Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA-04-093ttll I"l § g; ~ o f t i; I i if II II I i II, I . Pi ~!J I 18 ~ii!~Jll~J~I~~ll~i~~~liil'i J J ~ §I l ifE i ~~ l~i!~flm:ij6;J~~i~~~~ i}:I} ~ ~ S ei f "I ~~ lrl~aafQ.lI.l· lnll-~8H~fJllj~ .... II..~~ f f Ii ~ t"1 "1 J eJ}iijll.l~f~~8~r!I!! r!l§~ .. . ~ i ,I ~ I ~ .111111111 ~ !ri lili ~r i ~ I ! I II~ [I . ~$1~II;Jl{lj~ ~I ~-i !I!i ~i!}~ ! I~ I i II! I II ~I~.l I ~ 'I & ... !l~~ 1111.-'" i I II. ,:i I IS 1!'ii1tji jl ~ ~ ~ !~ I ij~1 1 ~ ,1 f:; I ~g ,,1 :Z:IS~( !» I i 51.01 11l . .'iI ~ II. i ' ... 1' i,!J t <1'~ f~f~l'li· cr I i !II i l Ifill f if [ ~i II.t I g I 1m , 1'3 f J til" f i. j I .... 0() ml i j~ I ~ ~JI' lilt: I. ii'll~ i (11.11 :i J i ~ ~ • Q n .1 11 < ,I ~&: IS I ~II.'" ~ 0 "1l J I, :<1 0 :1 Ij' f l:gll i II' ~i i f' \ 2i 8'11,.,. II. 60':>-' ~ 1I.!i oi ~~ , ,i aif '~ g~!~ ~ -1"1 . .:4 ' I . ~l' i!i i . 'hr ~ I~ J~ ~ ( , I J j ~j i'llI t '" ~ I i 8' I I ~ i "I r ~ i i ~ 11, ~ ii! ~ II-§ f ' ' ! i I· l~ h. eh:~ "it II . i F.iE-OOt 06 0 •• '22/99 .00 i I SmtfWfDOa DNlLS3A .00 ~ ~ l> QIlJ (') ~ -to' In -<"'0 _ c::::) O~ <' t.r.,). "m ITi "-JI ~~ 0 g ~"'O ~ o!i: ZZ Z ~ r o Q$ ~O 0"'0 ,,~ if:~ ~"'O 05: Z~ ~ ••• - ( - ( (, • II • CCIIMyaIllll~_1D ~M.""" .• T_of1lleE .... R ...,..T-..,T .... 1IIe......, • ......, -....-... c:aNNftIy __ ",1IIe _ .. _ .... _. _ "' 1IIe County of Mlng. STATE OF WASHINGTON CGunIy oIlQlg QUIT CLAN DEED PIgI2Gf2 SIIiII oIW~. togIIIIer .......... qftd lIItol1lle GrMar_. -) t'Cllll2lo"'IiWJi8i ...... IIII ..... IIIIII·.'~qccI _--. .. 5 ( c. ( _ .. ,.,-.1 .. :;.'::'~ .. -!.:' : ...... 1 j I ! I I I 1 1\ N 6 !". ," , ;~ ,. I c.c ·1 IiI) I I .. J j I !~ , ,.. ) _pedal Wcmcmt, I , 1 TD GLUn'OIl. Raben I.. Edw.~ &lid wile .. ; j I I I I I· t.! '''!..&IId .......... 01 ODe !I~.cl &lid Fo"" Slz TIa-.&IId. UIIIl_/lOO ....... illiiiiii (' 146. 000. 00 ).Ia ... pUI, __ ,,... ... , ,-r .......... ,1:11&_ a. w.,.2' tile I ..... .-.atbed ,.., _ ....... fa ... c-.ty 01 Kla.g L • ~~. w~: . ~ &lid wile, DoNlbYi IUcbud Cdcrn. &lid wile, Patric:U.; ll.Dben D. ItlrTZ' ud wUa. -~ Tbat porticm oi Lou 1 ud Z Block 1 1yiq .outhc::ly MIA euteri., 0/. c:.mer liAa oi n.cated .ioutll 1 Z3rd Street EXCEPT that port!._ thono£ 1yiAc _rthel'1y 0/. a U- wbier. iI 11 a ft •• o~tb.erly boom &Wi p&l'allel to the .ou:therly muata. 0/. Soath lZ2.Dd Stroet. 'l'lla~ porti04 01 Lot 3, BlOc:.It 1. lyizlc wuterly aI. the' camer 11.-0/. ...a.:.ued Soutll lZ3rd Su,et. Lou 4 a.n.d 7. Bloc:.lt", EXCEPT :ha.t porticmlyiD.& Donll' rly &lid euteriy 01. V&ea&ed South lZlrd SUeet. The n~rtn 1=0 reet oi Lot Z; &lid th~ We.t 61. n fee' oi·the _rth 150 feet of·l..:It J; ..u.L in Bloc:.lt z; The north lZ5 feet <:f tile Dad ZS.ZS feet 0/. Lot :!; &lid The Dortll lZ5 reet of Lobi 4 &lid 5; _d Tno ",ortll lZS feet a! tbe ...... t 14.99 reet a! Lot D; ALL in alock Z:- ':'h .. r.ur·', 14C feet of Lot D. EXCEPT the ",eat H. ~9 Cr.et. Bl"c:.ItZ: ALL'()f Lot 7, 51 .. c:.It Z. The GC \>tbedy 100 ieet c)£. Lot 7. and &U a! Lot 8 .. Block ~: ALL OF Sloel< 5: Block b. EXCEPT the .outb 19Z feae ebarea!: ALL in the Plat of w,-,(tdy Olen Addition, &c..:ordU.g to plat ree"zoded in 'i~~me 47 oC pl~., pege 9Z, in Kl.n& County, W &r lWlatcm • ALL ~hu portion of Block. 13 &Ad ~Z, Lati.mor" Lake ~rk Addition, ac"ozodiDg to pl.t recor:i=d in v~ll.1m .. 18 oJ: pl..ts. pago bJ,·." KiAg Co~ty. Wutu:Aiton. wbich lies ea.t of the Plat of Woody Glen and welt oC & line dzoawu par&Uel with &lid 50 feet ..,eaterly ... beu me •• llred &C ·:-iabt angle. Uld/or t'adi~y Crom ct ... cuntor lin .. oi . h~m&ry Sc..te Highway No. Z (Rainier Avenue); - ·'CC.EP'!' thAt.portion tbereo! lY'.nil east oC He south. lC,Z feu ~f Block b 'll the Pl.&t oi ,c':"i Gl~tl • . :, 1 :" b Ulr";'U51Ve. Block 17, L&ti.:ner'. Lake Pu-k AdditiOll. ~ccordi.lli to Z'.'" :·,'"0::;":: (:> Voi·~m .. IS oi ;.l"tt. page ~3. iz: N.:l~ ":o·":.~,., Wun~"l:'o,,; ::XCEPT r:orti,j:l ~:mv~)·.,ti :'0 ll..i.ng'C.:m;lt"i. lor rcJ.:1d ~\!Z'?(\!I'e~ ",oJ. Je~d4 roecordc::-i ~cler ..\. ... ,~t:~::·, ~;.~e :';\,J:S. 950i.73 i\:.d ~c.l217. . r -.--.-.... 1 ;; .. """.. t ':;t , . i:~ ~ 0..70 !2 i-t": , : .. ~_l~~ I~ i I · .-.. ~ ,. l-I ·~~~_~ __________ ~~ ______________ (~L) '0 ".. b.,..." :.' ~ :l>e individual. .J ..... ribed in ... d .. bo .. .."Ied u.. "jlbiA IDd ror"";", ill.SlnlWnl, ADd If\;' " .•. ,. ... e<t thai :hc::y si~ the yme" tr.e'.r (reea.ad ¥oh,u:.LUy ... t aDd deed fer Lbr ',ar .~ :.b~.::,: ::'1f'l\tioned. I,i'; i.~ uDd~ :ny aand ar.d ulf1ciaJ II:&J Lhil 'I I I L o .......... " TRA,.,,\ oIr ... ,L".\ n.Ui '!I.~ • .''1.,-v"'! cn,=, \N1 .".· ... "'r "".r' ... .\t4 .... e.III.J.()r~ 7 THE GP..AH'1'ORS P.OI!ERT D. STRtLl./fAUER and AInfE H. STRtLLHAUER, his vifa, for and inconsideratio~ ot Ten Dollar. ~'d other good and valuable c:onsideration in hand pald, convey and VU'I'ant to EUGENE R. HEYER and DOROTHY HEYER, his' vife, and RICHARD GrOVI and PATRICIA GIOVI, his viie, ~ undivided one-third interest in the follOWing described ~al estate, situated in the County ~f King, State of Washington: That POrtion of Lots l and 2, SlocJc 1, lying Southerly and easterly of center line of vacatea South l23rd Street EXCEPT tt: It POrtion there..,f lying northerly of a line' which is 110 ft. southerly fro. and parallel to the Southerly IUrgin of Scut!l 122nd Street. That POrtion of Lot 3, BlocJc 1, lying v .. sterly of the center line of vacated South 123rd Street. Lots ~ and 7, Block 1, EXCEPT that portion lying' northerly and easterly. of vacated South 123rd Street. The north 150 feet of Lot 2; and the West Sl. 72 ~eet of the north 150 feet of Lot 3; ..... 1. in BlocJc 2; The •• orth 125 feet of the east 28.28 feet of Lot 3; and The north 125 feet of Lots ~ and 5 ; and T.''le north 125 feet of the west 1~.99 feet of L"t 6; A:.:' in Block 2; The north 1~0 feet of Lot 6, EXCEPT the vest 1~.99 feet, BlocJc 2; ALL of Lot 7, Block 2. The ,Southerly, 100 feet of Lot 7, and all of L~t 8, Block 3; ALI.. of Block 5; Block 6, EXCEPT the south 192 feet thereof: , ALL in the Plat of Woody Glen Addition, according to plat recorded in Volume ~7 of plats, page 92, in King County, Washin&ton. ALL that portion of BlocJcs 13 and 22, Latimer's Lake Park Addition, according to plat recorded in Volume 19 of plats, page 63, in King :ounty, Washington, ~hich lies east of the Plat of Woody Glen and vest of a line dravn parallel wi th and SO feet vesterly when llleasured at right angles. and/or radially fro. the canter line of Primary State Highw,y No. 2 (Rainie~ Avanua); 'EXCEPT that portion theraof lying east of the soutt. 192 feet of Slock 6 of the Plat of Woody Glen. Lots 1 til 6 inclusive, Block 17, Lati_r's ~Lake Park Addition, accOrding to plat recorded in Yoluae 18 of plats, page 63, L~ Xing County, Washington; EXCEvr, portion conveyed to King County, for road purpose. by deed. recorded under auditor'A file Nos. 956173 and 203217. ", ..--... "'~" Page One . " '. .. .. "'-'-'" . ". . ..... '-"' .. .. Ai. I .. . . nus 4eccl 1&11-1D faUUllIMDt o~ ~ C? rtlll.1. estate con~ot betve.a the pG't1e. ba'eto. dated the . day of ~d. • 1970. _4 coa41tionccl tar the conveyance of the @Ow des~ ~. a6 .:he co'lUAllu. of lfC'l'aftty herein contained sh&ll Dot app17 to cry 1::!:u.~ "iDtUtlet or anCUllbraftce STAl'E OF WASHIHGTON) ) Ie. COmrty OF K I H G) contract. and cl1argea levied, said contract. / on the ~ day. On this day personally appeared before me ROB£~ D. S!RtLLNAUER and·ANNE H. STRELLNAutR, to me knovn to be the individuals descrioed in and who executed the within and !o~ .. goin, instruaent., and aclalovle~ged that they aiped the BUIll as their!ree ana voluntary the uses and purposes th.rein·~ntio~.d. under ~ hand and otticial lI&a1 th,ill If::! day of:~~~~~-:- --------------------..--- ' ... ~ .~~" ~ .. , ?~/< .&... /101 I!c.~ .4 ..... ct«. Q ... '0' • ",f, ...... ..-.' . . .-" ... '~etA ;ro.:. au. w11'_ •.... tn.,t .. c:a.u~ • IfITn3tnw, ,.... u.. aeUCI" ....... ·to .. 11 _ ......... IIi .. ~: ----.. -'-.... -...... ~!I!'!! --~ -~ &a ~'lGllo.ac ~ ~ .. ' .. W' • , .... ,,' -. ........ 0 ....... -, 1 .... 11 ..... __ 1 ._ "'t"l~ .f --t.u-Uar .t y __ .., 1owt1l Ua... S~ --.... ---of"", __ "y " • ''-t11C11efI1t' 11o, ft. ~~'.)' 11'0( ... """'11'1 to t'-e . ~be .. lJ ""1in of So .. t1\ ~n"d ~~.t. 'f 1.·t 2. CIId th.'Weu II.n f.et Of -: Lot 1, ALL. 1n 8loc:Jr :!; ot the ·un ........ f_t ot L.o! Ji .... of ':,0 t. • end 5, &rid n&.t PCr-tlon ~t 1.01: J, Il.ldl: 1, 1,Ut• ~1t.r"11 of a.. c:.nte:-l~"e of "~ted SOlith 'll~ Sh'get. "". • -7, •• , .. 1, ex"'T"., PO .. ",. 1"., ........... . ~ ·"t-l,. or "6C'ete~ :.outh lll~ Street. n. Itol"'t~ 150 f ••• ttle I\o~ .50 te .. r'l\a "O-'h :' I t .. t ~ 1\0-.". us ~.er: !he "~h 115 teet A.:..:. in 'locl!: 1; ~e ~c~h :'0 f5et " ~! _, rXCt~ t~e ~.t '"","It .; Al.:, of:..... ~ 7, !loc::1!: 7. of th •••• t l'.~, f.et of ~t I. Th. no ...... l, leo "., 0' !.o, 7, _. •• 0' "" " I ... I, AU.. :It 1Il0dl S i Iloe. I. ~rPT th4 SOuth 1', reet th.~f; AU.. t. t~ 'let of Woody Qlen Addition, .cec~1n, to 'let ro.eo~ •• 11': Vol·.-,~ of ~lat •• P~. '7, in tin/!: ~"'t.,. V_I\{n.ton. Al.~ ~h.t;>ort.::" C' 011':)':;':1 ~d 12. r"'~l_r'. !.«A:.'an '''''''". """'-" " "" NO,,.., •. , ""'"" " " "''', ~.,. ! J. in /C!:l" ':.;)·,'/lty .• io'.'~i.ni:tcn. "'lIie.'! .....••• t qf t' .. r·:.~ o( ;;OOdy ::le:-. an,! W"'!~ o~ .. i in .. j:-• ..", ;ler,,';l,l .. ~~: ... -:~ 5; •• ~ .... st.r:y .:\-r\ "-.".r .. -: I: rl~!'\t ~-.1 •• ... -. ~ t".a.!;,: !j' !:-:'" ~~.e :.:"~,.. .. or .• -:-~ ~:-'-4ry State -1 .. ~~, •• , 'i". : (.; .( : " : .. r ,t., ~"., .. I ; ct': .. ,:, :~4' ~.,I"-; '" ::·-:--:t ... ~,." .. ,,:~ .~r :.~. "<)"t~. 1'7 f •• t ;J~ ' ••• ,~ :~. r;1: .~ • _!y ;,.". :.. ..... ; ~o ~ :~.e::~.~., ... 11;,'0:-' 17, r...tl"':-' •..... "'. Pazotc ." .. , .•..•• ,"', .. , ., "" ,."" •• '" "'-"0: "''', ~ ~ j( e ~ J. ;" t:..,.( ~) •• .., ~ ". .. ••. ~ ; no( '. "r,; C;(.7 ::?":' ;>0 r t i 01'1 CC)ft".Ye:2 : . '. -. .; ...... ... ~ .. r r·; .• ! "'.:'; J~ -1 ':)'1 '.!, ~-:s :-e<:-:r" • ..,' Wld •• ., . -.. -. •. • '" , , -" '"'' ~dltlo"ai SheetJ f ". j f ; , I / I • I J i , . ( I I t • I ~;" .,-+;., ~'~' .•• I " . it' . . .- . F,.. ,. ..1 ~. .> • ," • , .' . ........ .....-------, -......... ----, ......... ~...---------_ .. __ .----_. __ .... ~ . , , . ~ .. ... __ u ~t1, .t . ......, .. t~ oet"'t&h -"lAC- _ ~ d ...... ..u.A F ...... wMreill ........... d-..1 a-k. of ••• Ie .... 18 ttw ~"t .-1* ~ ,.:t ......... Sa ___ ........ -,., -11,. .. l~ ~~ all __ ts..-. TM 1~ .. ...u.~~ of tala .. uo-t ue .. foll--: 1.CA) fte .. l .... ,..tee u ..... ~n .. n-a--'cS £»1'''' (tn."ol,Oa) .. a1.~ wIIli_ .u. pIII'C~" ..... ! ...-. 1.,. ~h for tM ta\lC*iaC Sot .... tD-vtt~ s.u.,,'. ~ of ~.,..nta on ~. &f~.t.te4 "~Z-e" he_tofor-,.Ie! ... Seller'. bel\6lf by ~.1", in the ,Ioa of ~ .!\.,...and .-a.....,...s ~d ",j~y- nt. (u.,,..nl. ,1", •.. ,ell.r " '~ ot r •• l .s't:at. tax.' aft the &fo.-.deeGl'u,.4 pf'O~~" ber-- totot"" ;:aici on ,el~.l"" behAlf by purcl\ •• et" i,. ttl •• ua or .~-.• a\6tlldr.d ":l"ci T\o.nty-S.· •• n Oollar" ("21.01). a,,4 plus Ten ~.aJ\cS S1z B~dre~ and Mln.ty-~tn. Oollarw an4 .... nty-roar Caftt. (.::.&gg._.). ~.ina on.-thlrd of '1'1. p~.eat b&lanea ~ ~ th. In.t~.rt. Pure!'>"."!" r\,r~",-:" .. "r .... " to p.v l1'l· .. r •• t nn t:-'- .ua o't ri.~t .... ~. ~.f)\J"4nl ;~" )4ur.·1re &,.,0 Th\\,,·y-C~ .. ".t :;n~t ..... , N'·l , .~. ,. , .. .):10 . '.' . ~ .... ., . ~!: ... '.' ,.' ...• .' .' !::..";~ -. ,\ .. 7 c ~. -':'-";;';"'-;';f.;::~~!!s!Ip.~ ..... ••• J" _. _LIIl t.aftNet .~1 ___ I Ilnt ... ···U .~ r,U~b, ~ .. ;..~. -tt .. _.~l"-.c .• '" . , I.~.t ocolf a. ~d.N' to 1M ,.14 )or )Cd ..... to. • ,..wIll ., tbee ~,~.,... ~ ........ (tIIIG ..t-t ., ~ a.. .... ~U .. "M.OI~.") ,..ov~ ... ~." ..... latc'e.at ....u .. fd' --ul~ _ .. htw. .. ~ ....... .., ... 01 ... ..-. ...... " of ~ ......... DeU .. CIIe.Od.~'. !MN- &her. 'u. 'wn 10' .. ,.LMi.-,1 lua .t ~ ~ ... Ib !2*d ... ~1P~DDU'" .. Ia.ty-r ... e..u un.n,.M) l-..u M..u .. rou.-e: 112 ... tINcI De·"" ( ..... M' .. -. d .. 1 ur' •• ~ GIl .,. ... :.,... ,.. ts...t n .. t) _ Jf a. ~ tClll4wiAa ~ .. pi_doe of'''''' ,..... (I) ,... Iau~ ,..,t .. :::zo-i-" t_ .e-o-. Iftdlh 1Iund~ Dol1.are C ....... ) or .,... at ~.r" ~icn ·llIftti' ~ ~.l __ of Mid ~. ,.-toe at4 lAt._.t ,il4l' ha .... been t1&11, ,.t4. Iauz:oeat aMll M ~U~ r-z.a. '.41:1'1 lnltall_nt ~,...."t 8I\.j t!Wt ~.al_c. of ~ p.~t &~pl.i..s in redu~l.o" ot pr .IIcip6l. It U ll)Ccl.tl.can, .,reed th~· there t~all be no ~nelt·,. tc~ prepa~ent by ~ .... ,. 3 SAb 7:'.. r. "H/'~t< "'J{lt4z4-?".;r-," i¥<!'r£' 0,. &t _.udl ot"." ,.lee. ... the •• r'llr _y dir-.;;t Ln ·oIT'ltinC. 3. .u _1.",41 to in t!\ia ~.,"t"act. edate of ;loein,- _hall b. the date • ttd. Ln.t~ .. t. -. ,... ... r"Jrch •• el" u~~ • .,.11 .''''' .• e to ~7 before c:kUl\q"eacy all· ts ..... ~ U'll'j &at. ,._nts t~4t NY •• ~,,~ •• n "'.I\':CTand cr-ar.t •• 11 .. n 'n , .. i1 r .... ~ e.', '. t~.:-; .. ··~.ag.r ''':T"''!f!~ ~" ,;, .. ., :t' .• 14._ :.. r ,;-:.. .j .. : :,,... ..... ,,'=y • 1 • r . .. I J ( I •. ~;. 111.... , ... u \= ..... t '". ~ of ..u ae&l =~,-ap,.... .. ..., .. JIIIIIU!..e .. , ......... eat _ .... ~ .... ~~ ... ~;..u .-titde ~ Sa t .... t ... ~. MO. !toe ~1aa 01 u.. _1. -c~ -.. .. chieC &~ ~tol ........ '-"1_" "l.~ ...... IbaU ... ,.,u t. tM Mll ..... ~"" _ ,.,-c -~ pc J .. ,..i._ IMJowUi ~ tile ...u.. el.MU to &llaIt .. ~.-... ~ ..,1,. &U ..... U .. ttl ---. ~ 1~d_ ~ :0' t2IIe 1'16 dUlaC ........ t~ 01 __ I lao; 00_flU .... :t ... ,..1c. ....s 1.nteroeat LA ,J\. "_.r 4b., ........ eil'1e4. to ~ .... _J.l_r to purch .... r-.& etat\ltory ".M'an~ to ~ tc ..JA ..-&l •• t.h. ~ZCC.,"!i.ni My ~ ''''.r.ol' ~&tt.,. taket'l ~~., .. :!.,~ ... ::! ".Y:DIII"I ... :t ~1'\~ 1: :"";.,,~! . .. proejudic' to &roy -. . t I .• I." .... ~ .' I" ..... . , ... ........ .' .• '-.1::' . ~~ ,-., . ' . '. t. tiM la .. _ ....... fill ".1a OOII~. ". ~.cS tJW~ U. •• .t .. th~ p.,. ,.:\ ... ,.,. '., '\.1 .,.rt--.." ... ttt.. ~ ...... ~t 11 .. ..,1 ... to .... .., .. _M~~ ~ ..... _-. JI"IIr'..1" et tb u.. 111M la ~ ......... ,.-• .:~J ~. tII.e '.U .. act' .lecrt to .... \.aN all ~ , ....... '. ",-u .. ~ ~ ..... aeew a.ta ..uc .,. au ,-S ••• · Mile '" ~<! pua 1._ .. ",.1 ... '" .. all tq QU. rta .~ ,... .. ~ .. t.te a.ll " t~.Ib4 to ~ ..ua-.. ~ ........ ...s ~ NU", Aall M ... rtP't to ~t ...... ~ ....... toe 01 tM ..eel .. ~&t.e\ ~ no ft1 ..... ~ U. HUett of ." .* -•• u Oft t!M ~ :,;! u.. ~ AAU to. ~~ .. • -..1.er 01 all., iI1IIkeq.~ at 8I&l t • U. ..,.."icelqlCll -~ of all -==4'. ~1ce. 01" ot!1e1' jIoOlsw"" "it,.. ,....swcrt t\. ~orl.' tUN &l'Id te1"aiaad.CIG of ~._" rf.af'lte _y be _de tty UnUe-1 3t .tel ",.U, poet..-~p&ii.""~· ·,...ce1pt ,...~~,~ed. 4~recte~ to t~~ pu~h •• er It ~t. ad~'. l&at known to the .eller, 11, Upon .eller'. e:'ection to br!·., .. uit to e"!o~e _y coy ~&nt of t~1. ~~tr'ct. :~cludini .~'t to eollect &l'IY p4yaent .... quired h.rew-.c:!e ~he pu.rcll ••• r .'re •• t:" PI., • re •• ollAl)l. ':l.II .~ it ~OI"Tl"Y'. t ..... "d al! C04t. 1lIt1 e~nal' _,\ eoftI'I.~tion wi tl'l '1.Ie ... ~i t. ""Left '1.1_ ,h&11 be i.nClU':;ld in any j~t or ciec:t'M _t.red in .uc:h •· .. it. ~:J~l»e:"lt i. '\0 .... -:f!r~!. ·t!"'\~ ?·.!rt::"'.,f~~; air ...... !O ;'"1 ... 4Ilscn.abl • . s..a. .,5 .ir'! .. :>t'"T"tIl!·'· '1 ~ee~ .Lri,~" ·ll ene;-':. A..~.! .xp.-t.""I~:' i. ... conr .• ctior I 1 'f , ,. • 1fttn:.& !n ..... "'it. II v~ ~O'. t~ "p'(.~ ~.~~o ~.~ •• ~.~~~'4 ~~!. ft ... ~ or "'ASln.(4T" .... ) ) ... ~ or x r • ~) ~:I th:'. ct.ey ;:h'l:'!lc'Id:,. -"'''.r-.~ !>..!~"'" ... tolD'! D. i':'U1 ",1,,, .. .,.~ A.Of"; ~. ST;U::":.Jf.~l;,!:~. ':-:> _ la\.~ t~ 1>41 t'\. iMb1~ .. ~ ~.1 .;.~ .. , ... . ... ; ".": .. ~ ~.... :-~:. e·! a ~ ,. . .:...... -"i p _ ... -, :'", ... -tt. ~ :'.:-~.,: .. ., -_. ~.:. 1(: 'J_: ~ : ":. ! : .. -~, ~ ~.' .... I' . "._ • ~ : f" " '. -., -'.,:.; 1,-~ ~~ , ~.!e~-_. V . \ . STEWART TITLE 18000 International Boulevard South, Suite 510 SeaTac, Washington 98188 Phone: (206).770-8700 Fax: (206) 770-8703 ORDER NUMBER: 200113526 COPIES ·OFDOCUMENTS . FOR PROPERTY ADDRESS: . '.'j ,,1- ( ; ''j' \, I '~ \ /. r . ~ "'J . ~~ " , 'I .., ~/~j~ . i'e!"lC1 t :"ay 2':1-40 ' r ~ 310J93l /' MtlY .1.-400 ,5. anti ben o\ovo ~/ .... In tlle matt-ar 01' r!'ll111lry .. tate ~"'Y NC' :I oJeatt.l.. to Aentoo .:seotioo >1ey :.Latimer, Navsl Air :.:Itat1o.:, .-erASaoola, l"lor~u. to ,Jtate 01' nasnlngton ip llby grellt to ap tile rt pdv and permit to plaoe aod dep081: aartll matv1'r~ &44/01' upon adjaoen~ to tlla twy in ~ha extll 01' slopes 01' ambanlaDent; as aune yed over and '1oross Lota .I. and 2 B1k 1& remove and/or the lll~atter de. l~. excav3tlon and/or Lo;)ta 1-2-3 and 4 Bllc 22 >'.ii.Latimer' a "alta "'ark Add (Vol 16 ol plata pg 63) Ttla s~e01tl0 c1etails oIJ:lcernlng allot well are to '0(. 1'0'.1041 wl"·111n tht certaln msp ot derin1 te looatloo now ot reo &J1d on rile in tile o1'1: .. ot the lJlr ot H1o/Y. ai; (Jlymph, and bearlng date 01' approval Fab 6-36 ~nOil8 11::es llev1se41 :'ab 6-40 i'b.e rt. pr1T and permt 01' ingress and agre::l::l to ar.d tran ad 141 tor the purp ~in spect1' and tor the puup 01' ~alntalll1ng 81 slopes 19 nby gr8n"e,·. rt:J.y N.LatUDer gaoamb1a Co norlda, ";8Y 1-40 'oy ~ay N.LaCiJller, bet t'.:.!. ~"'~rt liP tor t10ridA res at Pen8aoola as Feb 17-41 (Fld by !Jept 01' tiWys) ~' J ~ /' rermit -1 Zg-irO ! 7di~C I 3103nZ/ :'Ia y 7 -~O ~l. and '0 en &ovo '.f::? 