059 LUAOS-OS1, ECF, SA-A New Life Church Proposal/Purpose of Addendum: The City of Renton issued a Determination of Non- Significance -Mitigated for the New life Church addition, which included a 36,000 square foot Church auditorium with 264 additional parking stalls. The DNS-M determination resulted in nine mitigation measures. Mitigation measure number "9" states: "within one year from the date of SEPA determination, the applicant shall complete an amended SEPA with an approved wetland mitigation plan to connect the fire access road on the west side of the new building". As such, the applicant has complied with mitigation measure "9" and has proposed to provide a looped fire lane that would provide emergency access to all sides of the New life Church facilities. Within the original SEPA review staff evaluated critical areas on the subject site including Madsen Creek and wetlands. The applicant provided a Wetland and Stream Analysis report and a Secondary Stream Study prepared by Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc., dated July 9,2008 and updated October 2008. The site contains three wetlands, referenced as Wetland "A", Wetland "B", and Wetland "C" herein. Wetland "A" is located just east of Madsen Creek and is approximately 11,875 square feet in size. The provided Wetland Report indicated this to be a Category 3 wetland, which would require a 25-foot buffer. Wetland "B" is approximately 8,400 square feet in size and is located in the southwest portion of the site just east of Wetland "A". Wetland "B" has also been determined to be a Category 3 wetland. Wetland "C" is located at the base of a steep slope and appears to be a groundwater discharge point. Wetland "C" has been delineated as a Category 2 wetland, which would require a 50-foot buffer. The proposed looped fire access road would impact 1,909 square feet of the buffer of Wetland "C". The Wetland "C" buffer would be reduced from 50-feet to 25-feet at the location of the fire road. The applicant has proposed to make up the buffer reduction area through buffer averaging along the south side of Wetland "C". The make-up area would be 1,973 square feet. In addition, the applicant has proposed to enhance the 25- foot buffer that would be located between Wetland "C" and the new fire road. The provided conceptual planting plan identifies the addition of native plants including 10 trees, 49 shrubs, and buffer area seed mix. As proposed, the Conceptual Mitigation Plan, dated February 5,2010, would meet the criteria for buffer averaging pursuant to RMC 4-3-050M.6.f. Staff recommends a mitigation measure that the applicant complies with the conceptual mitigation plan and recommendation in the Wetland and Stream Analysis report prepared by Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc., dated July 9, 2008 and updated October 2008. The looped fi re access road would not impact any other critical areas, including both Wetland "An and Wetland "B". When the original development proposal was circulated for comment; the applicant had proposed stream buffer reduction and wetland buffer averaging to a much larger extent then proposed as a part of the Addendum. Comments were received from the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division, presenting concerns about proposed mitigation for stream buffer reduction and buffer averaging. Although, on February 11, 2009 the applicant submitted a new set of plans and supportive materials eliminating the proposal for stream buffer reduction and buffer averaging. in the subject modification to the site plan, a small amount of buffer averaging would occur. Staff has reviewed the original comments received from the Muckleshoot indian Tribe, and has determined that these comments would not be applicable to the revised subject proposal. This Addendum is appropriate because it contains only minor new information not included in the original Determination and there are no significant environmental impacts related to inclusion of the new information. location: 15711152nd Avenue SE lead Agency: City of Renton, Department of Community & Economic Development Review Process: Addendum to previously issued Determination of Non- Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M) Mitigation Measures: A. The applicant shall comply with the conceptual mitigation plan and recommendation is the Wetland and Stream Analysis report prepared by Sewall Wetland Consulting, inc., dated July 9, 2008 updated October 2008. B. The applicant shall comply with all the mitigation measures identified in the original SEPA determination of DNS-M for the subject project. Additional Information: If you would like additional information, please contact Vanessa Dolbee, (Acting) Senior Planner City of Renton, Department of Community & Economic Development, Planning Division at (42S) 430-7314. There is no comment period for this Addendum, dated March 15, 2010 issued by the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE SIGNATURES: Gregg Zimme n, A ministrator Public Works Depa ment Terry Higashiyama, Administrator Community Services Department Mar Peterson, Interim Administrator Fire & Emergency Services I~JC\ A x letsc, mlmstrator Department of Community & Economic Development DATE DATE DATE September 12,2012 Ricardo Quintana New Life Church 15711 152nd Avenue SE Renton, WA 98058 RE: New Life Wetland/Stream Buffer Enhancement Fourth Quarter Monitoring Report Sewall V\reuan(:l Consulting. Inc. SWC Job # 99-101, City of Renton File #LUA08-081 Dear Mr. Quintana, This report describes the results of Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. fourth quarter monitoring of the New Life Church mitigation project. The site is located at 15711 152 nd Avenue SE, in the City of Renton, Washington. 1.0 WETLAND MITIGATION CONCEPT AND GOALS 1.1 Mitigation Concept RE: New Life Buffer Mitigation Sewall We1landConsulting, Inc. #99·101 September 12,2012 Page 2 of7 The proposed project included the expansion of the existing church, which included buffer impacts. To compensate for the reduction of the 50-foot wetland buffer, buffer averaging was used and the portion of the buffer remaining located adjacent to the driveway was enhanced through the installation of native trees and shrubs. Additionally, the buffer area along the south side of the stream along SR 169 was to be enhanced with a mix of native tree plantings as well as installation ofL WD and snags. 1.2 Mitigation Goals 1.2.1 Enhance the wetland buffer though planting of native trees and shrubs. 1.2.3 Remove invasive/ exotic plants from the mitigation area. 2.0 INTRODUCTION Although the success and final outcome of wetland mitigation, restoration and enhancement projects is never guaranteed, certain procedures can be utilized to increase the probability of success. One of the most important procedures for success following proper design and installation is the establishment of a monitoring plan to track changes and developments within the system. Monitoring provides the opportunity to evaluate the success of planted material within the system and observe early establishment of pioneer and volunteer species. By observing the success of planted and vol unteer species during the first five years of the project, it may be possible to speculate on the successional pathway taken, and general success of the project. Monitoring at the New Life Church mitigation area is to be conducted eight times over a five year period. Monitoring will be conducted four times the first year, and once a year for the following four years. This report represents the fourth quarter report for Year 1. During each site visit the overall success and rigor of the installation plantings is to be evaluated. Observations will also be made for any exotic/invasive species or native volunteer vegetation which may have entered the area. In addition, the wetland creation areas will be monitored during the early growing season for proper wetland hydrology. Sampling methodology is described in section 4.0 below. 3.0 STANDARDS OF SUCCESS RE: New Life Buffer rMitigation Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. #99-101 September 12, 2012 Page 3 of7 3.1 Evaluation of the success of the mitigation project will be based upon 95% survival through Year 1 and 80% survival for all planted woody vegetation at the end of year 5. 3.2 Not more than 10% cover of exoticlinvasive species within mitigation area after year 5. 3.3 Volunteer native, non-invasive species will be included as acceptable components of the mitigation. 4.0 SAMPLING METHODOLOGY Monitoring will be conducted using the techniques and procedures described below to quantify the survival, relative health and growth of plant material as well as the successful enhancement of the buffer. 4.1. Vegetation The vegetation monitoring consists of inspection ofthe planted material to determine the health and vigor ofthe installation. All the planted material in the wetland and buffer will be inspected during each monitoring visit to determine the level of survival of the installation. A hand count of species was conducted to determine survival 4.2 Invasive Species A percent aerial coverage of invasive species will be determined during each monitoring visit. This is an estimated visual coverage with no specific plot or transect due to the small size and simple character of the mitigation site. 5.0 OBSERVATIONS AND DISCUSSION OF SITE CONDITIONS The following is our observations of the mitigation site taken on September 11,2012. 5.1 FOURTH QUARTER 5.1.1 Survival Statistics for Installed Plant Material The Table below indicates the current survi val status for the mitigation areas for the fourth quarterly monitoring visit conducted on September 11, 2012. The required Standard of Success in areas planted with native vegetation is at least 95% in Year 1 and 80% survival at the end of Year 5. As can be seen, due to replanting of the mitigation area, survival exceeds the original specified numbers for many species. At this point the survival statistics exceed the required 95% survival. Changes since the 3rd quarter report include one dead vine maple and two dead roses in the area near the building. The area along the stream to the north has some stressed vegetation from the dry summer, but all plants were alive during the site visit. RE: New Life Buffer Mitigation Sewall WellandConsulting, Inc. #99-101 September 12, 2012 Page 4 of7 a e e uce u er area a ong UI 109 T bl 1 R d d b f~ I b 'Id' Survival Specified # Alive % TREES Western Crabapple 3 5 166 Cascara 5 9 180 Douglas Fir 2 3 150 SHRUBS Vine Maple II 10 90 Black Hawthorne 3 4 130 Nootka rose 23 21 91 Thimblebeny 14 16 114 Salmonbeny 5 6 120 TOTAL 66 74 112 T bl 2 SR 169 I a e S mprovement tream B f~ E h u er n ancement Survival Specified # Alive % TREES Big Leaf Maple 25 25 100 Sitka Spruce 18 25 138 Douglas Fir 24 24 100 Black Cottonwood 25 25 100 Western Red Cedar 14 16 114 TOTAL 106 115 108 5,1.2 Invasive vegetation As detailed in the July 23,2012 letter to the church from Vanessa Dolbee of the City of Renton, invasive coverage in the area of the reduced buffer was very high in July 2012, I met the landscaper on the site on August 3rd to go over the areas that needed to have weedy species removed. The landscaper has since removed, and controlled these weedy species so coverage within this area is <5% meeting the requirements of the Plan. The landscaper will continue to maintain these weedy species, The northern stream buffer enhancement area is doing fine and weedy species appear to have been treated recently as dead thistle, and tansy ragwort was observed in these areas, Living weedy species cover in this are is approximately 5%. RE: New Life Buffer Mitigation Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. #99-101 September 12,20]2 Page 5 of7 Additionally, the grass is being mowed around each individual plant aiding these plants to grow unencumbered by the natural grass cover in this area. As requested, the broken split rail fence has been repaired along the stream buffer. 6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS & CONCLUSION Overall the New Life mitigation area seems to be thriving and new plantings seem to be doing well. Invasive species have been controlled and will continue to be controlled to keep weedy species below the required 10% cover. The Year 2 monitoring is scheduled to take place in September of2013 with a report to the City by September 28, 2013. If you have any questions or need any additional information please contact me at (253) 859- 0515 or by email at esewall@sewallwccom. Sincerely, Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. Ed Sewall Senior Wetland Ecologist PWS #212 Above RE: New Life l3utTer Mitigation Sewall WeliundConsulting, lnc . #99·10] September 12,2012 Page 6 of? RE : New Life OuO'er Mit igation Sewall Wetla nd Consulting , Inc , #99 -10 I Sep ltml ber 12 ,20 12 Page 7 o f 7 A bove: I~ooking west across e nhanc ed buffer alo ng south side a/stream 9-11-12. Brown area is where noxious weed (thistle and tamy /'(Igworl) removal has occurred. Denis Law Mayor October 30, 2012 Department of Community and Economic Development Ricardo Quintana, Executive Pastor c.E. "Chi p"Vi ncent, Administrator New Life Church i57111520d Avenue SE Renton, WA 98058 Subject: Receipt of Third Quarterly Monitoring Report New Life Church Wetland/Stream Mitigation City of Renton File LUA08-081 Dear Mr. Quintana: This letter is to inform you that on October 28, 2012, the City received the Fourth quarterly monitoring report for the New Life Church mitigation project. The stream mitigation project appears to be meeting performance standards. The wetland mitigation project which previously did not meet expectations now falls within the standards. Staff visited the site to verify the updated maintenance and during the site visit staff observed that the section of the split rail -fence that was broken along the stream buffer was repaired or replaced and the excessive amount of invasive species within the buffer enhahcement area was removed. During the staffs site visit, it appeared that the site met performance standards on invasive plants by-having no more than 10 percent cover. Approved performance standards must be maintained for a minimum five-year monitoring period to assure the survival/performance of the enhanced buffers. In addition to the information currently provided in the Quarter Monitoring Reports, the following information _ should be included in future monitoring reports: l. Please provide alist of dates and description of maintenance activities. Include _ information on activities such as weeding, placing mulch, plants replaced (numbers, species, sizes, etc.)etc, . Three copies of the first annual monitoring report are due to the City by October 28,2013. If you have any questions, I can be reached at (425) 430-7314. --Sincerely, ~-DoI~ Vanessa Dolbee, Planner Current Planning Division cc: City 91 ReJlron File No. LUAOS-081 Renton City Hall -. 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov Denis Law Mayor July 23, 2012 Department of Community and Economic Development CE. "Chip"Vincent, Administrator Ricardo QUintana, Executive Pastor New Life Church CITY OF RENTON JUL.2 3 2012 RECEIVED 15711152nd Avenue 5E CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Renton, WA 98058 Subject: Receipt of Third Quarterly Monitoring Report New Life Church Wetland/Stream Mitigation City of Renton File LUA08-081 .. Dear Mr. Quintana: This leti:er is to inform you that on June 20, 2012, the City received the third quarterly monitoring reportfor the New Life Church mitigation project. The stream mitigation project appears to be meeting performance standards. However, the wetland mitigation project is not performing per the standards. Staff visited the site to verify the monitoring report provided by Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. during the site visit staff observed a section of the split rail fence that is broken along the stream buffer and an excessive amount of invasive speCies within the buffer enhancement area. The provided monitoring report indicated between 30 -50 percent cover by weedy species including creeping buttercup, Canadian thistle, and some hedge bindweed. During staff's site visit,it appeared the invasive cover was between 95 -100 percent,far above the performance standard of "not more than 10 percent cover" (photographs enclosed). The third monitoring report recommends that the invasive species within the' buffer enhancement area along the west side of the new building be controlled as soon as possible by hand removal or treatment with an herbicide to get the cover of these species below the required 10 percent cover. Approved performance standards must be maintained for a minimum five-year monitoring period to assure the survival/performance of the enhanced buffers. Due to the failure to meet these standards in the third quarter, the five-year monitoring period will be required to restart if conformance is not meet by in the fourth quarter. Please include in the fourth quarter monitoring report,measures taken to reduce invasive species in the mitigation area. In addition to the information currently provided in the Quarter Monitoring Reports, the following information should be included in future monitoring reports: Renton City Hall. 1055 South Grady Way , Renton,Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov . Ricardo ciuintana Pag~ Zof Z July 23, 2012, .' • +,' PIo:!ase provide a list of date~ and description of .:naintenance activities. ,Include' informatibnon activities such as weeding, placing mulch, plants replaced (numbers, spedes;sizes; etc,jetc, . .' , Th~ fourth quarterly monitoringreportshQuld include a follow up statementthat t~e • ' fence has,been repaired and that invasivespedes removal has been completed, Three, copies of the third quarterly monitoring report are dueto the City by September 28, 2012, If you have any questions, lean be reached aH425j430~7314. Sincerely, ~-1501~. '.' -',' . . Vanessa Dolbee, Planner .Current Planning Division . ,Enclosure: Ph,otographs . CC: City of RentohFil'e NO.IUA08-{)81 -",. • June 20, 2012 Ricardo Quintana New Life C hurch 15711 152"d Avenue SE Renton , W A 98058 RE: New Life Wetland/Strea m Bufrer Enhance ment Third Quarter Monitoring Report Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. SWC Job # 99-101 , C ity of Rento n File f1 LUA08-081 Dear Mr. Quintana, This report d esc rib es th e re s ults of Se wal l Wet la nd Consulting, Inc. third ~uarter monitoring of th e New Life C hurch mitigation proj ec t. The site is located at 15 7 11 152 " Avenue SE, in the City of Renton, Washington. 1.0 WETLAND MITIGATION CONCEPT AND GOALS 1.1 Mitigation Concept RE : Ne w Life Bu ffer Mi tig at io n Sewall Wet land Con sulti ng, In c. #99-1 01 Jun e 20 , 20 12 Page 2 of7 The proposed project included the expansion of the existing church , which included buffer impacts. To compensate for the reduction of the 50-foot wetland buffer, buffer averaging was used and the portion of the buffer remaining located adjacent to the driveway was enhanced through the installation of native trees and shrubs. Additiona ll y, the buffer area a long the south side of the stream along SR 169 was to be enhanced with a mix of native tree plantings as well as installation of LWD and s nags. 1.2 Mitigation Goals 1.2.1 Enhance the wetland buffer though planting of native trees and shrubs. 1.2.3 Remove invasivel exotic plants from the mitigation area. 2.0 INTRODUCTION Although the success and final outcome of wetland mitigation , re s toration and enhancement projects is never guaranteed, certain procedures can be utilized to increase the probability of success. One of the most impOltant procedures for success following proper de s ign and installation is the establishment of a monitoring plan to track changes and developments within the system. Monitoring provides the opportunity to eva lu ate the success of planted material within the s ys tem and observe early estab li shment of pioneer and volunteer species. By observing the success of p lan ted and volunteer species during the first five years of the project, it may be possible to speculate on the successional pathway taken , and general success of the project. Monitoring at the New Life Church mitigation area is to be conducted eight times over a fiv e year period. Monitoring will be conducted four times the first year, and once a year for the following four years . Th is report represents the third quarter report for Year I. During each site vi s it the overall success and rigor of the installation plantings is to be eva lu ated. Observations wi ll also be made for an y exotic/invasive species or native volunteer vegetation which may have entered the area. In addition, the wetland creation areas wi ll be monitored during the early growing season for proper wetland hydrology. Samp lin g methodology is described in section 4.0 below. 3.0 STANDARDS OF SUCCESS RE: New Life Buffer Mitigation Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. #99-101 June 20, 2012 Page3of7 3.1 Evaluation of the success of the mitigation project will be based upon 95% survival through Year I and 80% survival for all planted woody vegetation at the end of year 5. 3.2 Not more than 10% cover of exotic/invasive species within mitigation area after year 5. 3.3 Volunteer native, non-invasive species will be included as acceptable components of the mitigation. 4.0 SAMPLING METHODOLOGY Monitoring will be conducted using the tcchniques and procedures described below to quantifY the survival, relative health and growth of plant material as well as the successful enhancement of the buffer. 4.1. Vegetation The vegetation monitoring consists of inspection of the planted material to determine the health and vigor of the installation. All the planted material in the wetland and buffer will be inspected during each monitoring visit to detennine the level of survival of the installation. A hand count of species was conducted to determine survival 4.2 Invasive Species A percent aerial coverage of invasive species will be determined during each monitoring visit. This is an estimated visual coverage with no specific plot or transect due to the small size and simple character of the mitigation site. 5.0 OBSERVATIONS AND DISCUSSION OF SITE CONDITIONS The following is our observations of the mitigation site taken on June 4, 2012. 5.1 THIRD QUARTER 5.1.1 Survival Statistics for Installed Plant Material The Table below indicates the current survival status for the mitigation areas for the third quarterly monitoring visit conducted on June 4, 2012. Survival is identical to the 2nd quarterly report. The required Standard of Success in areas planted with native vegetation is at least 95% in Year 1 and 80% survival at the end of Year 5. As can be seen, due to replanting of the mitigation area, survival exceeds the original specified numbers for many species. At this point the survival statistics exceed the required 95% survival. RE: New Life Buffer Mitigation Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. #99-101 June 20, 2012 Page 4 of? Table 1 Reduced buffer area alon2 bulldln2 Survival Suecifled # Alive % TREES Western Crabapple 3 5 166 Cascara 5 9 180 Douglas Fir 2 3 150 SHRUBS Vine Maple 11 II 100 Black Hawthorne 3 4 130 Nootka rose 23 23 100 Thimbleberry 14 16 114 Salmonberry 5 6 120 TOTAL 66 77 116 T bl 2 SR 169 I a e rnurovernen tStr earn B ff E h t u er n ancernen Survival Specified # Alive % TREES Bill: Leaf Maple 25 25 100 Sitka Spruce 18 25 138 Douglas Fir 24 24 100 Black Cottonwood 25 25 100 Western Red Cedar 14 16 114 TOTAL 106 115 108 5.1.2 Invasive vegetation The south end of the mitigation area along the west side of the new building has some weedy species encroaching into the mitigation area. This is at about 30% cover for weedy species and includes creeping buttercup, Canadian thistle, and some hedge bindweed. These are generally low growing plants and are not impacting the growth of the planted vegetation. The north end of this area has about 50% cover of field horsetail growing through the mulch. It is possible this material was in the mulch and is now emerging. We recommend this area be treated with a glyphosphate herbicide such as Roundup or Rodeo using a wand type application to eliminate these weedy species in this area. This should eliminate these weedy species RE : New Life Buffer Mitigation Sewa ll WClland Consu llin g, In c. #99-101 June 20, 20 12 r age 5 of7 The northern stream buffer enhancement a rea is doing fine and weedy species appear to have been treated recently as dead thistle , a nd lan sy ragwort was observed in these areas. Living weedy species cover in this are is approximalely 5%. Additionally, the grass is being mowed a round each individual plant aiding these plants to grow unencumbered by the natural grass co ve r in thi s area. 6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS & CONCLUSION Overall the New Life mitigation area seems to be thriving and n ew plantings seem to be doing well. Invasive s pecies within the buffe r en hance ment area along the west side of the new building should be controlled as soon as po ssi ble by hand remo va l or treatment with an herbicide to get the cover of these species below the required 10 % cover. Fourth quarter monitoring is schedu le d to lake place in September of 20 12 with a report to the City by September 28 ,2012. If you have any questions or need an y add ili o nal infonnation please contact me at (253) 859- 051501' by email at esewall(ivsewalh, (((til l. Sincerely , Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc . Ed Sewall Senior Wetland Ecologist PWS #212 Ab ove RE: New life Buffer Mit iga ti on Sewa ll We tland Consuhing . loc. #99-10 1 June20,2Ql2 Page 6 of 7 Denis Law Mayor April 25, 2012 Department of Community and Economic Development C.E."Chip"Vincent, Interim Administrator Ricardo Quintana, Executive Pastor New Life Church 15711152nd Avenue 5E Renton, WA 98058 Subject: Receipt of Second Quarterly Monitoring Report New Life Church Wetland/Stream Mitigation City of Renton File LUA08-081 Dear Mr. Quintana: This letter is to inform you that on April 17, 2012, the City received the second quarterly monitoring report for the New Life Church mitigation project. The project appears to be meeting performance standards. However, staff visited the site to verify the monitoring. report provided by Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. during the site visit staff observed a section of the split rail fence that had been removed along the stream buffer. It appeared that a small vehicle had been driving through this area to reach the track space on the west side of the river. This type of active is prohibited by the Native Growth Protection Easement recorded on the property and has been damaging native plantings in the riparian area. This activity shall stop immediatelv and the fence .shall be repaired as soon as possible. In addition to the information currently provided in the 1st and 2nd Quarter Monitoring Reports, the following information should be included in future monitoringreports: 1. Please prOVide a list of dates and description of maintenance activities. Include information on activities such as weeding, placing mulch, plants replaced (numbers, species, sizes, etc.)etc, 2. Please provide the percent cover of invasive species in the mitigation area, and 3. The provided monitoring report referenced the success standard of 80% for the end of year 5. However, the approved Mitigation Plan requires 95% survival at the end of year 1. Please use the approved criteria in the approved Mitigation Plan for the remainder of the year one monitoring reports. The third quarterly monitoring report should include a follow up statement that the fence has been repaired and that the riparian area is not being used for vehicular traffic . . Renton City Hall • lOSS South Grady Way • Renton. Washington 980S7 • rentonwa.gov R(cardo Quintana Page 2 of 2 April 25, 2012 • Three copies of the third quarterly monitoring report are due to the City by June 28, 2012. If you have any questions, I can be reached at (425) 430-7314. Sincerely, Vanessa Dolbee, Planner Current Planning Division cc: City of Renton File No. LUA08-Q81 ~ _______ ~Se~w~al~1 W~e~tla~n~d~~~~~lnc. March 27,2012 Ricardo Quintana New Life Church 15711 I 52 nd Avenue SE Renton, W A 98058 RE: New Life Wetland/Stream Buffer Enhancement Second Quarter Monitoring Report SWC Job # 99-101, City of Renton File #LUA08-081 Dear Mr. Quintana, CityOfR P/ann' entoll tng DiVision 4Pn 172011 fPJ~CC~O~~ftJJ This report describes the results of Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. second quarter monitoring of the New Life Church mitigation project. The site is located at 15711 152nd Avenue SE, in the City of Renton, Washington. 1.0 WETLAND MITIGATION CONCEPT AND GOALS 1.1 Mitigation Concept RE: New Life Buffer Mitigation Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. #99·101 March 27,2012 Page 2 of? The proposed project included the expansion of the existing church, which included buffer impacts. To compensate for the reduction of the 50-foot wetland buffer, buffer averaging was used and the portion of the buffer remaining located adjacent to the driveway was enhanced through the installation of native trees and shrubs. Additionally, the buffer area along the south side ofthe stream along SR 169 was to be enhanced with a mix of native tree plantings as well as installation ofLWD and snags. 1.2 Mitigation Goals 1.2.1 Enhance the wetland buffer though planting of native trees and shrubs. 1.2.3 Remove invasive/ exotic plants from the mitigation area. 2.0 INTRODUCTION Although the success and final outcomc of wetland mitigation, restoration and enhancement projects is never guaranteed, certain procedures can be utilized to increase the probability of success. One of the most important procedures for success following proper design and installation is the establishment of a monitoring plan to track changes and developments within the system. Monitoring provides the opportunity to evaluate the success of planted material within the system and observe early establishment of pioneer and volunteer species. By observing the success of planted and volunteer species during the first five years of the project, it may be possible to speculate on the successional pathway taken, and general success of the project. Monitoring at the New Life Church mitigation area is to be conducted eight times over a five year period. Monitoring will be conducted four times the first year, and once a year for the following four years. This report represents the second quarter repmt for Year I, due to failed plantings in the early stages of the project. Since our fall 2011 site visit, all weedy species and blackberry were removed from the mitigation area. Supplemental plantings were installed and woodchip/mu1ch was spread throughout the mitigation site to reduce invasive plant re-growth. During each site visit the overall success and rigor of the installation plantings is to be evaluated. Observations will also be made for any exotic/invasive species or native volunteer vegetation which may have entered the area. In addition, the wetland creation areas will be monitored during the early growing season for proper wetland hydrology. Sampling methodology is described in section 4.0 below. 3.0 STANDARDS OF SUCCESS RE: New Life Buffer Mitigation Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. #99·101 March 27, 2012 Page 3 of7 3.1 Evaluation of the success of the mitigation project will be based upon an 80% survival for all planted woody vegetation at the end of year 5. 3.2 Not more than 10% cover of exotic/invasive species within mitigation area after year 5. 3.3 Volunteer native, non-invasive species will be included as acceptable components of the mitigation. 4.0 SAMPLING METHODOLOGY Monitoring will be conducted using the techniques and procedures described below to quantify the survival, relative health and growth of plant material as well as the successful enhancement of the buffer. 4.1. Vegetation The vegetation monitoring consists of inspection of the planted material to determine the health and vigor of the installation. All the planted material in the wetland and buffer will be inspected during each monitoring visit to determine the level of survival of the installation. A hand count of species was conducted to determine survival 4.2 Invasive Species A percent aerial coverage of invasive species will be determined during each monitoring visit. This is an estimated visual coverage with no specific plot or transect due to the small size and simple character of the mitigation site. 5.0 OBSERY ATIONS AND DISCUSSION OF SITE CONDITIONS Due to the failure of many plants after the initial installation, many of the plants were replanted in the enhanced buffer area. Some plants were replaced at higher numbers than the initial plan, but all are appropriate species within the enhancement area. 5.1 SECOND QUARTER 5.1.1 Snrvival Statistics for Installed Plant Material The Table below indicates the current survival status for the mitigation areas for the Second quarterly monitoring visit conducted on March 24, 2012. Survival is identical to the I" quarterly report. The required Standard of Success in areas planted with native vegetation is at least 80% survival at the end of Year 5. As can be seen, due to replanting of the mitigation area, survival RE: New Life Buffer Mitigation Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. #99·101 March 27,2012 Page 4 of7 exceeds the original specified numbers for many species. At this point the survival statistics exceed the required 80% survival. T bl 1 R d db ff ·Id· a e e uee u er area along bUi mg Survival Specified # Alive % TREES Western Crabapple 3 5 166 Cascara 5 9 180 Douglas Fir 2 3 150 SHRUBS Vine Maple II II 100 Black Hawthorne 3 4 130 Nootka rose 23 23 100 Thimbleberrv 14 16 114 Salmonberrv 5 6 120 TOTAL 66 77 116 Table 2SR 169 Improvemeut Stream Buffer Enhaucement Survival Specified # Alive % TREES Big Leaf Maple 25 25 100 Sitka Spruce 18 25 138 Douglas Fir 24 24 100 Black Cottonwood 25 25 100 Western Red Cedar 14 16 114 TOTAL 106 115 108 5.1.2 Invasive vegetation All invasive species had been properly maintained and mulch had been refreshed in the enhancement area to prevent future growth (See photographs at end of report). 6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS & CONCLUSION Overall the New Life mitigation area seems to be thriving and new plantings seem to be doing well. Invasive species and overgrowth by native species have previously been a problem onsite, though now appear to be properly maintained. The site appears to be performing as expected. RE: New Life Buffer Mitigation Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. #99~101 March 27, 2012 Page 5 of7 Third quarter monitoring is scheduled to take place in June of2012 with a report to the City by June 28, 2012. If you have any questions or need any additional information please contact me at (253) 859- 0515 or by email atesewall@sewallwc.co111. Sincerely, Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. Ed Sewall Senior Wetland Ecologist PWS #212 RE: New Life Buffer Mitigation Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. #99-101 March 27, 2012 Page 6 of7 RE: New Life Buffer Mitigation Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. #99·101 March 27, 2012 Page 7 of7 Denis Law Mayor March 28, 2012 Department of Community and Economic Development Alex Pietsch,Administrator Ricardo Quintana, Executive Pastor New Life Church. 15711152nd AvenueSE Renton, WA 98058 Subject: Receipt of First Quarterly Monitoring Report New Life Church Wetland/Stream Mitigation City of Renton File LUA08-081 Dear Mr. Quintana: This letter is to inform you that on March 9, 2012, the City received the first quarterly monitoring report for the New Life Church mitigation project. Each monitoring report should be a stand-alone document. In addition to the current monitoring results and general site conditions, each monitoring report should include sufficient information (monitoring methodology; vicinity map; site map(s) with locations of the mitigation area, monitoring plots, photopoints, etc.) to allow other biologists to perform the monitoring, and for the City to verify the monitoring. This information will ensure accurate continuation of monitoring in the event of staff turnover in the current applicant's biologist's firm or if the applicant chooses to change consulting firms. In addition to the information currently provided in the 1st Quarter Monitoring Report, the following information should be included in future monitoring reports: 1. Please provide a list of dates and description of maintenance activities. Include information on activities such as weeding, placing mulch, plants replaced (numbers, species, sizes, etc.)etc, 2. Please provide the percent cover of invasive species in the mitigation area, and 3. The provided monitoring report referenced the success standard of 80% for the end of year 5. However, the approved Mitigation Plan requires 95% survival at the end of year 1. Please use the approved criteria in the approved Mitigation Plan for the remainder of the year one monitoring reports. The monitoring repots should continue to include: 1. Information regarding the methodology of how the installed plants were counted. Renton City Hall • _ 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 .• rentonwa.gov Ricardo Quintana • Page 2 of 2 March 28, 2012 2. Data sheets from monitoring area or each monitoring transect/plot that includes: plot location anddimensions; species present and percent cover by individual desirable native volunteer species and non-native invasive species; quantities and species of plants originally installed in the plot, installed plants currently present, and percent survival of installed woody plants; and overall . percent cover by desirable native woody species (installed plus volunteers), herbaceous species, and non-native invasive species. Data should continue to be presented in tables. 3. Provide site address, vicinity map, and project site map. On the project site map, include a north arrow and the locations of the mitigation area, transectsLmonitoJing_Rlots (if used) and..phot!LRoioJs. _ ... 4. General site conditions and observations, and other information included in the current monitoring report .(such as the species and numbers of dead/stressed installed woody plants in the entire mitigation area, overall presence and cover by non-native invasive species, etc.). The project appears to be meeting performance standards. Three copies ofthe second quarterly monitoring report are due to the City by March 28, 20l2.lf you have any questions,1 can be reached at (425) 430-7314. Sincerely, Vanessa Dolbee, Planner Current Planning Division cc: City of Renton File No. LUAOS-081 March 6, 2012 Ricardo Quintana New Life Church 15711 152" Avenue SE Renton, WA 98058 RE: New Life Wetland/Stream Buffer Enhancement First Quarterly Monitoring Report SWC Job # 99-101, City of Renton File #LLJA08-081 Dear Mr. Quintana, Sewall Wetland r.nn~l .. tirln This report describes the results of Sewall \Vetland Consulting, Inc. First quarter monitoring ofthe New Life Church mitigation project. The site is located at 1571 I 152 nd A venue SE, in the City of Renton, Washington. .. 1.0 WETLAND MITIGATION CONCEPT AND GOALS 1.1 Mitigation Concept RE: New Life Buffer Mitigation Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. #99·101 March 6, 2012 Page 20f6 The proposed project included the expansion of the existing church, which included buffer impacts. To compensate for the reduction of the 50-foot wetland buffer, buffer averaging was used and the portion of the buffer remaining located adjacent to the driveway was enhanced through the installation of native trees and shrubs. Additionally, the buffer area along the south side of the stream along SR 169 was to be enhanced with a mix of native tree plantings as well as installation of L WD and snags. 1.2 Mitigation Goals 1.2.1 Enhance the wetland buffer though planting of native trees and shrubs. 1.2.3 Remove invasive! exotic plants from the mitigation area. 2.0 INTRODUCTION Although the success and final outcome ofwetJand mitigation, restoration and enhancement projects is never guaranteed, certain procedures can be utilized to increase the probability ofsueeess. One of the most important procedures for success following proper design and installation is the establishment of a monitoring plan to track changes and developments within the system. Monitoring provides the opportunity to evaluate the success of planted material within the system and observe early establishment of pioneer and volunteer species. By observing the success of planted and volunteer species during the first five years of the project, it may be possible to speculate on the successional pathway taken, and general success of the project. Monitoring at the New Life Church mitigation area is to be conducted eight times over a five year period. Monitoring will be conducted four times the first year, and once a year for the foHowing four years. This report represents the First quarter report for Year I, due to failed plantings in the early stages of the project. Since our faH 2011 site visit, all weedy species and blackberry were removed from the mitigation area. Supplemental plantings were installed and woodehip/mulch was spread throughout the mitigation site to reduce invasive plant re-growth. During each site visit the overall success and rigor of the installation plantings is to be evaluated. Observations will also be made for any exotic/invasive species or native volunteer vegetation which may have entered the area. In addition, the wetland creation areas will be monitored during the early growing season for proper wetland hydrology. Sampling methodology is described in section 4.0 below. 3.0 STANDARDS OF SUCCESS 3.1 Evaluation of the success of the mitigation project will be based upon an 80% survival for an planted woody vegetation at the end of year 5. 3.2 Not more than 10% cover of exotic/invasive species within mitigation area after year 5. 3.3 Volunteer native, non-invasive species will be included as acceptable components of the mitigation. 4.0 SAMPLING METHODOLOGY Monitoring will be conducted using the techniqlles and procedures described below to quantify the survival, relative health and growth of plant material as well as the sllccessful enhancement of the buffer. 4.1. Vegetatioo RE: New Life Buffer Mitigation Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. #99·101 March 6, 2012 Page 3 of6 The vegetation monitoring consists of inspection of the planted material to determine the health and vigor of the installation. All the planted material in the wetland and buffer will be inspected during each monitoring visit to detennine the level of survival of the Instal1ation. A hand count of species was conducted to determine survival 4.2 Invasive Species A percent aerial coverage of invasive species will be determined during each monitoring visit. This is an estimated visual coverage with no specific plot or transect due to the small size and simple character of the mitigation site. 5.0 OBSERVATIONS AND DISCUSSION OF SITE CONDITIONS Due to the failure of many plants after the initial installation, many of the plants were replanted in the enhanced buffer area. Some plants were replaced at higher numbers than the initial plan, but all are appropriate species within the enhancement area. 5.1 FIRST QUARTER 5.1.1 Survival Statistics for Iostalled Plant Material The Table below indicates the current survival status for the mitigation areas for the First quarterly monitoring visit. The required Standard of Success in areas planted with native vegetation is at least 80% survival at the end of Year 5. As can be seen, due to replanting of the mitigation area, survival exceeds the original specified numbers for many species. At this point the survival statistics exceed the required 80% survival. Table 1 Reduced buUer area alool( buildiog Specified # Alive Survival 0/0 TREES Western Crabapple 3 5 166 Cascara 5 9 180 Douglas Fir 2 3 150 SHRUBS Vine Maple 11 11 100 Black Hawthorne 3 4 130 Nootka rose 23 23 100 Thimbleberry 14 16 114 Salmonberry 5 6 120 TOTAL 66 77 116 RE: New Life Buffer Mitigation Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. #99·101 March 6, 2012 Page 4 of6 Table 2 SR 169 Improvement Stream Buffer Enbancement Specified # Alive Survival % TREES BigLeaf Mallie 25 25 100 Sitka Spruce 18 25 138 Douglas Fir 24 24 100 Black Cottonwood 25 25 100 Western Red Cedar 14 16 114 TOTAL 106 115 108 5.1.2 Invasive vegetation All invasive species had been properly maintained and mulch had been refreshed in the enhancement area to prevent future growth (See photographs at end of report). 6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS & CONCLUSION Overall the New Life mitigation area seems to be thriving and new plantings seem to be doing well. Invasive species and overgrowth by native species have previously been a problem onsite, though now appear to be properly maintained. The site appears to be perfonning as expected. Second quarter monitoring is scheduled to take place in March 0[2012 with a report to the City by March 28, 2012. [fyou have any questions or need any additional information please contact me at (253) 859-0515 or by email at esewall@scwallwc.com. Sincerely) Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. Ed Sewall Senior Wetland Ecologist PWS #212 RE: New Life Buffer Mitigation Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. #99-101 March 6, 2012 Page 5 of 6 RE: New life Buffer Mitigation Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. #99-IOt March 6, 2012 Page 6 of6 Denis Law Mayor February 7,2012 Department of Community and Economic Development Alex Pietsch, Administrator Ricardo Quintana, Executive Pastor New Ufe Church 15711152nd Avenue 5E Renton, WA 98058 Subject: Request for First Quarterly Maintenance and Monitoring Report . New Ufe Church Wetland/Stream Mitigation City of Renton File WA08-081 Dear Mr. Quintana: This letter is to inform you that the first quarterly monitoring report for the wetland and stream mitigation project at New Life Church was due to .the City on December 28, 2011. As of the date of this letter I have not received the report. Two copies of the required report should be submitted to my attention by February 28, 2012. Thank you for your timely assistance in this matter. If you have any questions I can be reached at (425) 430-7314. Sincerely, Vanessa Dolbee Senior Planner cc: City of Renton File No. WADS-OSl Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov Denis Law Mayor October 17,2011 Department of Community and Economic Development Alex Pietsch,Administrator Ricardo Quintana, Executive Pastor New Life Church 15711152nd Avenue 5E Renton, WA 98058 Subject: Extension of Wetland Monitoring Period New Life Church, LUA08-081 Dear Mr. Quintana: . Thank you for your submittal of your first and second Quarterly Monitoring Report. The two monitoring reports were received by the City on September 28, 2011 as a combined report. The first quarterly report was received past the due date and the second report was received on time. Unfortunately, the performance standards, as set by your consultants in the Final Wetland and Stream Mitigation Plan -As Built (01-18-2011), have not been accomplished. The overall survival rate of woody vegetation in the Wetland and Stream buffer was 24.3% in the first quarter, which is 70.7% less than the minimum 95% required. Furthermore, the first quarter report indicated that the mitigation area was extensively covered with invasive species, specifically thick giant horsetail. The required standard is to not exceed more than 10% non-native invasive species within the mitigation area. A percentage cover was not provided with the first quarterly report, however "extensively covered", appears to exceed the 10% maximum coverage. Based on the information provided in the Second quarterly report, it appears many of the dead plants from the first quarter were "re-installed"; however a replanting date was not included in the report. Approved performance standards must be maintained for a minimum five-year monitoring period to assure the survival/performance of the enhanced buffers. Due to the failure to meet these standards in the first quarter, the five-year monitoring period is required to restart, to maintain compliance with a successful fiver-year monitoring period. Based on the second quarterly report and the re-installation of the plantings, the monitoring period will be considered to be "restarted" on the date of receipt of this report. September 28, 2011. Due to the first quarter failure, quarterly monitoring will begin again, and the first quarterly report will be due to the City on December 28, 2011. Renton City Hall 0 1055 South Grady Way 0 Renton, Washington 98057 0 rentonwa.gov Mr. Quintana . Page 2 of 2 October 17, 2011 The following information should be included in the future monitoring reports: 1. Provide site address, vicinity map, and project site map. On the project site map, include a north arrow and the locations of the mitigation areas, transects/monitoring plots (if used) and photo points. . 2. Provide a list of dates and description of maintenance activities. Include information on activities such as weeding, replacing mulch, plants replaced (numbers, species, si~es, mitigation section, etc.), etc. 3. Information regarding the methodolqgy of how the installed plants were counted. 4. Data sheets frommonitoring area or each monitoring transect/plot that includes: plot location and dimensions; species present and percent cover by individual desirable native volunteer species and non-native invasive species; quantities and species of plants originally installed in the plot, installed plants currently present, and percent survival of installed woody plants; and overall percent coverby desirable native woody species (installed plus volunteers), herbaceous species, and non-native invasive species. Data should be presented in tables. 5. Overall presence of non-native invasive species included percent cover. 6. General site conditions and observations, and other informationincluded in the current monitoring report (such as the species and numbers of dead/stressed installed woody plants in the entire mitigation area, etc.). Two copies of the first quarterly monitoring report are due to the City by December 28, 2011. If you have any questions, I canbe reached at (425) 430-7314. Sincerely, 1IaVLPJM(}-{)~~ Vanessa Dolbee Senior Planner cc: City 01 Renton File LUA08-081 '. September 28, 20 II Ricardo Quintana New Life Church 15711 152" Avenue SE Renton, W A 98058 RE: New Life Wetland/Stream Buffer Enhancement First & Second Quarterly Monitoring Report SWC Job # 99-101, City of Renton File #LUA08-081 Dear Mr. Quintana, Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. City of Renton Planning Division SEP 28 1011 This report describes the results of Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. first and second quarter monitoring of the New Life Church mitigation project. The site is located at 1571 I 152,d Avenue SE, in the City of Renton, Washington. 1.0 WETLAND MITIGATION CONCEPT AND GOALS 1.1 Mitigation Concept The proposed project included the expansion of the existing church, which included buffer impacts. To compensate for the reduction of the 50-foot wetland buffer, buffer averaging was used and the portion of the buffer remaining located adjacent to the driveway was enhanced through the installation of native trees and shrubs. 1.2 Mitigation Goals 1,2,1 Enhance the wetland buffer though planting of native trees and shrubs. 1.2.3 Remove invasive/ exotic plants from the mitigation area. 2.0 INTRODUCTION Although the success and final outcome of wetland mitigation, restoration and enhancement projects is never guaranteed, certain procedures can be utilized to increase the probability of success. One of the most important procedures for success following proper design and installation is the establishment of a monitoring plan to track changes and developments within the system. Monitoring provides the opportunity to evaluate the success of planted material within the system and observe early establishment of pioneer and volunteer species. By observing the success of planted and volunteer species during the first five years ofthe project, it may be possible to speculate on the successional pathway taken, and general success of the project. The site was visited on June 24, 2010 to conduct the plant installation and habitat feature inspection. All plants and habitat features were generally installed per the approved plan; "Final Phase I Wetland Mitigation and Enhancement Plan" dated October 2008 and revised March 5,2010. Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. conducted an additional site investigation on December 20,2010 to inspect the split rail fence per the conditions of approval. Some minor modifications were implemented at that time. A final mitigation instillation signoff letter was completed by Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. on January 18,2011. City of Renton inspected the site and approved the instillation on March 5"'. RE: New Life Buffer Mitigation Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. #99-101 September 28, 2011 .Page 2 of4 Monitoring at the New Life Church mitigation area is to be conducted eight times over a five year period_ Monitoring will be conducted four time the first year, and once a year for the following four years_ Table 1. Mitigation Monitoring Schedule Monitoring Date Year 1-1 June 2011 Year 1-2 September 20 II Year 1-3 Dec, 2011 Year 1-4 March 2012 Year 2 March 2013 Year 3 March 2014 Year 4 March 2015 Year 5 March 2016 During each site visit the overall success and rigor of the installation plantings is to be evaluated. Observations will also be made for any exotic/invasive species or native volunteer vegetation which may have entered the area. In addition, the wetland creation areas will be monitored during the early growing season for proper wetland hydrology, Sampling methodology is described in section 4,0 below, 3.0 STANDARDS OF SUCCESS 3,1 Evaluation of the success of the mitigation project will be based upon an 80% survival for all planted woody vegetation at the end of year 5. 3.2 Not more than 10% cover of exotic/invasive species within mitigation area after year 5_ 3.3 Volunteer native, non~invasive species will be included as acceptable components of the mitigation_ 4.0 SAMPLING METHODOLOGY Monitoring will be conducted using the techniques and procedures described below to quantify the survival, relative health and growth of plant material as well as the successful enhancement of the buffer, 4.1. Vegelation The vegetation monitoring consists of inspection of the planted material to detennine the health and vigor of the installation. All the planted material in the wetland and buffer will be inspected during each monitoring visit to determine the level of survival of the installation, 4.2 Invasive Species A percent aerial coverage of invasive species will be determined during each monitoring visit. S.O OBSERVATIONS AND DISCUSSION OF SITE CONDITIONS It was discovered by Sewall Wetland Consulting. Inc. during the first quarter monitoring that the number of plants on the planting plan and the plant list on the approved mitigation plan were not equal. It is assumed that the plan would have prescience over the planting list. and will be what is used for survival statistics. 5.1 FIRST QUARTER 5.1.1 Survival Statistics for Installed Plant Material RE: New Life Buffer Mitigation Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. #99·101 September 28,201 J Page 3 of4 Table 2 indicates the current survival status for the mitigation areas for the fist quarterly monitoring visit. The required Standard of Success in areas planted with native vegetation is at least 80% survival at the end of Year 5. Table 2. Shy Creek Monitoring Statistics-YR 1-1 # Installed # Alive YRl-l TREES Western Crabapple , 1 .> Cascara 5 I Douglas Fir 2 0 SHRUBS Vine Maple II 2 Black Hawthorne 0 0 .> Nootka rose 23 4 Thimbleberry 22 5 Salmonberry 5 5 TOTAL 74 18 5.1.2 Invasive vegetation The area had been extensively covered with invasive species and thick giant horsetail. It appears that during weed removal and vegetation maintenance, that a large majority of the plantings were cut as well. 5.2 SECOND QUARTER 5.2.1 Survival Statistics for Installed Plant Material Table 2 indicates the current survival status for the mitigation areas. The required Standard of Success in areas planted with native vegetation is at least 80% survival at the end of Year 5. Table 3. Shy Creek Monitoring Statistics-YRI-2 # Re- Installed # Alive YRl-t Survival 010 TREES Western Crabapple , 3 100 ., Cascara 5 4 80 Douglas Fir 2 3 ISO SHRUBS Vine Maple 11 II 100 Black Hawthorne 3 3 100 Nootka rose 23 23 100 Thimbleberry 22 22 100 Salmonberry 5 5 100 TOTAL 74 74 100 , , ... 5.2.2 Invasive vegetation RE: New Life Buffer Mitigation Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. #99-101 September 28, 201 J Page4of4 All invasive species had been properly maintained and mulch had been refreshed in the enhancement area to prevent future growth. 6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendations following the first quarterly visit were to maintain the population of giant horsetail which was hindering growth of the remaining mitigation plantings. and to reinstall those plantings which were no longer present or dead. All recommendations were implemented, and no further recommendations are offered at this time, other than to ensure scheduled weed maintenance continues to take place onsite. 7.0 CONCLUSION Overall the New Life mitigation area seems to be thriving and new plantings seem to be doing well and are of the appropriate size anticipated after 6 months follovt'"ing an instillation signoff. Invasive species and overgrowth by native species have previously been a problem onsite, though now appear to be properly maintained. The site appears to be perfonning as expected. Third quarter monitoring is scheduled to take place in December. 2011. Jfyou have any questions or need any additional infonnation please contact me at (253) 859-0515 or by email at tsmith@sewallwc.com. Sincerely, Sewall Wetland Consulting. Inc. Tonya Smith Wetland Scientist File: /s/99-/o1 New Life Mon YrI-I and YRI-2 Vanessa Dolbee From: Vanessa Dolbee Sent: To: Wednesday, September 21, 201110:23AM 'Ricardo Quintana' Cc: Donna Locher Subject: RE: Contact information Ricardo, The City still has not received a copy of the quarterly monitoring report for maintenance and monitoring of the wetlands and stream buffer as required by the land use approval of the New Life Church development, City file #LUA08-081. At this time, if we do not receive the required quarterly monitoring report within the next two weeks, by October 5, 2011, staff will refer this issue to code compliance. Please provide me an update on the report status and submit the required first y,; monitoring report Attn: Vaness.a Dolbee, by October 5, 2011. If you have any questions or would like to talk about this issue please feel free to contact me. Thank you, 'Vanessa iJ)o(6ee Senior Planner Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton Renton City Hall -6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7314 -------------_._ ....•.•... _. __ ._--------------- From: Ricardo Quintana [mailto:ricardo.quintana@newliferenton.comJ Sent: Friday, August 19, 2011 7:54 AM To: Vanessa Dolbee Cc: deanna.adler@newliferenton.com Subject: RE: Contact information I know that Ed Sewall did the report. I will check to see why you may not have received it. I'm sorry if I've missed something. Ricardo Quintana Executive Pastor I New Life Church (425) 226-0880 Office I 425·227-2239 Fax www.newliferenton.com Twitter: @rqtana From: Vanessa Dolbee [mailto:VDolbee@Rentonwa.gov) Sent: Friday, August 19, 2011 7:51 AM To: Ricardo Quintana Subject: RE: Contact information 1 Ricardo, Thank you for your information. Is there any word on the quarterly monitoring report for the Wetlands and Stream mitigation report? Thank you, <Vanessa (j)o(fjee Senior Planner Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton Renton City Hall -6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7314 ---------------.. __ ...... "._------------------ From: Ricardo Quintana [mailto:ricardo.guintana@newliferenton.coml Sent: Monday, July 18, 201111:31 AM To: Vanessa Dolbee Subject: Contact information Vanessa, Thank you for making the following changes to the contact information or New Life Church. Church Development Consultants is no longer the needed contact for maintenance of Wetlands or property issues. They were owner representatives during the construction period of our property. Please send all future information to "" Ricardo Quintana Executive Pastor New Life Church 15711152'· Ave. SE Renton, WA 98058 Email: Ricardo.guintana@newliferenton.com Thank you and have a good day. Ricardo Quintana Executive Pastor I New Life Church (425) 226-0880 Office I 425-227-2239 Fax www.newliferenton.com Twitter: @rqtana 2 Vanessa Dolbee From: Sent: Ricardo Quintana [ncardo.quintana@newliferenton.com] Monday, July 18, 2011 11 :31 AM To: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Vanessa, Vanessa Dolbee Contact information Follow up Flagged Thank you for making the following changes to the contact information or New Life Church. Church Development Consultants is no longer the needed contact for maintenance of Wetlands or property issues. They were owner representatives during the construction period of our property. Please send all future information to .... Ricardo Quintana Executive Pastor New Life Church 15711152,d Ave. SE Renton, WA 98058 Email: Ricardo.guintana@newliferenton.com Thank you and have a good day. Ricardo Quintana Executive Pastor I New Life Church (42S) 226-0880 Office I 42S-227-2239 Fax www.newliferenton.com Twitter: @rqtana 1 Vanessa Dolbee From: Vanessa Dolbee Sent: To: Friday, August 19, 20117:51 AM 'Ricardo Quintana' Subject: RE: Contact information Ricardo, Thank you for your information. Is there any word on the quarterly monitoring report for the Wetlands and Stream mitigation report? Thank you, <Vanessa ([)o{6ee Senior Planner Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton Renton City Hall -6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7314 From: Ricardo Quintana fmailto:ricardo.guintana@newliferenton.com] Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 11:31 AM To: Vanessa Dolbee Subject: Contact information Vanessa, Thank you for making the following changes to the contact information or New Life Church. Church Development Consultants is no longer the needed contact for maintenance of Wetlands or property issues. They were owner representatives during the construction period of our property. Please send all future information to .... Ricardo Quintana Executive Pastor New Life Church 157111520d Ave. SE Renton, WA 98058 Email: Ricardo.guintana@newliferenton.com Thank you and have a good day. 1 Ricardo Quintana Executive Pastor I New Life Church (425) 226-0880 Office I 425-227-2239 Fax www.newliferenton.com Twitter: @rqtana 2 Vanessa Dolbee From: Sent: Ricardo Quintana [ricardo.quintana@newliferenton.comj Friday, August 19,2011 754 AM To: Vanessa Dolbee Cc: deanna.adler@newiiferenton.com Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: RE: Contact information Follow up Flagged I know that Ed Sewall did the report. I will check to see why you may not have received it. I'm sorry if I've missed something. Ricardo Quintana Executive Pastor I New Life Church (425) 226-0880 Office I 425-227-2239 Fax www.newliferenton.com Twitter: @rqtana -------------..... -.. -.• --.---------------~ From: Vanessa Dolbee [mailto:VDolbee@Rentonwa.govl Sent: Friday, August 19, 2011 7:51 AM To: Ricardo Quintana Subject: RE: Contact information Ricardo, Thank you for your information. Is there any word on the quarterly monitoring report for the Wetlands and Stream mitigation report? Thank you, Vanessa (])o{6ee Senior Planner Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton Renton City Hall-6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7314 .. --... -... ----------------- From: Ricardo Quintana [mailto:ricardo.quintana@newliferenton.com] Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 11:31 AM To: Vanessa Dolbee Subject: Contact information Vanessa, 1 Thank you for making the following changes to the contact information or New Life Church. Church Development Consultants is no longer the needed contact for maintenance of Wetlands or property issues. They were owner representatives during the construction period of our property. Please send all future information to .... Ricardo Quintana Executive Pastor New Life Church 15711152nd Ave. SE Renton, WA 98058 Email: Ricardo.guintana@newliferenton.com Thank you and have a good day. Ricardo Quintana Executive Pastor I New Life Church (425) 226-0880 Office I 425-227-2239 Fax www.newliferenton.com Twitter: @rqtana 2 Vanessa Dolbee From: Vanessa Dolbee Sent: To: Monday, August 29, 2011 2:48 PM 'Ricardo Quintana' Subject: RE: Contact information Ricardo, Is there any update on the report? I have looked around the Office here and can't find one. Once you get a hold ofthe report, please have it sent Attn: Vanessa Dolbee. Thank you, 'Vanessa (J)o((jee Senior Planner Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton Renton City Hall -6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7314 From: Ricardo Quintana [mailto:ricardo.guintana@newliferenton.com] Sent: Friday, August 19, 2011 7:54 AM To: Vanessa Dolbee Cc: deanna.adler@newliferenton.com Subject: RE: Contact information I know that Ed Sewall did the report. I will check to see why you may not have received it. I'm sorry if I've missed something. Ricardo Quintana Executive Pastor I New Life Church (425) 226-0880 Office I 425-227-2239 Fax www.newliferenton.com Twitter: @rqtana •• _o_ ••• _ ... _______________ _ From: Vanessa Dolbee [mailto:VDolbee@Rentonwa.gov] Sent: Friday, August 19, 2011 7:51 AM To: Ricardo Quintana Subject: RE: Contact information Ricardo, Thank you for your information. Is there any word on the quarterly monitoring report for the Wetlands and Stream mitigation report? 1 Thank you, 'Vanessa ([)o{6ee Senior Planner Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton Renton City Hall -6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7314 From: Ricardo QUintana [mailto:ricardo.quintana@newliferenton.coml Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 11:31 AM To: Vanessa Dolbee Subject: Contact information Vanessa, Thank you for making the following changes to the contact information or New Life Church. Church Development Consultants is no longer the needed contact for maintenance of Wetlands or property issues. They were owner representatives during the construction period of our property. Please send all future information to "" Ricardo Quintana Executive Pastor New Ufe Church 157111520 ' Ave. SE Renton, WA 98058 Email: Ricardo.quintana@newliferenton.com Thank you and have a good day. Ricardo Quintana Executive Pastor I New Life Church (425)226-0880 Office I 425-227-2239 Fax www.newliferenton.com Twitter: @rqtana 2 Denis Law Mayor July 5, 2Dll Kathi Bresler Department of Community and Economic Development Alex Pietsch, Administrator Church Development Consultants 3623 -324 th Avenue 5E Fall City, WA 98024 Subject: Request for First Quarterly Maintenance and Monitoring Report New Life Church Wetland/Stream Mitigation City of Renton File LUA08-081 Dear Ms. Bresler: This letter is to inform you that the first quarterly monitoring report for the wetland mitigation project at New Life Church was due to the City on June 17, 2011. As of the date of this letter I have not received the report. Two copies of the required report should be submitted to my attention by July 19, 2011. Thank you for your timely assistance in this matter. If you have any questions I can be reached at (425) 430-7314. Sincerely, Vanessa Dolbee Senior Planner cc: City of Renton File No. LUA08-081 New Life Church/Owner!s) Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING, SURVEYING Vanessa Dolbee Associate Planner City of Renton October 2, 2009 COURIER DELIVERY Department of Community & Economic Development 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 RE: Submittal of Revised Site Plan Renton Christian School Play Structure City File Nos, LUA08-081 & B090326 Our Job No. 11706 Dear Vanessa: As required by the Site Plan Modification Approval with Conditions dated September 30, 2009, we have revised the site plan to provide new landscaping south of the structure. Enclosed are five (5) copies of the revised site plan. The existing center drive aisle in Ihis location is less than 24 feet; however, both rows of parking have access to the drive aisle "outside" of them so backing out of parking stalls will be optional. In addition, visibility of available parking in this area will prevent cars turning into the center aisle and needing to turn around. The revised parking lot plan as proposed will not create safety or maneuvering conflicts on-or off-site. Please approve the above-referenced building permit for the 2,800-square-foot covered outdoor play area as soon as possible. If you have any questions, please contact me at this office. Thank you. Respectfully, rJkUULW~~~ Ivana Halvorsen Senior Planner CITY OF RENTON IH/dm/ca 11706c.023.doc RECEIVED OCT (; ~ 2009 BUILDING DIVISION enc: As Noted cc: Kathi Bresler, Church Development Consultants (w/enc in will call) 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (425) 251-6222 (425) 251-8782 FAX BRANCH OFFICES • OLYMPIA, WA • TACOMA, WA • SACRAMENTO, CA • TEMECULA, CA www.barghausen.com Ci )f Renton Pla"nlng DIIJ,Slon CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING, SURVEYING SEf ? 2 'Ii~! fAl ~ ((; ~ 0\'1 ~!Ql LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL DATE: September 22, 2009 TO: Vanessa Dolbee SENT VIA: Hand Delivery City of Renton OUR JOB: 11706 ~~~------------------ 1055 South Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 RE: New Life Church 8090326 Quantity Date Description 5-Each 9/23/09 Cover Sheet and Site Plan -Revised With the enclosed revised Cover Sheet and Site Plan we request that you approve a Site Plan Modification to Permit LUA08-08L Signed: Ivana Halvorsen Senior Planner 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (425) 251-6222 (425) 251-8782 FAX BRANCH OFFICES • OLYMPIA, WA • TACOMA, WA • CONCORD, CA • TEMECULA, CA www.barghausen.com 11706l.037.doc CITY OF RENTON Permit Number: 8090326 Item I: BUILDING DEPARTMENT REVIEW: CRAIG BURNELL 425 430 7290 Please complete a "Special Inspection Authorization" form indicating selected structural testing and geotechnical agency. 2: PLANNING: VANESSA DOLBEE, 425-530-7314 Plan Review Comments PLAY STRUCTURE WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE APPROVED SITE PLAN REVIEW, CITY OF RENTON FILE#LUA08-081. A SITE PLAN MODlrICATlON WOULD BE REQUIRED AND AN APPROVAL GRANTED PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT APPROVAL. City of Renton Planning Division SEP 2 2 2009 Vanessa Dolbee Associate Planner City of Renton CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING, SURVEYING CityOfR Planning D.e.nton Ill/Sion Sf? ?" (Ij".' September 22, 2009 v. Department of Community & Economic Development 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 RE: Request for Site Plan Modification LUA08-081 Our Job No. 11706 Dear Vanessa: Please accept this request on behalf of New Life Church to modify the approved site plan noted above. The purpose of the Site Plan Modification request is to construct a new 40-by 70-foot covered outdoor play area to serve the Renton Christian School on the property. The covered outdoor play area is located in the existing parking lot just north of the Renton Christian School on the New Life Church property. The proposed covered outdoor play area will likely contain a play court, such as basketball hoopslcourt andlor other court-type sports. Please approve this site plan modification for the 2,800-square-foot covered outdoor play area as it represents less than 10 percent change to the building areas, impervious surface coverage, andlor parking shown on the approved site plan (LUA08-081). If you have any questions, please contact me at trlis office. Thank you. IHlath 11706c.022.doc Respectfully, /I,y ~'L-d..-#l-~ --." Ivana Halvorsen Senior Planner 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT. WA 98032 (425) 251·6222 (425) 251·8782 FAX BRANCH OFFICES • OLYMPIA. WA • TACOMA, WA • CONCORD. CA • TEMECULA, CA www.barghausen.com Denis Law Mayor September 30, 2009 Ivana Halversen, Senior Planner Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. 18215 72 nd Ave. S. Kent, WA 98032 Department of Community & Economic Development SUBJECT: NEW LIFE CHURCH, REQUEST FOR MINOR MODIFICATION OF APPROVED SITE PLAN (FILE NO. LUA08-081, ECF, SA-A) Dear Ms. Halversen, I am in receipt of your letter and attachments dated September 22, 2009 wherein you request revisions to the approved Site Plan for an additional covered play area, 2,800 square feet in size. The play area would be located in front of the most easterly building on the subject site, the Renton Christian School. As your letter discloses, one minor adjustment to the approved site plan is proposed. The requested revision is summarized below: 1) The construction of a 40-foot by 70-foot (2,800 square foot) covered outdoor play area that serves the Renton Christian School located on the subject site. Renton Municipal Code Section 4-9-2001, allows minor adjustments to an approved site plan, provided: 1. The adjustment does not involve more than a ten percent (10%) increase in area or scale of the development in the approved site pion; or 2. The adjustment does not have 0 significantly greater impact on the environment and facilities than the approved plan; or 3. The adjustment daes not change the baundaries af the originally approved plan. Analysis of Request The site plan modification requested and as shown in your September 22, 2009 submittals have been compared to the Site Plan as approved by the Planning Director on February 13, 2009. The proposed additional play area would be constructed in the existing parking lot located immediately in front of the Renton Christen School. This structure would eliminate 12 parking spaces and some landscaped area. The placement of the play structures within an existing parking lot results in parking lot circulation problems. The center aisle ofthe parking lot would come to a dead end at the play structure. In order Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov September 30, 2009 • Page 2 to maintain parking lot circulation, the existing parking lot should be redesigned (re- striped) to provide circulation through the center drive aisle. This can be achieved by eliminating additional parking spaces that are located just south of the proposed play area and replacing them with a 24-foot drive aisle. Furthermore, the construction of the subject play area would eliminate parking lot landscaping. In order for the parking lot to maintain its existing landscaping square footage, new parking lot landscaping shall be installed along the perimeter of the new play structure. Additionally, the new landscaping would provide a buffer between the children's play area and the parking lot, which would increase the children's safety. The required drive aisle and additional landscaped areas would result in the reduction of approximately five additional parking spaces. After the construction is complete for the new building and parking area approved through LUA08-081, the remaining parking lot would be over parked by 194 spaces. As such, the reduction of 17 parking spaces for the addition of a children's covered play area, drive aisle, and landscaping would not impact the parking capacity on the subject site based on current Renton Municipal Code. Once the construction of the additional play area is complete, the subject site would remain over parked by 177 spaces. If the requested additional landscaping is installed, and drive aisle is provided, the proposed change would not result in more than a 10 percent increase in area or scale of the development as impervious coverage and building area would not increase. The proposal would not have a greater impact on the environment and facilities, nor would it change the boundaries ofthe original approved site plan. The project site is zoned Residential 14 (R-14) dwelling units per net acre with a land use designation of Residential Multi-family. All applicable setbacks, lot coverage, and landscaping standards would be achieved if the conditions of approval are met. Decision Based on staff's analysis, I have determined the proposed revisions are within the parameters defined by the Renton Municipal Code. Therefore, the proposed modification to the site plan is approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to the issuance of the final building permit for the New Life Church Play Structure (8090326), 3 full size copies and 18 Y, x 11 inch reduced copy of a final site plan shall be submitted for approval by the Department of Community and Economic Development project manager; depicting a 24-foot drive aisle connecting the center drive aisle to the existing parking lot circulation system and parking lot landscaping shall be added to the south side of the proposed play area equal to or grater then the removed landscaping square footage, to buffer the play area from the parking lot. 2. The applicant is advised that all code requirements and conditions of the site plan approval are still applicable to the development of the site. The applicant H:\CED\planning\Current Planning\PROJECTS\OS-Q8I,Vanessa\Site Plan Modification.doc • September 30, 2009 Page 3 should also understand that Environmental SEPA Review and Site Plan Review may be required for future modifications to the site plan. This determination will be final unless a written appeal ofthis administrative determination -accompanied by the required $75.00 filing fee -is filed with the City's Hearing Examiner within 14 days of the date of this decision. Should you have any questions regarding this determination or the requirements discussed in this letter, please contact Vanessa Dolbee, Associate Planner, at (425) 430-7314. Sincerely, C. E. "Chip" Vincent Planning Director cc: LUA08-081, ECF, SA-A Jennifer Henning Vanessa Dolbee Parties of Record H:ICED\Planning\Current Planning\PROJECTS\08-081 ,Valk':,sa\Sitc Plan Modification.doc STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF KING } AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION PUBLIC NOTICE Linda M Mills, being first duly sworn on oath that she is the Legal Advertising Representative of the Renton Reporter a weekly newspaper, which newspaper is a legal newspaper of general circulation and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of publication hereinafter referred to, published in the English language continuously as a weekly newspaper in King County, Washington. The Renton Reporter has been approved as a Legal Newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County. The notice in the exact form annexed was published in regular issues of the Renton Reporter (and not in supplement form) which was regularly distributed to its subscribers during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a: Public Notice was published on February 20, 2009. The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is th~$I~O~ Linda M. Mills Legal Advertising Representative, Renton Reporter Subscribed and sworn to me this 23rd day of February, 2009. or the State of Washington, Residing ""\\\11,, II, I ... ", ~y D,(J 1,,/ 0:-': l>-~ """''''''/U''A''. "" .;::-"'t'"'_", ... "','sSIOI\' 10-1/1" '", .., -..::-..... ~ ""+. " \)' / = =""041 "OT~-f> \% ~ ;; 3C,J .,L !"II ~ :::. -~ -.... CIJ::; _ -:;; ~ -~(j)-:; --c C = -: -I \ ~ VaL\ .2 <-= ~ ~ \'o~19_~\-... ... -...... o-=: ,. .A'\ I( ,,, .. , _ ~ "0 1/11111\\\\\\,\' ~O ~ Ilfl/ ',l:-WAS~\ " ............ '" 1 1111 " 1\\\"" NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE RENTON, WASHINGTON The EnvironmenLal Review Committee h<ls issued a Determination of Non- Significancc-Miligated for the following project under the authority of the Renton Municipal Code. New Life Church LUA08·081, ECF, SA·A Location: 15711 -152ndAvenue SE. The applicant is requesting an Environmental Review and Administrative Site Plan Review for the construction of a 36,000 square foot Church auditorium with 299 additional parking stalls. The site is located on me s.outh side of Maple Valley Highway at 15711 -152nd Avenue SE, and is comprised of 56.65 acres with in the R-14 zone. The site contains Seismic Hazards, Steep Slopes, Landslide Hazard.. Areas. Erosion Hazard Area, Streams, and Wetlands. Appeals of the environmental determination must he filed in writing on or before 5:00 P~'l on March 6, 2009. Arrenls must be Hied in wliting togdhcr with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner. City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11O.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. Published in the Renton Reporter on February 20. 2009. #187558.s • CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM Date: March 11, 2009 To: City Clerk's Office From: Stacy Tucker Subject: Land Use File Closeout Please complete the following information to facilitate project closeout and indexing by the City Clerk's Office .. ,. ,-" ., .... .., Project Name: New Life Church LUA (file) Number: LUA-08-081, ECF, SA-A Cross-References: AKA's: Project Manager: Vanessa Dolbee Acceptance Date: August 6, 2008 Applicant: New Life Church at Renton Owner: Same as applicant Contact: Kathi Bresler, Church Development Consultants PID Number: 2323059021 ERe Approval Date: February 13, 2009 ERC Appeal Date: March 6, 2009 Administrative Approval: February 13, 2009 Appeal Period Ends: March 6, 2009 Public Hearing Date: Date Appealed to HEX: By Whom: HEX Decision: Date: Date Appealed to Council: By Whom: Council Decision: Date: Mylar Recording Number: Project Description: The applicant is requesting an Environmental Review and Administrative Site Plan Review for the construction of a 36,000 square foot Church auditorium with 299 additional parking stalls. The site is located on the south Side of Maple Valley Highway at 15711 -152nd Avenue SE, and. is comprised of 56.65 acres with In the R-14 zone. The site contains Seismic Hazards, SteeD Slopes, ~ndslide Hazards Areas, Erosion Hazard Area, Streams, and Wetlands. Location: 15711 -152 nd Avenue SE Comments: CIT~T OF RENTON Denis Law, Mayor March 11, 2009 Kathi Bresler Church Development Consultants 3623 -324th Avenue SE Fall City, W A 98024 SUBJECT: New Life Church LUA08-081, ECF, SA-A Dear Ms. Bresler: Department of Community and Economic Development Alex Pietsch, Administrator This letter is to inform you that the appeal period ended March 6, 2009 for the Environmental Review Committee's (ERC) " Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated and Administrative Site Plan approval for the above-referenced project. No appeals were filed on "the ERC determination and Administrative Site Plan approval therefore, this decision is final and application for the appropriately required permits may proceed. The applicant must comply with all ERC Mitigation Measures and Site Plan Conditions of Approval outlined in the Report and Decision dated February D, 2009. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (425) 430-7314. For the Environmental Review Committee, Vanessa Dolbee Associate Planner Enclosure cc: New Life Church at Renton /Owner(s) Ivana Halvorsen, Claudia Donnelly / Party(ies) of Record ------------I-O-55-S-0-uili--G-rad--y-w-~---R-e-n-ro-n,-w-a-sh-i-ng-to-n-9-8-0-57-------------~ * This paper oontalns 50% recycled material. 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE Vanessa Dolbee From: Sent: To: Subject: Karen, , Vanessa Dolbee Monday, February 16, 2009 10:46 AM 'Karen Walter' LUA08-081 New Life Church Per your request please find attached copies of the new site plan and civil drawings for the subject project. This new proposal did not included any stream buffer or wetland buffer reduction or averaging. If you would like to see their updated SEPA check list and other textual documents please let me know and I can send these your way. Vanessa Dolbee Associate Planner City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 (425)430-7314 1 CIVIL ENGINEERING. LAND PLANNING. SURVEYING ~tflJ). cq.. ~ /(,y ~i}9I, ~ /6' ~() LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL Oq..Q ~6?9 O/~ TO: Jan Conklin City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton. W A 98055 RE: New Life Church 8080467 Quantity Date 2 ca -Site Lighting Plan FO.O I For routing and approval. Please contact me with any questions. ;: r I FT.,. r Fl" 1iIIi~1"'" .. ~ ~!,.,. Kathi Bresler, Church Development Consultants Daniel K. Balmelli, Barghausen Consulting Engineers. Inc. Ali Sadr, Barghausen Consulting Engineers. Inc. ~ OIJl DATE: February 16,2009 SENT VIA: Courier Delivery_ OUR .JOB: 11706 ~~~----------------- Description Signed: .~-tJ0 Ivana Halvorsen \ Senior Planner 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT. WA 98032 (425) 251-6222 (425) 251-8782 FAX BRANCH OFFICES • OLYMPIA. WA • TACOMA. WA • SACRAMENTO. CA • TEMECULA. CA www.barghausen.com 11706t.024.doc ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED (DNS-M) POSTED TO NOTlry INTERESr;::Q PERSONS OF AN ENViRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: New Life Chulch PROJECT NUMBER: LUAOB.OB1, ECF, SA-A, CAR LOCATION: 15711 .152" Avenue SE DESCRIPTION: The ~"pli~anl is requesting ~n Environmental Reylew and Admln;snal;\Ie Site Plan Review far !he conslrllc\",n of a 36,000 square 1001 Church auditorium w~h 299 additiDnal parking stalls. Th .. sile is local .. d on the south Side or Maple Valley Highway at 15711 _ 162nd Avenue SE, and Is comprised of 56.65 acres with in th" R·14 lone The site cont~ins Seismic Hazards, Steep Slopes, Landslide Hazards Areas. Erosion Hazard Area. Streams. <Inc! Wetl~nds THE CITY OF RENTON E~NIRONr,1ENTflL REVIEW COMMITIEE (ERG) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES r~OT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT Appeals of the environmental determination mu~t be tiled in writing on or before 5:00 PM Dn March 6, 2009. Appeals musl be flied in wr~lng together With th~ required l7S.00 application foo with: Hoarinll' Ellamlner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Roenton, WA 98057. Appeals 10 the Examine. aragovamed by City Df Renton Municipal Codo Section 4-8-110.B. Additional inlorn,alion regarding the appeal proceas may be obtained from the Ranton City Cloerk's Office, (4Z5) 430·6510. IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERrvliNATION IS APPEALED, A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE SET AND ALL PARTIES NOTIFIED FOR FURTHER INFORM .. \TION. PLE:,S[ CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY? FCOI~ur,.'iIC DEVELOPMENT AT (425) 430-7200 DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION Please include the project NUMBER when calling for proper file identification. CERTIFICATION ; ATTEST: Subscnbed and sworn before me, a Notary Public, III and for the State of Washington reSldi'~ .... ~." "'"'" '--"-I ~ -. 5","",,.,, ..... +tL,,,,,,,,,,,,-__ on the I e day of _3lk]Z;~(11t:!"!I""~:()~'~e>'t---y~~~~~~~~~ '. " ' CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT· PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 13th day of February. 2009. I deposited in the mails of the United States. a sealed envelope containing ERC Determination/Administrative Site Plan Report & Decision documents, This information was sent to: Name , Representing Agencies See Attached Kathi Bresler Contact New Life Church at Renton Owner Ivana Halvorsen POR Claudia Donnelly POR (Signature of Sender) • .:.,: .?".:.~""""~' ~---L.m..L1'--~==~=::"":" _________ _ STATE OF WASHINGTON (J ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Stacy Tucker signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for th~:41lil6s~ll? purposes mentioned in the instrument. .:::,,-::,,<, l.:;~:V t)/!.II/ Dated: Q.\ " . .a.{D5 .::: .<" '~-.&'~)}'~:' ~ ',. = . ' ,>!",., '!I, '<' '~ =~. .'J OT~ , ..... ~ ~ -~ ~ ~~ ~ r the Sate of.liVashingtoo " "'< ~ ~ (; '" :.", . fin ~ ," Notary (Print) :---LA.!.V\'\.~6~"'-::.!('_!!ol~'IfJnULO..LI.J:bJaIL1"'t:.I:::J:~t\"A..=.!.rl2-_z~1-~r;-'" '-:-,,' .....,'j""~:,+;:,;r-:-r;~;-' """, .. ~{,.;;:k..;;::= My appointment expires: '"'\ -l<--j ~ '" 0". """",,,,, r:,"'~ 01 ~ 'u I"l WAS\'l\~" ...... '" 11\\\\\\\",,, Project Name: New Life Church Project Number: LUA08-081, ECF. SA-A template -affidavit of service by mailing ,. Dept. of Ecology' Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia. WA 98504-7703 WSDOT Northwest Region' Attn: Ramin Pazooki King Area Dev_ Serv., MS-240 PO Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 US Army Corp. of Engineers' Seattle District Office Attn: SEPA Reviewer PO Box C-3755 Seattle, WA 98124 Boyd Powers' Depart. of Natural Resources PO Box 47015 Olympia, WA 98504-7015 KC Dev_ & Environmental Servo Attn: SEPA Section 900 Oakesdale Ave. SW Renton, WA 98055-1219 Metro Transit Senior Environmental Planner Gary Kriedt AGENCY (DOE) LETTER MAILING (ERe DETERMINATIONS) WDFW -Larry Fisher" Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept. ' 1775 12th Ave. NW Suite 201 Attn: Karen Walter or SEPA Reviewer Issaquah, WA 98027 39015 -172"" Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092 Duwamish Tribal Office' Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program' 4717 W Marginal Way SW Attn: Ms Melissa Calvert Seattle, WA 98106-1514 39015 172"d Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092-9763 KC Wastewater Treatment Division' Office of Archaeology & Historic Environmental Planning Supervisor Preservation'" Ms. Shirley Marroquin Attn: Gretchen Kaehler 201 S. Jackson ST, MS KSC-NR-050 PO Box 48343 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 Olvmoia, WA 98504-8343 City of Newcastle City of Kent Attn: Steve Roberge Attn: Mr. Fred Satterstrom, AICP Director of Community Development Acting Community Dev. Director 13020 Newcastle Way 220 Fourth Avenue South Newcastle, WA 98059 Kent, WA 98032-5895 Puget Sound Energy City of Tukwila Municipal Liaison Manager Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official Joe Jainga 6200 Southcenter Blvd. 201 South Jackson Street KSC-TR-0431 PO Box 90868, MS: XRD-01W Tukwila, WA 98188 Seattle, WA 98104-3856 Bellevue, WA 98009-0868 Seattle Public Utilities State Department of Ecology Real Estate Services NW Regional Office Attn: SEPA Coordinator 3190160" Avenue SE 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900 Bellevue, WA 98008-5452 PO Box 34018 Seattle, WA 98124-4018 'Note: If the Notice of Application states that it is an ·Optional DNS", the marked agencies and cities will need to be sent a copy of the checklist, Site Plan PMT, and the notice of application. template -affidavit of service by mailing ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON·SIGNIFICANCE· MITIGATED (DNS·M) POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: New Life Church PROJECT NUMBER: LUA08-081, ECF, SA-A, CAR LOCATION: 15711 -152"d Avenue SE DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting an Environmental Review and Administrative Site Plan Review for the construction of a 36,000 square foot Church auditorium with 299 additional parking stalls. The site is located on the south side of Maple Valley Highway at 15711 -152nd Avenue SE, and is comprised of 56.65 acres with in the R·14 zone. The site contains Seismic Hazards, Steep Stopes, Landslide Hazards Areas, Erosion Hazard Area, Streams, and Wetlands. 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 on March 6, 2009. 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 98057. 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. IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION IS APPEALED, A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE SET AND ALL PARTIES NOTIFIED. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AT (425) 430-7200. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION Please include the project NUMBER when calling for proper file identification. February 13,2009 Kathi Bresler Church Development Consultants 3623 -324th Avenue SE Fall City, W A 98024 SUBJECT: New Life Church LUA08-081, ECF, SA-A, CAR Dear Ms. Bresler: CIT T OF RENTON Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Alex Pietsch, Administrator This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) to advise you that they have completed their review of the subject project and have issued a threshold Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated with Mitigation .Measures. Please refer· to the enclosed ERC Report and Decision, Part 2, Section B for a list of the Mitigation Measures and Part 3, Section I for the Site Plan conditions of approval. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on March 6, 2009. 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, W A 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8- IIO.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. The preceding information will assist you in planning for implementation of your project and enable you to exercise your appeal rights more fully, if you choose to do so. If you have any questions or desire clarification of the above, please callme at (425) 430-7314. For the Environmental Review Committee, Vanessa Dolbee Associate Planner Enclosure cc: New Life Church IOwner(s) Ivana Halverson, Claudia Donnelly I Party(ies) of Record -------------,-OS-S-s-o-ut-h-G-ra-d-y-w-a-Y-·-R-Cn-j-on-.-w-'a-sh-i-n~-o-n--98-0-S-7------------~ * This papercontaills 50% recycled material, 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE February 13,2009 Washington State Department of Ecology Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Subject: Environmental Determination cr T OF RENTON Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Alex Pietsch, Administrator Transmitted herewith is a copy of the Environmental Determination for the following project reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) on February 13,2009: DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED PROJECT NAME: New Life Church PROJECT NUMBER: LUAOS-OS1, ECF, SA-A, CAR LOCATION: 15711-152"d Avenue SE DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting an Environmental Review and Administrative Site Plan Review for the construction of a 36,000 sqnare foot Church auditorium with 299 additional parking stalls, The site is located on the south side of Maple Valley Highway at 15711 -IS2nd Avenue SE, and is comprised of 56.65 acres with In the R-14 zone. The site contains Seismic Hazards, Steep Slopes, Landslide Hazards Areas, Erosion Hazard Area, Streams, and Wetlands. Appeills of the environmental determination must :be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on March 6, 2009 .. 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 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11O.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be. obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. Please refer to the enclosed Notice of Environmental Determination for complete details. [fyou have questions, please call me at (425) 430-7314. For the Environmental Review Committee, Vanessa Dolbee Associate Planner Enclosure ee: King County Wastewater Treatment Division David F. Dietzman, Department of Natural Resources Karen Waiter, Fisheries, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Melissa Calvert, Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program Stephanie Kramer, Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation WSDOT, Northwest Region WDFW, Stewart Reinbold Duwamish Tribal Office US Army Corp. of Engineers -------I-05-5-S-o-uth-G-ra-d-y-w-a-Y---R-en-j-on-,-\\-ra-sh-in-gt-o-n-9-8-0-57-------~ * This paper contains 50% recycled material, 30% postconsumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE CITY OF RENTOI DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA08-081, ECF, SA-A, CAR APPLICANT: New Life Church PROJECT NAME: New Life Church DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting an Environmental Review and Administrative Site Plan Review for the construction of a 36,000 square foot Church auditorium with 299 additional parking stalls. The site is located on the south side of Maple Valley Highway at 15711 -152nd Avenue SE, and is comprised of 56.65 acres with in the R-14 zone. The site contains Seismic Hazards, Steep Slopes, Landslide Hazards Areas, Erosion Hazard Area, Streams, and Wetlands. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: LEAD AGENCY: MITIGATION MEASURES: 15711 -152 0d Avenue SE The City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Planning Division 1. The applicant shall be required to comply with the recommendations included in the geotechnical report, "Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report", prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. dated August 24, 2005 and the "Supplemental Subsurface Exploration Summary", prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. dated October 17, 2005. 2. The applicant shall install and maintain Temporary Erosion Control measures in accordance with the latest Department of Ecology Standards, which shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Community & Economic Development, Plan Review project manager. 3. Madsen Creek, Wetland A, Wetland B, Wetland C, and all the associated buffers shall be placed within a Native Growth Protection Area (NGPA) using a method of creation identified within Renton Municipal Code 4-3-050E.4.c. prior to building occupancy. 4. The project shall comply with the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual. 5. If any Native American grave(s) or archaeological/cultural resources (Indian artifacts) are found, all constnuction activity shall stop and the owner/developer shall immediately notify the City of Renton planning department, concerned Tribes' cultural committees, and the Washington State Department of Archeological and Historic Preservation. 6. A Transportation Mitigation Fee shall be assessed at $75 per average weekday peak hour trips generated from the project. The fee shall be paid prior to issuance of building permits. 7. The applicant shall be required to comply with the recommendations included in the Traffic Impact AnalYSis, prepared by The Transpo Group, dated July 2008. 8. The applicant shall pay a Fire Mitigation Fee based on $0.52 per square foot. Fire Mitigation Fees shall be paid prior to obtaining building permits. 9. Within one year from the date of SEPA determination, the applicant shall complete an amended SEPA with an approved wetland mitigation plan to connect the fire access road on the west side of the new building. ERG Mitigation Measures Page 1 of 1 CITY OF RENTot DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED ADVISORY NOTES & CONDITIONS APPLICATION NO(S): LUA08-081, ECF, SA-A, CAR APPLICANT: New Life Church PROJECT NAME: New Life Church DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting an Environmental Review and Administrative Site Plan Review for the construction of a 36,000 square foot Church auditorium with 299 additional parking stalls. The site is located on the south side of Maple Valley Highway at 15711 -152nd Avenue SE, and is comprised of 56.65 acres with in the R-14 zone. The site contains Seismic Hazards, Steep Slopes, Landslide Hazards Areas, Erosion Hazard Area, Streams, and Wetlands. . LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: LEAD AGENCY: Advisory Notes to Applicant: 15711 -152 0d Avenue SE The City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Planning Division The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the environmental determination. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for environmental determinations. Planning: 1. RMC section 4-4-030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. . 2. Commercial, multi-family, new single family and other nonresidential construction activities shall be restricted to the hours between seven o'clock (7:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m., Monday through Friday. Work on Saturdays shall be restricted to the hours between nine o'clock (9:00) a.m. <lnd eight o'clock (8:00) p.m. No work shall be permitted on Sundays. 3. Within thirty (30) days of completion of grading work, the. applicant shall hydroseed or plant an appropriate ground cover over any portion of the site that is graded or cleared of vegetation and where no further construction work will occur within ninety (90) days. Alternative measures such as mulch, sodding, or plastic covering as specified in the current King County Surface Water Management Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton may be proposed between the dates of November 1 st and March 31 sl of each year. The Development Services Division's approval of this work is required prior to final inspection and approval of the permit. 4. A National Permit Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit is required when more than one acre is being cleared. Plan Review -Water: 1. In accordance with the Fire Department requirements (prior to construction of the new building), a new looped water main must be installed around the perimeter of the building. Plan Review -Surface Water: 1. The Surface Water System Development Charges (SOC) are $0.405 per new square foot of impervious area. ERe Advisory Notes Page 1 of 3 Plan Review -Transportation: 1. Street improvements including, but not limited to paving, sidewalks, curb and gutter, storm drain, landscape, streetlights and street signs will be required along the frontage of the parcel and on the interior streets. 2. All wire utilities shall be installed underground per the City of Renton Undergrounding Ordinance. If three or more poles are required to be moved to accommodate the development design, all existing overhead utilities shall be placed underground. Fire Department -Hydrant Spacing: 1. One of the two required Hydrants shall be no greater than 300 feet to the front of the structure. 2. The primary hydrant is required to be within 150 feet of the structure. 3. Due to this structure, requiring a Fire Sprinkler System a hydrant shall be required within 50 feet of the Fire Department Connection. 4. Hydrant spacing shall also be in accordance with Appendix C, Table C105.1 of the 2006 International Fire code. Fire Department -Fire Apparatus Access: 1. Fire department access roadways are required to be within 150 feet of all portions of the building exterior. 2. Fire Lane Signage shall be required along one side of the road where the road widths 20 to 28 feet wide. Sign age shall be placed on the same side in which the hydrants are located. Signage shall be as in accordance with section 503 of the 2006 International Fire Code and City of Renton Ordinance 4-4-80-6 A- G. Fire Department -Dead End Streets: 1. Access of Dead End Street from 150 or grater shall require an appropriate turnaround. Fire Department -General: 1. Fire Sprinklers and Fire Alarm shall be applicable to this project. Separate plans and permits shall be required. 2. The fire flow calculations have been recalculated due to change in the type of construction, from a type V to a type III-B. This will require the water supply line to be a looped system. 3. The fire alarm system shall be an addressable system per the 2006 IFC, and adopted City of Renton amendments. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. A lighting plan shall be submitted with the building permit application for review and approval by the Department of Community & Economic Development, Current Planning Division project manager prior to building permit approval. 2. A detailed landscape plan shall be submitted, to the attention of the Department of Community & Economic Development, Current Planning Division project manager prior to issuance of a building permit, indicating the final landscaping, including the irrigation plan for the project site unless the final landscape plan provides 100 percent drought tolerant plantings. 3. A detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to the Department of Community and Economic Development, Planning Division, project manager for review and approval prior to building permit approval that indicates compliance with the required 15 ft. of sight obscuring landscaping along the east border. 4. A detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to the Department of Community and Economic Development, Planning Division, project manager for review and approval prior to building permit approval that indicates compliance with parking lot landscape regulations (RMC 4-4-080F). ERe Advisory Notes Page2of3 5. Staff recommends as a condition of approval that 14 of the proposed new trees be a minimum of 2-inches in caliper. 6. The applicant shall provide a new site plan that depicts the required amount of refuse and recyclable deposit areas to the Department of Community and Economic Development, Planning Division, project manager for review and approval prior to building permit approval. ERe Advisory Notes Page 3 of 3 CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) APPLICATION NO(S): LUA08-081, ECF, SA-A APPLICANT: New Life Church PROJECT NAME: New Life Church DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting an Environmental Review and Administrative Site Plan Review for the construction of a 36,000 square foot Church auditorium with 299 additional parking stalls. The site is located on the south side of Maple Valley Highway at 15711 -152nd Avenue SE, and is comprised of 56.65 acres with in the R-14 zone. The site contains Seismic Hazards, Steep Slopes, Landslide Hazards Areas, Erosion Hazard Area, Streams, and Wetlands. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: LEAD AGENCY: 15711 -152,d Avenue SE The City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Planning Division The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). Conditions were imposed as mitigation measures by the Environmental Review Committee under their authority of Section 4-6-6 Renton Municipal Code. These conditions are necessary to mitigate environmental impacts identified during the environmental review process. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on March 6, 2009. 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 98057. 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. PUBLICATION DATE: DATE OF DECISION: SIGNATURES: j I--'''-. --- Terry Higashiyama, Administrator Community Services February 20, 2009 February 13, 2009 (d11bz Dat f I. David Daniels, Administrator Date Fire & Em ency Services ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING NOTICE February 13, 2009 To: Gregg Zimmerman, Public Works Administrator Terry Higashiyama, Community Services Administrator I. David Daniels, Fire & Emergency Services, Administrator Alex Pietsch, CEO Administrator From: Jennifer Henning, CEO Planning Manager Meeting Date: Monday, February 13, 2009 Time: 3:00 PM Location: Sixth Floor Conference Room 0020 Agenda listed below. THE FOLLOWING IS A CONSENT AGENDA New Life Church (Dolbee) LUA08-081, ECF, SA-A, CAR Location: 15711 -152nd Avenue SE. The applicant is requesting an Environmental Review and Administrative Site Plan Review for the construction of a 36,000 square foot Church auditorium with 299 additional parking stalls. The site is located on the south side of Maple Valley Highway at 15711 -152no Avenue SE, and is comprised of 56.65 acres with in the R-14 zone. The site contains Seismic Hazards, Steep Slopes, Landslide Hazards Areas, Erosion Hazard Area, Streams, and Wetlands. cc: D. Law, Mayor J. Covington, Chief Administrative Officer S. Dale Estey, CED Director ® D. Pargas, Assistant Fire Marshall N. Watts, Development Services Director ® F. Kaufman, Hearing Examiner W. Flora, Deputy Chief/Fire Marshal ® J. Medzegian, Council P. Hahn, Transportation Systems Director C. Vincent, CEO Planning Director ® L. Warren, City Attorney ® ERC& SITE PLAN REPORT & DECISION ERC MEETING DATE: Project Name: Owner/Applicant: Contact: File Number: Project Manager: Project Summary: Project Location: Exist. Bldg. Area SF: Site Area: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 1.Ity of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT ADMINISTRATIVE SITE PLAN REPORT & DECISION February 13, 2009 New Life Church New Life Church, 15711 - I 52nd Avenue SE, Renton, WA 98059 Kathi Bresler, Church Development Consultants, 3623 -324'h Avenue SE, Fall City, W A 98024 LUA08-081, ECF, SA-A, CAR Vanessa Dolbee, Associate Planner The applicant is requesting an Environmental (SEPA) Review and Administrative Site Plan Review for the construction of a 36,000 square foot Church auditorium with 264 additional parking stalls. The site is located on the south side of Maple Valley Highway at 15711 -152nd Avenue SE, and is comprised of56.65 acres. The subject parcel is zoned Residential 14 (R-14) dulac and is currently the location of the New Life Church, which also contains a private school. The existing church and school building is 93,000 square feet with 610 associated parking stalls, which are proposed to remain. The subject project also includes the relocation of an existing play area to the south and west, to be located near the proposed building. To access the new building and parking, the existing driveways, off of 152nd Avenue SE would be utilized. The subject site contains many critical areas, which include; Seismic Hazards, Steep Slopes, Landslide Hazards Areas, Erosion Hazard Area, Streams, and Wetlands. As such, the applicant has provided a Stream and Wetland study and a Geotechnical report. The applicants are proposing to remove 22 trees for the new church and parking area. The existing detention pond would be reconstructed to provide additional volume to accommodate the new impervious areas as well as the existing drainage to the facility. The proposed project would require approximately 1,800 cubic yards of cut and approximately 7,700 cubic yards offill. 15711 -152nd Avenue SE 93,000 SF Proposed New Bldg. Area (footprint): Proposed New Bldg. Area (gross): 56.65 acres Total Building Area GSF: 36,000 SF 36,000 SF 128,000 SF Staff Recommends that the Environmental Review Committee issue a Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M). Project Location Map ERC_Site Plan REPORT 08-08i.doc City of Renton Department ofC· 'unity & Economic Development NEW LIFE CHURCH Report of February 13,2009 ~ PART ONE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION I BACKGROUND ~ vironmental Review Committee Report LUA08-081, ECF, SA-A, CAR Page 2 of22 The applicant proposes to develop a 56.65-acre site located on the south side of Maple Valley Highway with a new 36,000 square foot sanctuary/auditorium facility for the existing church, and 249 new parking stalls. The applicant also purposes to relocate the existing playground from the northwest comer of the site to the southwest side of the new building. On the subject site, there are three wetlands, two Category 3, and one Category 2, and Madsen Creek, a Class 2 water. The subject proposal would not disturb any of the required buffers from all three wetlands and Madsen Creek. The subject site is located at 15711 -152,d Avenuc SE in the southwest comer of the intersection of Maple Valley Highway and I 52,d Avenue SE. The subject property has been designated Residential Multi-Family for the northern portion ofthe property and Residential Low Density for the southern portion of the property on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use map. The site is split zoned the northern portion ofthe site is zoned Residential 14 (R-14) dwelling unit per acre and the southern portion of the site is zoned Resource Conservation (RC). The entire proposal is within the portion ofthe site zone R-14 as such, this report will evaluate the proposal based on the development standards for the R-14 zoning designation. A religious intuition is only allowed within the R-14 zone with an approved Hearing Examiner Conditional Use. The subject site was annexed to the City of Renton in June of2008. When this property was annex to the City the "use" was already established onsite. As such, the Development Services Director determined that an additional Conditional Use Permit for an established use was not necessary. Therefore, the following report is comprised of Environmental Review and Site Plan Review only. The project site is a single parcel that is currently developed with a 93,000 square foot church that also contains a private school serving children from Kindergarten through 8th grade, a parking lot with 6 \0 existing parking stalls, a storm water system, 2 children's play areas, and an outdoor multi-purpose playfield. In addition, a wireless cell tower is located on the northern portion of the subject site east of Madsen Creek. The site drains to the north into an existing biofiltration swale and then to a wet/detention pond prior to discharging into Madsen Creek that outlets toward the west and ultimately drains though a network of ditches to the Cedar River. To the north of the subject site, across Maple Valley Highway, is a single-family residential neighborhood, which is within unincorporated King County and a small strip of land within the City of Renton that is zoned RC. To the east of the site, there is a parcel zone Commercial Arterial (CA) located in the southeast comer of the intersection of Maple Valley Highway and 152,d Avenue SE, which is vacant land. South ofthe CA parcel are two parcels zoned R-14 that contain two multi-family residential developments, Valley Springs Apartments and River Valley Condominiums. Further south of the R-14 zoned parcels is a parcel zone RC, which appears to be vacant land. To the west of the site is a manufactured home park on a parcel zoned Residential Manufactured Homes (RMH) and a small portion ofthis site is zoned RC. To the south and west of the site is unincorporated King County. According to King County zoning maps these parcels are zoned Residential-4 and Residential-5, currently these sites are vacant. The large size of the site results in a set oftopographic and natural features, of which include three different wetlands, Madsen Creek, Seismic Hazards and regulated slopes that are characterized by Landslide Hazards and Erosion Hazards Areas. The portion of the site that contains the Steep Slopes, Landslide Hazards and Erosion Hazards is located south of the existing and proposed development, within the RC zone. This portion of the site is to remain undeveloped. The north portion of the site, which contains the wetlands, Seismic Hazards and a portion ofthe Madsen Creek and a flood control high-water diversion for Madsen Creek, is within the existing and proposed development area. Madsen Creek flows north down the center of the site until is reaches Maple Valley Highway and turns west and flows parallel to the Highway until it reaches a culvert and eventual drains into the Cedar River. The flood control high-water diversion for Madsen Creek is only filled with water in the event that flow levels exceed the capacity of the existing channel. The diversion is located along the west property line flowing north, eventually draining into the same culvert as Madsen Creek. Based on the provided Wetland and Stream Analysis Report Madsen Creek is a Class 2 stream, which requires a buffer of 100 feet. The site also contains three wetlands, ERC_Site Plan REPORT 08-081 City of Renton Department ofr nunity & Economic Development NEW LIFE CHURCH Report of February 13,2009 ~ vironmental Review Committee Report LUA08-081, ECF, SA-A, CAR Page 3 of22 referenced as Wetland "A", Wetland "B", and Wetland "C" herein. Wetland "A" is located just east of Madsen Creek and is approximately 11,875 square feet in size. The provided Wetland Report indicated this wetland to be a Category 3 wetland, which would require a 25-foot buffer. Wetland "B" is approximately 8,400 square feet in size and is located in the southwest portion of the site just east of Wetland "A". Wetland "B" has also been determined to be a Category 3 wetland. Wetland "C" is located at the base of a steep slope and appears to be a groundwater discharge point. Wetland "C" has been delineated as a Category 2 wetland, which would require a SO-foot buffer. The proposal is to construct a new one story building directly west ofthe existing building on site. The new proposed building would be approximately 36,000 square feet in size and contain an auditorium with 1,495 seats, cafe, lobby, green room, changing room and restrooms. As proposed, the building entrance (north fapde) would be designed with large stone columns toped with a Champaign medal roof supported by large wooden beams. The entrance would be designed with three entry doors surrounded by large windows. An ADA accessible ramp is proposed along the west side of the building. The structures large scale would be reduced to a more human scale by providing horizontal and vertical texture changes, utilizing painted concrete. In addition to the new building, the proposal includes 249 new parking spaces, the relocation ofthe existing play area to the southwest of the new building, the reconstruction and design of the exiting detention pond to provide additional volume to accommodate the existing and new impervious area, and the pavement of the existing fire lane along the south side of the existing and proposed buildings. The site currently is accessed off of 152"d Avenue SE at two different ingress/egress points. The site as proposed would be accessed in the same manner after the new development. The majority of the 264 new parking stalls are proposed to be located north of the exiting parking lot in what is currently an open grass field. The remaining parking stalls are proposed to be located along the west border of the new and existing parking lot. After the addition of 264 parking stalls, the site would consist of855 parking stalls of which 20 are to be accessible. The new parking area and the existing storm drainage facility would be re-graded to generate approximately 1,800 cubic yards of cut. Overall, the project would require approximately 7,700 cubic yards of fill (mostly structural fill for the new building). The existing stormwater swale parallel to 1 52 nd Avenue SE would be removed and the existing detention pond would be reconstructed to provide additional volume to accommodate the new impervious areas as well as the existing drainage to the facility. The provided landscape plan indicates parking lot landscaping and an irrigation system. The proposed landscaping would be comprised of deciduous trees (Red Maples, Sweet Gum and Purple Leaf Plum), shrubs (Oregon Grape, Dwarf English Laurel, English Boxwood, and Japanese Barberry), Kinnikinnick ground cover, and Lawn. Additional landscaping is proposed along I 52 nd Avenue SE and seeding would be provided in the new wet detention ponds. The subject site has 410 trees on site 404 are located within Critical Areas andlor their buffers. The applicant is ro osin to lant 42 new trees onsite (excluding new street trees). In compliance with RCW 43.2IC.240, the following environmental (SEPA) review addresses only those project impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and environmental regulations. A. Environmental Threshold Recommendation Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommends that the Responsible Officials: Issue a DNS-M with a 14-day Appeal Period. B. Mitigation Measures I. The applicant shall be required to comply with the recommendations included in the geotechnical report, "Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report", prepared by Associated ERC~Site Plan REPORT 08-081 City of Renton Department ofr mnity & Econumic Development NEW LIFE CHURCH -:' 1vironmental Review Committee Report LUAOB-OBl, ECF, SA-A, CAR Report of February 13, 2009 Page 4 of22 Earth Sciences, Inc. dated August 24, 2005 and the "Supplemental Subsurface Exploration Summary", prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. dated October 17,2005. 2. The applicant shall install and maintain Temporary Erosion Control measures in accordance with the latest Department of Ecology Standards, which shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Community & Economic Development, Plan Review project manager. 3. Madsen Creek, Wetland A, Wetland B, Wetland C, and all the associated buffers shall be placed within a Native Growth Protection Area (NGPA) using a method of creation identified within Renton Municipal Code 4-3-050EA.c. prior to building occupancy. 4. The project shall comply with the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual. 5. If any Native American grave(s) or archaeological/cultural resources (Indian artifacts) are found, all construction activity shall stop and the owner/developer shall immediately notify the City of Renton planning department, concerned Tribes' cultural committees, and the Washington State Department of Archeological and Historic Preservation. 6. A Transportation Mitigation Fee shall be assessed at $75 per average weekday peak hour trips generated from the project. The fee shall be paid prior to issuance of building permits. 7. The applicant shall be required to comply with the recommendations included in the Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared by The Transpo Group, dated July 2008. 8. The applicant shall pay a Fire Mitigation Fee based on $0.52 per square foot. Fire Mitigation Fees shall be paid prior to obtaining building permits. 9. Within one year from the date of SEPA determination, the applicant shall complete an amended SEPA with an approved wetland mitigation plan to connect the fire access road on the west side of the new building. Exhibits Exhibit I Exhibit 2 Exhibit 3 Exhibit 4 Exhibit 5 Exhibit 6 Exhibit 7 Exhibit 8 Exhibit 9 Exhibit 10 Exhibit II Exhibit 12 Project file ("yellow file") containing the application, reports, staff comments, and other material pertinent to the review ofthe project. Neighborhood Map Preliminary Dimensioned Site Plan, stamped 2-11-09 Preliminary Grading and Storm Drainage Plan, stamped 2-11-09 Schematic water and Sewer Plan, stamped 2-11-09 Tree Inventory Plan, stamped 2-11-09 Preliminary Landscape Planting Plan, stamped 2-11-09 First Floor Plan, sheet A 1.21 First Floor Plan, sheet A I. 71 a Building Section, sheet A3. II South Elevation, sheet A2. I I East Elevation, sheet A2.12 C. Environmental Impacts The Proposal was circulated and reviewed by various City Departments and Divisions to determine whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed environmental impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development. Staff reviewers have identified that the proposal is likely to have the following probable impacts: 1. Earth Impacts: The subject site consists of56.65 acres and therefore, contains a variety of topographic changes in different locations on site. The slopes in the project area are relatively flat 0 - 5 percent. Although, the central portion ofthe site contains slopes with grades exceeding 40 percent. Along this portion of the site the City of Renton Critical Areas Maps indicate regulated slopes, Landslide Hazards and Erosion Hazards Areas. ERC Site Plan REPORT 08-08/ City of Renton Department of(' 1unity & Economic Development NEW LIFE CHURCH Report of February \3,2009 vironmental Review Committee Report LUA08-081, ECF, SA-A, CAR Page 5 of22 Although, the subject proposal is not within this portion of the site and therefore these hazards would not have an effect the subject development. The applicant provided with the application materials a "Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report", prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. dated August 24, 2005 and a "Supplemental Subsurface Exploration Summary", prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. dated October 17, 2005. The conclusions and recommendations with in this report were based on II-exploration borings completed for the study. The Geotechnical report determined that. within the project area, the subsurface conditions at the exploration locations were relatively consistent. The existing paving and topsoil were typically underlain by loose to medium dense, moist silty sand with trace gravel interpreted as alluvium deposits. Alluvial deposits are considered suitable for support of paving and lightly loaded floor slabs with proper remedial preparation. Foundations or other structures with high loads should not be supported on alluvium unless it is first improved using GeopiersTM, Rammed Aggregate Piers™, or Rapid Impact Compaction. The Alluvium deposits extended to depth of approximately I 0 to 24 feet below the existing ground surface. Associated Earth Sciences observed ground water during the exploration boring at depth varying from approximately 10 to 16 feet below the ground surface. The portion of the subject site were the development is proposed contains seismic hazards pursuant to the City of Renton Critical Areas Maps. As such, the report prepared by Associated Earth Sciences evaluated seismic effects on the proposed structure. The report indicated that earthquake damage to the proposed structure would be caused by the intensity and acceleration associated with the event. The report provides recommendations for suitable foundation bearing strata to reduce any potential seismic hazards. The report further recommends that the design ofthe project should be consistent with the 2003 International Building Code (!BC) guideline. In addition to the above-mentioned recommendations, the Preliminary Geotechnical report also provides recommendations for site preparation, structural fill, building foundation support, floor support, drainage considerations, cast-in-place retaining walls, pavement recommendations, and project design and construction monitoring. Based on the potential for geological hazards on site, staff recommends as a mitigation measure that the applicant comply with the recommendations provided within the "Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report", prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. dated August 24, 2005 and the "Supplemental Subsurface Exploration Summary", prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. dated October 17, 2005. Approximately 9,500 cubic yards of cumulative grading will occur on the site with the proposed development. The existing stormwater pond at the northeast property comer would be excavated to provide additional depth for the project-generated stonnwater. Excavated material is expected to be dispersed on site. Imported fill material, including soils and gravel base for paved areas may be used with the construction ofthe project. Due to the erosion potential ofthe subject site, staff recommends a mitigation measure that Temporary Erosion Control measures be installed and maintained in accordance with the latest Department of Ecology Standards, which shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Community & Economic Development, Plan Review project manager Mitigation Measures: 1. The applicant shall be required to comply with the recommendations included in the geotechnical report, "Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report", prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. dated August 24, 2005 and the "Supplemental Subsurface Exploration Summary", prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. dated October 17, 2005. 2. The applicant shall install and maintain Temporary Erosion Control measures in accordance with the latest Department of Ecology Standards, which shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Community & Economic Development, Plan Review project manager. Nexns: SEPA, Environmental Regulations ERC Site Plan REPORT 08-081 City of Renton Department ofC mnity & Economic Development NEW LIFE CHURCH Report of February 13,2009 2. Water a. Wetland, Streams, Lakes vironmental Review Committee Report LUA08-081, ECF, SA-A, CAR Page 60f22 Impacts: The subject site is very large and therefore contains a variety of different environmental conditions across the site, including three wetlands and a stream. As such, the applicant provided a Wetland and Stream Analysis report and a Secondary Stream Study prepared by Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc., dated July 9, 2008 updated October 2008. Madsen Creek flows north down the center of the site until is reached Maple Valley Highway and turns west and flows along the Highway until it reaches a culvert and eventual drains into the Cedar River. The flood control high-water diversion for Madsen Creek is only filled with water in the event that flow levels exceed the capacity of the existing channel. The diversion is located along the west property line flowing north, eventually draining into the same culvert as Madsen Creek. Based on the provided Wetland and Stream Analysis Report Madsen Creek is a Class 2 stream, which requires a buffer of 100 feet. The site also contains three wetlands, referenced as Wetland "A", Wetland "BOO, and Wetland "Coo herein. Wetland "A" is located just east of Madsen Creek and is approximately 11,875 square feet in size. The provided Wetland Report indicated this wetland to be a Category 3 wetland, which would require a 25-foot buffer. Wetland "Boo is approximately 8,400 square feet in size and is located in the southwest portion of the site just east of Wetland "A". Wetland "Boo has also been determined to be a Category 3 wetland. Wetland "c" is located at the base of a steep slope and appears to be a groundwater discharge point. Wetland "Coo has been delineated as a Category 2 wetland, which would require a 50-foot buffer. The original development proposal included stream buffer reduction and wetland buffer averaging, in addition to a stream crossing. Many comments were received from the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division, presenting concerns about proposed mitigation for buffer reduction and buffer averaging. Although, on February 11,2009 the applicant submit a new set of plans and supportive materials eliminating the proposal for stream buffer reduction and buffer averaging. Based on the new proposal, the concerns received from the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe should be alleviated. Although, because the stream and wetlands buffer edges are within close proximity to the new proposed building and parking lot area staff recommends as a mitigation measure that, Madsen Creek, Wetland A, Wetland B, Wetland C, and all the associated buffers be placed within a Native Growth Protection Area (NGPA) using a method of creation identified within Renton Municipal Code 4-3- 050EA.c. In addition to the NGPA, the outer extent ofthe critical area buffers areas shall be marked with barriers easily visible in the tield to prevent unnecessary disturbance by individuals and equipment during the development or construction of the approved activity. Furthermore, the NGPA shall be permanently fenced with split rail fencing. Mitigation Measures: Madsen Creek, Wetland A, Wetland B, Wetland C, and all the associated buffers shall be placed within a Native Growth Protection Area (NGPA) using a method of creation identified within Renton Municipal Code 4-3-050EA.c. prior to building occupancy. Nexus: SEPA, Environmental Regulations, Critical Areas Regulations h. Storm Water Impacts: The applicants provided a Technical Information Report (TIR), prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. dated October 10,2008. The existing topography of the site is such that the site tends to drain in a northerly direction at a constant rate toward the right-of-way of SR-169, where runoff is collected in a pond prior to discharge to the right-of-way. The existing detention pond would be modified and expanded to provide adequate detention and water quality volume for the existing and new development. The TIR indicates that storm water discharge rates would have very little change from the proposed development, and the new system would maintain the same natural located for discharge as it does under existing conditions. Furthermore, the TIR indicates that Level 2 Flow Control would be required although,the applicant has proposed to utilize Level 3 Flow Control. Furthermore, the TIR indicates that the conveyance system for the project would be sized consistent with the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM) and the project ERC Site Plan REPORT 08-0B/ City of Renton Department ofC lunity & Economic Development NEW LIFE CHURCH Report of February 13, 2009 vironmental Review Committee Report LUA08-081, ECF, SA-A, CAR Page 7 of22 would concur with all erosion and sediment control measures required by the 2005 KCSWDM. Based on the potential for downstream impact from the increased runoff created by the new development staff recommends as a mitigation measure, that the project be required to comply with the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual. Mitigation Measnres: The project shall comply with the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual. Nexns: SEPA, Environmental Regulations 3. Vegetation Impacts: The project site has 410 existing significant trees (trees over 6-inches in diameter approximately 4- feet above grade), and RMC requires that 10 percent of all significant trees are retained. Although, 404 of the 410 trees are located within Critical Areas and/or their buffers therefore they are excluded from the retention calculations resulting in 10 percent of the reaming 6 trees shall be retained. All six tress are proposed to be removed and the applicant has proposed to provide 44 new trees (excluding street trees). Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required Nexus: N/A 4. Historic and Cultural Preservation Impacts: Historically the Cedar River has meandered downstream in the Renton-Maple Valley area across the width ofthe river valley. Furthermore, developments within the vicinity of the Cedar River are more likely to be sites where significant historic and/or cultural resources would be found, and the subject development has indicated that site grading would be conducted. Therefore, staff recommends a mitigation measure that requires the applicant andlor developer to stop work and immediately notify the City of Renton planning department, concerned Tribes' cultural committees, and the Washington State Department of Archeological and Historic Preservation if any Native American grave(s) or archaeological/cultural resources (Indian artifacts) are found. Mitigation Measnres: If any Native American grave(s) or archaeological/cultural resources (Indian artifacts) are found, all construction activity shall stop and the owner/developer shall immediately notify the City of Renton planning department, concerned Tribes' cultural committees, and the Washington State Department of Archeological and Historic Preservation. Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations 5. Transportation Impacts: The applicant provided a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared by The Transpo Group, dated July 2008. The TIA completed an on-site trip survey to establish how many PM peak hour trips were exclusively church generated, because the existing weekday PM peak hour trips at the site access driveways are associated with New Life Church, Renton Christian School, and Sunshine Learning Center. In addition, a survey was not conducted on Sunday, because The Transpo Group assumed that all vehicular trips are associated with New Life Church. Based on this approach, it was determined that the existing church generated an average of approximately 45 trips during the weekday PM peak hour and approximately 375 trips during the Sunday peak hour. The proposed new church building would generate approximately 60 trips during the weekday PM peak hour and approximately 522 trips during the Sunday peak hour. However not all of these trips would be new trips as New Life Church is an existing church and currently generates traffic during both peak hours. Therefore, the church's existing trip generation was subtracted from the future trip generation to estimate the number of net new trips the proposed church development would likely generate. As discussed previously, the church currently generates an average of approximately 45 trips during the weekday PM peak hour and approximately 375 trips during the Sunday peak hour. Subtracting these trips, it is estimated that the new church building would generate approximately 17 net new PM peak hour trips and 146 net new Sunday peak hour trips. Comments received from the City of Renton Development Services Division Plan Reviewer estimate the increased average daily trips to be 327.96. The ERC_Site Plan REPORT 08-08/ City of Renton Department ofC !Unity & Ecunomic Development NEW LIFE CHURCH Report of February 13, 2009 -vironmental Review Committee Report LUAOB-OBl, ECF, SA-A, CAR Page 8 of22 project would result in an increase in traffic trips; therefore, staff recommends that the applicant pay a Traffic Impact Fee based on a rate of $75 .00 per new trip. For the proposal, the Traffic Impact Fee is estimated at $24,597.00. The TIA further evaluated level of service (LOS) at key intersections near the proposed development, SR 169/152 Avenue SE and SR I 69/140th Way SE. The TIA indicated that without the proposed church development the intersection ofSR 169 and 152,d Avenue SE would operate at LOS C during the weekday PM and Sunday peak hours. SR 169 and 140th Way SE would operate at LOS B during the Sunday peak hour both with and without the proposed project. Given the Washington State Department of Transportation's (WSDOT) Intersection Standards. the report concludes that no significant impact to the study intersections operations is expected during the Sunday and weekday PM peak hours. The New Life Church provides back-to-back worship services on Sundays, resulting in an anticipated surge in traffic. This would result in a grater-than-normal delay during the Sunday peak hour traffic. The Transpo Group has provided recommendations to minimize vehicle delay during this time period, including the utilization of traffic control police officers or scheduling more time between Sunday worship services. Based on the anticipated additional traffic impacts by the proposed development on the City street system, staff recommended as a mitigation measure that the applicant comply with the recommendation within the provided Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by The Transpo Group, dated July 2008. Mitigation Measures: 1. A Transportation Mitigation Fee shall be assessed at $75 per average weekday peak hour trips generated from the project. The fee shall be paid prior to issuance of building permits. 2. The applicant shall be required to comply with the recommendations included in the Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared by The Transpo Group. dated July 2008. Nexus: SEPA, Transportation Mitigation Fee Resolution No. 3100. 6. Fire & Police Impacts: In accordance with Renton Fire Department standards, structure over 3,600 square feet and having a minimum fire flow requirement of 1,500 gallons per minute or more shall require a minimum of two hydrants. The number of hydrants for structure over 3,600 square feet shall also be based on spacing, which shall be in accordance with sound engineering practices. Comments received from the Assistant Fire Marshal indicated that there are hydrants located through out the development. Hydrants shall be equipped with 5-inch Storz fittings that are within 150 feet ofthe structure. The applicant has proposed two hammer head turnarounds on the west side of the new building. This design allows for the wetland buffer to remain at 50 feet. Based on comments received from Renton Fire Department this proposal would be approved with a mitigation measure that requires them to complete the fire access road around the new building within one years time. In order for the applicant to complete the fire access road buffer averaging and a mitigation proposal would have to be approved by the City of Renton. Furthermore, this would require an amendment to the subject SEPA determination. As such, staff recommends as a mitigation measure that the tire access road be connected on the west side of the new building with an approved amended SEP A and wetland mitigation plan. The proposed development is anticipated to have future demands of the City fire prevention services. Therefore, staff recommends that the applicant be required to pay a Fire Mitigation Fee based on $0.52 per square foot. Mitigation Measures: 1. The applicant shall pay a Fire Mitigation Fee based on $0.52 per square foot. Fire Mitigation Fees shall be paid prior to obtaining building permits. 2. Within one year from the date of SEPA determination, the applicant shall complete an amended SEPA with an approved wetland mitigation plan to connect the fire access road on the west side of the new building. ERC_Site Plan REPORT 08-081 City of Renton Department ofC .unity & Economic Development NEW LIFE CHURCH Report of February 13, 2009 Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations, Resolution 2913 D. Comments of Reviewing Departments ~ vironmental Review Committee Report LUA08-081, ECF, SA-A, CAR Page 9 of22 The proposal has been circulated to City Department and Division Reviewers. Where applicable, their comments have been incorporated into the text of this report andlor "Advisory Notes to Applicant." ./" Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File and may be attached to this report. Environmental Determination Anneal Process: Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM, March 6,2009. Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B governs appeals to the Hearing Examiner. Appeals must be filed in writing at the City Clerk's office along with a $75.00 application fee. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall-7th Floor, 1055 S. Grady Way, Renton WA 98057. ERC Site Plan REPORT 08-081 City of Renton Department ofC ,unity & Economic Development NEW LIFE CHURCH ~ vironmental Review Committee Report LUA08-081, ECF, SA-A, CAR Report of February 13, 2009 Page 10 of22 PART THREE: ADMINISTRATIVE SITE PLAN -REPORT & DECISION This decision on the administrative land use action is made concurrently with the environmental determination. A. 1. General Information Owners of Record: New Life Church 15711-152"d Avenue SE Renton, W A 98059 Z. Zoning Designation: Residential 14 dulac (R-14)/ Resource Conservation (RC) 3. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation: Residential Multi-Family (RMF) Residential Low Density (RLD) 4. Existing Site Use: Church and Private School 5. Neighborhood Characteristics: North: East: East: South: King County Residential Single-Family and Maple Valley Highway Valley Springs Apartments and River Valley Townhomes (R-14 zone) A vacant Commercial Lot (CA zone) and vacant steep slopes (RC zone) Vacant property (RC zone) West: A Manufactured Home Park (RMH zone) 6. Access: Access to the development would be provided off of 152nd Avenue SE at two locations. 7. Site Area: Total: 56.65 acres, Developed Area: 246,114 square feet (5.65 acres) B. Historical Background Action Comprehensive Plan Zoning Annexation C. Public Services Land Use File No. N/A N/A N/A Utilities -Existing Conditions Ordinance No. 5099 5100 5373 Date 111112004 11/1/2004 6/9/2008 1. Water: This property is within the Cedar River Water and Sewer District Service area. 2. Sewer: This property is within the Cedar River Water and Sewer District Service area. 3. Surface Water/Storm Water: Surface Water drainage conveyance, detention and water quality systems currently exist at this site. 4. Fire Protection: City of Renton Fire Department. D. Applicable Sections of Renton City Code 1. Chapter 2 Land Use Districts Section 4-2-020: Purpose and Intent of Zoning Districts Section 4-2-070: Zoning Use Table Section 4-2-120: Commercial Development Standards 2. Chapter 3 Environmental Regulations and Overlay Districts Section 4-3-050: Critical Areas Regulations 3. Chapter 4 Property Development Standards Section 4-4-030: Development Guidelines and Regulations ERe Site Plan REPORT 08-081 City alRenton Department olC .unity & Ecunomic Development NEW LIFE CHURCH Report of February 13,2009 4. Chapter 6 Streets and Utility Standards Section 4-6-060: Street Standards 5. Chapter 8 Permits -General and Appeals 6. Chapter 9 Permits Specific Section 4-9-200 Site Development Plan Review 7. Chapter 11 Definitions E. Applicable Sections of Renton's Comprehensive Plan 1. Land Use Element -Commercial 2. Land Use Element -Public Facilities F. Department Analysis 1. Staff Review Comments ~ vironmental Review Committee Report LUA08-081, ECF, SA-A, CAR Page 11 of22 Representatives from various City departments have reviewed the application materials to identify and address issues raised by the proposed development. These comments are contained in the official file, and the essence of the comments has been incorporated into the appropriate sections of this report and the Departmental Recommendation at the end of the report. 2. Consistency with Site Plan Approval Criteria In reviewing the proposal with respect to the Site Plan Approval Criteria set forth in Section 4-9-200.E of the Site Plan Ordinance and Development Standards from RMC 4-2-l20B, the following issues have been identified by City Departmental Reviewers: a) Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan Designation The property is located within the Residential Multi-Family (RMF) and the Residential Low Density (RLD) land use designation. Although, the subject development is limited to the portion of the subject site located within the RMF land use designation, staff has determined that only the RMF comprehensive plan policies would be applicable to the subject development proposal. The multi-family residential land use designation is intended to encourage a range of multi-family living environments that provide shelter for a wide variety of people in differing living situations, from all income levels, and in all stages of life. Many Comprehensive Plan polices for the RMF land use designation do not apply to churches. The RMF Comprehensive Plan polices focus on multi-family land use development. Although the following comprehensive Plan policy is applicable to the proposal: Policy LU-189: Support project design that incorporates the following, or similar elements, in architectural design: \) Variation offacades on all sides O(Slructures visible from the street with vertical and horizontal modulation or articulation; 2) Angular roof lines on multiple planes and with roof edge articulation such as modulated cornices; 3) Private entries from the public sidewalk fronting the buildingfor ground floor units; 4) Groundfloor units elevatedji-om sidewalk level; 5) Upper-level access interior to the building; 6) Balconies that serve as functional open space for individual units; and 7) Common entryways with canopy or similar feature. ¥" Policy Objective Met 0 Not Met Objective LU-X: Site religious and ancillary facilities in a manner that provides convenient transportation access and minimizes their adverse impacts on adjacent land uses. ERC Site Plan REPORT 08-081 City of Renton Department ofC /Unity & Economic Development NEW LIFE CHURCH Report of February 13,2009 ./ Policy Objective Met C Not Met ~ iJironmentai Review Committee Report LUA08-081, ECF, SA-A, CAR Page 12 of22 Policy LV-104: When locating in predominantly residential areas, religious facilities should be on the periphery of the residential area rather than the interior . ./ Policy Objective Met 0 Not Met Policy LV-lOS: Parking should be provided on-site and bufferedfrom adjacent uses . ./ Policy Objective Met 0 Not Met Policy LV-I06: Large-scale facilities should be encouraged to locate contiguous to an existing or planned transit route . ./ Policy Objective Met 0 Not Met Policy LV-t07: Religiousfacilities should be located on and have direct access to either an arterial or collector street . ./ Policy Objective Met o Not Met b. Conformance with existing land use regulations; The subject site is zoned Residential 14 dulac (R-14). The purpose of the Residential-14 Dwelling Units Per Net Acre Zone (R-14) is to encourage development, and redevelopment, of residential neighborhoods that provide a mix of detached, semi-attached, and attached dwelling structures organized and designed to combine characteristics of both typical detached single family and small- scale multi-family developments. It is intended to implement the Residential Medium Density or the Center Village Land Use Comprehensive Plan designations. Densities range from ten (10) to fourteen (14) units per net acre with opportunities for bonuses up to eighteen (18) dwelling units per net acre. Structure size is intended to be limited in terms of bulk and scale so that the various unit types allowed in the zone are compatible with one another and can be integrated together into a quality neighborhood. Project features are encouraged, such as yards for private use, common open spaces, and landscaped areas that enhance a neighborhood and fostcr a sense of community. Civic and limited commercial uses may be allowed when they support the purpose ofthe designation. The R-14 development standards specitically address residential, civic, and commercial uses but do not specifically address religious institutions or other community facilities. In order for the City to determine which development standards to apply to the subject project, we looked at LUA96-061. LUA96-061 was an application for thc construction of a temple (religions institution) in the R-14 zoning district; in this case, the City applied "Civic" development standards. Due to the similarity of LUA96- 061 and the subject proposal, the City will apply "Civic" development standards. The following development standards are for Civic uses within the R-14 zone. Lot Coverage -The R-14 zone allows a maximum building coverage of50% of the total lot area. Site data submitted for the purposed development indicates 3.65 percent site coverage by existing and proposed buildings, which is within the allowable range for building coverage for the CA zone. Setbacks -The required front yard setbacks for Civic Uses in the R-14 zone is 10 feet except when abutting or adjacent to residential development then 15 feet is the required setback; there is no required side or rear yard setback for Civic Uses except when abutting or adjacent to residential development then a 15-foot setback is required. The proposed building is centrally located within a 56.65 acre site and therefore would not only meet but significantly exceed all setback requirements for the Civic Uses within the R-14 zone. As proposed, the project complies with the required R-14 zoning setbacks prescribed by City Code. Building Design -The building structure shall be designed to serve as a focal point for the residential community; and be compatible with architectural character and site features of surronnding residential development and characteristics. The design should also include a common motif or theme and be pedestrian oriented through snch measures as pedestrian walkways, pedestrian amenities and improvements, which support a variety oftransportation modes (e.g., bicycle racks). The New Life Church already serves as a focal point for the residential community, although the addition ofthe new ERe_Site Plan REPORT 08-081 City of Renton Department ofC NEW LIFE CHURCH !unity & Economic Development ~ 'Iironmental Review Committee Report LUA08-081, ECF, SA-A, CAR Report of February 13, 2009 Page 13 of22 worship building would be an asset to the existing development. The structure as proposed would have a grand entrance utilized large stone pillars and wood braces (see further description within narrative above). This entrance opens on to a plaza area for pedestrians to gather. The structures large scale would be reduced to a more human scale by providing horizontal and vertical texture changes, utilizing panted concrete. In addition to the grand entrance, the applicant has proposed to reduce the large scale of the building on the east and west sides by providing a variety of paint colors and textures that would be applied in a vertical fashion. The site provides pedestrian connections between both the new and existing buildings and through the parking lot. The site supports a variety of transportation modes beyond personal occupancy vehicles, there are bus routes along Maple Valley Highway and the site is used as a Park and Ride for King County Metro. Furthermore, sidewalks would be constructed on the south side of Maple Valley Highway, which would increase pedestrian mobility to and from the site. Project Size Limitations -The maximum lot area dedicated for civic uses shall be limited to 10% of the net developable area of a property. Building size shall be limited to 3,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area, except that by Hearing Examiner Conditional Use permit Civic Uses may be allowed to be a maximum of 5,000 sq. ft. for all uses. The City has determined that "Civic Uses" would be the best applicable standard to be utilized for churches within the R-14 zone. Although, the subject provision is too limiting for a functional church, furthermore the intent of this provision is not to limited the square footage of religious institutions. As sllch, the applicants have requested a modification from this provision. Modification Request: The applicant has requesed a modification from RMC 4-2-1 10F, which limits Civic Uses to 3,000 square feet of gross floor area. Section 4-9-250D allows the Development Services Division to grant modifications from the parking standards for individual cases provided that the modification meets the following criteria (pursuant to RMC 4-9-250D2): i. Will meet the objectives and safety, function, appearance, environmental protection and maintainability intended by the Code requirements, based upon sound engineering judgment; and ii. Will not be injurious to other property(s) in the vicinity; and III. Conform to the intent and purpose of the Code; and iv. Can be shown to be justified and required for the use and situation intended; and v. Will not create adverse impacts to other property(s) in the vicinity. Analysis: 1) Will meet the objectives and safety. function. appearance. environmental protection and maintainability intended by the Code requirements. based upon sound engineeringjudgment. The applicant contends the new building and parking lot expansion meets and improves the existing conditions on the site with respect to critical areas (environmental protection), fire access (improved fire access road behind new and existing building), and the appearance of the site. Specifically the applicant evaluated environmental protections, safety, function, appearance and maintainability below. Environmental protections: The project would respect and retain all vegetation in the wetland and stream buffers and on the steep slope south of the existing and new buildings. No impacts to critical areas or buffers are proposed. Safety: The existing fire lane would be widened to a uniform width of 20 feet and will be paved to increase fire access. The new structure will be equipped with an automatic fire alarm and sprinkler system. The existing access points will serve the expanded parking area to avoid additional impacts to the public road system. The church will continue with traffic direction and control during peak use times, including holidays and Sunday services. ERC Site Plan REPORT 08-081 City of Renton Department ofC !Unity & Economic Development NEW LIFE CHURCH Report of February 13, 2009 r'" wironmental Review Committee Report LUA08-08I, ECF, SA-A, CAR Page 14 of22 Function, Appearance, and Maintainability: The function of the site would continue as it has since 1991 when the church was built. The applicant has obtained a traffic study to evaluate if additional traffic from the proposal would result in off-site impacts and the findings were that off-site impacts will be minor (within normal thresholds -no significant decrease of level of service at affected intersections) and do not trigger off-site mitigation. The appearance of the site would be slightly but not significantly different than it cUlTently is. The new building is oriented so that its smallest fa~ade faces SR-169 and that its size is southward and shielded from the neighboring residential uses to the east by the existing church. To the west, the new building is screened by the Madsen Creek and wetland buffers. The new parking area will be landscaped and paved, which will improve the appearance of the nOltheast area of the site which is basically a field. The existing play area will be relocated closer to the buildings to promote higher use and function. Maintainability of the proposed use and the improvements is improved with the expansion. New Life Church cUlTently maintains its grounds and will continue to do so. Staff has reviewed the request and concurs with the applicant that the project would meet the objectives and safety, function, appearance, environmental protection and maintainability intended by the Code requirements, based upon sound engineering judgment. 2) Will not be injurious to other property(s) in the vicinity. The applicant contends that the existing Church has been on the site since 1991 and the residential uses to the east have grown up around the church. The mobile home park to the west precedes the church, but there have been no know conflicts between these uses. The new building is oriented so that its smallest fa~ade faces SR-169 and that its size is southward and shielded from the neighboring residential uses to the east by the existing church. To the west, the new building is screened by the Madsen Creek and wetland buffers. The new parking area will be landscaped and paved, which will improve the appearance ofthe northeast area of the site which is basically a field. The existing play area will be relocated closer to the new building to promote higher use and function. Staff concurs that the size of the proposed church would not be injurious to other properties in the vicinity. 3) Conform to the intent and purpose of the Code. The applicant contends that the new structure and parking areas meet Renton Codes for setbacks, landscaping buffers, environmental protection, access, number of allowed stories, parking, ADA accessibility, etc. The one Code provision that is not culTently met, nor can it be achieved with the new structure and parking, is the limitation ofthe use of 10 percent ofthe useable areas of the site for Civic Use Or the limit of3,000 square feet of building area. The facility cUlTently exceeds these limits and the expansion increases the inability to meet the Civic Use criteria in this regard. The intent ofthe restrictions on building size and site use are to minimize the visual and physical effects on neighboring properties. As noted above, the existing and new facilities will not negatively impact adjacent properties or the public. Staff has reviewed the proposed mod ification; and concurs with the applicant's conclusions that the requested modification complies with the intent of the code. 4) Can be shown to bejustifled and requiredfor the use and situation intended. The applicant contends that New Life Church has a very full schedule of events and activities throughout the week, including religious services, educational services, social services, and typical operational activities. On weekends. the church holds mUltiple services in an undersized worship sanctuary in the existing building. The new building will provide an updated and larger worship space and will add much needed additional parking on the site. Staff concurs that the proposed square footage ofthe new church would be justified and required for the situation. 5) Will not create adverse impacts to other property(s) in the vicinity. ERC_Site Plan REPORT 08-08/ City of Renton Department ofC !Unity & Economic Development NEW LIFE CHURCH Report of February 13, 2009 -vironmental Review Committee Report LUA08-081, ECF, SA-A, CAR Page 15 of22 The applicant contends the existing Church has been on the site since 1991 and the residential uses to the east have grown up around the church. The mobile home park to the west precedes the church, but there have been no know conflicts between these uses. The new building is oriented so that its smallest fayade faces SR-169 and that its size is southward and shielded from the neighboring residential uses to the east by the existing church. To the west, the new building is screened by the Madsen Creek and wetland buffers. The applicant has obtained a traffic study to evaluate if additional traffic from the proposal would result in off-site impacts and the findings were that off-site impacts will be minor (within normal thresholds -no significant decrease of level of service at effected intersections) and do not trigger off-site mitigation. The existing access points will serve the expanded parking area to avoid additional impacts to the public road system. The church will continue with traffic direction and control during peak use times, including holidays and Sunday services. Frontage improvements, including sidewalks, will be installed on 152nd Avenue S.E. along the site's eastern boundary to increase pedestrian options to the planned commercial area at 152nd Avenue S.E. and SR-169 and to the Cedar River Trail system. The applicant further contends that the site's drainage system would be expanded to detain and treat stormwater from the existing and new impervious areas on the site to meet City Codes to avoid impacts to downstream properties from the additional impervious areas. Staff concurs that the proposed square footage of the new church would not create adverse impacts to other properties in the vicinity. Based on the information provided by the applicant, the proposed square footage ofthe church would provide the space needed in order for the church to function as intended and provided enough room for all its patrons for Sunday service. Staff has review the request and has determined that the applicant has demonstrated good cause for the requested modification. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the requested code modification. Landscaping -Within the R-14 zone all portions of the development not covered by structures, required parking, access, circulation or service areas, must be landscaped with native, drought-resistant vegetative cover. The development standards require that all pervious areas within the property boundaries be landscaped. A 10 ft. minimum on-site landscape strip is required along Maple Valley Highway. Lots abutting residential property(ies) zone RC, R-I, R-4, R-8, R-IO or R-14 shall be improved along the common boundary with a minimum 15 ft. wide landscaped setback and a sight- obscuring solid barrier. To the east of the subject property are two parcels zone R-14 as such, a 15 ft. wide landscape setback and sight-obscuring solid barrier is required along the east property line. A conceptual landscape plan was submitted with the application that indicates compliance with the landscape requirements ofRMC 4-4-070 and the R-14 zone, with one exception. The required IS ft. wide landscape setback and sight-obscuring solid barrier required along the east property line is only 13 ft. as some points along the border. As such, staff recommends as a condition of approval that a detailed landscape plan be submitted to the Department of Community and Economic Development, Planning Division, project manager for review and approval prior to building permit approval that indicates compliance with the required 15 ft. of sight obscuring landscaping along the east border. Within the proposed surface parking lot, 35 square feet oflandscaping per parking space would be required for parking lots with 100+ parking stalls. Based on the proposal for 264 surface parking stalls, a minimum of 9,240 square feet of landscaping would be required within the new surface parking area. The submitted landscape analysis did not include total calculations of parking lot landscaping provided. As such, staff recommends as a condition of approval that a detailed landscape plan be submitted to the Department of Community and Economic Development, Planning Division, project manager for review and approval prior to building permit approval that indicates compliance with parking lot landscape regulations (RMC 4-4-080F). In addition, when parking lots front public rights-of-way or streets, street trees shall be required at a minimum rate of one tree every thirty lineal feet of street frontage. There are five existing street trees ERC_Site Plan REPORT 08-081 City of Renton Department ofC lunity & Economic Development NEW LIFE CHURCH Report of February 13,2009 vironmental Review Committee Report LUA08-081, ECF, SA-A, CAR Page 16 of22 along l52nd Avenue SE street frontage. The applicant has proposed to provide 14 new Red Maples along 152nd Avenue SE in addition to the existing street trees. Furthermore, along Maple Valley Highway there are no existing street trees. The applicant has proposed to provide 38 Bowhall Coulumnar Red Maples along Maple Valley Highway. The provided conceptual landscape plan indicated compliance with street tree requirements. In addition to street tree requirements, the following parking lot landscaping would be required: at least one tree for every six parking spaces within the lot interior, and shrubs are to be planted at a rate of 5 per 100 square feet of interior landscape area. The parking lot proposed would have 264 parking stalls at a rate of one tree for every 6 stalls (264 parking stalls/6 stalls = 44) 44 parking lot trees would be required. As proposed, the applicant has provided 42 parking lot trees, which does not meet fhe requirement to have 44 trees. The total parking lot landscaped area required is 9,240 square feet at a rate of 5 shrubs per 100 square feet of landscape area (9,240 sq. ft. landscaping/I 00 sq. ft. • 5 = 462) 462 shrubs would be required. The conceptual landscape plan indicated 376 shrubs within the landscaped area, which does not meet the minimum parking lot landscape requirements. As such, staff recommends as a condition of approval that a detailed landscape plan be submitted to fhe Department of Community and Economic Development, Planning Division, project manager for review and approval prior to building permit approval that indicates compliance with parking lot landscape regulations (RMC 4-4-080F). The proposed landscaping would largely consist of deciduous trees (including; Red Maple, Bowhall Columnar Red Maple, Sweet Gum, Purple Leaf Plum), shrubs (including; Dwarf English Laurel, English Boxwood, Japanese Barberry and Oregon Grape), and groundcover of Kinnikinnick. If 100 percent drought tolerant landscaping is not provided then underground sprinkler systems are required to be installed and maintained for all landscaped areas. The sprinkler system shall provide full water coverage of the planted areas specified on the plan. The sprinkler systems were not identified on the conceptual landscape plan as such stafT recommends as a condition of approval, fhat a detailed landscape plan and an irrigation plan be submitted to the Department of Community and Economic Development, Planning Division, project manager for review and approval prior to building permit approval. The project site has 410 existing significant trees (trees over 6-inches in diameter approximately 4-feet above grade), and Renton Municipal Code requires that 10 percent of all significant trees are retained. Although, 404 of the 410 trees are located within Critical Areas andlortheir buffers fherefore they are excluded from the retention calculations resulting in 10 percent of the reaming 6 trees shall be retained. All six tress are proposed to be removed, therefore the applicant is required to provide 14 replacement trees at a minimum of 2-inches in caliper. The applicant has proposed to provide 44 new trees (excluding street trees) all with a l.72-inch caliper. Staff recommends as a condition of approval that 14 of the proposed new trees be a minimum of2-inches in caliper. Height-The R-14 zone restricts building height to 2-stories for Civic uses. The church is proposed to be one-story, which complies with the R-14 height restrictions. Parking/Circulation -The parking regulations require a specific number of off-street parking stalls be provided based on the amount of square footage dedicated to certain uses. The following ratios would be applicable to the site: USE Unit Ratio MiniMax Reauired Svaces Religious institutions 1,495 scats One space for every 5 seats 299 in the main auditoriwn Based on these use requirements, 299 new parking spaces would be required to meet code. The applicant proposed to provide 264 spaces, which is less fhen the required 299. The site contains an existing parking lot with 591 stalls. The existing uses on site are New Life Church with a seating capacity of 1,400 seats and a private elementary/middle school with 82 employees. Under RMC the existing religious institution would require 280 parking spaces and the elementary/middle school would ERC_Site Plan REPORT 08-081 City of Renton Department ofC !Unity & Economic Development NEW LIFE CHURCH Report of February 13,2009 vironmental Review Committee Report LUA08-081, ECF, SA-A, CAR Page 17 of22 require another 82 stalls. Based on RMC the existing site is over parked by (591 existing spaces -362 required spaced for existing uses ~ 229 excess spaces) 229 spaces. Therefore, staff recommends the approval of the installation of35 less parking spaces then would be required based on the excess parking already in existence on site. The minimum width for drive aisle associated with 90' head-in parking with a two-way circulation pattern is 24 feet. The drive aisles comply with code-required widths. Therefore, the proposed parking plan confonns to the minimum requirements for drive aisle and parking stall dimensions. The parking regulations specify standard stall dimensions of 9 feet by 20 feet, compact dimensions of 812 feet by 16 feet. ADA accessible stalls must be a minimum of 8 feet in width by 20 feet in length, with an adjacent access aisle of 8 feet in width for van accessible spaces. All parking stalls proposed comply with the standard stall dimensions. Compact parking spaces are not to exceed 30 percent of the total provided parking. The applicant has proposed 264 standard parking stalls and no compact parking spaces. The proposed ratio of standard parking stalls to compact parking stalls complies with the parking requirements. The number of required ADA parking stalls is based on the nwnber of total parking spaces proposed. For parking lots with 201-300 parking stalls, 7 ADA spaces would be required. The applicant has proposed 20 ADA parking spaces for all existing and proposed parking, which would comply with the ADA parking requirements. The loading space standards require adequate pennanent off-street loading space, which shall be provided if the activity in such building requires deliveries to it or shipments from it of people or merchandise. It is not anticipated that deliveries or shipments would be made on a regular bases to this new church facility. Refuse and Recyclable Deposit Areas -The City's refuse and recyclable standards for a retail development require a minimum of 5 square feet per every 1,000 square feet of building gross floor area for recyclable deposit areas and a minimum of 10 square feet per 1,000 square feet of building gross floor area for refuse deposit areas. A total minimum area of 100 square feet shall be provided for recycling and refuse deposit areas. Based on the proposed gross floor area of 36,000 square feet for the new building a minimum of 1,800 square feet of recyclable deposit areas would be required and a minimum of 3,600 square feet of refuse deposit areas would be required. The provided site plan indicates that 400 square feet would be provided for refuse and recycling deposit areas. The provided refuse and recyclable area is less then is required by code, as such staff recommends as a conditions of approval that the applicant provide a new site plan that depicts the required amount refuse and recyclable deposit areas. The approximate location of the refuse and recyclable areas are shown on the submitted site plan, and would be located in the southeast comer of the site and screened from view of the surrounding properties behind a dumpster screen. The refuse and recyclable area would have restricted access by providing locked access gates. Signage -Signage will be reviewed under a separate pennit. c. Mitigation of impacts to surrounding properties and uses; City staff does not anticipate any adverse impact on surrounding properties and uses. The project is located in an area where the subject use has been located sincel991. The building is sited centrally on a 56.65 acres site, which buffers all surrounding properties from any adverse impacts. The building not only meets all required setbacks from property lines but exceeds code-required setbacks. The proposed religious institution is anticipated to be compatible with future surrounding uses as pennitted in the CA, RMH, RC and R-14 zones. The existing site has historically been used as a religious institution and an elementary and middle school. This proposal does not change the historic uses of the site. The additional development of the site would have positive impacts that would far outweigh the potential negative impacts. The proposed project would improve the parking lot landscaping and the street frontages along Maple Valley Highway and l52nd Avenue SE by providing landscaping, curb gutter and sidewalk, and street trees. ERC Site Plan REPORT 08-081 City of Renton Department ofC !Unity & Economic Development NEW LIFE CHURCH Report of February 13,2009 ~ vironmental Review Committee Report LUAOS-OSl, ECF, SA-A, CAR Page 18 of22 Any impacts of the building scale would be mitigated by the proposed landscaping along the street frontages and the modulations in the fa,ades created by the various f"lOade treatments (see further discussion above in Building Design). d. Mitigation o/impacts of the proposed site plan /0 the site; The scale, height, and bulk of the proposed building is appropriate for the site, and is anticipated to be architecturally compatible with the existing development in the project vicinity. The New Life Church site is 56.65 acres and would have a building lot coverage of3.65 percent of the site. The final landscaping plan would provide for more than 10,000 square feet of landscaped area. 9,240 square feet of parking lot landscaping and additional perimeter landscaping including 57 new street trees would be provided. The parking field is broken up with landscape islands no less then 5 feet wide and the length of the stalls. Potions of the site that are not fonnally landscaped would remain in their natural state, forested, stream, wetland, etc. The remainder of the site would be impervious areas. A large surface parking lot is proposed along the north side of the building. The children's play area historically has been across the large existing surface parking lot. The project would move the children's play area just west of the new building, providing a save pedestrian connection for the elementary school children. Furthennore, pedestrian connections would be provided to connect the main entry ofthe building to the public sidewalk along 152nd Avenue SE and a pedestrian trail has been provided through the large surface parking lot. e. Conservation of area-wide property values; The proposed development is expected to conserve and possibly increase property values in the vicinity of the site. The development of the site provides improvements to infrastructure, landscaping and lighting and additional local service opportunities. f. Safety and efficiency of vehicle and pedestrian circulation; Primary access to the site is proposed via two curb cuts along I 52nd Avenue SE. The site development would include 264 new parking stalls within the surface lot, which complies with the parking requirements for the proposed use (see parking above). A pedestrian walkway is proposed from the through the center ofthe surface parking lot to the entrance ofthe existing building on site, this would connect by means of a plaza to the new building. New sidewalks would be built along Maple Valley Highway, which would improve connections to the Cedar River Trail and the adjacent residential developments. A mitigation measures been applied to the subject project through SEPA, that requires the applicant to comply with the traffic mitigation proposed within TIA report, which should provided additional vehicle circulation efficiency. The proposed circulation system is designed for maximum safety and efficiency. g. Provision of adequate light and air; This single-story building would not have a significant impact on light access or air movement on adjacent properties. The use of the project is not influenced by factors of light or air. According to code, parking lot lighting fixtures are to be non-glare and mounted no more than 25 feet above the ground. This is to help minimize the impact onto adjacent properties. Staff does not anticipate that exterior lighting would become an issue due to the siting of the building provided code requirements are met. A lighting plan was not submitted with site plan application, therefore staff recommends as a condition of approval that a lighting plan be submitted with the building pennit application for review and approval by the Development of Community & Economic Development, Planning Division project manager. h. Mitigation of noise, odors and other harmful or unhealthy conditions; Noise or odor impacts would occur as a result of the project. Odors expected to be produced from the project would consist of vehicle exhaust, which may be increased a minimal amount if the new church increases it membership. This development docs not guarantee an increase in church membership; ERC_Site Plan REPORT 08-081 City oj Renton Department oj ~ munity & Ecol/omic Development NEW LIFE CHURCH Report of February 13, 2009 -nvironmental Review Committee Report LUAOS-OSI, ECF, SA-A, CAR Page 19 of22 therefore, vehicle exhaust may remain the same. The building is proposed to be heated. Renton Municipal Code regulates screening of surface-mounted or roof-top mechanical equipment (RMC 4-4-095) i. Availability of public services and facilities to accommodate the proposed use; Public services are currently available to the site. The project is within the Cedar River Water and Sewer District Service area. Surface Water drainage conveyance, detention and water quality systems currently exist at this site, these systems are proposed to bc expanded to comply with the increased detention requirements resulting from the increase in impervious surfaces. Furthermore, the applicant is proposing to dedicate 5,132 square feet of right-of-way and provided street frontage improvements along Maple Valley Highway. j. Prevention of neighborhood deterioration and blight, The architectural design and landscaping of the site would ensure that the property would make a positive contribution to the physical condition and visual aesthetic of the area. No deterioration or blight is expected to occur as a result of this proposal. As long as design standards are maintained, the development would be compatible with the existing commercial area. G. Findings, Conclusions & Decision Having reviewed the written record in the matter, the City now enters the following: I. Request: The Applicant has requested Environmental Review and Site Plan Approval for construction of a Religious Institution at 15711 -152"' Avenue SE. 2. Environmental Review: The City's Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has reviewed the proposal and issued a Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated (DNS-M) and imposed nine mitigation measures. 3. Site Plan Review: The applicant's Site Plan Review application complies with the requirements for information necessary for site plan review. The applicant's plans are entered as Exhibits No. 1-10. 4. Comprehensive Plan: The subject proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation of Residential Multi-Family (RMF), provided all advisory notes and conditions of approval are complied with. 5. Zoning: The Site Plan as presented complies with the zoning requirements and development standards of the Residential 14 dwelling units per net acres zone (R-14) provided all conditions of approval are complied with. 6. Modification: The applicant has requested a parking modification from RMC 4-2-11 OF to allow more than 3,000 square feet for a Civic Building. 7. Existing Land Use: The site is developed with a church and an elementary/middle school. Land uses surrounding the subject site are Commercial Arterial (CA), Residential 14 dwelling units per net acres zone (R-14), Residential Manufactured Home (RMH) and Resources Conservation (RC). H. Conclusions I) The subject proposal complies with the policies and codes of the City of Renton, provided all advisory notes and conditions of approval are complied with. 2) The proposal complies with the Comprehensive Plan goals, objectives and policies for a religious institution development in the R-14 zone, provided all advisory notes and conditions of approval are complied with. 3) The City's Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has reviewed the proposal and issued a determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated (DNS-M) and imposed 9 mitigation measures. ERe_Site Plan REPORT OB-OBI-copy.doc City of Renton Department of ~ ----munity & Economic Development NEW LIFE CHURCH Report of February 13,2009 1. Decision ..... nvironmental Review Committee Report LUA08-081, ECF, SA-A, CAR Page 20 of22 The site plan for New Life Church, Project File No. LUA08-081, ECF, SA-A, CAR is approved subject to the following conditions: I. A lighting plan shall be submitted with the building permit application for review and approval by the Department of Community & Economic Development, Current Planning Division project manager prior to building permit approval. 2. A detailed landscape plan shall be submitted, to the attention ofthe Department of Community & Economic Development, Current Planning Division project manager prior to issuance of a building permit, indicating the final landscaping, including the irrigation plan for the project site unless the final landscape plan provides 100 percent drought tolerant plantings. 3. A detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to the Department of Community and Economic Development, Planning Division, project manager for review and approval prior to building permit approval that indicates compliance with the required 15 ft. of sight obscuring landscaping along the east border. 4. A detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to the Department of Community and Economic Development, Planning Division, project manager for review and approval prior to building permit approval that indicates compliance with parking lot landscape regulations (RMC 4-4-080F). 5. Staff recommends as a condition of approval that 14 of the proposed new trees be a minimum of2-inches in caliper. 6. The applicant shall provide a new site plan that depicts the required amount of refuse and recyclable deposit areas to the Department of Community and Economic Development, Planning Division, project manager for review and approval prior to building permit approval. C. E. Vincent, Planning Director TRANSMITTED this 13th day of February ]009 to the Applicant/OwneriContact: New Life Church Kathie Bresler 15711 _152nd Avenue SE Church Development Consultanls Rentont. WA 98059 36230324'" Avenue SE Fall City, WA 98024 TRANSMITTED this 13th day of February 2009 to the Parties aJRecord: Ivana Halversen Claudia Donnely 18215-72nd AvenueS. l04151471"AvenueSE Kent. WA 98032 Renton. WA 98059 TRANSMITTED this 13th day oJFebruary 2009 to theJoliowing: Larry Meckling, Building Official Neil Watts, Development Services Director Jennifer Henning, Current Planning Manager Kayren Kittrick, Development Services Fire Marshal Renton Reporter Land Use Action Appeals & Requests for Reconsideration ERC _Site Plan REPORT 08-08J-copy.doc City of Renton Department ofC nunity & Economic Development NEW LIFE CHURCH Report of February 13, 2009 ~'1vironmental Review Committee Report LUA08-081, ECF, SA-A, CAR Page 21 of22 The administrative land use decision will become final if the decision is not appealed within 14 days of the effective date of decision. An appeal of the decision must be filed within the 14-day appeal period (RCW 43.2I.C.075(3); WAC 197-11-680). RECONSIDERATION. Within 14 days of the effcctive date of the decision, any party may request that the Administrator reopen a decision on a short plat. The Administrator may modifY his decision if material evidence not readily discoverable prior to the original decision is found or ifhe finds there was misrepresentation of fact. After review of the reconsideration request, if the Administrator finds insufficient evidence to amend the original decision, there will be no further extension of the appeal period. Any person wishing to take further action must file a formal appeal within the following appeal timeframe. APPEAL. This administrative land use decision will become final if not appealed in writing to the Hearing Examiner on or before 5:00 PM on March 6,2009. City of Renton Mnnicipal Code Section 4-8-110 governs appeals to the Examiner. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from tbe Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. Appeals mnst be filed in writing, together witb the reqnired $75.00 application fee, to: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, W A 98055. EXPIRATION DATE: Site Plan Approval will expire two (2) years from the date of approval. An extension may be reqnested pursnant to RMC section 4-7-080.M. ADVISORY NOTES TO APPLICANT The following notes are snpplemental information provided in conjnnction with the administrative land nse action. Because these notes are provided as information only. they are not subject to the appeal process for the land use actions. Planning: 1. RMC section 4-4-030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. 2. Commercial, multi-family, new single family and other nonresidential construction activities shall be restricted to the hours between seven o'clock (7:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m., Monday through Friday. Work on Saturdays shall be restricted to the hours between nine o'clock (9:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m. No work shall be permitted on Sundays. 3. Within thirty (30) days of completion of grading work, the applicant shall hydroseed or plant an appropriate ground cover over any portion of the site that is graded or cleared of vegetation and where no further construction work will occur within ninety (90) days. Alternative measures such as mulch, sodding, or plastic covering as specified in the current King County Surface Water Management Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton may be proposed between the dates of November 1st and March 31st of each year. The Development Services Division's approval of this work is required prior to final inspection and approval of the permit. 4. A National Permit Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit is required when more than one acre is being cleared. Plan Review -Water: 1. In accordance with the Fire Department requirements (prior to construction of the new building), a new looped water main must be installed around the perimeter of the building. Plan Review -Surface Water: I. The Surface Water System Development Charges (SDC) are $0.405 per new square foot of impervious area. Plan Review -Transportation: 1. Street improvements including, but not limited to paving, sidewalks, curb and gutter, storm drain, landscape, streetlights and street signs will be required along the frontage of the parcel and on the interior streets. 2. All wire utilities shall be installed underground per the City of Renton Undergrounding Ordinance. If three or more poles are required to be moved to accommodate the development design, all existing overhead utilities shall be placed underground. Fire Department -Hydrant Spacing: I. One ofthe two required Hydrants shall be no greater than 300 feet to the front of the structure. ERC Site Plan REPORT 08-081 City of Renton Department ofr ,unity & Economic Development NEW LIFE CHURCH Report of February 13,2009 ~ vironmenta/ Review Committee Report LUAOS-OSI, ECF, SA-A, CAR Page 22 of22 2. The primary hydrant is required to be within 150 reet of the structure. 3. Due to this structure, requiring a Fire Sprinkler System a hydrant shall be required within 50 feet of the Fire Department Connection. 4. Hydrant spacing shall also be in accordance with Appendix C, Table C 105.1 ofthe 2006 International Fire code. Fire Department -Fire Apparatus Access: 1. Fire department access roadways are required to be within 150 feet of all portions of the building exterior. 2. Fire Lane Signage shall be required along one side of the road where the road widths 20 to 28 feet wide. Signage shall be placed on the same side in which the hydrants are located. Signage shall be as in accordance with section 503 of the 2006 International Fire Code and City of Renton Ordinance 4-4-80-6 A-G. Fire Department -Dead End Streets: 1. Access of Dead End Street from 150 or grater shall require an appropriate turnaround. Fire Department -General: 1. Fire Sprinklers and Fire Alarm shall be applicable to this project. Separate plans and permits shall be required. 2. The fire flow calculations have been recalculated due to change in the type of construction, from a type V to a type III-B. This will require the water supply line to be a looped system. 3. The fire alarm system shall be an addressable system per the 2006 IFC, and adopted City of Renton amendments. ERe_Site Plan REPORT 08-081 • ,.~1 ~. ",.,.1, '.' i ---I I \ EXHIBIT 2 sw 23-23-05 + I I I I \ ~/' I ~ __ J m >< ::I: -OJ --I ------___ ---I I: ------__ -. ----i I II -----~=--,! j: eN 1A'." __ ---!:::::,. ------- -.. --' .• -. "-~- . '. II 'U. II -II ...• ~ .• 4f •. ,.~ .. --"'" _1DfI ClCilllRliDiCIiRCH -'-., m >< ::z:: -OJ --i \",., \ ) ./ , I." l3IIlIIOUE SIUH ----,-ftZI)m,_ '1« =-. -":. \ - m >< :::r: -OJ -..... (J1 \ ..... . / ,.,. i I .. , 'lIZq l:H.lIIOU _ -... -=:::: ... -------lII&1iFlDII CBUiICII m >< ::I: -to --f 1111 :,1' II ,I II -, II • \- \ \ , -------- II _,jl II i _1,1 -"~'/11:~\ '7-1t~", - • ..:.::.=-'- • / i~ / : ! I ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ :::r: -Cl --f ....... ---~--- -<-~:"--.:-'-. -------:-::----- ~ U;~ t I ~ i Ill· -~~ I~ lftl -III,' , D' --'I ~ I' 0" ,=f}= o -.~ 0/ ... - ,." ..... IDS' auaar --'-~. m >< ::I: -OJ --f 00 e)t- @ t 1. " i °1 !~ .~ @-.j I, ' I II I- oL • 11 ~~~,.i ! ' m'! fill i~ " !H ,Pi J ~ ---.-------,~-.. -. ; -, - ,~ , j= i Hii ., ·,.1 ~: .{Hi t[ I iirl idYl If H. ii HI jl !Jl; NE'wtii<E CHmlCH o e F-~-I--U-~:~~;~~~~":~,.......--",,~~' ioIIrs/--, ~ 'r-----' I ° o 0 -F-- ---"-+--'-,--:-~ .. "~--=-- -'"-;-. :-rr" .. ~~_.,......,.~_r"" ___ :..''''. ---,,--,------;: :ri ---:,. ~~ ::.::;.:1.:: '~-:~-,T =-::::==7~ -----... - .~~-~---- Of ... : (') e 8 151lt 15hd AHnue Sf Ren!on, WI,h!~gton HBS '=~·';-'ith__--"--'-;__'r__--"';---------'f~ 14\-'~cL-'.--'--'-_' __ c, ~'_, I ---l--r o e , I , r"~-f 'I ..--~"---- 5 F . ____ ';':'-k. __ . I ~ I; I ! ill! 11II r~~1 ..... I!' , 'I I -:: i'j; I ---.-~~--------- nru fJDDr m >< :I: -OJ --I (0 NiWtiFE CHURCH :> -<c .... ----, ~ I f ri', llil, " .. ,,"",,},""'"'' .~ ":. (.~) H111 15hd AHnu~ 5E Ruto~. WUHA!!O~ 980SB "W""" ",m' ~:~ " ~rr'-rrro-rn-r~' ,_ ,_~~"~"~rr~, il,-"" E: . : // ,. ,:::; ,., "'I@ ,[@ HJ If H. I' ,100 m,!@ Ifl 11111 I ,. '""""""" "aoII'*l!IIot-HII __ ' '.(I, .... ,!il1i,-. .... ~. " ... _----- 9. i1ili,!f ! i ~r jlUH ! h it ) ! l! ,i I 1 1\ !, I l. ! • Jf I I r I • ;-~ ~ ~ ~ I. , " n k'" e e e e e-- e- @ d: ~e 1 1 I e @ asou UOlJ H lInuu ! ~ ~ ·1 i 'II -III i ' II 1'[ ~! Ii J I W -r - ---- e--- @- e i ·1 18 .. ! .L i; II ~i ._, --{ OJ • ~ , ~~ .. ~~ ! e •• - 0 T"" l--£Xl - @ :I: >< e W o .. " - @------- e---------14--=-\ t t t ~ ~ ~ t • t • • ~ !'il ~ h 0® t: If/ ,----l9~ :."), , ~( ,-, 0: i c,@rl' v !ie·'-----6 G 6 ;;~," I o---if .~"I' cr If ~Jf--'--I G*TtI~$f: I' I @} G 8 ,~ , r---' ~ " i 1~---, ;'---r --i '.! C~ _____ o~\--- G @ G G 1i=---- HU6 uOlh!, UOlU~~ 18 @ e @---- e J5 Iftuuy IIHI \' ~h l,~ • + ., I " Hc'--• • " e i , , ----"ch----"- I G-----,-- I I ': I e 1':1 --~ -'---T Tl' --- e--~ -~---r-'1'1 i I I\:' • ~::: u, " ~,(l I ,j' tl II, ;:1 Cf~, IJ I.,tlil --<r. .... -.l---•• - ~ i l ,:h J:' i •• 1 l I I I i I--III -l: X W ~--v---- -----1 --- i J J , J ! I • , " i I j I, : 3 ~ I! t j,qp I 'II lId I ~ 11 ItJ.~ 1 J J ! 1 ~ I J.jPIP1Jl!liIl j'. It iii , I 1 Iii II!!I III '/ II] 'lj i] i] i l ! IillJ l! II /, " /. II l! ;u~uuoou llilUL:UUIJU[JIIU j I &SUi uOllu! 3S ~nu~AV t ~ .~ • .;. '" ___ L ___ ~ • , c ~ L . -.--r -- t __ · ~ 'UOIUJ I Ill!i I t • .. i " II :00 : . • t ~ i II . t ~ ; II e , ~ 00 II ~ I~ ~ f~ ~ 0-- l I i G- "' ~j ~, 8---r. " j~ @--.. ..:: "' ~ e e , ! 1, I I J I JI i H . a ~l J t. t. ~ .. t ~ t ., " , -=+-II J: . , 1 I I I I I I N 'r"" I--m - ~ J: >< W '~ 0 @ February 12,2009 Kathi Bresler Church Development Consultants 3623 -324th Avenue SE Fall City, W A 98024 SUBJECT: New Life Church LUA08-081, ECF, SA-A, CAR "Off Hold" Notice Dear Ms. Bresler: CIT OF RENTON Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Alex Pietsch, Administrator Thank you for your new proposal received on February II, 2009. Because this new proposal eliminates all buffer averaging and .stream buffer reduction the required secondary stream study is no longer required for the subject project. As such, your project has been taken off hold and the City will continue review of the New Life Church project. The Site Plan Review and Envionmental Review have been. rescheduled for ERC on February 13,2009. If you have any questions, please contact me at (425)430-7314: Sincerely, ~-DJ~ Vanessa Dolbee Assoicate Planner cc: Parties of Record New Life Church / Owner(s) -------------1-O-55-S-0-U-ili-G-r-ad-Y-w-a-Y---R-c-nt-o-n.-~-·a-S-hi-n~--on--98-0-5-7-------------.~ ® This paper contains 50% recycled material, 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE CITY OF RENTON EXEMPTION FROM CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS DATE: LAND USE FILE NO.: PROJECT NAME: OWNERS: APPLICANT: PROJECT MANAGER: PROJECT LOCATION: February 11, 2009 LUA08-081, ECF, SA-A, CAR New Life Church New Life Church 1711 _152nd Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 Kathi Bresler, Church Development Consultants Vanessa Dolbee, Associate Planner 15711 -152nd Avenue SE PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting a Critical Areas Exemption for the construction of off-site frontage improvements (curb, gutter and sidewalk) along Maple Valley Highway (SR-169). Renton MuniCipal Code 4-4-030D requires off-site improvements whenever new development is proposed for construction. Furthermore, these off-site improvements shall extend the full length of the properties frontage. As such, approximately 230 linear feet of frontage improvements would be within the stream buffer for Madsen Creek, which has been classified as a Class 2 water by Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. These improvements are located within existing Washington State Department of Transportation right-of-way. CRITICAL AREA: Class 2 Stream EXEMPTION JUSTIFICATION: Pursuant to RMC section 4-3-050.C.5.e.iii Construction within existing public road rights-of-way. An exemption from the Critical Areas Regulations is hereby granted for the following reason(s): X Utilities, Traffic Control, Walkways, Bikeways Within Existing, Improved Right-of- Way or Easements: Within existing and improved public road rights-of-way or easements, installation, construction, replacement, operation, overbuilding or alteration of all natural gas, cable, communication, telephone and electric facilities, lines, pipes, mains, equipment or appurtenances, traffic control devices, illumination, walkways and bikeways. If activities exceed the existing improved area or the public right-of-way, this exemption does not apply. Where applicable, restoration of disturbed areas shall be completed. Critical Area Exemption 08-081081 Page 1 012 DECISION: The proposed development is consistent with the following findings pursuant to RMC section 4-3-050.C.4: 1. The activity is not prohibited by this or any other chapter of the RMC or state or federal law or regulation; 2. The activity will be conducted using best management practices as specified by industry standards or applicable Federal agencies or scientific principles; and 3. Impacts are minimized and, where applicable, disturbed areas are immediately restored, unless the exemption is a wetland below the size thresholds pursuant to RMC 4-3- 050.C.5.f.(i) of this Section. CONDITION OF APPROVAL: Prior to construction the applicant shall provide a stream buffer impact mitigation plan, subject to the approval of the City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development, planning project manager. The approved mitigation shall be installed prior to construction commencement for the street frontage improvements. SIGNATURE: C. E. Vincent, Planning Director Department of Community & Economic Development EXPIRATION: Five (5) years from the date of approval (signature date). Critical Area Exemption 08-081081 Page 2 of 2 CITY OF RENTON FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU MEMORANDUM DATE: February 12, 2009 TO: Vanessa Dolbee, Associate Planner FROM: Corey Thomas, Plans Review Inspector SUBJECT: New Life Church -Fire Access Revisions This memorandum is to confirm that the proposed revised fire access roadway as submitted by Ivana Halvorsen of Barghausen Engineering on February 11 th, 2009 is acceptable in meeting fire department requirements. A copy of the proposal is attached. This proposal is acceptable with the understanding that this is a temporary solution to avoid any affects to the existing wetlands buffer area. We are expecting that the applicant will, within one year from the date of SEPA determination, complete an amended SEPA with an approved wetland mitigation plan. This is in order to revise the new proposed fire access roadway, resulting in a complete looped roadway as originally proposed. / ~/" \ \ \ '-I , / il v / I j-"'---· , · : · , " · , · : " · : · : · , · : · , " · : · ~:-.. --.:-~-. -~~:.;:;,. --, Project Name: Project Address: Contact Person: Permit Number: Project Description: Land Use Type: D Residential D Retail !5rNon-retaii Calculation: .':) ~,ucO ~ y. '1.\\ 1000 New LV< C\\I)!G\\ @ ~N IS 1 II \ 'S~ VI ,l I\\)QM vJL -;'6 Method of Calculation: s#._G~C)'~d-c!..\ ___ _ ¢ ITE Trip Generation Manual, 7th Edition j);l Traffic Study o Other . t; (. "0",0) c.",,><-w ~" lI/iut0 TI'£ \'I21\1J£'\,o ~ \La '-'fl 7/ dovB ~ V, "'--!J.NLJ' @ -It(/<"1.(fiJ7~.J-fJ Transportation Mitigation Fee: \l,;),,-\. 541. 0'0 Calculated by: "';Y-l¥~~~'~¥'..l...lo:Ivtmlll..lWJ./.(,k!=-_______ Date: 1'21 is I QTJO'b ~ ~J , , Date of Payment: ____________________________________________________ __ Vanessa Dolbe, Associate Planner City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development lOSS South Grady Way Renton, W A 98057 RE: New Life Church Resubmittal of Project Plans and Documents City File Nos. LUA08-081, ECF, SA-A Our Job No. 11706 Dear Vanessa: February 11, 2009 HAND DELIVERY CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING, SURVEYING We are submitting herewith revised project plans and documents to eliminate wetland and stream impacts and buffer impacts for this project. In the future, New Life Church will pursue separate permitting and SEP A for any and all work in wetland, or stream buffers, or riparian areas. Enclosed are the following documents for your review and approval: 1. Four (4) copies of revised preliminary plans, including: a. Cover Sheet (CI) b. Preliminary Dimensioned Site Plan (C2) c. Prehminary Grading and Storm Drainage Plan (C3) d. Prehminary Water and Sewer Plan (C4) e. Tree Inventory Plan (CS) f. Preliminary Landscape Planting Plan (Ll) 2. Four (4) copies of the SEPA Environmental Checklist (strikeout version showing the elimination of wetland and stream impacts) 3. Four (4) copies of the Project Narrative (stnkeout version showing the elimination of wetland and stream Impacts) 4. Four (4) copies of the Request for Modification of Development Standards for Maximum Building Size for a Civic Use (strikeout versIOn showing the elimination pf wetlanda,nd",cJ>: stream impacts) . " .. . r~};' 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT. WA 98032 (425) 251-6222 (425) 251-8782 FAX BRANCH OFFICES • OLYMPIA. WA • TACOMA. WA • SACRAMENTO. CA • TEMECULA, Cil www.barghausen.com Vanessa Dolbe, Associate Planner City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development -2- 5. Four (4) copies of the Tree Retention Worksheet 6. Four (4) copies ofthe Parking Summary February II, 2009 We believe that the enclosed revised plans and documents wiJI serve to eliminate the outstanding issues of concern to both the City of Renton and the Muckleshoot Tribe. Please review and approve the enclosed at your earliest convenience. If you have questions or need additional information, please contact me at this office. Thank you. IH/dm 11706c.0!2.doc ene: As Noted Respectfully, Ivana Halvorsen Senior Planner ec: Kathi Bresler, Church Development Consultants (w/enc) Daniel K. Balmelli, Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. Ali Sadr, Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. , REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS for Maximum Size for a Civic Use New Life Church Expansion Prepared by: Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. lilly 15. 2GQg Fcbruary 10.2009 Our Job No. 11706 Per Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4-9-250-0, whenever there are practical difficulties involved in carrying out the provisions of this Title (RMC Title 4), the Department Administrator may grant modifications for individual cases provided helshe shall first fmd that a specific reason makes the strict letter of this Code impractical, that the intent and purpose of the governing land use designation of the Comprehensive Plan is met and that the modification is in confonnity with the intent and purpose of this Code, and that such modification addresses the criteria below. We have provided responses to each of the criteria to establish the projects confonnance with the intent and purpose of Title 4 RMC. a. Substantially implements the policy direction of the policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element and the Community Design Element and the proposed modification is the minimum adjustment necessary to implement these policies and objectives; Response: The following Comprehensive Plan (Plan) Land Use policies apply to the project (in italics); we have provided responses to each item as to why the proposed New Life Church expansion is consistent with the Plan. Objective LU-X' Site religious and ancillary facilities in a manner that provides convenient transportation access and minimizes their adverse impacts on adjacent land uses. Response: The existing New Life Church is located on a state highway (SR-169) between Wonderland Estates mobile home park to the west and multi-family residential (condominiums and apartments) uses to the east. The existing church is on a very large parcel (56.65 acres) and is set back several hundred feet from SR-169. The proposed expansion is to add a new structure that will contain a 1,165-seat sanctuary and a 330-seat chapel and will provide ;!99-264 parking stalls to accommodate parking demand the new structure. Frontage improvements, including sidewalks, will be installed on 152nd Avenue S.E. along the site's eastern boundary to increase pedestrian options to the plarmed commercial area at 152nd Avenue S.E. and SR-I69 and to the Cedar River Trail system. The site's drainage system will be expanded to detain and treat stonnwater from the existing and new impervious areas on the site to meet City Codes to avoid impacts to downstream properties from the additional impervious areas. Policy LU-I04. When locating in predominantly residential areas, religious facilities should be on the periphery of the residential area rather than the interior. Response: The area that contains the church is not primarily residential; it includes a planned commercial node at the northeast comer of 152nd Avenue S.E. and SR-169. To the north of the site are a park and the Cedar River Trail system. The existing Church has been on the site -1-variation ofbdlg GFA.doc 111G6.QI4.d •• since 1991 and the residential uses to the cast have grown up around the church. The mobile home park to the west precedes the church, but there have been no know conflicts between these uses. The existing facilities and the new structure are both placed at the base of a large steep slope several hundred feet from SR-169 and from 152nd Avenue S.B. -this placement serves to minimize the visual effect 0 f the large church on passers by and from the adjacent residential uses to the east. Policy LU-105. Parking should be provided on-site and bufferedfrom adjacent uses. Response: The parking area will be expanded by ;!99-264 stalls in the north part of the site between Madsen Creek's buffer and 152nd Avenue S.E. As required by Renton Municipal Code, new landscaping buffers will be established to provide 15 feet of landscaping along 152nd Avenue S.E. The new landscaping will screen the new parking area. Policy L U-106. Large-scale facilities should be encouraged to locate contiguous to an existing or planned transit route. Response: Transit currently travels past the New Life Church site and the New Life Church is also a contracted Park and Ride facility during weekday hours. Policy LU-107. Religiousfacilities should be located on and have direct access to either an arterial or col/ector street. Response: The church is located on SR -169 which is a principal arterial and a state highway. Access to the church and its parking areas is from 152nd Avenue S.E. (a cul-de-sac street) via two existing driveways that will remain. In this case direct access to SR-169 is not available or desirable form a safety standpoint. The 152nd Avenue S.E. I SR-169 intersection is signalized and provides a dedicated left tum lane for westbound traffic. b. Will meet the objectives and safety, .limetion, appearance, environmental protection and maintainability intended by the Code requirements, based upon sound engineering judgment; Response: The new building and parking lot expansion meets and improves the existing conditions on the site with respect to critical areas (environmental protection), fire access (improved fire access road behind new and existing building), and the appearance of the site. Environmental protections: Wilil tHe ~F8!,8sal, liIe !,fBje.! will eeliaBee liIe degraded MadseB CrealE Bllffer that biseet:s the site te IElcFease its mnetieaal 'tsllies Ellul iaefease tHe kai:litat levels t9 aetter Stif'f'BFt wildlife BRd fiSH. TR8 stiffer is eHFF8Rtiy 8 HlBwee gFElSS He Ie diat "revises liMie sHaeiag sr saver sf ~laasen CFeeiL The project will aise-respect the Buffers and retain all vegetation in the we[iandanJ ,[ream buffers and on the steep slope south of the existing and new buildings. No impacts to critical areas or buffers are proposed. Safety: The existing fire lane will be widened to a uniform width of 20 feet and will be paved to increase fire access. The new structure will be equipped wi!h an automatic fire alarm and sprinkler system. The existing access points will serve the expanded parking area to avoid additional impacts to the public road system. The church will continue with traffic direction and control during peak use times, including holidays and Sunday services. Function. Appearance. and Maintainability: The function of the site will continue on as it has since 1991 when !he church was built. The applicant has obtained a traffic study to evaluate if additional traffic from the proposal would result in off-site impacts and the findings were that off-site impacts will be minor (within normal thresholds -no significant decrease of -2-variation ofbdig GFA.doc ! !7Q6.Q!4.EI •• level of service at effected intersections) and do not trigger off-site mItigation. The appearance of the site will be slightly but not significantly different than it currently is. The new building is oriented so that its smallest f8l'ade faces SR -169 and that its size is southward and shielded from the neighboring residential uses to the east by the existing church. To the west, the new building is screened by the Madsen Creek and wetland buffers. The new parking area will be landscaped and paved, which will improve the appearance of the northeast area of the site which is basically a field. The existing play area will be relocated closer to the buildings to promote higher use and function. Maintainability of the proposed use and the improvements is improved with the expansion. New Life Church currently maintains its grounds and will continue to do so. c. Will not be injurious to other property(ies) in the vicinity; Response: The existing Church has been on the site since 1991 and the residential uses to the east have grown up around the church. The mobile home park to the west precedes the church, but there have been no know conflicts between these uses. The new building is oriented so that its smallest fa~ade faces SR-169 and that its size is southward and shielded from the neighboring residential uses to the east by the existing church. To the west, the new building is screened by the Madsen Creek and wetland buffers. The new parking area will be landscaped and paved, which will improve the appearance of the northeast area of the site which is basically a field. The existing play area will be relocated closer to the new building to promote higher use and function. d. Conforms to the intent and purpose of the Code; Response: The new structure and parking areas meet Renton Codes for setbacks, landscaping buffers, environmental protection, access, number of allowed stories, parking, ADA accessibility, etc. The one Code provision that is not currently met, nor can it be achieved with the new structure and parking, is the limitation of the use of to percent of the useable areas of the site for Civic Use or the limit of 3,000 square feet of building area. The facility currently exceeds these limits and the expansion increases the inability to meet the Civic Use criteria in this regard. The intem of the restrictions on building size and site use are to minimize the visual and physical effects on neighboring properties. As noted above, the existing and new facilities will not negatively impact adjacent properties or the public. e. Can be shown to be justified and requiredjor the use and situation intended; and Response: New Life Church has a very full schedule of events and activities throughout the week, including religious services, educational services, social services, and typical operational activities. On weekends, the church holds multiple services in an undersized worship sanctuary in the existing building. The new building will provide an updated and larger worship space and will add much needed additional parking on the site. f Will not create adverse impacts to other property(ies) in the vicinity. Response: The existing Church has been on the site since 1991 and the residential uses to the east have grown up around the church. The mobile home park to the west precedes the church, but there have been no know conflicts between these uses. The new building is oriented so that its smallest fa~ade faces SR-169 and that its size is southward and shielded from the neighboring residential uses to the east by the existing church. To the west, the new building is screened by the Madsen Creek and wetland buffers. -3-variation ofbdlg GFA.doc 117QIi.!lIq.d •• The applicant has obtained a traffic study to evaluate if additional traffic from the proposal would result in off-site impacts and the findings were that off-site impacts will be minor (within normal thresholds -no significant decrease of level of service at effected intersections) and do not trigger off-site mitigation. The existing access points will serve the expanded parking area to avoid additional impacts to the public road system. The church will continue with traffic direction and control during peak use times, including holidays and Sunday services. Frontage improvements, including sidewalks, will be installed on 152nd A venue S.E. along the site's eastern boundary to increase pedestrian options to the planned commercial area at I 52nd Avenue S.E. and SR-169 and to the Cedar River Trail system. The site's drainage system will be expanded to detain and treat stormwater from the existing and new impervious areas on the site to meet City Codes to avoid impacts to downstream properties from the additional impervious areas. -4-variation ofbdlg GFA.doe 117g6.g14.aee _ ... ; ........ '. 1. 2. 3. City of TREE RETENTION WORKSHEET Total number of trees over 6" in diameter1 on project site: 1. 410 Deductions: Certain trees are excluded from the retention calculation: Trees that are dead, diseased or dangerous2 0 Trees in proposed public streets 0 Trees in proposed private access easements/tracts ° Trees in critical areas3 and buffers 404 Total number of excluded trees: 2. 404 Subtract line 2 from line 1: 3. 6 trees trees trees trees trees trees trees 4. Next, to determine the number of trees that must be retained 4 , multiply line 3 by: 0.3 in zones Re. R-1. R-4. or R-8 0.1 in all other residential zones 0.05 in all commercial and industrial zones 4. ___ o_._6 __ trees 5. List the number of 6" or larger trees that you are proposing 5 to retain4 : 5. 0 trees 6. Subtract line 5 from line 4 for trees to be replaced: 6. __ ..:0:..:. . .=6 __ trees (If lioe 6 is less than zero, stop here. No replacement trees are required). 7. Multiply line 6 by 12" for number of required replacement inches: 7. _~7,-,.",2~ __ inches 8. Proposed size of trees to meet additional planting requirement: (Minimum 2'callperlreesrequired) 8, __ 2=-___ inches 9, Divide line 7 by line 8 for number of replacement trees6 : (if remainder is .5 or greater, round up to the next whole number) 1. Measured at chest height per tree 9. __ =-1::,4 ___ trees 2. Dead, diseased or dangerous trees must be certified as such by a forester, registered landscape architect, or certified arborist and approved by the City. 3. enlical Areas, such as wetlands, streams. floodplains and protected slopes, are defined in Section 4-3-050 of Ille Renton Municipat Code (RMC). oil. Count only those trees to be retained outside of aitlcal areas and buffers. 5. The City may require modification of the tree retention plan to ensure retention of the maximum number of trees per RMC 4-4·130H7a II. Inches of street trees, Inches of trees added to critical areaslbtJffers, and inches of trees retained on site that are less than 6" but are greater than 2" can be used to meet the tree replacement requirement. H:Divisioo/Fonnsff reeRetention Worksheet It/07 BeE #11706 REV. Feb 11, 2009 NEW LIFE CHURCH PARKING SUMMARY February 11.2009 Parking required for site as proposed: 661 spaces (280 stalls required for existing church. 82 stalls required for existing school. 299 stalis required for proposed new 1495 seat sanctuary in new building) Proposed parking for site: 855 stalls' I stall per 5 fixed seats (1495 proposed) in new sanctuary ~ 299 stalls New parking proposed: 264 stalls Existing parking: 591 stalls to be retained Existing sanctuary seating capacity I 1400 seats (280 stalls required) Private elementary/middle school: 82 employees (82 stalls required) "Existing parking permitted under King County regulations are being identified to show that minimum parking requirements are met to satisfy the minimum parking requirement for new building. Existing parking is not considered to be held to Renton restrictions on maximum allowable parking (the church intends to add additional parking in the future for the facility). + Existing sanctuary does not have tixed seating; however. per the International Building Code. the allowable seating for the 9900 square foot sanctuary per the A3 occupancy is 1400 seats. I PROJECT NARRATIVE New Life Church Expansion Prepared by: Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. !Hly IS, 2998 Revised Oet8".' n, 2998February 10, 2009 Our Job No. 11706 The following is a project narrative discussing the proposed new building and parking lot expansion of New Life Church, located at 15711 -152nd Avenue S.E. The site was recently annexed into the City of Renton with zoning designations ofR-14 (in the area ofthe proposed church) and Resource Conservation (south of the existing church and proposed new building). Site Description: The project site is a single parcel that is currently developed with a 93,000 square foot church that also contains a private school serving children from Kindergarten -8th Grade, a parking lot with ~591 existing parking stalls, a storm water system, two children play areas, and an outdoor multi- purpose playfield. The New Life Church site is comprised of approximately 56.65 acres with a distinct set of topographic and natural features. The area of the site that is currently developed is generally flat with moderate localized slopes of up to approximately 10 percent. The north end of the site that currently contains the church, the parking lot, the grassy knoll play area, and the western part of the site west of Madsen Creek has been historically graded to accommodate the prior residential uses on the site (including possible farming), and more recently in the Church uses. The central area of the site, south of the church is a regulated steep slope that is characterized as a Seismic Hazard Area, a Steep Slope, a Landslide Hazard Area, and an Erosion Hazard Area. Based on the 1973 Soil Survey for King Connty, the soils on the site consist of Urban Land (UR), Newberg Silt Loam (NG), and Alderwood Kitsap, very Steep (AkF). The central area of the site also contains Madsen Creek, several wetlands, and a flood control high-water diversion for Madsen Creek along the west property bonndary. The site drains to the north into an existing bioswale and then to a detention pond that outlets toward the west and ultimately drains through a network of ditches to the Cedar River. The surronnding properties are developed with residential uses, althongh the specific development type is different in each direction. East of the site are the existing Valley Springs Apartments and "River Valley" Condominiums (R-14 zone), as well as a planned commercial/retail shopping area across 152nd Avenue S.E. at the site's north east corner (CA zone); west of the site is the Wonderland Estates Mobile Home Park (RMH zone); and south of the site is single family detached housing (King Connty R-4). To the north are more single family residential homes across SR-169. Project Description: The proposed project will add a new 35,000 square foot sanctuary/auditorium facility and 294-264 new parking stalls in the north end of the site (east of Madsen Creek and its buffer). The IJFajeet alsB iBekIeles the releeatisfl, FI?GSRstfllSt"iSH, aHa w4aeaiRg sf the vehisHhtf bFidge a'ief MaaseR C.eek Ie impfBve aeeess Ie the w.sl sid. sf Ihe site. To access the new building and the new parking, the project utilizes the existing driveways and access points off of 152nd Avenue S.E. The existing play area in the north central area of the site will be relocated to the south and west, near.~ new.,. building. Land Use Permits Required: FEB 1 ' o City of Renton Site Plan Review .\-1170601 LdoclI7Qfi.Qll.tI •• o City of Renton SEPA Detennination o City of Renton Clearing and Grading Permit o City of Renton Right-of-Way Use Permit (if required) o WSDOT AccessfDrainage Discharge Pennit (if required) o NPDES Permit 8 WDfW Hydnmlie PfOjeet A~~r8,'al o City of Renton Conunercial Building Pennit Construction/Grading: The fair market value of the project is approximately $8,000,000. The new building will be placed on piles due to geotechnical considerations. The new parking area and the existing storm drainage facility will be regraded to generate approximately 1,800 cubic yards of cut and will require approximately 7,700 cubic yards of fill (mostly structural fill for the new building). It is likely that a job sback will be installed on the site for the new building and parking lot construction. The job sback placement is unknown at this time and will be determined by the General Contractor for the project. Tree Retention: Approximately ~significant trees will be removed to acconunodate the project. These trees will be removed to acconunodate site grading, the parking lot, lila ,eleealea .lfeam sFassing, and the relocated play area northeast of the new building. Right-of-way dedication and Modifications: [f required by the City, the applicant will work with the City to provide a right-of-way dedication ofa strip of property a[ong SR-169 to straighten out the existing job on the north property line. Expected requests for modifications include: • RMC 4-2-110F: Allowance to increase allowable lot coverage of civic use in residential zone beyond the Code-based 10 percent, and to allow the increase of the proposed building size to greater than 3000 or 5000 square feet (the proposed new building is 35,000 square feet in area); • RI;/C 1 3 Qj(Jf.e.h: WetlaRshtream BHffer reS1:lstisR ffsm 19Q feet to 75 feet with Bltffer eaflElHSemeat alaag ~4aaseR Creel, (EOAstruetiaR · .... ~II saeHr witkie 91:lffefS efwetlanBs and Bller Maasen Creel, Ie aseeRlfHe8ala Ille reeaa"lRlslea vehiele BRage). Utilities and piping: Existing utilities serving the site have adequate capacity for the new building. Relocation of some water main and fire hydrants will be necessary to acconunodate to new building and parking area. A new 8-inch to l2-inch (or larger) fue main will be installed to loop around the new and existing building to provide fire protection as required by the International Fire Code. New storm piping will be installed for the new parking areas and some storm piping may be replaced where needed on the site. Storm piping may also be required off-site in the public rights-of-way of SR-169 andlor 152nd Avenue S.E. Sanitary sewer will be extended to the new building from existing mains on-site. Pipes will be installed that are l2-inches in diameter or larger both on and off site. Stormwater: The existing stormwater swale parallel to l52nd Avenue S.E. will be removed. The existing detention pond will be reconstructed to provide additional volume to accommodate the new impervious areas as well as the existing drainage to the facility. The modified storm water pond is designed to provide Level 3 flow control and basic water quality. Streets and Rights-of-Way: Site access is from l52nd Avenue S.E. at the two existing driveways. Frontage improvements will be constructed on the site frontages of 152nd Avenue S.E. and SR-169 as required, unless an alternative option is achieved. -2-11706 011.doclI7()~.c1lI.d •• PLANNING DIVISION ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST City of Renton Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax: 425-430-7231 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 0). 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. I 11706009.docll'7Qti.OQ9.ties . 1 - FE .8 , . A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: New Life Church Expansion 2. Name of applicant: New Life Church 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: New Life Church 15711 ~ I 52nd Avenue S.E. Renton, W A 98052 (425) 226-0880 4. Date checklist prepared: JlIRe 2QQ8February 10.2009 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Renton Contact Person No.1 Church Development Consultants 3623 324th Ave. SE Fall City, W A 98024 (425) 788-9892 Contact: Kathi Bresler 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Contact Person No.2 Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc., 18215 -nnd Avenue South Kent, W A 98032 (425) 251-6222 Contact: Ivana Halvorsen Construction of civil improvements (parking lot expansion, utilities, grading, and clearing) is expected to begin in summer of 2008. Building construction is expected to begin in fall ~winter 2009 aHa e"teHa iHl8 2GG9. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. Future additions and expansion may bc considered at a fulnre date, including the construction of additional parking. formalized rccreational facilities on the west side of Madsen Creek that may include soccer field with track, future buildings, andlor future parking. These future additions will be reviewed under a new SErA review and permit application. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. The following environmental documents have been prepared related to this proposal (including historical documents). • King County SEPA Determination • Preliminary Technical Information Report prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc., dated July 9, 2008 • Subsurface Exploration and Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc., dated August 24, 2005 • Supplemental Subsurface Exploration Summary prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc., dated October 17, 2005 I 11706 009.doc 1\1Qfi.QQ9.aee • 2 • 02108 • Preliminary Technical Information Report prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc., dated July 9, 2008 • Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by The Transpo Group, Inc., dated July 2008 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. At this time there are no applications pending government approval affecting the subject property. 10. List any governmental approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. • Renton Site Plan Review • Renton SEPA Determination • Renton Commercial Grading Permit • Renton Commercial Building Permits • Cedar River Water and Sewer Developer Extension Agreements • WDFW Hydraulic Project Approval (if required) • DOE NPDES Permit • Renton Right-of-Way Use Pennit (if required) • WSDOT Access Permit (if required) 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. The proposal is to construct one new building and additional parking and utilities on the developed New Life Church property located at 15711 -I 52nd Avenue S.E. The new building will be located adjacent and directly west of the existing building and will contain approximately 36,000 square feet in a one-story structure. The new building will contain a sanctuary/auditorium that will contain 1,495 seats with a mix of fixed and unfixed seating. The existing gravel fue lane along the south side of the existing and new buildings will be paved. Additional parking areas will be created along the west side of the existing parking lot (east of the Madsen Creek 100-foot buffer) and north of the existing parking lot between the existing stormwater pond and Maple Valley Highway (SR-169). The ('Fejeet I3Fspeses wStless ana stream suffef feEhtetisBs witk 9BRMleeHl8Ht aleRg Yle 8ast side sf the ~4adseH efeelE stiffer, as Yw ell as tlf9HlUi the eJ(istiag f'9H8 ideHtiiiea as \VeHaREl C. Twa e"isling .Fassings ef MaaSeR Creel, will "e Feslered '<'lith this ~Fe~esal as 'IIoU, in.luding Ihe e"isting vehiaular sHage aRa read",a), Rear the nerth ~Fe~erty line ana the e"isling fael "Hdge and ~lIIh neaF Wetland C in the eentral area eflhe site. New or replacement utilities on or off site, including water, sewer, and storm, may require installation of pipes exceeding 12 inches in diameter. Approximately Ena FRare than) 299 264 new parking stalls will be added to the existing ~591-stall parking lot. The total parking proposed on the site will be 898-855 stalls. 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 I 11706009.docI170',OQ!),il81l' . 3 -02108 reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The property is located at the southwest comer of 152nd Avenue S.E. and Maple Valley Highway (SR-169). The site address is 15711 -152nd Avenue S.E., Renton, WA 98057, located in Section 23, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, Willamette Meridian. S, ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. EARTH a. General description of the site (circle one);~, rolling, hilly, !Steep slopeS! (not in project area), mountainous, other ____ _ The development area is flat. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope?) The slopes in the project are flat, ranging from 0 to 5 percent. The central portion of the site south of the existing and proposed buildings contains steep slopes with grades exceeding 40 percent. At the south most limits of the subject property is a relatively flat bench of land with grades approximately 10 percent. 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. Agricultural soils are not known to be on the property. Soils per the 1973 King County Soils Survey include UR (Urban Land), NO (Newberg silt loam), and AkF (Alderwood and Kitsap soils, very steep). d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. The slope in the central/south area of the property is classified as a landslide hazard area, a seismic hazard area, and a steep slope hazard area. Instability has been documented in the past for localized areas on the steep slope. The development area in the northern and central areas of the site has not experienced unstable soils. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. The existing stormwater pond at the northeast property corner will be excavated to provide additional depth for project-generated stormwater. Excavated material is expected to be dispersed on site. Import of fill material, including soils and gravel base for paved areas, is possible with the construction of the project. Approximately 9,500 cubic yards of cumulative grading will occur on the site with the proposed development. Structural till will be imported from an approved source location for the new building (7,700 cubic yards). f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Erosion could result from clearing and construction. Erosion including sediment-laden stormwater as well as wind dust could result when the earth is bare for the proposed parking area. I 11706 009.doc 117Q{j.OO'2l.dee -4-02108 g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? The site consists of approximately 56.65 acres. After construction of the new parking areas and the new building, approximately 469,795 square feet of the site will be impervious, which results in a calculation of 19 percent of the site being impervious. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: 2. AIR The project will install erosion control measures and will employ Best Management Practices in accordance with the City of Renton and Department of Ecology erosion control requirements. Erosion control measures are expected to include silt fencing, sediment ponds, drainage swales with check dams, construction access entrance, straw mulch, hydroseeding, and other measures as may be appropriate. A project-specific Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control (TESC) Plan and a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be provided with the site engineering drawings for approval prior to initiation of grading and construction activities. a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Emissions including diesel exhaust and dust emissions are likely to occur during the construction of the proposcd project. Upon project completion, minor vehicle emissions and exhaust from natural gas heating will occur from the project. b. Are there any off-site sources of emission or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. Off-site sources of emIssions include vehicular traffic on Maple Valley Highway (SR-169). Existing off-site emissions will not affect the proposal. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: The project will comply with applicable federal, state, and local requirements governing air quality and emissions releases during and post-construction. 3. WATER a. Surface Water: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. The site contains a reach of Madsen Creek, an overflow from Madsen Creek, and several wetlands. The site is also located within I mile ofthe Cedar River. 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. Construction of required ffontag~improvements for SR-169 is proposed within 100 feet of Madsen Creek -Renton exempts frontage improvements from critical areas regulations. No other construction is proposed within any critical area or buffer on the site. Construction will occur within 200 feet of Madsen Creek and on-site wetlands, including the following: • Grading and paving 11706 009.docl t+g~.Qg9.88e - 5 -02/08 • Parking lot construction • Stonn drainage facilities • New church sanctuary building • Reconstructed bridge crossing for vehicular travel • Relocation of existing play area • Landscaping 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. Neither filling nor dredging of streams or wetlands is proposed with the project. +he iFRf'F8yeHleats te the 9Jiisting yehi€Hlar aBe f'eElestFi8H In=iElges 8Fe f'laflflee te ae designed Is SjlElll IRe RyEi£a\ilie limits uf MasseR CrealE with IRe Iilili;,alisR sf eSl< elii'leftS Sf similar treatmeRt. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. Surface water withdrawals and divcrsions are not proposed with the project. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 1 DO-year flood plain? If so, note location on the site plan. The site contains a portion of the IOO-year floodplain of the Cedar River. 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. The project will release stonnwater from the existing church and parking area as well as the new church building and additional parking areas. As required by Renton Municipal Code, the project will treat and delain its stonnwater as required prior to release into the ditch along Maple Valley Highway (SR-169) that flows to the Cedar River. 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. Groundwater will not be withdrawn by the proposal. 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. Waste material will not be discharged into the ground, as the project will utilize public sanitary sewer provided by Cedar River Water and Sewer District. I 11706 009.doc I 179s.g99.sse -6-02108 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. Additional runoff from the existing condition will be generated from the newly paved areas and the proposed new building. Runoff from the existing improvements on the site is currently collected and routed to a stormwater bioswale and stormwater pond located in the northeast area of the site. In accordance with Renton Municipal Code, the project will install new catchment systems for the new building and new asphalt associated with the new parking areas. The new catchment system will be routed to the stormwater facility located at the northeast property comer, which will be enlarged with the project to accommodate the additional stormwater with water quality and detention meeting Renton Code requirements. 