70 tl:l.lI mattar or ?r1:118ry .:It.ate n,;,~ No~ -eat 1e to "'-entun Steve T •• err1ll, by ass~t boing the Owner a~' belder ~r a e~r~alll !:Itg ooverillt; tile llil..lrter dt,: lds of ;';lalla.m Gq ft.l to ;;Itate 0 t ·"a3Illllgton ---Sill IlS 9:31 i< ~tr 01' ld sit In ~CIII bel~ all tht .CUl or L~t3 5 1!ld I) HUe 2 in tlle r~d aDd rec plat or uixon's ~~s rark First ~d a3 &l1c-o on pg ow ill vol 24 of plats reo ot: kcw l:flllc sed tJe1ag ne17 or a In dra""a pl'" and 60 rt d1t.t s\II1y. wilen !!leBsl.!r'!oJ at rt aDgl ee rrom the 0'.10 tdr ln surv BY or sd tlwy. Tlle speo1rio details -_.. to:-m to 9i8 --- .l.t 18 llby Wld8l'stood tht tllls permit is gralltea oy ·tOlt und"rs1gr.ed ollly as his lnts 10 1I~, lds ::'3Y appaar as :nti;se ~lallam ~.) ','in "'a::/ 'I-.w by fml ' JeBJlllst·c,e .;.lc· .. ell np (r1d by wopt of dwys) i'_~, Joay 29-4<,) "iii] 7-40 7'al read Sttl'78 ·r.:.!erril1 ~ta'7e ~.Merrl11, bet Jea~et~e ~v1s, for 8'" reS7fif":t rort ~g las IlS ;..at 29-,.) --. b / U?'J I 31J3~.;3 /~ !n tile :lIatter ot ?ri.:lary .:>tst e i:wy ~!o 5 ';>'!t!t'(.le tc) hf'!~on ~te'7e r.Werrl11. by es~t to Casaie ?~tl"'l, lnd1v aod as ext,;!: .:::~' :;:e est'or &r~nJl: L • .... il!all, decc1 :'p cb:r t'al sad d 1:5 !'%"Jm the l1e:l \,it' sp 1;119 () f .2000. ar.:Jio t a ud rsc til ln '701 ."~ of C1tc::.~ PC: 2~~ aud. file of t.::.tt tIltgea pr;llll :l 1.7· 10 ;(c',oj .. :1e :.ott; dtc1 :.lay i-3& ex.:-D'f t.:le ~o 0 r itC'lf CIl "'pr 30-36 .. 0 25g50~ .. he tol des ;Ito ft ~trLp of 1d ~eins till tht ptll uf ~o~s ~ ~nS 5 3lk 2 io tos !ld anc ~'tlC "lilt Ill' .J1:l:oa's _~ :~ .. " ..:~:-;o~ ".;..: dS 3llo'Cl,Jn I'g .. 10 '101 2 .. of pla~s reo u!' ltC;W l;{l,ilti "'~ -,,~ce ne ~'! or a 1e :5100 plw dr.ol 'It" t't d1st !l'I.ly, "'Lea :'I~su!'ec' ~: ~r. :l:,":lEo" rroM tho cent.e!' 111 ~'J.rv.,y .,,( sd :.wy • .~e spec!.!J-"~e15;,lll c ... oce=oi~ 3~~ ~''':,1 ~:'~ t;,; ~e.tou;lc1 w1t.:li~ tht. Iler~:lir. ;:.all or :3et'llllte • 1':;1~tOC , -;;;,. :.: :ee an~ oa tU" in en., I)!'r 0;' ~:'Ill ",i;: ,J~ ~wys ." t Cly~;:t , '·3!.''l !!'.~ "eartog date ot appro~.I. .,,~ ::-jS '!l!:.:' ;'ev1:!ej _.,0 :)-,J . .;):'-:-.!'C 7 .... errlil X:l ~la_l>il:l ;;;> .. c .. oy 7_,;.., ,:y ;:i:.eve ... _-=::-1:1.. c"l' :,,:lO~'!ttll oJl!\vl •• :',,:1), • ~,\:1.ot'lt·.!1 .,.1.:1',,11, 0;l ~or s· ... :,,"l :!: .• 1:"". '>r',ee:".,.s :,S ,~"J 2:'-~0 itl~ ~y -~~~ uf ~~y9J \ -/ • • • I I • • • • • , • D Sep 27-56 ~73379 •• Sep 13-56 stat. of Wa.bln,ton '1'0 Robert L. Bdward. and Ja.,. I. Id •• rd., bu and lit In the utter nt, Prl .. r, Scat. "llh •• ~ Jlo 5, a.attl. to Rent'on (Bryn .... r-Bl.ok ft1v.r tp, tor' aad1n oon.lde •• t1on of • oyanoe to th.Stat~or 1anW. requlred torHlIbwa7'purpo ••• hry 01' and qato .p all 1ta rl,bt, t1tle lUI and int, xoept •• hrinatter •• ttorth 1n and to the tll d •• od land lit ' 1n Oovtlot. 6 and 7,"0 7-23-5 BWM Alltt\At ptn ot tae exi.t1ns rjw ot prl .. ry Stat. H1sb •• ,. 10. 5, Seattle to Rentora, 1n lot. 24, 25, 26, 21, 28, 29 and ' 30, blk 13 and lot. 1, 2; 3, 17, 18 .nd 19 bllc 22, N. B. IAtl .. r Ie Lake Park add, 1y1ng W170t • 1n •• Wh plw and 50 rt oWiy, when _88 .t ~t ansl •• and/or ra41all.v , trll ' the ~.nt.~ 1n or Id h1Ih.~y and extendlDI tr. HlIb •• , .ngr" IItation 80+30 Sly to hlSh •• y enlr" .t.t1on 8&75, the ' apeoltio dot.ii. oono.r~ina all otwoh,are to he fO\Joo .ith~n that oertil1niUp of detl1t. lOllat1on now of ruod and on f1 ~n theotrio.of the D1reotor ~i i1Ih • .,~. at O~p1. and bearing dt of approvil Jab 8-38; Bub however, to th8~rpetual itt.ht , perll·lt, 110en •• and ••• t in t tw cr. n' or t 9 ~ ~_ ,"4 _ ooouw tbeP''' oJcS hr1n ( ( « - WITNESSETH: Th,t s.id Grantor(s). for and In co~ideration of the s. of p'I" by Grantee. and other valuable consideration. do by these presents. grant. bargain. sell. convey. and warrant unto the said Grantee its successors and assigns. an eas~ent for public utilities (I ncllJdt ng water and sewer) with necessa")' appurtenances over. thl"OU9h. across and upon the following described property in King County. Washington. IIIOre particularly described as follows: lOCATION: SV Quarter Section 7, Tow~hip 235, Range 4E lax Lut '7, and Block 5 of the Woody Glen o\dditlon, and lot 19, 810ck -22 Latilller'S Lake Park (Auditor Fil eNos. 956480-0070 and 956480·0170 respectively) LEGAL OESCRIPTION: LOTIjO. BLOCK 5·ANO LOT 19 LOT 7, BLOC~ 2 WOOOY GLEN AOOITION SWLY 100 FT. BLOCK 5, 1l000Y GLEN ADOITION AND POR lOTS 24 THRU 30 alK 13 AND lOTS 1,2,3, AMI 1'1 BLOCK 22 lATI~RS lAKE PARK lY WLY OF 6N Pll! AND 50 FT liLY OF C/l OF PR 1M. ST. ItH NO.2. PERMANENT UTILITY EASEMENT: lOT PIO. 7 THE SOUTH 10 FEET OF THE (AUDITOR PRE'I!OUSL Y FILENO. D€SC~IBEO PROPERTY 956480-0070) BLOCK 5 AND LOT 19 THE SOUTH 10 FEET OF BLOCK 5 WOOOY GLEN .j. AOO I TION AND THE SOUTH 10 FEET OF LOT 19 BLOCK ZZ' '.ATlHERS LAKE PARK OF THE PREVIOUSLY DESCRIBED PROPERTY (AUDITORS' FILE NO. 956480·0170) • 'Sald heretofore ",ent loned Grantee. I ts successor'S 0:-assigns, shall' have the right. without prior notice or proceeding at law, at such tl .. e~ as ""y be necessary to enter upon said above described pennanent ",~ement for the purpose of const ruct I 119, 111.1 ntal ni ng, reli.lrlnq. altering or rec,nstructlng said utilities, or ..,klng atry connections ther""I~h. without Incurring any legal. obligations or liability therefl'OOl, provided, that such' construction, ulntalnlng, rep.1 ring, altering or reconstruction of said utilities sh.1l be accOlllpllshed In Such a ... nner that the private Improvementsellistlng In the eas4!laent area sh,li not be disturbed or da""'ged. or they will be replaced In as good a. condition as they were I"",edlately before the property -as ente"ed upon by the Grantee. The Grantor shall full,. use and !njoy the aforedescribed prt!lllise1; Including the right to' use the surface of said pet'lllanent easenael7t If such use dOe1 not Interf~re with Installation and ... ll'tenance of the run fOR RECORD AT R£IW1I. I1IlW1IUIIUUII ~tV.'7/(p .. -/ ::',."'(1,-1. _~:-.· .. 1[W: .. UL .............. /.t..~.-.y.~ ...... l ................. ~ . en _ utilities. Howl!'ler, the Grantor sllall not erect buildings or st ructures over, under or across tile perwanent eas_ent durl ng the existence of sucll utIlItIes. This NUllent, sll.l1 be a covenant running wltll tile land and sllall be binding on tile Grantor, Its successors, and assIgns unless or until sucll tlae as tile aforedescrlbed prl!lltses beca-e abandoned with respect to said use for public utilitIes at whlcll tlH tile full rlgllts of ownersll1p wltllout encUlibrance of easl!llents shill revert to tile Grantor, Its successors, and assigns. Grantors comenant tllat tlley Ire tile hwful owners of tile above properties and tllat tlley lI..,e I good and lawful rlgllt to ellecute tills agrel!llent. ' STATE OF ~lv::;::;....A~ ____ _ COUNTY OF ..;\'2~\I..lN~·.:..;6--::::.... ____ _ SS , On thl~ d. \ day of ~ , • 19~'+ before !lie. , tile under-slgnl!d. a Houry Publtc In ana for the State of w Pr-' • duly commtssloned ~nd sworn P~r>on;t1y appeared ~"".c-""~C!QO""""""""G--'>-\l-\-a~na~G=£: ~f_ 1nE.'4S2S--to Ifte it nown tv _ _ the aM • respectl;ery:of --""""rY~fI-:Rf===::-:\d~·~f~Q:"!.s..~tt~,,,~C' th e 'M., ".~ 111"'-Eha t ex eo:U ted' the forego I ng tnstruaent, anc! ic¥nowfe(ged the 'said IMtruJllent to be the free and yol"ntary ICt and deed of uld corporation, for the USeS and purposes therein sent toned. and on oath stated that ~~_~ , authorized to eaK'lte the sat.j tnH"J1IIpnt ancrt}tat Till! seal aOlaed IS '" ~ ~h~:.~~r .. te seal of utd co.-porattor, • • .. ~. t. .. ",' ~ ~~SS fly 'lad an.1 official seal hereto aUlled the day and fear '!' iJ tJQ7'~~\~r't1ftcate above wrttten. III ...;: -:;.. ~ /~: ~~.J.'" .~~ ~. n '~I~'"~\\\''' ~Q01' '" Urn u ~auvruSffi44JYof~~! j..Uteor I \ ! l €r • restdlng at ~')TOl\..J \V-1/f;, I;' .' .'../' ", / , '''I .J I .. . ... ' '.: . '-. ..,...' _ .. ' , . I '. ( WII£!( ReCORDED RE'l1JR."I TO: om..,.",,,,, Clly Ccri< Ren'on M .... lclpal DufhlJnll 200 Mill AYellIIC Soulh Renlon. Wit. ~5 o • Utilities EASEMENT' nus INSTRUMENT. m=~e this l.D.sLd:lY 0( ..... O ... C .... tp ... b ... e ..... ____ 19 91 by :litd ber:veen P Q re thy Me ve r -..... ."... :utd :utd :md :utd Gene Meyer he:reln:1iter c::tlJed "Gr:mtot(s). ° :md the C11Y OF RENTON, :I Munle:lp:u Corpor:lllun o( King County. W:15hlngton, hereln:1iter ailed °Gr:ulIee.· ; .\ Th:u s:lid Gr:mtot(s). (or:md In eonslder:lllon o(thesum o( $ One Dol!:lf :lnd 001100 ($1.00) p:lld by Gr:znree. lind other v:uu:able eonslder:1tlon. receipt or whieh lshcreby :lcknowledged. do by these: pn:sc:nts. gl':lnt. b:u'g:Iln. sell. eonvey. :lnd watr:lnt unto the s:Ild Gr:antec. Us successors :lnd :wlgns. :an c:zsc:mcnt (or pubUc utilities (lncludlng W:lter :md ~er) with neccss:lry :appurrc:n:a.nces over. through. :across lind upon the (ollowlng descrihCd pro~rty In King County. W:lShington. more: P:lrtlc:UWly described :IS follows: Th:It portion or Lot 4, Block 17. ullmers I.;Uce: P:lrk Addition :IS recorded In Volume 18 of PI:lts, P:zgc 63. Records o( King County, W:lShlngton. more p:lnlc:ubrly described :IS follows: A 15 (oot Wide strip o( l:lnd lying p:lr:2I1c1 :md contiguous to the northerly bound:ary of 5:lid lot .j; except any portion lying within Sbte Hlghw:lyNo.2 (R:linier Avenue North). Togcther With :I tcmpol':lry construction c:zsc:mc:nt described :IS: A11lh:lt portion o( lots 1.2,3 and" of Block 17. utimers Uke P:arlc Addition :IS recorded in v01ume 18 of PI:lts, p:lges G3, Records o(Y.Jng County, W~hington; Except Ih:lt portion within SClICe: Highw:lY No.2 (lWnler Avenue: North). S:lid lempor:JrY construction C:lSement sh:1I1 remain In force: during construction :md until such time::IS tJle utilities and ;Jppurten:lnccs have bee:n :!cccpted (or the: operatIon and nulnten:lne:e by the Gr:IJltee but not !aler th:!n one YC:lr (rom the date of execution of this document. UUIilIcs EaxmCD' #-~'-'11 (kef.#' 'fOljotJ() / I 'S', 5"35, .~. fl.q, /'f. !XCIII TAX NOT REQUIRED III'f 01.""" CMIIaI t;?a \~ i\~A I..Dtputr 00'" roll . I~ S~~ .u.~I10~ ~SIX lid OQlollC0tseo-mlT5 .. #_,£. "C" Jd.4.U34. .'#54 $ -", . ~ : .~ . '- ( .1 I I '. ( (,"I"" o • ,I S~id heretorore mentioned ~r.lntee. iL~ suec~so~ or :wigns. sh~1I h:lVe the right, Without prior ndt.\Ce Dr proceeding ~t bw. :It such timcs:lS m~y be nee,esgry to enter upon S:lid ~bove described propcny (or the purpose of constrocting. m:lint:linins. re~iring. :a/tcring or reconstructing S:lid utilitio. or m:lking :lIIy connections therewith. without incurring ;my leg:ll oblig:ltions or li:Ibillcy therefore, provi~ed. that such construction. m:linbining. rep:liring. :llteMg cir reconstruction of S:lid utililies sh:lll be :accomplished in sudl :l m:lnner th:l! the priv~le Improvements exisling in the righl(s)<l('W:I}, 5i1:l11 noC he disturbed or d:am:lged. thcjwi/l be replaeed in :IS good a eondilion :IS they were immediately before the ,prupcny WoIli entered upon by the Gr.lntee. TIle Gr:lntor sh:lU Cully usc :lnd enjoy the :lCoredc:scribed prentiscs, including Ihe right to ret:lin the: risht to usc tile: !>urf:lee o( s:lid right-oC.w:aY If sue:h usc doo not interfere with insblbtion :lOd m:linten:mce of the utilitics. However. the gt:U1tor sh::l/I not erect buildings or structuro over. under or across the: right· or'W:lY during the existence: of such utilities, TIlis =menc. sh:lU be ;I coven::lnt running with the WId ;lnd Sh3/I be binding on the Gr:lntor, his ,suceessors. he:j~ :lnd,:lSSigns. Gr:znto~ e:ovcnmt th:lc they :Ire the bw{uJ 090'ne~ of the :'Ibovc propc:nies :lnd th;lt they h::lve :a good :and [:awrul right to execute chis :agreement. -:and ,:and ::Ind ::Ind I .~ STATE OF WASHINGTON INQMQUt.t fQDM Qf ACXNQW".,ElXil1!E.'!J' Ull/iUaE>a. __ ," Sll<ctl "u ladJ""ualFo"" .. ~ .'""i!'*!";'2iH"?JJ.t.£ JLS.1Z:\..tt.l.?,w A .nn -, .' ',i ,f ", , " . ..I • ~ ,"":\ '" " c\ :1 ',;" .. . ": ,'! :' .. ~ ... ~ :.f ., ·i ·1 " " > ,oj i , , '. () • ( I /'IdA· ~ \ -t \ ., l1li ~ ~ .., 7 - 1Ic1 tl Q \0 .. % ... ~ ')- 1f61..q1 -.... _.In 'f .' . . :.;~., .~"~:'.;~.;:.':.~; '~:''''.' ....... .-.~ .... . ecru 'O~ REeo F ~HSL crry or BENTON, WASHINGTON ........ ;.'r:-.; .. :! .. ' ORDINANC'E NO. '";3455 AN ORDINANCE OF THE' crrY::or BEH'l'ON, WASHINGTON:'~ VACATING A PORTION OF H.W. 'ITS STREET (VAC-Ho-DICKSON) .'. . . , . ', .. ' .;;: .~' .. ;.~~ ... WHBllBAS a proper petition tor VaCatfnc • portion oC N. W. 7th striet, " ' ,~ Renton, Kinr County, Washington, was duly med with the City Cleric on Of about May 23-, 1980, and said petition having been signed by owners represer"~ more ~ two-thirds of the prbperty abutting ~on sueh meet sousht to be vacated; and WHEREAS .the City Councn,by Resolution No. 2343 passed and approved on June' 9, 1980, and alter due investigation, did lJx and determine the 14th day ot July, 1981J, ,Il tile ilOur ot 8:00 P.M. in the City Ccuncn Chambers oC the City ot Renton to b! :h! '.i:n: and place ror a public hearing thereon, and the City Clerk having given due :1oLi::e or .. -ueh hearing in the manner provided by law, and all persons having been heard :1[,penri:c in tavor or in opposition thereto; and WIiEREAS the Department oC PubUc Worles and the PlaMing Department oC t::e City otRenton having duly considered said petition tor said vacation, and having four.·J ;j:mc t .. ,be in the public interest and Cor the public benefit, and no injury or dam,'lF to oUl:· person or properties will result trom such vacations; NC';II THEREFORE, THE CfrY COUNCIL OP THE CfrY OF REN~ON, W ~ IU.GTON. DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: 3Ec :nON 1: The (onowing described por~ion or street, to' , .. , Sec Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereoC liS :t fully set forth herein. BE AND THE SAME IS HEREBY VA'CAT-£D SUBJECT to an easement over, actOSS, ~nd(:~ ..If.d on all oC the a£oredeseribed property in ravOr' or the City Cor ut.llity and :elaled fAJrposca. qECTfON R: The City Council hereby elects to charge a ree o( one-halt. )C $; .2·) pel" s·,uare Coot to Petitioner-Qwners, said amount not exceedinr one-halt ot :he ':;it/3 L.~I)I' lisa! or the right-of-way interest herein vacated, and sum charge being 'eu nf ) e :1C proper. srA f£ OF WASHSltltrO"} SI. t:!lljllTY OF «tNt; " '.I...!t; ....... ,,,:. •.. ,,L..:.:!J..{.J&.Ll ..•• CJfr CIon ill ... IiIr lilt ClIo all _. :laS:;'''·'I •• ,., I!o I\er,b, c."ty tit" ,he ' ....... Dn2i ..... is • trw 1M CCII'ftd "I', ,'I t;i; .• ,-,~. No . ..1.!t~ . .!L:-....... ,,.. CJIy of ...... II """" on fill Request: :''oi Ct· .Od 40 tu" .. ClIIIIy tOot Ifte -"" _ .""_ OCt .... • •• In W,lt"". W~"toI I ,... __ .. fWIJ ....... ...".... ". ..., 01 , ... 1qa, .... ~~t-~~I..':~.L.::q:;~'.;; .. :!l.":.:oI~R .. I ... c ...... ~._._ • .., all .-' J,., , ..JSo t .. .. _ .. LL' I .... , ,,-" rJ. ~;?: <' :~ ("( ::c: N M g o o CD SE =-nON m: 'nils Ordinance shall be effective upon Its passage, approval and n·"" (ioy:: alter Its publication. A cert1tled copy 01 this Ordinance rball be med with the Otfice of Records and Elclltions, KInr County, and as otherwise provided by law. PASSBD BY THB crry COUNCIL tills ~ day of July, 1980 ./ ~. . p. ~.~. . ~~~~~~~~~~ .. ~~~~~~~~~~ H&xiaa B. Motor. Deputy City Clerk ,\PPROVED BY THE MAYOR this ~hday 01 July, U80. Approvej .lS '0 Corm: Law:el,ce .J. · .... uren, City Attorney Date of P'lhli(!ation: November 5. 1980 . .. I I. t' i i '. I I :,'Y"" .< .... . : .. ! .~ ... : N .~ o · -- N.W. 7th Street YAC-3-80 All that portion of 1.11. 7th St. (5. 122nd St.) baving a width of 60 ft. lying southerly of Block 4 II. H. Lati_r's Lake Washington plat asre- corded in Yol ... 5 of plats, page 70 records of King County Ilash1ngton and that portion of vacated 90th AYe. S. adjacent; northerl), of the north lines of Blocks 15 ad 17. Lat1_r's Late Park Add., as recorded in Vol. 18 of Plats, Page &3 records of ICing County Washington. exten«led; easterl), .of -the easterl)' right-of...., 11ne of Taylor Ave. N.W •. ~tended from the N.W. corner of Lot 1. Block 1& said plat of Lat1mers Late Park Add. across IIortllfest 7th St. to the northerl)' right-of-way 11ne thereof; and westerly of 'the westerly right-of-way 11ne of Rainier Ave. H. (State Highway No. Z) 'extended •. As situated -within the 5.11. 1/4 of Section 7. Township 23 H., Range 5 E •• W.M. '. ( I· t t: ( r . r ' WHEN RECORDtc!lETt1RN '1'0: 0f8Gi 01 the Oly Ock ReIaa t.hlllldp11lluDollns 200 ',Ull AWJlueSclUl1I RallDI\. WA 98055 • - ................. _ .. CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINlINCE NO. Ull JUf ORJ)IHAHC~ OF THE CIn OF JlSH1'OH, WASBIBG'rOH, VACA~ING A !lOeION OF 12~RJ) S~REH (MEYBR/CORSEY -VAC 001-91). MBEREAS, a proper petition for vacating a portion of 123rd Street located in the 600 block of Rainier Avenue N. was duly filed with the City Clerk on or about November 5, 1990, and s~id petition having been signed by the owners representing more than two-thirds (2/3) of the property abutting upon suchstrep.t sought to be vacated; and 1fBBR.EA~,. the City Council by Resolution No. 2834 passed and approved on March 11, 1991, and after due investigation didfL't and determine the day ,of April 15, 1991, at the hour of 7:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambero of the City of Renton to be the ·time and place fpr a public hearing th.er~on, and the City Clerk having given due notice of such hearing in the manner provided by law, and all persons having been heard .appearing in .favor or in opposition thereto, and the City Council havrng'Cconsidered all information and arguments presented to it; and WBEREAS, the Board of Public Works of the City of Renton having duly considered said petition for said vacation, and having found same to be in the public .i.nterest and for the public benefit, and no injury or damage to any person or properties will result from such vacation, NOH, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE ~ITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, 00 ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: - :\~ i I ! ... e ~ ~ j w 8 ·1 ... '" ~ .. ;; ... § :1 ... l~ ... ... ~~ S i; .j' on '. g i,~ ". 