2} Could waste material enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. The new parking area is a pollution-generating impervious surface; however, this will be collected and routed to the stormwater facility, which will provide water quality consistent with current codes prior to release into surface waters. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: The enlarged stormwatcr facility at the northeast property comer will accommodate the drainage from the existing building and parking area, as well as the new building and parking area to provide water quality and detention in accordance with Renton requirements. 4. PLANTS a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: X deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other --x-evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other --x-shrubs --x-grass __ pasture crop or grain -X-wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other __ water plants: water lily, eel grass, milloil, other __ other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Grass and trees will be removed to accommodate the new parking area and the relocated play area. C. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. No threatened or endangered plant species are known to exist on site. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: The I'lllifer sf Maeses Creek will be enJumeee with tile prejeel, QElElisg eati.'e plas! speeies sr habitat. Landscaping will be installed as required by Renton Codes. I 11706 009.docl I'7Q',OQO.lia8 - 7 -02108 5. ANIMALS a. Circle any birds and animals. which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, ~ongbirdsl, other .,--,--_____ _ Mammals: ~, bear, elk, beaver, other rodents Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfis·""h!!., ~ot"'hC:e'::-r------ b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. No threatened or endangered animal species are known to exist on site. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain The site may lie within the Pacific Flyway for migratory birds. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: The eHftaRSemeRt sf ~4aEiseR Creek IndIeFS will iasfesss :haeilat ie, \l:ilEllif<B.The project will avoid impacts to critical arcas to preserve wildlife habitat. 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. The new church will use electricity for heating, cooling, lighting, and appliances. If available, natural gas may also be used for heating, cooling, and small appliances. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No effect on solar use will result from the project. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: The project will comply with Washington State energy requirements for glazing, insulation, etc. 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. No special emergency services are expected. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: No environmental health hazards will result from the project, so this item does not apply. I 11706009.docII7Qfi.QQ9.ilB8 - 8 -02/08 b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Existing noise is primarily from SR-169 (trucks and traffic), but the noise is not expected to affect the proposal. 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. During construction machinery noises from diesel equipment, back up beepers, and construction activities will increase noise over existing conditions on a temporary basis. After construction is complete, noise will return to existing levels. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Construction will occur during allowed periods as dictated by Renton codes. S. LAND AND SHORELINE USE a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The site is currently developed with church and school facilities and associated parking and play areas. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. Prior farming included hay production and dairy more than 20 years ago. c. Describe any structures on the site. There are a large church building, several portable offices, a pump house, and two bridges on site (one for pedestrian use and one for vehicular use). d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? The pump house will be remodeled aRe the ... hieNla. Brielge will Be eemelisheEl ""EI FeeSflstmstea. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? R-14 and RC. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? RMD and RLD. g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Not applicable. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. Yes. The site contains regulated steep slopes (which are also classified landslide hazards, erosion hazards, and seismic hazards), wetlands, and Madsen Creek. I I 1706 009.docll1Qfi.QQI).lIe<l ·9-02108 i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Approximately 25 to 30 people will be employed Bft Ihe silsby the new facility. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: This item does not apply. I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: The structure is placed and oriented so that it has no impact on adjacent uses or to the public. The new strucrure and associated parking, landscaping, and stormwater improvements comply with City codes. The project avoids impacts to critical areas. 9. HOUSING a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: None. 10. AESTHETICS a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed. Approximately 38 feet. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: The strucrure is placed and oriented so that it is no impact to adjacent uses or to the public. New landscaping aRa the efllisoeSHlsRt sf tHe ~48ElseR CFsah: ~~aef will improve the aesthetic appearance of the site from public streets. 11. LIGHT AND GLARE a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Parking lot and building lighting is proposed, which will be visible during evening hours. I 11706009.docll'7Qfi.QQ9.eee -10 -02108 b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? Site and building lighting will not impact views. c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? No off-site light sources will impact the proposal. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts. if any: Light shed will be kept on site and within Renton requirements. 12. RECREATION a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? The Cedar River Trail runs along SR-169 north of the site. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: None. On-site age appropriate recreational facilities are provided for students and church patrons. 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. There are no known listed places or objects on the site. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. There are no known landmarks of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance on the site. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: None. 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. The site is served by SR-169 and 152nd Avenue S.E. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Yes. Public transit travels on SR-169. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? 11706 009.docl I+Q~_gQ9.S.8B -11 -02108 The site will have 898-855 total parking stalls, induding ;;99-264 new stalls and ~591 existing stalls. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? II so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private? No new streets are required. Improvements to 152nd Avenue S.E. will be provided as required. The applicant has requested a waiver for frontage improvements on SR-169. If that is denied, frontage improvements also will be constructed on SR-169. SR-169 improvements will involve installation of pipes exceeding 12 inches in diameter and unavoidable impacts to critical areas and/or buffers that will be mitigated consistent with City codes as required. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No. I. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. The Transpo Group, Inc., the applicant's traffic engineer, detenmined that the church currently generates an average of approximately 45 trips during the weekday p.m. peak hour and approximately 375 trips during the Sunday peak hour. The Transpo Group, Inc., detenmined that the new church building would generate approximately 17 net new p.m. peak hour trips and 146 net new Sunday peak hour trips. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: The applicant will pay required traffic impact fees, construct required frontage improvements, and improve the existing driveways to the site. 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. Public fire, emergency, and police services exist for the site, so no increased need is expected. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. Payment of traffic mitigation fees and confonmance to City codes. 16. UTI L1TI ES a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: ~lectricitYI. natural ga~, ~,Irefuse servicij, ~elephonEij,lSanitary sewed, septic system, 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 vicinity which might be needed. Utilities will be installed on site (water, sewer, and stonm mains) and off site (stonm mains, if required) to include pipes exceeding 12 inches in diameter if impacts to critical I 11706009.docI17Q(i.QQ9.dee . 12 -02108 areas result on-or off-site from utility installations the impacts will be mitigated consistent with City codes. C. SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non-significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part. /~hHL Proponent: ~ Name Printed: Ivana Halvorsen Date: 2//111/1 I 1 I 11706 009.docll+9'.999.~" -13 -02108 LEGAL DESCRIPTION In the matter of the plat sllbmiltcd for your approva), this Company haz eXal1:.illed the records of the County A'..2ditor aJld county Clerk of King county, Washington, and the records of the Clerk of the United States Courts ho1dir:;g terms in zaic CO;Jnty, and from such examination hereby certifies that accord-ing to said records the title to the following described land; Thal: por":;Jon of the west one-half of the southwest one-quarter of Section )3, Townsll~p 23 No~tll, R~nge 5 East. N.M., in King County, Was~ljn9ton, Jying southerly of the south margin of the Renton-Maple Valley High\~'ay; EXCSPT t.hat portion of S21C: ,,jest one-half, deGcribed as follows: Beginning at tJle intersectioll DE the west line of said sectj.on 23 • ... ,ith the south margirl of sa.id h.lgl1way; thence south 75D~2'OO" e~st ~long said margin, 390.27 feet to an Exi st.i i!.g te!lCe; thenCE SOiJt~, 13"01']5" · ... ;est along said fence. 1010.22 feet; the~ce llorth 75~42'OO" west, 139.00 feet; thence south lJ ~'42' 00" west:.. :2"7'+.24 feet to the west line of said SecLion 23; thence north 02°08'15" east ~long said west line, 1313.66 feet to the poinr of beginning; ILr--JD EXCE?T lhe east". 20 feet of the northWEst quarter of the sou~~west quarter of said Seetiol] 23, lying southerly of the Renton- Maple Valley High'No"!. as conveYf:d to King county by deed recorded under Recording Numbe:!.-25123":·'; AND EXCEPT thilt portj.on as deeded to King County by Recording Number. 9001041071; AND EXCEPT t.h.Jt portion CCD ..... reyed to the State of Washington by Recording Number 9303312386. END OF SC:-::iEDULE A ~ .e::1 > I--Z -o -> SW 23-23-05 + ~- • .... 1'1>1>01'-·,= ~--~""' _~C,,:;o • I ® ~:.:.::~ ~-=:.:.:..:. :.::-' _ ........ .'.'~.~~ !:~~ ~ .. -~.~. KING COUNTY DEPARTMENl 01 ASSfSSMENTS r .. - ····· .. ·"r., " ... SITE .":-..;;:.: ..... .;' f !; ~.-I 1 ,<. j I \' '"'''' -'" ." i !. . . ~'"'''''' . I ~ ..." -J ,~ ... ~.-"r J "."-' i '$. '. ". "C>-___ ::'~' " " , .... \: i., / ,-,,-.' t' i: I .,-." I :~ I i"~ ~~j' . i to ~ -",."~,,,-o' f 1 I ,='"", .. =""-, ., \' I 1 ' 1'__ I t I --.---~ . I ~ ... t ~-------~' . .... --0E1 ~I : •••. ;r:,-. "-,. . , ~.::' . /' / / --/ I II n~ '00. I/J. geQ12 lO~ml-'1" ('~Jl51-~182 ,-'" o ! , -.rID'll C8WlC1i n \ \ "'" ~ ~ .; , , I-I" I " z • o m m c). I ) \ " SOIL SURVEY King County Area Washington • UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Soi I Conservation Service in cooperation with WASHINGTON AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Issued November 1973 , ';,,s,OIlI'A,ifi'JoIt;IfT<.JI' .\GIIlCUL" .... 1tE SOIl,. Cons.tllYATlOH SEllVICE , I m ..... -rito.1I KlI<<lCOllI'l1"l·~"~W.\8Hl'1f<)1'OI\l ,RDtTO~ qV~"""''''''"C' " ..... , .. ""~, .... "",.""".=~.­.. ~,,~,,_._ ,"", ."M .... ~~W'" ...... ....,'''' .• ''M .O:' .... ,'--" • ..,.~ :"''''''~'~'''' __ ''''_W';'~~''~'rl''' :<Il!.E"JNO.11 New Life Church Soil Survey Excerpt BCE# 11706 . -~ ~ I() ). ll/ .... .... ~ ll/ .... """",z~ Q. "t ~ ,..{ \ SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE SOIL LEGEND Th& firat capitGllett«la file initial aM of.he soli f'lQme, A second CClpltdl Iett«. A. B, C, D, E, Of F, indicotes the closs of slope. Symbols without Q slope letter are thosa of nearly levol 50i''9. SYMBOL AgB AgC AgD AkF AmB AmC An BeC BeD BoP Bh B, Bu. Cb E. Ed E.B E.C E.O EwC InA InC InO "0. KpC KpO KsC 0.- 0. eM: eM) OvF Pc Pk "" NAME AId_ood gfQVelJy sandy loam. 0 to 6 percent stopas Alderwood grG'nlIlly sandy loom, 610 15 percent slopes Alderwood gravelly sandy 1000rn, 15 to 30 pereent sloptll AiderwOOd Gnd Kit~op soils, very sleep Arents, AkIorwoc4 m<Jleriol,O to 6 percent slopes * Ar..-.tSf Aklerwood matitfiol, 6 to 15 ~nt alopes* Arents, Everen matec-lol" Beausite gravelly s,andy loam, 6 to 15 ~I'(;ent slopes Beovslte gf'O"elly sendY,loom, 15 to 30 percent slopes Bc<>iHit>:l 9 ....... I:Y ~ . ..:.-.:::~ :;;:.:.,',1, ~":; ~ .... "1~ ....... .: .. ,1'; .. 1~p. ... Bellingnom slit loam '6rlscot 9ilt IIXIIJ\ Buekley silt l¢am Coosto.\ Beoches . Eorlmonf sltt 1000m Edgewkk fine sandy loam Evenltt gnivelly sandy loam, 0 to 5 pe,cent $Iopes E~,.tt gravelly sandy loom,S to 15 percent slopes Ev.rett grgvel1y sandy loom, 15 fo 30 percent :!!Ilep'HI Everett-Aidet'Wooo gravelly sandy looms, 6.., 15 percent slopes Indioru:ila-loomy fine sand, 0 to <1 percent slopes lodlooola 190my fine sand, 4 to 15 percent SlQPe5 Indl~1o .100my fin", sand, 15 to JO p&r<:<K1t $Iopes Kltsop silt loom, 2 10 8 percent slopes Klhop .flt loam, a to 15 percent slopes Kltscp sltt 100m, 15 to 30 percent 1!I10pes Klaus gra<Jelly laomy sond, <> to 15 perc:ent slopes Mil(ed alluvial lORd Neilton Vel)' gravelly loamy sand, 2 to 15-~/Jnt ~Iope$ Newberg slit loam Nooks.:.ck "ilt loam Normo sandy loam Clfcas peClt Orid1a silt loam Ovall gro~lIy 10(1"', 0'0 15 percent slopes Ov411 ~avelly loom, 15 to 25 parceryt sjQpes Oval! grovefly 100m, -40 to 75 percent slopes >I'y Pllchuck loamy fine sand Plldwck fine ,CIndy 100m F\lget .silty clay loam Puyallup FiM $,mdy loam I l u RoC R.D RdC RdE R. Rh So Sh Sk Sm So So S. Su Ragnar fl~ $4My l<><:1m, 6 to 15 percent slopes Rognor fine sandy loom, 15 to 25 percent slOph Ragnm-Indlanolo Cls~ociotion, sloping. Ragnor-lndloAOla ossodotion, modonrtely steep" RentOn silt loom Riverwash So:/a1 slit .Ioom Sommamhl'! silt loam Sedttle muck Shakor mvc:k 51 sUt.loam Snohomish si It l.gom Snohornlsh silt loom, thick surface voriont Sutton silt loam Til TulM:Ho IRUC:k Ur lkban land Wo W«ltdlnvil.le silt loom • TMt.C'OMPOIltlon of ..... vnits i5 more vorfgble than thGt of tt. othws In fbe a-.a. bunt hos been confralMd _II enOllgh to tntwpr.t f« tb. _pee" vse of the $olls. KINIi WUN IT ""tA. T s n ( ) are 0 to I percent.. The annual precipitation is 3S to 5S inches, and the mean annual air temperature' about 50" F. The frost-free season is about 190 days. Elevations range from 10 to 650 feet. In a representative profile, the soil is domi nantly mottled dark grayish-brown and grayish-b silty clay loam to a depth of about 45 inches. substratum is gray silty clay that extends to dep th of 60 inches or more. Puget soils are used for row crops Puget silty clay loam (Pu) .--Puget nearly rotmd or elongated tracts that rang to 110 acres in size. Slopes are less th cent. Representative profile of Puget silty in pasture, 800 feet east of the west q of sec. 21, T. 25 N., R. 7 E.: per- loam, corner All--O to 1 inch, very dark grayish-b (2.SY 3/2) silt loam, grayish brown (lOYR dry; mod- erate~ thin, platy structurei ard, firm, slightly 5ticky~ slightly pIa tic, many roots; mdium acid; ab:rupt, smooth undary. 1 to 2 inches thick. A12--1 to 7 inches~ dark grayish- silty clay loam, light gra .(5Y 7/2) dry; common, fine, prominent, rk-brown (7.SYR 4/4) mottles; moderate, v ry coarse, prismatic structure; hard, firm,s icky, plastic; many roots; medium acid; cle I smooth boundary. 5 to 7 inches thick. B2lg--7 to 17 inches, dark ayish-brown (2.SY 4/2) silty clay loam, ligh gray (2.5Y 7/2) dry; common, medium, prom" ent, strong-brown (7.5YR ·5/6, S/8) mottles; derate, meditun, prismatic structure; hard, fi J sticky. plastic; many roots; slightly ac' ; clear, smooth boundary. 5 to 12 inches th· k. mottles; strong, very coarse, prismatiC stru< tur.e; hard, firll, sticky, plasticj few TOot meditml acid; clear, smooth. boundary. 8 to 10 inches thick. Clg--40 to 45 inches, greenish-gray (5GY 5 clay loam, light gray (5Y 7/1) dry; , fine, prominent, strong-brown (7.5YR mottles; massive; hard~ firm, stick, medium acid; clear, smooth bounda inches thick. .don, /6) plasth 4 to 6 C2g--45 to 60 inches, gray (SY 5/1) lty clay, light gray (5Y 7/1) dry; few, edium, promi- nent. yellowish-red (5YR 4/ , 5/8) mottles, yellowish brown (lOYR 5/8) ry; and common, medium, distinct, light ive-brown (2.SY SJt mottles, light yellowis brown (2.5Y 6/4) d~ massive; very hard, f' ,sticky, plastic; medium acid. The A horilon ranges rom silty clay 103Jl1 to 5 i: loam. The B horizon' dominantly silty clay loam stratified with silt oam, silty clay, and fine sand. Some areas map d are up to 10 percent inclusioJ of Woodinville d Snohomish soils. Permeabilit is slow. The seasonal high water table is at near the surface. In drained areas. te with difficulty to a depth of 60 inches or re4 In tmdrained areas the effective pth is restricted. The available water is high. Rtmoff is s low to .ponded, and tl hazard is slight. Stream. overflow is a se- azard. used for.row crops and pasture. IIIw-2; woodland group 31<2 Puyallup Series B22g--17 to 25 in,ches, ayish-brown (2.5Y 5/2) The Puyallup series is made up of weU:""drained silty clay loam, light olive gray (5Y 6/2) dry; soils that formed in alluvium, Wlder grass, hard- many J medium, p inent, yellowish-red (SYR woods, and conifers. These soils are on the nature S/8, 4/8) mottl s; strong, very coarse) pris-levees adjacent to streams in the r~ver valleys. matic structur ; very hard, finn, sticky, Slopes are 0 to 2 percent. The annual precfpitati( plastic; co roots; slightly acid; abrupt", is 35 t.o 60 inches, and t.he mean anriual air temper- smooth bound 6 to 12 inches thick. ature is about SOO F. The frost-free season range~ B23g--25 to 26 1/2 inches, dark-gray (5Y 4/1) medium from 160 to 200 days. Elevation ranges from 20 to sand, light grayish brown (2.5Y 6/2) dry; few, 500 feet. mediUID, . nent, yellowish-red (SYR 5/8) In a representative profile~· ve.rr dark grayish:- mottles; 5 ngle grain; loose, nons ticky J non-brown-and dark grayish-brown fine sandy loam and plastic; ew TOots; slightly acid; abrupt, very fine sandy loam extend to a depth of about 34 smooth b ary. I to 2 inches thick ~ inches. The substratum, at a depth of 60 inches OJ B24g--26 1/2 31 inches, grayish-brown (2.5Y 5/2) more, is very dark grayish-brown, dark grayish- silty c ay loam~ light gray (SY 7/2) dry; many, brown, and· dark-brown reditID sand, loamy sand, and medium prominent, yellowish-brown (IOYR 3/6) sand. motU ; moderate, meditDII, angular blOCk~ Puyallup soils are used mostly for row crops an< ure; hard, fim, sticky, plastic; pasture. 'Ihey are an.wng the soi.ls that are well ; medium acid; abrupt, wavy bounda suit.ed to farming. Urban development is occurring inches thick. in many areas. 040 inches, grayish-brown (2.5Y 5/2) . ty clay loam, light gray (5Y 7/1) dry; com-Puyallup fine sandy loam (Py) .--This nearly lev. n, fine, prominent, yellow, brownish-yellow soil is on natural levees in the valley bottoms. OYR 7/6, 6/6), and strong-brown (7. 5YR 5/8) Areas are long and narrow or somewhat rounded and 24 I 'j I \ ) 1 i I I I 1 , J I ) range fro. 2 to about SO acres in size. Slopes are less than 2 percent and are slightly convex. Representative profile of Puyallup fine sandy loam~ in pasture, 1.030 feet east and l~OOO feet north of center of sec. 21, T. 21 N., R. 5 E.: A1l--0 to 8 inches, very dark grayish-brown (lOYR 3/2) fine sandy loam, brown (lOYR 3/3) dry; weak, fine, granular structure; soft, very friable ~ nonsticky, nonplastic; many roots; neutral; clear. smooth boundary. 6 to 10 inches thick. A12--8 to 14 inches, very dark grayish-brown (lOYR 3/2) very fine sandy loam, brown (lOYR 5/3) dry; moderate, medium and coarse J granular structure; soft, very friable. slightly sticky, slightly plastic; many roots; neutral; abrupt, smooth boundary. 4 to 8 inches thick. Cl--14 to 34 inches, dark grayish-brown (lOYR 4/2) very fine sandy loam, brown (IOYR S/3) dry; weak, medium, platy stru.cture; slightly hard. very friable, slightly sticky~ SlightlY plas- tic; many roots; slightly acid; abrupt, wavy boundary. 18 to 24 inches thick. C2--34 to 45 inches~ very dark grayish-brown and dark grayish-brown (lOYR 4/2 and 3/2) medium sand, grayish brown (lOYR 5/2) dry; single grain; loose l nonsticky, nonplastic; plentiful roots; neutral; gradual~ smooth boundary. 9 to 13 inches thick. C3--45 to 51 inches, dark-brown (lOYR 3/3) loamy sand, brown (IOYR 5/3) drYi massive; soft, very friable, nonsticky, nonplastic; few roots; slightly acid. 4 to 7 inches thick. C4--51 to 60 inches. dark grayiSh-brown (2.5Y 4/2) sand, dark gray and gray·(lOYR 4/1 and 6/1) dry; single grain; loose, nonsticky. nonplas- -tic; few roots; neutral. • The A horizon ranges from very dark grayish brown to very dark brown and from fine sandy loam to very fine sandy loam and silt loam. The C horizon ranges from very dark grayish brown to olive brown. The upper part of the C bori~on is dominantly very fine sandy loam. Commonly layers of sand. fine sand. and loamy fine sand are in the lower part of the C horizon. Mottles occur below a depth of 30 to 40 inches in places. Some areas are up to 15 percent inclusions of Briscot, Newberg, Nooksack, Oridia, and Renton soils; and some are up to 10 percent the poorly drained Woodinville and Puget soils. Permeability is moderately rapid. The effective rooting depth is 60 inches or more. The seasonal water table is at a depth of 4 to 5 feet. Available water capacity is moderately high. Runoff is slow, and the erosion hazard is slight. Stream overflow is· a slight to severe hazard. d~pending on the amount of flood protection provided. This soil is used for row crops and pasture and for urban development. capability unit IIw-l; wood- land group 20 1. Ragnar Series The Ragnar series is made up of well-drain • gently sloping to strongly rolling soils on d'ssec- ted glacial outwash terraces. The vegetatio is mostly conifers. Slopes are 2 to 2S percent The annual precipitation is 35 to 6S inches. an the mean annual air temperature is about 50° F. The frost-free season is 150 to 210 days. Ele ation ranges from 300 to 1,000 feet. In a representative profile, very dark grayish- brown, dark yellowish-brown, and yellowi fine sandy loam extends to a depth of inches. The substratum is olive-brown It extends to a depth of 60 inches or Ragnar soils are used for timber development. Ragnar fine sandy loam, 6 to 15 (RaC).--ThlS un ulating to rolling glacial terraces. It is in irregu tracts that range frOID 5 to more size. Representative profile of Rag loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes, i north and 230 feet east of the 21N.,R.5E.: in sandy 300 feet sec. 3, T. 01--1 1/2 inches to 0, black lOYR 2/1) leaves and twigs; abundant roots; rupt, smooth bound- ary. 1 to 2 inches thi k. AI--O to 4 inches, very dar grayish-brown (lOYR 3/2) and very dark-g y (lOYR 3/1) fine sandy loam~ grayish brown IOYR 5/2) dry; massive; slightly hard, very friable, nonsticky, non- plastic; many root , medium acid; abrupt, wav} boundary. 3 to 9 nches thick. 821--4 to 17 inches, da yellowish-brown (lOYR 4/4) and yellowish-b (lOYR 5/6) fine sandy loa • brown (lOYR 5/3) dry; massive; slightly hard, very friable, n sticky, nonplastic; many roots; medium id; clear, smooth boundary. 5 to 13 inches ick. 822--17 to 27 inche , yellowish-brown (lOYR 5/4) fine sandy I ,brown (IOYR S/3) dry; massive slightly har , very friable, nonsticky, non- plastic; c on roots; medium acid; clear. smooth bou ary. 6 to 12 inches thick. 11C--27 to 60 in es, olive-brown (2.5Y 4/4) loamy sand, yel ish brown {lOYR 5/4) dry; massive; soft, ve friable~ nonsti,cky~ nonplastic; very few roots; medium· acid. Material similar to this orizon extends downward many feet and has n rous, very thick silty layers·. The A hor. zon ranges from black to very dark grayish b The B horizon is sandy loam and fine sandy loam that is dark yellowish brown to brown. The IIC h izon, below a depth of 20 inches, is very dark gray sh brown to olive brown. Lenses of loatR and silt: oam occur below a depth of 36 to 40 inch~s in many laces. Anyone horizon can be as much as 15 perc nt gravel. \ 50· F. days. feet. The frost-free season ranges from 145 to Elevation ranges from about sea level to In a representative profile, the soil is . . brown and dark yellowish-brown very gravel /Sand to a depth of about 18 inches. The .'stratum is dark grayish-brown very gravelly a depth of 60 inches and more. Neilton soils are used for timber and development. Neilton ~lopes 1n irregularly shaped to about 200 acres in size. Representative profile of Neilton loamy sandI 2 to IS percent slopes, in 1,100 feet east and 150 feet north of comer of sec. 28, T. 21 N., R. 5 E.: 01--1 to-l/8 inch, undecomposed matter; abrupt, smooth boundary. 1 inches thick.. 02--1/8 inch to 0, black (lOYR 2/ decomposed organic matter. 1/8 to 1/4 thick. B21ir--O to 6 inches, dark-brown 3/3) very gravelly loamy sand, brown 5/3) dry; massive; soft, very [::~:::~:i;nonstiCkYJ non- plasticj many roots; : acid; clear, smooth boundary. 6 to thick. B22ir--6 to 18 inches, dark -brown (IOYR 3/4) very gravelly sand, yellowish brown (lOYR 5/4) dry; soft, very friable, nonsticky, roots; medium acid; abrupt, wavy 10 to 14 inches thick. IIC--18 to 60 inches, very gravelly 6/2) dry; plastic; few ) (2.5Y 4/2) brownish gray (2.5Y loose, nonstickys non- medium acid (pH 5.6). Many feet thick • The 8 horizon from dark brown to dark yellowish brown. horizon ranges from gray- ish brown to dark gl1l'Yl.sn brown. Soils included this soil in mapping make up no more than 25 ~~~::;~:;"L~Of the total acreage. Some S Alderwood soiis, on the parts of th~ landscape; deep, sandy Indianola soils; some percent the poorly drained Noma soils' areas are about .1 percent the poorly aralnea Seattle soils in depressions; and some are up 20 percent Everett very gravelly sandy loam. ing depth water can"'~1'V ·and the 1.s very rapid. The e'ffecti ve root- inches and more. The av.ailable Runoff is slow to medium, is slight to moderate. This is used for timber and for urban devel- Capability unit VIs-I; woodland group 3f3. Newberg Series Newberg series is made up of well-drained that formed in alluvium in the st.rearn valleys ~ under grass, hardwoods, and co ifers. Slopes are 0 to 2 percent. The annual pre ipitation is 35 to 45 inches, and the mean annual· ir temperature is about 50° F. The frost-free seas is about 200 days. Elevation ranges from abou sea level to 500 feet • In a representative pr ile, the surface layer is very dark grayish-brown s It loam and very fine sandy loam about 20 inc 5 thick. It is underlain t to a depth of 60 or more, by stTatified very fine sandy loam, ery fine sand, loamy sand, and silt loam. Newberg soils are used for row crops and are among the best soils in the Area for that use. They also used for pasture and for urban development. Newberg silt loam (Ng) .--This soil is in long, narrow areas that range from 5 to more than 100 acres in size. Slopes are less than 2 percent and are mostly convex. Representative profile of cultivated Newberg silt loam, 500 feet west and 575 feet north of the east quarter corner of sec. 36, T. 23 N., R. 4 E.: Ap--O to 10 inches J very dark grayish-brown (IOYR 3/2) silt loam, grayiSh brown (lOYR 5/2) dry; moderate J fine, granUlar structure; slightly hard, friable, slightly sticky, slightly plastic; many roots; medium acid j, abrupt, smooth boundary. 8 to 10 inches thick. Al--IO to 20 inches, very dark graYish-brown (lOYR 3/2) very fine sandy loam, grayish brown (lOYR 5/2) dry; massive; soft, very friable, non- sticky, nonplastic; common roots; slightly acid; clear, smooth boundary. 9 to 12 inches thick. Cl--20 to 36 inches, very dark grayish-brown (lOYR 3/2) and dark grayish-brown (2_5Y 4/2) very fine sandy loam and loamy very fine sand, grayish brown (lOYR 4/2) dry; massive; soft, very friable. nonsticky, nonplasticj common roots; neutral; abrupt, wavy boundary. 12 to 16 inches thick. C2--36 to 46 inches, dark grayish-brown (2.5Y 4/2) and gray (5Y 5/1) very fine sandy loam, light brownish gray (2.5Y 6/2) dry; common, large, prominent, strong-brown (7.5YR 5/6 and 5/8) mottles; massive; soft, very friable~ non- stickYJ nonplastic; common roots; neutral; abrupt J wavy boundary. 10 to 13 inches thick. C3--46 to 47 inches, dark grayish-brown (2.5Y 4/2), yellowish-brown (lOYR 5/4), yellowish-red (5YR 4/6), and dark reddish-brown (5YR 3/3) loamy sand and silt loam, light gray (2.5Y 7/0), reddish brown (5YR 4/4), and yellowish red (5YR 4/8) dry; massive; very hard, very fri- able to very fi~, slightly sticky. slightly plastic; few roots; neutral; abrupt, wavy boundary. I to 2 inches thick. C4--47 to 60 inches, gray (5Y 5/1) very fine sandy loam, light gray (5Y 7/1) dry; many, fine, prominent, yellowish-brown (lOYR 5/4) mottles and few, fine, prominent, yellowiSh-red (SYR 4/8) and red (2.5YR 4/6) mottles, light yellow- ish brown (lOYR 6/4) and yellowish red (5YR 4/8) 19 • dry; massive; slightly nard, very friable; nortsticky t nonp~ast.ic; few roots; neutraL The A horizon ranges from very dark grayish brown .~ to _very dark brown. The C horizon consists of layers ( )of silt loam. very .fine sandy loam, sandy loam~ ' .. " loamy sand,' .and sand; the thickness of each layer varies. MOttles occur at a depth below 30 to 40 inches in some places. Some areas are up to 25 or 30 percent inclusions of somewhat poorly drained Briscot, Oridia, and Wood- inville soils; and some are up to 10 percent the poorly dr~ined Puget soils. Total inclusions do not exceed 30 percent. Permeability is moderate. The effective rooting depth is 60 ~nches or more~ A seasonal water tab Ie is at a d~th of 3 to 4 feet in places. Available water capacity is high. Runoff is slow, and the erosion hazard is slight. The hazard of stream over- flow is slight to severe, depending on the amount of flood protection provided. This soil is used mostly for row crops-. Capabil- ity unit IIw-l; woodland group 201. Nooksack Series The Nooksack series is made up of well-drain d soils that formed in al1uvi~ in river valleys under a cover of grass, conifers, and hardwoo Slopes are 0 to 2 percent. The annual preci is 3S to SS inches, and the ~an annual air ture is about 50° F. The frost-free seaso is about 190 days. Elevation ranges from about sea level to 500 fee~. ~) In a representative profile, the soil is very \ dark grayish-brown, dark grayish-brown, d grayish- "--brown silt loam to a-depth of 60 inche or more. .~ .. ~ . Nooksack sO.lls are used for row cr s and pasture and for lJ!ban development.· Nooksack silt loam (Nk).--This n level soil is in l~g, narrow areas that rang 300 acres in size. Slopes are Ie 5 than 2 percent. Represent·ative ·profile of cut vated Nooksack silt loam t 1,800 feet east and 0 feet south of the west quarter corner of sec. 4, . 24 N., R. 7 E.~ Apl--O ~o 2 inches. very dark grayish-brown (lOYR 3/2) silt loam. grayis brown (IOYR 5/2) dry; few~ fine, faint, dar yellOWish-brown (lOYR 4/4) mottles; weak, in, platy structure; slightly hard, very riab.le, nonsticky. non- plastic; many root ,. slightly acid; abrupt, smooth boundary. to 3 inches thick. Ap2--2 to 11 inches, va.y dark grayish-brown (IOYR 3/2) silt 10.... rayish brown (lOYR 5/2) dry; weak, coarse, p ismatic structure; slightly hard~ very fri Ie, nonsticky, nonplastic; common roots; lightly acid; abrupt, smooth botmdary. 8 0 10 inches t:h i ck. 82-·U to 29 inch •• dark grayish-brown (2.5Y 4/2) silt loam. ight brownish gray (2.5Y 6/2) dry; weak, medi m, prismatic structure and weak, medium~ subangular blocky structure; hard, friable. slightly s~icky. slightly plasti cammon roots; medium acid; clear, smooth boundary. 17 to 21 inches thick. Cl--29 to 42 inches, dark grayish-brown ~t, and grayish-brown (2.5Y 5/2) silt loam ' thin lenses of very fine sandy loam, 1 ght brownish gray (2.5Y 6/2) dry; massive slight- ly hard, very friable, nonsticky, no lastic; common roots; slightly acid; clear. mooth boundary. 10 to 15 inches thick. C2--42 to 60· inches. grayish-brown (2.5Y 5/3) silt loam. light brownish gray (2.5Y 6 i) dry; massive; hard, friable, sticky, man roots; medium acid. The B_and C horizons are mostly s It loam and very fine sandy loam and have lense·· of silty clay loam and fine sandy loam. The C h izon is dark grayish brown, grayish brown, or rk brown. Some areas are up to 5 percent inc.1uded poorly drained Puget soils; and some ar 10 to IS percent the somewhat poorly _drained Ori a and Briscot soils. Also included with this soil i mapping are areas of the poorly drained Woodinvi Ie silt loam and a few areas of a Woodinville si ty clay loam. Included soils make up no more than 1 percent of the total acreage. Permeability is moderate depth is 60 inches The effective rooting A seasonal water table in places4 Available off is slow, and the .Stream. overflow is a mod- is at a depth of 3 water capacity is high. erosion hazard is Sligh erate to severe hazard. This soil is used f r row crops and pasture for urban development Capability unit IIw-l; I and group 201. The Norma seri poorly drained soils that formed in alluvium. under sedges, grass. conifers, and h dwoods. These soils are in basins on the glaciate uplands and in areas along the ·stream·bottoms. Slopes are 0 to 2 percent. The annual precipi ation is 3S to 60 inches, and the mean arulUa! a· r temperature is about sao F. The frost-free s ason is 150 to 200 days. Elevation ranges from bout sea level to 600 feet. In a rep' esentative profile, the surface layer is black sand loam about 10 inches thick. The subsoil is dark g ayish-brown and dark-gray sandy loam and 25 a depth of 60 inches or more. soils are used mainly for pasture. If they are used· for row crops. epresentative profile of Norma sandy loam, in a ture, 725 feet east and SO feet north of the s uth quarter corner of sec. 31, T. 20 N., R; E. : • If drained, this soil is used for row crops. It is also used for pasture. Capability unit IIw-3; no woodland classification. (j Urban Land Urban land (Ur) is soil that has been modified by disturbance of the natural layers with additions of fill material several feet thick to accommodate large industrial and housing installations. In the Green River Valley the fill ranges from about 3 to more than 12 feet in thickness .. and from gravelly sandy loam to gravelly loam in texture. The erosion hazard is Slight to moderate. No, capability or woodland classification~ Woodinville Series The Woodinvi~le series is made up of n and gently undulating, poorly drained so' formed under grass and sedges, in alluvi ,on. stream bottoms~ Slopes are 0 to 2 percent. e annual precipitation ranges from 35 to 5S in es, and· the mean annual air temperature is about 0 F. The frost-free season is about 190 days. Elevation ranges from.about sea level to about 85 feet. In a representative profile, .. gra silty clay loam J and layers of pea a depth of about 38 inches. This greenish-gray silt loam that exte 60 inches and more. silt loam~ mUck extend to underlain by to a depth of Woodinville soils are and urban developlllent. row c~ops~ pasture, ( ) Woodinville silt loam (Wo). -This soil is in elon- ... ~_ gated and blodcy Shaped areas that range from 5 to nearly 300 acres in size. I is nearly le-.el and gently undulating. Slopes e less than 2 percent. Representative profile 0 Wo.odinville silt lQam.~ in pasture, 1,700 feet sou and 400 feet west of the north quarter corner ~ sec. 6, T. 25 N., R. 7 E. : Apl--O to 3 inches, gra (SY 5/1) silt loam, grayish .brown (IOYR 5/2) ry;. cOllDllon, fine, prominent, dark reddish-bra (SYR 3/4) and reddish-brown (SYR 5/4) mottl s; .moderate, medium., crumb structurej har J. friable, sticky,.plastic; many fine ; medilOl acid j. clear ~ smooth bOWldary. 0 4 inches thid. . ,) Ap2--3 to 8 incn~s, gray (5Y 5/1) silt light brownish gray (2.SY 6/2) d ; many, fine, prominent, dark reddish-b wn (5YR 3/3 and 3/4) mottles and common, f1 ~, prominent mottles ·of strong brown (7.5YR 5/6) and ,. dish yellow (7.5YR 6/6) dry; erate, 1 and very fine J angu~ar blocky structure i hard, friable, sticky, plastic; co on fine roots; medium acid; abrupt, wavy bo ndary. 4 to 6 inches thick. 821g--8 to 38 inches, gray (5Y 5/ ) silty clay loam, gray. (5Y 6/1) dry; common, fine, prominent, brown (7.SYR 4/4) mottles d medilDD, promi- nent mottles of brownish ellow (IOYR 6/6) dry; 25 percent of matti,:, is enses of very dark brawn (lOYR 2/2) and dar yellowish"brown (IOYR 3/4) peaty muck, rown (7.5YR 4/2) dry; massive; hard, firm.1 5 cky, plastic; few fine ·roots i medium. acid; cl ar I smooth bm.mdary. 30 to 40 inches thick 822g--38 to.60 inches, gre loam, gray (SY 6/1) mottles of brownish massive; hard, very slightly plastic; ish-gray (5BG 5/1) silt ry; few. fine, prominent Ilow (lOYR 6/6) dry; friable, slightly sticky~ rong)y acid. The A hori zon ranges brown to gray and from silt 10 to silty clay loam. The B horizon ranges from gr y and grayish brown to olive gray and greenish. gra and from. silty clay loam to· silt. loam. In places there are thin lenses of very fine sandy· lo~ and amy fine sand. Peaty .lenses are common in the B. orizOn~ These lenses are thin, and their combined ickness ~ between depths. of 10 and 40 inches,.doe not exceed 10 inches. Soils included ith this soil in mapping mat ) no mC?re than 2S p cent of the total acreage. ..~ areas are uP.to I percent Puget soils; some are up to 10 percent Sn ornish soil~; and. s~e areas are up to 10 percen~ Or dia, Briscot, Puyallup, Newberg, and Nooks ack . so 1 s . Permeabili t is moderately slow. There is a sea- sonal high wat r table at or near the surface. In d~ined areas the eff~ctive rooting depth is 60 inches or mor. In undrained areas, rooting dep~h is restricte. The available water capacity is high.. Runo is slow, and the hazard of erosion is slight. St eam overflow is a severe hazard unless flood prot tion is provided (pl. III, top). This so I is Used for row cropSt pasture, and urban dev lopment. Capability unit I1w-2; woodland group 3w • Metro Route 143 Timetable :ekday 143, 149 Weekday: Sept. 24, 2005 thru Feb. 10, 2006 • Be sure to read the Special Service Info for this route. To RENTON, BLACK DIAMOND (Weekday): 4th Av & Route Lenora 149 149 149 149 149 149 149 149 149 143 143 143 143 4:03pm 4:32pm 4:50pm 5:05pm 2nd Av & Pike 4:07pm 4:37pm 4:55pm 5:10pm S 2nd Maple Valley Maple Valley & Hwy & Hwy & Burnett Av S 149th Av SE Cedar Grove 4:58am 5:23am 5:49am 6:26am 8:05am 9: 45<lm 11:45am 1: 4 Spm 3:30pm 4:41pm 5:11pm .5: 29pm§ 5: 44pm 5:05am 5:30am 5:56am 6:36am 8:15am 9:54am 11: 54am 1:54pm 3:39pm 4:53pm§ 5:23pm§ 5:56pm§ 5: lOam 5:35am 6:01am 6: Oam 8:22am lO:02am 12:02pm 2:02pm 3:48pm 5:04pm§ 5:34pm§ 6:06pm§ To RENTON, DOWNTOWN SEATTLE (Weekday): 3rd Av & Route Baker 143 143 143 143 143 149 149 149 149 149 149 149 149 149 5:37am 6:02am 6:27am 7:08am 8:50am 10:35am 12:45pm 2:35pm 4: 15pm 5:37pm 6:07pm 6:40pm Timetable Symbols §-Estimated time. Special Service Info SR-169 Maple Valley Maple Valley S 2nd & Hwy & Hwy & & SE 231st Cedar Grove 149th Av SE Burnett Av S 5:51am 6:19am 6: Ham 7:24am 9:04am 10: 49am 12:59pm 2:49pm 4:29pm 5:51pm 6:19pm 6:52pm 5:58am 6: 27 am 6:52am 7:31am 9: 11am 10:56am 1:06pm 2:56pm 4:36pm 5:59pm 6:26pm 6:59pm 6:06am 6:37am 7:02am 7:39am 9:18am 11: 03am 1: 13pm 3:03pm 4:45pm 6:08pm 6:33pm 7:06pm 6:17am 6:50am 7:05am 7: 17 am 7:37am 7:54am 9:29am 11: 14 am 1:24pm 3: 14pm 4:57pm 6: 19pm 6:44pm 7: 17pm http://transit.metrokc.gov/topslbuS/schedules/sI43_0_.hlml Page I of2 SR-169 & SE 231st 5: 14am 5:39am 6: 06am 6: 48am 8:27am lO:09am l2:09pm 2: 09pm 3:55pm ·5:14pm§ 5: 42pm§ 6: 12pm§ 4th Av & Univ 6: 42am§ 7: l6am§ 7:31am§ 7: 43am§ 8:04am§ 111912006 SEATTLE (see detail map) Routes 143 149 .. N _ Makes all re~l8f stops ....... " Makes imited or no stops . • TIM: POINT: Street irt1efsectioo used fa-~me schelille fEI[emnC<'! painl ijsled at the lOp of time (;(Ilul'llns 10 estim9le bus arrival and ~ times. -~g'G TI~ POINTITRANSFER POINT combined F ... Re:ZONe: Additionallare l'8c,JiM Gill PAIOK & RIDE: o.sjll'~ed free _g .... ..". cfi!ect bus service 10 m~ rxunmeroial oeners. o LANDMARK: A !;ignificent gaogrsphical referen:::e point • BUS STOPS: 2nd Ave http://transit.metrokc,gov/cftemplates!show_map.cftn?BUS_ RQUTE= 143&DA Y _ NA V=W ~ RENTON ~ :g o RENTON BLACK DIAMOND ~ II 111912006 Vanessa Dolbee From: Karen Walter [KWalter@muckleshoot.nsn.us] Tuesday, December 30, 2008 03:45 PM Vanessa Dolbee Sent: To: Subject: Address Change:RE: RE: FW: New Life Church, LUA08-081, ECF,SA-A, Notice of Application and Proposed Determination of Non-Significance ,Mitigated Attachments: Fox and Bolton-2007.pdf Vanessa, As we discussed previously, the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division has reviewed the land use resubmittal package for the above referenced project. This package included several items, including but not limited to, a letter dated October 272008 from the applicant's consultants, which included a response to our previous letter dated in August 28, 2008. Based on our review of these materials, we have the following outstanding questions and comments. 1. The applicant's responses fail to justify the need for a new 2 lanes/sidewalks bridge crossing on Madsen Creek to the mowed field on the other side. Likewise, the applicant's responses fail to sufficiently describe the recreation uses for the west side of the property that would require a new 30' wide bridge over Madsen Creek. In the October 27, 2008, Wetland and Stream Analysis and Mitigation report, it states on page 2, "the purpose of this crossing is to maintain access to the west side of the site for continued use and future development [emphasis added] and to remove a substandard, failing road crossing. See also page 11 of this report for a similar statement. The October 27 2008 response letter from the consultants contains similar statements. We are not objecting to the new crossing and its location per se; however, the applicant should fully disclose the intentions for the portion of the property on the other side of Madsen Creek as part of this environmental review or if there are no improvements in the foreseeable future as defined by SEPA, then the applicant should modify reduce of the size of the bridge crossing to reduce the bridge impacts while still allowing access to the west side. 2. On page 9 of the Wetland and Stream Report, the document indicates that chum salmon are found in Madsen Creek. Please have the applicant provide a reference to document chum salmon in this stream. To our knowledge, chum occasionally stray into the Lake Washington basin; however, we are unaware of any documentation of chum in this stream. This section also fails to consider the potential for steel head in Madsen Creek. Trout (either rainbow or steelhead), as well as cutthroat trout, were documented in Madsen Creek at River Mile 2.6 and its tributary unnamed tributary, 08.0306, above the site according to the 1983 Report, Game Fish Distribution in Selected Streams Within the Lake Washington Drainage Basin, 83-9, Washington State Game Department. MITFD staft also observed juvenile steelhead in Madsen Creek in 1994. This citation can be found at http://www.govlink.org/watersheds/8/reports/fish-maps/steelhead/default.aspx, which appears to have not been used in developing the Stream Report. Adult sockeye have been also observed in Madsen Creek, see http://www.govlink.org/watersheds/8/reports/fish-maps/sockeye/default.aspx 3. The tree inventory plan for the project appears to be consistent with the City's request for an inventory of all trees within 100 feet of the OHWM. However, we would request a tree inventory be completed for all trees that are at least 4 inches in diameter and within 200 feet of the OHWM as this is likely the maximum height that a conifer or potentially cottonwood could grow on the site's soils and still provide function to Madsen Creek, including future wood recruitment based on scientific literature that we can provide if the City needs it. Without this information, trees that could provide function riparian functions may end up being removed without mitigation. 4. The Environmental Goals and Objectives report should include a discussion about any previous mitigation measures that were conducted at this site as part of the original church proposal; the high flow by-pass for Madsen Creek or any other previous work on the property that required mitigation. King County DDES is likely a good source for previous mitigation requirements. This information is relevant to determine if Wetland Band Wetland A past mitigation could be adversely affected by the project and the mitigation plan. This information is also relevant to determine if the proposed buffer reduction is appropriate for Madsen Creek, as well as, the proposed buffer averaging for the wetland buffers. 5. Please have the applicant fully discuss the number and size of alder trees that need to be removed to accommodate the new bridge crossing. This information is lacking in the October 27, 2008 letter from the consultants. 1 6, The applicant has insufficiently responded to the requirement that the stream crossing "minimizes the interruption of downstream movement of wood and gravel". The response indicates that the new crossing "will be a bottomless box culvert or a bridge that is larger than the existing crossing". This response and the Stream Report doe not provide sufficient information to assess if the new crossing will interfere with the natural process of gravel and wood transport within the Madsen Creek subbasin. A hydraulics analysis and details about the actual crossing size and type is needed. 7. Please have the applicant provide the planting proposal for the 6,090 square feet "offset area" to the southwest that is proposed mitigation for the 5,623 square feet of impact due to the new bridge and associated road. 8. Please have the applicant clarify the purpose of the 24 inch and 36 inch culverts that "were installed by King County as part of the wastewater replacement project and Madsen Creek mitigation project (see enclosed easement Recording No. 9905190312)". There is no mention of the culverts in the easement recording document and we are unaware of culvert work that may have been needed for neither the wastewater pipeline project nor the Madsen Creek "mitigation projecf' referenced in the response letter. 9. We maintain our concern that given the increased level of vehicle use/parking at this site, the project should be required to conduct enhance water quality treatment for its stormwater impacts. 10. There is no scientific basis or analysis to support the consultant's responses that the proposed stream buffer averaging for the relocated stream crossing and the permanent buffer reduction from 100 feet to 75 feet for approximately 500 feet of stream buffer length on the east side of Madsen Creek does not decrease the functional riparian or habitat values of Madsen Creek. Based on existing information, Madsen Creek lacks wood, especially when compared to the natural wood loading rates for streams in Western Washington of comparable size (see Fox and Bolton 2007 attached). Madsen Creek also lacks areas of continuous functional riparian buffer, particularly from where the stream is split on the property downstream to the mouth. As noted in comment 3 above, a contiguous buffer of 200 feet in width on each side of the stream is likely needed to provide the suite of functions that riparian areas provide, especially wood recruitment. While the proposed buffer enhancement on the east side is an improvement over existing conditions, there is no analysis to demonstrate that Madsen Creek and its salmon habitat forming processes will fully function with an enhanced 75 foot buffer on the east side for the majority of the stream on the property based on both existing and proposed site conditions. Furthermore, there is no instream wood proposed as mitigation, including the potential to use the "30 significant trees that will be removed" and the requirement to enhance and maintain a fully functional buffer on the west side of the stream as partial mitigation for the permanent buffer loss. Both of these actions should be required as mitigation for the permanent lost opportunity for a fully functional riparian buffer on the east side of Madsen Creek. Finally, there should be discussion and analysis of the mitigation plan and its consistency with the eXisting 200 feet sensitive areas easement (AFN 2001072002144) shown on Sheet C2, "Preliminary Dimensioned Site Plan". 11. Per the Stream Report, the project will result in road improvements that affect the existing buffer along Madsen Creek where it turns and flows west along SR 169 and does not require mitigation under the City's code. While there may be no requirement to do so under the code, the stream buffer should be enhanced on at least the south side. This action could also serve as partial mitigation for the impacts to the existing buffer as well as the permanent loss of stream buffer discussed in comment 10 as a result of the project. We appreciate to continue to work with the City to resolve our questions and concerns with this project. Please call me if you have any questions or need any additional information. Thank you, Karen Walter Watersheds and Land Use Team Leader Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division 39015 172"" Ave SE Auburn, WA 98092 2 NO!.lli 1i!l1('1'imll lUI/Ulli1 u/Fhhl'ril'.1 MOllagl'l!1l'1ll 27:.,42 ric). ~(I()7 © Copyright hy the Am~rican Fisheri~s Society 2007 DOl; 1O.1577/M05-024.! [Article 1 A Regional and Geomorphic Reference for Quantities and Volumes of Instream Wood in Unmanaged Forested Basins of Washington State Posr OffiCI! Bn.\ 5(/). ROI/.\Ii. If'ashingrol7 98941, USA SL:SA\ BOLTOr-: College of Fore,," Resources, Unil'cr.,in or 1I"<I.ll!ill·~rl!n, Bn\" 352100, Scarrle. Washington 98105. USA Ah~·tract.-\Ve collected field data all itL~trC:1l1J wt)(ld quantities and volumes frum 150 stream segments draining unmanaged basins within Wa:-;ilingt()J1 Stare to develop reference conditions for restoration and management. The woud loads in these stl\':lIl1~ rrnvidc: a reference for management since it is assumed that they incorporate the range uf conditions to which salrlhmids and other species have adapted. We also used these data to evaluate existing standard.'-hlr brge wood in streams. Large wood is an important component of salmonid habitat, and stream channel aS~L'ssmL'nh and restoration and enhancement efforts often associate habitat quality for ~almon Oncorhynchus "'PI'. with the quantity and volume of woody debris; however, the wood targets currently used to assist re.\UUfl·l' Illalldger~ typically do not account for variations in quantity ur volume owing to differences in geolllul"pil(ll<l)!), forest zones. or disturbance regimes. For restoring the appropriate range of conditions in sallll'lIl hahitat. 'Xl' off~r a p~rcentile wood distribution of natural and unmanageu wood-loading ranges ba.~c:d \111 rvgional and geomorphic variation for the purpose of reestablishing celltral tendencies. We rel'OI11I11Cl1d thal stremns in a degraded state (e.g., below the 25th perccntile) be managed for an interim tari-'d at or ahlwc the 75th percentile unlil rhe basin-scale wood loads achieve these central tendencies. Based 011 the ~alllpk dimihution, these reference conditions are applicable to streams with hank-full widths between I alld I no 111, gr:ldients between (l.\ % and 4770, elevations b~tw~en 9 I and 1,906 m, drainage areas between 0...1. <llId 32:'i kIll'. glacial and rain-or snow-domitwted origins, forest types common to the Pacific Northwest, ami .\~'\Trallllht'r distinguishing physical and regional classifications. Because large woody debris (L WD) is :m impot1ant indicator of salmonid habitat resource managers oftell rely on standards for the number and sizl..' of large pieces of wood to evaluate and restore wood to streams. Typically, these standards are not applicable to all channel types and regions owing to lllultiple factors that influence variability. Wood loads ill natural and unmanaged streams are oflen assumed to provide a reasonable reference for management since tlwy incorporate the range of conditions to which salrnonids and other species have adapted. This paper examines data on the number and volume of wood from unmanaged streams to (I) develop refcrence ranges as a resource management tool to assess, protect, restore, and enhance salmonid hahilal in streams as it relates to wood and (2) evaluate existing management targets for geomorphic and regional compatibility_ The objective of this study is to develop references for instream wood quantities based on natural geomorphic and regional characteristics for ., Corresponding author: murtin.fox@muckleshoot.I1Sn.lb Received February 16,2005; ::lccepted August 3, 2()06 Published online March t, 2007 streams both east and west of the Cascade Mountains of Washington State. These references will be compared with instream wood standards currently applied to strc<lms in the Pacific Northwest. The role of L WD in Pacific Northwest streams is linked to channel processes that benefit salmon ids. Woody debris plays an important role in controlling (hannel morphology, the storage and routing of sediment and organic matter, and the creation of fish habitat (Bisson et aI. 1987; Bjornn and Reiser 1991). I,arge wood creates habitat heterogeneity by forming pools, back eddies, and side channels, and by increasing channel sinuosity and hydraulic complexity (Spence et al. 1996). Pools are, perhaps, one of the most important habitat features for salmon Oncorhyn~ ellUs spp. formed by LWD (Keller and Swanson 1979), In high-energy channels, L WD functions to retain spawning gravel and can also provide thermal and physical cover for salmon ids (Schuett-Hames et a1. 1994). Wood indirectly serves a<; an important food source for salmonids by providing nutrients and insects to the stream (Naiman and Scdell 1979; Spence et al. 1(96) or by retaining salmon carcasses (Cederholm et aL 1989; Bilby et aL 1996). Wood serves as cover for 342 WOOD REFERE:-';CE QlIAi\T1HES IN UNMANAGED STREAMS 343 juvenile salmon ids, which are particularly vulnerable to predators when migrating (Larsson 19X5). TI1l' geo- morphic potential of the channel to procc:-.s wood into features that benefit salmon ids is otten lilllited by lhe quantity and size of wood (Abbe and \:lontgoll1ery 1996). eh.mne! responses to wood vary with the geomor- phic characteristics of the stream (Murphy and Ko~ki 1989; Robison and Beschta 1990; MOlltgo[lIery cl ;\1, 2003). In high-energy channels, LWD functions to retain spawning gravel and can also pruvitic thellllal and physical cover for salmonids (Schuett-Hamcs ct al. 1994). Logjams can create sections of 10\\· graliil..'nts with alluvial substrates in bedrock ch<llllll.'ls hy storing sediment upstream of the jam (Molltgomery l't al. 1996; Massong and Montgomery 200()). which can provide localized low-gradient habitats ill ~Ic('p v,dk'y segments where none would otherwise haH' l",isted. Restoration activities in the Pacific Northwest (lttcn involve long-term recovery of ripari,m ami channd processes and are frequently combined with short··term "fixes" by the placement of habitat strlll"ll1n::~. ()ftCIl. to expedite habitat recovery while riparian arca~ COI1\'[\- lcsce, wood is placed in streams to provide habitat for salmonid use (Reich et al. 2003; Rani t.'I :II. :'()031. We assume that, to maximize the iiucces~ of improving habitat. the amount of wood placed in a channel or intended to be recruited from riparian managcmcnt areas iii representative of the wood qtJ<lIllili('<, ami volumes to which salmonids have adapted, A ol1l..'-si7.c- fits-all wood target approach may diminish hahitat heterogeneity by reducing the natural nlllg(' 01" wood condilions, Therefore, knowledge of the tHllur.\I variation of instream wood loads amung different stream types and regions should irnpro\"l.' restoration activities as well as the scientific defensibililY of regulatOlY thresholds. The number and volume of instream \\·ood are highly variable owing to several types of processes that influence the mass balance of wood in ~l ~'yqe1l1 (B~~l1da et al. 2003), Geomorphological features, such as channel size, channel type, and confinelllent. can influence wood loads and diiitribution (Bilhy and \Vard 1989; Montgomery and Buffington 1997: Rot el al. 2000; Martin and Benda 2001), Anthropolo1!i(·al disturbances, such as riparian vegetation modifications, foreiit practiceii (Bilby and Ward 1991; Ralph cl al. 1991), flow regulation (Nakamura and Swanson 200.3), urban development, and agricultural practices. can also alter the amount of wood in channels. Natural disturbances, such as fire (Rot et <.II. 2000: Fox 2001), floods (Braudrick and Grant 20(0). debris tlows (Ikeya 1981; Costa 1984), and snow avalanches (Keller and Swanson 1979), are other factors having an impact on variability in wood loading over space and time, Regional considerations due to climate influences often dictate riparian characteristics that ultimately are reflected in instream wood loads (Tuppeiner et al. 1997; McHenry ct al. 1998; Rot et al. 2000). Stream channel assessments often associate the size, distribution, and abundance of woody debris with salmon habitat quality. As a result, wood targets have been developed by state and federal agencies to evaluate the adequacy of instream wood quantities in the Pacific Northwest (Table I), Efforts to restore riparian areas with the aid of various recruitment models tied 10 riparian characteristics and to enhance stream habitat through the artificial placement of wood often usc objectives derived from these management targets. The L WD piece quantity targets now frequently used as management and restoration standards were devel- oped with the most complete data available for reluting wood frequency to channel width in Pacific Northwest streams (Peterson et al. 1992). However, Spence et al. (1996) note that those targets do not fully consider potential sources of variation found throughout their application range and that they should only be applied [0 the types of streams for which they were derived. Because the current targets do not fully account for this variation and are applied generically, they may be inappropriate for some channel types and regions outside the area where the targets were developed. For example, a stream enhancement project may place wood in a stream channel based on the quantities recommended by target references, but these efforts may not provide the quantities or volumes of wood representative of local conditions to which salmonids have adapted. Because of the reliance upon wood targets by resource managers for critical decision making, a need exists to reevaluate existing wood targets and refine these values where appropriate. Methods To better characterize the natural quantities and volumes of instream wood within Wa..<;hington State, survey sites were chosen within stream basins that are relatively unaffected by anthropogenic disturbance. Selected basins are characterized by forests that are loosely termed as "natural and unmanaged" and meet the following criteria: (1) no part of the basin upstream of the survey site was ever logged using forest practices common after European settlement and (2) the basin upstream of the survey sire contains no roads or human modifications to the landscape that could affect the hydrology, slope stability, or other natural processes of wood recruitment and transport in streams. These basins will hereafter be referred to simply as "natural 344 ]·ox :\:'-JU BOLTON TABLE I.-Various state and feueral manllgem<.'nl l<\rg~'ls hJf large woody debris (LVID) llsed to define adequate salmonid habitat in Pacific Northwest streams. Agency NRtional Marine Fisherie~ Service" Coastal Wa~hingl<\ll Eastern W'hhingtnn Applicahle region Wood metric U.S.Fnre~[ Service and Bureau of LUld M;magementh Anudromoll~ fi~h-pr"dth:i 11);. ,\ atepiheds in we'itern Oregon, Wa . .,hinglllll. IJ.t!\(l. and rwtions of California Anadrmnou~ II~h-pl\,dll~'illg \~atershcds in eastern Oregon. Numher of LWD piece~ Numher of LWD piece., Number of LWO piece,., Number of LWO pieces Washington. hLilHl. :Ind [1m1ions of Califnmia Wa~hjngton Fore~1 Practices Board' All forested '11\'''111' oj W.I\i1ington. eh.mnds <20 m bank-full width Western \\",hil1l;.l"l1. ,'h,1I111,+. <20 In in bank-full width (BFW) Numher of L WD piece~ Numher of key piece~ Oreglln W;Jtershed Enhancement Bllard d \Ve~!ern OIC'~PII Number of LWD piece, Volume of LWD pieces Number of key pieces .• Matrix of pathways ;Hld indicatms (NMFS 1990) 10 add I,'" 1-:lld:lll~c'ICd Species Act li~ted aquatlc ~pecie~ in Ihe Pacific Coast Snlmotl Plan (NMFS 19981. ~ USF$ and HI.\1 (1995). c WFPB (19971. d Wntershed Professionals Network (1998). <lnd unmanaged basins," although it is acknowledged that some basins are managed to remain pri~tine and that management may include fire suppression. The purpose of choosing sites in natural. unmanaged forested basins is based on the assumption that n~llllral wood characteristics that have been innll~'ncl'd by natural disturbance cycles as found in these b<lsill~ arc those to which salmon ids and other aquatic species have adapted and, hence, should provide a reasonable reference condition to the quantities and VOIUllh,'S of wood for management purposes. Sites were stratified to reprcsent a broad array of forest types, channel morphologies, and hydrological origins in Washington Statc. The strata sc\yed to characterize the channel in relation to the processes thaI drive fluvial geomorphology und represenl a wide range of climates and vegetation types occurring in the Pacific Northwest (Table 2) that are also potential intluences on the quantity and quality of in:-;tream wood. Comparisons with other Pacific Northwest management standards where similar forest types exist will offer valuable insight for managers, although Ihe datu were collected entirely in Washingtoll State. Regional climatic variations that were presumed to control the characteristics of forest vegetation common to Pacific Northwest streams were grouped into forest zones using the classifications of Franklin and Dyrness (1973), Henderson er al. (1992), and Agee (1993: Table 2; Figure I). Although riparian forests have some structural difference from their upland cuunterp<trts owing to soil heterogeneity, moisture, and other factors that may influence stand attributes, these regional climatic intluences that classify forest zones provide information on the general characteristics of riparian areas of streams flowing through these forests. All wood pieces greater than 10 em in midpoint diameter aJld 2 m in length were counted and measured with tape and calipers within c<lch survey reach. Stream survey methods used many components of the Timber- Pish-Wildlife (TFW) Monitoring Program method manuals (Pleus and Schuett~Hames 1998; Sl.:huett~ Hames et <It. 1999), and riparian inventories were conducted following the methods of Cottam and Curtis (1956). Randomly selected stream segments were divided into three partitions before sampling to avoid dumping of survey reaches. Each survey rC<lch was 100 m in length for channels up to 20 m in bank~full width (BFW) and 200-300 m in length for channels more than 20 m BFVV. Minimum total sample length was 20 channel widths to fully represent repetitive patterns of the stream (Leopold et a!. 1964; MacDonald ct at. 1991; Montgomery and Buffington 1997); however, in channels approaching tOo m in width, surveys ceased at cumulative distances of approxi~ mately I km owing to time and personnel constraints. Sites were evaluated in the field for disturbances caused by fires (date of stand origin) from the Cascade crest westward, floods (exceedance probability of 0.04 125-year flood] rel.:urrence within 10 years from preceding surveys), debris flows (:::; 15 years from preceding surveys), and snow avalanches (::; 15 years from preceding surveys). Other forms of disturbances, such as catastrophic wind throw, insect and disease mortality, or other causes of tree mortality, are acknowledged as significant sources of wood recruit~ ment to streams; however, these other disturbances were seldom observed in the surveys. Field crews had WOOD REFERENCE VUANTITIES IN UNMANAGED STREAMS 345 TABLE J .-Extended. Agency LWU minimuill ~i/': nitcria Neee~sary quantity for adequate fi~h habitat National Marine Fi~herie~ Servke" U.S.Fore~t Service and Bureau of Land Management!> 15.2 m ill kll!Cth X U.6 III diameter 10.7 m ill kll!Cth X (U5 [11 diameter 15.2 m ill kllgth .' 0.6111 diameter >RO piece~/Illile >20 pieces/mile >SQ piece.~/miJe Washington Forest Pnlc1H.:e~ BO;Jrdc 10.7 m in kllglh '" {U5 in diameter 2 m in kll~lh /. O.lllill diameter > 20 piece~/mile '>2 pieces/channel width 1 m-' (chOlI;m'l, {) 5 III BFW); >0.3 piece~channel width for stream~ <10 III BFW, 2.5 m' (cilallileh. >'i-IO m Br-W): 6 m.l (cl1,lnnel, >10-15 m BFW); 9 m.1 (c11;111I1(:1, -"15-20 m BFW) lind >0.5 piece~/Channel width for ~tream., 10·-20 m BF\\,! Oregon Watep,heu Enhancement Hnard~ :I m in 1e1lt:1h x O.I:i in diameter >20 picccs/IOO m of stream >30 nr'/IOO III of ~tream 10 m in iellgdl / ll.hP ill diameter > J piece.,/IOO m or ~lre<lm received fonnal training in TFW fIeld methods through the stream monitoring programs at the Nljt1h\\'e~t Indian Fisheries Commission. and 4uality assurallC(:- quality control (QA-QC) surveys wen: conductl'd on each crew member to ensure data replicahili(), and accuracy. Based on the positive results of the QA-QC surveys (within 10%), confidence in the quality and accuracy of [he data are high. Data were analyzed by means of a thrcl'-prongcd approach. First, descriptive statistics were calculated to establish correlations, check for nonnality, and evalu- ate correlation coefficients to eliminat....' variables that had less mechanistic value toward intluencing \\'uud loads based on field observations. Second. hypotheses relating to the variability of both (I) wood volume and (2) number of pieces as influenced hy the ahove- referenced variables were evaluated with the Akaike infollllation criterion (ATC). Based on our understand- ing of the processes that lead to wood in qrealTl'i, we used ATC as a measure of fit for specific variables to an ordinary-least-squares (OLS) regression. Variables were chosen in a forward-model-selection, back \vard- elimination procedure based on the lowest Ale score (Burnham and Anderson 2(02) to explain (he rull range of variability in the model. Third, we chos(; the best- fitting variables from the AIC subset based all the lowest P-values (a = 0,05) and further kst~d th~se variables by comparing means of categorical groupings rather than individually using analy~is of variance (ANOVA), post hoc tests of Tukey's lcast significant difference. and Fisher F-tcsts for testing variances (Zar 1999). Categorical groupings were combined. when warranted, based on homogenous means, which also increased statistical power of tests. Determining the strongest predictors for instream wood was done to enable practical graphical relationships to illustrate the mnge of the data and to make comparisons with other wood standards. Instream wood was scaled by a unit length (per 100 m) because of statistical advantages when grouping classes of different BF\Vs based on an independent analysis by Fox (2001). Data were loglo transformed to mcet the assumptions of the general linear model and to test hypotheses from nOlll1ally distributed popUlations (Zar 1999). Regressions were conducted with continuous and categorical data for the independent variables. All possible combinations of BFW classes (starting at 3-to 5-m bins) were initially based on visual fine groupings (histograms, scatter- plots, and box plots), then tested and further grouped in this manner where warranted. Forest zones werc grouped if they exhibited similar instream wood loads and riparian basal areas. Box-and-whisker plots are used to present the nmge of nonnormal datu distribu- tions, and the median and 75th and 25th percentiles are offered as reference points for management purposes. Crellting minimum-size definitions of qualifying "key pieces" was first needed to more widely assess key-piece quantities since the Washington Forest Practices Board (WFPB) has no standards for mini- mum key-piece volume for eastern Washington streams and none for western Washington streams greater than 20 m BFW (WFPB 1997). A "functional" piece of wood is likely to vary in size with stream size owing to the variation in physical forces that move wood in relation to stream size (WFPB 1997; Braudrick and Grant 2(00); therefore, establishing minimum piece sizes according to channel size is justifiable, This rationale is also applicable to Oregon targets, where the minimum-size definition for key pieces as defined by the Oregon watershed assessment manual (Watershed Professionals Network 1998; Table 1) is applicable to all western Oregon channels rather than according to channel size. To accomplish this objective, minimum key-piece volumes for western Washington channels (>20 m BFW) were based on the geomorphic definition for "stability and function" given in WFPB (1997), namely, a log and/or roorwad (hat is (I) independently stable in the stream bank-full width (not functionally held by another factor, i.e., pinned by another log, buried, trapped against a 346 FOX A:-.JD BOLTON TARLE 2.-Forcst zone. gradienT, drainage ared, confinl'menT, bedform, channel type, and origin classes used to stratify surveyed stream reaches in Washington, 1999-2()()(l. Forest zone (abbrevi,\!ion)" Sitka spruce Pic(!(J sifc/wll.lh (55) We~tem hemlock T~lIga Ireterophylla (WHI Silver fir I1Nes amahili.1 (SF) Mountnin hemlock T lIIertel1sialla (MH) Subalpine fir A. hwocarpa (SF) Grand fir A. grandis (GF)d DougJa.~-fir P.leudllf,mga nJell:i(,,\'ii- ponderosa pine Pi!IIIS /lIJmkros(/ \D!-' pp)d Gradient <,Xl ::;1 >1-2 >2~1 >4-:-1 >R-::'U '0 [)I<lllldl:': Channel dl~a ("Il;~J" ConfinemenL!> Bedfomlc type Origin 0-2 Confined Plane bed Alluvial Snow melt or rain -'2--1 \fodcratcl) confined Pool or riffle Bedmck Glacial melt c<_x Unconfined SLep poo1 >S-2{) Cascade ..:on 111() __ I (H) .• As describcd in Franklin and Dyme~, (1973), Agee I]()cn] a11(\ Ht;iltkr~on et at. (1992), h As defined in Pleus and Schuett-Hamcs (199!-l). ,. As described in Montgomery and Buffington ( 1997). d Predomin(lntly tound east of the C(lscade cre~l. rock or bed fonn) and (2) retaining (or [haYlllgl the assessed in combination with key-piece size to potential to retain) other pieces of organic dehl-i~ detennine their influence on stability, The length [Uld diameter of key pieces arc faetms intluencing buoyancy and mobility, Although SOllk' dimensional combinations (independent ot' roo!wads) may intluence piece stability more than others as 1hey interact with channel shape, we assume that pil:cc volume provides a reasonable representation of b01h length and diameter propol1ions factored into stabili1y determinations. The presence of rootwads \\'<.1:--ubo Results During the summer .md fall of 1999 and 2000, 150 sites were surveyed that totaled nearly 38 km of stream length. Sampled stream gradients ranged between O.047r. and 49% and 139 of the sites (93 IXJ) met the WFPB (2001) physical criteria for fish presence. Although every possible combination of strata (Table 2) could not he sampled because of their unavailability , A ® Survey sites Forest Zones (and sample size} .. Sitka spruce (20) [=::J w. hemlock (27) _ Sjlver lir-Mln. hemlock (31) 1i11fill!l Grand fir (40) _Subalpine Ijr (18) _ Doug. fir-Pond. pine (14) F1GURl: i.-Survey site distribution according !\} f()rc~1 wn.:s across Washington State, 1999 a1ll12000. Each point represents one or more streams (n = 150). The shadings repre,~~'nt forest ZOIIl'S and a vegetation classification system largely based on (I) narural fire succession and potential climax tree specil.!s. en ckv;ttion, and (3) climate, The forest zone boundaries depicted here are greatly simplified, and multiple plant associatinn~ l'all be fnund within these areas owing to microdimatic differences (after Franklin and Dymcss 1994; Henderson et al. 1992: Agee IlJ9Jl. WOOD REFERE:\'CL ()U;\"1TITIES IN UNMANAGED STREAMS ]47 T,\HLI:: 3.-Best~fit1ing regressions for the lug lll lTilll,~rt)i'Illl'd number of pieces and volume (m~) of larg\.' woody debrIS (LV/D) per lOa m of stream, as dctcmlineti hy ALlik..:: information criterion values. Abbreviation~ are ;IS follO\\~: BFW = bank-full width; Gr. SAP, Sf-MIL and SS-\Vll --c grand tir, subalpine fire, silver fire-mount:lill hemlock, ;md Sitka spruce-western hemlock foresT types: BR = betinll'k bedform; Me amI U = mouerdtely confined <llld llIH:OllfiIli:d classes; slope = channel reach slope. TimL's signs dt'll(lt~ interaction terms. Variable Intercept Log11/BFW) GF SAF SF-MH SS-WH BR Me u LogIO{slope) LO£III(BFW) x GF LO£III{BFW) x SAF LOf!.llltBFW) x SF-MH LO£llltHI-"W) x SS-WH l.o£llltHI-"W) x HR Log IIl(BF\Vj X Me Log11I{BF\V) x U GF x BR SAF x BR SF-MH x BR SS-WH x BR GF x log,J~lopc) SAF x loglll{~lope) SF-MH x logIO(,lope) SS-WH x loglo{~lope) Intercept Log11,(BFW) GF SAl-" SF-MH SS-WH BR Me u Log,1,hlopc) LogllltBFW) x GF LogHlHFW) x SAF Loglll(BFW) x SF-MH Loglll(BFW) x SS-WH Log H,(BFW) x BR Me x logll)(slope) U x logHI(slope) Coefficient SE Pieces or LWD" 1.1326 -0.2385 0.5357 -0.568 0.6053 0.4535 1.4232 -0.0912 -0.0033 -0.0508 0.2776 1.591 -0.117 0.5249 -0.034 0.1193 0.2853 0.9373 -1.0202 --1.3031 -1.0778 0.2608 -O.05SS -O.IR7R O.2R65 0.2998 0.2272 0.3219 0.4116 0.3607 0.3155 0.4fifi9 0.1497 0.164 0.2387 0.2481 0.4367 0.3097 0.2377 0.24:'io 0.1501 0.1536 0.3627 0.4522 0.3707 0.3657 0.2567 0.306-1 0.292] 0.2521 Volume of LWnb -0.1823 0.1361 1.1338 0.2527 0.6S4 O.24lf2 1.9225 1.41l?1 0.194 0.5146 -0.0952 -0.1459 -0.6076 0.4256 -l.33S5 -O.844!! -0.41l57 0.4001 -0,1219 {l.2511 0.3741 fU355 U.2315 U.273 I 0.2256 0.3435 O.11l2 0.2971 0.5091 0.3573 0.2732 0.2759 0.1718 0.2196 ,77S I,().!'!') ]Nl·r~ 1,(,7,'\ I I, \.'72 U)J..,\..'. (),615 l ) ()'()~()2 II,~ IJ I II S7 :;,(,.131 (I,.'n.s -..'.,.~S I.'> () "N5:' I ,S~7 ::' SSJ.(, ::' ~S6.' .' 51":") -2,')..)7(' I,()!.').'! 1),1'117 11,(]·125 ],I.V,' (1,7721 .1..1S7(, ().M;.~ .) 72l)() n,..):'.' 1I 7111-1- .2,::'SlIt( 1I.~n2 -·UI:?:?: ·-2.().j.~ ] (i.S36 ;.7-\(15 U)925 1.7W7 .2.3.291 -1I.555J (),11I1()2 {).2l)~S Il.l)'l:\h {l.1701 ().lll)~S (), I :1.l ]: O.IIIJ]:,'! {lSWI ().l)~y) {l.S.'17 {J.2k"-i O.(l(Hq IJ.71J1>1 II.!)]:') 11.1111 {l.-J.:'~ IUlh57 IUII{l<) {l.()2~S {I.()OOt; 0.1111\'5 1.1.3117 IJXIS] 0.:1217 0.2.,:-; 11.-J.-I14 II (l.OI)')] (U():-;2 II II O."]'7S7 (l.O]:..].2 {l.7~Q 0.1917 O.lJ-I]:R ().-!.Il-l7 O.l){)03 O.I){)]:4 IU1~116 (J.U]:14 O.57'i6 " Standard error = 0.273\, df = 125, H.2 = 0.5966. f"~ l, I q ."; = 7 .703, P = 3.442 x ]() 15 b Standard error"" 0.3737. df = 133, R" = 0.616!L ,.'1" ,H" -13 .. ~8, P =0. in nature, the time constraints of the study, Of both, sites nevertheless represented a diverse array of channel types, confinement classes, bedforms. domi- nant water origins, disturbance histories (fire. debris flows, snow avalanches, and floods), and forest types common in the Pacific Northwest. Basin drainages ranged between 0.4 km 2 and 325 km 2 . Site elevations ranged between 91 rn and 1.906 m (above mean sea level). A total of 21 ,671 L WD pieces were counted and measured. The general distribution of sites within each forest zone of Washington State is illustrated in Figure I, Detailed sampling stratifications and site maps can be found in Fox (2001). Modeling and Exploratory Ana'-vses We found that a loglo transfonnation provided nonnal distributions in the continuous data. Using these transformed data. we found that the Ale approach produced the hest fit for predicting the number of L WD pieces and volume per 100 m of stream reach by including covariates of BFW", forest Iype, bedfonn, gradient, and confmement in the OLS regression along with several combinations of interuc- lions (Table 3). Interactions predicting L WD number of pieces per 100 m are between BFW and forest Iype, BFW and bedrock bedform, BFW and confinement class, bedrock bedform and forest region, and channel reach slope and forest region. Interat:tions predicting LWD volume per 100 m arc between BFW and forest type, BFW and bedrock bedform, and confinement class and channel reach slope. In the exploratory analysis of these variables, we found that BFW and forest zone were also con'elated with wood volume, but the covariates of bedfonn, gradient. and confinement were insignificantly corre- lated despite being included in the AIC selection process. This disparity between the two analyses is probably due to the difference in selection criteria and the [ow test power for regressions, ANDV A (among groupings), and other tests involving multiple strata, which often resulted in small samples. The descriptive analysis also suggests that wood loads have a high variance; however. Ihere are differences in the distributions by discrete channel size-classes among regions. The following sections describe these differ- ences as well as correlations in further detail. Regional and Geom01plwlogical Processes Affecting lnstream Wood Watershed and valley morphology play complex roles in the number and volume of instream wood. The number and volume of instream wood per 100 m of channel length generally increase as drainage area increases (linear regression: P < 0.(01) and as streams become less confined, particularly in watersheds greater than about 10 km 2 in drainage area. We found that BFW is a significantly better predictor of wood parameters than basin size (paired-sample Hest; P = 0.05). whieh stems from the fact that similar BFWs can • 348 FOX A:"-iD BOLTON 500 300 200 100 50 30 20 10 5 3 2 1 500 300 200 -100 M E 50 -30 (I) 20 E 10 ::l 5 -0 3 > 2 C ~ 500 300 200 100 50 30 20 10 5 3 2 0 • • • • • • • • • • o II .. lot .. • . ' "" 0'" .. <J o • • . ' "" 0'" ,,0 o . . ' • o '0 • • , , . l n=69 I n-5°1 I I I I I Mel J , n-31 l • • • I I ul ~J ",i:;) ~ " 0; Bank·full width (m) F!{;lIN.!; 2.-The combint'.d effect of gradient (trbng!cs 0 0- 40/,·, sqllares "" 4-20%. and as(cri:;ks = 'lOS{, or m\ln.::) :md confinement (confined fe), moderately confined (MC/, and unconfined (Ul) on the volume of instream wood (UVD) pCI' 100 m of channel length by bank-fuJi width for surveyed streams 1a Wlllihington. 1999-200{), be produced by different basin sizes owing to regional disparities in precipitation (e.g., western verMis ell:;tern Washington); however. because of the high t!Tor among aU comparisons (R 2 < 0.37), there is probably little difference in predictive qualities between the two variables when wood is !-lcajed per lOO m of channel length, The relationship of c,hannei cro.ss~sectional are,l fo BFW is abo strongly correlated (R 2 = 0.93) and highly significant (P < 0.001). suggesting thut the cross-sectional area of high flow can be predicted by a BFW measurement. The isolated influences of gradient and confinement upon wood volumes are largely inconsistent (Figure 2) as well as for number of wood pieces. suggesting that there may be other comrolling factors governing wood quantities; hO\""ever. the sman sample sizes per glLidient Lind confinement stratification .:ould not support statistical inferences. In all basin sizes. more, wood volume is gencmlly IJbserved in aBuvia! channels than in bedrock channels (Figure 3A), but the relatively small sample of bedrock rhannels docs not aBow statistical conclusions. This phenomenon, whether a calise or effect of the channel condition-wood rciationship, holds true even when isolating the. intluence of gradient and confinement (Figure 3B). It should be noted that over 90% of the hedrock channels surveyed were in confined valleys. III basin drainages of 70 km~ or more, streams predominantly originating from glacial sources (e.g., Mount Rainier, Glacier Peak, and Mount Olympus) had significantly more wood volume per lOO m than streams fed predominantly with snowmelt and rain. This. may be reh\te,d to the larger number of side I.:hannels ill streams originating from ghtcial sources, '.vhich averaged 3 per IOO-In stream reach (n ;:::::. 7) l.:ompared with only 1.8 in .'mow-or rain-dominated channels (n = 17). Although this phenomenon is noteworthy, the sample size of gluci,\J-origin streams \vas too small to create a :separate classification . Although there is no significant relationship between channel morphology ,\Od the volume of wood, pool- riftle channels (where lateral migration is typical) (;ommonly exhibited greater volume per 100 m than plane-bed. step-pool, or cascade morphologies. In/7uenas on {nstream Wood hy Channel DislHrhance Fire, as it affects riparian trees, was found to influence instremn wood quantities and volumes in streams from the Cascade crest westward. Regression analysis suggests that insrream wood volumes increase, with udjacent riparian timber age, as dictated by the last "fand replacement fire (P = 0.013). Riparian charac- teristics, such as me,an tree diamete,r at breast height and basal area (m 2/ha), are influenced by timber age, increasing as stands grow oJder (both with P < 0.00 I). Debris tlows and snow avalanc.hes probably have an effect on instream wood. although bec.ause of the paucity of sites that exhibited these fOMs of distur- bance. statistical verification was nor possibJe (power 1)[ test <20% in most cases). Trend analyses suggest I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I WOOD REFERENCE QLA:-.JTITIES IN UNMANAGED STREAMS 349 Q) E ::J o 1 > Cl ~ ....l Q) E ::J o > Cl ~ ....l C <0 '6 Q) :2 IilllllllAliuliial DBedrock ,,<S> <5 ~<1,: 305 Basin size (km2) 2 0>4-20% .>20~/o 17 21 8 4 14 5 B Alluvial Bedrock F1GL'RE 3.-Comparisons of instream wC}ud voluille (I.WD rm J per 100 mlJ in surveyed stream channd~ in \Va~hington, 1999-2000. by (A) channel type (alluviid (If b<:druck) ,1Ild basin size (km 2) and (B) (.;hannel type and gra(hl'I1l cbss (confined channels only). The number above c;lCh b:lf is the number (sample size) of stream rcachc~ in tbm l':ltcgOry (channel type-basin Si7.C or channel typl.'-t'r:ldil.'I1l). [n the box-and-whisker diagrams, the horizont,1I line.\ within the boxes represent the medians. the upper and [(}v"l.'r L'tlges of the boxes the central 50% of the distribution, and till.' whiskers the highest and lowest values, including "outliers·· (Circles) and "extreme values" (asterisks). Outliers are defined ,1S values between 1.5 ami 3 box lengths from the upper mid IO\\tT edges of the hoxes and extreme values as values more than J box lengths from the upper and lower edges of the hoxc:--. that debris flows and snow avalanches reduce [he number and volume of L WD per 100 m of channel length in channels exceeding 10% in gradient com- pared with similar-gradient channels without recent disturbance. Notably, chmmels less than 6% in gradient with and without debris flows and snow avalanches have nearly the same number of wood pieces per 100 m of channel; however, wood volumes (m 3/IOO m) are greater in channels of this gradient with recent debris flows but less with recent snow avalanches than in channels of this gradient without recent disturbance. Recent tloods did not appear to have a signiticant effeci on inslream wood in the streams surveyed. The comparison of regressions between channels with and without recent floods (within 10 years of survey and having a magnitude :225-year flood recurrence) suggests that floods do not significantly decrease the qumltity and volume of instream wood per toO m with increasing channel width (P > 0.6 for both regression slopes and intercepts). Although this phenomenon is implied by these data, the effects of tloods depicted in these relationships are. perhaps. poorly defined owing to the lack of equal replication of sites containing similar morphologies and regional characteristics. Without wntrolling for these variables, relationships are probably biased by one or multiple regional and geomorphic intluences. Reference Conditions for Instream Wood Quantif)' and Si:e Minimum key piece volumes for channels greater rhall 20 m BFW.-The length and diameter of key pieces are factors intluencing buoyancy and mobility . Although some dimensional combinations (indepen- dent of rootwads) may influence piece stability more than others as they interact with channel shape, we aSSLIme that piece volume provides a reasonable representation of both length and diameter proportions factored into stability determinations. The range of volumes for wood pieces meeting the geomorphic definition for stability and function (WFPB 1997) is presented in the fonn of percentile distribution plots (box plots) for channel elasses greater than 20 m BFW, as distinguished by differences in variances (Fisher F-tests: P < 0.01; Figure 4). From this distribution, the recommended minimum volumes, as we defme by the 25th percentiles, arc approximately 9.7 m3 for the 20-to 30-m BFW class, 10.5 m3 for the 30-to 50--m 3 BFW class, and 10.7 m3 for channels greater than 50 m BFW. A plot of these minimum volumes, including those currently defined by WFPB (1997), is presented in Figure 5. The influence of rootwads on key pieces.--Of the pieces composing the volume percentile distributions (>25th percentile) presented in Figure 4 and the 350 ~ox A\D BOLTON 40r---------------------~C o o OL-__ ~~----~=_----~----~ >20-30 m :>30-50 m ;:..50 m Bank-full width class PiGURE 4.-Distrihutions of instrcam wood VnIUJl1l'~ for individual pieces meeting rhe definition of "key pi<.'c~'s" (i.<.' .. pieces with independent stability; WFPB 1997) for ~lIf\'<.'YL'd channels with bank-full widths greater than 2(1 III in Washington, J999-2000. According to our method,. the minimum volume for key pieces in channels greater [11<\11,2() III is defwed as the 25th percentile. The hox-and-.. \'hi,~"LI diagrams are as described in Figure 3. corresponding curve in Figure 5, it would appear 1hat the recommended minimum volumes defining key pieces are very similar in all channels with BFWs greater than 20 m (and they are not, in fact. significantly different). As channels becomc largn. one would also expect the wood mobility to incrcase owing to wood buoyancy and higher-unit ,~trcam power. The reason that this is not reflected hy an increase in the minimum key-piece volumes as channels become larger probably lies in the presence of rootwads, which compensate for stability in licll of volume increases. Indeed, 96% of the wood pieces meeting the WFPB definition for key picces in channels greater than 50 m BFW had roo[wads attached to them. In channels with BFWs betwcell 30 rn and 50 m, 91 % of the pieces had rootwads. <lncl in channels with BFWs between 20 m and 30 m, 711;<' had rootwads attached. Notably, when selecting for wood functioning as key pieces without rootwads attllcl1cd. the 25th percentile of individual piece volLLrnes in channels 50-100 m is over 26 m J , suggesting a linear trajectory with the sizes defined for channels less Ihan 20 m. However, because of the small sample size (n -, 13) for key pieces without rootwads in ch,mnels between 20 m and 100 m, this observed trend could not be supported with statistical inference. The applicafion of key-piece minimum VOllllllt'S {() eastern Washington.-As described previously, the minimum volume required for a piece of wood to E)O.;Sling WFP~ ~ala 12 J--------~====::====:::::;~~ "'s 10 ID ~ 8 o > 6 4 2 o ---~-... ·T-·----" o 10 20 30 Bank·full width (m) 40 50 60 FIC,lIl;:c' 5.-Plot of the minimum wood volumes in surveyed clwnncls used to define key pieces in both western and eastern Washington, 1999-2000. The points to the right of the vertical lillt' represent the new minimum volumes defined in this analysis, the points to the left the valu~s currently used in Wllshington's ··Watershed Analysis fur Western Washington'· (WFPB 1997), mid the dashed line the minimum key-piece \'olume (2.83 m~) interpreted from the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (based on minimum length and diameter ;.-rireria; Watershed Professionals Network J99fO. achieve independent stability as defined by WFPB (1997) currently applies only to western Washington streams less than 20 m BFW. Based on the minimum ~cy-pieee volume definitions provided by WFPB for channels less than 20 m BFW and the results of tbis study presented above for channels greater than 20 m BFW, the percent of LWD qualifying as a key piece po..'r 100-m reach is not significantly different among forest zones (ANOVA: P = 0.073). This suggests that the minimum key-piece volumes established on the basis of tluvial forces HIther than region are reasonable criteria for evaluating key-piece frequencies in both eastern and western Washington. Voirmles, LWD numbers, and key-piece ljuantities.- Overall, both the number and volume of L WD per 100 m of channel length increased with increasing BFW; however, the variance is not well explained by regressions (R 2 = 0.14 and 0.23, respectively). Therefore, a c1assit1cation approach of BFW is more practical as a management tool than a regression or general linear model, since a range of conditions is provided rather than a single point estimate predicted by an equation. Based on the similarities in LWD volume and riparian basal area, the Sitka spruce, western hemlock, silver fir, and mountain hemlock forest zones are grouped to fonn the "Western Washington Region," and the subalpine fir and the grand fir forest zones are grouped to form the "Alpine Region" (Figure 6). The Douglas-tir and ponderosa pine (DF-PP) forest zone WOOD REFERL.:: .... n.:: ()lIA\T1TIES l:-.l UNMANAGED STREAMS 351 LWD number Key piece number LWD volume (m3) 250 200 150 100 • o i 50L .. o~~~~~~~~~ 0-6 m >6-30 m>30-100 m -,- 50,-----------------, 40 25 1 20 151 10 1 51 0) 3 2 11 4] 30 21 W I 0-10 m >10-100 m 0-15 m >15-50m 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 o 60' 501 40 1 30 20 o o o , , II1II 0-30 m >30-100m l~LI __ ij$=i~ii'~"="'~_~~_~ 0-3 m >3-50 m 10 1 'I 5 OL-__ ~~--~~~--~ 0_ OL ................................ __ -+_ ....... _______ , 0-6 m >6-30 m 0-30 m Bank-full width classes FlGURI:. 6.~Distribucions of the number of \\'U\lt! pIO:Cl'~ (LWD) per 100 Ill, the number of key pieces per 100 m. and the volume of LWD (m 3) per 100 m in channel r~·;ldlL'c. ill thL' \Vestem Washingtun Region (first row; 11 = 78), the Alpine Region (second row; /I = 58), ,tnd the Douglas-fir-p()lld<.'I\)~;1 pill\.' lill"<.."st zone (third row; n = 141. J999-2000. Notc that the scales of the y-axes differ ami that the bmlk-full width cI;ISSC~ ;11"(' specific to each region based on discrete hornogeneou~ groupings. See Figure 3 for an explanation of the box-and-II ili~~"r di;l~r'Hn,-;. did not have significant similarities to any of the other forest zones; therefore, it remains simply the ·'OF-PP" forest zone, The percentile distribution of these data. as distin- guished by BFW c1assiflcations. provides reference conditions for wood quantity, key-piece quantity, and wood volume for Washington State and potentially synonymous forested regions of the Pacific :'-Jorthwcst based on these regional groupings. Based on significant differences in lognormal means and variances. distinct BFW classes were identified to report Ihe nalur,ll mnges of LWD numbers, numbers of key pi~ccs, and LWD volume per 100 m of stream for each region (Figure 6). Numeric summaries for these distributions and minimum volume-defining key piece:-(Figures 4, 5) arc presented in Tables 4 and 5. Discussion Choice of Prediero,. Variahles Geomorphological inj7I1ence.-Channcl bedform, origin, gradient, and continement are predictive of geomorphological influence on instream wood quanti- ties and volumes to some degree, based on the Ale analysis; however, the significance of these correla- tions (P-value) appears to be inconsistent among categories or interactions. This is also reflected in the exploratory analysis, which suggests the small sample stratification in each geomorphic category cannot consistently isolate the effects of these factors for making statistical inferences. Greater certainty regard- ing these influences would require additional sampling of these morphologies. Bank-full width is supported as the most significant geomorphic indicator for predicting instream wood 352 I:(JX A'4D BOLTON T,\ilLc 4.-Distrihutiuns uf large woody debris (number of pieces. volume [m 3], and number of key pieces. all p~r I ()() III of channel) by region and bank-full width (BFW) cla~s, Large wood debris is deli ned as a pieces exceeding I () em 111 diameter and 2 m in length. Datu are portrayed Vi~ll:llly ill Figure 6. 75th ~)th Region BF\\' class percentile Median p<:r~'<:lltilc ,,"umber of pieces Western Washington 0-6 m >38 29 . ,26 >6-30 m >63 52 -.: 2') >30-100 OJ >208 106 ., ':--7 Alpine >0-] III >lR 11 h >3-30 III >56 35 .!.-~ >3U-SO m >63 34 :'2 Df'-PP fore~1 zone 0-6 m >29 15 ____ ~6_30 m >35 17 Vulume We~tern \V<lshing:lon U-30 m >9Y 51 2S >30-100 rn >317 93 " Alpine >0-3m >10 8 >3-50 m >30 18 " DF-PP forc~1 zone 0-30 III >15 Number of key pieces We,tern \V,t~hlllgl()n U-to III >11 6 A >\0-100 m >4 U ,\tpine >0--15 In >4 , ',0 >15-50 In >1 0,3 ,,0 DF-PP fore,.,t zone 0-30 m >2 0.4 () volumes and number of pieces. This is based 011 (I) the results of the trend analysis with wood volumes \vith increasing basin size, (2) the correlation of SFW to basin size and LToss-sectional area, (3) the dcmonstra- tion that BFW has better predictive qualitie~ {han hasin sizc for instream wood, and (4) the interaction and correlation this variable has with Ihe previollsly discussed reach geomorphology influences. For exam- ple, streams with large BFWs are often les~ confined and of lower gradient than streams with small SFWs: rhus, BFW may effectively be representative of multiple reach geomorphological influences. Due to the development of these BFW relationships with basin area in unmanaged streams, caution is I1cc(kd if applied to streams in managed basins, human-Illoditied channels, or recently disturbed channels. Bank-full width and cross-sectional area of flow arc probably more representative of the hydraulic forces that intluence the distribution and retention of wood than basin size, further favoring the use of BF\V rather than basin size as a predictor of instream wood numbers and volumes. Influence of diMurbance.-The Ale analysis sup- ports a better tit using the five forest zones for predicting wood numbers and volumes compared \vith using the three state regions in the OLS model: however, we chose to simplify these categories by TABU:; 5.-Minimum volume required for key pieces of Imge woody debris, by bank-full width (BFW) class. IlFW class 0-5 m 5-10 m 10-15 m Ij-:20 m 2U-30 m _'0-50 m 50-100 m .' Current WFPB (1997) definition. h Piece mus! have an allached rootwad. Minimum volume (m') I.OW 2.50" 6.00" 9.00" 9.75 I0.50 n IO.75 b grouping them into the state regions based on the descriptive analysis. Through the descriptive analysis. the forest zones grouping did not substantially increase the variability; thus, we believe little was lost while gaining utility in simplification. Therefore, we chose state regions as the best single regional indicator for predicting instrcam wood loads in relation to variolls fonns of climate-induced disturbance. Tree age, as influenced by natural tire history, increases with wetter climates. Because the adjacent riparian trees influence instrcam wood loads, the characteristics of riparian trees. as influenced by fire recurrence, vary by forest zones. We could not isolate any other form of disturbance as a significant predictor of instream wood loads; however, the wide range of wood loads found within anyone grouping probably reflects some level of natural disturbance that creates typical patchy stream habitat. From our data, floods do not appear to have a significant influence on long-term wood abundance and therefore are inconsequential to variable selection. Observationally, debris flows and snow avalanches, perhaps, have some local intluence on instream wood loads: however, Ihis influence could not be verified with statistical rigor because of the small number of disturbed sites relative to nondisturbed sites. Setting Management Targets The percentile (box plot) distributions for L WD quantity, volume, and key-piece quantity (Figure 6) represent the range of conditions found in streams draining unmanaged forests that arc subject to a natural rate of disturbance (except tire suppression). Assuming these data include both favorable and unfavorable salmonid habitat conditions as they relate to instream wood, this range can be lIsed to set management targets for riparian recruitment objectives, regulation, habitat restoration. cnhancement, and evaluation. For restora- tion and enhancement of instream wood loads, we recommend that streams be managed to meet this natural distribution at a basin scale, where restoring the WOOD REFERENCE QUA0ITITIES IN UNMANAGED STREAMS 353 .!!1 E " " " C> " " 8 00 .!! soi "'-40i 20i Oi.,. A .. ", • # , ..... "l~.'.<1!.:~,;.ct.: .. ~~r .f_ .• :-. 'l.-~~~ ... r::, 'fl';-1o.~ .~& 1f' Bank-full width (m) • SFIMH BOj .... _ .. ____ .... __ , __ .... _ ... _ .................. "! .. ____ ,~~1 I <""1-1 Bank-full width class FIGlIRE 7.-Distribution of surveyed L·il;Ullh:i :-.iles in weSTern Washington, indicating the number nr in"lrL';t1ll \\(l\)d pieces that meet the National Marine Fisherie.' Service cntl'na for "properly functioning condition" (PFe) and rhe idl'nti('al "resource management objective" (RMO) PI li1l' L~.S. GUll'S! Service !.lnd Bureau of Land Management for ul;I.\lai Oregon and Washington. To illustrate disparities among h:lllK-full widths, pand (A) presents a scatterpJot of the eLlt;\ hy forest zone (squares = the Sitka spruce-western iWllliu, k /()l\L' ISS! WH1, plus signs = the silver fir-mounmin hClllind; Lone (SF! MHl), while ptloel (B) shows percentile dislnhutinl1.\ tor ~\ll bank~full width classes and for two classes ~crdrardy. The horizontal dashed line represents the JO\\cr lhr.:shuld fur streams meeting the PFC-RMO criteria. The number of channel reaches appears above the bars in (B): in (l\), the number of channel reaches is 78. See rigure :l for an explanation of the box~amJ-whisker diagmlll~. natural heterogeneity of wood lotld:) is the prillHuy objective. Streams in a degraded slate (e.g .. below tbe median) should be mantlged for wood inputs exceeding the median of this range. We recommend that the top of these distributions, the 75th percentile and above. be used as an interim management "targd" until the basin-scale wood loads achieve the central tendencies of natural and unmanaged wood-loading ranges. The precise quantities and volumes of wood needed by salmonids for successful production are not well understood. Statistically sound studies to link instre,lm wood loads to salmonid production would be expen- sive and have high levels of uncertainty uwing [0 the multiple variables influencing salmon production (Runi et a1. 2003). However, we do know that histuric salmon populations were much higher than those found today and, as noted earlier, we assume that unmanaged forests offer the best source of infonnation on wood loads as one component of habitat to which salmon ids have adapred_ In degraded streams, where management is needed to restore favorable conditions, wood loads are often no longer found in the upper distribution of these ranges, or the distribution is centered around a lower mean. In these cases, merely managing for the mean or median will not restore the natural ranges of heterogeneity. Thus, for management purposes intend- ing to restore natural wood-loading conditiom, e:)tab- lishing instream wood targets based on the upper portion of the distribution observed in natural systems (i.e., the 75th percentile) rather than the lower portion of the distribution are reasun<1ble as well as pmdcnt to restore natural ranges. Comparison of Data with Existing Management Standards Nutiollal Marilll' FiIherieI Service (NMFS) and U.S. FO/"CIt Sen'ice (USFS)-Bureall (4' Land Management (BLM): number ofLWD pieccs.-Strearns achieving a ··properly funcrioning condition" or the ·'resource management objective," as defined by NMFS and USFS-BLM, respectively (Table t), for Pacific Northwest streams were assessed. Of the 78 natural and unm<1naged streams smnplcd in western Wash- ington. only 11 met the requirements of 80 pieces per mile (l mile = 1.61 km) put forth by these federal agencies (Figure 7 A); however, of the 54 streams sampled in eastern Washington, 30 met the federal standard of 20 pieces per mile (Figure SA). Percentile distributions and one-sample {-tests with normalized data :)uggest that the sample mean of qualifying wood pieces per mile is significantly lower than the federal target for western (coastal) Pacific Northwest streams (P < 0.001), but significantly higher than the federal target for eastem Pacific Northwest :)treams (P = 0.02). The data in western Washington also suggest that the mean is similar to the federal standard only in channels greater than 40 m BFW (Figure 7B)_ The 75th percentile of data from streams equal to or less than 5 m BFW sampled in eastem Washington is ncar the federal target of 20 pieces per mile for eastern Washington streams, but only near the 25th percentile in streams 5-50 m BFW (Figure 8B). In comparisons of natural and unmanaged wuod- loading ranges with the federal management targets for coastal areas of the Pacific Northwest, we found that the 75th percentile derived from our data meets the federal target only in streams greater than 40 m BFW, suggesting that 80 pieces per mile seems to be a reasonable target only for the larger streams (Figure 7B), For interior Pacific Northwest streams, the federal 354 FOX .. \\lLl BOLTON 200 18O A 160 " Gf ~ 140 E 120 ~ OF.'FP 11 100 • 80 B eo .l:' 40 20 0 , . ," .... !.6~ _.~_A; .. --i.~.'t.o.-.--- ~ • II-• '\. t-. '0 ~,,<J.,p t><(:, Bank·full width (m) 200 54 H5 B 22 32 ~ 'E 1SO 0 .... 125 ~l()O ~75 n:: 50 " 0 .. ~ All Reaches 0-5 m Bank-full width FIGURE S.-Distrihution of surveyed channel sjfL'~ ill o.:'l~lnll Washington, indicating tile number of instream \\"l)()d pil'lT~ that meet the Natiollal Marine Fisherie.,; Servir..:c LTlk'ria rOI "properly functioning condition" and the identicd ··I\-':-.()llrL'~' management objective" of the U.S. Forest Service ,ll1d Run'illl of Land Management for eastern Oregon and Washington. To illustrate disparities muong b,mk-full WiUlhs, pand tAl (IJ 53) presents a scatterp]ot of the data by forest zone (~qll;m.-':-.­ the grand fir zone IGFJ and asterisks = the DlJllgl:I>.-fir- ponderosa pine zone [OF/PPj), while panel (ill ~hu\\,~ percentile distributions fur all bank-full width d;t~sL'S and for two classes separately. Se~ Figure 7 for additi<lIl,ti del'lils. target is near the 75th percentile for Washingtun streams 0-5 m BFW in this study, but only l1ear the 25th percentile for streams 5-50 m BFW (Figure XB), suggesting tbat the federal target may be set too low for tbese streams. As applied, however, the Nt\.'lFS and USFS-BLM targets do not differentiate between BFW classes and are applied to all streams (i.e., those with potential to provide habitat for salmonid spccil.'<'). Washington Forest Pracrices Board: 1IIIIIIher (!f" LWD and key pieces.---Comparing the data n1l'an from this study for instream LWD quantities in Washington streams (channels < 20 m BFW) with the WFPB target of two pieces per channel width, then:: \,,'as nu significant difference (one-sample (-test: P = 0.969: 11 = 121). The distribution of data (Figure 9a) suggests that this target is not applicable for all channel widths less than 20 m because of the significantly positive regression slope (P < 0.001) described by the equation \vhere Y is the predicted number of L WD pieces per channel width and x is the BFW in meters. Based on data partitioning of L WD quantity to detine three distinct BFW classes (Figure 9b), one-sample t-tcsts ~uggest that tbe WFPB target is higher than the mean llf the data distributions for channels less than 3 m BFW (P < 0.001), not different in channels greater than 3-12 m BFW (P < 0.194), and lower in channels greater than 12-20 m BFW (P < 0.00 I). One-sample t-tests suggest that the lognormal mean of these data is not significantly different from the WFPB lurge! of 0.3 key pieces per channel width for channels O-tO m BFW in western Washington (P = 0.897); however, the mean for key pieces per channel width in channels t 0-20 m BFW is significantly different from the WFPB target of 0.5 pieces per channel width (P = 0.001). The percentile distribution (Figure 9c) suggests the data mean in channels 10-20 III BFW is less than the WFPB target. The relationship of the number of key pieces per channel width to BF\V is not significant (P = 0.625). Oregun WalersheJ Enhuncemenf Board (OWER) (argefs.-There was a significant difference when comparing tbe data mean from this study with the OWEB "desirable" habitat quality rating (Table l) for numbers (P < 0.001) and volumes (P < 0.001), but not for key pieces (P = 0.061; each with one-sample {- tests, 11 = 78) of instream LWD per 100 m of stream (Watershed Profcssionals Network 1998). Figure lOa suggests that the OWEB standard for numbers of LWD per 100 m of stream is lower than expected in natural and unmanaged streams of similar forest types in Washington. Furthennore, regression analysis suggests lhat the OWES target is not applicable for all channel widths, whcre the number of pieces per 100 m of this study increases with increasing channel widths (P = 0.004). Figure lOb suggests that the OWEB standard for L WD volume is lower than expected in natural and unmanaged streams. As with the number of L WD, regression analysis of these data also suggests a positive relationship with LWD volume as channel width increases. Figure IOc suggests no significant difference between the OWEB standard and the data of this study. Regression analysis (P = 0.197) suggests no significant increase or decrease in the number of key pieces per 100 m, as defined by the OWEB key-piece size criteria with BFW. The appropriateness of WaShington and Oregon state LWD standards may be reasonable only for a select channel size. Figure 9b illustrates that the WFPB target is only near the median for streams between 3 m and 12 m BFW (yet below the 75th percentile) and guite different from the distributions found in smaller and (,1 ) larger natural and unmanaged streams. Regressions WOOD REFERE'lCE QlIA'lTITIES IN UNMANAGED STREAMS 355 o SSIWH • SAF * DF/PP + SF/MH o GF -Total Pop, 30 20 • '" 10 A ~+ 0 <> 0 o 0 + '. A If" 0 :;: 5 • + + 3 ~ ~ ~o U 2 ~ Q) + Co * + '" .5 • Q) .3 0 0 '-' Q) .2 * i:i: .1 • * 0 .05 .03 .02 .01 , '1,-~ I> ~ <0 CO ,'0 Bank-full width (m) '1,-'0 B 0-3m >3-12m >12-20m Bank-full width class 1.2,' '--==r=~-----, * c 38 19 WFPB bank-full width class FEGLIHE 9.-Number of pieces llild key pit'L·e~ of wood (L WD) per channel width (CW) by bank-full width for surveyed channels in Washington with bank-full 'Width~ icss than 20 m for comparison with the W.\~hillg:ton Forc::-;t Practices Board (WFPB) targets. Panel (A) presL'nts a using the WFPB L WD metrics (Figure 9a) and the OWEB metrics further suggest that numbers of L WD pieces vary by channel size, and a single target may not ~erve well for all ~tream ~ize~, Thi~ relation~hip is similar for LWD volume, suggesting a similar discrepancy with the OWEB volume targets. However. the state targets for L WD numbers and volume do not differentiate between channel sizes and are, overall, lower than the 75th percentiles of distributions found in natural and unmanaged streams, which, therefore, ~ugge~ts that the stale targets may be set too low. The state L WD targets may also not be appropriate for all forest types. Figure 9a illustrates that there is regional variation with numbers of wood pieces, suggesting that applications of a fixed management target may not be judicious across different forest zones of Washington and Oregon. As applied. however, the Wa~hington target~ for piece numbers are applied to all forest types across the state, and the Oregon targets arc applied to all forest types in western Oregon. The key-piece standards of Washington and Oregon are quite different in size detinition and hence are difficult to compare. The WFPB key-piece size definition increases by channel size, where the OWEB key-piece size definition is constant for all channels. Based on the functional definition for independent stability (WFPB 1997) and what we know about increasing tluvial forces acting upon wood as stream size increases (Braudrick and Grant 2000), it would ~eem that the minimum size of an independently stable piece of L WD must increase with channel size. Certainly, the size definitions of the WFPB (1997), which are based on data collected under this definition f- scatterplot in which the points represent the mean quantities per sample by di!;crcte forest region (open rectangles = the Sitka spruce-westem hemlock zone [SS{WH], filled rectan- gles = the subalpine fir zone [SAF!, asterisks = the Douglas- fir-ponderosa pine zone [OF/PP], plus signs = the silver tir- mountain hemlock zone rSFIMH], and circles = the grand fir zone [OF]). The sloping line is the fitted regression line y = 0.19Ix 1.29, where y represents pieces per channel width and x bank-full width. Panel (B) presents box plots illustrating the range of data among discrete bank-full width classes and panel (C) box plots illustrating the data distribution as compared with the WFPB targets for key-piece quantities per CW (applicable to western Washington only). The horizontal dashed lines represent the WFPB targets that indicate "good" habitat quality (WFPB 1997). The number of channel reaches appears above the bars in (B) and (C); in (A). the number of channel reaches is 121. See Figure 3 for an explanation of the box-and-whisker diagrams. 356 FOX AND BOLTON .... Q) .0 E :::l Z Cl $ .....J Q) E :::l o > Cl ~ '- Q) .0 E :::l Z Q) () -~ a.. >. ~ A 0 c Western Washington (Coastal) Streams FiGURE 1O.-Distributions of (A) the number of piCLTS of wood (LWD), (B) the volume ofLWD, and (C) tho.:: IlUmhL'r of key pieces of LWD per 100 m of stream in surveyd dlallll~ls in Washington that meet the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board's qualifying criteria (Table I). The dashed horizontal lines indicate the board's "desimble" condition (Wat<..'rsherJ Professionals Network 1998) for each wood hahitat mctnc. For each plO{, n --= 78. See Figure 3 for an explanatiun of thl' box-and-whisker diagrams. (M. 1. Fox, 1994 memorandum to the Cumulative Effects Steering Committee from the Muckleshoot Tribe on L WD key piece size and distribution data set for several late-successional Douglas-fir forests of \vestem Washington), reflect this increase. Thus, the Oregon single size definition for key pieces is likely to overestimate independently stable L WD pieces (i.e., key pieces) in smaller streams, but qualify pieces that are, perhaps, not functioning as true key pieces in larger streams. Although the OWEB key-piece target is not significantly different than the data mean quantity from natural and unmanaged streams, it may not reflect true key-piece quality and the intended geomorphic role of those pieces. Therefore, the OWEB target for key pieces may better serve as a reference to the quantity of ··Iarge" pieces of LWD rather than true --key pieces" expected in coastal streams. yet may fall short as a management target since it is lower than the 75th percentile of pieces meeting that size definition in natural and unmanaged streams. The WFPB targets for key pieces are also different from the 75th percentile (Figure 9c), and adjusting the target to meet the quantities expected in natural and unmanaged streams may more prudently facilitate some management objectives. DefininR New K£'y-Piece Minimlfm VolllmesIor Channels Greater Than 20 m BFW The minimum volumes established in Figure 4 illustrate that the size of the pieces in channels greater than 20 m BFW do not increase at the same rate as the minimum defined volumes in channels between 0 and 20 m BFW (WFPB 1997). The change in rate is illustrated in Figure 5 as channels reach 15-20 m BFW (i.e., 9 rn 3) and suggests that the relationship between BFW (as representative of potential tluvial forces such as buoyancy) and wood volume (as a function of stability) is not linear. Certainly, one would expect that wood must be larger to counter the tendency to mobilize as channels become larger. This is not the case and is probably attributed to the presence of rootwads to help anchor logs. Clearly, this often compensates for the need of increased volume for stability. This is illustrated by the increased prevalence of rootwads attached to key pieces as BFW increased, although the minimum volumes did not increase proportionately. The data suggest that without root- wads attached, the minimum volume required to meet the definitions for key pieces may indeed follow the near-linear relationship with BFW established by the \VFPB in channels 0--20 m BFW. However, this relationship may not be fully realized because samples for pieces this large without rootwads were rare (n = 3). WOOD REPERE'J('F. QIJAi\TITlES IN UNMANAGED STREAMS 357 ApplicaTion of Key-Piece Si:e Definitiolls to Eastern Washington Streams The application of the minimum ke'y-pil'c~' vulum.:s established for western Washington (vVI-VB 1(97) to ea'item Washington is demonstrable. First. there was no signific('mt difference in the total pl~rccnt ()f wood qualifying as key pieces between eastern and \~\.'qern Washington forest zones. Second, tluyial forcl'~ for a given channel size are likely to be the same and, thus, the mobilization of wood is likely to be the same, Indccd, Fox (200 I) found that the physical dry densities of wood species commonly distributed in the riparian areas are not signifiC:lnlly different between forest zones. Although the qu,lIllities of key pieces vary among regions (Figure hi. the physical criteria used tu define a key piece (u ... ing the \VI-VB definition) should be similar. Therefore. the application of minimum key-piece volumes established for wc .... lern Washington streams to eastern Washington streams is appropriate and, thus, applicable amt1llg thesc ftlrest types. Restoration and Management Rccomnf{'lId((lioll.l Instream wood is merely one indica10r of stream and salmonid habitat conditions; however. it is one of the few tangible stream features that can be manipulated by the management of riparian areas or Llsed in wood restoration intended to "jump-start" habitat recovery until natural processes recover. Management objectives are most valid if they arc based on reference conditions to which salmon ids have adapted. The percentile (box plot) distributions for LWD quantity, volullie. ,lIld key- piece quantity (Figure 6) provide tbis ran~l' of' rcf'erence conditions for discrete regions and channel sizes and can be used in habitat restoration, enhance- ment, evaluation, regulation and, perhaps. to dC\Tlop riparian recmitment objectives. Because 1hese data represent a wide range of conditions found in streams draining unmanaged forests that are subject to a natural rate of disturbance (except fire suppression). the recommendations provided herein arc relevant to basin-scale objectives intended to restore the natural heterogeneity of wood distributions found in unman- aged systems. In many cases, conditions in impacted streams often reside in a reduced range of historic heterogeneity or are grouped around a different mean. As such, reestablishing values within the historic range that "pull" the mean closer to the historic mean will probably better serve the restoration of habitat conditions. Duc to the effect of past mallagement practices on instream wood, impacted streams com- monly contain conditions lower than the historic range. Thus, merely managing for the mean or median \vill not likely restore the natural ranges of heterogeneity, and achieving this range in degraded systems may initially require se!1ing objectives above the mean or median of this range (e.g., the 75th percentile) to expedite recovery and resemble the central tendencies of natural and unmanaged wood-loading ranges. Current management targets often do not consider the regional or geomorphic variation in wood loads, and hencc caution should be exercised in applying these standards broadly. The data in this study illustrate these significant variations by forest type and channel sizc and offer improved references in which to base management objectives. The minimum piece volumes used to define a key piccc should also consider the role rootwads play in achieving stability. In channels greater than 30 m BFW, more than 91% of all key pieces had rootwads attached. Therefore, in order to meet the objective of defming a key pic(;c, not only do the prescribed minimum volumes need to be met but also rootwads must be considered in this definition. Without rootwads to stabilize key pieces, the minimum volume needed for stability in large channels would be extremely large. Logs of this size are rare and probably impossible to obtain for stream habitat enhancement projects, let alone tran.sporting and positioning them into a channel. Therefore, we recommend that for channels greater than 30 m, a log must have a rootwad attached to be defined as a key piece and meet the minimum-volume requirements defined in Figure 4. Although having a rootwad attached to a log placed in a stream channel as part of a restoration or enhancement effort adds stability and longevity (Braudrick and Grant 2000), the data do not justify a requirement that all key pieces meeting the minimum-volume requirement have an attached root wad for BFW classes smaller than 30 m. Table 4 summarizes the central percentile distribu- tions for instream wood loadings based on Figure 6. These values offer typical ranges of conditions for the quantities and volumes of wood found within the historical variability of watershed conditions, given the natural disturbance regime in forest zones of Wash- ington State. These ranges can be used to (1) assess current instream wood condition and ratings for the evaluation of stream habitat; (2) identify target wood load levels for restoration, enhancement, and mitigation projects; and (3) develop land-use regulations, ordi- nances, and laws to protect and manage salmon habitat. Acknowledgments We wish to express our sincere appreciation to Loveday Conquest, Peter Bisson, and Robert Bilby for their helpful insight and guidance, We would also like to thank the Pacific Northwest Research Station and the 358 FOX ,\'lj) HOLTON Center for Streamside Studies for their financial support our hardworking field crews consisting: of Lyle Almond, Lance Dibble, Jeff Steele, Emily Lang. and Jessica Trantham for their intrepid pursuit of data in remote locations during inclement weather. and against hostile vegetation; our volunteer field assis- tance crew comprised of Anne Savery. lady BraLLner. Brian Berkompas, and Cindy Carlson; and the yJucklc- shoot Indian Tribe. We would also like to thank jail Henderson, Derek Booth. Dave Montgomery, Tlllll Quinn, Jim Agee, Richy HalTod, Ann Camp. ,llld the many others who provided data, information. sugges- tions, input, and inspiration to this project. References Abbe, T. B., and D. R. Montgomery. [996. L<H'g~' \\opdy debris jams. channel hydraulics. ami habitat i"orlll,lli()l1 ill large rivers. Regulated Rivers: Research uml "'lanag~­ mem 12:201-221. Agee, J. K. 1993. Fire ecology of Pacific North\\ cst fmcst~. Island Press. Washington, D.C. Benda, L., D. Miller, J. Sias, D. Martin, R. Bilby. C. Veldhuisen, and T. Dunne. 2003. Wood r-.:nuitllll'llt processes and wood budgeting. Pages 49-73 III S. V Gregury. K. L. Boyer, and A. M. Gurnell, ..:dl1(1[.\. T]l~' ecology and management of wood in world ri\"~'r~ American Fisheries Society, Symposium 37. Hct]1L'~d;l. Maryland. Bilby, R. E., B. R. Fransen. and P. A. Bi~,\()Il. ]'N(l. Incurporation uf nitrogen und carbon frulll \jI<lwllillg coho salmon into the trophic system of small ~lrl'al1ls: evidence from stahle isotopes. Canadian .Inurn;l] (It Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 53: 164-173. Bilby, R. E., and J. W. Ward. 1989. Changes in char;ll"kri~til"" and function of woody debris with increa:.ing sil:l' (II streams in western Washington. Transacti(]n .. ()t th..: American Fisheries Society 118:368-378. Bilby, R. E., and J. W. Ward. 1991. Characlcri.\1ics ,\lId function of large woody debris in streams draiIlll1g old- growth, clear-cut, and second-growth forests in south- westem Washington. Canadian Journal of Fi ... hcri,~s and Aquatic Sciences 48:2499-2508. Bisson, P. A., R. E. Bilby, M. D. Bryant. C. A. Dolloff. G. B. Grettc, R. A. House, M. L. Murphy. K. V. K(l~l-:i. and J. R. Sedell. 1987. Large woody debris in fore~led ... tn;.\111S in the Pacific Northwest past, present, and flltlll'l'. P,lges 143-190 in E. O. Salo and T. W. Cundy. cditors. Streamside management: forestry and fish~'ry interac- tions. College of Forest Resources, Uni\'(;r~ity of Washington, Seattle. Bjornn, T. c., and D. W. Reiser. 1991. Habitat requireillcllts of salmon ids in streams. Pages 83-138 in W. R. ]\:lechan. editor. Intluences of forest and rangeland management (m salmonid fishes and their habitats. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 19, Bethesda, Maryland. Bruudriek, C. A., and G. E. Grant. 2000. When do I()gs 1110Ve in rivers? Water Resource Research 36:571--5R3 Burnham, K. P., and D. R. Anderson. 2002. Model scllX'{ion and multi model inference: a practical information- theoretic approach. Springer-Verlag, New Yorl-:. C~derholm, C. J., D. B. Houston, D. L. Cole, and W. J. Scarlett. 1989. Fate of coho s<limun (OncorhYlic!llI.\· kislI/ch) carcasses in spawning streams. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 46: 1347-1355. Costa. J. E. 1984. Physical geometry of debris tlows. Pages 268-317 in J. E. Costa and P. J. Fleisher, editors. Developments and applications of geomorphology. Springer-Verlag, Berlin. Cottam. G., and J. T. Curtis. 1956. The use of distance measures in phytosociological sampling. Ecology 37:451-460. Fox. M. J. 2001. A new look at the quantities and volumes of wood in forested basins of Wa.~hington State. Master·s thesis. University of Washington, Seattle. hanklin, J. F.. and C. T. Dyrness. 1973. Natuml vegetation of Orcgon and Washington. U.S. Forest Service Geneml Technical Report PNW-8. lIenderson, J. A.. R. D. Lesher, D. H. Peler, and D. C. Shuw. 1992. Field guide to the forested plant associations of the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest. U.S. Forest Service. Pacific Northwest Region, Technical Paper R6 ECOL TP 02~-91, Seattle. !I-:eyu, H. 1981. A method for designation for areas in danger of debris flows. Pages 576-588 in T. R. H. Davies and A. J. Pearcc, cditors. Erosion and sedimcnt transport in Pacific Rim steeplands. Intemational Association of Hydrological Scienccs, Publication 132, Christchurch, New Zealand. F..::el1er. E. A., and F. J. Swanson. 1979. Effects of large organic material un channel form ami fluvial processes. Earth SUli"aee Proccsses and Landforms 4:301-3RO. Larsson, P. O. 1985. Predation on migrating smolts as a regulating factor of Baltic salmon (5almo salar)' Joumal of Fish Biology 26:391-397. Leopold. L. B., M. G. Wolman, and J. P. Miller. 1964. Fluvial processes in geomorphulogy. Freeman, San Fmncisco. MacDonald, L. H., A. W. Smart, and R. C. Wissmar. 1991. Monitoring guidelines to evaluate effects of forestry activities on streams in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska. U.S. Envjronmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Report EPA!910!9-91-001, Seattle. i\.lartin, D. J., and L. E. Benda. 2001. Patterns of instream wood recruitmem and transport at the watershed scale. Tmnsactiuns of the American Fisheries Society 130:940- 958. Massong, T. M., and D. R. Montgomery. 20no. Intluence of sediment supply, lithology, and wood debris on the distribution of bedrock and alluvial channels. Geological Society of America Bulletin 112:591-599. McHenry, M. L.. E. Shott. R. H. Conrad. and G. B. Grette. 1998. Changes in the quantity and chamcteristics of large woody debris in streams of the Olympic Peninsula. Washington, USA (1982-[993). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 55: 1395-1407. Montgomery, D. R., T, B. Abbe, J. M. Butt1ngton, N. P. Peterson. K. M. Schmidt, and J. D. Stock. 1996. Distribution of bedrock and alluvial channels in forested mountain drainages, Nature 381:587-589. Montgomery, D. R., and J. M. Buffington. 1997. Channel- reach morphology in mountain drainage basins. Geolog~ ical Society of America Bulletin 109:596-611. Montgomery. D. R .. B. D. Collins, J. M. Buffington. and T. B. WOOD REFERE\CE QUANTITIES IN UNMANAGED STREAMS 359 Abbe. 2003. Geomorphic effects of wOlld in ri\'cr,~. P<lges 21-47 ill S. Gregory, K. Boyer, and A. (iurndL ~·ditur~. The ecology and management of wood in \\"(lrld n\·o:r~. American Fisheries Society, Symposiulll :'7. fkthesil,l, Maryland. Murphy, M. L., and K. V. Koski. 1989. Input ,md d<."pletioll of woody debris in Alaska streams and il11rliGllions for streamside management. North Amu-i,,:,lIl JO\lrnal of Fisheries Management 9:427-436. Naiman, R. J., ,md J. R. Sedell. 1979. Reh!till!l~llip~ hd\\eCIl metabolic parameters and stream order 111 Or~'.'!()Il. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aqtl:ltil' Scicncc.'> 3H34-847. Nakmnura, F., and F. J. Swanson. 2003. Dymrnic) of wood in rivers in the context of ecological di~lurbann:. P:I~l'S 279-2Y7 in S. V. Gregory, K. L. Boyo:r. ,mel /\, 1'\'1. Gumell, editors. The ecology and mana);.l'nH.'lli' of \\\l!ld in world rivers. American Fisheries SOl'idY. Symp\))iulfl 37, Bethesda, Maryland. NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service I. 19%. Ivlaklllg: Endangered Species Act determinati(lll~ <)f dh'cr for individual or grouped actions at tht' \\'atl'r.\llL·d ~,';ilc. NMFS. Environmental and Technical Selyicl" Di\'J,ion. Habitat Conservation Branch, Portland. Oreg\lll. NMfiS (National M<lrine Fisheries Servi,·c). I()')~. J)r,lft: proposed recommendations for Amendlll<:llt 1.+ 1\) rhe Pacific Coast Salmon Plan for EsSenli;!1 Fi,1l llabil;l1. KMFS, Northwest Regional Office, S~,;tllk. Peterson, N. P., A. Hendry, and T. P. (jU!J1I1. 1l)')2. Assessment of cumulative effects on saiIl1ol11d Itahnat: some suggested pammeters and target conditiolls. Rcpolt TFW·F3-92"OOI to the Washington Dq1<lrtm<.':111 of Natural Resources and the Coordillaled j\:l(lllillirillg, Evaluation, and Research Commitko:. lIniver:-.ity of Washington, Center for Streamside Stlldie:-.. Se,\tlle. Pleus, A. E., and D. Schuett-Hames. 1998. TFW \'lollitnl'ing Program methods manual for the referellce poill1 ,un-l·Y. ReportTFW-AM9-98-002 (DNR 104) lolhe W;\slllngll1n State Department of Natural Resources. Northwo:sl ]mli:11l Fisheries Commission, Olympia. Ralph, S. c., G. C. Poole, L L Conquest, and R. J. N,!inl:ll1. 1991. Stream channel morphology and 1\>I1\)(ly debris in logged and unlogged basins of we_\!I."r11 Wa.\hillglOIl. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 51:37-51. Reich, M., J. L. Kershner, and R. C. \Vildmall. :W()3. Restoring s(rearns with large wood: a \YIIlhe\is. P:lges 355-366 in S. V. Gregory, K. L. I3oyer. and A. M. Gumell, editors. The ecology and man;l~l'l1lellt of \\'(lod in world rivers. American Fisheries Society, Syl1lp(l~illln 37, Bethesda, Maryland. Robison, G. E., and R. L. Beschta. 1990. Coarse woody debris and channel morphology interactions for undisturbed streams in Southeast Alaska, USA. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 15:149-156. Roni, P., M. Liermann, and A. Steel. 2003. Monitoring and evaluating fish response lO instream re~lOration. Pages 318-339 ill D. R. Montgomery. S. Bolton, D. B. Booth, and L. Wall, editors. Restoration of Puget Sound rivers. University of Washington Press, Seattle. Rot, B. W., R. J. Naiman, <lJld R. E. Bilby. 2000. Stream channel configuralion. landfonn, and riparian forest structure in the Cascade Mountains, Washington. Cana- dian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 57:699- 707. Schuett~Hames, D .• A. Pleus. L. Bullchild, and S. Hall. 1994. Timber-Fish-Wildlife Ambient Monitoring Program manual. Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, Olym- pia, Washington. Schuett-Hames. D., A. E. Pleus. J. Ward. M. Fux. and J. Lighl. I Y99. TFW Monitoring Program methods manual for the large woody debris survey. Report TFW-AM9-9Y-004 (DNR 106) to the Washington State Departmenr of Nalural Resources, Northwe;;t Indian Fisheries Commis- siun, Olympia. Spence, B. C., G. A. Lomnicky, R. M. Hughes. ami R. P. Novit7.ki. 1996. An ecosystem approach to salmon conselvation. ManTech Environmental Research Servic- es, Report TR-4501-96-6057, Corvallis, Oregon. Tappeiner, J. c., D. Huffman, D. Marshall, T. A. Spies, and J. D. Bailey. 1(1)7. Density, ages, and growth rates in old- growth and young-growth forests in coastal Oregon. Forest Resenrch Laboratory, Paper 3166, Oregon State Univ<:rsilY, Corvallis. USPS (U.S. Porest Service) and BLM (Bureau of Land Management). 1995. Interim strategies for managing anadromous fish-producing watersheds in eastern Oregon and Washington. Idaho, and portions of California (PACrISH). Habitat Conservation Division, Idaho State Habitat Office. Boise. WI-'PB (Washington Forest Practices Board). 1997. Board manual: standard methodology for conducting watershed analysis under chapter 222-22 WAC, version 4.0. WFPB, Olympia. WFPB (Washington Forest Practices Board). 200 I. Wash- ington forest practices rules definitions under WAC 222- 16. WFPB, Olympia. Watershed Professionals Network. 1998. Oregon watershed assessment manual. Developed for the Oregon Water- shed Enhancement Board, Salem. Zar, J. H. 1999. Biostatistical analysis, 4th edition. Prcntice- Hall, Upper Saddle River, Ncw Jersey. December 18, 2008 Kathi Bresler Church Development Consultants 3623 -324th Avenue SE Fall City, W A 98024 SUBJECT: New Life Church LUAOS-OSI, ECF, SA-A "On Hold" Notice Dear Ms. Bresler: CIT~ Y OF RENTON Department of Community and Economic Development Alex Pietsch, Administrator After reviewing the materials submitted for the New Life Church Site Plan and Environmental Review application, staff has determined that following information is required in order to continue review of the subject application: Secondary wetland and stream review. The wetland report submitted with the project application was prepared by Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. The delineation identifies wetlands and a stream on the subject property. Per RMC 4-3-050F7, when appropriate due to the type of critical areas, habitat, species present, or project area conditions; the Reviewing Official may require the applicant to fund analyses including evaluation by an independent qualified professional regarding the applicant's submitted analysis and the effectiveness of any proposed mitigating measures or programs, and to include any recommendations as appropriate. This review would be paid at the applicant's expense. Due to the project area conditions, secondary review of the submitted wetland report prepared by Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. is required. Attached is a list of Wetland IStre am Consultants, compiled by the City of Renton, pre-qualified to: conduct a secondary review of wetland/stream studies; supplemental stream studies; and mitigation plans for the City. The applicant must use a Consultant from this roster to conduct the required secondary review. The review shall be submitted to the City by March 18,2009. --------------.-.. -_ ..... __ ._------ 1055 South Grady Way -Renton. Washington 98057 -~ RENTON~ '\HE.\D OF THE CURVE Please submit three (3) copies of the results of the secondary stream and wetland review to the City prior to March 18, 2009. At this time, your project will remain "on hold" pending receipt of the requested information. Please contact me at (425) 430-7314 if you have any questions. Sincerely, ~-DJ~ Vanessa Dolbee Associate Planner cc C.E. Vincent, Planning Director Jennifer Henning, Current Planning Manager Parties of Record New Life Church I Owner(s) Yellow File City of Renton Wetland/Stream Consultant Roster For project sites with wetlands, streams, and/or their associated buffer areas, a wetland and/or stream study is required, prepared hy a qualified professional. Per RMC 4-3- 050F7, when appropriate due to the type of critical areas, habitat, species present, or project area conditions, the Reviewing Otlicial may require the applicant to fund analyses including evaluation by an independent qualified professional regarding the applicant's submitted analysis and the effectiveness of any proposed mitigating measures or programs, to include any recommendations as appropriate. This shall be paid at the applicant's expense, and the Reviewing Official shall select the secondary review professional. The following is a list compiled by the City of Renton in alphabetical order of Wetland/Stream Consultants that arc pre-qualified to prepare the initial critical areas studies and conduct a secondary review of wetland/stream studies, supplemental stream studies and mitigation plans for the City. I. A.C. Kindig & Co. 4. Otak 12501 Bellevue-Redmond Road, Suite 110 10230 NE Points Drive, Suite 400 Bellevue, W A 98005-2509 Kirkland, WA 98033 Telephone: (425) 638-0358 Telephone: (425) 822-4446 2. ESA Adolfson 5. Steward and Associates Contact: non Logan 120 Avenue A, Suite D 5309 Shilshole Avenue NW, Suite 200 Snohomish, W A 98290 Seattle, W A 98107 Telephone: (360) 862-1255 Telephone: (206) 789-9658 3. Herrera Environmental Consultants 6. The Watershed Company Contact: Kittie Ford 750 Sixth Street South 2200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 1100 Kirkland, W A 98033 Seattle, WA 98121 Telephone: (425) 822-5242 Telephone: (206) 441-9080 H: \Forms \PI ann ing\ WetiandConsu han tRoster .doc 01/08 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM December II, 2008 Karen Walter, Watershed and Land Use Team Leader Vanessa Dolbee, Associate Planner!)!} LUA08-081, ECF, SA-A New Life Church Enclosed please find a copy of the New Life Church Concept Mitigation Plan, prepared by: Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc., an updated Site Plan and a memo from Ed Sewall. If you have any further question or request please feel free to contact me at 425-430-7314 or via e-mail. h:\division.s\dcvelop.ser\dev&plan.ing\projects\08-0S 1. vanessa\memo karen walters 08.081_ 2.doc CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING, SURVEYING December 4, 2008 COURIER DELIVERY Vanessa Dolbe, Associate Planner City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development lOSS South Grady Way Renton, W A 98057 RE: New Life Church Resubmittal of Wetland Mitigation Plans City File Nos. LUA08-081, ECF, SA-A Our Job No. 11706 Dear Vanessa: We are submitting herewith revised project plans and wetland mitigation plans to respond to your comment letter dated November 6, 2008. Enclosed are the following documents for your review and approval: I. Five (5) copies of revised plans including: • Cover Sheet • Preliminary Dimensioned Site Plan • Preliminary Grading and Storm Drainage Plan • Preliminary Water and Sewer Plan • Tree Inventory Plan 2. Seven (7) additional copies of the Preliminary Dimensioned Site Plan (Sheet C2) 3. Five (5) copies of the Revised Mitigation Plans prepared by Sewell Wetland Consulting, Inc. 4. Five (5) copies of the Mitigation Addendum Memo from Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc., dated December 3, 2008 We believe that the enclosed revised plans and documents, address the comments in your letter dated November 6, 2008. Please review and approve the enclosed at your earliest convenience. If you have questions or need additional information, please contact me at this office. Thank you. IHlath 11706c.009.doc enc: As Noted Respectfully, Ivana Halvorsen Senior Planner cc: Kathi Bresler, Church Development Consultants (w/enc) Daniel K. Balmelli, Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. Ali Sadr, Barghausen Consulting Engineers. Inc. 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (425) 251-6222 (425) 251-8782 FAX BRANCH OFFICES • OLYMPIA, WA • TACOMA. WA • SACRAMENTO. CA • TEMECULA. CA www.barghausen.com MEMO DATE: TO: FROM: CC: RE: December 3, 2008 Sewall Wetland 1103W. WeekerStreet #101 Kent, WA 98032 Kathi Bresler, Church Development Consultants Ed Sewall Ivana Halvorsen, Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. Wetland Mitigation Supplement New Life Church Expansion City Rle No.: LUA08-081, ECF, SA-A Job # 99-101 Inc. Phone: 253-859-{)515 Fax: 253-8524732 Attached is the revised Mitigation Plan set (3 sheets) for the New Life Church Expansion project. We have revised these plans to address Renton's comments regarding the construction of the required fire lane and associated rockery that were within 25 feet of Wetland C, which does not meet Renton wetland buffer averaging requirements. Wetland C is a Type 2 wetland that requires a 50-foot buffer; Renton allows buffer averaging up to 50 percent of the buffer width with a minimum allowed buffer width of 25 feet. Barghausen ConsuHing Engineers, Inc. has revised the fire lane so that its asphalt, curbing, and/or retaining walls no longer encroach into the 25-foot minimum buffer (after averaging) for Wetland C. The proposed fire lane is now adjacent to the sidewalk for the new building. West of the fire lane, the retaining wall is no longer proposed; the existing ground will be graded at a 3'H:1'V slope toward Wetland C. The buffer that will be temporarily impacted by the grading is currenHy low functioning buffer that is vegetated with weedy species and blackberries. A 3'H: 1 'V slope is appropriate for wetland buffer plant material. The proposed wetland buffer averaging as revised meets Renton Code in that the buffer is not reduced to less than 25 feet, and the remaining buffer in the averaging area will be restored and/or enhanced to result in a higher functioning buffer than currently exists. Buffer averaging replacement areas are provided to the north of WeUand B and the south of Wetland C. CIT~ OF RENTON Department of Community and Economic Development Denis Law, Mayor Alex Pietsch, Administrator November 6, 2008 Kathi Bresler Church Development Consultants 3623 -324th Avenue SE Fall City, WA 98024 SUBJECT: New Life Church LUAOS-OSI, ECF, SA-A 11 On Hold 11 Notice Dear Ms. Bresler: The City of Renton would like to thank you for the documents submitted on October 28, 2008 in response to the "On Hold" notice dated August 29, 2008. During our review of the submitted documents, staff has determined that not all the requested infonnation in the hold letter was addressed. The following information will need to be submitted so that we may continue the review of the above subject application: I. The submitted plan sets did not indicate the location of the reduced buffer for "wetland C" therefore, based on staffs review the Fire Lane and retaining wall is closer to the buffer than the required 25 feet. Pursuant to RMC 4-3-050M.6.f.v; in no instance shall the buffer width be reduced by more than fifty percent of the standard buffer or be less than 25 feet wide without an approved variance. As such, please provide an updated wetland-averaging plan set that indicates the reduced buffer line and provides the minimum 25 feet of buffer for "wetland C" or apply for a variance for a buffer width less than 25 feet. 2. Buffer averaging may be allowed ifthe applicant can demonstrate compliance with all the seven approval criteria. Criterion 5 requires buffer enhancement in the areas where the buffer is reduced. The proposed plan did not provide for buffer enhancement. Please provide an enhancement plan for the buffer averaging proposed. 3. -If changes are made to the project that warrants an updated project narrative, please provide an updated narrative reflecting those changes. All new information submitted shall be in the required format pursuant to the application submittal checklist. In addition, please provide the required number of copies requested in the submittal checklist. Furthermore, PMT's (8 Y, by 11 reductions) shall be submitted for any new plan sheets submitted. -------IO-S-S-S-ou-th-Gra-d-y-W-a-Y---R-en-t-on-, -w-as-h-in-gt-o-n-9-S0-S-7------~ ~ Th~oa~r contains 50% reGllc\ed mateiia1. 30% oostconsumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE New Life Church LUA08-0SI, ECF, SA-A "On-Hold" Notice Page 2 of2 It is also important to note that the subject property has a King County "sensitive areas notice" recorded in the title, under recording number 200 I 0726002144, This notice is for the on-site stream and wetlands and their associated buffers. The notice states "limitation may exist on actions in or affecting the sensitive areas or their buffers present on this property". However, the property is now in Renton and not subject to King County laws. Although, it would be cleaner to remove the notice before proceeding, it is not required for the proposed development review process to continue. At this time, your project is still "on hold" pending receipt of the requested information. Please contact me at (425) 430-7314 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Vanessa Dolbee Associate Planner cc: Parties of Record New Life Church / Owner( s) " • CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING, SURVEYING October 27, 2008 HAND DELIVERY Vanessa Dolbe, Associate Planner City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development 1055 South Grady Way Renton, W A 98057 RE: New Life Church Resubmittal No.1 of SEPA and Site Plan Review City File Nos. LUA08-081, ECF, SA-A Our Job No. 11706 Dear Vanessa: We have revised the plans and documents for the above-referenced project in accordance with your comment letter dated August 29, 2008. Enclosed are the following documents for your review and approval: I. Five (5) copies of revised plans including: • Cover Sheet • Preliminary Dimensioned Site Plan • Preliminary Grading and Storm Drainage Plan • Preliminary Water and Sewer Plan • Tree Inventory Plan • Preliminary Landscape Plan • Preliminary Irrigation Plan 2. Seven (7) additional copies of the Preliminary Dimensioned Site Plan (Sheet 2) 3. One (1) set ofPMT reductions of the plan sheets noted above 4. Five (5) copies of the Wetland and Stream Analysis and Mitigation Report prepared by Sewell Wetland Consulting, Inc., dated October 27,2008 5. Five (5) copies of the revised Technicai Information Report prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc., dated Octobcr 10, 2008 6. Five (5) copies of recorded Easement No. 9905190312 7. Five (5) copies of the FEMA FIRM 53033C0984F 8. Five (5) copies of the LOMA dated February 1, 2006 9. Five (5) copies of the revised Project Narrative 10. Two (2) copies of the revised Tree Retention Worksheet 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT. WA 98032 (425) 251-6222 (425) 251-8782 FAX BRANCH OFFICES • OLYMPIA, WA • TACOMA, WA • SACRAMENTO, CA • TEMECULA, CA www.barghausen.com Vanessa Dolbe, Associate Planner City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development -2-October 27, 2008 The following outline provides each of your comments in italics exactly as written, along with a narrative response describing how each comment was addressed: I A Supplemental Steam Study per RMC 4-8-120 (enclosed) is required because changes and alterations are proposed to the stream buffer. Response: The enclosed Wetland and Stream Analysis and Mitigation Report includes the required elements of a Supplemental Stream Report. II A Stream Mitigation Plan per RMC 4-8-120. The provided Stream mitigation plan is missing the following required information: 1. The map does not depict Ihe entire parcel of land owned by the applicant, including one hundredfeel (100') of the abutting parcels through which the waler bodyflows; Response: Pursuant to our meeting on September 8, 2008, the extent of the site currently shown is based on the project area and is adequate for continued review. We have provided additional topographic information (King County GIS Lidar) within 100 feet of the north and east sides of the development area of the site. 2. The ordinary high, waleI' mark (OHWM) determined in the field by a qualified biologist in not marked all the provided plan; Response: The OHWM was reflagged in September 2008 by Sewell Wetland Consulting, Inc., and surveyed by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. in September 2008. The OHWM is identified on the plans. 3. Top view and typical cross-section views of the stream or lake bed, banks, and buffers to scale shall be provided; Response: Please see the EXisting Conditions Plan at the back of the enclosed Wetland and Stream Analysis and Mitigation Report prepared by Sewell Wetland Consulting, Inc. 4. The vegetative cover of the entire site, including the stream or lake, banks. riparian area, and/or abutting wetland areas, extending one hundred feet (JOO') upstream and downstream from the property line. Include position, species, and size of all trees at least tell inches (l0'~ average diameter that are within one hundredfeel (l00,) of the OHWM; and Response: The trees within the Madsen Creek buffer have been surveyed and are depicted on the plans. Vanessa Dolbe, Associate Planner City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development -3-October 27, 200~ 5. Any other areas of impact with clear indication of type and extent of impact indicated on site plan. Response: Please see the Tree Inventory Plan that shows existing trees and clearing limits. Approximately 3 percent of the trees will be removed for construction. 6. Please provide a mitigation narrative that includes thefollowing elements.' A. Construction schedule; E, Operations and maintenance practices for protection and maintenance of the site; C. Environmental goals, o~jectives, and performance standards to be achieved by mitigation; D Monitoring and evaluation procedures, including minimum monitoring standards and timelines (i.e., annual, semi-annual, quarterly); E. Contingency plan with remedial actions for unsuccessfol mitigation; F Cost estimates for implementation of mitigation plan for purposes of calculating surely device; G. Discussion of compliance with criteria or conditions allowing for the proposed stream alteraliun or buffer reduction or buffer averaging, and a discussion of cantorlllil] 10 applicable miligation plan approval criteria (enclosed); and H. A review of the best available science supporting the proposed request for a reduced standard and/or the method of impact mitigation; a description of the report author's experience to date in restoring or creating the type of critical area proposed; and an analysis of the likelihood of success of the compensation project, Response: Please see the enclosed Wetland and Stream Analysis and Mitigation Report prepared by Sewell Wetland Consulting, Inc, for this information. Refer to the body ofthe rep0l1 and to Sheet W3. V A preliminary wetland mitigation plan meeting the requirements of RMC 4-8-120. The provided wetland mitigation plan is missing the following information: 1. Proposed planting schemefor created, restored, and enhanced wetlands; 2. Writtell report consisli:nl with final wetland mitigation plan requirements Vanessa Dolbe, Associate Planner City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development -4-October 27, 2008 regarding baseline information, environmental goals and objectives, and performance standards, which are as follows: A, Baseline In{ormation: A written, assessment and accompanying maps of the impacted wetland including, at a minimum, a wetland delineation by a qualified wetland specialist; existing wetland acreage; vegetative, faunal and hydrologic characteristics; an identification of direct and indirect impacts of the project to the wetland area and wetland functions; soil and substrata conditions; topographic elevations and compensation site If the mitigation site is ditferelll from the impacted wetland site, the assessment should include at " lIIinimum: existing acreage; vegetative, faunal and hydrologic conditions: reiationship within the watershed and to existing water bodies; soil and substrata conditions; topographic elevations; existing and proposed adjacent site conditions; buffers; and ownership. B, Environmental Goals and Obiectives: A written report by a qualified wetland speCialist shall be provided identifying goals and objectives of the mitigation plan and describing: a, The purposes of the compensation measures including a description of site selection criteria; identification of compensation goals: identification of target evaluation species and resource functions; dates for beginning and completion; and a complete description of the structure and fimctional relationships sought in the new wetland. The goals and objectives shall be related to the functions, and values of the original wetland or, if out-of-kind, the type of wetland to be emulated; and b, A review of the best available science and report author's experience to date in restoring Of' creating the type of wetland proposed shall be provided, An analysis of the likelihood of success of the compensation project at duplicating the original wetland shall be prOVided based on the experiences of comparable projects, preferably those in the same drainage basins, if any, An analysis of the likelihood of persistence of the created or restored wetland shall be provided based On such factors as surface and ground water supply and flow patterns; dynamiCS of the wetland ecosystem: sediment or pollutant influx and/or erosion, periodic flooding and drought, etc,; presence of invasive flora orfauna; potential human or animal disturbance; and previous comparable projects, 'f any. An analysis of the likelihood of persistence of the created or restored wetland shall be provided based on such factors as surface and ground water supply and flow patterns; dynamics of the wetland ecosystem; sediment or pollutant influx and/or erosion, periodic flooding and drought, etc,; presence of invasive flora or fauna; potential human or animal disturbance; and previous comparable projects, if any, Vanessa Dolbe, Associate Planner City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development -5-October 27,2008 C. Performance Standards: Specific criteria shall be provided for evaluating whether or not the goals and objectives of the project are achieved and for beginning remedial aClion or contingency measures. Such criteria may include water qualilv Slandards, survival rales of planted vegetation, species abundance and diversity targets, habitat diversity indices, or other ecological, geological or hydrological criteria. These criteria will be evaluated and reported pursuant to subsection (e) of this definition, Monitoring Program. An assessment, of the project's success in achieving the goals and objectives of the mitigation plan should be included along with an evaluation of the need jor remedial action or contingency measures Response: Please see the enclosed Wetland and Stream Analysis and Mitigation Report prepared by Sewell Wetland Consulting, Inc., for this infonnation. Refer to the body of the report and to Sheets WI -W3, V. Pursuant to RMC 4-3-050M.6.e.ii, an enhanced buffer shall not result in greater than a 25 percent reduction in the buffer width. Greater buffer width reductions require review as a variance. The subject project proposes wetland buffer reduction from 50 feet to 25 feet, this is greater then a 25 percent reduction. The applicant shall either, apply, for a variance for the 50% reduction to a wetland buffer or provide a new critical areas plan showing compliance with City of Renton wetland regulations. Response: The buffer reduction proposed is limited to the Madsen Creek buffer, which is proposed to be reduced from 100 feet to 75 feet with enhancement. The remaining buffer activities are buffer averaging WIth buffers averaged in some areas to 50 percent of the required width and replaced on-site in equal or greater area. No variance is required for the proposed reduction of 25 percent or the averaging. VI. Pursuant to a site visit, staff has determined that the existing stream crossing does not constitute as an existing road, therefore, this application would be requesting the construction of a new stream crossing Please submit the requited information for a vehicular stream crossing which are as follows: Pursuant to RMC 4-3-050L.8.a. Construction of vehicular or non-vehicular transportation crossings may be permitted in accordance with an approved supplemental stream/lake study subject to the following criteria: 1. The proposed route is determined to have the least impact on the environment, while meeting City Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element requirements and standards in RMC 4-6-060; and Response: The applicant agrees to relocate the existing crossing to a location that is less impactive to the Madsen Creek buffer than the current location so the crossing can be 90 degrees trom the stream and in no location run parallel in the buffer to the stream. The new crossing location will require the removal of several small alder trees: however, this crossing location results in fewer impacts than other locations. Vanessa Dolbe, Associate Planner City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development -6-October 27, 2008 2 The crossing minimizes interruption of downstream movement of wood and gravel; and Response: The new crossing will be a bottomless box culvert or bridge that is larger than the existing crossing. The new crossing is expected to improve stream hydraulics and result in a more naturally flowing and functioning stream bed than the current crossing. For more detail please refer to the enclosed Wetland and Stream Analysis and Mitigation Report prepared by Sewell Wetland Consulting, Inc. 3. Transportation facilities in buffer areas shall not run parallel to the water body (the subject location would not meet this requirement); and Response: The site plan has been modified to eliminate the parallel driveway. The proposed relocated Madsen Creek crossing is perpendicular to the stream. 4. Crossings occur as Ileal' 10 pe1l,endicular with the water body as possible (the subject location would 1101 meel this requirement); and Response: As noted above, the applicant agrees to relocate the Madsen Creek crossing to be perpendicular. 