11 l:: f':l r ~'i. ;~ ... ~ 8 i II· I f* I~ .~ ",:.. rij • ~. ~ " '. ( ( . ' ( • . \ • . . -~ .... , .\,. ...... , . ....... _ .... -... _ .. .---_ .... ,' .... ....... ORDlBAHCE NO. 4357 SEglOR I. The following described street, to wit: Seo Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof as if fully set forth-herein be and the same is llereby vacated subject to an easement over, across, under and on all that portiori as dee::ribed on Exhibit ·s· attached hereto and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein in favor of the City for utility and related purposes. SECTION II. The City Council hereby elects to charge a fee of $5,100.00 to the petitioner-owners, said amount being 50% of the City's appraisal of the right-of-way interest herein vacated, and such charge being reasonable and proper. SECUOR tIl • This Ordinance shall be' effective upon its passage, approval, and thirty days after its publication. A certified copy of tllia Ordinance shall be filed with the Office of Records and Elections, and as otherwise provided by law. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this ~ day of ~J~1!~n~e ____________ _ 1992. City C1er)( APPROVED BY. THE MAYOR this -=.:==--____ , 1992. Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney 2 ·1 '.( . ...... ", .... .. ' .. 0: ... ' ... ,:.-::'~" :':.:~ .. " .:: .... ~ ... ";:.;:~.. ...... .. "\ .. .: .. ::~~·J1}~::':::·~:;~:~~~:!·f :~:;::~:~;}~~P/~:~·~·,~;-I··ri .~'" :: .. ( ,I ,; '" .::1 : .l :I :a ~ ~ : .1 - ! . i j I, !~ "~' .. ( '\ • -'. I • • ..... 0" ..... __ "-_.:... ._ .•. ~ ... ~ •• .:. .. _.;.._ .... -_ ... .: .......... _.. ••• 0::" _. _ .',. _ ._ •• __ • __ ..•. : .... ,.""--......... , .. _-, OJlDIRJUlC! RD. ~ I .\ Date of publication: .. _ ... J~ulOJn .... !! ...... 1 .... 9u.~1..c.9..a.9.b2_ ORD.238-5/28/92-ds. • 3 ( .-I ~ 0 ;:; (7) j ... <> 00 ~ ..t ., 00' CJ> ." 0 ... N '0. ,> ' (7) :-: -~ .J ; 0' ::I -, .. :> :I ~ . .' i~ o • EXHIBIT "A" nw portion of stn:ct right~f-w.1)' known as Ohio Pbcc iIIId C:unbridgc Boulcwrd (n1so known itS Soutll 123rd Street), 'IJfsho\m OQ the PllIt of Louimc:r's L3kc Parle Addition, as rtalrdcd in Volume 18 of pw.s, P:lge 63; Records of King County, WlIShiJIgtan, said pl:!t situ:ltl:d in .1 Portion of the Nortbcast qu:utcr ofthc Southc:lst qunncr ofScction 7, Township 23 North, R:ulge S East, W.M., 'King County, Washington, SlIid rigbt~f-w:ly being bounded 01S foUows: Ohio Plgce: A) lying soutbcrly of the south risht~f-\V01Y ITIlIrgin of wCl1cd Northwut 7t11 Sired (015 wealed by City ofRcnton Ordin.Jncc 3455) shown as Bingh:unptan Stroct on S41id PllIt ofLatimcr's Lake Pl1tk A.:!dition (nIso known lIS South l22nd Stroct); B) lyins westerly ofthc westerly lot lines of lots I throush 6 inclusive, Block 17, of S41id Pillt ofL:uimcr's l.:IIcc P:IlIc Additirm; C) lying ClSterly of tile most Clsterly lot lines of Lot I, Block 16, s:lidplll1, and Cb1Crly of Lots 5, 6, and 7, Block 1 ofthcpmt ofWoodyGlcn Additiou. as n:corded in Volume 47 ofPllIts, Pages 91 iIIld 92, Records otKing County, Wl!Shington; D) lying r.orthcrly ofthc northerly boundary of Block 5, of said PInt of Woody Glen Addition; CWbridgc Boulcv:ud 01S shown all the PI;u of said I.atimcrs I.ake PlIrk Addition: A) B) lying westerly of the westerly right-of-way line of RlUnicr Avenue North, nIso kno\m lIS St:ltc Reutc 167 (to~y known 01S St:Itc Route 2); lying southerly of the :;outhClStCriy lot line of. Lot 6, Block 17 said PI;u of Llltimq's Lake PlIIk Addition; ,. C) lying northerly of the northerly bound:uy of Block 5 said PI:lt of Woody GII!II Addition; D) lying c::IStcrly of the most C01Stcrly lot lines of Lot 7, Block I of said PIIlt of Latimer's I.ake P:Irl: Addition. "-As shown on the att:lc:hcd map . !n·332.00C/MDIWI -.. 1 ;\ I .. (' .' ( :.~. cr"" • ( EXHIBIT"B" An ~ lor the purpose of utilitics silUiltcd wi1hiD the p:arc:cl bribed ill Exhibit • A·, AttlChcd hcrctD, being '!'O"rc partic:ularly described lIS follows: BEGINNING :It Ihc Northwest comer of Lot 4, Block 17, ~l UJcc P:uk Addition lIS n:corded ill Volume 18 ofPIaIs, P:Isc 63. Records of King CDunty, WIIShingtoa; Thcnce North f}D 34' 44" West 310ng tile westerly CltIcDsioD of the DOrth bowId:IlY of ~d Lot 4. II di$tIn~ of IS feet more or less, to IlI1 iIlt=cction with the c:;:utcrly bouncbry of Lot 6, Block 1. W«tdy Glen Additioa, lIS recorded ill Volwnc 47 of PIw. P3gCS 91 lII1d 92. Records of ICing County, W:tshington; , 1bcncc South OD 34' 44 ~ East 31on8 s:aid c:astcrly boundary of said Lot 6, i1 distlllCc of 20 fcc:t; Thence ClSlCrly 31,on8 II Iia£ JW:lllcI ,,;th 3DCl 20 feet southcrly of said WC!itCI'ly CXU:IISiua of the North liac of s:lid Lot 4, ::l distUIc:: of IS feet, mare or less, 10 the wcsrcrly boundary of 5::lid Lot 4, Block 17, l.:Itimcr's l.:IIcc PlIlk Addition; Thence acrtherJy:llang mid wcsu:rly bound:Ily of Lot 41C the POINT OF BEG ENNING. As situ:la:d ill the North=st qulIltCr of the Southwest qu:utcr of Scc:ticn 7, Township 23 North, R:Ingc 5 bt, W.M. '. '\ ". ;, " = '. ( l c. o 0) ... Cl) ... CoO o N 0) D • (4). ( Plat Map) NORTH: .- 0,,': ~\ .: " .: : ·,l :c :- w .. . .;. ....... -":-.-.-.-_'0;" II .; .. ~.: .... 'n r. '.1 II n • ( . • 0 I .-',\\ .•.. f! ". • ~-11'··~ .... ' . · ... ~~---..--... .,:I, ..•. -.••. _IM.I: IJI$!J .. laIllAI!I!"lt";~.~.~!~!'Jl)!!!I!jI~.L!!:'ss!II\')~I''?'''.~'~'''' .l"" . ...-;0<,.,.. -'.~" . ' .. ( : ... "1' ;t. ''J " .~ .... ~t 1 'f h ~ J I • ( I i : • l p •• I ~ I,. ., ,:~ .. " III" it fI ... I' ....... ' ~ • .. 'I-,~ .. :1., '1" t' t '1' ;: • \:: ; I" If ,: IA 0' ,. II "" • iii • l' ,,: t I:! • . i:: It • • -... • ~ 'J ,: .~ 't ~. ..,:, .. :., ~"'" 1... t :..... .... '1'': ~.,!: ,. <It , I = .. _It \ ~." ~ .,. ' ... :.;: .. " •• -t ,: ", '. 'i • ..,;-, ...... to'; ~:J:': ,:,."'; I'" I .~ ""1 ... 1 ai, .!' .. " .:,: IJ" a n .... ,. , .......... '" '!" '1.".1,,· I.')' , . 4Jl. .~ • 1 '" : ••• ~ .... 1101 '\ ~~, L" n «..:,., ,_ 110 f.,. ':' .. !! • ": I " ; ~ •• ' • :"".,.. .; .'. ~ It r. I '" .. ". ,,, 10' • A, ,_ It t • 'l. 't I, . " 'f I, ~.. • 4 ~ 't .,. .. : " J." ., I." is , ,. .1 , \ ' .. .! " ", '; .!J!I til f •• ' ~ " .... ,' ~ ~ • ~ ~. ,-1 ••• , •. , 'i """' .. ' ••• '" .. 4"" Ntil U'f. • _. " I, 1 ':'" ". " ,.. t' ... :Il 'h '0 .. ~ " ... ' ..... I ." 'I o ,~: ... " ' ...... ~ .~ 'i" .,..: " ,: " ": ... ~.. .. WI·, J ~ .'. : : :.".: ...... I .. It : .... .: .. ~ II· , '. "'. • , It : ~ '; t ~:'; ~ f.~ .' ,N" ,- , .... , .. ,.. . II : .. ! ~ .: .. .. I ,r' I ..... ... ~ l , , , oJ··· •.•.••• " .. ..' .::, ,:ll'i.·:":M •• ,a l 1 " It • "". i.... ~ ..... .... • ., " .! ~ , " i ~.: :: 't I •• .. :. .. '·1 i 11 = I I I • 1 "., ., • ' •. II II ; : 'f • , " ; 'I ., .~ \ I • ........ " ... , ". 'f' • ". . .. , . , " , I ,. ': 'I J ,! • ': It, "1 . ,'1 .. '... "1 .... , 1" · .. til .!' It· ·f..... ., ~ 'z. • ~: '1.': It ~ • ..:" l' ": : .to·j 1 ~ ., 1 .1 ~ :.~ , ':.1 ; • ~ 'I. I? I': ,~ • J 'J :.. ; :~.~ ~ .: It ':; i! .. i : :! ! ,··.,.1 ....... ,· ..... · · ... " ;,I'" I .... " ~ "" ',41 '1 ••• .... 11 , a, 4.·' r • . ... : ' : ! " '. "'~' II' iii r r. ~ ~ • ., r .. •• ~ ~ ,., t ~ 'I .: 2 .z" : ~ :'-, " • ~ .! : " " .. ,,, j " , .~ ~ 2 t i •. ! ; 'I .t " I~ .~:. tot~' ,~ : ; ~ ,,';I. . .. 1" ' •••• '. '.1..:,f-:" ~·."1··'t • '.1" ' .. "1 I :.-oJ' I · ":1 1 •..•• ~ .,' ---------------_. ---------_._--_ .. -.- .---..... '. r=-( " ,. , I!.:' L ~ t ,; :. 1 .. t :., ~ .. ~ t; t. t ; :' i : ~ • • ...... > ... 'r." :. : ! " ::" ';!: ~ ;. I' :. ! ' • • ~', ::~ !. I. 1; :' .. " •• ~ ~ ; ;-; • ~ :'; :: ~ • {. : ~ to: II' ,. t'. •• I .... ~. .., z= ~ ': • t I,' • I : .. I ... r l '1 2 :' r • ;..:' -:." I, 1 .• ,,: ~ " to ; ....... • " . r. to... ,,' t ::. ~ : ,~ :., ;'., ~ ~: : :, a : h: :. .. • ;: i:;' .: i, :' ", \ ':. t.· r,,:., ,', r. .:" !: "~' ....... L II .. I" • ". u.; ~;: ~ ," .• I ~. ~ " ~.: :; :'~. ,', CI: ':':' ~ :::: ' r. • f" ,: Fe" It .• • a • I II : .. .' I':... J ··i.'·:-'~""'''",··r. : •• a. : " .. ., : :.: j' r., • • :.--:. .:' ~ : : .t :: ': .. r.:::, 'i :. :: :-, ~ • I t. ~. " It .•••• ~ :·t··~t··"· •. ·:'t""t • ""f .. ;. ~ :: 1 ~ ~ r • ;.&. 1 , ; ~ II 1;~. I .. ;, 'i r .. -. -. _._._---. '-"-" :. .. ' ... ;'::, : ~ :. . .,. .. to..... '.'.. •• .. I' I"" I ... t t ... II ~ : or " 'f • I N, '., ~ : :-.. : t ~ ; .. I ",,·w· -:..~ .: ~ .. " .,. til... .... I ". '" • to.,. '., to 10 ... 'f 01 ", .. I~,., .. ' ... ':. ~ :, " ... ,I • " III. H " ••• 'f. ," I , w'" t !, I • .: _ 0: ~ • • ~ f... ",., I: ........ " ............ ' o : . .: I. ""::' .. :: ~ • ,. ~ ~, ;: :,'. • : , •. " " " :' • :.~, I ~ 0. I:'''' '., ',:';: ",:'~ ii ,,;... I' " I .. ' • .. •• ~ .. , ~ ,.: r ',ttl .. : t ' ••• ! ~I , • ~, W,',,. fi; .. 'f:'.I,.c!~~~~: a ::.;:. 'f'~" " 'I ~~, f ~ " --,,' , '::'1·' r :-' :: .. ::;:" ~ f''': " ..• \I:' :.. ~'I " !' i. • ~,"' • .,.. W' ': •• toO. II "". L • ;: .,l: ' !, :'.' .' ':. :' r ~, :. I. ':. I :' .. , I .,!,. • :: ': ,. :. ~, { I ... f .. ,I fI, .. ~ ~ ,', ,! t, ' ... '.:' " " :: I. :.: ::; ;:: :: •• . "'~.1" ., .. '..! " '1" II :, :~ 1 r -: ~ 1.:' &.'! . , 'K ':' ':.;,' ,·r-, .• .... ~,~r. II '. I I .... '~ X·I I .. p., • t ••. ... ~ , • ~. t. :; : .. • .. t _ ~~ .. t •• " .... :': ~ .. • .. II • .. r.jL=~ til -: ~I ~ .~ •. " E ,4 ~ t ~~. , ... ' ... L·-• t ~ ,," .. ~ ", _ , ;" 1 ,! t ; : J . i.,: ~.. • I. .. .~~ .. .. -I. :".,,,': f rt f ,. r l• :! .. .! 'il" , .. " • r t '-.. 11:-; :: .. ' ; :J 1, ~ -Jo I, J'" l ! ~'i··r:.: · -\:~. . ro", -, 'f lJ: ··r-"":' to ' , III .. . " '". ~ " .... I' • " ~ t i r . .. -i~iif':: • • .. I... "!"o . : ;1"lJ· 'I m! ,; • III . .. .. ~J f -~ f { ./.'-• oJ 11 t&.:-; .. " 8 f 1 ~ l'I,t • ... tI·~· , .: .. • ... . ~."" " . " III l f .. 'J : p'. : .t" " ..J f. lJ::.·':.:r .. 'Ii , .•.•• ~ t • ~ . ' • , ,'I k'f., .. " . :. " . If. "t. to • •• "" •• "1.,' .. 0 ' .. ~; of, ,: ••• ~ • . . !. 11" ~ ~ et :~.~ i l' , ., # z: .. . ., " !' •• : ::.. ! I ' . l"'" · .-: .,. . x: .. .. • ".:.~.': .. L '" ... " . ·~r ," ;.It".,·,, r u ",. • 'f .. , •. ... ct .. .. ~ ... ~ir:.i·~·, ., 'llfilfIsf~~i .. , • • 0' , '.".1.1'~ , • • I • ..... .. ~ I ~ .... I" • .. tl· .. " "'i' ...... !. t,.~ "'" r • 0 .f i. ,I.. I ~ • I • -. , . -----. _._-------------- . ~ . I: :-,: I, .. ,; .. " . " ,:.:. t-., . " \ ," i f ..... ,., .. '" ~'~, ,I ~ifo £0. ~ \';-r.. . • • U , ~ ':.J ': • ,81 • O.J • 7. O!-\,:--· 'l 1,/ VI .. ' " " .. , " ,. . ; .. ., ... ~ i: j' .. r. :: ;: @ /' ~~ ; ~ r: "\ .. " 'C I I ,'. ~ :~ ,.! '-' : " t ~""':i :: ~ ~: \.:;~: : : .. ~..: . . : :.: .. ~ " , "' I " .. " , .-" r. .. , ~ ,.. o. I: .. I.; .. . :, " ,. I. i-.. • •• · '. · , ~: .. · , f: I, "" , . . " ". ... : !. 'I: ! ... , , . i. ... ~ : ~ , .._. It .. " .', . :: .. : ~;~ : !w-" L·" ... r. 't -.. ([~-l).' " .... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ( .. a_. _ . ___ . _ ... ________ ... ______ . _________________________________ _ I" .. i .. ": ":!, :. ... to:" •. -:. ;'!" ' ':''':, ". '. " " ' ••• ~ ... :-II ~. : ot " 'f •• H. "f: :; . : t t ~; .. , ...... ':,!.:; .. -... ' ...... ·.ft r ,..". to ':. • It., ~ I :' it I ;,: :', .. , • ... I... of'..... . f' ... N • 't, II " f.', ....... I ,I, '. ", . .,. .: :; • ~ ;. to II If ,., I: I '. r . . !.".,; .• ::.;, .• : 9 1 " ~ .• : r.:.:: r. :: : ~:. ~~. ii: .. :'.. . '., -: ,. ~ : I ':' Ie ' ii !. '" ~ .. ; ~. ";' : .• '~. ~ # V ': ~ ~: r '. , .... : : ; " ~ : .' :, ' ~ :!l .. t :.'. ;', •• !; . ~ i: Q : ':;' ,,' ~ " • ~:-' f :0" ... ,.':: I'·':' :" . :: .. :: '" ... .. ".: 'J • .' •. ~':' :. ~., t ~ ~ . ~f;··· . .,. v.~ ", I. "'1 : ..•.. :. ~.: •. , .•. ":.:-r~,:.," :: :'.. . ":.1 :! ~ .. ;'!' ( • ... r .. ".,. ~ ';: .', 11! 'I 1 ... " L " ., : I. :,; :;; ;:: ~ oil ..... '" " .. "" ....... 1 "~r. ~t '~' . .. , I. .. : ~ .. 1, II • t ~ 'f t. J .. . i. ~ .. k III • .., I :: ~ f. • ~~.It o • r J: : .; lI:: ... ' u .. 4 t. .. , 1 I I, .. . " "''' ~ ....... t .. . t"l d t ~: "·[1.:.:: 'l .. =.t!,,~ ";,·'.·f~: , "1 !I ... ~ I" .,.. •. • t, • , . "'l".' 'f .• t :. .' ... r I. t tr".:e., .: :i~·.~ .. ,:. · -t ... I, I : • L II II, .... " • .. ~ =!.:; .. , ..... :; ... ;'::~:~~.':J: t : .: :. r !-.:" =. i : ,., ~ ~".~ . ~ , ." .. ., it. :-:. .. , . " . . I .. , , .. . . , ;, · · · .. .. ~ !' ~ ,': .... ... .. . I .: 1 • , . lilt :. ~ ," ' . (1-;~ ' . "'.J • , III .. O.J • ,. . O!.L...:.:: , J 't ~ 1 ~,' ... .. ., ., I II ~ . ,. " .. ~@~' ~: ~:; .. ,; ). I' " / '4 " .::: I: ~",''\ •• !: !j.t' ~. :. ~\: ~~''V R' . "" . , . : ~: ... , ; , :; .: !' ' .. , '. ... I .. " t..I ,. 0; ,.. .. 1: It' L; .. • I, I, ., " ;c or .. N ' .. :'rj ,,~ ... ;', 'If . ". ", t ,; 'I. I.~~ J :-. . .. ,. , .~ .. '.-" .~ i! f ,~;§ .~!:~ ... . .... ' .... ~---._-----.1-... , "'. I , , , ~' , .~ ... , " '. ,. ~ , ,,' r . .. I •. ",' .. . '., I "., I i.A \~ r.~ __ _ Ii ;-..--,: .' to .\1 " . , .~ .- .\ - , .' \,--- ""'""--___ ~ __ a_--' .. ".~------------~----------------------~----------------~--~--------~ RECORD OF SURVEY PORTION OF THE ~~ :::~: I:: OF SECTION KING' COUN T Y • 7 • TWP. 23 N WASHINGTON . ~\.. .:1, r~ , "" ,. ".", ~_~' / ... J Il,-r JIM'" . . ' ..... \. ~" "'''/ • Will I." '" • ~~ , MAr(1I ,,1/1 ' !II Jllill • .' . , \ ~-... ---1-·"--:: • "," -~! ~ '«-i. -i\P ~ ~ 'i:. q:-' ,.' ~:';' s ,!t;,J! ,.,1, mf.'(J ...... ", ~"\\, q~;' It •. .:\, ~~f! • .'. _' "'II¥(' , • "CMiYtt ... ' ••• ...,NI ~~ '" . \.'\.",;. 8,. -~ "~ ... h" It .... .. -~ ~-J"" \;; . ....... --, : ~,. ~ ~.,~ , CUIIVf PArA ,\,'fr ~\ i" .... 'I !'!:!. _ •• t.~ ~~ ~~ ~\ ~~ ~~ " •• ,,,' "tV '~~J.. ~. .'Ii :.;:§ .... 'J:r ~. " .... ,----''''II!-'!"~ !!~. ~~. .!t ,IS .• ,.. ,.. Il 3 . -,-;;.:--I.",' H' I1tJ til' It" '"I ~ ~; ~:. - -.-i,"-:' ,.."". II/VtIII 4J~ ""IIID" ~1NIf AJr(' (,AI" i: ",.' -,It, • 4-,uJ-,,' •• "Mat '0 WJII. RGE. 5 E W.M. 6lJ03231(-D/ LEGAL O[SCIIIPflOH {g%O-4 ,.." /OII'ot' ... ", "" ,A." I. "(Ir~ '. ,".4 .,.,,,,,P.tt,, """,A,"." (II "'""," • ,,1IIt ~ •• ur,o """'" ,lfY SlIf"" ,,,,,, """ NlAn". '.'A'''~ .'~6 III(tIf' .. ,." ", A 'IfII, ,.. ....... " ,<tf ~'" "",,.,., • ........ ..... ,. "'''''''tI ,."" """""~., ..... ",*.6 .. '."'11 ",,,,, ''''''. ",.11 ,.." •• .., _ ,,, , ~II'" I. ,,,IIf, .""A" II! "" 'AJII~" '_I W rAtAltJ) ""' .. " • .; .nv" . ,IIJ 4 •• tt ,. "ttUt '. '«6'" fIlA' ,.""".111 ".,6 ."".,~,~ ~_ '41II.u ", ~,,(t .",,., IIJ~ II.", ,." .,.," ttIt l/1li' "" C6' I •.... "", ,..u' ~ """ ,.. ,., IIIDIV-"" "" (I' • ., J ./11" I. ,." •• ,. 'lit "1, tH tW..." ",. "", ", UI' t .... ,.", WJ_r., ,I' ",. ,,- ult 4 ~" •.••• ,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,41' frlrMII,.ft'PI'''''''' /I."., ,." M".' •... Nil", ,., •• ,.,,,, ,., .,.' ,." WII ".,111"" .• ~". •• _ ,. til' ~U'" ~ "1111" I. "." "",,,,,.,, '.',.,., ",. '. A/IID • ., _, "r •. *IK' , . • " ~ .. ".'" J, .." ." ttl' .,111.. " It. ,~, 1111 JIIIIlf N "" TWitNt' • ..cu II1II ,., JOt.' ", "..., *,. AD~'''''' .• ~6 'il ;", "AI ".,."tA'II "'(lflii/of .• :' ", ",,11M( "#1' """. N.,. " .. II. "" 4fMO tfNI.''' .• "'./M6IW.-, 41, "".,,.," • ., ...... , d ""(1 I~. ,.'IMIIf·' rAIl' ....... ~lJDo""., "U".O·.~ '" "., '1AI ""A,'" .lIaJIfC'Ilt • nil"." • til' JI"."' ..... , U_ ,. -..6 u~n. .J ... ,.,"., f/hII(' "IJ aA" til' ,,,,. 'lA' '" r6/(.9#' tI"" A#lhlltlll/ IIiID ... J' 4' , "., ". ..... 'fAAUI, .',., ...., '" ""r ftJ'/~' ."'/11 MlEAJl1fIItD.' ..,.r4--.u: ... ,,/_ 41f/".,IT '."M ,., 'V"IIU'we till' ,.,.' .... , ".." .~ .. It1II,. 1fIItI, ,u, .. ,. ..,.",. Ittl" ",., ~'II/J'" "",Alt" ,"*ct I~"" ,.1 M,nt,., "",,''' _, .... ' ... " "" ~.," ,.....,... ·M'", """U'''', ,t'" .....• "v",.,. *"'~ ". """.fI.od ,~U JW" .IIIPIUII( .• ,,~ClttIl6 to I., ...... ,.".,'" Qrl'iVWfI'4 ""V,..., _." ..... ". 1/IIItJ, .... III ., .. .., ...... ,.,. ,.. .... ".:i','" V"" N."tJlII '.""'''1' ", '1111(, tlllllt" , .. AlAe:' """"*111 ,. '~J ICNtJAtJ'" ".-. ... AlMIU'1V6 "II4I!A, ,,.,,, ..... WJ~/' SURVEYOR'S CERTIfICATE ''''t ••• ,e"etll, ... , ........ .-w., ... f • " .. 'f .f'f _, .1, ....... _."'''.''.'. .... 1111. I ...... ~. .'''. tullYl' . ,' ::.. \'0, ..... ._~_-... -/-IJ "If,'· III ("AJI ...... It·1t #' _till Ull '-~.". .,-,,~. .... ... ..... , .ci· , . "" f~ STlfur _~ :;:: :::t ,--,J~~,~.-", .".' ,,..,,. ".(111 .. __ 1!' ""''''''6 ..... 'r'" .... "" Wtrl .,f .... ",... t.I!~7 """" n·. n' "'. .. I, ..•. .; .• ." fi" -Hi jj: -~ "."". ""-"". or'" til.' ---' .. ~ " ... ' ...... ~~I' ~i' -~ ,', ,. -"', .. --, .. -"" .. ", ' •• .-uU 11111 I/IIA4IUD / I' , • -or .. "", , ...• -.... _ .. .,. .'. '~' . )"',.";; .. , ... _., ...... '., ..... ,. _rca_eu •• Kf ............. f . ~ M,,," .. MAlftM •• ~ ,,. .. , 111",. ,.. tltlJtWJ .. " "... .,. ";'M --.. -.... , ;,,;a, ·:ii...--'-.""'II! --;;;;;--" " ,'U'~~" ::. ~~',:' .,1'11' ",;:;;r-. .... , "'-"IfJ" Nll'm NU .,;;r - ,'" ~~-;;;;-,..,,#,' N1D(t1 ,M.. . " ... . i,·:.:A" -;;;;;--,.;;-...... .. • .. trI· _~. ,...,. ..... ;;.;; -, • '."" ,.., lfitfl, , -ii-H·;:--;~ -;;a.,-..... • •• tt ..... , -':1\;;-' -~~:~:~I-·!:!-"', ... uti ..... ' I .,.. ,.-.,.,. . •. ' ---;;;;J--' ..... ,.. .,.. "i--..... r~~f:: "-.,, ,,-".If If' «W"iJ' -r-:;-;;---- "til' It" ~I.!!-_~!!-_'.!:.'~.:. _ .. ~ :J _ ........ ~ -.. ., "'" tJI .,A,.'~'j ., .... ~.,. ~ '.""/~1 '''~ AI.~ -'Ill"'(lN' " .N., ",,~(I#"'IItJ"'AN/J 'A"44'III" Alft......, .... J",.A!f' '.11., cr., ........ , ., .... ,,., •• ,., ..... ,II, •• , A t.ftIM""""'N' tf'UJ,. "iI ."JI Dt"D I'IUlJtf61A I •• ,., .,,(1 -""""'I""N".~ ,. IV"," ""., ""t.""'(f"'· " .. " ".,..., .. , ... ,1161&11 "'''LJ '.1:'" '''''.1*W MIl.U f' JII.dtl '" Alit OUMtlll '" ffIJ( J1." (111 ".4j1r,If.'J.1II'1f ,.-.... "., ,.·."U/J N'te'O,. ,UKA 11 '" "'I1"'I'A·J ,AfItI NI.