5. CrOSSings are designed according to, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Fish Passage Design at Road Culverts, 1999, and the National Marine Fisheries Service Guidelines for Salmonid Passage at Stream Crossings, 2000, as may be updated, 01' equivalent manuals as determined by the Responsible Official; and 6. Seasonal work windows are determined and made a condition of approval; and 7. Mitigation criteria of RMC 4-3-050L.3.c(iO are met (this information shall be included with in your mitigation plan for the stream). Response: The construction activities for the new crossing will comply with applicable federal, state, and local requirements for timing and construction method. A Hydraulic Project Approval from WDFW will be required for the construction. VII Please provided updated project narrative. tree retention worksheet, tree retention plan. as necessary. based on the above-menli<med required changes. Response: Enclosed are the revised project narrative, tree retention worksheet, and tree retention plan. Additional trees were surveyed on the site that led to these changes. Vanessa Dolbe, Associate Planner City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development -7-October 27, 2008 MUCKLE SHOOT INDIAN TRIBE CO'\;IME:"IT LETTER DATED AUGUST 28, 2008 I. Stream and Wetland Impact Concerns. Response: Please see the Wetland and Stream Analysis and Mitigation Report for the avoidance criteria as outlined in the Renton Municipal Code Supplemental Stream Study requirements. The replacement crossing over Madsen Creek is necessary to (I) maintain access to the west side of the creek for maintenance and for continued recreational use, (2) combme the construction activities in the buffer to occur at the same time to avoid multiple impact periods, and (3) to support future uses on the west side of Madsen Creek, including, but not limited to, continued and future recreational use, future parking lot, future building(s), andlor other permitted uses. The size of the replacement crossing is increased over the existing in the anticipation of the need for emergency access and passing vehicles. The crossing includes the culvertJbridge itself plus the road from the east parking lot to the west side that is necessary to use the bridge. The road and bridge will provide 24 feet of travel way (for two-way traffic) and a 5-foot sidewalk on one side for pedestnans. The total area of impact for the crossing and associated road is 5,623 square feet, which is offset with 6,090 square feet of Madsen Creek buffer to the southwest of the crossing. The 24-inch and 36-inch culverts mentioned in the Muckleshoot letter were installed by King County as part of the wastewater replacement project and Madsen Creek mitigation project (see enclosed easement Recording No. 9905190312). The existing gravel road along the west property line that provides access to a sewer manhole and to the King County easement to the Madsen Creek overflow diversion area and culverts will be retained. The City of Renton has advised that it regulates flood areas based on the FEMA FIRM maps. The site is not mapped by FEMA to contain flood hazard areas as noted on the enclosed FIRM map and the only Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) for the mapped area. 2. Storm water Impact Concerns. Response: The drainage system is required per Renton stormwater requirements to provide Level 2 Flow Control but is designed to provide Level 3 Flow Control and Basic Water Quality as discussed in the revised Technical Information Report. The additional flow control will reduce the likelihood of downstream impacts from the project. At this time. no additional water quality measures beyond Basic Water Quality are proposed. 3. Stream and Wetland Mitigation Concerns. Response: The project avoids impacts to the wetlands in their entirety, with a small amount of wetland buffer averaging proposed for an area of already impacted wetland buffer. Stream impacts are avoided as mueh as possible. Stream buffer averaging is proposed for the Vanessa Dolbe, Associate Planner City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development -8-October 27, 2008 relocated stream crossing and buffer reduction with enhancement is proposed on the west side of Madsen Creek. The mitigation proposal (I) does not reduce the amount of buffer beyond Code allowances; (2) does not decrease the functional riparian or habitat values of the wetland and stream system; and (3) follows best available science methods for mitigation of impacts, We believe that the above responses, together with the enclosed revised plans and documents, address the comments in your letter dated August 29, 2008 and the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe comment letter dated August 28, 2008, Please review and approve the enclosed at your earliest convenience. If you have questions or need additional information, please contact me at this office. Thank you. IH/ath 11706c.007.doc enc: As Noted Respectfully, Ivana Halvorsen Senior Planner cc: Kathi Bresler, Church Development Consultants (w/enc) Daniel K. Balmelli, Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. Ali Sadr, Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. PROJECT NARRATIVE New Life Church Expansion Prepared by: Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. July 15,2008 Revised October 27, 2008 Our Job No. 11706 DalaOPMENT PlANNING . CITY 01" 'IF.~~ON OCT 2 8 2033 RECEIVED The following is a project narrative discussing the proposed new building and parking lot expansion of New Life Church, located at 15711 -152nd Avenue S.E. The site was recently annexed into the City of Renton with zoning designations of R-14 (in the area of the proposed church) and Resource Conservation (south of the existing church and proposed new building). Site Description: The project site is a single parcel that is currently developed with a 93,000 square foot church that also contains a private school serving children from Kindergarten -8th Grade, a parking lot with 599 existing parking stalls, a storm watcr system, two children play areas, and an outdoor multi- purpose playfield. The New Life Church site is comprised of approximately 56.65 acres with a distinct set of topographic and natural features. The area of the site that is currently developed is generally flat with moderate localized slopes of up to approximately 10 percent. The north end of the site that currently contains the church, the parking lot, the grassy knoll play area, and the western part of the site west of Madsen Creek has been historically graded to accommodate the prior residential uses on the site (including possible farming), and more recently in the Church uses. The central area of the site, south of the church is a regulated steep slope that is characterized as a Seismic Hazard Area, a Steep Slope, a Landslide Hazard Area, and an Erosion Hazard Area. Based on the 1973 Soil Survey for King County, the soils on the site consist of Urban Land (UR), Newberg Silt Loam (NG), and Alderwood Kitsap, very Steep (AkF). The central area of the site also contains Madsen Crcek, several wetlands, and a flood control high-water diversion for Madsen Creek along the west property boundary. The site drains to the north into an existing bios wale and then to a detention pond that outlets toward the west and ultimately drains through a network of ditches to the Cedar River. The surrounding properties are developed with residential uses, although the specific development type is different in each direction. East of the site are the existing Valley Springs Apartments and "River Valley" Condominiums (R-14 zone), as well as a planned commercial/retail shopping area across 152nd Avenue S.E. at the site's north east comer (CA zone); west of the site is the Wonderland Estates Mobile Home Park (RMH zone); and south of the site is single family detached housing (King County R-4). To the north are more single family residential homes across SR-169. Project Description: The proposed project will add a new 35,000 square foot sanctuary/auditorium facility and 294 new parking stalls in the north end of the site (east of Madsen Creek and its buffer). The project also includes the relocation, reconstruction, and widening of the vehicular bridge over Madsen Creek to improve access to the west side of the site. To access the new building and the new parking, the project utilizes the existing driveways and access points off of 152nd Avenue S.E. The existing play area in the north central area of the site will be relocated to the south and west, near the new building. Land Use Permits Required: o City of Renton Site Plan Review -1-1 1706.01 l.doc o City of Renton SEPA Determination o City of Renton Clearing and Grading Permit o City of Renton Right-of-Way Use Permit (if required) o WSDOT AccesslDrainage Discharge Permit (if required) o NPDES Permit o WDFW Hydraulic Project Approval o City of Renton Commercial Building Permit Construction/Grading: The fair market value of the project is approximately $8,000,000. The new building will be placed on piles due to geotechnical considerations. The new parking area and the existing storm drainage facility will be regraded to generate approximately 1,800 cubic yards of cut and will require approximately 7,700 cubic yards of fill (mostly structural fill for the new building). It is likely that a job shack will be installed on the site for the new building and parking lot construction. The job shack placement is unknown at this time and will be determined by the General Contractor for the project. Tree Retention: Approximately 30 significant trees will be removed to accommodate the project. These trees will be removed to accommodate site grading, the parking lot, the relocated stream crossing, and the relocated play area northeast of the new building. Right-or-way dedication and Modifications: If required by the City, the applicant will work with the City to provide a right-of-way dedication of a strip of property along SR-169 to straighten out the existing job on the north property line. Expected requests for modifications include: • RMC 4-2-110F: Allowance to increase allowable lot coverage of civic use in residential zone beyond the Code-based to percent, and to allow the increase of the proposed building size to greater than 3000 or 5000 square feet (the proposed new building is 35,000 square feet in area); • RMC 4-3-050L.c.iv: Wetland/stream buffer reduction from 100 feet to 75 feet with buffer enhancement -along Madsen Creek (construction will occur within buffers of wetlands and over Madsen Creek to accommodate the reconstructed vehicle bridge). Utilities and piping: Existing utilities serving the site have adequate capacity for the new building. Relocation of some water main and fire hydrants will be necessary to accommodate to new building and parking area. A new 8-inch to 12-inch (or larger) fire main will be installed to loop around the new and existing building to provide fire protection as required by the International Fire Code. New storm piping will be installed for the new parking areas and some storm piping may be replaced where needed on the site. Storm piping may also be required off-site in the public rights-of-way of SR-169 and/or l52nd Avenue S.E. Sanitary sewer will be extended to the new building from existing mains on-site. Pipes will be installed that are 12-inches in diameter or larger both on and off site. Stormwater: The existing stormwater swale parallel to 152nd Avenue S.E. will be removed. The existing detention pond will be reconstructed to provide additional volume to accommodate the new impervious areas as well as the existing drainage to the facility. The modified storm water pond is designed to provide Level 3 flow control and basic water quality. Streets and Rights-of-Way: Site access is from 152nd Avenue S.E. at the two existing driveways. Frontage improvements will be constructed on the site frontages of 152nd Avenue S.E. and SR-169 as required, unless an alternative option is achieved. -2-11706.01 l.doc 1. 2. 3. T~EE RETnENTI~ WORKSHEET Total number of trees over 6" in diameter1 on project site: 1. 410 Deductions: Certain trees are excluded from the retention calculation: Trees that are dead, diseased or dangerous2 0 Trees in proposed public streets 0 Trees in proposed private access easements/tracts 12 Trees in critical areas 3 and buffers 398 Total number of excluded trees; 2. 410 Subtract line 2 from line 1: 3. 0 trees trees trees trees trees trees trees 4. Next, to determine the number of trees that must be retained4, multiply line 3 by: 0.3 in zones Re, R-1, R-4, or R-B 0.1 in all other residential zones 0.05 in all commercial and industrial zones 4. 0 trees 5. List the number of 6" or larger trees that you are proposing 5 to retain4 ; 5. 0 trees 6. Subtract line 5 from line 4 for trees to be replaced: (If line 6 is less than zero, stop here. No replacement trees are required). 6. ________ ~O ___ trees 7. Multiply line 6 by 12" for number of required replacement inches: 7. ______ inches 8. Proposed size of trees to meet additional planting requirement: (Minimum 2-caliper trees required) 8. _______ inches 9. Divide line 7 by line 8 for number of replacement trees6 : (if remainder is .5 or greater, round up to the next whole number) 1. Measured at chest height. 9. per tree ___________ trees 2. Dead. diseased or dangerous trees must be certified as such by a forester. registered landscape architect. or certified arborist. and approved by the City. ,. Critical Areas, such as weHands, streams, floodplains and protected slopes. are defined in Section 4·3-050 of the Renton Municipal Code (RMC). 4. Count only those trees to be retained outside of critical areas and buffers. 5. The City may require modification of the tree retention plan to ensure retention of the maximum number of trees per RMC 4-4-130H7a IS. Inches of street trees, inches of trees added to critical areaslbuffers, and inches of trees retained on site that are less than 6" but are greater than 2" can be used to meet the tree replacement requirement. H.:DivisionIFonnsITreeRetentionWorlcsheet 1lI07 BeE #11706 REV. 2008-10-27 FEMA Map Service Center -Quick Order Search Results Page I of I 9 FEMA Map Service Center Product Catalog I Map Search I Quick Order I Digital Post Office I Help Home'> Quick Order> Quick Order Search Resu!ts Quick Order Search Results Check the products that you would like to view or buy. Map Panel Search Results Map Item ID Description 53033C0984F KING CO UNINC&INC AREAS LOMC 05-10-0787 A-530071 Effective Date 05/16/1995 02/01/2006 Show LOMC View Buy FEMA,gov I Accessibility I Pnv<:1cy Policy I FAQ I Site Help I Site Index I Contact Us " ... -,--.-.-,.,,--.-~-------.,_._. ----"-.----------,--" FEMA Map Service Center, P.O. Box 1038 Jessup, Maryland 20794-1038 Phone; (800) 358-9616 Adobe Acrobat Reader required to view certain documents. Click here to download. http://msc . fema. gOY Iwebapp/wcs/storesl serv I et/Qui ck Order Result View 9/8/2008 Page 1 of 2 l Date: February 1, 2006 lease No.: 05-1 ()'0787A I LOMA ----.,., &.~'lAR.TAi~ (:.~J Federal Emergency Management Agency ~ , Washington, D.C. 20472 ~.(04NJ)St.~ - LETTER OF MAP AMENDMENT DETERMINATION DOCUMENT (REMOVAL) COMMUNITY AND MAP PANEllNFORMATIOH lEOAl PROPERTY DESCRIPTION KING COUNTY. WASHINGTON Lo12. Block " J.R. Lund Addition. as described in the Quit Claim O<led COMMUNITY tUnlncorporahl:d Are;t$) retarded as Document No. 6704100962, in the Office of the Recorder, King --County, Washington COMMUI>ITY NO.: 530071 NUMBER: 53033C0984F AFFECTED NAME: KING COJN1Y, WASHINGfON AND M"" PANEL INCORPCRATED AREAS DATE: 5116n99s FLOODING SOURCE: CEDAR RIVER APPRO:.lMATE LATITUDE & lONGFlUDE OF PROPERTY: 47.466, ·122.131 SaJ Ref OF LAT & LONG: PRIECISION MAPPING STREETS 7.0 DATUM: NAP a3 DETERMINATION OUTCOME 1% ANNUAl LOWEST LOWEST ~T!S CHANCE ADJACENT LOT LOT BLOCK! REMOVED FLOOO FLOOD GRADE ELEVATION SUBDIVISION STREET SECTION FROM THE ZONE ELEVATION ELEVATION (NGV029) SF", (NGVO 291 (NGV0291 2 1 J,R. Lund Mdition 1521B 156th Place Structure SE X (shaded) 108.2 feet 106.2 feet - -----------._--- Special Flood Hazan! Area (SFHA)· TheSFHA is an area Ihat wolAd be inundated by Ihe Hood ha~ng a 1·percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year (base flood~ ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS (Please refer to th-e appropriate section on Attachm-ent 1 for the additianal consideration$ Us-ted below.) PORTIONS REMAIN INTHE SFHA STU DY UNDERWAY This document provides the Federal Emergency Managemer'lt Agency's det&nnlnation regarding a request for a Letter of Map Amendment for the property described abo'o'6. Using the Information submitted and the effective Nallonal Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) map, we have determined that tIle structure{s) on the property{ies) is/are not located in the SFHA, an area inundated by the flood having a 1-percent chance of being equaled or e~ceeded in an~ givefl yea.r (base flood), This document amends the effective NFIP map to remove the subJoct property from the SFHA loealed on Ihe effect/ve NFIP map: therefore, the Federal mandatory flood insurance requirement does not apply. However, the lender has the option to continue the flood (nsuraooe requirement to protect Its finandal risk on the loan. A Preferred Risk Policy (PRP) is available for buildings located outside the SFHA.. Information about the PRP and how one can apply is enclosed. This determination Is based on iJle flood data prasenUy available. Tile enclosed documents provide additional information regarding this delennlnaUon, If you have any questions about this document. please contact the FEMA Map Assistance Center toll free at (877) 336-2627 (817~FEMA MAP) or by tetter addre5sad to the Federal EmergeocyManagemen-t Agency, 3601 Eisenhower Avenue, Sulkl130, Alexandria, VA 22304·6439, ~ --~b! Doug BeHomo, P.E., Chief Hazard Identincation Section, Mitigatior'! Division Version 1.3.3 1056349.1 LOMA-SL 101600187 Page 2 of2 I .IDat.: Fobruary 1,2006 ICase No.: 05-1 ()'0787A Federal Emergency Management Agency Washington, D.C. 20472 LETTER OF MAP AMENDMENT DETERMINATION DOCUMENT (REMOVAL) ATTACHMENT 1 (ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS) I LOMA PORTIONS OF THE PROPERTY REMAIN IN THE SFHA (This Additional Consideration applies to the preceding 1 Property.) Portions of this property, but not the subject of the Determination/Comment document, may remain in the Special Flood Hazard Area. Therefore. any future construction or substantial improvement on the property remains subject to Federal, State/Commonwealth, and local regulations for naadplain management. STUDY UNDERWAY (This additional consideration applies to all properties In the LOMA DETERMINATION DOCUMENT (REMOVAL)) This determination is based on the flood data presently available. However, the Federal Emergency Management Agency is ourrently revising the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) map for the community. New flood data could be generated that may affect this property. When the new NFIP map is issued it will supersede this determination. The Federal requirement for the purchase of flood insurance will then be based on the newly revised NFIP map. This attachment provides addllJonallnformatiofl (egarding this request. If you have any queslions about this attachment. please contact the FEMA Map Assistance Center toll free at (877) 336--2627 (877-FEMA MAP) Of by letter addressed 10 the Federa! Emergency Management Agency, 3601 Eisenhower Avenue, Suite 130, Alexandria, VA 22304·6439. --~~J?~-- Doug Bellomo, P.E" Chief Hazard ldentifica\ion Section, \1iUgation Division Version 1.3.3 1 056349.1l0MA-SL 1Q1600787 + I. I -=:::-.::"" NEW LIFE CHURCH SITE 15218156thPlaceSE-... _. ~ ~ I SE' ""N ;0", •• '~"'Pt< VAiiEY"D -1IInl1'l @ 'l> '-I'll Renton •• ", III II! ~ 5218 156th Place SE Location of LOMA -_sr .~-=-~-- \. III II! i " .. ... -', -~sr .--~~. ........ ~ l I ~ GKkw~- ZONE X 22 i62ND CITY OF RENTON 530088 BURLINGTON NORTHERN AND CHICAGO MILWAUKEE ST PAUL AND PACIFIC [SITE: I 23 KING COUNTY UNINCORPORATED AREAS 530071 ZONE X ZONE X 122°07'30" il70~ APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET 500 0 500 NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON AND INCORPORATED AREAS PANEL 984 OF 1725 (Sl-E MAP INDEX FOR PANE_S NOT ~RINT[Dl CONTAINS: COMMUNITY KING COUNty UNiNCORPORATED AREAS RENTON CITY o~ i!UMBER PANEL SUFFIX 530071 0984 ""'" -, , MAP NUMBER 53033C0984 F MAP REVISED: MAY 16.1995 Federal Emergency Management Agency W<I$ extracted using ... ·1 or amendments which may haw title block. For the latest product ftood maP5 check the changes to the date on the Nationel Flood Insurance ot , . \ ( . RCCIlhl,ng R«!U,,'«! Rr And Wkn Retarded ~ail to: King County Walerand L1nd,5 Resollrces. OJ\"i!''iM Resoucce lands an' Opcn Space Scclion 810 -Third A\'enu.o:, Suile )SO Staflk. WA 9i11l4 • • RECORDING COYF.R SlllET Qranl!"t ,SeIla'I: Rcnron A.UClIlbly Ilf C'ftld Gr:uuec {Uuycrl: Kin, ClHmh' LepJ Oesa1pti\,~JI: SW~" !j..!).!i Addili(N)a} tcC41fs,UQ; 5-6 ,'-\SC$Mr"s Tu r.1r\:cllDi: !3!~;!!! /~. . " Of~'ELC!PME: ~rrv rij!tg.PWlNINQ ""MTON OCT 2 B 2CJ8 RECEIVED I II ( • King C(\cuncy R~UfCC' Lmd5 and O~ Space S(I.':lion \\--.l.tcr:md land Rauurces OI .... 'silJ:I Depanmt:nt uf S3lUrJI Rcwurce S 1 0 Third A venue. SUite JSO Sc:-lilic. W .. \ 91104 • • l:TlLlTY E'\SF.~IE:'IT Gr,'U1IUf Renton Assembly of God. iI WashinStQn non·pr0111 ":01 pili JlllJn tjr3nlc~: King Counly. apolilical $ubdivi.sion ofthC' SUloC of Washmgton Abhr~i3lcd Lelal DcKript'iun: SW ~t.. :n·n·s A::tses.."Or's Iou Plftel:"ll)'j.. "lJ2JOS~9021..(J7 PIn!!..".;!: M~dSt'n Crcck S(Wcr Siabiliulimi iaffo:d :"u .. .s The undersigned Gramor, lhcir hCU5. 5UCCC$Son ,lIul Jssigns (hcremalirr lu¥~h~ rcrcncd 10 3S "Grantor",. tel and in coru.Mfct3tion of the sum (}t T ,'n :lIId No.llOO Dollar" (t.:.s. 510.00) and Olher valuable corwdcrauon.. (he receipt uf which is hereb)' ackno'\It:d~cd. hef'eb>" -=on\"~y and grant 10 King Cuullty. ;\ polillcal 5uhdhulon ot' Ihe: St3h: 1,1" WJshln!:ton. IU SUCCCW)fS and ~Igm. (hereinafter ttl!;!:lhcr reiaTClt 10 ,1$ ·-COL:-..i ... ··}. J p.ennanenl c:.ntment nver. across. .11'm~. In. \lpon and under the r\lUO\\",ng d~'nb~ pfnpnty: Saui propmy is des...-nbtd In Elhibil A attached hereto and made p.1rt of Ibis t 'hht~ l:~ncnl. The hlLlt ,onsKieubCln to be paid herein is subjccllo .m .lpptaisal of such propt."~' h~' 3ft MAl .1pprili.ser sdectcd by Granter II1d a rt\l1c .... ' thcreuf by GranlC1:'S rcv1C\~" appriliseI'. Said appraised amount shall M dcIcnnined wLlfun 90 da)'s of t,,(CUIion of thiS Instrument Said eucmc:nl beln; tOr the: IJ'd'POsc of in:mlllllg, constJucting. operating, maintaining. PlGletling, rrrno\o'ing, repairillg and replJdng a was1e .... alel' pipeline ollong Wllh =11 COMcclWn5. manholes and appuntlWlCe.\ !hereto and for the purpose of ,on5bUCbng.. monikWin!. reconstruchnl. mair.'aining JnJ repairing bank stabilwudn. mSlream aquall\: "'ineat ItslOraUOn ilnd SIre4nl enhan~emt:nt proJccts, IOstcher .. 1lh lh~ right "'( IIIgJ'US to.wl egICSS from ,,"d dw;ribcd property for Ihe (oregoing pUrplSI!$. .. ~. • ., • • Togcfh('f with J fanpor;v"f COOStNCMn t:,1S(1lll.,,1 fOf til..: ~fTJO~e:) uf '"1'fCSS nnd egress. ihe ~( ... gi"g:o" 'l.'qwpmenr .:md ..:onslrllctitln materials. JJld Ih.: ,,"',mplct!on uf :io'\icJ COQSI:'UI::tion A.l,.'fivilie$con. .. iSltnl ""'llh the flurrme:. nfth~ proJC'CI nver the prop..~ dumbed in E:(hibi( 8. iJn3d!(d herelo T,)sether wilh the nglll tl( lII!:,!rClS 10 oloo q.'TCS!J, from ).lIJ dc~nb<d: pr!.lpt::rty I~)t the foregi)ms PWpO$cs. The Granlor hereby and the COl'-NTY. by :accepting .lind recording this easermnr. mutually covcnanl3nd 38fce as follows: I. (OUNn' ~kAII. "rc'" comrleflon nf .1ny cC'nslru€"ti(1O of an.!' ("cllili~ d~:ri~1 herein. remove all debris Uld ft$lore Un~ surf."Ice o(lhc ilOO\ie described propeny 3.<;' "(3rl:- .:IS poSSible 10 the condilion in which 11 existed allhe d31c of this agrcemem. 2. COL'NTY sh311. if lhc abo ... e described propcny is disturbcli by the maintcno1llcc. rcmo, .. al. repair or rcplKCTlleilt ot' the (acililies .specified hertin, restore the surface o(lhc- ahove described pl(\pcr1Y ill nwly as possible 1('1 Ihe condilion in which il eXlsled 3t lhe .;ommr:r...:cmcnl of said "!'l3intcnancc:. cemo"...I, repair nr replacemenl. :;. CmJf't.'TY shall pr01«1 3nd ,a,'c h:mnlos GrilJl[()( flom aoy and 311 cI:.im!. dc:mws. loss., dilm.1gc. e;(pen!~ Jnd li3bility or e\'ery kiml ~IIU t!c-,;criplion Indudlng p(l'SIlnal Injury and for 3n} damage 10 Of 1111$ or (.k~I(U1,;.lion of plopm} ",hlltwl:\cr suffered hy O('3nlof. !h~r heilS, sU("ces!OoJ~ and ossi!:,>Jl§. or by any persom. linus III Cl)rpor01I1&)ns. bC:C3use of the (onsuu..:tion 3dtor m3inlenolI'l;':~ \l f SOlid f~cilitie5 -'. Gr.1nll)l' hereby 3,!u'cs 10 defend. ifldannilY and hllid Ihe COUNTY hmnless frmn ilnd aSllmt .1nl' .,nd all ebliN. demands. losses. dam3ges. 3nd c!Cpc:nse:t of C\'~' 1o.1I1d. including pc:r$i)fta' injury claims (including .111 amounlS P31d in sculcmc:nl nf Ihe 3t'oresald cI.:ums), suffered by the COUNH' 4S .l result or GflnIOr's, conduc~ 00 Ihe propet"ty. bIM Inside and outside the QS(fI1en( area. :\11 tIBbI. tlllt and Int('rest Ihac may be u5ed and enjoyat Wilhoul interfering 'Wllh (h~ cou.rmcru ngilis hlU't::ln wn\'!:)cd ate rcscn.cd (0 the Gr3lltor. bcep! as Otht;:u·,5C provided herein. and arter the dalc or this agrcement, the construcmm. in:itallalion. or mainlmanu of any 5trucNfCS. whtdll.:t temporary or permanent. ~hiall be absoluldy prohibited within the ~bave described permanent easement Mea lnd shall be d~c:mcd an unreasonable interference with the COUNTY's casement rights L1nless specifically 'ppro,-.,.j in wriun~ by doc COlJ"Nn', which .ppro .. 1 shall nol be unre.uoRObly withheld. ~Ioreov~. OJS. 10 such unpro\'c~ slrucNres, the provisions of parograph t. 2. aNt :; -chait nol orpply (---:".--------=-~ I I • . .., • '. ( • • • (iRA:\rOR: Rau-"n Assembly of God . .1 WJShi"~ .. on n<.ln-prolit C0f1)lJralhlR STATE OF W .. \StfINClTON. ISS. Cm~nry of Kin! . f herebJ.-eeRily miil~ know or have sa(isfadory I::Yldcncc (bal .... }JJ G c ......t~ ..... I .s. ::sJm: Ihe per50nf1l) who .:ap~mI bdQrc ine. and said person(s) acknowledged thai _lIc_ ~gr;ed this I1lslnlment. on !)ath ~talcd ''d _hc_ I:\'ZC .lUlltQrizcd to cxtculC the IIl."i[f'Ufficnt <lnd ;J.cknowle'dyw it ~ ,he d£t:.:.!.: :AI ... ~ of HenIOn ;\sscmbh' 1)1' God 10 be Ihe !ree .lI1a voluntary atJ of such l1:ut,. I~r dIe uses .md pUQ"m."$ mcnlionr;:d In till:' IIlslrument DOlled . _~. /~>,-',-/..;7.....:),-· ___ _ I . ... . . ( • • • EXIlIUIi ,\ LEG,\L DESCRIPTIO~ That portion of Serllfln :!3. Tnwnshlp D ~l1nh. Rlllge 5 EJSI. W),L in King County. W.a:.hIR810n. delmbcd 35 loll/)\\>"}: BegiMinS at the Southwest comer cr said Section 23. also being Ihe: TRUE rOM OF BEGINN!NG; Thence ALONG rHE Walline uf said S1:(;110" !3. :-il)rth 1)1"08'1 y' F.MI 3. disc3nce of 102963 ticcl; rnem;:e SoUlh i 5" .I1'(JI)-F.UI J. dl~loUIce oi 112.0) i Icee; Thence South I P26·0 .. •· West :I; disr.ll1cc 1)( 261.1 j reet; Thence 51lmh 08~'29" W~t ~ di~13nce of )~5 00 fett: Thence South 00'18']1" West a dlSlance of J)O,OO (COCI [hence Soreh 87°46'55' West a distance of ~ 1.06 (telM the TRUE POINT OF BfGn .. 'NrNG Containing ]4,41S SF. MIlre n, los. Etclutling the art' of l"lili'~ Easement recorded un.dct RC'cording Numb« 9007 I.! I H.~. u:curdcd in the oftkc or Ihe King eounly RC'Curoer. Slale of W.uhingtM. Itom Ihe 10t,,1 ue3 o( Ihe 3bo\l:descrihcd property yields 1 (1('1 ;1re3 uf ~j,H9 Sf. mote or len. ·1 --~ • i , " .1 • • EXlliDIT U I.EGAL Of.SCRIP1'ION TE~IPORARY CO~STRUCTIO~ AND STAG[I;G tASEMEC'T That portion of the Sourhwesc quarter of Seciioo 13, TowTnhip 23 Nonh. R~l'Igc S hst. W.M., in King County. Washington. described .15 foilows: Begiruling al J\e ~ulhwc::s.t cDntCr of sam Sec-Iron 23, rnc=nct! North O!II'l}8'1 j'" f.uI l distance of iO!'ll.6J (eet: T'hcru:c South 'S°.f.Z'OO·· E~l .a di~lOsnc~ ot 2i.01 letC to the :)outhwe .. tcrlj corner ,,(the p.ncel oflmd .:ondtmned under King f.'~unIJl' Ordinance :-';0.2164; Thence along the SoUlhctl!, line oi~id p,lrtcl Soulh Jjo·L!'OW' Easl., tiist.1tlCt:" ..,fS2.CJ1 feel 10 the ntO$t SC1..1bc3S1erly comer o( said condemned parcel: ThC11ce al6ft! the Soulhc3Stmy line of :5.lId parcel Nonh .1.f~51·5J·· Elsi a disl3l\cC or 163.S" fcci to the TRUF. POINt OF 8EGI~"}iI.\:(i: Thence along the Eastcriy line of said par.:cl NQllh I j"l1l 'OY' E.1~t 01 disl.u\cc: of9SQ.OO Ittf; Tnence.1' right :In!h:s (0 satd Easterly line Sntnh 76°j8·5:)"· [J~I J dnl3nce of :!'O,ljt) feel: Thcn..:c So-lud, 1)"Oj"I)"· \\'(5;' II .. hsbn,,;c of 62L1 '(oct: nll!nC'c Sl,)uth S~o"I'2T" West a distmcc Ill" "26.J8 feCI IQ lh~ fRliE POI~T OF REGISNI);G: r"-' ~,.--------.._~. • ..., l . I r .. = , ., , < • 7_ ( . , J Y ~ -~- ; ;~c 2CC S": ~_ :~ : 4JO SYMONDS ~ '" ;, 0 ~ 0 z , ( ,. 0 I I .. • ~g Co ~~ ~ 1I " 'i~-: :3 • • , tx.-S1IP.C ·J::l; .... t.ASi"E't; A(,::O~Ca.G '98"T' 4i! • ...-~ .. --:-,\.I _ ;-• .:. t ., . II City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT:!Jl1I1 M COMMENTS DUE: AUGUST 20, 2008 APPLICATION NO: LUA08-081, ECF, SA-A DATE CIRCULATED: AUGUST 6, 2008 APPLICANT: New Life Church PLANNER: Vanessa Dolbee PROJECT TITLE: New Life Church PLAN REVIEWER: Rick Moreno SITE AREA: 246,114 square feet EXISTING BLDG AREA (Qross): 93,000 square feet LOCATION: 1571115?"' ,~ PROPOSED BLDG AREA (Qross) 35,000 square feet ~. ."..-~I WORK ORDER NO: 77937 , '()". PLEASE RETURN TO VANESSA DOLBEE IN CURRENT PLANNING 6TH FLOOR SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting an Environmental (SEPA) Review and Administrative Site Plan Review for the construction of a 36,000 square foot Church auditorium with 299 additional parking stalls. The site is located on the south side of Maple Valley Highway at 15711 -152nd Avenue SE, and is comprised of 56.65 acres. The subject parcel is zoned Residential 14 (R- 14) dulac and is currently the location of the New Life Church, which also contains a private school. The exiting church and school building is 93,000 square feet with 599 associated parking stalls, which are proposed to remain. The subject project also includes the reconstruction and widening of the vehicular bridge over Madsen Creek to improved access to the west side of the site and the relocation of an existing play area to the south and west, to be located near the proposed building. To access the new building and parking, the existing driveways, off of 152nd Avenue SE would be utilized. The subject site contains many critical areas, which include; Seismic Hazards, Steep Slopes, Landslide Hazards Areas, Erosion Hazard Area, Streams, and Wetlands. As such, the applicant has provided a Stream and Wetland study and a Geotechnical report. The applicants are proposing to remove 22 trees for the new church and parking area. The existing detention pond would be reconstructed to provide additional volume to accommodate the new impervious areas as well as the existing drainage to the facility. The proposed project would require approximately 1,800 cubic yards of cut and approximately 7,700 cubic yards of fill. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary EaTth lousino Air Water Plants ~ Land/Shoreline US6 Utili/ies Animals Environmental Health Public SeNices Energy! Natural Resources ';~'nM .... ,.: nnn HoO' If CFS -M-J. a /'l.fi...U{l tur B. POLICY-RELA TED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELA TED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with patticular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional informa . n is needed to properly assess this proposal. \O-'l/ff( Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date -. Ms. Vanessa Dolbee Associate Planner City of Renton Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton W A 98057 MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE Fisheries Division 39015 -172 nd Avenue SE • Auburn, Washington 98092-9763 Phone: (253) 939-3311 • Fax: (253) 931-0752 August 28, 2008 RE: New Life Church, LUA08-08l, ECF, SA-A, Notice of Application and Proposed Determination of Non- Significance-Mitigated Dear Ms. Dolbee: The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division has reviewed the environmental checklist, the Preliminary Technical Information Report (dated July 9, 2008) and the New Life Wetland and Stream Analysis Report and Concept Mitigation Plan for the above referenced project. Thank you for sending the additional requested materials as they facilitated our review. We offer the following comments in the interest of protecting and restoring the Tribe's treaty protected fisheries resources. Stream and Wetland Impact Concerns Based on the materials that we reviewed, there is no analysis to demonstrate that this project has attempted to follow mitigation sequencing requirements. There is no discussion about what actions are being taken to avoid adversely affecting Madsen Creek, its riparian buffer, as well as, the three wetlands CA, B, and C). For example, the parking spaces along the western edge of the new parking area could be removed to avoid the full buffer reduction proposed on the east side of Madsen Creek for a portion of its length as shown in the Conceptual Mitigation Plan. The applicant should be required to demonstrate compliance with mitigation sequencing. Please have the applicant discuss why a new larger bridge is needed to cross Madsen Creek to the access the undeveloped mowed field to the west and outside of the Madsen Creek riparian buffer. Again, there is no explanation as to why this large bridge is needed, except to say that it is "sub-standard width". It is not clear how or why the new bridge project will impact 6,173 square feet of buffer on the west side. The bridge should be 20 feet in width at the most and 20 feet long, which suggests a 400 square foot impact, not 6,173 square feet. Please have the applicant clarity the extent and basis for this impact as it seems exceedingly large for bridge that is only 5 feet wider than the current structure (i.e. 20 feet versus 15 feet). It is also not apparent why there is an existing gravel road in the southern area and where this road is providing access. This gravel road is routed between wetlands AlB and wetland C and appears to cross Madsen Creek according to the Conceptual Mitigation Plan. If this road is not needed to provide vehicle access, then it should be abandoned and the two existing culverts (i.e. 36 inch CMP and 24 inch CMP) removed and the wetland connectivity New Life Church, LUA08-081, ECF, SA-A Notice of Application and Proposed MONS August 28, 2008 Page 2 between Wetlands A, B, and C restored as partial mitigation for the permanent impacts to wetland and stream buffers. Alternatively, if this gravel road is needed for vehicle access, then the two existing culverts shown near this road on the conceptual mitigation plan should be assessed to determine if they are fish barriers or not. The Stream/Wetland report briefly discusses a culvert on the old gravel road, but lacks detailed discussion or analysis about the potential for this and the other culvert shown on the Conceptual Mitigation plan and if these culverts pass all fish species and life history stages. Also, King County's IMAP shows a portion ofthe site in the north being within the 100 year floodplain ofthe Cedar River. There is no discussion about this issue in either the StreamlWetland report. The Preliminary Technical Information Report suggests that there is no floodplain on site. This issue needs clarification, If this project will result in additional filling of the Cedar River floodplain, then this impact will need mitigation, Stormwater Impact Concerns We are also concerned about potential adverse impacts from storm water to salmonids and their potential habitat in Madsen Creek. Per the Preliminary Technical Information Report, the stormwater for this project will be treated and detained, then released into Madsen Creek. In addition to Basic water quality treatment, the project proposes a stormwater detention pond design that uses the KCRTS Level 2 standard. Please note that the Level 2 standard, or the stream protection standard, is designed to protect the stream channel from erosion and channel aggradation, and does not necessarily protect aquatic life, including salmonids. Additional information is needed including an impact analysis that considers the condition of Madsen Creek and its limited ahility to receive additional stormwater in its current condition without impacts. Madsen Creek is not in a "predeveloped condition", rather it has been modified, channelized, impounded, and disturbed from above the project site all the way to its confluence with the Cedar River. As a result, there may he adverse impacts to aquatic life even with the proposed detention facilities (Le. a pond and a vault), as a result of changes in water volumes and velocities. These changes may cause adverse impacts by increasing water velocities over longer periods of time that exceed the swimming speeds of juvenile salmon ids compared to the pre-developed condition. Madsen Creek is used by coho and cutthroat trout and would be important for spawning and rearing habitat. However, since Madsen Creek is channelized and piped and receives partially and unregulated stormwater from various sources, it should be expected that the stream is currently limited in juvenile refugia habitat. As a result, the stormwater from the project may cause an adverse impact to refugia habitat that requires mitigation. In addition to the concern about stormwater quantity impacts, the project is proposing to use the Basic treatment for its water quality treatment of storm water. Given the size of the parking lot and its anticipated use, the project should be using enhanced treatments, particularly for oil and grease and heavy metals. Stream and Wetland Mitigation Concerns The project should be re-scoped so that it avoids impacts to the Madsen Creek and the three wetlands to the maximum extent possible, as noted above. Once the project has demonstrated that impacts have been avoided to the maximum extent possible, any remaining project impacts will require full mitigation. The proposed project fails to do so in several ways. First, the project needs to mitigate for the new wider bridge, assuming this bridge is needed. Since this bridge structure will result in permanent impacts to the riparian area and the stream channel of Madsen Creek, it should partially mitigate these impacts by enhancing the stream channel with woody debris and increasing the riparian plantings along the west side of the stream. Second, the conceptual mitigation plan shows 7 picces of wood to be placed in the stream huffer on the east side of Madsen Creek; however, no wood is proposed for the placement in the stream. The drawing is inconsistent with the -. New Life Church, LUA08-081, ECF, SA-A Notice of Application and Proposed MDNS August 28, 2008 Page 3 statement on page 7 of the Stream/Wetland report that the enhancement plan will .. "provide organic matter and woody debris to the buffer and the stream channel". Wood needs to be added to the stream channel as noted above. Third, if the existing gravel road is needed to remain to support the purpose and need of this project, and the two culverts are fish passage barriers, then these culverts should be replaced with fish passable structures as partial mitigation for this project. It is not clear if this will happen due to the limited and unclear discussion on page 10 of the Stream/Wetland report. If a new culvert is proposed along the gravel road, then it, too, may cause additional impacts to Madsen Creek's stream channel and riparian area and will require additional mitigation. More information is needed. Fourth, it is not apparent exactly where the 6, 173 square feet of stream buffer enhancement on the south side of the bridge will occur. Assuming this level of impact is appropriate, additional information is needed as to where this mitigation is occurring. Fifth, as noted above, the mitigation for impacts to Wetland C's buffer should include the removal of the existing gravel road and the restoration of Wetlands A, B, and C. This approach will not only improve these wetlands and Madsen Creek, but may elevate some of the flooding that occurs downstream and is documented in the Preliminary Technical Report. In addition, fencing should be provided all along the buffer areas to avoid further encroachment to Madsen Creek and Wetlands A, Band C. The project should also be conditioned to require the lawn maintenance activities to support the mitigation measures by avoiding pesticides and fertilizers that could enter Madsen Creek and the removal of invasive plants on the west side of the stream to avoid invading the mitigation areas. Finally, the project should be required to use Low Impact Development techniques to address the storrnwater concerns identified above. These techniques include, but are not limited, to pervious pavement and materials, infiltration trenches for downspouts, etc. A list of these techniques can be found at http://www.psp.wa.gov/downloadslLlDlLlD manuaI2005.pdf. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this proposal and look forward to the City's written response to these comments. Please call me at 253-876-3116 should you have any questions. Sincer~ ~ -- Karen Walter Watersheds and Land Use Team Leader Cc: Susan Powell, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch Randy McIntosh, NMFS Larry Fisher, WDFW, Region 4 Rebekah Padgett, WDOE, NW Region , CIT:..: OF RENTON Denis Law. Mayor Department of Community and Economic Development Alex Pietscb, Administrator August 29, 2008 Kathi Bresler Church Development Consultants 3623 -324th Avenue SE Fall City, W A 98024 SUBJECT: New Life Church LUA08-081, ECF, SA-A "On Hold" Notice Dear Ms. Bresler: The Planning Division of the City of Renton accepted the above master application for review on August 6, 2008. During our review, staff has determined that additional information is necessary in order to proceed further. The following information will need to be submitted so that we may co~tinue the review of the above subject application: I. A Supplemental Steam Study per RMC 4-8-120 (enclosed) is required because changes and alterations are prosped to the stream buffer. II. A Stream Mitigation Plan per RMC 4-8-120. The provided Stream mitigation plan is missing the following required information: I. The map does not depict the entire parcel of land owned by the applicant, including one hundred feet (100') of the abutting parcels through which the water body flows; 2. The ordinary high water mark (OHWM) determined in the field by a qualified biologist in not marked on the provided plan; 3. Top view and typical cross-section views ofthe stream or lake bed, banks, and buffers to scale shall be provided; 4. The vegetative cover of the entire site, including the stream or lake, banks, riparian area, and/or abutting wetland areas, extending one hundred feet (100') upstream and downstream from the property line. Include position, species, and size of all trees at least ten inches (10") average diameter that are within one hundred feet (100') ofthe OHWM;and 5. Any other areas of impact with clear indication of type and extent of impact indicated on site plan. 6. Please provide a mitigation narrative that includes the following elements: A. Construction schedule; -------10-5-5 -So-u-th-O-ra-'d-y-W-a-Y---R-en-to-n-, W-as-h-in-gt-on-9-g0-S-7 ------R E N T ~ (i) This paper contains 50% recycled material, 30% postcohsumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE New Life Church LUA08-081, ECF, SA-A Page 2 of4 B. Operations and maintenance practices for protection and maintenance of the site; C. Environmental goals, objectives, and performance standards to be achieved by mitigation; D. Monitoring and evaluation procedures, including minimum monitoring standards and timelines (i.e., annual, semi-annual, quarterly); E. Contingency plan with remedial actions for unsuccessful mitigation; F. Cost estimates for implementation of mitigation plan for purposes of calculating surety device; G. Discussion of compliance with criteria or conditions allowing for the proposed stream alteration or buffer reduction or buffer averaging, and a discussion of conformity to applicable mitigation plan approval criteria (enclosed); and H. A review of the best available science supporting the proposed request for a reduced standard and/or the method of impact mitigation; a description of the report author's experience to date in restoring or creating the type of critical area proposed; and an analysis of the likelihood of success of the compensation project. V. A preliminary wetland mitigation plan meeting the requirements ofRMC 4-8-120. The provided wetland mitigation plan is missing the following information: 1. Proposed planting scheme for created, restored, and enhanced wetlands; 2. Written report consistent with final wetland mitigation plan requirements regarding baseline information, environmental goals and objectives, and performance standards, which are as follows: A. Baseline'Information: A writtenaJ>sessment and accompanying maps of the impacted wetland including, at a minimum, a wetland delineation by a qualified wetland specialist;ellistirig wetland acreage; vegetative, faunal and hydrologic Characteristics; 'an identification of direct and indirect impacts of the project to the wetland area and wetland functions; soil and substrata conditions; topographic elevations and compensation site. If the mitigation site is different from the impacted wetland site, the assessment should include at a minimum: existing acreage; vegetative, faunal and hydrologic conditions; relationship within the watershed and to existing water bodies; soil and substrata conditions; topographic elevations; existing and proposed adjacent site conditions; buffers; and ownership. B. Environmental Goals and Objectives: A written report by a qualified wetland specialist shall be provided identifying goals and objectives of the mitigation plan and describing: a. The purposes of the compensation measures including a description of site selection criteria; identification of compensation goals; identification of target evaluation species and resource functions; dates for beginning and completion; and a complete description of the structure and functional relationships sought in the new wetland. The goals and objectives shall be related to the functions and values of the original wetland or, ifout-of-kind, the type of wetland to be emulated; and b. A review of the best available science and report author's experience to date in restoring or creating the type of wetland proposed shall be provided. An analysis of the likelihood of success of the compensation project at duplicating the original wetland shall be provided based on the experiences of comparable projects, preferably those in the same drainage basins, if any. An analysis of the likelihood of persistence of the created or New Life Church LUA08-081, ECF, SA-A Page 3 of4 restored wetland shall be provided based on such factors as surface and ground water supply and flow patterns; dynamics of the wetland ecosystem; sediment or pollutant influx and/or erosion, periodic flooding and drought, etc.; presence of invasive flora or fauna; potential human or animal disturbance; and previous comparable projects, if any. C. Performance Standards: Specific criteria shall be provided for evaluating whether or not the goals and objectives of the project are achieved and for beginning remedial action or contingency measures. Such criteria may include water quality standards, survival rates of planted vegetation, species abundance and diversity targets, habitat diversity indices, or other ecological, geological or hydrological criteria. These criteria will be evaluated and reported pursuant to subsection (e) of this definition, Monitoring Program. An assessment of the project's success in achieving the goals and objectives of the mitigation plan should be included along with an evaluation of the need for remedial action or contingency measures V. Pursuant to RMC 4-3-050M.6.e.ii, an enhanced buffer shall not result in greater than a 25 percent reduction in the buffer width. Greater buffer width reductions require review as a variance. The subject project proposes wetland buffer reduction from 50 feet to 25 feet, this is greater then a 25 percent reduction. The applicant shall either, apply for a variance for the 50% reduction to a wetland buffer or provide a new critical areas plan showing compliance with City of Renton wetland regulations. VI. Pursuant to a site visit, staff has determined that the existing stream crossing does not constitute as· an existing road, therefore, this application would be requesting the construction of a new stream crossing. Please submit the required information for a vehicular stream crossing whioh are as follows: Pursuant to RMC 4-3-050L.8.a. Construction of vehicular or non-vehicular transportation crossings may be permitted in accordance with an approved supplemental stream/lake study subject to the following criteria: I. The proposed route is determined to have the least impact on the environment, while meeting City Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element requirements and standards in RMC 4-6-060; and 2. The crossing minimizes interruption of downstream movement of wood and gravel; and 3. Transportation facilities in buffer areas shall not run parallel to the water body (the subject location would not meet this requirement); and 4. Crossings occur as near to perpendicular with the water body as possible (the subject location would not meet this requirement); and 5. Crossings are designed according to the Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife Fish Passage Design at Road Culverts, 1999, and the National Marine Fisheries Service Guidelines for Salmonid Passage at Stream Crossings, 2000, as may be updated, or equivalent manuals as determined by the Responsible Official; and 6. Seasonal work windows are determined and made a condition of approval; and 7. Mitigation criteria of RMC 4-3-050L.3.c(ii) are met (this information shall be included with in your mitigation plan for the stream). VII. Please provided updated project narrative, tree retention worksheet, tree retention plan, as necessary, based on the above-mentioned required changes. All new information submitted shall be in the required format pursuant to the application submittal checklist. In addition, please provide the required number of copies requested in the submittal checklist. Furthermore, PMT's (8 Y, by 11 reductions) shall be submitted for any new plan sheets submitted. New Life Church LUA08-081, ECF, SA-A Page 4 of4 It is also important to note that the subject property has a King County "sensitive areas notice" recorded in the title, under recording number 200 I 0726002144. This notice is for the on site stream, wetlands and their associated buffers. The notice states "limitation may exist on actions in or affecting the sensitive areas or their buffers present on this property". However, the property is now in Renton and not subject to King County laws. Although, it would be cleaner to remove the notice before proceeding, it is not required for the proposed development review process to continue. At this time, your project has been placed "on hold" pending receipt of the requested information. Please contact me at (425) 430-7314 if you have any questions. . Sincerely, Vanessa Dolbee Associate Planner Encl: Applicable portions ofRMC 4-8-120 Wetland handout Stream bandout cc: New Life Church /Owner(s) CIT ~ OF RENTON To: From: Date: Subject: MEMORANDUM Vanessa Dolbee, Associate Planner Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney August 26, 2008 LUA08-081, ECF, SA-A New Life Church Office of the City Attorney Lawrence J. Warren Senior Assistant City Attorneys Mark Barber Zanelta L. Fontes Assistant City Attorneys Ann S. Nielsen Garmon Newsom n Shawn E. Arthur The sensitive areas notice provides that the property is subject to the King County Sensitive Area Ordinance. However, the property is now in Renton and not subject to King County laws. While I think it would be cleaner to remove the notice before proceeding, I don't see that is required if the proposed development can be done under Renton's sensitive area ordinance. The notice is simply that, a notice. By annexation, I believe that the notice is out of date and the property is subject to Renton, not King County ordinances. I also believe Renton is now the party that could remove the notice, if necessary. I hope this answers your question. If not, please give me a call, e-mail or follow up memo. LJW:tmj cc: C. E. Vincent Jennifer Henning Jay Covington Lawrence J. Warren -P-os-t _O_ffi_ce_Bo_x_6_26_-R-e-n-to-n,-W-as-hin-gto-n-9-S-0-57---(-42-5-) 2-5-5--S-67-S-/-F-AX-(4-2-5-) 2-5-5--5-47-4-R E N T ~ * This paper conlClins 50% recycled material, 30%post consumer AHE.AD OF THE CURVE t2..ert-h>·n A s ~ e",,(" I, 0 ~ ~"e{ '5111 157. "if p..,.. S £ ~ • ~ v'l-tf8oS-7 -Documen( Title (or transactIOns conbined berf:in)" _-=S::..::0.-..c.:.:c:<>::..:. • ..:~_ • ..:J..:t.-'-__ ~_ Refcrt!nce Number(s) of Doc lents assigned or released ----,L-------- Addlbonal reference numb s on page ___ of docum Grantor(.$) (Iastnam-e, filst name, in ials): --"~~:S;;;Z:t~~~~~----- AddItIOnal names on page ___ of Grantee(s) (last name, first name, initials): ,l.....-\-_____________ _ / AddItional names on page __ of documenf(s) _-\ __________ _ Legal descnption (abbreviated): Lot Block Plat/Section ~ Townsh' ~ Ra.nge.~ / , AddltlQnallegalls on page ___ of document(s) / / Lot --j Block ___ PI,USectlOn __ TownshIp -----'<:-Range. __ AddttlOnallegal IS on page ___ of document(s) \ Lo~ Block ___ Plat/Secbon ___ Township ___ R ge" __ / Addluonal legal IS on page ___ of document(s) ! / Lol Block. Plat/Sectlon Township Range· Addalonallegalls on page of document(s) /essor.s Property Tax Parcel/Account Number($)' .;t:' 230$;70'+ 1 DO NOT WroTE IN MARGINS The. AuditorlRecorder will rely on the information prGvided on this. form. The staff will not read the attached document to verify the accuracy or completeness of the indexIng information provided herein. F9~/LegalCov Snt )/28/91-10 04 AMId} ) : ® Sensitive Area Notice ICmg County Dept of Dovel."..,. .. md EnvoroomenulSemces Land Use Senic::es DhisiGIl: 900 oalcesdale Avenue SouthWCJt R .... on. WI. 9801S-1219 For Pernllt Number: --,~~G_l_l-,-"'_1;I_3_i"-___________ _ For Parcel Number. .2$" 3. <.;, 5"j (; z.1 descnbed as (street address) , more fully This property contains seusl~ve areas andlor sensitive area buffers, as defined by the K,ng County SeUS,llve Areas Ord,nance, KCC 21A 24_ The provISions of the Senslt,ve Areas Ordmance apply to this property_ Llm,tauon may exISt on acuon, 10 or affecting the ,ens'llve areas or therr buffers pre,ent on thl' property_ For further mformauon regarding such limnation, please contact the Land Use ServIces DiVISion of Kmg County or Its successor agency, This nollce shall run WIth the land and shall not be removed except upon specIfic wrttten aulhonzauon recorded herem by King County I, (pnnt) i). ~ I!a>s; , hereby eerufy thai 1 am the owner of the above-referenced property_ Attachments .. Kit" Coumy o.:pt of Dcvdopment l!Id fnyll'onrncmal ScrvlttS LaQd Un Sert'1«S D1ru1an 900 Oakc:sdale A .. enue: SoutJrww: Renton. WuhlOJlOll9&05S-1219 ON)M"'_, n. tNfII--.u T'CI.""~. _flO lit I'HII! ,n,n Of ....... TetI ~GI' __ .~"'''CIU._ lHAt I'C*mII .,.. __ ' ...... 01_ ~ ~ OI"WCllOll n.~JSMOIIITM, ....... IUf.W .. 1I:II«I0CIUHr<'. ___ ~ l_ ~.,. ... 1IO\mf ........... Of 'nil ~ "'"""-tI: 1MIUY __ '-'_'f""Of"'_tIIoU'~ .... ~ 1\ () e -1ITWITf: .. n.:aM.Nf'I'OI' ...... A1tOl'~,. I, (print) --dlJ-d-'./-IY=lCJ::-,,"'-"'-.'-'=¢.==----, hereby certify that I am the owner of the above-referenced property 2"""",1 Notary Pubhc in for thec' A. 1';:-.. ,,, 1"'- ~ resirungal F96/SDSSID=cnpt lei 07n9l911mh <- OOps ACTl \) tn' 41'5 : &"1<:.c>~3", BI)C>t\ l'22..2, 1 ~ 7· ~ ~ Class 2. 100-foot buffer ,.,' 1'2,10.11' Steep slope,landsllde hazard area 200 1 0726002144 Wetlands not classified or delmeated I I Class 2. stream I ' .-' ---:/ .." ------'" '" '.);) -------. -. -. TII'~ ,ute plan '" sl<etch for ",formatJanal purpo ... anly TIl. _bones) aftJ1e ,sillve area(a) and buft'er(s) lSI.,. not surveyed A1lnnstbve .... C.) may b. sUJ>Ject to further teVlew upon any alteration of the fute or rla "nsllIyl area(s) or btJ!Jor!.) TIllS .,te pI~uml)." ..a :>~<>S'I M. \ dePICtS tJ1e .p~ locabOn aftha sensitive ~buft'er(.) f>,itll~ Signature ",e .... , ~"" r.;: \..o\~," Jt nu. 1".ti .. ~'t.I).\I),t.. t..\oooC.II..,. K·~~tt... S c.~\-L t": 2c>~ rt! .. t- ~ 7,t-r-", \ Date .... ......... rt/l~«:r:i<~;''" n.,k",.7,1 :2... -..... " \ Wetland ClaSSification to be evaluated under L99V MOS • I , / I Class 2 SO-foot wetland buffer / Jf...~~ IS-foot aSBL Class 2 wetland \ , \. -..... ~'\>\ 1,( -:l '-'i -\,n " '" - • Page 1 of 1 Stacy Tucker -New Life Churcu audition From: Michael/Claudia Donnelly <thedonnellys@oo.net> <vdolbee@ci.renton.wa.us> To: Date: OS/151200S 10:02 AM Subject: New Life Church addition CC: <consultscdc@msn.com>, Larry Fisher <fisheldf@DFW.WA.GOV> Hello: I was just browsing the land use application and saw the below notice. I want to become a party of record. I also don't want you to feel like I am butting in where [ am not needed. However, people who live on the East Renton Plateau as well as myselflike to see trees in the city. This applicant is proposing to remove 22. Will they be replaced with the same-size trees? I've told my kids that Renton is allergic to trees ........ Also, there is a stream involved --Madsen Creek. Renton usually does not let developers know that any work done on a stream --especially this one flowing into Cedar River --that they will need an HPA permit from the state. I am copying this note to a Fish and Wildlife person so that he will know what is going on. Thank you. Claudia Donnelly [0415 -147thAvenue SE Renton, W A 98059 425-255-4340 • Description: Tile applicant is. requesting an Environmental (SI'YA) Review and Administrative Site Plan Review for tbe construction ofa 36,000 square foot Church auditorium with 299 additional parking st'llb. The ~itc is located 011 the south side of Maple Valley Highway at 15711 -152nd Avenue SE. and is comprised of56.65 acres. The subject parcel is /()]h.'d Residential 14 (R-14) dulac and is currently the location of the New Life Church. which also contains a private school. The exiting church and ,>ehool building is 93,000 square feet with 599 associated parking stalls, which are proposed to remain. Thc subject project 81so incilldt:~ thc reconstruction and widening of the vehicular bridge over Madsen Creek to improved access to the west side of the site ,mu the relocation of an cXlsting pi,,)' area to the south and west, to bl;: located near [he proposed building. To access thc new building and parking, the existing driveways. of (1fT 15 2nd ;\ \"I .. ,:nue SE \vould to utilized, The subject site contains many critical areas, which include; Seismic Hazards; Stl;:ep Slopes, Landslide Hazards Areas. j·.rosion Hazard Area, Streams, and Wetlands. As such, the applicant has provided a Stream and Wetland study and a Geotechnical report. T1K applicunh arc proposing 10 remove 22 trees for the new church and parking area. The existing detention pond would be reconstructed to provide additional \'olume to accommodate the new impervious areas as well as the existing drainnge to the facility. The proposed project would require approx imateiy 1,800 cubic yards of cut and approximately 7,700 cubic yards of fill. • General Location: 15711152ndAvcSE • Public Apprm:als: Environmental (SEPA) Review, Adillillistr~ltl\"c SiLe Plan • Contact: Vanessa Dolbec. tel: 425·430·7314. email: vdolbcc~'ici.renton.wa.us • Appiicant/Projel't Contact Person: Kathi Bresler, Church Lkvcloj)l11cnt Consultants, tel: 425.443.9660, email: consultantscdc@msn.com • Date of Application: July 15,2008 • Notice of Complete Application: August 06, 2008 • Comments on the above application must be submitted in \\filillg to V;lI1essa Dolbee, Project Manager. CED -Planning Division by 5:00 PM on August 20, 2008. If you have questions about this propos;iI. or \\"Ish to be made a party of record and receive additional notification by mail, contact the Project Manager at 425-430-7314. file://C:lDocuments and Settings\stucker\Local Settings\Temp\GW}OOOOl.HTM 08/18/200S DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM August 25, 2008 Vanessa Dolbee, Planner Mike Dotson, Development Plan Reviewer New Life Chnrch. ECF, SA-A LUA 08-081 We have reviewed the subject Environmental and Development application. The following are comments related to the environmental impacts, policy, and other code- related comments: EXISTING CONDITIONS WATER AND SEWER 1. This property is within the Cedar River Water and Sewer District Service area. STORM I. Surface Water drainage conveyance, detention and water quality systems currently exist at this site. STREET 1. There is currently a paved and partially improved public right-of-way along the frontage of this site. CODE REQUIREMENTS WATER I. In accordance with the Fire Department requirements (prior to construction of the new building), a new looped water main must be installed around the perimeter of the building. SURFACE WATER I. This project is required to comply with the 2005 King County surface water design manual. The preliminary drainage report (TIR) submitted with the project Environmental Review has addressed requirements for detention and water quality in accordance with the manual. A more through review will be completed with the Utility permit submittal. MD OS-009.doc Page 2 of2 08/25/2008 2. The Surface Water System Development Charges (SOC) are $0.405 per new square foot of impervious area. TRANSPORTATION I. Street improvements including. but not limited to paving, sidewalks, curb and gutter, storm drain, landscape, streetlights and street signs will be required along the frontage of the parcel and on the interior streets. 2. Traffic mitigation fees of $75 per additional generated trip shall be assessed. 3. All wire utilities shall be installed underground per the City of Renton Undergrounding Ordinance. [fthree or more poles are required to be moved to accommodate the development design, all existing overhead utilities shall be placed underground. CONDITIONS I. Temporary Erosion Control shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the Department of Ecology Standards and staffreview. 2. A Traffic Mitigation Fee of $75.00 per Average Daily Trip shall be assessed. The total for the church addition is $24.597.00. This fee is payable at time of building permit. H:\Division.s\Dcvelop.ser\Plan.rev\Plan Review Correspondence\Dotson Correspondence\MD 08-009.doc City enton Department of Community & Econom ve/opment ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: Pion :f2e.vi0..0 COMMENTS DUE: AUGUST 20, 2008 APPLICATION NO: LUA08-081, ECF, SA-A DATE CIRCULATED: AUGUST 6, 2008 APPLICANT: New Life Church PLANNER: Vanessa Dolbee CITY OfRENfuN PROJECT TITLE: New Life Church PLAN REVIEWER: Rick Moreno RECEIVI:U SITE AREA: 246,114 square feet EXISTING BLDG AREA (Qross): 93,000 SQuA\:I(fi;o,{l 6 LOCATION: 15711152"d Avenue SE PROPOSED BLDG AREA (Qross) 35,000Jlaua(eJe~t I WORK ORDER NO: 77937 ' u, SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting an Environmental (SEPA) Review and Administrative Site Plan Review for the construction of a 36,000 square foot Church auditorium with 299 additional parking stalls. The site is located on the south side of Maple Valley Highway at 15711 -152nd Avenue SE, and is comprised of 56.65 acres. The subject parcel is zoned Residential 14 (R- 14) dulac and is currently the location of the New Life Church, which also contains a private school. The exiting church and school building is 93,000 square feet with 599 associated parking stalls, which are proposed to remain. The subject project also includes the reconstruction and widening of the vehicular bridge over Madsen Creek to improved access to the west side of the site and the relocation of an existing play area to the south and west, to be located near the proposed building. To access the new building and parking, the existing driveways, off of 152nd Avenue SE would be utilized. The subject site contains many critical areas, which include; Seismic Hazards, Steep Slopes, Landslide Hazards Areas, Erosion Hazard Area, Streams, and Wetlands. As such, the applicant has provided a Stream and Wetland study and a Geotechnical report. The applicants are proposing to remove 22 trees for the new church and parking area. The existing detention pond would be reconstructed to provide additional volume to accommodate the new impervious areas as well as the existing drainage to the facility. The proposed project would require approximately 1,800 cubic yards of cut and approximately 7,700 cubic yards of fill. A. ENVIRONMENTAL /MPACT(e.g. Non.Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary EnvIronment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Warer Plants Land/Shoreline Use Animals ~ Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Natural Resources A:r=~::: B. POLlCY·RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE·RELA TED COMMENTS plication with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or ormation is needed to properly assess this proposal. Date"' J Project Name: Project Address: Contact Person: Permit Number: Project Description: Land Use Type: D Residential D Retail RNon-retaii Calculation: '3"-,ucO y. q ,\\ - IcOO ~e\!J LIr' C;\\\lf('\'\ G ~N \~l\\ \?~I'I"l !\)~I!\v..g. ;& Method of Calculation: s#,_5:::..d..=.;...\ ___ _ ~ ITE Trip Generation Manual, 7th Edition ~ Traffic Study D Other tJ (">\<>0) c."\V~ q.II/;<rOo "'Ie 'TICI\""s.~ ~\I..ouf r/<tooB Transportation IA OD Mitigation Fee: p~."\, 547. Calculated by: _~~~~u-' "';¥-~~a£' >.Ll.L(;:;MJ::::....-______ Date: f?l IS lano£.:z \j I I Date of Payment: ____________________________________________________ __ City !nlon Department of Community & Econom velopment ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: I rev ~-I~.:h>V·l COMMENTS DUE: AUGUST 20, 2008 APPLICATION NO: LUA08-081, ECF, SA-A DATE CIRCULATED: AUGUST 6, 2008 APPLICANT: New Life Church PLANNER: Vanessa Dolbee ; '" H'N'UN PROJECT TITLE: New Life Church PLAN REVIEWER: RiBI" 0 RECEIVED SITE AREA: 246,114 SQuare feet EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): 93,OMIC"II"IUMlR LOCATION: 15711152"' Avenue SE PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) 35,000 square feet I "'" U'V';:)'V" WORK ORDER NO: 77937 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting an Environmental (SEPA) Review and Administrative Site Plan Review for the construction of a 36,000 square foot Church auditorium with 299 additional parking stalls. The site is located on the south side of Maple Valley Highway at 15711 -152nd Avenue SE, and is comprised of 56.65 acres. The SUbject parcel is zoned Residential 14 (R- 14) dulac and is currently the location of the New Life Church, which also contains a private school. The exiting church and school building is 93,000 square feet with 599 associated parking stalls, which are proposed to remain. The subject project also includes the reconstruction and widening of the vehicular bridge over Madsen Creek to improved access to the west side of the site and the relocation of an existing play area to the south and west, to be located near the proposed building. To access the new building and parking, the existing driveways, off of 152nd Avenue SE would be utilized. The subject site contains many critical areas, which include; Seismic Hazards, Steep Slopes, Landslide Hazards Areas, Erosion Hazard Area, Streams, and Wetlands. As such, the applicant has provided a Stream and Wetland study and a Geotechnical report. The applicants are proposing to remove 22 trees for the new church and parking area. The existing detention pond would be reconstructed to provide additional volume to accommodate the new impervious areas as well as the existing drainage to the facility. The proposed project would require approximately 1,800 cubic yards of cut and approximately 7,700 cubic yards of fill. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impact. Impacts Necessary Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earlh Housin • Aesthetics Light/Glare Recreation Utilities Tra orlation Public Services ~~7:::, Historic/Cultural Preservation Airport Enwronment 10,000 Feet 14000 Feet B. POLICY-RELA TED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELA TED COMMENTS We have reviewed this 'on with particular attention to those areas in which we have experllse and have identified areas of probable impact or inform 'on is needed to properly assess this proposal. . :z:--p 47-'+ Date City enton Department of Community & Econom veiopment ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: ~(.b APPLICATION NO: LUA08-081, ECF, SA-A APPLICANT: New Life Church PROJECT TITLE: New Life Church SITE AREA: 246,114 square feet LOCATION: 15711 152" Avenue SE COMMENTS DUE: AUGUST 20, 201ti DATE CIRCULATED: AUGUST 6, 2008 ~g PLANNER: Vanessa Dolbee ~~ c= :n PLAN REVIEWER: Rick Moreno ::;!~ I EXISTING BLDG AREA (aross): 93,000 sau~et :::::; PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) 35,000 s~ feeF I WORK ORDER NO: 77937 " m (0 -E n m S D SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting an Environmental (SEPA) Review and Administrative Site Plan Review for the construction of a 36,000 square foot Church auditorium with 299 additional parking stalls. The site is located on the south side of Maple Valley Highway at 15711 -152nd Avenue SE, and is comprised of 56.65 acres. The subject parcel is zoned Residential 14 (R- 14) dulac and is currently the location of the New Life Church, which also contains a private school. The exiting church and SChool building is 93,000 square feet with 599 associated parking stalls, which are proposed to remain. The subject project also includes the reconstruction and widening of the vehicular bridge over Madsen Creek to improved access to the west side of the site and the relocation of an existing play area to the south and west, to be located near the proposed building. To access the new building and parking, the existing driveways, off of 152nd Avenue SE would be utilized. The subject site contains many critical areas, which include; Seismic Hazards, Steep Slopes, Landslide Hazards Areas, Erosion Hazard Area, Streams, and Wetlands. As such, the applicant has provided a Stream and Wetland study and a Geotechnical report. The applicants are proposing to remove 22 trees for the new church and parking area. The existing detention pond would be reconstructed to provide additional volume to accommodate the new impervious areas as well as the existing drainage to the facility. The proposed project would require approximately 1,800 cubic yards of cut and approximately 7,700 cubic yards of fill. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Prob.lbl. More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housino Air Water Plants Land/Shoreline Use ~ Animals Environmental Health Energy! Natural Resources :~:=~::: . . , -. , f I B. C. CODE-RELA TED 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 info . n;s needed to prop assess this pro sal. Date City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: tu Dh ucll~;n COMMENTS DUE: AUGUST 20, 2008 APPLICATION NO: LUA08-081, ECF, SA-A DATE CIRCULATED: AUGUST 6,2008 APPLICANT: New Life Church PLANNER: Vanessa Dolbee -PROJECT TITLE: New Life Church PLAN REVIEWER: Rick Moreno SITE AREA: 246,114 square feet EXISTING BLDG AREA (grossl: 93,000 ~~Ze VeNt 2008 LOCATION: 15711152"' Avenue SE PROPOSED BLDG AREA (grossl35,dQtj fMlSION I WORK ORDER NO: 77937 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting an Environmental (SEPAl Review and Administrative Site Plan Review for the construction of a 36,000 square foot Church auditorium with 299 additional parking stalls. The site is located on the south side of Maple Valley Highway at 15711 -152nd Avenue SE, and is comprised of 56.65 acres. The subject parcel is zoned Residential 14 (R- 14) dulac and is currently the location of the New Life Church, which also contains a private school. The exiting church and school building is 93,000 square feet with 599 associated parking stalls, which are proposed to remain. The subject project also includes the reconstruction and widening of the vehicular bridge over Madsen Creek to improved access to the west side of the site and the relocation of an existing play area to the south and west, to be located near the proposed building. To access the new building and parking, the existing driveways, off of 152nd Avenue SE would be utilized. The subject site contains many critical areas, which include; Seismic Hazards, Steep Slopes, Landslide Hazards Areas, Erosion Hazard Area, Streams, and Wetlands. As such, the applicant has provided a Stream and Wetland study and a Geotechnical report. The applicants are proposing to remove 22 trees for the new church and parking area. The existing detention pond would be reconstructed to provide additional volume to accommodate the new impervious areas as well as the existing drainage to the facility. The proposed project would require approximately 1,800 cubic yards of cut and approximately 7,700 cubic yards of fill. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the ProbIIb,. Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary ,rth ater ~ ~~:',,!!;, B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELA TED COMMENTS Element of the Environment Probab,. Minor Impacts Probable Major Impacts More Intonnation Necessary We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to P~6s proposal. 2J ( bOD Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date DATE: TO: CC: FROM: SUBJECT: FIRE DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM August 13, 2008 Vanessa Dolbee ,Rick Moreno Bill Flora, Deputy ChieflFire Marshal LUA08-081, ECF, SA-A New Life Church Review of current plans and material, previous pre-application material and on site review have disclosed the following Fire Code and Policy related issues and concerns that need to be addressed for approval to be granted. Renton Fire & Emergency Services comments: All conditions set forth during the pre-application meeting are still valid. The required fire flow calculations have been recalculated due to change in the type of construction, from a type V to a type III-B. This will require the water supply line to be a looped system. The fire alarm system shall be an addressable system per the 2006 IFC, and adopted City of Renton amendments. Bill Flora, Deputy ChieflFire Marshal Renton Fire and Emergency Services Department Community Risk Reduction Division 425-430-7061 i:\erc\new life ere comments 08.doc City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET .', . r:-... -. ,-0 _R_E_V_IE_W_IN_G_D_E_PA_R_T_M_EN_T_: --.!Fc.....!.1 ~~'---_____ +C~O~M::::M:::E:!!NT~S~D::!U:::E"-: .!:A!!:U:..=G=.:u=.:J~~lr!... '~2~~' !:!J20~' :,::108:::....;/!:;,;s:...lkil =:::!;'; :::!::~'~!i 1 APPLICATION NO: LUA06-061, ECF, SA-A DATE CIRCULATED: AUGUSt 6,.:/ 06 1" , APPLICANT: New Life Church PLANNER: Vanessa Dolbee ;, ,,' AUG -6?fl1lR : i l /'. ' '., .. ,. PROJECT TITLE: New Life Church PLAN REVIEWER: Rick Moreno ~_ I SITE AREA: 246,114 sauare feet EXISTING BLDG AREA (aross): 93,000 sailari)'fte\~!----.J LOCATION: 15711152"d Avenue SE PROPOSED BLDG AREA (aross) 35;000 sauare feet '-"-- I WORK ORDER NO: 77937 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting an Environmental (SEPA) Review and Administrative Site Plan Review for the construction of a 36,000 square foot Church auditorium with 299 additional parking stalls. The site is located on the south side of Maple Valley Highway at 15711 -152nd Avenue SE, and is comprised of 56.65 acres. The subject parcel is zoned Residential 14 (R- 14) dulac and is currently the location of the New Life Church, which also contains a private school. The exiting church and school building is 93,000 square feet with 599 associated parking stalls, which are proposed to remain. The subject project also includes the reconstruction and widening of the vehicular bridge over Madsen Creek to improved access to the west side of the site and the relocation of an existing play area to the south and west, to be located near the proposed building. To access the new building and parking, the existing driveways, off of 152nd Avenue SE would be utilized. The subject site contains many critical areas, which include; Seismic Hazards, Steep Slopes, Landslide Hazards Areas, Erosion Hazard Area, Streams, and Wetlands. As such, the applicant has provided a Stream and Wetland study and a Geotechnical report. The applicants are proposing to remove 22 trees for the new church and parking area. The existing detention pond would be reconstructed to provide additional volume to accommodate the new impervious areas as well as the existing drainage to the facility. The proposed project would require approximately 1,600 cubic yards of cut and approximately 7,700 cubic yards of fill. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probobfe Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Environment Minor Major Information ImfMcts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Water Plants Land/Shoreline Use Animals ~ Environmental Health Public So/Vi99S Energy/ Natural Resources A:~; ;:;'Mn •• B. ·S2- C. CODE-RELA TED 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 informaUon is needed to properly assess this proposal. Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: £Cone:cYlI',-De;,: COMMENTS DUE: AUGUST 20, 2008 APPLICATION NO: LUA08-081, ECF, SA-A DATE CIRCULATED: AUGUST 6, 2008 APPLICANT: New Life Church PLANNER: Vanessa Dolbee PROJECT TITLE: New Life Church PLAN REVIEWER: Rick Moreno SITE AREA: 246,114 square feet EXISTING BLDG AREA (cross): 93,000 square feet LOCATION: 15711152'· Avenue SE PROPOSED BLDG AREA (cross) 35,000 square feet I WORK ORDER NO: 77937 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting an Environmental (SEPA) Review and Administrative Site Plan Review for the construction of a 36,000 square foot Church auditorium with 299 additional parking stalls. The site is located on the south side of Maple Valley Highway at 15711 -152nd Avenue SE, and is comprised of 56.65 acres. The subject parcel is zoned Residential 14 (R- 14) dulac and is currently the location of the New Life Church, which also contains a private school. The exiting church and school building is 93,000 square feet with 599 associated parking stalls, which are propoSed to remain. The subject project also includes the reconstruction and widening of the vehicular bridge over Madsen Creek to improved access to the west side of the site and the relocation of an existing play area to the south and west, to be located near the proposed building, To access the new building and parking, the existing driveways, off of 152nd Avenue SE would be utilized, The subject site contains many critical areas, which include; Seismic Hazards, Steep Slopes, Landslide Hazards Areas, Erosion Hazard Area, Streams, and Wetlands. As such, the applicant has provided a Stream and Wetland study and a Geotechnical report, The applicants are proposing to remove 22 trees for the new church and parking area. The existing detention pond would be reconstructed to provide additional volume to accommodate the new impervious areas as well as the existing drainage to the facility. The proposed project would require approximately 1,800 cubic yards of cut and approximately 7,700 cubic yards of fill. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Environment Minor M.jar Infonnafion Impscts Impacts Necessary Iousina Use II Animels ~Heenh ;:,.;" Public Services ~:f~g~:: B. POLICY-RELA TED COMMENTS C. CODE·RELA TED 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 areBS where additional information is needed to property assess this proposal. Signature of Director or Autholized Representative Date NOTICE Of APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION Of NON-SIGNIfICANCE-MITIGATED (DNS-M) DATE: LAND USE NUMBER: PROJECT NAME: August 6, 2006 LUA08-081. ECF. SA-A New Life Church PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting an Environmerrtal (SEPA) Review and i\dmIClIs'Ial va SIte Plan Reyiew for the con~ruC\lon of a 36,000 square foCI! Church auditorium with 299 addrtlooal parking sl~II;, 1 he slla Is IDeated on the south side of Maple Va~ey Highway <1115711 " 15200 AY8I'VJe SE, and is comprised of 56,C~ ilC'C5 Th(lllubjact parcells zonad Residential 14 lR-14) dulac and l$ C\JIT8nuy the Iocaliun of the New Life Cnufch, which also contains a private school. The eXiting church and school building 1$ 93,000 square faet with 599 asso~I~led ~arking sialls, which are proposed 10 remain. The subject proj!tCI al50 includes the reconstruction and widening oJ Ih., vehicular bridge over Madsen Creek to Improved access 10 the> wesl si<Je. of the site and the Il!location of an 6J(isting play area 10 the snuth and IWst to be localed near tile proposed bu~ding, To access the naw building and p.ariling, Ihtl tI)lisllng d"ve"",),s, off of 15200 Avtlnue SE would be lI!~izBd. Thtl subjtlct site oontains many crIlIc9I areas, IItllch Include; Seism'c Hazards, Slee~ Slopes, Landslide Hazards Areas, Erosion Hazard Area, Streams. and Wetlands. As such, lhe applicant has pwvidsd ~ Stream and Weiland study !lnd a Geotechnlcal report. The applicants are proposing 10 rllmoVB II !rees for the Il~'" church and parking area. The elds~ng detention pond wuuld be feconstructed 10 provide ~ddltion~1 voJwne to accommodate Ihe new impervious areas as wen as tile existing dminage 10 the facility The proposed orOJecl would requ~ approximately 1 ,800 cubic yards of cut and apprQ)(ima1ely 7.700 eublc yards offill. PROJECT LOCATION: 15711-152"'AvtlnueSE OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON.sIGNIFICANCE, MITIGATED (ONS-M): As thtl Lead Agency the Cjt, of Re,ton has determined thai sillnltlcarit 9flviwnmentaj impacts are unlikely 10 rewll from the prop03ed projecL Therefore, as permitted under the RCW 43.21C, 110, the City of Renlon is using Ihe Optional DNS-M process to give notice th~t a DNS- M is likely 10 be issued. Commen! periods for the project and the proposed DNS-M are Inlellrated In~o" single comment period. There oMll be no commenl jl'tIriod following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Nnn.Signikance- MItIgated (ONS·MI. A 14·day appeal period wi~ follow lt1e issuance of the DNS·M peRMIT APPLICATION DATE: NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: Ju!y 15, 200B August 6. 200B APf>UCANT!PROJECT CONTACT PERSON: Katlll Bresle!-, Church Development Consultants; Tel: (-425) 443-9660: Eml: consult~ntscdc@msn.com Pennlts!Rflvlaw Requested: Environmental (SEPA) Review, Administrative Sittl Plan approval Other Pemllts which may be required: HPA, NPDES, Building, and Cons1ructlon Permits RequN'led Studies: Stream and Wetland Studies and GGOtechnlcal Report location where appneatlon may be ,.vlewed: Department of Community & EconomiC:: Development (CEO) -Planning Division, Sixth Floor Renton City Hall, 1055 South GradyWay, Renton, WA 96057 PUBLIC HEARING: CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Zoning/land Use: Environmental Documents that Evaluate the Proposed Project: Dflvelopment Regulallons Ueed For Projact Mitigation: NIA The subject site is dBsillnated ReSidential Mtodium Densily (RMD) & ReSidential Low Density (RLD) on \he City of Renlon Comprtlhensive Land Use Ma~ ar.d Residenllal_ 14 (R.14) &. Resource Conservallon (RC) on Ihe Cilis Zoning M~I' EnvironmentailSEPAI Checklist The project will be subject 10 lt1e City's SEPA ordinance, RMC 4-2-110F Development Standard~ fOf Residential Zoning DeSignation, RMC 4·9·200 Site De~elopment Plan Revi ..... RMC 4-3-050 Critical Areas Reg~lat'ons, RMC 4-9- 070 Environmtlntal Review Procedures and olher applicatl~e COdes and rejjulations as approp:iate. Proposed Mitigation Maasurn: The follow)ng Mitigallon Mea5ure~ wililiKt!ly be imposed on the These reoommended Mit'llal,on Measures addr 'ect' proposed prOJect. by eX'sling codes aIld rellulatinlls as ciled above.<M;S pro) Impacls not covered The applicent w.J( be reqvirod /0 pay the aPPFOfYie/e Transportation Mitigation Fee; Tha applicant wi!! 00 requirlid 10 pay the 8pprOpr/a1e Fiffl Mitigation Fea; Tha llppIicanI will btl required /0 fvI!ow rBCornrnenda/ions within /1Ie-provkled g9Oler;hnicai report Tile-fqJplican/ Will be required 10 follow racommend !ion .'. and S/Team Report, a s, mii/fFiltion, and monitoring provide w!thin I~ Weiland Comments on ths abOve eppllcatlon must be SUbmitted I . Planning DiviSion, 1~ Soulh Grady Way, Renton WA n9:;ln9 to ~an6S"a Dolbee, Alssoclate PI'lnner, CED_ ques~ons about this proposal, or wish to be made a 'Of f 7, by 5.~0 PM on Augus1 20, 2008. If you have Project Manaller. Anyone who Submits WTltten comm~l~ wi~ a: ~:I~:ve additional notiflca~on by mall, oontact 1he any deGls'on on this project, a y come a party of reoonj and will be notified of CONTACT PERSON: Vanessa Doll:fee, Associate Planner; Tel; (425) 430.7314' Eml: VdcllJee@ci.renton,wa.us ' PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION I 1- .. ~. f you would like to be made a party of record to receive fuM 'f . his form and retum 10: C~y of Renton, CEO _ Planning OiViSi~~ in,o',m, 'stlonGon this proposed project, complete . ' o. radyWay, Renton, WA 9B057 4ame/FIle No.: New Ute Church/LUAOB.081, ECF, SA.A ~AME: ~AIUNG'-A:D:D:R:E:S:S='---------------------------- ELEPHONE NO.: CERTIFICATION : I .--"' I, ) \' {(( ':::)(/'\nf-.i 0.. , hereby certify that '=5 copies of the above document were posted by me in....:2-conspicuous places or nearby desclj]Jed-property OIb.",,\\\\I\IlIIJ, ',-, -$ ,,:{NN Nr,."'/ -....... '··v-ON F~~ SIGNED: /'1%1" 'i ~ ---L-'--="-'--l«-'-----'---c:~ ., ~ ). DATE:~ / Lc't; , .. ~ """}\i'~~&'" ~ ::: ATrEST: Subscribed and sworn before me, a Notary PublIc, m and for the State of Was rung ton reSidingi' • -I E .. ~'" 1~- ,onthe ,'f"dayof G..,...;.a" .... * I ,(IE.c;; , -,~. W"S'<';"~"" hll\\\\\"'" CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT -PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 6th day of August, 2008, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing Acceptance Letter, NOA, Environmental Checklist, PMT documents. This information was sent to: '''TF; I'." . • '~'. .:c'··· ., Agencies -Env. Checklist & PMT See Attached New Life Church -Accpt Ltr Owner Kathi Bresler -Accpt Ltr Contact Surrounding Property Owners -NOA only See Attached (Signature of Sender):,~ h~cc~ STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Stacy Tucker , ':" i • ::J: . ";, ';!':~~":' signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the . -"\\\,, .. purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: B)-dee Notary (print):_~~~~~~J::I..ICL..l:::L2:3:~oo.9d~~~~~~~t My appointment expires: ~ .... \ 'l. -\ 0 '_ '":";: rr:.'<i~-~-~-;;~\i:' PrQJecl!t:tame : . New Life Church :ProjEiCtl.'Nbrfitie~~ LUA08-081, ECF, SA-A template· affidavit of service by mailing Dept. of Ecology' Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 WSDOT Northwest Region' . Attn: Ramin Pazooki , King Area Dev. Serv., MS-240 PO Box 33031 0 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 US Army Corp. of Engineers' Seattle District Office Attn: SEPA Reviewer PO Box C-3755 Seattle, WA 98124 Boyd Powers • Depart. of Natural Resources PO Box 47015 Olympia, WA 98504-7015 KC Dev. & Environmental Servo Attn: SEPA Section 900 Oakesdale Ave. SW Renton, WA 98055-1219 Metro Transit Senior Environmental Planner Gary Kriedt AGENCY (DOE) LETTER MAILING (ERe DETERMINATIONS) WDFW -Larry Fisher' Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept. • 1775 12th Ave. NW Suite 201 Attn: Karen Walter or SEPA Reviewer Issaquah, WA 98027 39015 -172"' Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092 Duwamish Tribal Office' Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program' 4717 W Marginal Way SW Attn: Ms Melissa Calvert Seattle, WA 98106-1514 39015 172"' Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092-9763 KC Wastewater Treatment Division' Office of Archaeology & Historic Environmental Planning Supervisor Preservation· Ms. Shirley Marroquin Attn: Stephanie Kramer 201 S. Jackson ST, MS KSC-NR-050 PO Box 48343 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 City of Newcastle City of Kent Attn: Mr. Micheal E. Nicholson Attn: Mr. Fred Satterstrom, AICP Director of Community Development Acting Community Dev. Director 13020 SE 72"' Place 220 Fourth Avenue South Newcastle, WA 98059 Kent, WA 98032-5895 Puget Sound Energy City of Tukwila Municipal Liaison Manager Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official Joe Jainga 6200 Southcenter Blvd. 201 South Jackson Street KSC-TR-0431 PO Box 90868, MS: XRD-01 W Tukwila, WA 98188 Seattle, WA 98104-3856 Bellevue, WA 98009-0868 Seattle Public Utilities State Department of Ecology Real Estate Services NW Regional Office Title Examiner 3190 160'h Avenue SE 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900 Bellevue, WA 98008-5452 PO Box 34018 Seattle, WA 98124-4018 'Note: If the Notice of Application states that it is an "Optional DNS", the marked agencies and cities will need to be sent a copy of the checklist, Site Plan PMT, and the notice of application. template -affidavit of service by mailing 232305914102 ADAMS PEGGY J 15115 SE JONES RD RENTON WA 98058 680610059007 BAEZRODRIGUEZ EMILIO+BAEZ 14565 SE 153RD PL RENTON WA 98058 680610060005 BASAK SUMAN+DIPA DAS 14571 SE 153RD PL RENTON WA 98058 232305902800 BNSF PO BOX 961089 FORT WORTH TX 76161 680610029000 CHILKOWICH ANDREW A 15352 146TH PL SE RENTON WA 98058 231430068008 CON NOT LOREN D & JEAN M 15706 143RD AVE SE RENTON WA 98058 680610068008 DO TUAN A+ THANH HANG NGUYEN 14552 SE 154TH ST RENTON WA 98058 680610014002 DRAMMEH ADAMA+CEESAY DAWDA 14549 SE 154TH ST RENTON WA 98058 680610030008 EXZEOKEKE GLADYS C 15344 146TH PL SE RENTON WA 98058 232305908609 FRENCH DOUGLAS F 15258 150TH LN SE RENTON WA 98058 232305921107 AQUA BARN RANCH 115 GARFIELD ST #4139 SUMAS WA 98295 232305913708 BARDEN ERIC & SIRI PO BOX 307 FALL CITY WA 98024 232305917709 BERGERON DONNA PO BOX 6265 KENT WA 98064 232305903204 BRENDEN MARSHALL M LOONEY WILLIAM A 18225 SE 128TH RENTON WA 98059 680610033002 CHULICK JOSEPH III 15320 146TH PL SE RENTON WA 98058 231430079005 CUDIAMAT MAGDALENA 14237 SE 157TH PL RENTON WA 98058 231430081001 DO! DURAND & LANA S 14225 SE 157TH PL RENTON WA 98058 231430102005 ELLIOT FARM HOMEOWNERS ASSO 16915 SE 272ND ST #100197 COVINGTON WA 98042 231430065004 FITZGERALD KEVIN & KARLA PO BOX 6113 BELLEVUE WA 98008 231430062001 FRISCH NICHOLAS R+MARSHA H 15749 142ND PL SE RENTON WA 98058 680610039009 off--cJ61 j(lvl~ srI\') ARGUDO JOEL L+SHRACK SARAH 14572 SE 153RD PL RENTON WA 98058 680610034000 BARTON KELLY J+LA'EISHA HOW 14614 SE 153RD PL RENTON WA 98058 222305913907 BERGSMA MARK 14810 SE JONES RD RENTON WA 98058 232305912304 CAWLEY BRENT 15247 150TH LN SE RENTON WA 98058 232305913203 CLARK JULIE+ TATLEY JEFF 15120 149TH AVE SE RENTON WA 98058 231430063009 DECKARD DARON+CATHERINE 15741 142ND PL SE RENTON WA 98058 680610035007 DOMINGO JENNIFER T +COLT G 14608 SE 153RD PL RENTON WA 98058 232305913302 EMERSON WILLIE 724 OLD HY 9 CLINTON AR 72031 231430064007 FLASCK FRANK A+DOROTHY L 15729 142ND PL SE RENTON WA 98058 231430090002 GAMPONIA GRACE B 15725 143RD AVE SE RENTON WA 98058 231430069006 GEYER MARK D+MARIA E 3616 36TH AVE W SEATILE WA 98199 232305912106 GRIM ELIZABETH L PO BOX 566 RENTON WA 98055 231430086000 HONNAWARKAR RAJESH V+KAMATH TRUPTI 15756 142ND PL SE RENTON WA 98058 232305907007 HYNES ELSIE M 15214 149TH AVE SE RENTON WA 98058 247335131006 JACKSON STEVEN B 14434 SE 162ND PL RENTON WA 98058 232305902008 KC HOUSING AUTHORITY 600 ANDOVER PARK W SEATTLE WA 98188 231430073008 KIUCHI SHUNICHI+MARIKO SHIM 15740 143RD AVE SE RENTON WA 98058 680610015009 LARSON BROCK E+REARDON MATI 14555 SE 154TH ST RENTON WA 98058 680610023003 LEE RHONDA H 15430 146TH PL SE RENTON WA 98058 231430075003 LENNON BRIAN HSHANNON M 15754 143RD AVE SE RENTON WA 98058 231430071002 GILBERT MICHAEL HBARBARA L 15726 143RD AVE SE RENTON WA 98058 680610036005 HAl PAULEEN C+PHANG CHAN R 14336 SE 4TH ST BELLEVUE WA 98007 231430094004 HUTCHINSON SHAWN M+WHITNEY H 15759 143RD AVE SE RENTON WA 98058 222305915506 HYNES RONNIE & CHERYL 15109 149TH AVE SE RENTON WA 98058 680610024001 JUNTUNEN MICHAEL S+SARAH M 15424 146TH PL SE RENTON WA 98058 231430074006 KEIL DAVID C+JOYCE A 15748 143RD AVE SE RENTON WA 98058 232305911801 KOLCSEY STEPHEN CHRISTOPHER 14937 SE MAPLE VALLEY HWY RENTON WA 98058 680610016007 LE HUNG T +CAM GIANT T 14561 SE 154TH ST RENTON WA 98058 232305901000 LEHMANN TYLER L 15202 149TH AVE SE RENTON WA 98058 231430061003 LIBUTAN ANTONINO M III+ROSA 15757 142ND PL SE RENTON WA 98058 232305901307 GILSTRAP DANNY R 15241 150TH LN SE RENTON WA 98058 680610022005 HAILE AIDA 15431 146TH PL SE RENTON WA 98058 680610018003 HUYNH QUYEN+HONGHANH TRAN 14573 SE 154TH ST RENTON WA 98058 680610062001 INTON HERMOGENES & MILDRED 14583 SE 153RD PL RENTON WA 98058 231430091000 KAUR GURDEV+GILL AJEET S 15735 143RD AVE SE RENTON WA 98058 272305902301 KING COUNTY 500 4TH AVE #500 SEATTLE WA 98104 680610025008 KONNO NOBUHIKO 15416 146TH PL SE RENTON WA 98058 680610031006 LEE KYUNG S+GOWOON HAN 15336 146TH PL SE RENTON WA 98058 680610021007 LEI CHENG JUN 15423 146TH PL SE RENTON WA 98058 231430092008 LUU ANH 15743 143RD AVE SE RENTON WA 98058 232305917808 MADDEN FRANCES C 15209 150TH LN SE RENTON WA 98058 232305906306 MILES DALE A 15023 SW JONES RD RENTON WA 98058 247335132004 MOORE D S 14428 SE 162ND PL RENTON WA 98055 680610017005 NEGRING TROY R+SARAH E 14567 SE 154TH ST RENTON WA 98058 680610037003 NGUYEN DIEM P+DONG VAN+NGUY 14584 SE 153RD PL RENTON WA 98058 231430089004 OBRIEN RICHARD L+ANDREA L 15709 143RD AVE SE RENTON WA 98058 680610040007 PHAM HOANG Q 14566 SE 153RD PL RENTON WA 98058 680610019001 QUADRANT HOMES PO BOX 130 BELLEVUE WA 98009 231430087008 ROBERSON WILLIAM C+M GALE 15750 142ND PL SE RENTON WA 98058 231430078007 SAELEE OUCHIO+NOUANTHONGME 14243 SE 157TH PL RENTON WA 98058 231430060005 MAl THANH VAN+NGUYEN DIANE 15765 142ND PL SE RENTON WA 98058 680610057001 MILLER SUSAN A+DONALD P 14553 SE 153RD PL RENTON WA 98058 231430093006 MUNOZ MICHAEL L 15751 143RD AVE SE RENTON WA 98058 232305902107 NEW LIFE CHURCH @ RENTON 15711 152ND AVE SE RENTON WA 98057 680610027004 NGUYEN LAMMINH 15402 146TH PL SE RENTON WA 98058 680610038001 PARTRIDGE KEITH B 14578 SE 153RD PL RENTON WA 98058 231430070004 POSTMA JAMES+MISHELL 15720 143RD AVE SE RENTON WA 98058 231430084005 RAUCH DAVID C+YOON THERESA 15768 142N D PL SE RENTON WA 98058 231430095001 ROCCA DAVID B 15767 143RD AVE SE RENTON WA 98058 231430058009 SALDANA TEODORO B SALDANA CARMELITA 15781 142ND PL SE RENTON WA 98058 231430082009 MARTIN SHAWN L+MARTIN JERI LYNN 512 TACOMA PL NE RENTON WA 98056 231430076001 MIRVIC RAMIZ ET AL 4850 156TH NE #335 REDMOND WA 98052 231430083007 MYERS LISA TAN 15772 142ND PL SE RENTON WA 98058 680610066002 NGUYEN DANG H+MYVI T 14564 SE 154TH ST RENTON WA 98058 680610020009 NOLAN JOHN E+LORNA G 14585 SE 154TH ST RENTON WA 98058 232305912700 PENNER DELLA 331 VALLEY MALL PKWY #273 E WENATCHEE WA 98802 231430072000 PRIOR DALE R+DEBRA L 15732 143RD AVE SE RENTON WA 98058 231430066002 REVENIG H ALLAN HANDELAND NANCY K 15713 142ND PL SE RENTON WA 98058 232305909805 ROSENBAUM L L 15059 SE JONES RD RENTON WA 98058 680610063009 SANCHEZ ERNEST+YANA 14582 SE 154TH ST RENTON WA 98058 231430059007 SANTOS MARIO 15773 142ND PL SE RENTON WA 98058 232305912205 SHIREY RILEY L+DONNA M 1042 W LAKE SAMMAMISH PKWY BELLEVUE WA 98008 680610026006 TABOR DEAN J+SUSAN L 15410 146TH PL SE RENTON WA 98058 680610067000 TOWNSEND JOEL D+KARINA M 14558 SE 154TH ST RENTON WA 98058 231430085002 UNDISCLOSED RECIPIENT 15762 142ND PL SE RENTON WA 98058 680610061003 WANDY ALI+EVANGELINE W 14577 SE 153RD PL RENTON WA 98058 231430080003 WICK ROBERT D & ANDREA L 14231 SE 157TH PL RENTON WA 98058 232305901406 SAYLOR DAMON+KNIGHT MARK 15224 150TH LN SE RENTON WA 98058 680610028002 SIRIYA SOM 15360 146TH PL SE RENTON WA 98058 247335130008 TAYLOR ROBERT R 16200 145TH SE RENTON WA 98055 231430057001 TRAFICANTE RANAN B+KALENDAR 15789 142ND PL SE RENTON WA 98058 232305920901 VALLEY SPRINGS APARTMENTS LLC 11624 SE 5TH ST #200 BELLEVUE WA 98005 680610058009 WANG QUAN XIN+KRISTINA J 14559 SE 153RD PL RENTON WA 98058 680610065004 WIITANEN ERIK K+MICHELLE T 14570 SE 154TH ST RENTON WA 98058 232305914201 SHERWOOD JENNIFER 15005 SE JONES RD RENTON WA 98058 232305920505 SOULES STUART P 15013 SE JONES RD RENTON WA 98058 231430088006 THONGDEE KHAMPHONG+LA 15734 142ND PL SE RENTON WA 98058 680610064007 TRAN HA+ TU GIAM 14576 SE 154TH ST RENTON WA 98058 680610032004 VU PETER D 15328 146TH PL SE RENTON WA 98058 680610042003 WESTERGREEN DAMIEN J 14554 SE 153RD PL RENTON WA 98058 231430067000 WORKMAN JAY+GAIL E 15707 142ND PL SE RENTON WA 98058 NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED (DNS-M) DATE: LAND USE NUMBER: PROJECT NAME: August 6,2008 LUA08-081, ECF, SA-A New Life Church PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting an Environmental (SEPA) Review and Administrative Site Plan Review for the construction of a 36.000 square foot Church auditorium with 299 additional parking stalls. The site is located on the south side of Maple Valley Highway at 15711 -152nd Avenue SE, and is comprised of 56.65 acres. The subject parcel is zoned Residential 14 (R-14) dulac and is currently the location of the New Life Church, which also contains a private school. The exiting church and school building is 93,000 square feet with 599 associated parking stalls, which are proposed to remain. The subject project also includes the reconstruction and widening of the vehicular bridge over Madsen Creek to improved access to the west side of the site and the relocation of an existing play area to the south and west, to be located near the proposed building. To access the new building and parking, the existing driveways, off of 152nd Avenue SE would be utilized. The subject site contains many critical areas, which include; Seismic Hazards, Steep Slopes, Landslide Hazards Areas, Erosion Hazard Area, Streams, and Wetlands. As such, the applicant has provided a Stream and Wetland study and a Geotechnical report. The applicants are proposing to remove 22 trees for the new church and parking area. The existing detention pond would be reconstructed to provide additional volume to accommodate the new impervious areas as well as the existing drainage to the facility. The proposed project would require approximately 1,800 cubic yards of cut and approximately 7,700 cubic yards of fill. PROJECT LOCATION: 15711 -152 nd Avenue SE OPTIONAL DETERMtNATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE, MITIGATED (DNS-M): As the Lead Agency, the City of Renton has determined that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project. Therefore, as permitted under the RCW 43.21 C.l1 0, the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS-M process to give notice that a DNS- M is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS-M are integrated into a single comment period. There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non-Significance- Mitigated (DNS-M). A 14-day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS-M. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: July 15, 2008 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: August 6, 2008 APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON: Kathi Bresler, Church Development Consultants; Tel: (425) 443-9660; Eml: consultantscdc@msn,com Permits/Review Requested: Environmental (SEPA) Review, Administrative Site Plan approval Other Permits which may be required: HPA, NPDES, Building, and Construction Permits Requested Studies: Stream and Wetland Studies and Geotechnical Report Location where apptication may be reviewed: PUBLIC HEARING: CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Zoning/Land Use: Environmental Documents that Evaluate the Proposed Project: Development Regulations Used For Project Mitigation: Department of Community & Economic Development (CED) -Planning Division, Sixth Floor Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 N/A The subject site is designated Residential Medium Density (RMD) & Residential Low Density (RLD) on the City of Renton Comprehensive Land Use Map and Residential -14 (R-14) & Resource Conservation (RC) on the City's Zoning Map. Environmental (SEPA) Checklist The project will be subject to the City's SEPA ordinance, RMC 4-2-110F Development Standards for Residential Zoning Designation, RMC 4-9-200 Site Development Plan Review, RMC 4-3-050 Critical Areas Regulations, RMC 4-9- 070 Environmental Review Procedures and other applicable codes and regulations as appropriate. Proposed Mitigation Measures: The following Mitigation Measures will likely be imposed on the proposed project. These recommended Mitigation Measures address project impacts not covered by existing codes and regulations as cited above. The applicant will be required to pay the appropriate Transportation Mitigation Fee; The applicant will be required to pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee; The applicant will be required to follow recommendations within the provided geotechnical report. The applicant will be required to follow recommendations, mitigation, and monitodng provide within the Wetland and Stream Report. Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Vanessa Dolbee, Associate Planner, CEO- Planning Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057, by 5:00 PM on August 20. 2008. If you have questions about this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional notification by mail, contact the Project Manager. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. CONTACT PERSON: Vanessa Dolbee, Associate Planner; Tel: (425) 430-7314; Eml: vdolbee@ci.renton.wa.u5 I PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION I If you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project, complete this form and return to: City of Renton. CED -Planning Division. 1055 So. Grady Way. Renton. WA 98057. Name/File No.: New Life Church/LUA08-081. ECF. SA-A NAME: MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE NO .. CIT-T OF RENTON August 6, 2008 Kathi Bresler Church Development Consultants 3623 -324th AvenueSE Fall City, WA 98024 Subject: New Life Church LUA08-081, ECF, SA-A Dear Ms. Bresler: uepartment of Community and Economic Development Alex Pietsch, Administrator The Planning Division of the. City of Renton h~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 August 25, 2008. Prior to that review, you will be notified if any /idditionalinformatioil is required to continue processing your application. .. Ple~e contact me at (425) 430-7314 if you have any questions . . Sincerely, Vanessa Dolbee Associate Planner cc: New Life Church! Owner( s) .~ -------lO-55-S0-u-th:...G-rad...,-Y-W-a-Y-.-R-en-to-n-, w-aS-h-in-gt-on-.. -9-80-.5-7--"""'--~-R.E N TO N , * -this paper contains 50% recy~ ~~, 30"10 postoonsumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE --LVA.oY j't) ( City of Renton LAND USE PERMIT MASTER APPLICATION PROPERTY OWNER(S) PROJECT INFORMATION NAME: PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: New Life Church New Life Church ADDRESS: 15711 -152nd Avenue SE PROJECT/ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION AND ZIP CODE: CITY: ZIP: 15711 -152nd Avenue SE Renton WA 98059 Renton, WA 98058 TELEPHONE NUMBER: KING COUNTY ASSESSOR·S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): (425 ) 226-0880 232305-9021 APPLICANT (if other than owner) NAME: EXISTING LAND USE(S): Same as owner Church & Private School COMPANY (if applicable): PROPOSED LAND USE(S): Church and private school ADDRESS: EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: RMD / RSF CITY: ZIP: PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION (if applicable): N/A TELEPHONE NUMBER EXISTING ZONING: R-14 I RC CONTACT PERSON PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): N/A NAME: SITEAREA (in square feet): 246,114 Kathi Bresler SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PUBLIC ROADWAYS TO BE COMPANY (if applicable): DEDICATED: 5132 Church Development Consultants SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENTS: ADDRESS: N/A 3623 -324th Avenue SE PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN UNITS PER NET CITY: ZIP: ACRE (if applicable): N/A Fall City. WA 98024 NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS (if applicable): N/A . TELEPHONE NUMBER AND E-MAIL ADDRESS: (425 ) 443-9660 consultantscdc@msn.com NUMBER OF NEW DWELLING UN1TS (if applicable): N/A III i .. Q:wcb/pw/devserv/fonns/planninglmasterapp.doc 09119105 • PROJECTINFORMATrl~O~N~(~,c~o~nt~in~u~e~d~) ____________ --, NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): N/A SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): N/A SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): 36, 000 SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): 93,000 NET FLOOR AREA OF NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): 122 193 NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE NEW PROJECT (if applicable): o new employees PROJECT VALUE: $8,000,000 IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREA. PLEASE INCLUDE SQUARE FOOTAGE (if applicable): IJ AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA ONE IJ AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA TWO IJ FLOOD HAZARD AREA 'if GEOLOGIC HAZARD IJ HABITAT CONSERVATION IJ SHORELINE STREAMS AND LAKES ~WETLANDS ___ sq.fI. ___ sq.fI. ___ sq.ft. ___ sq.ft. ___ sq.ft. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY (Attach legal description on separate sheet with the following information included) SITUATE IN THE SW QUARTER OF SECTION 2..6.., TOWNSHIP .n.., RANGE~, IN THE CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. TYPE OF APPLICATION & FEES List all land use applications being applied for: 1. Site Plan Review 3. Fill & Grade 2. SEPA 4. Staff will calculate applicable fees and postage: $ AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP I, (Print Name/s) Troy J one s , declare that I am (please check one) __ the current owner of the property involved in this application or ~ the authorized representative to act for a corporation (please attach proof of authorization) and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. (Signature of OwnerlRepresentative) Q:webJpw/devservJfonnsJplanninglmasterapp.doc I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Troy J one s signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be hislherltheir free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Notary Public in and for the State of Washington Notary (Pcint) \)ee;t II VIOl 1\01 \ if My appointment eXPices: __ Z-_·_2_"_. _l"'l ___ _ 2 09/19/05 New Life Church New Life Church Get Connected What We Believe Our Pastor Who WeAre Guiding Principles Prayer Services News Contact Us On-line Giving home aboulus events ministries Our Pastor Troy Jones Important Dates Anniversary: May 13, 1989 My Birthday: August 26 Jana's Birthday: December 1 Kaylee's Birthday: February 3 Chelsey's Birthday: July 13 Fun Facts resources message library r;, . JUL 4 I have been attending and involved with New life for almost 30 years I was one of the janitors at New Life back in High School I was ASB president at Liberty High School in 1985 Starbucks Drink: Tall skinny vanilla latte (sometimes decaf when I am good) How I spend my days off it' I sleep in, eat breakfast with my wife, go to Starbucks wijh my wife, run err pay bills, and then get ready to take my wife out for our Friday date night ( keep away from the church) http://app.razorplanet.com/acctl40477-8526/tmpllindex.php?nid=35280&s=au&nulJ=0 7/112008 .f · New Life Church B.A at Northwest University in Kirkland, Washington Master's Degree through AGTS in Springfield. Missouri Listening to my wife Favorite things about New Life I love the people! My First Job Paper route and shack manager My Favorites Book: The Bible Romantic Restaurants: Palisade Quick Restaurants: Wendy's Movie: Batman Begins TV Show: Law and Order My Most Annoying Habit I talk too much about work Page 2 of2 I talk too much while watching movies (always looking for a sermon iHustre History with New Life I gave my life to Christ at the age 13 at New Life I was involved with the youth ministry I did my internship w~h New Life while I went to Northwest University I was youth pastor for almost 10 years New Life was my home church for five years while I traveled and worked ~ pastors I was executive pastor I become the senior pastor in January 2004 One Thing I Can't Stand Negative people Click here to visit my video blog. New Life Church Phone: 425.226.0880 mlo@NewlifeRenton.com © 2000 -2008 Razor Planet, Inc. All RIghts Reserved privacy POliCy Terms 01 Use Content Copyright New life Church http://app.razorplanet. com! acctl404 77 -8 S26/tmpl/ index. php ?nid=3 5280&s=au&null=0 7/1/2008 • Revised March 18. 2007 New Life Church @ Renton .. onst!tution & Bylaws Constitution Article I. Name This church shall be known as New life Church @ Renton (hereafter called "Church.') Article II. Purpose The purpose of this Church shall be: 1. To establish and maintain a place of worship. 2. To conduct under the guidance of the Holy Scriptures the work of evangelizing both the home and foreign field in obedience to the command of the Lord Jesus (Matthew 28:19,20); and in harmony with the teaching practice of His servants, the apostles (Acts 8:4, 5:35-40, 13: 1-4, 16:6-10; Romans 15:18-21; II COrinthians 10:16; Romans 10:12-17). 3. To establish such departments as may be necessary for the propagation of the gospel and the support of missionary activity and edification of the local body. 4. To have the right to own, hold in trust, use or otherwise possess; sell, convey, mortgage, lease or otherwise dispose of such property, real or chattel, as may be needed for the prosecution of its work. Article III. Tenets of Faith Statement of Fundamental Truths The Tenets of Faith shall be the same as set forth in the Statement of Fundamental Truths of the General CouncN of the Assemblies of God (see Appendix A). Further, that AppendiX A shall contain the date of the latest changes from the General Council. Article IV. Membership The members of the Church shall consist of such persons who have reached the age of eighteen (18) years and who meet the standard of membership as set forth in the Bylaws, Article II, Sec. 1. Members shall have voting privileges and are encouraged to attend all business and special meetings of the Church. Article V. Finance The Church shall be financed according to the SCriptural method, by tithes and offerings. The Church reserves the right to refuse any offerings from questionable sources. Article VI. Council of Elders & Officers of the Church Section 1. The voting membership of the Church, in conformity with the Word of God, shall choose and call the senior pastor, Council of Elders, and other officers as the need of the Church requires. Section 2. The officers of the corporation shall be the president (senior pastor) and the secretary I treasurer, as set forth in the Bylaws, Article V, Sections 1 & 3. page 3 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DlVISIOt' WAIVI OF SUBMITTAL REQUL~MENTS This requirement may be waived by: 1. Property Services Section 2. Public Works Plan Review Section ). Building Section 1. Development Planning Section FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS PROJECT NAME: DATE: Q;\WEB\Pw\OEVSERV\Forms\Planning\waiverofsubmittalreqs_9-06.xls DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION WAIVE. OF SUBMITTAL REQUIf AENTS FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS Applicant Agreement Statement 2 AND 3 Inventory of Existing Sites 2 AND 3 Lease Draft 2AND3 Map of Existing Site Conditions 2 AND 3 Map of View Area 2 AND 3 Photosimulations 2 AND 3 This requirement may be waivtfd by: 1. Property Services Section PROJECT NAME: .... t\.J.,J;lel.....\>AAL-J .:::l''-..Jfc..:::eO-Ch-",=,-,-""mJ\c..=--'--__ 2. Public Works Plan Review Section 3. Building Seclion . DATE:_~1'+I~s~I=6<C=-' ____ _ 4. Development Planning Section JUL f 5 2JCJ , ;;.. • ~. "'-. fi..!,' Q:IWEBIPWlDEVSERVlFormslPlanninglwaiverofsubmitlalreqo _ 9-06.xlo 09106 PREAPPLICATION MEETING FOR NEW LIFE CHURCH EXPANSION lS7111S2NDAVE SE CITY OF RENTON Department of Community and Economic Development Current Planning Division PRE08-0S4 June OS, 2008 Contact Information: Planner: Vanessa Dolbee Phone: 425.430.7314 Public Works Reviewer: Jan lilian Phone: 425.430.7216 Fire Prevention Reviewer: Dave Pargas Phone: 425.430.7023 Building Department Reviewer: Craig Burnell Phone: 425.430.7290 Please retain this packet throughout the course of your project as a reference. Consider giving copies of it to any engineers, architects, and contractors who work on the project. You will need to submit a copy of this packet when you apply for land use and/or environmental permits. Pre-screening: When you have the project application ready for submittal, call and schedule an appointment with the project manager to have it pre-screened before making all of the required copies. The pre-application meeting is informal and non-binding. The comments provided on the proposal are based on the codes and policies in effect at the time of review. The applicant is cautioned that the development regulations are regularly amended and the proposal will be formally reviewed under the regulations in effect at the time of project submittal. The information contained in this summary is subject to modification and/or concurrence by official decision-makers (e.g., Hearing Examiner, Zoning Administrator, Development Services Director, Department of Community Economic Development Administrator, Public Works Administrator and City Council). . . J' Jut FIRE DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: 6/2/08/08 TO: Jan Illian, Plan Reviewer CC: Vanessa Dolbee, Associate Planner FROM: STAFF CONTACT: David Pargas, Assistant Fire Marshal <# I David Pargas -425-430-7023 SUBJECT: PRE-APP08-054 New Life Church Expansion Review of the plans and material regarding New Life Church Expansion has been conducted and completed. Please review the following Renton Fire & Emergency Services Fire Code and Policy comments and concerns. The Fire Department comments are as follows: I. FIRE FLOW: A calculation of the fire flow for this structure of 36,000 square feet of Type VA construction shall require a fire flow of2750 for 2 hours. A water availability certificate shall be required from your local water purveyor. 2. REQUIRED HYDRANTS: As in accordance with Renton Fire Department Structures over 3600 square feet and that require a minimum fire flow of 1500 gallons per minute shall require a minimum of2 hydrants. The number of hydrants that may be required shall also be based on spacing, which shall be in accordance with sound engineering practices. Hydrants shall be equipped with 5- inch Storz fittings on the main ports. I am aware of existing hydrants that are located throughout this complex. 3. HYDRANT SPACING: Commercial Spacing- A) Primary Hydrant shall be located within 150 feet to the front of the building B) All other Hydrants shall be no greater than 300 feet to the front of any structure. C) Due to this structure requiring a Fire Sprinkler System a Hydrant shall be required within 50 feet of the Fire Department Counection. D) Hydrant spacing shall be in accordance with Appendix C, Table C105.1 of the 2006 International Fire Code. i:\city memoslO8 pre app reviews\pre·app08-0S4 new life church expansion.doc , 4. FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS: A) The minimum Fire Apparatus Access -shall be within 150 feet of all exterior portions of the building. B) The minimum Fire Apparatus Road Access Width & Surface -shall be no less than 20 feet wide and on a surface capable of sustaining the weight of a Fire Apparatus. C) Fire Lane signage -Shall be required along one side of the road where the road width is 20 to 28 feet wide. Signage shall be placed ~n the same side in which the hydrants are located. Signage shall be as in accordance with section 503 of the 2006 International Fire Code and City of Renton Ordinance 4-4-80-6 A-G. 5. DEAD END STREETS: Street Standards Section 4-6-060-G A) Access of Dead End Streets from 150 or greater shall require an appropriate turnaround. 6. FIRE SPRINKLER & FIRE ALARM REQIDREMENTS: Fire Sprinklers and Fire Alarms shall be applicable to this project. Separate plans and permits shall be required. 7. FIRE MITIGATION FEES: Fire mitigation fees shall be $.52 per square footage of project shall be required. Fee shall be paid at time of securing building permits. 8. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: ]lease feel free to contact the Assistant Fire Marshal at 425-430-7023 if you have any further questions or concerns regarding the pre-application review comments for this project. i:\city memos\08 pre app reviews\pre-app08-054 new life church expansion_doc DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: June 2, 2008 TO: FROM: Vanessa Dolbee, Planner Jan lllian, Plan Review SUBJECT: Utility and Transportation Comments for New Life Chnrch PRE 08-054 15711-152 Ave SE NOTE: The applicant is cautioned that infonnation contained in this summary is preliminary and non-binding and may be subject to modification and/or concurrence by official city decision- makers. Review comments may also need to be revised based on site planning and other design changes required by City staff or made by the applicant. I have completed a preliminary review for the above-referenced development proposal. The following comments are based on the pre-application submittal made to the City of Renton by the applicant. WATER 1. Water service is provided by Cedar River Water and Sewer District. A water availability certificate will be required to be submitted with the building permit application. 2. Existing hydrant(s) to be counted as fire protection will require a 5" storz quick disconnect fitting if not already in place SANITARY SEWER I. Sewer service is provided by Cedar River Water and Sewer District. A sewer availability certificate will be required to be submitted with the building permit application. SURFACE WATER I. A preliminary drainage plan and drainage report will be required with the site plan application. The report shall address detention and water quality requirements as outlined in the 1990 King County Surface Water Manual. All core and any special requirements shall be contruned in the report. If preliminary calculations show detention will be required under the 1990 King County Surface Water Manual, staff will recommend a condition that the project comply with the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual to meet both detention (Conservation Flow control - a.k.a. Level 2) and water quality improvements. 2. Surface Water System Development Charges (SOC) will be assessed at a rate of$0.405 times the square foot of the new impervious area. This is payable at the time the utility permit is issued. 3. Erosion control shall comply with the 2005 Department of Ecology's Storrnwater Manual. /. , , New Life Church Expansion Page 2 of2 June 2, 2008 TRANSPORTATION I. A traffic mitigation fee of $75 times the number of new additional daily trips will be assessed for the new expansion. 2. Dedication of right of way may be required along 152 Ave SE. Minimum right of way width per City code is 50 feet. It is not clear as to the existing right of way width. 3. Dedication of a 25-foot radius at the intersection and SRI69 will be required. 4. Dedication along SRl69 may be required. 5. Street improvements including, but not limited to paving, sidewalks (along the project side), curb and gutter, storm drainage, landscaping, street lighting, and street signs will be required fronting the site along SRI69 and in 152 Ave Sf:. 6. All wire utilities shall be installed underground per the City of Renton Undergrounding Ordinance. If three or more poles are required to be moved by the development design, all existing overhead utilities shall be placed underground, 7. Staff will not support any new vehIcle access trom SR169. GENERAL COMMENTS I. All plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards 2. When approval is granted and utility plans are complete, please submit permit application, three (3) copies of drawings, two (2) copies of the drainage report, and an itemized cost of construction estimate and application fee at the counter on the sixth floor. A fee worksheet is attached for your use, but prior to preparing a check, it is recommended to cal1 425-430-7266 for a fee estimate as generated by the permit system. The fee for review and inspection of these improvements is 6% of the first $150,000 of the estimated construction costs; Costs over $150,000.00 but less than $300,000, fee is $9,000.00 plus 5% of cost over $150,000. Costs of $300,000 and over is $16,500.00, plus 4% of cost $300,000.00 and over. Half the fee must be paid upon application. 3. The applicant is responsible for securing al1 necessary private utility easements prior to the recording of the short plat. 4. Separate permits and fees for storm drainage connections are required. Kayren Kittrick i:\preapps\new life church.doc CITY OF RENTON Community & Economic Development MEMORANDUM DATE: June 5, 2008 TO: Pre-Application File No. PRE 08-054 FROM: Vanessa Dolbee, Planner (425) 430-7314 SUBJECT: New Life Church Expansion General We have completed a preliminary review of the pre-application for the above-referenced development proposal. The following comments on development and permitting issues are based on the pre-application submittals made to the City of Renton by the applicant and the codes in effect on the date of review. The applicant is cautioned that information contained in this summary may be subject to modification and/or concurrence by official decision-makers (e.g., Hearing Examiner, Zoning Administrator, Development Services Director, Community & Economic Development Administrator, Public Works Administrator, and City Council). Review comments may also need to be revised based on site planning and other design changes required by City staff or made by the applicant. The applicant is encouraged to review all applicable sections of the Renton Municipal Code. The Development Regulations are available for purchase for $50.00 plus tax, from the Finance Division on the first floor of City Hall or on the City's website www.rentonwa.gov. Project Proposal The subject property is located on the south side of Maple Valley Hwy (SR 169) at 15711 l52nd Avenue SE. The site is currently developed with a 93,000 square foot structure that houses the New Life Church. The proposal is to redevelop the existing New Life Church site in 2 phases that would be constructed over a 4-year period. The first phase would involve the construction of a 36,000 square foot one-story building, 330 additional parking spaces and pedestrian connections utilizing pervious concrete. The second phase would involve the construction of a 4,000 square foot Athletic Facility (track and soccer field) to be located on the west portion of the parcel. This phase would also include the addition of 144 parking spaces and new stonn drainage facilities, along with enlarging the existing bridge crossing of Madsen Creek. Access to the property is currently, and would remain in the future, off of 152nd Avenue SE. The applicant should note that the proposed project area is currently outside of the Renton City limits and is located with the New Life Aqua Barn annexation area. The zoning proposed on the subject site once annexed into the City is Residential-14 dwelling units per acre (R-14) and Resource Conservation (RC). The approximate timeframe for the approval of the annexation is mid-June 2008. No land use applications within the annexation area will be processed until the proposed annexation area has been approved. Development Standards: The project would be subject to RMC 4-2-11 OF, "Development Standards for Single Family Zoning Designations" effective at the time of complete application (noted as "R-14 standards" herein). A copy of these standards is included herewith. , New Life Church Expansion Pre-AI June 5, 2008 Page 2 of5 tion Meeting The R-14 development standards specifically address residential, civic, and commercial uses but do not specifically address religious institutions or other community facilities. In order for the City to determine which development standards to apply to the subject project, we looked at LUA96-061. LUA96-061 was an application for the construction of a temple (religious institution) in the R-14 zoning district; in this case, the City applied "Civic" development standards. Due to the similarity ofLUA96-061 and the subject proposal, the City will apply "Civic" development standards. The following development standards are for civic uses within the R-14 zone. ~ Building Standards -The R-14 zone allows a maximum building coverage of50% of the total lot area and building height is restricted to 2-storics for Civic uses. As proposed, it appears there is enough lot area to comply with building coverage requirements and a one-story building would be within the maximum height requirement. Building Design -The building structure shall be designed to serve as a focal point for the residential community; and be compatible with architectural character and site features of surrounding residential development and characteristics. The design should also include a common motif or theme and be pedestrian oriented through such measures as pedestrian walkways, pedestrian amenities and improvements, which support a variety of transDortation modes (e.g .. bicycle racks). Setbacks -Setbacks are the minimum required distance between the building footprint and the property line or private access easement. The required front yard setbacks for Civic Uses in the R-14 zone is 10 feet except when abutting or adjacent to residential development then IS feet is the required setback; there is no required side or rear yard setback for Civic Uses except when abutting or adjacent to residential development then a IS-foot setback is required. The New Life Aqua Barn Annexation pre-zone map indicates that the majority of properties surrounding the subject parcel would be within residential zoning designations. In the north east corner there is a small parcel pre-zoned Commercial Arterial (CA). According to the King County Zoning Atlas Map properties surrounding the subject parcel within King County also have residential zoning designations; as such, the subject proposal would require 15-:1oot setbacks along the front, rear, and sides. The site plan did not include the entire parcel therejore; staff was unable to verifY rear setbacks. As proposed, the new buildinl! comolies with setback requirements for front and side yards. - Project Size Limitations -The maximum lot area dedicated for civic uses shall be limited to 10% of the net developable area of a property. Building size shall be limited to 3,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area, except that by Hearing Examiner Conditional Use permit Civic Uses may be allowed to be a maximum of 5,000 sq. ft. for all uses. The subject project proposal does not comply with this requirement; in order to achieve the proposed square footage a modification from the development standards would be required. At official project submittal, include within the application materials written justification for such modification. The following shall be . addressed within the written modification justification: How the proposed project: 1. Substantially implements the policy direction of the policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element and the Community Design Element and the proposed modification is the minimum adjustment necessary to implement these policies and objectives; New Life Church Expansion Pre-App on Meeting June 5, 2008 Page 3 of5 2. Will meet the objectives and safety, function, appearance, environmental protection and maintainability intended by the Code requirements, based upon sound engineering judgment; 3. Will not be injurious to other property(ies) in the vicinity; 4. Conforms to the intent and purpose of the Code; 5. Can be shown to be justified and required for the use and situation intended; and 6. Will not create adverse impacts to other property(ies) in the vicinity. Access Street improvements, including, curbs, gutter and sidewalk, may be required along the frontage of the property. Street improvements along Maple Valley Highway (SR 169) and 1511'" Ave SE may be required. Parking -Parking requirements for Religious institutions: is one space for every 5 seats in the main auditorium; however, in no case shall there be less than 10 spaces. The subject project proposes 474 new parking spaces. Staff was unable to verify compliance with parking requirements because the number of seats in the auditorium is unknown. Maximum slopes for . parking lots shall not exceed eight percent (8%) slope. Public Works Administrator or his/her desiguee may allow a driveway to exceed eight percent (8%) slope but not more than fifteen percent (15%) slope. Please refer to parking, loading and driveway regulations (RMC 4-4-080) for further general and specific parking requirements. Parking areas abutting residential development shall be screened with a solid barrier fence and/or landscaping. Refuse and Recycling Areas -Refuse and recycling areas need to meet the requirements ofRMC 4-4-090, "Refuse and Recyclables Standards" (enclosed). Signs -Any proposed siguage shall comply with RMC 4-4-100 Sign Regulations, and will require a separate sign permit. "Sign Regulations" (enclosed) Landscaping Except for critical areas, all portions of the development not covered by structures, required parking, access, circulation or service areas, must be landscaped with native, drought-resistant vegetative cover. The development standards require that all pervious areas within the property boundaries be landscaped. A 10ft. minimum on-site landscape strip is required along Maple Valley Highway. Lots abutting residential property(ies) zone RC, R-l, R-4, R-8, R-IO or R-14 shall be improved along the common boundary with a minimum IS ft. wide landscaped setback and a sight-obscuring solid barrier. A 15ft. wide landscape setback and sight-obscuring solid barrier is required along the east property line. Street trees, conforming to city of Renton recommendations are required when projects front public streets. Please refer to landscape regulations (RMC 4-4-070) for further general and specific landscape requirements (enclosed). A conceptual landscape plan and landscape analysis meeting the requirements in RMC 4-8- 120D.12, shall be submitted with the lan.d use permit application. Fences Pennitted fence height is 48" in the front yard and side yards along a street, and 72" in the rear yard and interior side yards. Fences cannot exceed 42" in height in the clear vision area of corner lots. Please see enclosed handout on fences for specific details. If the applicant intends to .' I New Life Church Expansion Pre.AI June 5, 2008 Page 4 of5 tion Meeting include a fence as part of the landscaping, please submit conceptual fence details along with the landscape plan. Critical Areas The subject site contains a stream, two wetlands, landslide hazards, erosion hazards, seismic hazards, and regulated slopes. The City'S critical areas map identifies the stream as a Class 2 stream, which requires a 100-foot buffer. A wetland and stream report was submitted with the pre-application materials. The report was prepared in accordance with the King County Critical Areas Regulations. A report prepared in accordance with the City of Renton Critical Areas Regulations shall be submitted with the formal land use application. Pursuant to the Renton Municipal Code (RMC 4-3-0501) the applicant will be required to obtain a geotechnical report stamped and signed from a Geotechnical Fngineer stating that the site is suitable for development and addresses soils, geology and other key elements. The analysis should also assess soil conditions and detail construction measures to assure building stability. In addition, the report will need to address any special construction requirements deemed necessary by the Geotechnical Engineer. Through the site plan review process; the City may condition the approval of the development in order to require mitigation of any potential hazards based on the results of the study. In addition, pursuant to RMC section 4-3-050.1 .3, the geotechnical report submitted with the application may be required to undergo independent secondary review by a qualified specialist selected by the City at the applicant's expense. Environmental Review Environmental Review would be required for the subject proposal because the proposed structure exceeds 4,000 square feet of gross floor area and the parking area exceeds 20 spaces. Tree Retention A tree inventory and a tree retention plan shall be provided with the formal land use application. The tree retention plan must show preservation of at least 10% of protected trees [those with a minimum diameter 6-inches when measured four and a half feet above grade], and indicate how proposed building footprints will be sited to accommodate preservation of significant trees that will be retained. As per RMC 4-4-130D tree removal or land clearing shall not be permitted within Critical A,'"i;as and/M a native growth protection easement. Consistency with Comprehensive Plan The existing development is located within the Residential Medium Density and Residential Low Density Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation. The following proposed policies are applicable to the proposal: Objective LU-X: Site religious and ancillary facilities in a manner that provides convenient transportation access and minimizes their adverse impacts on adjacent land uses. Policy LU-J04: When locating in predominantly residential areas, religious facilities should be on the periphery ofthe residential area rather than the interior. Policy LU-105: Parking should be provided on-site and buffered from adjacent uses. New Life Church Expansion Pre-Apph n Meeting June 5, 2008 PageS of5 Policy LU-106: Large-scale facilities should be encouraged to locate contiguous to an existing or planned transit route. ' Policy LU-J07: Religious facilities should be located on and have direct access to either an arterial or Collector Street. Permit Requirements The project would require Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review and Environmental Review (SEP A). With concurrent review of these applications, the process would take an estimated time frame of 12 weeks. After the required notification period, the Environmental Review Committee would issue a Threshold Determination for the project. When the required two-week appeal period is completed, the project would go before the Hearing Examiner for a decision on the Site Plan Review. The Hearing Examiner's decision would be subject to a two-week appeal period. The application fee would be $2,000 for the Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review and II, of full fee for SEPA Review (Environmental Checklist) which would be $500.00. Detailed information regarding the land use application submittal requirements is provided in the attached handouts. Once Site Plan Review approval, is obtained, the applicant must complete the required improvements and dedications, as well as satisfy any conditions of the approval before a building permit maybe obtained. Fees *Once the application materials are complete, the applicant is strongly encouraged to have one copy of the application materials pre-screened at the rI' floor front counter prior to submitting the complete application package. Please contact me at (425) 430- 7314 to schedule a time for the pre-screen. In addition to the fees for review of the land-use, construction and building permits, the following fees would be required prior to issuance of building permit. • A Transportation Mitigation Fee based on $75.00 per each new average daily trip attributable to the project, calculated based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Manual, Fifth Edition. • A Fire Mitigation Fee based on $0.52 per Building square foot. A handout listing all of the City's Development related fees is attached for your review. Expiration Once an application has been approved, the applicant has two years to comply with all condition of approval and to apply for any necessary permits before the approval becomes null and void. The approval body that approved the original application may grant a single one-year extension. The approval body may require a public hearing for such extension. The Hearing Examiner may approve an extended time frame for the 4 year phased plan requested. cc: Jennifer Henning \ City of Renton EE RETENTION WORKSHEET 1. Total number of trees over 6" in diameter1 on project site: 1. _--=30:..4"-___ trees 2. Deductions: Certain trees are excluded from the retention calculation: Trees that are dead, diseased or dangerous2 ° Trees in proposed public streets ° Trees in proposed private access easements/tracts 13 Trees in critical areas 3 and buffers 15 trees trees trees trees Total number of excluded trees: 2. __ ::.2.::.8 ___ trees 3. Subtract line 2 from line 1: 3. __ --"6'--__ trees 4. Next, to determine the number of trees that must be retained4, multiply line 3 by: 0.3 in zones Re, R-1, R4, or R-8 0.1 in all other residential zones 0.05 in all commercial and industrial zones 4. __ -,0,-,.-,6,--_ trees 5. List the number of 6" or larger trees that you are proposing5 to retaln4 : 5. 1 trees 6. Subtract line 5 from line 4 for trees to be replaced: (If line 6 is less than zero, stop here. No replacement trees are required). 6. __ -_0_._4 __ trees 7. Multiply line 6 by 12" for number of required replacement inches: 7. ______ inches 8. Proposed size of trees to meet additional planting requirement: (Minimum 2" caliper trees required) 8. ______ inches 9. Divide line 7 by line 8 for number of replacement trees6 : (if remainder is .5 or greater. round up to the next whole number) 1. Measured at chest height. 9. per tree ______ trees 2. Dead, diseased or dangerous trees must be certified as such by a fares.ter. registered landscape architect, or certified artmns!, and approved by the City. 3. Critical Areas, such as weUands. streams, floodplains and protected slopes, are defined in Section 4-3·050 of the Renton Municipal Code (RMC). 4. Count only those trees to be retained outside of critical areas and buffers. 5. The City may require modification of the tree retention plan to ensure retention of the maximum Jprnber. of trees per RMC 4-4-130H7a ,J( . ,. 8. Inches of street trees. inches of trees added to critical areaslbuffers. and inches of trees retained on sUe that are less than 6" but are greater than 2" can be used to meet the tree replacement requirement. H:DivisionlFormslTreeRetentionWorlcsheet 11/01 , PROJECT NARRATIVE New Life Church Expansion Prepared by: Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. July 15,2008 Our Job No. 11706 The following is a project narrative discussing the proposed new building and parking lot expansion of New Life Church, located at 15711 -152nd Avenue S.E. The site was recently annexed into the City of Renton with zoning designations ofR-14 (in the area of the proposed church) and Resource Conservation (south of the existing church and proposed new building). Site Descriptioo: The project site is a single parcel that is currently developed with a 93,000 square foot church that also contains a private school serving children from Kindergarten -8th Grade, a parking lot with 599 existing parking stalls, a storm water system, two children play areas, and an outdoor multi- purpose playfield. The New Life Church site is comprised of approximately 56.65 acres with a distinct set of topographic and natural features. The area of the site that is currently developed is generally flat with moderate localized slopes of up to approximately 10 percent. The north end of the site that currently contains the church, the parking lot, the grassy knoll play area, and the western part of the site west of Madsen Creek has been historically graded to accommodate the prior residential uses on the site (including possible farming), and more recently in the Church uses. The central area of the site, south of the church is a regulated steep slope that is characterized as a Seism ic Hazard Area, a Steep Slope, a Landslide Hazard Area, and an Erosion Hazard Area. Based on the 1973 Soil Survey for King County, the soils on the site consist of Urban Land (UR), Newberg Silt Loam (NG), and Alderwood Kitsap, very Steep (AkF). The central area of the site also contains Madsen Creek, several wetlands, and a flood control high-water diversion for Madsen Creek along the west property boundary. The site drains to the north into an existing bioswale and then to a detention pond that outlets toward the west and ultimately drains through a network of ditches to the Cedar River. The surrounding properties are developed with residential uses, although the specific development type is different in each direction. East of the site are the existing Valley Springs Apartments and "River Valley" Condominiums (R-14 zone), as well as a planned commercial/retail shopping area across 152nd Avenue S.E. at the site's north east comer (CA zone); west of the site is the Wonderland Estates Mobile Home Park (RMH zone); and south of the site is single family detached housing (King County R-4). To the north are more single family residential homes across SR-169. Project Description: The proposed project will add a new 35,000 square foot sanctuary/auditorium facility and 299 new parking stalls in the north end of the site (east of Madsen Creek and its buffer). The project also includes the reconstruction and widening of the vehicular bridge over Madsen Creek to improve access to the west side of the site. To access the new building and the new parking, the project utilizes the existing driveways and access points off of 152nd Avenue S.E. The existing play area in the north central area of the site will be relocated to the south and west, near the new building. Land Use Permits Required: o City of Renton Site Plan Review JUL o City of Renton SEPA Determination -1-Project Narrative.doc o City of Renton Clearing and Grading Pennit o City of Renton Right-of-Way Use Permit (if required) o WSDOT Access/Drainage Discharge Pennit (if required) o NPDES Pennit o WDFW Hydraulic Project Approval o City of Renton Commercial Building Permit Construction/Grading: The fair market value of the project is approximately $8,000,000. The new building will be placed on piles due to geotechnical considerations. The new parking area and the existing storm drainage facility will be regraded to generate approximately 1,800 cubic yards of cut and will require approximately 7,700 cubic yards of fill (mostly structural fill for the new building). It is likely that a job shack will be installed on the site for the new building and parking lot construction. The job shack placement is unknown at this time and will be detennined by the General Contractor for the project. Tree Retention: Approximately 22 significant trees will be removed to accommodate the project. These trees will be removed to accommodate site grading, the parking lot, and the relocated play area northeast of the new building. Ifrequired replacement trees will be planted on site. Right-or-way dedication aud Modifications: As requested by the City, the applicant will provide a right-of-way dedication of a strip of property along SR-169 to straighten out the existing job on the north property line. Expected requests for modifications include: • Waiver of frontage improvements on SR-169; • RAfC 4-2-110F: Allowance to increase allowable lot coverage of civic use in residential zone beyond the Code-based 10 percent, and to allow the increase of the proposed buildng size to greater than 3000 or 5000 square feet (the proposed new building is 35,000 square feet in area); • RMC 4-3-050L.c.iv: Wetland/stream buffer reduction from 100 feet to 75 feet with buffer enhancement -along Madsen Creek (construction will occur within buffers of wetlands and over Madsen Creek to accommodate the reconstructed vehicle bridge); Utilities and piping: Existing utilities serving the site have adequate capacity for the new building. Relocation of some water main and fire hydrants will be necessary to accommodate to new building and parking area. A new 8-inch to 12-inch (or larger) fire main may be required to loop around the new and existing building to provide fire protection. New storm piping will be installed for the new parking areas and some stonn piping may be replaced where needed on the site. Storm piping may also be required off- site in the public rights-of-way of SR-169 and/or 152nd Avenue S.E. Sanitary sewer will be extended to the new building from existing mains on-site. Pipes will be installed that are 12-inches in diameter or larger both on and off site. Stormwater: The existing stormwater swale parallel to 152nd Avenue S.E. will be removed. The existing detention pond will be reconstructed to provide additional volume to accommodate the new impervious areas as well as the existing drainage to the facility. Streets and Rights-of-Way: Site access is from 152nd Avenue S.E. at the two existing driveways. Frontage improvements will be constructed on the site frontage of 152nd Avenue S.E. to SR-169. The applicant intends to request a waiver for frontage improvements on SR-169. A variable width right-of- way dedication on SR-l69 was requested by the City that is shown on the site plans. -2-Project Narrative.doc REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS for Maximum Size for a Civic Use New Life Church Expansion JUL ' Prepared by: Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. July 15,2008 Our Job No. 11706 Per Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4-9-250-]), whenever there are practical difficulties involved in carrying out the provisions of this Title (RMC Title 4), the Department Administrator may grant modifications for individual cases provided he/she shall first find that a specific reason makes the strict letter of this Code impractical, that the intent and purpose of the governing land use designation of the Comprehensive Plan is met and that the modification is in conformity with the intent and purpose of this Code, and that such modification addresses the criteria below. We have provided responses to each of the criteria to establish the projects conformance with the intent and purpose of Title 4 RMC. a. Substantially implements the policy direction of the policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan Land Vse Element and the Community Design Element and the proposed modification is the minimum acijustment necessary to implement these policies and objectives; Response: The following Comprehensive Plan (Plan) Land Use policies apply to the project (in italics); we have provided responses to each item as to why the proposed New Life Church expansion is consistent with the Plan. Objective LV-X: Site religious and ancillary facilities in a manner that provides convenient transportation access and minimizes their adverse impacts on adjacent land uses. Response: The existing New Life Church is located on a state highway (SR-169) between Wonderland Estates mobile home park to the west and multi-family residential (condominiums and apartments) uses to the east. The existing church is on a very large parcel (56.65 acres) and is set back several hundred feet from SR-169. The proposed expansion is to add a new structure that will contain a 1165 seat sanctuary and a 330 seat chapel and will provide 299 parking stalls to accommodate parking demand the new structure. Frontage improvements, including sidewalks, will be installed on 152nd Avenue S.E. along the site's eastern boundary to increase pedestrian options to the planned commercial area at 152nd Avenue S.E. and SR-169 and to the Cedar River Trail system. The site's drainage system will be expanded to detain and treat stormwater trom the existing and new impervious areas on the site to meet City Codes to avoid impacts to downstream properties from the additional impervious areas. Policy LV-J04. When locating in predominantly residential areas, religious facilities should be on the periphery of the residential area rather than the interior. Response: The area that contains the church is not primarily residential; it includes a planned commercial node at the northeast corner of 152nd Avenue S.E. and SR-169. To the north of the site are a park and the Cedar River Trail system. The existing Church has been on the site since 1991 and the residential uses to the east have grown up around the church. The mobile home park to the west precedes the church, but there have been no know conflicts between these uses. -1-1I706.014.doc The existing facilities and the new structure are both placed at the base of a large steep slope several hundred feet from SR-169 and from 152nd Avenue S.E. -this placement serves to minimize the visual effect of the large church on passers by and from the adjacent residential uses to the east. Policy LU-JOj. Parking should be provided on-site and bufferedfrom adjacent uses. Response: The parking area will be expanded by 299 stalls in the north part of the site between Madsen Creek's buffer and 152nd Avenue S.E. As required by Renton Municipal Code, new landscaping buffers will be established to provide 15 feet of landscaping along 152nd Avenue S.E. The new landscaping will screen the new parking area. Policy LU-J06. Large-scale facilities should be encouraged to locate contiguous to an existing or planned transit route. Response: Transit currently travels past the New Life Church site and the New Life Church is also a contracted Park and Ride facility during weekday hours. Policy LU-J07. Religious facilities should be located on and have direct access to either an arterial or collector street. Response: The church is located on SR-169 which is a principal arterial and a state highway. Access to the church and its parking areas is from 152nd Avenue S.E. (a cul-des-sac street) via two existing driveways that will remain. In this case direct access to SR-169 is not available or desirable form a safety standpoint. The 152nd Avenue S.E. / SR-169 intersection is signalized and provides a dedicated left tum lane for westbound traffic. b. Will meet the objectives and safety, function, appearance, environmental protection and maintainability intended by the Code requirements, based upon sound engineering judgment; Response: The new building and parking lot expansion meets and improves the existing conditions on the site with respect to critical areas (environmental protection), fire access (improved fire access road behind new and existing building), and the appearance of the site. Environmental protections: With the proposal, the project will enhance the degraded Madsen Creek buffer that bisects the site to increase its functional values and increase the habitat levels to better support wildlife and fish. The buffer is currently a mowed grass field that provides little shading or cover of Madsen Creek. The project will also respect the buffers and retain all vegetation on the steep slope south of the existing and new buildings. Safety: The existing fire lane will be widened to a uniform width of 20 feet and will be paved to increase fire access. The new structure will be equipped with an automatic fire alarm and sprinkler system. The existing access points will serve the expanded parking area to avoid additional impacts to the public road system. The church will continue with traffic direction and control during peak use times, including holidays and Sunday services. Function. Appearance. and Maintainability: The function of the site will continue on as it has since 1991 when the church was built. The applicant has obtained a traffic study to evaluate if additional traffic from the proposal would result in off-site impacts and the findings were that off-site impacts will be minor (within normal thresholds -no significant decrease of level of service at effected intersections) and do not trigger off-site mitigation. The appearance of the site will be slightly but not significantly different than it currently is. The new building is oriented so that its smallest fa~ade -2-11706.014.doc faces SR-169 and that its size is southward and shielded from the neighboring residential uses to the east by the existing church. To the west, the new building is screened by the Madsen Creek and wetland buffers. The new parking area will be landscaped and paved, which will improve the appearance of the north-east area of the site which is basically a field. The existing play area will be relocated closer to the buildings to promote higher use and function. Maintainability of the proposed use and the improvements is improved with the expansion. New Life Church currently maintains its grounds and will continue to do so. c. Will not he injurious to other property(ies) ill the vicinity; Response: The existing Church has been on the site since 1991 and the residential uses to the east have grown up around the church. The mobile home park to the west precedes the church, but there have been no know conflicts between these uses. The new building is oriented so that its smallest fa,ade faces SR-169 and that its size is southward and shielded from the neighboring residential uses to the east by the existing church. To the west, the new building is screened by the Madsen Creek and wetland buffers. The new parking area will be landscaped and paved, which will improve the appearance of the north-east area of the site which is basically a field. The existing play area will be relocated closer to the new building to promote higher use and function. d. Conforms to the intent and purpose of the Code; Response: The new structure and parking areas meet Renton Codes for setbacks, landscaping buffers, environmental protection, access, number of allowed stories, parking, ADA accessibility, etc. The one Code provision that is not currently met, nor can it be achieved with the new structure and parking, is the limitation of the use of I O-percent of the useable areas of the site for Civic Use or the limit of 3000 square feet of building area. The facility currently exceeds these limits and the expansion increases the inability to meet the Civic Use criteria in this regard. The intent of the restrictions on building size and site use are to minimize the visual and physical effects on neighboring properties. As noted above, the existing and new facilities will not negatively impact adjacent properties or the public. e. Can be shown to hejustified and requiredjor the use and situation intended; and Response: New Life Church has a very full schedule of events and activities throughout the week, including religious services, educational services, social services, and typical operational activities. On weekends, the church holds multiple services in an undersized worship sanctuary in the existing building. The new building will provide an updated and larger worship space and will add much needed additional parking on the site. f. Will not create adverse impacts to other property(ies) in the vicinity. Response: The existing Church has been on the site since 1991 and the residential uses to the east have grown up around the church. The mobile home park to the west precedes the church, but there have been no know conflicts between these uses. The new building is oriented so that its smallest fa,ade faces SR-169 and that its size is southward and shielded from the neighboring residential uses to the east by the existing church. To the west, the new building is screened by the Madsen Creek and wetland buffers. The applicant has obtained a traffic study to evaluate if additional traffic from the proposal would result in off-site impacts and the findings were that off-site impacts will be minor (within normal thresholds -no significant decrease of level of service at effected intersections) and do not trigger off-site mitigation. The existing access points will serve the expanded parking area to avoid additional impacts to the public road system. The church will continue with traffic direction and -3-11706.014.doc control during peak use times, including holidays and Sunday services. Frontage improvements, including sidewalks, will be installed on 152nd Avenue S.E. along the site's eastern boundary to increase pedestrian options to the planned commercial area at 152nd Avenue S.E. and SR-169 and to the Cedar River Trail system. The site's drainage system will be expanded to detain and treat stormwater from the existing and new impervious areas on the site to meet City Codes to avoid impacts to downstream properties from the additional impervious areas. -4-1l706.014.doc REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF STREET IMPROVEMENTS for SR-169 (Maple valley Highway) New Life Church Expansion Prepared by: Barghausell Consulting Engineers, Inc. July IS, 2008 Our Job No. 11706 The PlanninglBuildinglPublic Works Administrator or hislher designee may grant waiver of the installation of street improvements subject to the detennination that there is reasonable justification for such waiver. Based on RMC 4-9-2S0-C the decision for Waivers of Street Improvements is based on reasonable justification including but not be limited to the following italicized criteria. We have provided responses for each criterion to assist with staffs analysis. a. Required street improvements will alter an existing wetlands or stream, or have a negative impact on a shoreline's area. Response: Frontage improvements of sidewalk, curb, and gutter would result in impacts to the buffer of Madsen Creek that runs parallel to SR-169 for a portion of the site. The installation of a sidewalk would require piping the existing open drainage ditch that flows to Madsen Creek. Sidewalk could also require impacts to the existing box culvert from Madsen Creek that flows under SR-169 to the Cedar River. b. Existing steep topography would make required street improvements infeasible. Response: This criterion does not apply there are no steep slopes in the area of required frontage improvements. c. Required street improvements would have a negative impact on other properties, such as restricting available access. Response: This criterion does not apply; the frontage improvements would not impact other properties. d. There are no similar improvements in the vicinity and there is little likelihood that the improvements will be needed or required in the next ten (10) years. Response: Currently, the south side of SR-I 69 does not have any pedestrian facilities, although the Cedar River Trail exists on the north side of SR-169. The planned commercial area at the northeast comer of the New Life Church property may install sidewalks with their development, but it is possible, if not likely that the commercial use will generate pedestrian traffic from the residences to the south and from church patrons and/or staff. e. In no case shall a waiver be granted unless it is shown that there will be no detrimental effect on the public health, safety or welfare if the improvements are not installed, and that the improvements are not neededfor current or future development. JUL ; 5 -1-11706.015.doc Response: Sidewalk, curb, aud gutter improvements on the project side (south side) of SR-169 are neither necessary for pedestriaus nor desirable from a safety perspective. The bus stop on SR-169 is east of 152nd Avenue S.E. and there exists a public walking/recreation path on the north side of SR- 169 that is accessible from a crosswalk at the signalized intersection at the project's northeast property corner (152nd Avenue S.E. and SR-169). The project does not currently have nor will it introduce pedestrian traffic to SR-169 to the west of 152nd Avenue S.E. Pedestrian or bicycle traffic may use 152nd Avenue S.E. to reach the intersection where bus service is available and a new shopping center is plauned. -2-11706.015.doc CONSTRUCTION MITlGATION DESCRIPTION NEW LIFE CHURCH Prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. July 1,2008 Our Job No. 11706 The New Life Church expansion is expectcd to initiate construction in late summer or fall of 2008 and continue site work into late fall/early winter of 2009. Building construction is expected to begin in early 2009 and be completed prior to the end of 2009. Hours and days of operation will be based on City of Renton guidelines and are expected to be bctwccn the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Special hours of construction and hauling are not anticipated. Hauling and transportation routes will be from SR-169 to 152nd Avenue S.E. and onto the site. Temporary Sediment and Erosion Control (TESC) measures consistent with City of Renton requirements and NPDES requirements with a SWPPP will be provided onsite. Expected TESC measures include street sweeping, sediment control ponds, drainage interceptor swales with rock check dams, slit fencing, straw mulch, construction access road, and other measures as may be required. Traffic control may be necessary on 152nd Avenue S.E. during the period for construction of frontage improvements. Traffic control is expected to be limited to narrow two-way traffic or potentially one-way traffic with the closure of the southbound lane on 152nd Avenue S.E. with the use of flagging personnel. If frontage improvements are required on SR-169, they include partial closure of the south side of the eastbound lane to accommodate construction. A complete traffic control plan will be submitted with the civil construction plans if required. JUL 11706.012.doc ~ ,.: /' i',1" King Counly DOES 1 fW; ceJtitic.;,lp p'ovld",~ SeaWos . t'jr'fI Counl}' (.I ("p.:u!rol':'"I-,1 IJ~ F'Jbk: H>:o.:-.okh <"lno the Depcr~rrlel",1 of D€"~,,,f,')r->[ners! -Of'.d !:.rr.'flom'Jen).jl ~-er,tCE'~ w,lh DEPARTMcN r OF DEVElOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 900 Oakesdale Avenl:€ Southwest Renton, Wa 980~5·12HJ ~J()rr;,';'hor, re(:et~<iIV 10 e\'oluc.tE' .j:.vel(J~~flen! prOD'C'~al! KING COUNTY CERTIFICATE OF WATER AVAILABILITY B3-2,C3-1 ro nol weile in Ir,;1 box Number ~N~on-le---------------J BUJldmg Permit Pre['ITI'mEI.lY Plat Of PUD V Short Subdivision Relone or Other Applicants Name NewLiJe Flrsl Church Last Proposed Use 19 lot Short Plat LOCl:!hon PI'123?305 9021 1571 ~ ~ 5.2 A.VE S~ 8P.A. RO\V oTea. ~ehi~d. chlJrch bldg Waler Utility Information 2 3 4 ''''\'aler WI!! be prov'ided by service conl18c:lion ol)lv to 51', existmg OR feetfrarn the ~;itQ E v \.\'8.181 serv'ice .... dJ require (.'I.n improveml:'!"ltlo tlje 'Naler ~ystem of A. ~ OR 8 A ~ OR B ~. vi v 500 + -teet oh'ibler 1TIt):1rI 10 reed', the site. and I or '>(: 2 the construC1ion \.11 EI drstttb'jl)C>n system 0/1 th8 site: end I or ''\I! 3 ol}"ler (describe) Ct-,n:r'iet"lon .~fg_~: .. :~~~~.em_e.n~ The wfller sysIem hos 6. current County approved waler comprehensive plan and franchise. The water sy"Stem win require B. water comprehensivE' pls.n amendment The proposed projed is withm the corporate rim'IIs 01 the district or has been gre.nled Boundary ReVl8\¥ BOard flpprovB.llor extenSion ot seMee outside tI"J.e distrid or crty or is within the Counly approved selVice orea of a prive;te wale. system Annexolion or BRS BpprO'.iEt1 ~;Il be necessfll"y'to prov!de service V,,'at811S or Will be ~vell8ble allhe rate DIllow end duration indicnfed below at no less Ihan 20 PSI measured etthE nem8st/ir(' hydrAnt _t'?, be constr~cted Rate of Flow Less tho.n ~[JO gpm (Eirpox. gpm) 500 to 999 gpm '\I' 1000 01 nlC>re gpm Flow Tesl CCI.!cul61lon of '" gpm gpm tee: from the bl1tldmg/propt?rt; (ot 8S marked on the e.tl5cilf'ci map) Dumtion Less them 1 hour 1 hour 102 hours ;;;; 2 hallrs or more OIhe' ____ _ ComrtH?ICiell Building Pennrls require. flow test. OJ (",.DJctlleJion 5 .A. ..t' 'l/vater system hos certificates of water right or water rights claims sufficient to provide service (eedbf R)'.'('t OR WBter ~nd Sewer District is a Seanle Purveyor) B Waler system does no! currently he.vB necesf.alY ",,,Etter nghts or "vVEI:ter right claims COMMENTSI Fire trow information is determined by the use 01 IJ. rvdraulic model and calculated under mElx dEW demrmd CONDITIONS conditions. Actual fire flows mayvory due to wElter ~vstpm configuration ch6nges time of d6.v~s on system 8Dd operational parameters. Conne~ljpn c.harges will be required to be paid in full to CRVI"'SC' prior to connection to tile District system. ConneC!Lon (h~rgE?:~.{!.re subjedlo Change 81 anytime by the B.o~m!...Q1 !:;pmrnisslon.ers SeeAt1achments I hEreby CE't1;~itJI811he above water aqency information is trUE-I hts certification shall be vo.lid for one veer horf) thr~ date of sign8tU!l? " . • Cedar River Water and Sewer Di.slftd ;,gency Name 9~el~per .E~r:~io~ .A.I!minislra~o! Title 11-20-07 issued ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS TO SEWI<:R AND WATER CEIUIFICATE OF AVAILABILITY The follo»,ing terms and conditions are hereby made a part of and incorporated by references into the certificate ofavailability to which it is attached. I A. Certificate Not a Contract. This certificate does not constitute a contract for water or sewer ("Utility") connections. Utility connections to the property will be considered by the Utility provider only aftcr (a) the full payment of the Utility provider's connection charges and the ordering of service; or (b) the owner has agreed in writing to the terms of the Utility provider's then current application form for constructing extensions to its Utility systems, which form, in it's sale discretion, may contain such additional conditions as the Utility provider may reqnire. B. No Guarantee. The Utility proviuer issues certificates of availability based upon a brief analysis of the capacity of its general and local facilities and upon information provided by thc property owner. Certi ricates are not intended (i) to guarantee that Utility service is feasible or that improvements other than those listed on the face of the certificate to which this is attached will not be required, or (ii) to reserve capacity in any part of its IJtility systems. C. Unavailability of Water. The Utility provider shall not be responsible for the unavailability of Utility service as a result of events beyond its control, including, but not limited to, earthquakes, slides, Doods and other acts of God, the unavailability of government permits and approvals, SEPA requirements, the issuance of limitations, restrictions, bans, moratoriums and other oruers of government entities of courts. D. Fees and Charges. Utility connections to the subject property are subject to the fees and charges of the Utility provider. These may include connection charges, reimbursement charges, surcharges and other charges of the Utility provider. The amount of connection charges may be increased to include the costs of facilities detennined to be necessary in the future. It is the owner's responsibility to check with the Utility provider in advance to determine the Iotal amoHnt due for the connection sought. Rates and charges may change from time to time by resolution of the Board of Commissioners. E" Endangered Species Act. The listing of Chinook and other species of salmon as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act has created the likelihood of future regulations and restrictions that may restrict or even prohibit the Utility provider from allowing additional connections to its Utility system. All rcpresentations and obligations contained in this certificate arc subject to all such restrictions and prohibitions ("ESA Restrictions"). Any person or entity relying on this Certificate for any reason (l) accepts the same subject to all ESA restrictions; and (2) releases the Utility provider from all damages of every description arising fro III or out of the ESA Restrictions. In the event that ESA Restrictions impose conditions on the connections anticipated under this Certificate which increase the cost of providing such service, such increases shall be the sole responsibility of the property owner. F. Tem1, This Certificate shall terminate and shall have no force or effect one (1) year from its date of issuance. , I i 'Ie c r: (14 ~"' fJ'i h King County DOES DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES T hs CfttifiCOl:e Plovides SeaHle . King Count}' Dep~llroenl of PublJC: Hea.h .....-.d the Department 01 DevelOf:fflenl: and E!w~or,rnental Service~ with infcrmal_ion llece~salY 1.0 evaluate devel,opmern Dlopu~a~ 900 Oakesdale Avenue Southwesl Renton, Wa 98055-1219 KING COUNTY CERTIFICATE OF SEWER AVAILABIlITY 100 no' ",rile in 'hi, box Number Dudding Permit ..; ShOll Subd,-",';sion Applicants t'Jame Proposed Use locatiDn NewLile First 19 Jot Short Plat Sewer Utility Information Name Frehmmar; Plat or PlJD f=;RlOoe or Other Church last A, Se¥.'E'f service will be provided by SHJp <:8'Ner crJnnedion only to o.n exj~ting B3-2,C3-1 sewer line to the site find the sewer syslem has the capElc.ity to serve the propoSE'd I)se opr B 2 A '" OR 8 3 ,", '" opr B 4 '" Sewer service will require &.n improvement to the sewer syslem of: '.,;: 1 500' + -feel 01 SE\'Ver trunk or IElterol to reach the site~ tllld I or 0,/: 2 the construction of a collection system on the site: ond I or 'I{' :3 other (describe) S.ompletiNI .?t D_E Agre,~~~~~nt_ The sewer system improvement is in confotn'Jann"with fI Coun~/8pproved sews, comprehensive plfin The sewer system improvement wdf require 0 sewer comprehensIVe plan fimendmenl rhe proposed projed is within the corporate limits oftha District or hos been granted Boundary Review Board e.pprovEtI for extension of s81vice Oul~.ide the District Dr city. Ann8xelion or BRB approvEtI will be npcesS8ry to provide service SeMce is subject to the following: Connection Chorges: .,~_!3:~,~6ch~)~njs I Cor_~.ment~ Eesements: .~~~~q~jred, Other pO,lie.ntio.! ~~_wa9_e pu~,p ~,ttlj!on requi~ed COM~JENTS/CONDITiONS, Conne-dian charges ... Jill be rewJlfed_tQ bli'! p6ld in full to CRVYSO prior '0 connection to the Disrrict system, Canoedipn c_hames me subjed to change at Bnvtime bvthe Board of Commissillners. See Attecjlf,(lenl~~ I hereby cerlit/lhtJt the e\bove sewer a.gency infolmntton is true This certification shalf be valid fot one year from the dalE' 01 -srgn5tfJfe Ceder Rr .. :"m V .... afer end Sewer District Agenq.,i N8me [Ieveioper Ex1ep$ion Adminisrre~.~_ Tille , -SiDnBiure lJ-) CJ=Ql I",sued ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS TO SEWER AND WATER CERTlFJCATE OF AVAILABILITY The following terms and conditions arc hereby made a part of and incorporated by references into the certificate of availability to which it is attached. ~ A. Certificate Not a Contract. This certificate does not constitute a contract for water or sewer ("Utility") connections. Utility connections to the property will be considered by the Utility provider only after (a) the full payment of the Utility provider's connection charges and the ordering of service; or (b) the owner has agreed in writing to the teTIllS of the Utility provider's then ClllTent application form for constructing extensions to its Utility systems, which form, in it's sole discretion, may contain such additional conditions as the Utility provider may require. B. No Guarantee. The Utility provider issues certificates of availability based upon a brief analysis of the capacity of its general and local facilities and upon information provided by the property owner. Certificates arc not intended (i) to guarantee that Utility service is feasible or that improvements other than those listed on the face of the certificate to which this is attached will not be required, or (ii) to reserve capacity in any part of its Utility systems. C. Unavailabilitv of Water. The Utility provider shall not be responsible for the unavailability of Utility service as a result of events beyond its control, including, but not limited to, earthquakes, slides, floods and other acts of God, the unavailability of government permits and approvals, SEPA requirements, the issuance of limitations, restrictions, bans, moratoriums and other orders of government entities of courts. D. Fees and Charges. Utility connections to the subject property are subject to the fees and charges of the Utility provider. These may include connection charges, reimbursement charges, surcharges and other charges of the Utility provider. The amount of connection charges may be increased to include the costs of facilities determined to be necessary in the future. It is the owner's responsibility to check with the Utility provider in advance to deter.mine the total amount duc for the connection sought. Rates and charges may change from time to time by resolution of the Board of Commissioners. E. Endangered Species Act. The listing of Chinook and other species of salmon as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act has created the likelihood of future regulations and restrictions that may restrict or even prohibit the Utility provider from allowing additional connections to its Utility system. All representations and obligations contained in this certificate are subject to ail such restrictions and prohibitions ("ESA Restrictions"). Any person or entity relying on this Certificate for any reason (I) accepts the same subject to all ESA restrictions; and (2) releases the Utility provider from all damages of every description arising from or out of the ESA Restrictions. In the event that ESA Restrictions impose conditions on the connections anticipated under this Certificate which increase the cost of providing such service, such increases shall be the sole responsibility of the property owner. F. Term. This Certificate shall terminate and shall have no force or effect one (1) year from its date of issuance. PLANNING DIVISION ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST City of Renton Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax: 425-430-7231 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 DJ. 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. 1170h.Oll9.dll(" ; , 02/08 A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project. if applicable New Life Church Expansion 2. Name of applicant: Ne\\ Li fe Church 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: New Life Church 15711 ·152ndAvenueS.f'. Renton. WA 98052 (425) 226-0880 4. Date checklist prepared: June 2008 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Renton Contal"l Person No. I Church Ikvc10pment C'onsult<lllts P.O. [lox 1526 [)1l\;J1I. \\.i\ 98019 (425) nS-9892 ('ellllac!: Kathy Bresler 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing. if applicable): Contact Person No.2 B()rghallsen Consulting Engineers. Inc" 18215 -72nd A \Cnue South Kent. \\.i\ %032 (425) 251-6222 Contae!: h·ana Ilahmsen Cnnstmclion of civil improvements (parking. lot expansiun, utilities. grading. and clearing) is expected to begin in summer of 201l~. Building construction is expected to begin of fall of 2008 and extend into 2009. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions. expansion. or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes. explain. Future additions and expansion may be cunsidered at a future date. including the construction of formalized recreational facllities OJl lhl: \\T:-il side of iv1adsen Creek that may include soccer field with track. future buildings. and, or future p'lrking. 8 List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared. or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. The following environmental documcnts Il<l\C bcen prepared related to this proposal: • King County SEPA Detem1inatiull • Preliminary Technical Inform"tio" Report prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc., dated July 9, 2008 • Suhsurface Exploration and Prclilllillilr: Geotechnical Engineering Report prepared by Associated Earth Sciences. Inc .. d"lcd ,\ugust 24, 2005 I I i(lh (l0l) ~h: -2 -02/08 • Sllppklllcntal SlibsurJ~lcc l-xpl~)r,l1ll)tl Summary· prepared by Associated L.lrlh Sciellces. Inc .. <hlled October 17. 200' • Pre I iminary Technical III l"l )rnwlil)ll Report prepared by BarghaLlscll Consulting Eng.inccrs. Inc .. dated July 9. :20()~ • Troltie Impact Analysis prepared Iw lhe Transpo Group dated July 200S 9 Do you know whether applicatians are pending for gavernmental approvals af ather propasals directly affecting the property cave red by yaur prapasal? If yes, explain. At this timc there are no applications pending goycmment approval affecting the subject propcI1y. 10. List any gavernmental approvals or permits that will be needed for yaur propasal. if knawn. • Renton Site Plan Review • Renton SFPA Determination • Renton Commercial Grading Permit • Renlon CllllllllCrcial Building Pcrmit:-, • Cedar Ri':er \Vater and Sewcr Dc\ eloper Extension Agreements • WDrW Hydraulic Project Appro\,,1 (](required) • DOE NPDES Pemlit • Renton Right-of-\Vay Use PLTmit (if required) • WSDOT Access Pemlit (ifreqLlIred) 11. Give brief, camplete descriptian af yaur propasal, including the prapased uses and the size af the praject and site. The proposal is to construct one ne\\' building and additional parking and utilities on the de\'eloped New Life Church proj1ert\ located at 1571 1-152nd Avenue S.E. The new building will he located adjacent and dircctly \\est of the existing building and will contain approximately ~6.000 square feet 111 a Pile-slnr) structure. The new building will contain a s<Jllctuary ·auditorium that will C()l1t~lin 1·19.5 seats with a mix of fixed and unfixed seating. The existing graycl fire lane along the s()uth side of the existing and new buildings will be paved. j"\dditional parking 8reas will be LTC;J\cd ,dong: the west side of the existing parking lot (east of the ;\"1adscn Creek buffer) and north of the existing parking lot between the existing stormwater pond and Maple Valley Highwa\' (SR-l (,')). ·I·he project proposes wetland all{1 st rC,lnl blllTer reductions with enhancement along the east side of the Madscn Creek bulTer as \\'ell '" ,mound the existing pond identified as Wetland C. Two existing crossings of I'vladscn Crcc~ \yilJ be restored with this proposal as well. including the existing \ ehicular bridge and roa<.h\·<lY m:ar the 110l1h property line and the existing foot bridge and path ncar Wetland C in the central arca of the site. New or replacement utilities on or ()rr site. including watec sewer, and stonn. may require installation of pipes exceeding 12 inehe.s ill diameter. Approximately (no more than) 299 new parking stalls will be added to the nisting 599-5tall parking lot. The total parking praposed on the site will be 898 stalls. 12. Lacation af the prapasal. Give suffiCient Infarmatian far a persan to. understand the precise lacatian af yaur prapased project. Including a street address, if any, and sectian, tawnship, and - 3 -02108 range if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area. provide the range or boundaries of the slte(s). Provide a legal description. site plan. vicinity map. and topographic map, if reasonably available While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The prnpert\' is located at thc "lulh\\(sl corner nf 152nd Avenue ST. and Maple Valley Illgh"'''' (SR-169). The site addrc," IS 15711 --152nd Avenue S.l::._ Renton_ Washington 98057_ located in SCl'tinn ~~. Township ~~ North. /{ange 5 East. Vv'illamette !\1eridiall. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. EARTH a. General description of the site (CIrcle one);~, rolling, hllly_lsteep slope~ (not in project area), mountainous. other _____ _ The dc\"clopmcnt area j ~ !lat, b. What IS the steepest slope on tile site (approXimate percent slope?) The slopes in the projcL" area '-liT nat. ranging from 0 to 5 percent. The central portion ()f the sile. south of the existing and proposed buildings. contains steep slopes with grades exceeding 40 IKrccnl. :\1 the south most limits of the subjCd property is a relat i\Clv Ilat bench of land \\ il h "rades approximately 1 0 percent. 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. Agncultural soils are n(11 KIW\\']] 1<' be on the propc11y. Soils per the 1973 King County S,)iis Stlrwy include UR (ll,-l""1 I and). NG (Newberg silt loam). and All' (Alderwood and Kitsar soils. very steep). d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. The sh .... pc in the central s{)Llth ~Irl';l orille property is classified as a landslide hazard area, (l seismic hazard area. ;Illd a Sll'CP slope hazard area. lnstabihty has been doclImented in Ihe past for loculizcd an .. :as ,)]1 the steep slope. The development arca in the northern and central areas of the site litiS not c:\pericnced unstable soils. e. Describe the purpose, type. and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed_ Indicate source of fill. 1 17(16 (1(\<).l.h)( rhe existing stormw(]ter pnlld ~ll the northeast property corner \vill be excavated to pn1\,ldc additional depth rpr pJ"lljcct-gcncratcd slomnvatcr. Excavated material is expected to he dispersed ,111 site-. Import of till material, including soils and gravel base for pawd areas is posSlbk "ilh Ihe construction of the project. Approximately 9500 cubic yards of cumulatj\~: gr'ldJll~ will occur on the site with the proposed development. Struclural lill will he illlp(lricd I'",m an approved source location for the new building (770() cubic yards). - 4 -02/08 , f. Could erosIon occur as a result of clearing. construction. or use? if so, generally describe Frosilm c(1uld rt=sult fnllll (·J,...'~lrillg ;ll1d cOllstruction. Erosion including sediment-laden st()rmw3t~r as well as \\ inti dust u)Uld result when the earth is bare for the proposed parking area. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example. asphalt or buildings)? The sile consists of appro'\illlillCl,:-56.65 acres. After construction of the new parking areas and the new huildin~. approximately 469.795 square fect of the site will be impt..'Tyiotls. which results III ~I c;llculation of 19 percent orthe site being impervious. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: 2. AiR The project will install IT(l.',ioll l'llL1trol measures and will employ Best Management Practices in 3ccordance \\ lIb the City of Renton and Department of I::cology erosion control requirements. Fr(lsinn ((lntro] measures arc expected to include silt fencing. sediment ponds. drail1a~l' s" tlle:--"ith check dams. construction acl.'"CSS entrance, straw mulch. hydroseeding. and (ltllcr measures as may be appropriate. /\ project-specitic l~mporary [",sion and Sc'dillll'nl,lIion Control (TESe) Plan and a Stormwaler Pollution PreYcntioll Plan (S\\'PPP) \\ ill Ill' pf()\'idcd with the site engineering drawings for appro\"aJ prior to initiatil)Jl(lj' ,!!r;lding and construction actiYities. a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e" dust, automobile, odors, industrral wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Emissions including dicsl'l l'.\IWllS\ and dust emissions are likely to occur during the construction o1'lhc prop(lscd project. Upon project completion. minor vehicle emissions and exhaust from natural ~as hcatill,\! will occur from the project. b. Are there any off-site sources of emission or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. Off-site S()UfCC::' (11' em )';;';j\ 1llS l11e Jude \'ch icular traf11c on Iv1ap1c Valley Highway (SR-169). EXlsling l)rf-~ill' lTnis~j\)ns will not affect the proposaL c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: 3. WATER Tht:: proje<.:l will <.:omply \\ lth ;lpplic:lhle federal. state. and local requirements govenling air quality and emissions rck~"jsc" during and post-construction. a. Surface Water: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams. saltwater, lakes. ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. The site contains a reach \11" \ 1;Jd"l'll Creek. an ovcrnow from Madsen Creek, and several wetlands. The site is alsll 1(l(,l1l'd \\ ilhin one mile of the Cedar River. -5 . 02108 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, COllstruction will occur \\ ilhlll ~O() feet of J\.'1<Jdscn Creck and on-site wetlands. including the 1'0110\\ illg: • Grading and paying • Parking lot construl,ti!.)Jl • Storm dr(tinuge 18cilitiL':-' • ~C\\" church S8!1ctu,lr) hulldlllg • Reconstructed bridgl' lTW';-;lll~ f()f Ychicul;]r trayd • Relocation ()f cxistill~ pL!~ ,lrL'~1 • I.andscaping 3) Estimate the amount of fill and clreclge 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 Neither lilting nor drcdgilic "I' slreams or wetlands is proposed with the project The improvements 10 the existill~ \\, .. Illcu]ar and pedestrian bridges afC planned to be designed to span the hyJruulie 1111111, "I' \l"dscn Creck w'ith the utilization of box culverts or similar treatment. 4) Will the proposal reqUIre surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known, Surface water withdraw,]/:-; ~lIld dl\ crsions arc not proposed with the project. 5) Does the proposal lie Within a 1 DO-year flood plain? If so, note location on the site plan, The site contains a porti"l1 "llil,' IIIII-ycar 1100dplain of the Cedar River, 6) Does the proposal involve any ciiscilarges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge, The project \\'ill release ~\~~rm\\·;lh.'r rmlll the C'xistmg church and parking area as well as the ncw church building ;11)(1 ;lddill\)llal p(Jrkin~ areas. As required hy Renton Municipal Code. the projcct \yill lre,!l tlIlt! lk\;iil1 its storJ11\\;ller as required prior 10 release into the ditch along Maple Vallev II,cl,\\ '" I SR-I6'J) that 11o\\'s to the Cedar RiveI', b. Ground Water: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or Will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, anci approximate quantities if known, Groundwater will not be \\ !lhdr~m'J1 hy the propos'lJ. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for exarnple 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, .. 6-02/08 \\'as(e ma(l."rial will IWI he di,dl;lrgcd illln Ille ground a~ the pn'.lccl will utilize public sanitary' sewer proyided h~ (L'ddr I{i\cr \\'alcr Jild Sc\\cr District. c. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method 01 collection and disposal. il any (include quantities. II known) Where will this water Ilow? Will this water flow into other waters. il so. describe? Additional runoff from tile l',\i;-,till~ condition will be generated from the ncwly paved areas and the proposed Ill'\\ huddlng, Runoff from the existing impro\,cments on the site is currently collected and l\llItl'd il' a stormwatcr hioswalc and stormwater pond located in the northcast arca of the :-.ill', In accI,xdance with Renton !\1unicipal Code_ the project will install new catchment :-.\:-.IC111,,> fnr the new building and new asphalt associated \vith the new parking areas, The IlC\\ Gltchmcnt systL"m \\ ill be routed to the stornnvatcr facility located at the njxlhc~l:-.I prJ.']KTty corner. which \\'ill be enlarged with the project to ac(;ol11mooate the additillll:il stnrm\\'atcr wilh water quality and detention meeting Renton Codc requirCI1lClll." 2) Could waste material enter ground or surface waters? If so. generally deSCribe. The ne\\' parking area is <l plllllltillll-gcncraling irnpen iOlls surfa(;c, huwcycr. this will be collected and routed In 1111.' :-.1(lrTl1\\atcr facility. which \\'ill pro\'idc watcr quality (;onsislcnl with current L'tldcs rll"\(lf il) rdc(lsc into surface waters. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface. ground. and runoff water impacts. il any: The enlarged stonllv,;atcr Llcilil." :11 the northeast property corner will accommodate the drainage from the existillg hllilding and p'-lrking area as well as the ne\v building and parking area to providL' \\ aler lJuality and detention in accordance \\lith Renton requirements. 4. PLANTS a. Check or circle types 01 vegetation found on the site: X deciduous tree: alder. maple aspen. other -X evergreen tree: lir. cedar. pine. other -X shrubs X grass pasture crop or grain X wet soil plants: cattail. buttercup. bullrush. skunk cabbage. other water plants: water Illy. eel grass. mlifoil. other __ other types 01 vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetatloll will be removed or altered? Grass and trees \\,ill be rl'nlln'l..'d It) :lccol11modate the new parking area and the relocated play area. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. No threatened or endanglTl'd Illililt ~p('cics are known to existing on site. 02/08 d. Proposed landscaping. usc of native plants. or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any The hufkr of T\·ladscn ('rl..'l'K \\ )1) be enhanced \\'Ith Ihl' prnjl'CL adding nati\c plant species and hahitat. 5. ANIMALS a. Circle any birds and anirnals. which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site Birds: hawk, heron, eagle. ~ongb"ds], other ________ _ Mammals: b~ij, bear, elk, beaver. other -'.r"'o"d"e"'nt"'s'---_____ _ Fish: bass, salmon, trout. herring, shellfish, other ______ _ b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. No threatened or endangered <lllllll(lj species ~trc known to existing nn site_ c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain The sile may lie within the PacjllC J-"Iy\\'ay for migratory hirds. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, If any: The enhanccment of MalLl'll Creek huffers will increase hahi"'l 1(" wildliJi.:. 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. The new church will lise eledrieil), for hcaling, cooling. lighling. appliances. If available. natural gas may als!') be u.:'C'd for heating. cooling. and small appliances. b. Would your project affect the potenlial use of solar energy by adlacent properties? If so, generally describe. No effect on solar usc \\"111 rc..-ult j~)nll the project. c. What kinds of energy conserv311on features are included in the plans of thiS proposal? List other proposed measures 10 reduce or control energy impacts. if any: The project will compl~ \\ illl \\",lshington Siale energy requirements for g:lazing. insulation, etc. 7, ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion. spill. or ha7ardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. No. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. 02/08 No special emergency' SlT\ 1((::--;11\.' l':xpcetcd. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control enVIronmental health hazards. if any: !\'o eJl\"lronmcntal health h<l/ard~ \\ III rcsuli from [he projccl. sn (his itclll dncs not appJy. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic. equipment, operation, other)? Existing noise is primaril) l'OIll SR-169 (trucks and trartie). but the noise is not expected to elfect the proposal. 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 corne from the site. During construction m;lchincry nnises from diesel equipment back up beepers. and construction activities will increase noise oyer existing conditions on <:I tcmpor<:lry basis. After construction is complete. )wise will return to existing Jeyc\s. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts. if any: Constnlction will occur during i111dwcd periods as dictated by Renton codes. 8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The site is currently deyclnpcd \\"ill1 church and school facilities and associated parking and play areas. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. Prior fam1ing included hay production and dairy more than 20 years ago. c. Describe any structures on the site. There is a large church bllildll1~. sc\-eral portahle offices. a pump house. alld t\n) hridg~s on silc (one for pedestrian lISl' :Illd nne for yehicular use). d. Will any structures be demolished? If so. what? The pump house will be IL'IlHltiL'lcd and the Ych,elll"r bridge \\'ill be demolished ond reconstructed. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? R-14odRC I. What is the current comprehenSive plan designation of the site? RMD ""d RLD g. II applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? 11706,U09,d~lC 9· 02/08 Not applicable h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so. specify '{(,So the site contains rcgub\cd :-;lCql slopes (which are also c1nssificd landslide hazards. erosion hazards. and sei:"1llic h'J/ilrds). wetlands. and IV1adscn Creek. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Approximately 25 to 30 11l'oplc \\ ill be employed on the site. J. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: This item does not appl). I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans. if any: The structure is pla<..:cJ and nricl1tcd so that it is no impact to adjacent uses or 10 the public. The new structure and associated parking. landscaping. and stonnwatcr improvements comply 'VI ith City cndes. 9. HOUSING a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high. middle. or low-income housing. None. b. Approximately how many units. If any. would be eliminated? Indicate whether high. middle. or low-income hOUSing. None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts. if any: None. 10. AESTHETICS a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s). not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building materlal!s) proposed. Approximately 38 feet. b. What views in the immediate vicinily would be altered or obstructed? None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts. if any: I 1706.00Y.doc 10· 02108 The structure is placed Lind (lri\"'l1tu.i so til;]t it is no impact to adjacent lIses or to the public. New lanclscapino and the enhancement of the l\1albcn Creek burrer will impn)\c the aesthetic appearance (,fth\,.' "ill' !'rom public streels. 11. LIGHT AND GLARE a. What type of light or glare Will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Parking lot and building li~htillg i~ proposed. which will be \'lsible during evening hours. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? Site and building lighting \\'111 not impact views. c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? No ()n~sitc light sources \I til Impact the proposal. d Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: light shed will be kept on-sill.' ,lInd within Renton requirements. 12. RECREATION a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? The Cedar River Trail rUlls "I<lllt' SR-169 north of the site. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so. describe. No. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be proVided by the project or applicant, if any: None. on-site age appn)priatl' rl'lTcational facilities arc pro\'idcd for students and church patrons. 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. There arc no known listed pldces or objects on the site. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific. or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. There are no known 1'"lllm,,,Ks of historic. archaeological. scientific. or cultural importance on the site. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: None. 11706.009.doc ~ 11 -02108 14. TRANSPORTATION a. Identify public streets and hiqhways serving the site. and describe proposed access to the existing street system Show on site plans. if any. The sile is serwd hy SR·I {il 'lild I '1nd !\\cnue S.E. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not. what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Yes. public transit lnnTb l'lI SR 1 (l9. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? The site will IUl\e 898 Inial parklllg slalls. including 299 new stalls and 599 existing stalls. 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 ncw streets are required. Imj11\)\"ements to 152nd Avenue S.E. will be provided as required. The appli<.:<ml h,]:-; rl'LJLll'~led a wai\"cr for frontage improvements on SR-169. if thai is denied frontage imp""""lcilts al,,' will be constructed on SR-169. SR-169 improvements will in\"(lI\L' in:-.[,!llatinn of pipes exceeding 12-inches in diameter and unavoidable impacts to crllle,,1 "rcas and·or huffers that will be mitigated consislel1l with City codes as rcqlllrcd. e. Will the prOject use (or occur In Ihe Immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. Transpo_ the applicant's l!"llli-.: L'!l!-:,incer determined that the church currently generales an average of approxinull'" .jS Irips during the weekday PM peak hour and approximalely 375 Irips dll"Jl~ Ik Sunday peak hour. Transpo determined thai the new church huilding would gl'llcr;l1l' ~lpproximatcl:.' 17 net new PM peak hour trips and 146 net nev.' Sunday peak hOllr trip~. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: The apphcanl will pa\ required Iraflic impaci fees. construcl required frontage improvements. and imprll\\_' the eXisting dri\'eways to the site. 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. I 1706.009.do( Public fire, emergency, ~llld pnllec services exist for the site, so no increased need lS expecled. . 12· 02/08 , b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct Impacts on public services. if any. PHymcnt oftrnflic mitig:llillil !l.'L':-; ;1110 CO])r~lrmallCC tl1 City codes. 16. UTILITIES a. Circle utilities currently available at the site [elecJricilii. ~atural gasl, ~, Irefuse servicEj, ~elephon~, b'f1it"rl'sewer septic system, 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 vicinity which might be needed. Utilities will be instalkd "11 ,ito I water. se\\'er. and storm mains) and off-site (storm mains -if required) to Include pipes exceeding 12-inches in diameter. If impacts to critical areas result on or (ltl-silC from utility installations the impacts will be mitigated consistent \,..,ilh City codes. C, SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non-significance that it might issue in reliance upon thiS checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part Proponent: ' __ .~)~~A~·~~-~t,_i~f_J~f_)~ ______ _ Name Printed: Ivana Halvorsen, UaJ:gh~lllscn Consulting Engineers. Inc. Date: I J 706.00l}.Joc . 13 -02108 • LEGAL DESCRIPTION Ir, tIle matte;' c:f the flat: ,;\11'i1 t t~ j exaiTlillt:d ~ fit-' r-f'C(}YclS of the (",lltl':" ; ,)r -lour a.pprova], this Comvany J1ClG :di~or aud C'ocnt"/ C1erk of King Count~/, ~':i,shirJ,~tcn, anc! r.he !f cer-de;: ('t the Clerk ot the: UniLed States C'--~'ll:.~; hnldjL~~ ten-ns in sajr: ",-,lnt/ and :-rom '~u('h examinat~1on hereby cert:1fic,; that ac'~'oIdinq to -·:id !-('(":~rds Lr.e title to th~ fo110, ..... '.1n9 described 1 ;:nld: TIEl\. [_'JI' ien c:' the ·~ ... e.s: '::'8\,'I,s11.. p ::3 \I( . rr: i'-ing so-u~h(': "1 Valley Hjgh'.~I,:;y; of tIlE: southwest one-quarter of !. 1nqe 5 East, W.M., tIle GCuL~l !nargirl of in King County, the Renton Maple F.XC:;;:c.;T thtlt c::-",rt io;-] of ;;.,1:::: \ ..... ;-ene-half, de.:;crjbed as follows: BC'Sjinnj)-,q at the i_nte~'s~·~,t (;f :,he ",,:est ]i1':c of said Section 23, "11th the Goutl' lllal'gin 01 '~·~,Ji !iir:!llwdl'; :-hrr.cf' ~'Cl.:t~) ?S'.j:;'CC'· (.,,;~ t,lc-rl':; ~;<-::'1[j margin, 390.27 feet to an c'xist i 1.9 te:l(,(~; the-Ilee sc:mt!, l:'''G-:''lS" ,\,: .. ,~-;. t.h.Cf.l.t:-!;crLh 7!i';';:;:' 00" "'J-.J'_. thenc,=, ~~,YL:::h i ~'.L~ roo" ' .. ." 'secL:lJli ;;.~; th~::r.::::e !')Ol-th 02 c 08 -:5" f',L' t lH'; .uoi lH of bcr]ir.n __ i.:19; }\NC J::XCE';T :.h? biGt ;:0 f( iC'> r;aici fence, 1010.22 feet; .UO feetj :~<1 fpel to :he ",,'est .line ot said i('I[e sa::.d wpst line, 13)3.65 feet to !-~ nOl~Lhwest quarter of the Maple Valley Jiig!l~OY, ur::.der Record i llg Numbe~' :--\ (":']'::)1 23 Jyin9 southerly of the Renton- ("';1\-( ',·d to King County by deed re\:orded AND EXCEPT th.lt pOl·t j on .--,;3 d,:ukd to King Counl.y by Recording Number-: ~:(j(J:104]C) , ... ':F f:':'('-:.i ::-'0 the State of Washjngton by R~cording Number 930)312~~;· ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :3 ~ ~ :3 ~ :8 ~ :3 ~ :8 :e :!8 ~ ~ ~ ~ < 11. " v LflSlJRf WATES IfIP IfIP MAP q 656 a. <C ::E > " .... -Z -0 -> + 1 in, -1900 ft. i ;::. ~-"I ---I i r--"----'-_J i i : I j ; , I Ii i! r .i j i i I [ ! i I SITE i __ ~j-------\\ I 23-23-05 SW <c .. "'00'; + ""''''"'' ... "","",,,,,,,, 1--- ") ... '., ----- ~'. ~ ----- ~ ~I ~ ~i , ! I II ~ ~~ 1I12,571.DIIIEkuEWLJ1\. '''''-, WA """" :<2!)151_"'" :'21110'-S7!1'''' , I .. , ..... "" -, r', , , i, I! Ii II I! 'I il :3.1 v ----- NEWLFEC~ lS7t1152ND A\IB\lIE SE. RENTON, WA. 98058 "" Pf'EL.IMNARY Dt.CENSIOI'B) SITE PLAN FOR NEW LIFE CHURCH '~ ; "~ .... --:'~- , i "'0 :D m r !: z » ~ g s:: m z !;Q 0 z m 0 en irl "'0 ( \.:: I, Z II 0 ~ () I lc :J ::;I Ie i I~ < '-- '--- • . . , .; III , I i' , t ! i~ ! , L f~ ;:~ ::1 I" I j , .. § "I i mp ... " 1;:.- 0,,+:0" i ,. f , ~I, > ~ , 5 , ~ ., ~ l , Q " c 0 0 r:L < ~ " ~ < " 0 • , , A , 0 0 0 c -~ : 0 , L ~ < , ' ! \ C) SOIL SURVEY King County Area Washington UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Soil Conservation Service in cooperation with WASHINGTON AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Issued November 1973 , '0; S bl:rARTNF,NT OF Af''''O;L Tl'IlE "-OIL o:o."SI:RVAnON ~bll~I~E ~Il~:r NO" ',",,,...-." ."'''','', ~" ........ ,. .. New Life Church Soil Survey Excerpt BCE # 11706 • - "··:,l''';'lH ~ 40 40 ).. l4J ..J ..J ~ ~~VJ:ir~ l4J !::;::==::;;:::;:)~ '.:( ~ ( C) SoiL CONSERVATION SERVICE I SOIL LEGEND The flna capitol letter is the InijjQ! 008 of the soil name, A second capitol lette.-, A, B, C, Of E, QI" F, Indicates the closs of slopll. Symbols without a slope Iel'1llr ore those of nearly level soil". SYMBOL NAME AgB AldiWWood gravelly "(Indy loam, 0 to 6 percent slop.s Age Alderwood gravelly sondy loam, 6 to 15 ~feent slopes AgD Alderwood g('Qveliy sandy loam, 15 to 30 pereent sl~s AkF AlderwOod and Kitsop soils, very steep ArnB kents, AldefWood m<Jleriol, 0 to 6 percent slopes * Arne Ar9nts, AldefWood m<lterlol, 6 to 15 percent slopes * An Arent's, Everett motel'"io'* BeC BeD 0." Bh B, "" Cb Beauslt. gravelly sandy loam, 6 to 15 percent .I~s Beausite gI'(Iveliy s{mdy_lO<Jm, 15 to 30 pen::ent slope.s B ... ~It.!" gf,:j".",I:,. ~" .. J~ :';;';';,;, ~'C ,':"-7!: I--"..:: .. ,!,; .;I .... ~~ Bellingham slit loom Brisco! silt loom Buckley slit loom Coastal Beoches Eo Eorlcnont $111 loam Ed Edgewlck fine $ondy 100m Eve -E ....... u gro .... lly sondy loom, Oto 5 perc:ent slopes Eve E ... erett gravelly sondy loam,S to 15 per-<:ent slopes EvD E'fflretr gro ... elly sondy loam, 15 to 30 ~cent dopes Ewe Evece-H-Aiderwood gravelly sondy 1000ms, 6 "to 15 percent slopes InA Indloncila-loamy fine sand, 0 to 4 pel"Cent slopes InC Indianola loamy fine sand, 4 to 15 per<:ent slopes InO Indianola loomy fine sand, 15 to 30 percent slopes KpB KpC KpD K.C NeC :>N. Nk No '" a. ovc OvD OvF Po Pk p" ;>Py Rae RaD Rde RdE R. Rh Sa Sh Sk Sm So Sa 5< Sa Kltsap silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes Kltsop silt loom, 8 to 15 percenl slope, Kltsap silt loom, 151030 percent slopes KIQUS gtavelly loamy sand, 6 to 15 percent slopes Mixed olluvlal land Neilton ...... y grovelly loomy sand, 2 to 15 ~ent ~Iopes Newb&g ,lit lao;zrn Nooksock silt 100m Norma sondy loom Orcas peat Qrldia silt loom Ovoll grove-liy loom, 0 to 15 percent ,lopes ()va.1I grovelly loam, 15 to 25 percent ,Japes Ovol! gravelly loom, 40 to 75 perce~t slopes Pilchuck loamy fine sood Pilchuck flM 1I0MY loom Puger silly doy loam Puyollup fine sandy loam Rognar fine sandy loom, 6 to 15 percent slopes RognQl" fine tondy loom, 15 fo 25 peccent slopes RognQl"·lnclianola association, sloping. Rognar·lndlanolo oS5ociation, moderately steep" R ... ntOn silt loom RI .... rwosh 5010111111 loom Sommom/st-. silt loom Seo1tIe muck ShcllCQr muck SI silt. loam Snohomish silt loam Sn-ohomlt:h slit loom, thick "Surface vO(IQnt SuItQtl slit loam Til Tukwila muck t.k Urban Jand Wo Woodlnvll.1e silt loom .. n.. .composltlon of thu. units is more ... arJabl. than that of 1M othen In tIM ar.a. w.·tt ha bHn controlled _II e~ to infw1JnIt far 1M ~t.d use of til. soils. KINti WUN I r At<tA, e s • n are 0 to 1 percent. The ~1 precipitation is 3S to 5S inches, and the mean annual air temperature 's about 50 0 F. The frost-free season is about 190 days. Elevations range from 10 to 650 feet. In a representative profile, the soil is dorni nantly mottled dark grayish-brown and grayish-b silty clay loam to a depth of about 4S inches. substratum is gray silty clay that extends to depth of 60 inches or more. Puget soils are used for row crops Puget silty clay loam (Pu) .--Puget soils nearly round or elongated tracts that rang to 110 acres in size. Slopes are less th per- cent. Representative profile of Puget silty clay loam, in pasture, 800 feet east of the west q rter corner of sec. 21, T. 2S N., R. 7 E.: All--O to 1 inch, very dark grayish-b (2.5Y 3/2) silt loam, grayish brown (10YR /2) dry; mod- erate, thin. platy structure; ard, firm, slightly sticky, slightly pIa tic, many roots; medium acid; abrupt, smooth oundary, 1 to 2 inches thick. A12--1 to 7 inches, dark grayish- sil ty clay loam, light gra CORlllon, fine, prominent, rk-brown (7,SYR 4/4) mottles; moderate, v ry coarse, prismatic structure; hard, firm, s icky, plasticj many roots; medium acid; cle , smooth boundary, 5 to 7 inches thick. 821g--7 to 17 inches, dark g ayish-brown (2.5Y 4/2) silty clay loam, ligh gray (2.SY 7/2) dry; common, medium, prom' ent, strong-brown (7.SYR 5/6, 5/8) mottles; derate, medium, prismatic structure; hard, fi , sticky, pla~tic; many roots; slightly ac· ; clear, smooth boundary. 5 to 12 inches th' k. 822g--17 to 25 inches, ayish-brown (2.5Y 5/2) silty clay loam, light olive gray (5Y 6/2) dry; many, medium, p minent, yellowish-red (SYR 5/8, 4/8) mottl s; strong, very coarse, pris- matic structur ; very hard, firm, sticky, roots; slightly acid; abrupt, smooth bound 6 to 12 inches thick. 823g--25 to 26 1/2 inches, dark-gray (5Y 4/1) medium sand, light grayish brown (2.5Y 6/2) dry; few, medium, pr inent, yellowish-red (5YR 5/8) mottles; 5 ngle grain; loose, nonsticky, non- plastic; ew roots; slightly acid; abrupt, smooth b ndary. I to 2 inches th iek . 824g--26 1/2 31 inches, grayish-brown (2.SY 5/2) silty cay loam, light gray (5Y 7/2) dry; many, medium prominent, yellowish-brown (IOYR 3/6) motU ; moderate, medhun, angular b stru ure; hard, firm, sticky, plast root; meditun acid; abrupt, wavy bc>un.da~ to inches thick. B25g--31 040 inches, grayish-brown (2.5Y 5/2) 24 si ty clay loam, light gray (5Y 7/1) dry; com- n, fine, prominent, yellow, brownish-yellow OYR 7/6,6/6), and strong-brown (7.5YR 5/8) mott_~~; strong, very coarse, prismatic strm ture; hard, firm, sticky, plastic; few root medium acid; clear J smooth. boundary. 8 to 10 inches thick. Clg--40 to 45 inches, greenish-gray (5GY 5 il t~ clay loam, light gray (5Y 7/1) dry; , ... don, /6) fine, prominent, strong-brown (7.5YR mottles; massive; hard, firm, stick, plastit medium acid; clear, smooth bounda 4 to 6 inches thick. C2g--45 to 60 inches, gray (5Y 5/1) Ity clay, light gray (5Y 7/1) dry; few, dium, promi- nent, yellowish-red (SYR 4/ , 5/8) mottles, yellowish brown (IOYR 5/8) ary; and common, mediUDl t distinct, light ive-brown (2.SY 5/1 mottles, light yellowis brown (2.5Y 6/4) d~ massive; very hard. r J sticky, plastic; medim acid. The A horizon ranges loam, The B horizon stratified with silt rom s i I ty clay loam to s i: dominantly silty clay loam oam, silty clay, and fine sand. Some areas map d are up to 10 percent inclusiol of Woodinville d Snohomish soils. Permeabilit is slow. The seasonal high water table is at near the surface. In drained areas. roots penet te with difficulty to a depth of 60 inches or reo In undrained areas the effective rooting pth is restricted. The available water is high. Rtmoff is slow to .ponded, and tI hazard is slight. Stream overflow is a se· azard. is soil is used for row crops and pasture. pability unit IIIw-2; woodland group 3w2' Puyallup Series The Puyallup series is made up of well~drained soils that formed in alluvium, under grass, hard- woods, and conifers. These soils are on the nature levees adjacent to streams in the river valleys. Slopes are 0 to 2 percent. The annual precipitatic is 3S to 60 inches, and the mean annual air temper. ature is about 50° F. The frost-free season range~ from 160 to 200 days. Elevation ranges from 20 to 500 feet. In a representative profile, v~ry dark grayish.- brown and dark grayish-brown fine sandy loam and very fine sandy loam extend to a depth of about 34 inches. The substratum, at a depth of 60 inches 0] more, is very dark grayish-brown, dark grayish- brown, and dark-brown medilDD sand, loamy sandt and sand. Puyallup soils are used mostly for row crops an( pasture. They are among the soils that are well suit-ed to fanning. Urban development is occurring many areas. Puyallup fine sandy loam (PyJ. --This nearly lev, soil is on natural levees in the valley bottoms. Areas are long and narrow or somewhat rounded and I I ) range from 2 to about SO a s in size. Slopes are less than 2 percent and are Slightly convex. Representative profile of Puyallup fine sandy loam, in pasture, 1,030 feet east and 1,000 feet north of center of sec. 21, T. 21 N., R. 5 E.; All--0 to 8 inches, very dark grayish-brown (lOYR 3/2) fine sandy loam, brown (IOYR 3/3) dry; weak, fine, granular structure; soft, very friable, nonsticky, nonplastic; many roots; neutral; clear, smooth boundary. 6 to 10 inches thick. AI2--8 to 14 inches, very dark grayish-brown (IOYR 3/2) very fine sandy loam, brown (IOYR 5/3) dry; moderate, medium and coarse, granular structure; soft, very friable, slightly sticky, slightly plastic; many roots; neutral; abrupt, smooth boundary. 4 to 8 inches th i ck . CI--14 to 34 inches, dark grayish-brown (IOYR 4/2) very fine sandy loam, brown (IOYR 5/3) dry; weak, medium, platy structure; SlightlY hard, very friable, slightly sticky, slightlY plas- tic; many roots; s lightly acid; abrupt, wavy boundary. 18 to 24 inches thick. C2--34 to 45 inches, very dark grayish-brown and dark grayish-brown (IOYR 4/2 and 3/2) medium sand, grayish brown (IOYR 5/2) dry; single grain; loose, nonsticky, nonplastic; plentiful roots; neutral; gradual, smooth boundary. 9 to 13 inches thick. C3--45 to 51 inches, dark-brown (lOYR 3/3) loamy sand, brown (lOYR 5/3) dry; massive; soft, very friable, nonsticky, nonplastic; few roots; Slightly acid. 4 to 7 inches thick. C4--51 to 60 inches, dark grayish-brown (2.SY 4/2) sand, dark gray and gray (IOYR 4/1 and 6/1) dry; single grain; loose, nonsticky, nonplas- -tic; few roots; neutral. • The A horizon ranges from very dark grayish brown to very dark brown and from fine sandy loam to very fine sandy loam and silt loam. The C horizon ranges from very dark grayish brown to olive brown. The upper part of the C horizon is dominantly very fine sandy loam. Commonly layers of sand, fine sand, and loamy fine sand are in the lower part of the C horizon. Mottles occur below a depth of 30 to 40 inches in places. Some areas are up to 15 percent inclusions of Briscot, Newberg, Nooksack, Oridia, and Renton soils; and some are up to 10 percent the poorly drained Woodinville and Puget soils. Penneabili ty is moderately rapid. The effective rooting depth is 60 inches or more. The seasonal water table is at a depth of 4 to 5 feet. Available water capacity is moderately high. Runoff is slow, and the erosion hazard is slight. Stream overflow is a slight to severe hazard, depending on the amount of flood protection provided. This soil is used for row crops and pasture and for urban development, Capability unit IIw-l; wood- land group 201, Ragnar Series The Ragnar series is made up of well-drain , gently sloping to strongly rolling soils on d'ssec- ted glacial outwash terraces. The vegetatio mostly conifers. Slopes are 2 to 2S percent annual precipitation is 3S to 65 inches, an mean annual air temperature is about 50° F. The frost-free season is 150 to 210 days. Ele ation ranges from 300 to 1,000 feet. In a representative profile, very dark grayish- brown, dark yellowish-hrown, and yellowi -brown fine sandy loam extends to a depth of ut 27 inches. The substratum is olive-brown It extends to a depth of 60 inches or Ragnar soils are used for timber development, Ragnar fine sandy loam, 6 to 15 (RaC).--This undulating to rolling glacial terraces. It is in irregu tracts that range from 5 to more size. es in Representati ve profile of Rag loam, 6 to IS percent slopes, i north and 230 feet east of the ar fine sandy 300 feet sec. 3, T. 21 N., R. 5 E.: 01--1 1/2 inches to 0, black IOYR 2/1) leaves and tWigs; abundant roots; rupt, smooth bound- ary, I to 2 inches thi k. AI--O to 4 inches, very dar grayish-brown (IOYR 3/2) and very dark-g. y (lOYR 3/1) fine sandy loam, grayish brown 10YR 5/2) dry; massive; Slightly hard, very friable, nonsticky, non- plastic; many root ; medium acid; abrupt, way} boundary. 3 to 9 nches thick. B21--4 to 17 inches, da yellowish-brown (IOYR 4/4) and yellowish-b (lOYR 5/6) fine sandy loaD brown (lOYR 5/3) dry; massive; slightly hard, very friable, n sticky~ nonplastic; many roots; medium id; clear, smooth boundary. 5 to 13 inches ick. B22--17 to 27 inche , yellowish-brown (lOYR 5/4) fine sandy I , brown (IOYR 5/3) dry; massive slightly har , very friable, nonstickYJ non- plastic; co on roots; medium acid; clear, smooth bo ary. 6 to 12 inches thick. IIC--27 to 60 in es, olive-brown (2.5Y 4/4) loamy sand, yel owish brown (IOYR 5/4) dry; massive; soft, ve friable J nonsticky, nonplastic; very few roots; medium acid. Material similar to this orizon extends downward many feet and has n rous, very thick silty layers. The A hor zan ranges from black to very dark grayish bro n. The B horizon is sandy loam and fine sandy loam hat is dark yellowish brown to brown. The lIe h izon, below a depth of 20 inches, is very dark gray sh brown to olive brown. Lenses of loam and silt oam occur below a depth of 36 to 40 inches in many laces. Anyone horizon can be as much as IS perc nt gravel. 2S I. 50 0 F. days. feet. The frost-free season es from 145 to Elevation ranges from about sea level to In a representative profile J the soil is brown and dark yellowish-brown very gravelly 6sand to a depth of about 18 inches ~ The sub- Istratum is dark grayish-brown very gravelly a depth of 60 inches and more. Neilton soils are used for timber and for development. slopes in irregularly shaped areas that to about 200 acres in size. Representative profile of Neilton loamy sand, 2 to IS percent slopes, in 1,100 feet east and 150 feet north of corner of sec. 28, T. 21 N. ~ R. 5 E.: southwest 01--1 to 1/8 inch, undecomposed abrupt, smooth boundary. I c matter; 2 inches thick. 02--1/8 inch to 0, black (IOYR 2/ decomposed organic matter. 1/8 to 1/4 thick. 821ir--O to 6 inches, dark-brown 3/3) very gravelly loamy sand, brown 5/3) dry; massive; soft, very , nonsticky. non- plastic; many roots; ly acid; clear, smooth boundary. 6 to thick. B22ir··6 to 18 inches, dark lowish-brown (lOYR 3/4) very gravelly sand, yellowish brown (IOYR 5/4) dry; soft, very friable, nonsticky, n:n~;~;t~tn~~,:;'~n roots; mediwn acid; abrupt, wavy 10 to 14 inches thick. IIC--18 to 60 inches, very gravelly 6/2) dry; single plastic; few ) grayish-brown (2.SY 4/2) light brownish gray (2.SY ain; loose, nonsticky, nOfi- ; medium acid (pH 5.6) . Many feet thick . brown to dark IC horizon ranges from gray- brown. this soil in mapping make up The B horizon yellowish brown. ish brown to dark Soils included nO more than 2S pelec,mt of the total acreage. Some areas are up to Alderwood soils, on the more rolling ~:;:~~~:;.~, parts of the landscape; some are about '1 deep, sandy Indianola soils; some percent the poorly drained Noma soils' areas are about 1 percent the poorly draine'1 Seattle soils in depressions; and some are up 20 percent Everett very gravelly sandy loam. is very rapid. The effective root- ing depth inches and more. The available water cap~c.<y is low. Runoff is slow to medium, and the etosion hazard is slight to moderate. This 1 is used for timber and for urban devel- Capability unit VIs-I; woodland group 3f3. Newberg Series Newberg series is made up of well-drained that formed in alluvium in the stream valleys, under grass, h 'oods, and c ifers. Slopes are 0 to 2 percent. The annual pre ipitation is 3S to 45 inches, and the mean annual ir temperature is about 50 0 F. The frost-free seas is about 200 days. Elevation ranges from aboll sea level to 500 feet. In a representative pro ile~ the surface layer is very dark grayish-brown 5 It loam and very fine sandy loam about 20 inch 5 thick. It is underlain, to a depth of 60 inches or more, by stratified very fine sandy loam, loamy very fine sand) loamy sand~ and silt loam. Newberg soils are used for row crops and are among the best soils in the Area for that use. They also used for pasture and for urban development. Newberg silt loam (Ng).--This soil is in long, narrow areas that range from 5 to more than 10"0 acres in size. Slopes are less than 2 percent and are mostly convex. Representative _profile of cultivated Newberg silt loam) sao feet west and 575 feet north of the east quarter corner of sec. 36, T. 23 N., R. 4 E.; Ap--O to 10 inches, very dark grayish-brown (IOYR 3/2) silt loam, grayish brown (IOYR 5/2) dry; moderate, fine, granular structure; slightly hard, friable, slightly sticky, slightly plastic; many roots; medium acid; abrupt, smooth boundary. 8 to 10 inches thick. AI--IO to 20 inches, very dark grayish-brown (IOYR 3/2) very fine sandy loam, grayish brown (IOYR 5/2) dry; massive; soft, very friable, non- sticky, nonplastic; common roots; Slightly acid; clear, smooth boundary. 9 to 12 inches thick. CI--20 to 36 inches, very dark grayish-brown (IOYR 3/2) and dark grayish-brown (2_5Y 4/2) very fine sandy loam and loamy very fine sand, grayish brown (IOYR 4/2) dry; massive; soft, very friable, nonsticky, nonplastic; common roots; neutral; abrupt, wavy boundary. 12 to 16 inches thick. C2--36 to 46 inches, dark grayish-brown (2.5Y 4/2) and gray (5Y 5/1) very fine sandy loam, light brownish gray (2.SY 6/2) dry; common, large, prominent, strong-brown (7.5YR 5/6 and 5/8) mottles; massive; soft, ve~ friable J non- stickYJ nonplastic; common roots; neutral; abrupt J wavy boundary. 10 to 13 inches thick. C3-·46 to 47 inches, dark grayish-brown (2.SY 4/2), yellOWish-brown (IOYR 5/4), yellowish-red (5YR 4/6), and dark reddish-brown (5YR 3/3) loamy sand and silt loam, light gray (2.5Y 7/0), reddish brown (SYR 4/4), and yellowish red (5YR 4/8) dry; massive; very hard) very fri- able to very firm, slightly sticky, slightly plastic; few roots; neutral; abrupt, wavy boundary. 1 to 2 inches thick. C4--47 to 60 inches, gray (5Y 5/1) very fine sandy loam, light gray (SY 7/1) dry; many, fine, prominent, yellowish-brown (IOYR 5/4) mottles and few, fine, prominent, yellowish-red (SYR 4/8) and red (2.SYR 4/6) mottles, light yellow- ish brown (IOYR 6/4) and yellowish red (SYR 4/8) 19 dry; massive; slightly h very friable; nonsticky_ nonp~astic; few roots; neutral. The A horizon ranges from very dark grayish brown ~~ to _very dark brown. The C horizon consists of layers t ,of silt loam, very fine sandy loam, sandy loam, - -loamy sand. and sand; the thickness of each layer varies. MOttles occur at a depth below 30 to 40 inches in some places. Some areas are up to 25 or 30 percent inclusions of somewhat poorly drained Briscot, Oridia, and Wood- inville soils; and some are up to 10 percent the poorly drained Puget soils. Total inclusions do not exceed 30 percent. Pemeability is moderate. The effective rooting depth is 60 inches or more. A seasonal water tab Ie is at a depth of 3 to 4 feet in places. Available water capacity is high. RlUloff is slow, and the erosion hazard is slight. The hazard of stream over- flow is slight to severe, depending on the amount of flood protection provided. This soil is used mostly for row crops. Capabil- ity unit IIw-l; woodland group 201. Nooksack Series The Nooksack series is made up of well-drain d soils that formed in alluvium in river valleys under a cover of grass, conifers, and hardwoo s. Slopes are 0 to 2 percent. The annual preci tation is 35 to 55 inches, and the mean annual air ture is about 50° F. The frost-free seaso 190 days. Elevation ranges from about sea level to 500 feet. r--) In a representative profile, the soil is very , dark grayish-brown, dark grayish-brown, nd grayish- ",-brown silt loam to a depth of 60 inche or more. Nooksack soils are used for row cr s and pasture and for urban development. Nooksack silt loam (Nk).--This n level 50i1 is in long, narrow areas that rang 5 to about 300 acres in size. Slopes are Ie 2 percent. Representative profile of cuI vated Nooksack silt loam, 1,800 feet east and 5 0 feet south of the west quarter corner of sec. 4, • 24 N., R. 7 E.: Apl--O to 2 inches, very dark grayish-brown (IOYR 3/2) silt loam, grayis brown (IOYR 5/2) dry; few, f~ne, faint, dar yellowish-brown (IOYR 4/4) mottles; weak, in, platy structure; slightly hard, very riable, nonsticky. non- plastic; many root, slightly acid; abrupt, smooth boundary. to 3 inches thick. Ap2--2 to II inches, vey dark grayish-brown (IOYR 3/2) silt loam, rayish brown (IOYR 5/2) dry; weak, coarse, p ismatic structure; sligh tly hard, very fri Ie, nonsticky, nonplastic; common roots; lightly acid; abrupt, smooth boundary. 8 0 10 inches thick. 82--11 to 29 inche , dark grayish-brown (2.SY 4/2) silt loam, ight brownish gray (2.5Y 6/2) dry; weak. medi • prismatic structure and weak. medium, .ngular blocky structure; hard, friable, slightly sticky, slightly plasti cammon roots; medium acid; clear, boundary. 17 to 21 inches thick. Cl--29 to 42 inches, dark grayish-brown '~" and grayish-brown (2.5Y 5/2) silt loam , thin lenses of very fine sandy loam, I ght brownish gray (2.5Y 6/2) dry; massive slight- ly hard, very friable, nonst icky , no lastic; common roots; slightly acid; clear, moath boundary. 10 to 15 inches thick. C2--42 to 60 inches, grayish-brown (2.5Y 5/3) silt loam, light brownish gray (2.5Y 6 2) dry; massive; hard, friable, sticky, astic; com- mon roots; medium acid. The B and C horizons are mostly s"lt loam and very fine sandy loam and have lense of silty clay loam and fine sandy loam. The C h izon is dark grayish brown, grayish brown, or rk brown. Some areas are up to 5 percent included poorly drained Puget soils; and some ar 10 to 15 percent the somewhat poorly drained Ori ia and Briscot soils. Also included with this soil i mapping are areas of the poorly drained Woodinvi Ie silt loam and a few areas of a Woodinville si ty clay loam. Included soils make up no more than 1 percent of the total acreage. Permeabili ty is depth is 60 inches is at a depth of 3 water capacity is high. erosion hazard is sligh erate to severe hazard~ The effective rooting A seasonal water table in places. Available unoff is slow, and the Stream overflow is a mod- This soil is used f r row crops and pasture for urban development Capability unit IIw-l; land group 201. The Norma serie is made up of poorly drained soils that formed in alluvium, under sedges, grass, conifers, and ha dwoods. These soils are in basins on the glaciate uplands and in areas along the ·stream bottoms. Slopes are 0 to 2 percent. The annual precipi ation is 3S to 60 inches, and the mean annual a·r temperature is about 50° F. The frost-free s ason is 150 to 200 days. Elevation ranges from bout sea level to 600 feet. In a rep esentative profile, the surface layer is black sand loam about 10 inches thick. The subsoil is dark g ayish-brown and dark-gray sandy loam and a depth of 60 inches or more. soils are used mainly for pasture. If they are used for row crops. a sandy loam (No)~--This soil occurs as strips 2S 300 feet wide. Slopes are less than 2 percent. Area are level or concave and range from 1 to about 100 acres in size. epresentative profile of Norma sandy loam, in a ture, 725 feet east and 50 feet north of the s uth quarter corner of sec. 31, T. 20 N., R. E. : • ( If drained, this soil is u for row crops. It is also used for pasture. Capaoility unit IIw-3; no woodland classification. Urban Land Urban land (Ur) is soil that has been modi ned by disturbance of the natural layers with additions of fill material several feet thick to accommodate large industrial and housing installations. In the Green River Valley the fill ranges from about 3 to more than 12 feet in thickness, and from gravelly sandy loam to gravelly loam in texture. The erosion hazard is Slight to moderate. No capability or woodland classification. Woodinville Series The Woodinville series is made up of n and gently undulating, poorly drained so' arly level s that formed under grass and sedges, in alluvi J on stream bottoms. Slopes are 0 to 2 percent. e annual precipitation ranges from 35 to SS in es, and the mean annual air temperature is about 5 0 F. The frost-free season is about 190 days. Elevation ranges from about sea level to about 85 feet. In a representative profile, gra silt loam, silty clay loam, and layers of peat muck extend to a depth of about 38 inches. This s underlain by greenish-gray silt loam that exte ds to a depth of 60 inches and more. Woodinville soils are and urban development. row crops, pasture, f ) Woodinville silt loam (Wo) _ -This soil is in elon- "-_ gated and blocky shaped areas that range from 5 to nearly 30.0 acres in size. I is nearly le.el and gently undulating. Slopes e less than 2 percent. Representative profile 0 Woodinville silt loam 3 in pasture J 13700 feet sou h and 400 feet wes t of the north quarter f sec. 6, T. 2S N., R. 7 E. : Apl--O to 3 inches, gra (5Y 5/1) silt loam, grayish brown (IOYR 5/2) ry; common, fine, prominent, dark reddish-bro (5YR 3/4) and reddish-brown (SYR 5/4) mottl 5; moderate, medium, crumb structure; ha ,friable, sticky, plastic; many fine roo ; medium acid; clear, smooth boundary. 2 0 4 inches thick. Ap2--3 to 8 iJ ',gray (5Y 5/1) silty, light brownish gray (2.5Y 6/2) d ; many, fine, prominent, dark reddish-b (5YR 3/3 and 3/4) mottles and common, fi e, prominent mottles of strong brown (7.5YR 5/6) and T dish yellow (7.5YR 6/6) dry; oderate, 1 and very fine, angu~ar blocky structure; hard, friable, sticky, plastic; co on fine roots; medium acid; abrupt, wavy bo ndary. 4 to 6 inches thick. B21g--8 to 38 inches, gray (5Y 51 ) silty clay loam, gray (SY 6/1) dry; common, fine, prominent, brown (7.5YR 4/4) mottles d medium, promi- nent mottles of brownish ellow (lOYR 6/6) dry; 25 percent of matrix is enses of very dark brown (lOYR 2/2) and dar yellowish-brown (lOYR 3/4) peaty muck, rown (7.5YR 4/2) dry; massive; hard, fim_, 5 'cky, plastic; few fine roots; medium. acid; cl ar, smooth bOWldary. 30 to 40 inches thick B22g--38 to 60 inches, gree ish-gray (5BG 5/1) silt loam, gray (SY 6/1) ryj few, fine, prominent mottles of brownish el10w (lOYR 6/6) dry; massive; hard, very friable, slightly sticky, slightly plastic; rongly acid. The A horizon ranges from dark grayish brown to gray and from silt 10 to silty clay loam, The 8 horizon ranges from gr y and grayish brown to olive gray and greenish gra and from silty clay loam to· silt loam. In places there are thin lenses of very fine sandy loam and oarny fine sand. Peaty lenses are common in the B arizon. These lenses are thin, and their combined ickness, between depths. of 10 and 40 inches, doe not exceed 10 inches. Soils included ith this soil in mapping ma} cent of the total acreage. ..c areas percent Puget soils; some are up to 10 percent Sn omish soils; and some areas are up to 10 percent Or dia, Briscot, Puyallup, Newberg, and Nooksack so 15. Permeabilit is moderately slow. There is a sea- sonal high wat r table at or near the surface. In drained areas the effective rooting depth is 60 inches or mor. In undrained areas, rooting dep~h is restricte. The available water capacity is high__ is slow, and the hazard of erosion is slight. St eam overflow is a severe hazard unless flood prot ction is provided (pl. III, top). This solis used for row crops, pasture, and urban dey lopment. Capability unit IIw-2; woodland group 3w . ; ¥etro Route 143 Timetable, Weekday 143, 149 Weekday: Sept. 24, 2005 thru Feb. 10, 2006 • Be sure to read the Special Service Info for this route. To RENTON, BLACK DIAMOND (Weekday): 4th Av & ROllte Lenora 149 149 149 149 149 149 149 149 149 143 143 143 14:1 4:03pm 4:32pm 4:50pm 5:05pm 2nd Av & Pike 4:07pm 4:37pm 4:55pm 5:10pm S 2nd Maple Valley Maple Valley & Hwy & Hwy & Burnett. Av S 149th Av SF: Cedar Grove ,1: :J8am :J:2Jam :): 4 gam 6: 26cEll 8:05dm 9:.-1 ljarn 11:4')am 1:45pm 3:30pm 4:4Jpm 5:11pm ~:/9pm§ .':1: 4 ,1 pm 5:05am 5:30am 5:56am 6:36am 8:15am 9:54am 1l:54am 1:54pm 3: 39pm 4: 53pm§ 5: 23pm§ 5: 56pm§ 5: lOam 5:35am 6:01am 6:43am 8: 22am 10:02am 12:02pm 2:02pm 3:48pm 5:04pm§ 5:34pm§ 6:06pm§ To RENTON, DOWNTOWN SEATTLE (Weekday): 3ed Av SR-169 & & Koute Ba ker SE 231st 143 5:37am 5:51am 143 6:02am 6:19am 143 143 6: 27am 6:44am 143 149 7:08am 7:24am 149 8:50am 9:04am 149 10:35am 10:49am 149 12:45pm 12:59pm 149 2:35pm 2: 49pm 149 4:15pm 4: 29pm 149 5:37pm 5:51pm 149 6:07pm 6: 19pm 149 6:40pm 6:52pm -------------------- Timetable Symbols §-Estimated time. Special Sent ice Info Maple Va J J ey Maple Valley S 2nd Hwy [. Ilwy & & Ceda~ Grove 149th Av SE Burnett Av S 5:58am 6:2-/am 6: :i/am 7:31am g: !lam IO:56am 1:06pm 2:::"6prn 4:36pm :): :) 9pm 6:26pm 6:59pn ---, ~-. ---,,--,-,. ,- 6:06am 6:37am 7:02am 7:39am 9:18am 11: 03am 1:13pm 3:03pm 4:45pm 6:08pm 6:33pm 7:06pm 6:17am 6: 50am 7:05am 7: 17am 7:37am 7:54am 9:29am 11: l4am 1:24pm 3:14pm 4:57pm 6:19pm 6:44pm 7: 17 pm http://transit.metrokc.gov/tops/bus/sehedules/sI43 .0 .html Page 1 of2 SR-169 & SF. ?31st 5: 1 4 am 5:39am 6:06am 6:48am 8:27am 10:09am 12:09pm 2:09pm 3:55pm 5:14pm§ 5:42pm§ 6: Ppm§ 4th Av & Univ 6:42am§ 7:16am:\i 1:31am§ 7: 43am§ 8:04am§ 1/19/2006 Roules 143. 149 ... N ~. ~""~~kRil"' .. MAP LEGEND _ Makes all fe!1JIOI" stops • Makes limrted Of roo stops TH~ POlt',ll Street mtersectlon used for hme sr...heoole reference pomt IlsEd al the bp of lime columns b e$timale 00$ arrival and trip times "'-3g·0 TIi'.E POINTITRANSFER POINT combined F .... RE ZONE Additional fare Fe(JJired_ rm PARK & RIDE: Desi~ated free priing ~a 'M1tI cflfeC1 bus $eNloe to m~ commel'Clsl renEn; o LANDMARK: A. signifJ::alt !JIOGraphical reference point • BUS STOPS: 2nd Ave http://transit.metrokc.govJcficmpiates/show_map.cfm?BUS _ ROUTE= 143&DA Y _ NA V =W WILDERNESS VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER ~ ~ BLACK DIAMOND • '. ,. 1119/2006 • Vanessa Dolbee City of Renton Current Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 RE: New Life Church Expansion Submittal for Site Plan Review and SEPA City Pre-Application File No. PRE08-054 Our Job No. 11706 Dear Vanessa: July 15, 2008 HAND DELIVERY CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING, SURVEYING On behalf of New Life Church, we are submitting plans. documents, and materials in support of a Site Plan Review application and SEPA to construct a new 36,000-square-foot auditorium/sanctuary and 299 new parking stalls. The applicant and their consultant team attended a pre-application meeting with the City of Renton on June 6, 2008. The applicant's consultants also attended an application screening meeting on July 1, 2008. As listed in the Site Plan Review Submittal Requirements Checklist, the following items are enclosed for your review: I. Five (5) copies of the City of Renton pre-application meeting summary 2. Five (5) copies of the waiver form provided at the pre-application meeting 3. Five (5) copies of the Plat Certi ficure with recorded document/exceptions 4. One (1) original and eleven (II) copies of the completed Land Use Permit Master Application Form 5. Twelve (12) copies of the SEPA Environmental Checklist 6. Twelve (12) copies of the Project Narrative 7. Twelve (12) copies of the Request for Modification of Development Standards for Maximum Building Size for a Civic Use 8. Twelve (12) copies of the Request to Waive Frontage Improvements on SR-169 9. Five (5) copies of the Construction Mitigation Description 10. One (1) check from New Life Church for land use fees II. Twelve (12) copies of the Neighborhood Detail Map 12. Two (2) copies of the Tree Retention Worksheet 13. Five (5) copies of the New Life Church plan set, including the following: • Cover sheet (C I of 5) • Preliminary Dimensioned site plan ((,2 of 5) 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (425) 251-6222 (425) 251-8782 FAX BRANCH OFFICES • OLYMPIA, WA • TACOMA, WA • SACRAMENTO, CA • TEMECULA, CA www.barghausen.com Vanessa Dolbee City of Renton Current Planning Division -2- • Preliminary grading and storm drainage plan (C3 of 5) • Schematic water and sewer plan (C4 of 5) • Tree inventory plan (C5 of 5) • Conceptual landscape plan (Ll of I) • Architectural first floor plan CA i A I) • Architectural first floor FFE plan (A 1.7ia) • Architectural elevation plan CA2.1i) • Architectural elevation plan (A2.i21 • Architectural section plan (A1. I I ) • Preliminary lighting plan CED-O 1 ) • Topographic map set (Tapa 01 & 02) 14. Seven (7) additional copies of the dimensioned site plan July is, 2008 15. Five (5) copies of the Wetland and Stream Analysis Report with Mitigation Plan prepared by Sewell Wetland Consulting, along with twelve (12) copies of the map (Sheet W-l), dated July 9, 2008 16. Five (5) copies of the Subsurface Exploration and Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc., dated August 24, 2005 i7. Five (5) copies of the Supplemental Subsurface Exploration Summary prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc., dated October 17, 2005 i8. Four (4) copies of the Preliminary Technical Information Report prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc., dated July 9, 2008 i9. Five (5) copies of the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by The Transpo Group dated July 2008 20. Five (5) copies of the water certificate issued by Cedar Ri ver Water and Sewer District 21. Five (5) copies of the sewer certificate issued by Cedar River Water and Sewer District 22. One (I) set of plan reductions (PMT reductions) and one (I) paper copy of the reductions 23. One (1) set of colored maps for display, including the neighborhood detail map, site plan and landscaping plan As noted above, the enclosed materials comprise a complete application as listed in the Site Plan Review Submittal Requirements Checklist, except for those items waived on the Waiver of Submittal Requirements for Land Use Applications Form received at the pre-application meeting. Please proceed with your intake process and route the enclosed materials to the appropriate parties at your earliest convenience. Vanessa Dolbee City of Renton Current Planning Division -3-July 15,2008 If you have any questions regarding this matter or require additional information, please feel free to contact me at this office. IHIdmltep lJ706c.OO5.doc enc: As Noted cc: Troy Jones, New Life Church Respectfully, Ivana Halvorsen Senior Planner Randy McMillan, New Life Church (w/enc on CD) Kathi Bresler, Church Development Consultants (w/enc on CD) Daniel K. Balmelli, Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. Ali Sadr, Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. Printed: 07-15-2008 Payment Made: CITY OF RENTON 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Land Use Actions RECEIPT Permit#: LUA08-081 07/15/2008 10:50 AM Receipt Number: R0803693 Total Payment: 1,500.00 Payee: Church Development Consultants Current Payment Made to the Following Items: Trans Account Code Description 5010 000.345.81.00.0007 Environmental Review 5020 000.345.81.00.0017 Site Plan Approval Payments made for this receipt Trans Method Description Amount Payment Check 1502 1,500.00 Account Balances Amount 500.00 1,000.00 Trans Account Code Description Balance Due 3021 303.000.00.345.85 Park Mitigation Fee 5006 000.345.81.00.0002 Annexation Fees 5007 000.345.81.00.0003 Appeals/Waivers 5008 000.345.81.00.0004 Binding Site/Short Plat 5009 000.345.81.00.0006 Conditional Use Fees 5010 000.345.81.00.0007 Environmental Review 5011 000.345.81.00.0008 Prelim/Tentative Plat 5012 000.345.81.00.0009 Final Plat 5013 000.345.81.00.0010 PUD 5014 000.345.81.00.0011 Grading & Filling Fees 5015 000.345.81.00.0012 Lot Line Adjustment 5016 000.345.81.00.0013 Mobile Home Parks 5017 000.345.81.00.0014 Rezone 5018 000.345.81.00.0015 Routine Vegetation Mgmt 5019 000.345.81.00.0016 Shoreline Subst Dev 5020 000.345.81.00.0017 Site Plan Approval 5021 000.345.81.00.0018 Temp Use, Hobbyk, Fence 5022 000.345.81.00.0019 Variance Fees 5024 000.345.81.00.0024 Conditional Approval Fee 5036 000.345.81.00.0005 Comprehensive Plan Amend 5909 000.341.60.00.0024 Booklets/EIS/Copies 5941 000.341.50.00.0000 Maps (Taxable) 5954 650.237.00.00.0000 DO NOT USE -USE 3954 5955 000.05.519.90.42.1 Postage 5998 000.231.70.00.0000 Tax Remaining Balance Due: $0.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00