~ ADl'-r/(llfl' "If prJ"""'''' ''''f' ",,{VI( AN61U111116 IIItI """" • J' 31' •• " PO •• ,AJlM,"" ID "" tIn t" ..,,..,.,,,,, •• "'''''( ur"., ,. "J 1 ...... )' ... t:"I· ,..,. , """' •• 111 ttl ,..,., ""'M"/, ", •• ~.'''f'.' ~1f'P liNN • ..,£(1#1· • .., •• 1IIf) ....,(',(1 ... ., JuI.llrT 'tl A"r.'("".J (t'WIA""I{J ".,,., A4r,,,, ,., "., iJ' .,...,..,..., r.,l'¥ """1('1111 -.'441""'6 ,I" "II.' "lIr " .. AlIt ", .• ",~,' • "J"'.I'" ,. ,." 6'6'" til "., "'AII~ ..... -, ""' ....... ' .f,D" I ...... (,'1' .)A' "UJ ,,, I., "fJtlf"IfIII.I ,,, •• ' .... , ".4",1/I(J ", '11, J'_"J .J tIlDI •• '1,' III hit ... ,,,, ••• ", ~1If 1ft¥"'I4'" .. \ ,,"i • -,",''''If" ."'D! •. p. "", ~~:\' l~ :.~ RECORDING CERTIFICATE " ........ c .... 'trI"_ •• ' •• _____ ,. 19_ .t ___ M fill V •• __ ., S ...... . •• P ••• ___ •• I.. I...... et ~ .... r.;ror.;c.;..--'- ..'c ••• ·., ... II ... " ... 1' A ... • W ,.at. 100 ."nOll .•• IHI_O,O_ .. OSS ....... '1'0.' "'·' •• 1 ·;w'" , r,'·.'; ". · .. ·.r •... ,0.-.0 -;;,,:: "'. , .... III.' .... 1. ;';~;;-.-;';, :;;,-,----I -;;-,-..... II • \~J: '.---./' ',,-- . ., .. , "'" ... .,. ,,·· .. ·'.,,11 l '.' ~." til' .'11. "t \ -. --.. PORTION ::1'.'::: r' .. I ~ ..... , .... , "_.tlJIIf' ." ,.",. ~:~~ .. "::"~.~ i~:· "'U ,.." .... I h t~I" n ~:; ;: .. It:O ~t ·'I·~ .~ i" '" .. II \8_ t1 -,. -.;;: ;;; Ii-. .,..., w.., " .... , .,.., .... CI·"~"'.' ~ .(f"" f II'" "",,. t iIi".; ,;.; :;:' :;;J .... J' .. J'~t ,.. ' 1 t' . . _./ -. \'1/ ..... - . :\ ( i ~~~\'~ • {4f. ... " rAUl" '_ .. .,..-Y . " .......... .,,,. " ..... ,..,1,,. '-~- RECORD OF or THE :: :~: ::::: OF SECTION tUNG COUNT Y • ·.'f'JI"W ..... u· It ... ' " .. ". ".", "~H ",..-, JIll'!!!' JT1IEtr ::: ,v&!: , ,/ ", '\>~ ... ., ...., . .,~;:~ , .. \ tol ':'.'\!., -.j\. " ... "'. \'>J ,I, •• --'--,1;, ,...,. ..... ... eN ,....,..0 'r .... ,. J." ".V "'fI'D""'~",' "".'.' "'"' .... ....a ll1U', It .......... I'"'''' \ t.~·' < ... .--;. SURVEY 7 • TWP. 23 N !iASHINGTON .. ~ .' \; ~\;l ~":\ ,f :. -',. ,\ ',.l., 0; :~: ~1\!" RGE, 5 E ., W.M. rf03t~q(XJ I ('1130 o 1 n fqll[ .-. fOO' 100 'toO '.100 U&£NO ~, u'l ... ' ., ............. f·' .... , .• 'W.a. ...... ',...,...... _'f ..... AlN··., ... ,,. .. """'.".., • tr ~ ...... , • • .., ..... a-'"",,, •• , .., ....... ,. • ... "PI' ., " ......... ,.. ,....'iII ..., JOItO"'fI ..... , .• .,." .uJT M'tOf1trW' AJ """" .... -'J"'~ ,.,., .... ". -." II • -, ...,. .......... ··6 ", .. , . , ...... , = ':~:-: ." ~ ~ :rr:r ::~~~",. ... '" o ;.: "'6 ., ~A4fI'.~III' -, , ", 'lAD...,. tat" ... t:IIIl1 ...... ,,,,~.,IIIItJ.Nl. .. 1IA"r3. III.,,. . .,.... ... _ "-"'*'& f[[ UQAl OESC"''''''ON, Non, AND CUftV[ DolTA Off IHErr I J , .. ,.,., . .,... , SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE u ............ U, ... , ....... _ •• , ..... ., -.. _ ... _, .1 .... --............ . .... , ......... _ ...... tuttvt • • 'CORD,.' act ............. . ~!.~~"~'~~----------~------­.. ~~-. . -!! (C. !~V~~~--, . ~ .J III(J ""'" . ~ RECORDING CERTIFICATE "It ... , ' ...... t ... _ '" .. -----.-.1 __ .' ______ 11 .. ¥I' ____ •• ,.,.," .. ~ .. ------.. ,.. '...... ., .... -.......-srw.....-- ...... 1 .... II ......... H an •• t ..... 100 ..... 011 •• a ..... 'OM NOI • ..... _ '-1111-•• ~ .;.~~_ .-. ~.=-l"" *401 1"" ..... C ...swAi 'Of"'" ,,,--,,,,,' .' . ' '~ RECORD OF SURVEY PORTION OF TlIE~: :::~: ::: OF SECTION 7 rwp. 23. N ENCROACHMENT CD ,.- I.-I" ",.'" ... ... " • .. ·111'·. 0 ..... O··~ -'" I '";;-: , .. - .f, • , r . 3 / • ., • .., 'd'" . • ... ,,-.t, ENCROACHMENT ® ".,.,.-~~":; ... '--41" . KING COUN1Y, WASHINGTON ENCROACHMENT ® ,,--. RGE. 5 l ~.M. 81?32J9a>1 ~-a ... SCALf" o '" I© ,-. zcl .., .., SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE '.'1 ... , ..... lttl, ....... "". • ..... , ".,. " •• If ..... ta, .Ir ....... r_t., .. ,,.U .,t. ,.. . .... ,....... ,_... ,....". , "'CO"DU" acf .... ".f ....... , MIll ""rIA !!!!!!!!! ... .!!. ~'-'~ .... . RECORDING CERTIFICATE , ....... , ..... 'fII', _"1 .t,-:-:-__ _ rt_ .' ___ 11 I. v,. __ ., , •••• " '11 ,.,. ___ .t I •••• ,.... ., IN .... . r.;nJrim.i-. -- iii, ....... , H, (I ... po •• n .... • w ,.It. tOO IIII"tOll .•• 'MlNG'OM •• OS5 P .. o ... · Ctol, II.·~'" .-.~. ----... _----_'!." ._.~~ __ . __ I~!!_ ".A ...... . • c-..... ,. ,or' '"I." . . .......,/ • ( ',':. .. . <> ... ::.: ,', .~;,. '. ~. I ~ ....... ";:'" I' •• .... ~;~ .; .. DEED OF·TRUST · •• ~.t ~ :.-... ..... "'-'. ...,'. -. -.... ' . ... !pIII~-~~ ' ... ~_ ~ ~ : .. ..::a;; ilia tIDS5 _........ -... • .. --. -___ ~~E.? ~ ... _ .. ~ .. _-_.,-. ... ~--_.. --,.---'. bOU.t.IIS (1150.000.00 ) _____ ..... _01. __ -.,---l1li,_ _ •• ~. ___ "' __ ·011 __ II ,. _______ .. _a. ___ "'--., .. -.'._,., __ • ..__ __ ---.. -... _.....u_ ...... ~ .,. , ." . ....................... .,_ .............. IIii.iir.-.............. __ .,_ .....--.............. --_ ...... -................ --... -..-.-...... ................... _---...... ~ ............ -........ -... -.•• _ ........ t-.., ...... _ .............. ___ .IIf1r..-........ __ ..... __ ...... ,..._ ........ __ .... _._._.-• ., ... -. .... 0IttIdIII_ .... _ .... c-....-.......... _ .. --.... ..... -. ...... _ .......... _ .. _ .. -~.-.. ... -... ............ .mm. .!!S! ......... ~ . ~ ·c"",," _ ......... ~ !!!::!...!!!:--............ . ,... -...... , ., OII-.l a-. -...... ---_ ... . 1.-...... '''01-,. .. -"." -M' ........... --....c .--_ .. ---c:no-. .... ~ ..... ,-----~ a:r _-c::.:'i:.. '1""" --, .... -.... .... ,_. .. , .. -u_ -............................ ----,,01-." . 11_ -•• ~_ ..... 'UI' ;:e-. ''''01-_no ---,., .. a........ ~ " ... ,. .. 01-.. -r.o." ;.. 'U::-=-,-, .. -. 1·1,'=-"'~ .-' ........ .u._ ,-. -.... -............... , ....... .-,-au ___ --...... ---_ ... ,-,-"01 __ ,-".uc -... ' ..... -.. ....... ..... .-. '.111", --.---"01---.-...... c.a..a-. ftl-1M . .... -.. -.".... ..... "-·na_ .;:::=:. .. .,-~ -..... =-. .,~-. " .... .-', .. --nla.,. -'" ......... rc., .-·n_ .. :...... ... -, ...... -.-..... .01-... -._a -..... --.. - -.-m ___ u ..... 11--•• 01-. .,.. .. ..,.. A_"'. __ '_.,..."'n.. .. --.._ ..... _---.-.,...oIn..-~___. __ ",or-... _, n 1' .. '_ .. __ ,...,....,_ """ __ ........ oI_.,....,n.. .. :'OI_...-..ar.~, ... ....-.'-_ -__ , KO,... •••• .,., }- .~ ... ~_.'" A.1I.,.19~ ____ >IIoM4.' __ _ lie '-_, .. __ "W ___ ~ ____ ..-, _'"':----------------.. __ ....... -.- :;;:::;:-::;::=::;;;=-::;~=:~. ~ . ., ... ----... -.. -~,....... ... • ---. ...... 1 .... 1M .... ~ te ............ we-, ........ ..f .... ~ .. dIIe_ ... ~ _-______ . _____ .. __ ao!. ___ ....... -.-,. ...; of f ... _ ...... _--.-nnraa .. __ aCIIriaI .... __ ....... _. __ ._ ......... .~ '. • ...,_._, .... _ .. W __ ,. ~.------------------ UQt1EST Faa FULL UCOIMtYAHa T ... __ "._.I1 ...... _M .. _~~_ .. ____ .. _ l'OI T1I U'I'T1I&. no. --..'-... 1..,.& ___ ..... __ 011_ ' , ._"' .... __ .c:r-. .... _ .• ___ .u _ ..... t .. _"' __ .. ~ __ WIr,.,.. ... _____ -_ .. -.. ---.--.. -.. --....... , .. -----.. --.. ~.---_ -.-4, _ 011 __ ........... _ ....... _ .. -n-e .. ~ • ____ -1M ..... _ .. Towo. _ •• __ • wt_ ._.I .... _____ "' ... -.. __ .. Towo.oII .. .......... ~w"', ............. D .... __________ .I. ___ _ ( ~~~ ... ,.------------------.------------------------ . Ht:t lI~oa n l"" : .:;{: ... ~ .. ':: ~ ~J a.h til')' ~ ~ILI ~r ~ r ~a.r ttr 1LIIIIIIt/f;,;. \ f .. f! ~i r It) ILl a. I lill il I"" ! I'· ;.,; ~ . .'~, ~f ;,.. 'ft!' ~ i iJ f.. !t I· H Ilil :'~:;<:t ~., •• ii.*! I~' • I .. "·5 llli ~i ... 1 I .... J IIt:ilL . ~ , . I f"~1 . i:: I ':,~81 (' f ,·1 J:''' ,a. I":' :-0. ;" :"::.;1·1 -.... ' .. .:f III J a. i. 1 f:ti·JI:··f:, I .,.,A !" :/". I . '. ~ . I.. .. I II. t: i i . II . ';, ..... :, .... ",;:. ·,d 1:" i a If r I . r" Iii .il >: r " ,'11'1:' -,~""' ~~Ir~i I 'fliP '( I .~;., f":. IU~i; f ;", . i::J'JI:>t.: .-. .. , i ( a f ~ I. •• I fl ... -... w... . .' r. . • ,; IL s: .. .. IL i i .' a. .. ~ .. ...~.: llii f Il,a.1 i i: i I", ,t.G<'I~ i"" Ill. II. '~I"'\:':;,:j~"'~. ~ .., I.. '. J I" .. ' ......... <'>i . • . '. "" " ••.• fl· •• /. • >': ~.. t.i ". '. ,,' .' . • II ~ ... l".'. ~-r:i' !: 'ifi Ii -,' ~ I~a I . f~' ij; '. iii· as. filii . h. ~ .. L ~t~~a'J .. 'l~i'II~IJ11\~ . I'f f ~llcl' Ii ... ~ , .. I, , I"; .~, '~J" ,,' . -a... I. . 1:. I,,~'" '. . :-'.. I'I ':1 1I.1i~ f:t ILl· I I' i·;.Ii~~~ .. ~:Ji';~.{ ,J.. .' •• 4 I.!. 1_" ~ fa:·r:·· a:IIi~' .-:: 'J:' .. ••.. '. I -I '." • Ii . Ii ' "", JI···· :~~ .. ,.,1.: \,'J \. IL . . ... ,\ ..... ~. '/ . : !l .. I II· ~r r. i4 (". ":',!i,.::~: .. . ,' I~>' I . I J \. , .' ... ". ... . . ~'. . . . .' .,<;'; . " I' . -.: .... : ..... ,';,.:!.:~..::tIc. · . "''!1Jl'' 1al'f.lrU·1Il 'J»., t·!en.iu·._J :\'[ d.-~ T"!:!:lD ;a.:l::>ol!! _foY <":1 :"M_::t.Zcr efI:t = 'CIIt1,"-.noblflM ".,:, ~ '"" •• # ..... _. ___ ,;;.~~~~~ •• ~: •• ~~ ... "!# .!:~~~'r~.~ .!:n ,IDI' !!1f''/ ~""" ·.lIaJ ·.·'1~aJ .~E !lora 'U ~l!r "et eol3'Sca ~M' .r.1A .··.:.!lm·~ retJ." :'Ti ~~, '1IO&>rT .p.1a!1' ~I'" rf '~loY'lIt ~ ~.Lc eli.: 0' DlTt~,.t'IT!t. IT"':'!!! ~"i! t. '0 ~.,.,., 'oM. Ra!."l ~ 10 "'o.,,:·...u : .. ~atl alL fbI"" .~_" .":,," "10\[' ........ ; ..... 6 ~,,,,h'" ~ ,...", vi"%e.tt_ .:t&'e't OO! baa f.,r-!.!l.'!~'" : • .... n ... " u.lnt..,.·· •• ".!~" 50:'&.1: ',~UI!:I~ 10 ... U "tu_ ..., o:ns1 vUatbs-:: .i ..' ... ' ( .. -_ .. DEED(S~R~F!~UST Jj' DEED O~' . TRUST m"d~ tho!! 20th _. __ .. da~ nf ________ ~~ . ________ • 19 ~. ~ be\Wftft _~.~ ~~ .~_lRaomr_~,_~b8Zl.d_~. vUe .~)IICI~AI~~LGI9!I. .. &P!TBIg~_ g;OVI, huab8Zl.d 8ZI.d vi!e ... .. ; and :as G.anto •• .,h",,~ add.""" ". ------... --.... as TNSI". whos .. add, .... " "' 'l!B.AB$AMBBIc.l_'mLE Il!ISIJJWICB COMPAlIY 222 VIDi .. Ave S. ieDtOD. VA 980SS PEOPLES SATtOSAL IMS" OF WASlIlNGTOS • ..,.1Wn..-fi(,I"~. ",ho_ ;odc!r~" I!! 8~.~~th Seconc1, ieDtoD. VA 980SS See AttaCbmeDt A ..., -IIICCrm • T 18Qt.'ZIT C» J--·"~.lrRICA TTn.E I.-':St.1t.:.:--;CE CO'IP"!'> y ::Jo\~S :-;. 1:. '!do ~,.ntEET ..... I -." += \\,.It.' oJ H'-r.Tn~ g ...... T(")("".E7t1ER 'IITII .:1 ".::to -•• ~~ ~.1o:1 h·.11·4-·.·0r0· ..... n·! .. r:r'.:r". ~ .. :t •• _.:"1 .. .:"' •• 0 .. 1·.·· ""I"'" .:I~ I • .: .:"I.'~r..' .r.~ ",n', ',\01"'" •• .,,' .... ' .. 1"'"1£. . .. na 'h .. r ... nl". : .... ~r ... oiInd i' II· ... :h ..... o· f. 4nd ... :: h~~·.'"", .. nd ;:r roe':-\ ........ -,'0 :". ~ t,,,, ; ~ .• to·.! .;' n •• u·! r·· .. : ;"'I""'V 'r -.. ,' I'\,,·rr .. ftt"t h.:o 1n""':c-oJ l!'\ ,.,~' ... !-:."I·, ., ..... ~::': ..... I"r',-l! r ...... 1:1 'l':., I' r.I';·~ I .~ .•• ;.r· r. ,~ ..... n,j I~;'" .,"'~~'" .:-oI.·l·.~ln.:. ~u~ ·4l'ho:.lol hwlnll :1~1~'ori • ' •• :: .~ ....... ~~"'''''''. ~ .... "!., .. ~. '''H':~I' " •• :: ...... " .. : ........ !:-: ..•. \ ........ ~·~.:.h!"l..: ....... :,....;, :·..;h .... ;-;.,. · •• ·-.~t, .iIIn.1 ",1· .......... pl"",blntC., -"·"!I!"I'" :; .. ~. :~.. : ....... :"!..: .' ~';.,,:.",,:,,' .I;·;·'~ .• : ...... I ... !un.' .... ! :-.. ~.: .... :1f1·· ...... " ..... :01 ..... ~ ,,&I:'ln :-•• ~~ •.•. h .. h ...... ....n,·t~. t,"ltllit~,alof's • ....... !'I ... ,'. I: ... :' "':" !:-..• ~ ...... n.! -:~ , ..... : • ..: ..... , .. ri"·::~"· .. !"I,t '·~I·f !: .... , . ·· .• "In.,: -.-h·f'.:. !r.:-o.·, .. · ·r .. · •• · •. ,. '.-d .... nd h,,'d_~'~, .11 ul '4!':;~:"I ~, i""~' \'" ...... ::; u·! " .• !"I!"I •• " •.• ! :--: ,: .. ~ .. ::! , ~!,:,. ; . ...:;, ....... " l .-..... n. ".J f T-.. ·.: :., •. !t ... -•.. ! . .,. I .. ~" .. t"l\ t·, hr tt".' , ...... .. n4 .' ~·ol·· .• ·! N.!' •••. ' •••• !"I. , " .. ! •• , .... : ... ", ..... ~ ••• n,'.!'':'·''1'. It ~ ·t-.· '. ':-", ....... h '·.31h .. , ;!"I ....... :~ •• !'t: ... , ....... \ .,., "·q"."ttod h .. · Bot·"".·',- .;, .. ,.:: ... '~L~-.. f· :., "":: t ! •. : .... &h ... ~ I r:N"'~ !"I .. n·, ;Of' r"'~\·. r ... ·h.· .. ,',!"I: '~.-! .• ro\, ·f .~., :., I,,·,t· .. ·f.· ..... r:~ •• t !'I .. 't'I:\ "'.\' b.o .;,ub,C"C'1 to .~ .. ~ ..... 1.,' ! '"": •• ".: r-c: --.', ..• : (''' '!". : .. , .... !.· ... t t '~ ... ':" .....• tl:',' ... ~ ••• -.!' .. "~""~~In.::· ~ .. -n .. II .. ~;t'\· .......... ,"""J pan\· •• .... " .. r1'" ."'. ~"': :":. .:.. "!';' ;" ,', ,.:":.: ':-0: ••.. ~ .. !'1: , ..... ~ ....... """ •• h· ..... ;, !.rt,I!'. tn~' ...... :. -•. ,,:~ ........ ~ .• \ •••• '.· .. YIlI·.S 100,,· ftw !-.","C!'lu:t .. r\· .. l".J .,.\ •• ;' "': : .• ,-! : :,':, ........ f ;\~ ::-... ":. :=1 .. ' .. : .. :.-.• '::~'" "r..~. ::·.:".·;.t: '!"I" ::"1 .. ,. .. ,1. _. C,': ... • .' ,. :"'-. I' ... ! : T:"': ., .·I"'~·' .... "" .. , .. 0.'_ .... , ./ 'FIPl'Y" THOUSAND ABD OO/lOO~_-. -----------------------------.,..,Olfll.-'!Oo s 50,000_00 • :.~. I' : '. .;.! -I· ".:'\ ',-.••..••• r: ,! .. :,. ""f" .\Ol'~ .... , .. '1'\1", It\· :h .. C, .. nt.t#. ; ..... "': ... ': .. ::. '.: ":"" ......... . ~~ ~.,' •. ! ~. r.'.:; "'. !"I" n. ". ~"I .1:1 ~. til"· ,! ..... I! .·'to'n"" ·n ... :h.-" ... ' ... n..I I. '_,'''1_ .:~ .... .. ...... oj.· :".~ • ~ .:. I.,. ·t~.· n . ..,... ,., .. , •. ~ •. :.'0,1'" '1 ,n. ; ,. ............ 1 .n •. , ........... \ ,,1: , ,.· .. I ..... ,wl·.., ... pun • .~ ........ f.· .... !f -.• .\, .... ' 'hr· .... h ':1.,,: .. . " ... , .. : :' .. ," -... "11" ._ .. , , .. : I •• •. 1.' ':0.' It, ! ................. ! ...... . ··f :'" '.1... .••• • ~-:' ••• ' .... "', .... II. " \. . n.· ... ' : r .. ~· ... : 1;:". 't·.· ·h.·,. "'. ·1 ..... YoIo ~ ;· .... -.11' •.• n.j ... hi,·,· II .. ! ... u~ ..... , ~.'""\' t. ' •• !' ..• '~ •• ,t ... rll .•• n··," . ·,It· JI.~.·fl. :",", f ,hi' '~, .. n! .r. In, lu.lln" ; .• II.! ." ••• .., !'. . I. r .. ,,' ,', .. ., •. ' ... :1 ... , .!.... n·,. nt .... ,"to. f \1'''' In· ...... • .... ' . '. ! .• '! • I· ... · ., .• "I . ~.. ',' ~. ! .• " I.... • !:.. ; .1 ....... '" ro. '!, ,,' . . !··.t!I .• !·.··.:. -.... " ';'" '. '''. ·'1' ' •• ···,1 .•••• ! "'. ', .•• 1,.. .' . .. •. :.. "l : ·to. , ., .. n· r :~. """.' -•• :.. , r·. . ..!." . ~ .,."., '.' \.' ..... , .... ,,,II!:' 1I1·.\ •• ! N ... : " .... : ~ .. ' ' ....... :, .... n.1 ·1, fh,' . I'.,.".u"" I .:11 '.r.· ... t. ••.•. I..! 11.11". ,,'·1 .• 1 "" ........ . \.1>,'" , . . ;:".-.: ... ,. :.·.·:1 ........ , ..... . , ...... , .. ~ .' I· '. '·.1· •.. ... : ·.t·, .. 1:11" .;,ClI' ..... III 1 ·'1" .... · .,::r· '.: " •....• I ,. ;.' . ,-..... , : .... ~ . ,. , ... :. 1 • ;' :' . .• .• ;:.1 / ) , - ",' .. , •. : \1 ••.•• , ~" ..... ' .. w •.. • \1'01· .•. · ...... · '.:'. •.•. 1.. ". ':. . '. ~ , . .... ~ "1 :., ........ , .,':",,' '·';"1 ~.,: II. ~ :'1'" • .... "1 :·.: .... 11 ,"I'':'' .:'1111 . i .• , .. ,n. j '.r;'" " , I .... :. h., •• n.l)·,..., .. ".11: •• 1 ~ . hl-; .,1 'hl' .,;,;1 :") /1' .> . .{( j. (."'j . U..,l~/J..) .. _,( l~ r.· \, ....... " ..... ! '., " ... ~ugene R. Ileyer and Dorothy I~eyer and Richard r.iovi and . . : .• '. '.: .\, . h.,: .~. ".~.': ·!l •• ".1 ... 11 ...•... · ... 1 "10 ;''',., ,nol :"'~'.' I~" ,:\·.fil.t""i.citij (;i.GwJl • ., It· I '!.\' .. ,-. ~. !:; ~ .~.;~ :'!'.. ..::! .• :.' .• r .. : ' •.. 1. I ~ ~h, ""''' •. ,n.' 1""'1 ..... '· .. Ihl"',n ! .•. 1 ·June -:~ r .... ... , I;' ,Jot" "!·HI.\(· 1ft .• n,1 f", ·h.· "\'01'" .( '11 ....... '11".·,,,,,. t.·· .• lin.' " Renton r Attacbment A ./" ./ .,r .. ,.;f~ _.~r. ~ .. ~ . .. .., . .. It' '}hat portion of Lots 1 aZJd 2. Block 1. 171zlg southerl,. aIIll easterl, of center liDe of vacated South 123rd Street EXCEPr that portion thenof l)'illg northerly ot a liDe which is 110 ft. Eioutherl,. trom aZJd parallel to the fJOUtherly margin ot South l22nd. Street. 'l'b3.t portion of Lot 3, Block I, 1;r1:lg wsterl,. of the center line of vacated South l23rd Street. Lots 4 and 7, 3lock 1, EXCEPT that portion lying northerly and easterly of vacated l.t1 South 123r:i Street. N N 'll1e north 150 feet of Lot 2: and the 'Jest 61.72 feet of the IlOrtb 150 feet of Lot 3; g ALL in 310ck 2: ] 'll1e north 125 feet of the ·east 28.28 teet of Lot 3; and .=l Tha north 125 feet of Lots 4 acd' 5; and .:::::> 'll1e north 125 feet of the weet 14.99 feet of Lot 6; a::l ALl. in 310c;' 2: 'll1e ~orth 140 f~et of Lot 6, :!XCEPl' the west 14.99 feat, 310ck 2: ~~ ~f Lot 7, Block 2. ~e 90Ut."~rl:r 100 feet of Lot 7, and all of Lot 8, Block 3: A!.:. of Block 5: 310ck 6, ~CZ?T the south 192 feat thareof; A::.ill the Plat of 'Jood:r Glen ;'ddition, accord1ag to plat 'reccr:ied in 'lolUl:le 47 of plats, page 92, in KJ.ng County, Washin<rton. ~ that ll"r.ion of Blocks 13 acd 22, Lati:ner's Lake n. 1- ;~~it~~n •. .c==~~!~ ~c.plat recorded in Values 18 of ~ __ .~, "age 6), in Ki!lg County, '';oah1ngton, which lies east of the Plat of· ... cody G.len and west of a line drawn parallel with and 50 feet westerly when measured at right angiee and/or radiall:r froc the center line of Prinary State llighvay No. 2 (Rainier Avenue): E:<CEPl' that portion thereo f lying east of the Bouth 192 feet of 310ck 6 ?lat of'oioody Glen, • of. the Lots 1 to 6 inclusive, 310ck ' 7. Latimer' B Lake Park: Addition, accord1ag to plat recorded in Vol~e 18 of ?iats, page 6). in King County, Washington; E:<CEPl' portion conveyed to KJ.ng County. for road purposes by deeds re..:orded 1.Ulder auditor's fila Nos. 9,6173 and 203217. '. .. 1/ I ) ), . I \' ~ I .,~ .• h L \ ,) V U\:-".... \ ". ,. I I "I 'I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The Riley Group, Inc. Geotechnical Engineering • EnvironIl1ental • Wetland Services GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project 559 to 625 Rainier Ave. North Renton, Washington Project No. 2002-062B Prepared By: The Riley Group, Inc. 10728 Lake City Way NE Seattle, WA 98125 Prepared for: IDA Group, LLC 95 South Tobin Street Renton, Washington 98055 June 2, 2003 DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON JUL 292004 RECEIVED Offices located in Washington and Oregon 10728 Lake City Way N.E. • Seattle, WA 98125· Tel (206) 417-0551 • Fax (206) 417-0552 http:vvvvvv.Riley-Group.cOnl I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The Riley Group, Inc. Geotechnical Engineering • Environmental· Wetland Services June 2,2003 IDA Group, LLC 95 South Tobin Street Renton, Washington 98055 Attn: Subject: Mr. Jack Alhadeff Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project 559 to 625 Rainier Ave. North Renton, Washington Project No. 2002-062B The Riley Group, Inc. (Riley) has completed a geotechnical engineering study for the above referenced project. This report summarizes our findings and recommendations for the geotechnical aspects anticipated for the project design and construction. We previously completed an evaluation of the nature and origin of the steep slopes on the site, and summarized the results of our work in our letter dated October 29, 2002; and we completed a preliminary evaluation of slope stability and summarized the results of our work in our letter dated June 8, 2001. PROJECT DESCRIPTION In preparation of this report, we reviewed site plans provided by Rich Wagner of Baylis Architects on February 13 and April 1,2003, and discussed the project with him several times. We have reviewed several E-mails (sent in February 2003) from the City of Renton to Rich Wagner and/or Jack Alhadeff .. Our understanding of the project is based on that information. Offices located in Washington and Oregon 10728 Lake City Way N.E. -Seattle, WA 98125-Tel (206) 417-0551 -Fax (206)417-0552 http:'W'W'W.Riley-Group.com I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington Project Understanding June 2, 2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 2 of 45 The site is located at 559 to 625 Rainier Ave. North in Renton, Washington, as shown on the Site Vicinity Map, Figure 1. Existing buildings and proposed buildings are shown on the Site and Exploration Plan, Figure 2. Existing topography and existing buildings are shown on the Topographic Site Plan, Figure 3. We understand it is proposed to construct a mixed-use project that will include commercial development and private housing. These are considered to be 2 separate projects. Commercial Development Project The commercial development project will be in the level area adjacent to (on the west side of) Rainier Ave., and will include the following elements. 1. Building 1 (north side of site) 2. Building 2 (center of site) 3. Building 3 (south side of site) 4. Parking Structure (west side of site) 5. Retaining wall (between Bldg. 2 & 3) 100 feet by 80 feet footprint, 3 story 100 feet by 75 feet footprint, 2 story 130 feet by 70 feet footprint, 2 story 250 feet by 60 feet, 2 levels, 1 below grade about 12 feet tall by 170 feet long All of these are currently located such that they cut into the toes of existing steep slopes. We assume that foundation loads for the commercial buildings will not exceed about 5 kips per linear foot for continuous wall footings and 200 kips for isolated column footings. Housing Project The housing project will be located on the west side of the site, east of the cul-de-sac at NW 6th Street, at the top of a steep slope down to the commercial area. There are 16 dwelling units planned, in a configuration of either 6 or 4 buildings. The units will require cuts into the existing top of slope of up to 9 or 10 feet. Also, some fill will be THE RILEY GROUP, INC. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington June 2, 2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 3 of 45 placed on. the east-facing slope (in a topographic trough along a utility easement), and will require retaining structures. We assume that foundation loads for the residential structures will not exceed about 2 kips per linear foot for continuous wall footings and 50 kips for isolated column footings. The recommendations in the following sections of this report are based on our understanding of the design features described above. If actual features vary or changes are made, we should review them in order to modify our recommendations as required. In addition, we recommend that we be retained to review the final design drawings and specifications to verify that our project understanding is correct, and that our recommendations have been properly interpreted and incorporated into project design and construction. BACKGROUND The City of Renton Development Services Division expressed concern about the project with regard to slope stability. Specifically, there have been landslides north of the site, at NW 7th Street and Taylor Ave. NW. The City requested a geotechnical report for this project that meets the following requirements (based on an E-mail from Gregg Zimmerman [City of Renton], to Rich Wagner, dated 06 Feb 2003, at 09: 10). 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Incorporates a complete historical perspective of slide activity in the vicinity of this site Incorporates the information from previous geotechnical analyses done for this vicinity by the City Specifically addresses features of the current development proposal Identifies and characterizes the types of geotechnical problems that exist on the site and how these problems might be impacted by the proposed development Analyzes the aforesaid geotechnical conditions and the development proposal and makes specific recommendations regarding how such a development could be constructed in a safe manner both for the development itself and for uphill THE RILEY GROUP, INC. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington June 2, 2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 4of45 and downhill properties (such recommendations to include such design features as construction methods, set backs, foundation systems, stabilizing/retaining structures that would be needed, drainage requirements, etc.) We also understand that the City would like the report to address the slopes to the north and south of the site, as well as the "central" slope (based on an E-mail from Lesley Nishihira [City of Renton], to Bill Klick, dated 14 February 2003, at 12:18). ReferenceslInformation Provided by the City of Renton The City of Renton (Lesley Nishihira) provided us the following reports of previous geotechnical analyses done for this vicinity. Reports 1,2, and 3 were done for the City; reports 4 and 5 were done for private individuals. 1. GeoEngineers; May 16, 1991; "Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation, Landslide and Broken Sewer Lines, Slope West of Rainier Avenue North, Renton, Washington"; for City of Renton 2. 3. 4. 5. GeoEngineers; October 4, 1991; "Report, Supplemental Geotechnical Engineering Services, Sewer Line Reconstruction and Slope Stabilization, Slope West of Rainier Avenue North, Renton, Washington"; for City of Renton GeoEngineers; November 6, 1997; "Report, Geotechnical Engineering Services, Sewer Line Reconstruction, Rainier Avenue North and NW 7th Street, Renton, Washington"; for City of Renton Geo Consultants; May 8, 1991; "Slope Failure Study, Mr. Chester Rindfuss' Residence, 676 Taylor Avenue Northwest, Renton, Washington"; for Mr. Chester Rindfuss Geo Group Northwest; February 18, 1993; "Slope Stability Analysis and Landslide Stabilization Design, 676 Taylor Avenue NW, Renton, Washington"; for Mr. John McFarland THE RILEY GROUP, INC. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington June 2, 2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 50f 45 References/Information From Previous Work by Riley We also used information from previous work completed by Riley for the project site. This information included the following letters. 6. 7. The Riley Group; June 8, 2001; "Preliminary Slope Stability Study, Meyer Property, 559 to 625 Rainier Avenue North, Renton, Washington"; for Mr. Jack Alhadeff The Riley Group; October 29,2002; "Slope Evaluation, Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project, 559 to 625 Rainier Ave. North, Renton, Washington"; for Mr. Jack Alhadeff SCOPE OF SERVICES The purpose of our work was to explore and characterize the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions, and develop geotechnical recommendations for design and construction of the proposed project. This included complying with the requirements of the City of Renton listed above. Based on the project understanding and background discussed above, our scope of services included the following tasks. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Collect and review readily available information on historical slide activity in the area. Research and review readily available geotechnical studies done by the City in the area. Identify features of the currently proposed development that have geotechnical significance. Complete a subsurface exploration program with borings and test pits to characterize subsurface soil and groundwater conditions Identify and characterize types of geotechnical problems that exist on site, and evaluate how these problems might be affected by the proposed development. THE RILEY GROUP, INC. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington June 2,2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 6of45 6. 7. Perform engineering analyses and/or develop recommendations regarding the items listed below. a) Slope stability for those slopes directly affected by the project, and for adjacent slopes. b) Construction methods. c) Setbacks from top and toe of slopes. d) Retaining structures. e) Foundations for buildings. t) Drainage. g) Seismic design considerations, including site seismicity, Uniform Building Code CUBC) Soil Profile Type, liquefaction potential, and potential liquefaction-induced settlement. h) Site preparation and earthwork, including excavation, subgrade preparation, suitability of onsite soils for use as construction materials, fill placement, allowable cut and fill slopes, and potential necessity for dewatering during construction. i) Design pavement section. Prepare a report summarizing the results of our work. r SURFACE CONDITIONS Existing conditions are shown on Figure 3. The site extends about 750 feet north-south along the west shoulder of Rainier Ave. North. At the NW 6th Street cul-de-sac, the site extends about 370 feet to the west of Rainier Ave. North. There are 3 slopes in the project vicinity, defined as follows for the purpose of this report. • The "north slope" starts at the north end of the site and continues north; its south- facing portion is adjacent to Building 1. THE RILEY GROUP, INC. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington June 2, 2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 70f45 • The "central slope" surrounds the cul-de-sac at NW 6th Street; its east-facing portion is adjacent to Buildings 2 and 3 and the retaining wall in between them. • The "south slope" is south of the central slope, and is off of the project site; its north-facing portion is over 100 feet away from the proposed development. At the time of our field explorations, there were 3 buildings in the proposed commercial development area of the site. The ground surface was relatively level and flat, at about Elevation 50 feet (NA VD '88 Datum). Most of the site along Rainier Ave was paved with asphalt. Farther to the west there was some gravel surfacing with sparse grass, and some grassed areas. Between the level area and the NW 6th Street cul-de-sac was a steep slope ("central slope") up to the west that rose from Elevation 50 feet to Elevation 80 or 90 feet at average inclinations ranging from about 1.3 horizontal to 1 vertical (1.3H: 1 V) to 1. 7H: 1 V. There was a gully down the face of this east-facing slope associated with a utility easement where there apparently were 12-inch and 4-inch diameter water lines and an 8-inch diameter sanitary sewer. From the top of slope there was a gentle slope up to the west to about Elevation 105 feet at about a lOH: 1 V slope. North and south of this upper area were slopes down to the north and south (respectively) at about 1. 7H: 1 V. These slopes led to partially filled in ravines that trended west to east, sloping down to the east. The slopes were well vegetated with trees and brush. The slope south of the site ("south slope") sloped down to the north at about 1.5H: 1 V. The slope was well vegetated with trees and brush. The slope on the north side of the site ("north slope") had south-facing and east-facing slopes. Top of slope was about Elevation 100 feet. The south-facing slope sloped down to the commercial development area at about 1. 5H: 1 V. The slope was well vegetated with trees and brush. The east-facing slope sloped down to Rainier Ave. at THE RILEY GROUP, INC. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Geotechnical' Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington June 2, 2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 8 of 45 about 1.3H:IV to 1.7H:IV. The northern part of this east-facing slope was where there have been stability problems in the past. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Field Explorations Subsurface conditions were explored with 4 borings and 12 test pits completed in April 2003. We also considered 2 monitoring wells that were installed by Riley on March 19, 200 I. The approximate locations of all the explorations we considered are shown on the Site and Exploration Plan in Figure 2. The test pits (TP-I through TP-12) were excavated April 7 to 11, 2003, to depths of about 4 to 14 feet below the existing ground surface, with a rubber-tired Case 580E backhoe equipped with an extendahoe. TP-l through TP-5 were located on the central slope, and TP-6 through TP-12 were located in the lower, level area. The borings (B-1 through B-4) were drilled to depths of about 18 to 54 feet below the existing ground surface by a subcontractor using a track-mounted Mobile B-53 drill rig (B-1, B-2, B-3) or a truck-mounted Mobile B-61 drill rig (B-4). All borings were advanced with hollow stem auger, and samples were taken at 2';112 to 5-foot depth intervals in conjunction with performing Standard Penetration Tests (SPT). After completion, B-2, B-3 and B-4 were backfilled with bentonite. At B-1, a I-inch diameter standpipe groundwater observation well was installed, and a protective surface monument was placed. B-1 was located at the northeast corner of the housing area. It was about 48 feet deep, and was intended to explore soil and groundwater conditions for the full depth of the slope. The standpipe groundwater observation well was installed in it to allow long term monitoring of groundwater levels. B-2 was located at the southeast corner of the housing area, was about 18 feet deep, and was intended to check for consistent THE RILEY GROUP, INC. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington June 2, 2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 9 of 45 conditions across the slope. B-3 and B-4 were drilled' to about, 50 feet deep in the commercial development lower level area in locations where fill extended deeper than the bottom of the test pits. Soil Conditions -Central Slope/ Housing Project On the central slope, soil conditions were explored with 2 borings (B-1 and B-2) and 5 test pits (TP-l through TP-5). B-1 was 48 feet deep and encountered mostly silty sand with some gravel that was very dense at and below depth 3 feet. There was a thin layer of sand and sandy gravel from depth 7 to 12 feet that was also very dense. At 41~ feet, we encountered sandy silt with some gravel that was very dense and continued to the termination depth of 48 feet. B-2 was 18 feet deep, and had conditions similar to those at B-1. Most of the soil was silty sand with some gravel that was very dense at and below 3 feet. TP-l through TP-4 were similar to the borings, and typically had silty sand that was very dense by depth 6 feet, and medium dense above that. At TP-5, the soil was medium dense sand with some silt to its full depth of 13 feet.· Groundwater Conditions -Central Slope/ Housing Project Only 1 sample (in B-1 at 43 feet) was noted to be wet in the test pits and borings. A standpipe groundwater observation well was installed in it to allow long term monitoring of groundwater levels. The following measurements of depth to groundwater have been made to date. Table 1. Groundwater Levels -Central Slope/ Housing Project Depth to Groundwater (feet) Date Boring B-1 installed 17 APRIL 2003 17APR2003 38.2 installed 17 April; not yet stabilized 30MAY2003 dry dry at 45.8 feet THE RILEY GROUP, INC. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington Soil Conditions -Commercial Development June 2, 2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 10 of 45 In the commercial development area, soil conditions were explored with 2 borings (B-3 and B-4) and 7 test pits (TP-6 through TP-12). We also considered 2 monitoring wells (MW-l and MW-2) that were installed by Riley on March 19,2001. TP-7, TP-lO, TP-11, and TP-12 were located at the base of slopes (north and central), and encountered dense/hard sandy silt or dense silty sand by depth 2 feet. At TP-6 (excavated in conjunction with removing a hydraulic hoist), silty sand fill was noted. From 0 to 4 feet, the fill contained occasional wood debris, and was medium dense. From 4 to 14 feet deep no wood was noted, and the fill was medium dense to dense. We suspect the fill was associated with the hoist. In TP-8 and TP-9, fill was encountered to beyond the termination depths of 12 and 13 feet. In TP-9, the fill contained wood and auto debris from depth 5 to 13 feet. Because these test pits did not get through the fill, 2 borings were drilled in the general vicinity of the test pits. At B-3 (near TP-9), there was loose to medium dense silty sand and sandy silt fill down to depth 17 feet, and an "obstruction zone" from depth 11 to 17 feet (this may have represented auto debris, as was observed in TP-9). From 17 to 35 feet, there was medium dense silty sand with wood fragments and peat pockets, and 6-inch thick layers of peat were noted at depth 23 and 28 feet. Medium dense silty sand was encountered at about 35 feet deep, and from 41 to 49 feet there was very dense silty sand. In B-4 (near TP-8), there was silty sand fill down to depth 15 feet that was dense down to about 10 feet and then was medium dense. From 15 to 26 feet, there was medium dense sandy silt and silty sand. B~tween depth 26 and 37 feet we encountered mostly THE RILEY GROUP, INC. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington June 2,2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page I1of45 peat with some layers of silt. There was medium dense to dense sandy silt from 37 to 45 feet, and from 45 to 54 feet there was very dense silty sand. Monitoring well MW -1 was located northeast of building 2. It encountered layers of silty sand and silty clay that ranged from about 5 to 10 feet thick. Although nothing material noted on the log definitely indicated fill (for example, man-made debris), the decreasing density/stiffness from about 15 to 25 feet may indicate fill. The soil was then dense from 25 feet to the termination depth of 3 5 feet. Monitoring well MW -2 was located on the north side of building 3. There was medium dense gravelly silty sand down to depth 10 feet. Below that, it encountered layers of gravelly silty sand, silt, and sand, all of which were very dense. As with MW -1, nothing material noted on the log definitely indicated fill versus native soil. However, based on the consistent high density from 10 feet to the termination depth of30 feet, we suspect this was native soil. Groundwater Conditions -Commercial Development In the test pits in the commercial development area, there was moderate seepage in TP-6 at depth 4 feet, and minor seepage in TP-7 at depth 6 feet. We interpret this to be perched water. It is common for near-surface water to percolate through the upper, more permeable soil, and stop on the underlying, less permeable soil. This is referred to as "perched water". Volumes of perched water typically are greatest during the wet winter months, and they decrease ( or disappear) during the drier parts of the year. No seepage was noted in TP-8 through TP-12. Water levels were measured in the current borings after each boring was completed and before the auger was pulled from the hole. At the end of drilling, the depth to water in B-3 was measured at about 17 feet, and the depth to water in B-4 was measured at about 31 feet. Because the water level was measured at the end of drilling, and did not have THE RILEY GROUP, INC. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington June 2, 2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 12 of 45 time to stabilize (as it would in' a standpipe groundwater observation well), it probably did not represent the static water level. At MW-l and MW-2, standpipe groundwater observation wells were installed to allow long term monitoring of groundwater levels. The measured levels should represent stabilized, static groundwater levels. Recent· dates and depths to water are presented below. Table 2. Groundwater Levels -Commercial Development Depth to Groundwater (feet) Date Boring MW-I Boring MW-2 both installed 19 MARCH 2001 1 9MAR200 1 27 23 at time of drilling; not yet stabilized 03APR2003 17.3 21.3 More detailed descriptions of the subsurface conditions encountered are presented on the Boring and Test Pit Logs, Figures A-2 through A-20. A description of terms used for soil classification is presented on Figure A-I. Laboratory Testing Laboratory testing included determination of natural moisture content and grain size analyses. Moisture contents are presented on the boring and test pit logs adjacent to sample notation, and the results of grain size analyses are presented on Figures A-2I through A-24. THE RILEY GROUP, INC. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS Whole Site June 2, 2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 13 of 45 The site is located within Zone 3 of the Seismic Zone Map shown as Figure 16-2 of the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC). This corresponds to a Seismic Zone Factor, Z, of 0.30. This, in turn, corresponds to an effective peak horizontal ground acceleration of 0.3g. We assumed the design seismic event was a Magnitude 7-112 earthquake with a peak horizontal ground acceleration ofO.3g. Central Slope/ Housing Project It is our opinion that site conditions for the Central Slope/ Housing Project best fit the UBC description for Soil Profile Type Sc, "Very Dense Soil and Soft Rock". Liquefaction is typically associated with loose, saturated fine to medium sand. Considering that the silty sand on the central slope is very dense, it is our opinion that there is not the potential for liquefaction. Commercial Development It is our opinion that site conditions for the Commercial Development best fit the UBC description for Soil Profile Type So, "Stiff Soil Profile". Based on average soil density in the 4 borings considered, the potential for liquefaction is low. However, local areas of looser, saturated soil could liquefy. Considering the conditions observed in the borings (soil type, density, silt content; water table), it is our opinion that if there were liquefaction, it would be localized, of limited vertical and areal extent, and discontinuous. As a result, its effect would not be significant. Accordingly, the potential for liquefaction-induced settlement is also considered not to . be significant. THE RILEY GROUP, INC. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington HISTORICAL SLIDE ACTIVITY IN THE SITE VICINITY North Slope June 2, 2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 14 of 45 There is a history of slide activity in the project site vicinity. Numerous slides have occurred on the east-facing portion of the north slope, typically in the area starting at the right-of-way for NW 7th Street and extending to the north to as far as S 117th Place. These are described in the referenced GeoEngineers reports. A slide in April 1991, located along the eastward extension ofNW 7th Street, sent slide debris onto Rainier Ave. and severed a sewer line. The line was reconstructed, but was damaged again in February 1996 by another slide. This slide activity was limited to the east-facing portion of the north slope, and located about 200 feet north of the project site. On the south-facing portion of the north slope, some sliding reportedly occurred in the late 1980's. This was located south of Taylor Ave, and was attributed to a road cut across the toe of the slope. Central Slope Our historical information for the central slope is based on review of aerial photos discussed in the Riley letter of June 8, 2001 (reference 6). There were no obvious features indicating a major landslide in the past. The central slope also is not shown on the Renton Slide Sensitive Areas map as "Very High Landslide Hazards", indicating it historically did not have known mappable landslide deposits. South Slope The south slope also did not have obvious features indicating a major landslide in the past, and it was not shown on the Renton Slide Sensitive Areas map as "Very High Landslide Hazards". THE RILEY GROUP, INC. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington -' June 2,2003 Project No. 2002-062.8 Page 15 of 45 PREVIOUS GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSES DONE FOR THIS VICINITY BY THE CITY OF RENTON The GeoEngineers work for the City of Renton concluded that soil conditions in the slide area that damaged the sewer consisted of silty sand over silt. Water would perch on the silt and saturate the silty sand. When there had been a large enough volume of water, the silty sand became unstable, and there were slides. GeoEngineers compl~ted slope stability analyses for a slope section along the sewer line, as well as for slope sections south of the sewer line. Their analyses indicated the sewer line section would indeed become unstable when saturated, and their recommended slope repair included drainage measures (in combination with removal and replacement of slope debris). They also concluded that the sections south of the sewer line were stable, even when saturated. Further, they had the opinion that the slope south of the sewer slide area would likely remain stable, provided it was not destabilized by activities such as removal of vegetation, excavation, filling, or concentration of runoff. EVALUATION OF STABILITY OF NORTH, CENTRAL, & SOUTH SLOPES North Slope Based on the work by GeoEngineers, the south-facing portion of the north slope should remain stable, provided it was not destabilized by activities such removal of vegetation, excavation, filling, or concentration of runoff. Also, it was Riley,'s conclusion (reference 6), based on observation of apparent creep, that potential landslide activities would likely be limited to surficial failures. It is our conclusion that the south-facing portion of the north slope should remain stable with regard to deep failures, provided it was not destabilized by construction activities associated with the proposed development. THE RILEY GROUP, INC. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington Central Slope June 2,2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 16 of 45 Based on our borings, it appears that the central slope is comprised of very dense granular soil (silty sand or non-plastic sandy silt, but not clay or clayey silt) to its full depth of 50 feet. The soil and perched groundwater conditions that are linked to the slides along the sewer on the north slope are not present in the central slope. Also, there are not surficial indications of large-scale landslides. We conclude that the central slope is stable with regard to large-scale instability, in its current configuration. Over time, weathering of near-surface soil could result in shallow, surficial ravelling of soil. This is supported by the current geometry of the east-facing portion of the central slope. It appears that it was the result of grading by man in about 1956 [Ref 7], and with the exception of subsequent modifications (access road, utility installation), it has maintained what was likely the original cut slope inclination. This represents a period of about 50 years, which is a normal design life for the proposed structures. South Slope The south slope historically is not considered to have a significant potential for a major landslide. Even if it did, it is far enough away from our subject site that it does not need to be considered, with regard to setbacks. We conclude that the south slope will not have an impact on either the commercial development or the housing project, and that neither of these will have an impact on the south slope. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS The proposed mixed-use project will include commercial development and private housing. These are considered to be 2 separate projects. Considering that the soil conditions and geotechnical concerns for each project are different, recommendations are presented separately for each project. This is intended to avoid intermingling recommendations fo~ the s~parate projects in order to reduce confusion regarding which THE RILEY GROUP, INC. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington June 2, 2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 17 of 45 recommendations apply to which project. repetition. However, it will also result In some General -Central Siope/ Housing Project Based on our study, it is our opinion that the site is suitable for the proposed housing project construction from a geotechnical standpoint. The buildings can be supported on conventional shallow spread footings bearing on medium dense to dense native soil. Setbacks from top of slope are recommended to reduce the impact of the structures on slope stability. Careful collection and disposal of surface water are necessary so this water does not flow over the face of the steep slopes or infiltrate into the core of the slope. Potential Impacts of Project -Central Siope/ Housing Project Potential impacts of the proposed project include those stemming from grading, surcharges from structures, and drainage. Cutting at the top of the slope would reduce the soil surcharge on the slope, and increase stability. Filling at the top of the slope, on the other hand, would increase the soil surcharge on the slope, and reduce stability. Filling on the face of the slope could reduce stability. The surcharge of structures near the top of slope could reduce slope stability. If the project resulted in additional water infiltrating the slope or flowing over the top of the slope, this could decrease stability. Measures to decrease the potential reductions in slope stability include limiting fill on the face or top of slope, providing setbacks from top of slope for structure foundations, and providing proper drainage. Setbacks from Top of Slope -Central Siope/ Housing Project We recommend that structure foundations for the housing project be set back at least 15 feet from the top of the steep slopes. This can be done by placing a normal depth footing about 15 feet back from the top of the slope. It can also be done by placing the THE RILEY GROUP, INC. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington June 2, 2003· Project No. 2002-062B Page 180f45 footings deep enough so that the bottom of the footing is a horizontal distance of at least 15 feet from the face of the slope, and thus providing an "effective setback". This is often done by deepening conventional spread footings, or by using drilled piers. Site Preparation and Grading -Central Siope/ Housing Project Site Preparation The first step of construction should be to log and grub the site. Any utilities that are in the proposed building footprint should be relocated to outside of the building footprint, to facilitate future repair of the utility, if required. Topsoil and vegetation should be stripped. At our test pits, duff and topsoil typically were up to about 112 foot thick. However, TP-4 had roots and branches down to depth 2 feet. The near-surface soil exposed after stripping should be silty sand. The silty sand is moisture sensitive, and will be difficult, if not impossible, to work with if it is not near optimum moisture content. Grading may involve cut and fill. In areas to receive fill or to remain at existing grade, we recommend proofrolling all exposed surfaces with a heavy piece of rubber-tired construction equipment (such as a loaded dump truck) to evaluate if any soft and yielding areas are present. If yielding areas are observed, they should be cut to firm bearing soil and filled to grade with structural fill. After cut areas are brought to final grade, they also should be proofrolled and repaired. As discussed above, the excavated silty sand is moisture sensitive, and will be difficult, if not impossible, to work in wet weather and/or if it is not near optimum moisture content. Fill Material It may be feasible to use the silty sand from excavation as fill in dry weather, if it is free of organics and debris, and properly moisture conditioned. If the site grading occurs in THE RILEY GROUP, INC. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington June 2, 2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 19 of 45 the wet season or if additional structural fill material is required, we recommend importing material that meets the following grading requirements. Table 3. U.S. Standard Sieve Size Percent Passing 3 inches 100 percent No.4 sieve 0-75 percent No. 200 sieve o -5 percent * *Based on the minus 3/4-inch fraction. Prior to use, Riley should examine and test all materials imported to the site for use as structural fill. A geotechnical engineer should be on site to monitor the site grading and verify soil compaction. Structural Fill Placement For the purpose of this report, structural fill is defined as fill that will support buildings, slabs-on-grade, pavement, and other settlement sensitive elements. Structural fill should be placed in uniform loose layers not more than 12 inches thick ahd compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density. Maximum dry density, in this report, refers to that density as determined by the ASTM D 1557 compaction test procedure (Modified Proctor). The moisture content of the soil at the time of compaction should be within about 2 percent of its optimum. Temporary Cut Slopes We expect that unsupported temporary cut slopes will be used for basements and utility trenches, and we expect that the cuts will be made mostly in dense silty sand. For these soil conditions, we recommend temporary cut slopes up to 10 feet tall that are not subjected to seepage forces be no steeper than 1 horizontal to 1 vertical (lH: 1 V). If THE RILEY GROUP, INC. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington June 2, 2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 20 of 45 there were seepage, such as due to perched water, slopes at this iriclination should be expected to be unstable. They might need to be made less steep. Permanent Cut and Fill Slopes If permanent cut or fill slopes are incorporated into design, they should not be steeper than 2H:IV 1 Foundation Support -Central Siopel Housing Project We expect that soil at footing bearing elevation will consist of medium dense to dense silty sand. If undisturbed, this soil will be suitable to provide moderate to high design bearing pressures for conventional shallow spread footings. If the footing bearing surface is disturbed, it should be overexcavated to expose competent medium dense to dense native soil, and replaced with compacted, well- graded, granular, structural fill. The term "granular" refers to soil that is predominantly sand andlor gravel, and that is not predominantly silt or clay. The exposed subgrade should be cleaned of loose or soft soil before placing the structural fill. If it is not . feasible to place and compact structural fill of the type described above (such as ifthere is water in the footing excavation), rock spalls or crushed rock could be used instead. Perimeter footings should bear at least 1.5 feet below final exterior grade for frost protection. Interior footings should bear at least 1 foot below the floor slab. We recommend footing widths of at least 18 and 24 inches for continuous strip footings and isolated column footings, respectively. As discussed previously, the footings should be set back at least 15 feet horizontally from the top of the steep slope. This can be done by placing a normal depth footing about 15 feet back from the top of the slope. Alternatively, an "effective setback" can be achieved by deepening the footing so that its bottom is 15 feet horizontally from the THE RILEY GROUP, INC. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington June 2,2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 21of45 face of the slope at the same elevation. This can be done by conventional spread footings in trenches, or with drilled piers. We recommend that a geotechnical engineer be present on site to inspect the foundation subgrade preparation before pouring concrete. The foundation subgrade should be undisturbed and medium dense to dense. If loose or disturbed soil is observed, it should be removed and replaced with structural fill or crushed rock. If prepared footing subgrades are to remain exposed during the winter season or periods of wet weather, it is recommended that they be covered with a lean concrete "mud mat" to help protect the subgrades after they have been inspected and until the footings are poured. For footings constructed as recommended, and bearing on undisturbed, competent (medium dense to dense) native soil, we recommend a design allowable bearing pressure of not more than 3000 pounds per square foot (pst). For short-term loads, such as wind and seismic, a 113 increase in this allowable bearing pressure can be used, as long as this conforms with the appropriate current UBC loading combinations. With the expected structural loading and the recommended foundation bearing pressure, total settlement of footings should not be more than 1 inch, and differential settlement between adjacent footings or across a distance of about 20 feet should not be more than 112 inch. We expect that most of the settlement will occur by the end of construction. Lateral forces may be resisted by friction at the base of foundations and by passive soil resistance acting against the buried portion of foundations. To compute passive resistance, we recommend using an equivalent fluid density of 200 pounds per cubic foot (pct). This value is based on the foundations being constructed neat against undisturbed competent soil or backfilled with structural fill, and assumes that the ground surface on the resisting side is level for a distance of at least 3 times the depth of the foundation. The upper 1 foot of soil should not be included in the passive resistance THE RILEY GROUP, INC. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington June 2, 2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 22 of 45 calculation because it can become disturbed by erosion or future grading activity. For base friction, a factor of 0.4 may be used between concrete and soil. The coefficient of friction should be applied to the vertical dead load only. These values include a safety factor of about 1.5 and 2 applied to the estimated ultimate values for frictional and passive resistance, respectively. We recommend that footing drains be installed on the outside of perimeter footings. The footing drains should consist of 4-inch-minimum diameter, perforated or slotted, smooth wall, rigid, PVC pipe, laid at the bottom of the footing. The drain line should be surrounded with free draining pea gravel or washed rock that is wrapped in filter fabric. The top 1 foot of backfill should consist of relatively impermeable material to limit surface water infiltration into the perimeter drain. A typical footing drain detail is shown on Figure 4. The footing drains and roof downspouts should be tightlined separately to an approved discharge facility. Siabs-on-Grade -Central Siopel Housing Project Subgrades for slabs-on-grade should be proofrolled and repaired as necessary, as described in the Site Preparation and Grading section of this report. If the on site soil can not be compacted to provide a dense and unyielding surface, it should be replaced with 1 foot of compacted structural fill. Immediately below the floor slab, we recommend placing a 6-inch thick capillary break layer consisting of clean, free- draining gravel or sand and gravel that has less than 5 percent fines (material passing a U.S. No. 200 sieve). This material will reduce the potential for upward capillary movement of water from the underlying soil and subsequent wetting of the floor slab. A suitable vapor barrier should be placed on top of the capillary break. The vapor barrier may be covered with 2 inches of clean, moist sand to guard against damage to the vapor barrier during construction and to aid in curing of the concrete. THE RILEY GROUP, INC. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington Subsurface Walls -Central Slope! Housing Project June 2, 2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 23 of 45 Basement walls should be waterproofed and fully drained. Wall drains should be similar to those recommended for perimeter footing drains. There should be a zone of free draining material at least 1 foot wide next to the wall. The top 1 foot of backfill should consist of relatively impermeable material to limit surface water infiltration into the wall drain. The perforated pipe should drain to daylight. A typical retaining wall drainage detail is shown on Figure 5. As an alternative to a layer of gravel, a pre- fabricated drainage panel, such as Miradrain, could be used. The lateral pressure acting on the wall is dependent on the nature and density of the soil behind the wall, the amount of lateral wall movement which can occur as backfill is placed, wall drainage conditions, and the inclination of the backfill. Subsurface walls should be provided with wall drains, as described above. For walls that are free to yield at the top at least 0.001 times the height of the wall (active condition), soil pressures will be less than if movement is limited by such factors as wall stiffness or bracing (at- rest condition). We recommend that walls supporting horizontal backfill and not subjected to hydrostatic forces be designed using atriangular earth pressure distribution equivalent to that exerted by a fluid with a density of 35 pcf for yielding (active condition) walls, and 55 pcffor non-yielding (at-rest condition) walls. These recommended lateral earth pressures are based on the assumption of a horizontal ground surface adjacent to the wall for a distance of at least the subsurface height of the wall, and do not account for surcharges. Additional lateral earth pressures should be considered for surcharge loads acting adjacent to subsurface walls and within a distance equal to the subsurface height of the wall. This would include the effects of surcharges such as traffic loads, floor slab loads, or other surface loads. Increased lateral earth pressure due to adjacent areal vertical surcharge pressures (such as uniform floor slab loads) can be taken as a uniform pressure equal to 0.3 times the vertical surcharge pressure for active conditions, and 0.5 times the vertical surcharge pressure for at-rest THE RILEY GROUP, INC. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington June 2, 2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 24 of 45 conditions. Traffic surcharges are often accounted for by assuming a surcharge equivalent to 2 feet of soil, which corresponds to about 250 psf vertical pressure. Lateral forces on subsurface retaining walls can be resisted by friction and passive resistance, as described for footings, as well as by structural elements of the building. Retaining Structures-Central Siope/ Housing Project Current plans call for building some retaining structures and placing some fill in the gully along the utility easement on the east-facing portion of the central slope. Considering that this filling would tend to reestablish the slope grade that existed before the gully was dug, it should not have a negative impact on the stability of adjacent slopes. We expect the structures would not be more than 10 feet tall. They could be conventional concrete retaining walls, mechanically stabilized earth walls (such as Keystone walls or similar), or ecology block walls. The subgrade for the walls should be excavated to provide a level base for the wall. Utilities in the gully should be located and potholed first so they do not get damaged. The subgrade should be medium dense to dense. If not, it should be repaired. Backfill behind the wall should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density. For a manufacturer's design, the following soil parameters can be used. • 120 pcf dry density .35 degrees internal friction angle .2000 psf design allowable bearing pressure .0.4 frictional lateral resistance factor (includes safety factor of about 1.5) .35 pcf equivalent fluid for active pressure .200 pcf equivalent fluid for passive resistance (includes safety factor of about 2) THE RILEY GROUP, INC. ,I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington Drainage -Central Siope/ Housing Project Construction June 2, 2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 250f45 We expect that water encountered during construction could come from shallow perched water, depending on the time of year. If minor water seepage is encountered or if rainfall collects in excavations during construction, we recommend that the contractor slope the bottom of excavations and collect the water into ditches and sump pits from which the water can be pumped and discharged into a storm drain. Surface Final exterior grades should promote free and positive drainage away from the building. Water should not pond or collect adjacent to the immediate building area. We recommend providing a drainage gradient of at least 3 percent for a distance of at least 10 feet from the building perimeter. All runoff water from paved areas, roofs, and other impervious surfaces should be collected and discharged to the storm drain system. If there are yards between the house and the slope, yard drains should be installed to collect water and discharge it to the storm drain system. Water should not be allowed to flow over the slope, or to pond in yards and infiltrate into the ground. Subsurface We recommend that wall drains be installed for all subsurface walls. This is discussed in the Subsurface Walls section of this report. We also recommend that perimeter footing drains be installed. This is discussed in the Foundation Support section of this report. Footing drains and roof downspouts should be tightlined separately to the storm drain. THE RILEY GROUP, INC. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington Utilities -Central Siope/ Housing Project June 2, 2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 260f45 We expect that any new utilities will be relatively shallow (say 5 feet deep or less). The soil within this depth can be excavated with a backhoe. Significant groundwater is not expected within this depth. Utility pipes should be bedded and backfilled in accordance with American Public Works Association (APWA) specifications. If local codes supercede APW A specifications, bedding' and backfill should be completed in accordance with those codes. As a minimum, trench backfill should be placed and compacted as structural fill, as described in the Site Preparation and Grading section of this report. Where utilities are located below unimproved areas where some settlement of trench backfill is acceptable, the degree of compaction can be reduced to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by the referenced ASTM D-1557 standard. Pavement -Central Siope/ Housing Project Pavement subgrades should be proofrolled and repaired as necessary, as described in the Site Preparation and Grading section of this report. Regardless of the relative compaction achieved, the subgrade should be firm and unyielding before paving. As recommended for slab-on-grade subgrades, if the on site soil can not be compacted to provide a dense and unyielding surface, it should be replaced with 1 foot of compacted structural fill. The final subgrade should be proof rolled before paving. For residential passenger vehicle driveway and parking areas, we recommend a pavement section consisting of 2 inches of asphalt concrete over 4 inches of crushed rock base. As an alternative, the 4 inches of crushed rock base could be replaced with 3 inches of asphalt treated base. THE RILEY GROUP, INC. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Geotechnical :E:ngineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington General -Commercial Development June 2, 2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 270f45 Based on our study, it is our opinion that the site is suitable for the proposed commercial development construction from a geotechnical standpoint. It appears that Buildings 2 and 3 can probably be supported on conventional shallow spread footings bearing on medium dense to dense or hard native soil. Building 1 and the parking structure are at least partially underlain by up to 40 feet of soil that is not suitable to provide shallow foundation support; and will therefore require pile support (at least partially). We recommend against the proposed cut into the toe of the north slope for Building 1 and the parking structure. The proposed cut into the toe of the central slope for Buildings 2 and 3 appears feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. However, it will require a shoring system. Potential Impact of Project -Commercial Development Potential impacts of the proposed commercial development are associated primarily with the proposed cutting into the toe of slopes. The north and central slopes appear to be stable in their current condition with regard to deep-seated soil movement. However, due to their steepness, they are prone to surficial creep and surficial ravelling over time. To cut into the toe of these slopes without providing support would reduce their stability. Also, other modifications to these slopes could reduce their stability. Measures to maintain slope stability and protect the structures include providing support to the toe of slope and providing a structure setback from the toe. For the central slope, it is our opinion that for limited heights of cut (up to about 10 feet), cantilever soldier pile shoring will provide adequate support to the slope, and allow the buildings to be set into the slope. For the north slope, it is our opinion that it is best not to cut into the toe of slope, but instead to provide a structure setback. Any work "incidental" to the project (for example, landscaping) should not remove vegetation from steep slopes, or alter (increase) water on the slopes. THE RILEY GROUP, INC. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington Setbacks from Toe of Slope -Commercial Development June 2, 2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 28 of 45 For the central slope, we recommend a building setback of 10 feet from the toe of slope. As an alternative, the slope could be shored, and Buildings 2 and 3 could be set into the slope. For the north slope, we recommend against cutting into the toe of the slope for Building 1 and the parking structure, and instead recommend a building setback 25 feet from the toe of slope. If a debris wall were constructed at the toe of slope, the setback could be reduced to 10 feet. Excavation -Commercial Development The proposed construction will have 2 potential areas of excavation. Excavation may take place at the toe of the central slope. This would require shoring. Excavation in the level area of the site will be required for the parking structure for its below grade level. This would probably be done with laid back, unsupported, open cuts. Temporary Cut Slopes The existing steep north and central slopes typically are at about 1-1/2H:IV inclination. It is advisable not to cut them any steeper, even on a temporary basis. Accordingly, temporary cut slopes do not apply to the north and central slopes. We expect that unsupported temporary cut slopes will be used mostly for the excavation for the parking structure. It is our understanding that the excavation will be relatively shallow, and we assume it will not exceed 10 feet. We expect soil conditions in the depth of excavation to range from uncontrolled, loose silty sand fill with debris; to dense or hard sandy silt. For these soil conditions, we recommend temporary cut slopes up to 10 feet tall that are not subjected to seepage forces be no steeper than 1-l/2H: 1 V. If there were seepage, such as due to perched water, slopes at this inclination should be THE RILEY GROUP, INC. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington June 2, 2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 290f45 expected to be unstable. They could require some support, or might need to .be made less steep. Shoring If it is decided to cut into the toe of the central slope, we recommend that it be shored. We expect cut heights will not be more than about 10 feet. Cantilever soldier piles and lagging seems appropriate for these heights. The shoring will be against steep. backslopes (typically about 1-1I2H: 1 V), and lateral earth pressures will be high. Our recommended earth pressures, parameters, and assumptions for design' of a cantilever soldier pile wall with a 1-1I2H: 1 V backslope are presented on Figure 6. The pressures are presented in terms of equivalent fluid density; i.e., a triangular earth pressure distribution equivalent to that which would be exerted by a fluid with the density noted. The following assumptions and recommendations apply to the figure. • The water table was assumed to be at the base of the excavation, on both sides of the soldier pile wall. • Active pressure above the base of the excavation acts on the full center-to- center pile spacing. • Below the base of the excavation, active pressure acts on 1 pile diameter, and passive resistance acts on 2 pile diameters. • Any nearby surcharges (within a horizontal distance equal to the height of the wall) should be considered on an individual basis. Lagging can be designed for pressures equal to 50 percent of those shown for design of piles, due to arching effects. THE RILEY GROUP, INC. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,: .. Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed RainierAve. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington June 2, 2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 30 of 45 A monitoring program should be implemented to verify the performance of the shoring system. The first step in this program should consist of setting reference points for horizontal and vertical control, and setting monitoring points on the piles after they are installed and before any excavation is done. The documentation should include a photographic record. Monitoring of the shoring system should be done daily as the excavation proceeds, and then weekly once the excavation is completed. A registered land surveyor should be retained to establish the baseline data, and to complete a survey every 2 weeks to check the contractor's readings. Daily monitoring can be done by the contractor. Monitoring should continue until the permanent building walls are adequately braced. Monitoring should include surveying the vertical and horizontal alignment of the top of each soldier pile. Monitoring points should also be established at the middle height of the shoring at 25-foot horizontal intervals. These mid-level points should also be surveyed to record horizontal and vertical movements. The project's structural and geotechnical engineers should review the monitoring data weekly, and at any time there is unexpected movement. Site Preparation and Grading -Commercial Development Site Preparation The first step of construction should be to demolish existing structures. Any utilities that are in the proposed blJilding footprints should be relocated to outside of the building footprint. Pavement should be stripped. From a geotechnical standpoint, the concrete rubble and/or stripped asphalt could be used as fill if it were placed at the bottom of deeper fills in pavement (non building) areas, and at least 2 feet below final grade. If the rubble is to be used as fill, it should be broken up into pieces no larger than 6 inches, laid flat, and not "nested", and mixed with soil to avoid creating voids. Concrete debris that is placed as recommended should THE RILEY GROUP, INC. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington June 2, 2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 31 of 45 perform adequately as structural fill; however, it could result in obstructions that would complicate trenching for utility installation. The near-surface soil exposed after stripping is expected to be silty sand or sandy silt. The silty sand is moisture sensitive, and will be difficult, if not impossible, to work with if it is not near optimum moisture content.·· The sandy silt is even more moisture sensitive, and generally is not suitable for reuse as fill. We suspect grading may involve cut and fill, but we expect it will be of limited height. Prior to placing fill, we recommend proofrolling all exposed surfaces with a heavy piece of rubber-tired construction equipment (such as a loaded dump truck) to evaluate if any soft and yielding areas are present. If yielding areas are observed, they should be cut to firm bearing soil and filled to grade with structural fill. After cut areas are brought to final grade, they also should be proofrolled and repaired. As discussed above, the silty sand is moisture sensitive, and will be difficult, if not impossible, to work in wet weather and/or if it is not near optimum moisture content. Fill Material It may be feasible to use the silty sand from excavation as fill in dry weather, if it is free of organics and debris, and properly moisture conditioned. If it is decided not to reuse it, and structural fill material is required, we recommend importing material that meets the following gradation requirements. Table 4. u.s. Standard Sieve Size Percent Passing 3 inches 100 percent No.4 sieve 0-75 percent No. 200 sieve o -5 percent * *Based on the minus 314-inch fraction. THE RILEY GROUP, INC. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington ! June 2, 2003 Project No. 2002.;o62B Page 32 of 45 Prior to use, Riley should examine and test all materials imported to the site for use as structural fill. A geotechnical engineer should be on site to monitor the site grading and verify soil compaction. Structural Fill Placement For the purpose of this report, structural fill is defined as fill that will support buildings, slabs-on-grade, pavement, and other settlement sensitive elements. Structural fill should be placed in uniform loose layers not more than 12 inches thick and compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density. Maximum dry density, in this report, refers to that density as determined by the ASTM D 1557 compaction test procedure (Modified Proctor). The moisture content of the soil at the time of compaction should be within about 2 percent of its optimum. Permanent Cut and Fill Slopes If permanent cut or fill slopes are incorporated into design, they should not be steeper than 2H:IY. Foundation Support -Commercial Development Based on our exploration, it appears that Buildings 2 and 3 can probably be supported on conventional shallow spread footings bearing on medium dense to dense or hard native soil. Building 1 and the parking structure are at least partially underlain by up to 40 feet of fill and organic soil that is not suitable to provided shallow foundation support. They will require pile support in the areas of deep unsuitable soil. In other parts of the buildings, . competent soil is at shallow depth. If the depth to competent native soil decreases enough across the building footprint, it may be desirable to switch back to spread footings. A depth of 5 to 10 feet (to suitable bearing soil) is commonly. considered the depth at which. one switches from shallow foundations to deep foundations. THE RILEY GROUP, INC. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington Shallow Spread Footings June 2, 2003 Project No. 2002-062B ,Page 33 of 45 Based on the available soil information in the vicinity of Buildings 3 and 2, it appears that there is suitable bearing soil (medium dense to dense silty sand or sandy silt) within a depth of about 5 feet below existing grade. Accordingly, it appears that shallow spread footings are appropriate for Buildings J and 2. Footings should bear on undisturbed, medium dense to dense native silty sand or sandy silt. If the planned footing bearing surface is disturbed or consists of fill, it should be overexcavated to expose competent medium dense to dense native soil, and replaced with compacted, well-graded, granular, structural fill. The term "granular" refers to soil that is predominantly sand and/or gravel, and that is not predominantly silt or clay. The exposed subgrade should be cleaned of loose or soft soil before placing the structural fill. If it is not feasible to place and compact structural fill of the type described above (such as if there is water in the footing excavation from seepage or rain), rock spalls or crushed rock could be used instead. Perimeter footings should bear at least 1.5 feet below final exterior grade for frost protection. Interior footings should bear at least 1 foot below the floor slab. We recommend footing widths of at least 18 and 24 inches for continuous strip footings and isolated column footings, respectively. We recommend that a geotechnical engineer be present on site to inspect the foundation subgrade preparation before pouring concrete. The foundation subgrade should be undisturbed and medium dense to dense. If loose or disturbed soil is observed, it should be removed and replaced with structural fill or crushed rock. If prepared footing subgrades are to remain exposed during the winter season or periods of wet weather, it is recommended that they be covered with a lean concrete "mud mat" to help protect the subgrades after they have been inspected and until the footings are poured. THE RILEY GROUP, INC. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington . June 2, 2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 34of45 For footings constructed as recommended, and bearing on undisturbed, competent (medium dense to dense) native soil, we recommend a design allowable bearing pressure of not more than 3000 pounds per square foot (pst). For short-term loads, such as wind and seismic, a 1/3 increase in this allowable bearing pressure can be used, as long as this conforms with the appropriate current UBC loading combinations. With the expected structural loading and the recommended foundation bearing pressure, total settlement of footings should not be more than 1 inch, and differential settlement between adjacent footings or across a distance of about 20 feet should not be more than 112 inch. We expect that most of the settlement·will occur by the end of construction. Lateral forces may be resisted by friction at the base of foundations and by passive soil resistance acting against the buried portion of foundations. To compute passive resistance, we recommend using an equivalent fluid density of 200 pounds per cubic foot (pct). This value is based on the foundations being constructed neat against undisturbed competent soil or backfilled with structural fill, and assumes that the ground surface on the resisting side is level for a distance of at least 3 times the depth of the foundation. The upper 1 foot of soil should not be included in the passive resistance calculation because it can become disturbed by erosion or future grading activity. For base friction, a factor of 0.4 may be used between concrete and soil. The coefficient of friction should be applied to the vertical dead load only. These values include a safety factor of about 1.5 and 2 applied to the estimated ultimate values for frictional and passive resistance, respectively. We recommend that footing drains be installed on the outside of perimeter footings. The footing drains should consist of 4-inch-minimum diameter, perforated or slotted, smooth wall, rigid, PVC pipe, laid at the bottom of the footing. The drain line should be surrounded with free draining pea gravel or washed rock that is wrapped in filter THE RILEY GROUP, INC. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington June 2,2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 35 of 45 fabric. The top 1 foot of backfill should consist of relatively impermeable material to limit surface water infiltration into the perimeter drain. A typical footing drain detail is shown on Figure 4. The footing drains and roof downspouts should be tightlined separately to an approved discharge facility. Pile Foundations General Building 1 and the parking structure are at least partially underlain by up to about 40 feet of fill and organic soil that is not suitable to provided shallow foundation support. They will require pile support in the areas of deep unsuitable soil. If the depth to competent native soil decreases enough across the building footprint, it may be desirable to switch back to spread footings. A depth of 5 to 10 feet (to suitable bearing soil) is commonly considered the depth at which one switches from shallow foundations to deep foundations. Pile Type We expect subsurface conditions include dense near-surface fill, deeper looser fill that contains obstructions (either natural or man-made), and suitable bearing soil at depths that will be highly variable. Drilled and cast-in-place piles (augercast piles) are not considered appropriate for the site subsurface conditions. These piles could be subject to loss of grout in debris (such as car parts) or oversized material, such as a pocket of cobbles and boulders. In addition, augercast pile equipment typically does not have the ability to crowd (exert downward pressure on) the auger, which could result in inadequate penetration into bearing soil. Driven piles appear to be the most appropriate type of deep foundation support. For this particular project, timber piles do not appear to be appropriate, due to their relatively THE RILEY GROUP, INC. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . 1 I I I I Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington ... ) June 2, 2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 360f45 low structural capacity,' and the potential for damage to the pile during hard driving. Considering the anticipated variable depths of pile penetration, precast concrete piles also appear inappropriate due to their poor length flexibility (difficult cutting or splicing to adjust to changing field conditions). Accordingly, we recommend steel piles, due to their good length flexibility as well as their ability to withstand hard driving. Driven steel piles could consist of pipe piles or H-piles. It is our opinion that H-piles would probably be more successful in getting through or around debris and obstructions, and also more effective at penetrating into very dense bearing material. However, once driven, they could not be inspected for damage. Pipe piles would require harder driving to get past obstructions and into very dense bearing material, but they could be checked for damage after they were driven. We assumed that pipe piles would be used, and that they would have design capacities in the range of 100 kip per pile. We recommend that pipe piles be seamless pipe (not spiral welded), with a wall thickness of at least 3/8 inch. The piles should be driven to practical refusal with an appropriately sized pile driving hammer. (Pile installation criteria are discussed in a later section of this report.) We recommend that the piles be driven closed-end and reinforced with a conical tip. The reinforcement is intended to aid in penetrating into very dense soil, as well as to advance through debris, boulders, or other obstructions that may be encountered. Piles should be placed at least 3 diameters apart (center to center) to avoid reduction in capacity due to group action . Allowable Design Capacity Piles should be driven through loose/soft compressible soil to refusal in the very dense silty sand unit that was encountered at about depths of 40 to 45 feet at the boring locations. The piles should be considered to act completely in end bearing. For undamaged piles that are driven to practical refusal with properly sized equipment, we THE RILEY GROUP, INC. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington June 2, 2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 37 of 45 recommend an allowable design end bearing stress of 100 kips p'er square foot (ksf). For a 12-inch diameter pile, this bearing stress corresponds to an allowable axial downward (compressive) design load of 80 kips, and for a 14-inch diameter pile it corresponds to an allowable load of 110 kips. The recommended capacity is based oli estimated soil characteristics only. Pile capacities based on the strength of pile materials should be determined by the structural engineer. Settlements of pile foundations that are designed and constructed as recommended are expected not to exceed about 1/2 inch under compressive loading. The majority of this should take place quickly after pile loading. . The 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC) allows a 1/3 increase in allowable soil stresses for wind and seismic loads, for certain load combinations. If the appropriate load combinations are used, the allowable axial pile capacity recommended above can be increased by 1/3 when considering wind and seismic loads. Estimated Pile Penetration Depths Pile penetration depths will be a function of the depth to the top of the dense silty sand unit and the pile penetration into the dense soil. It is difficult to assess the depth of pile penetration, as it is dependent on the soil conditions and the driving equipment used. It is estimated that pipe piles may penetrate up to about 5 to 10 feet into the dense sand. At the exploration locations, the depth to dense sand was about 40 to 45 feet. Based on this, it is estimated that pile penetration depths could range from about 45 to 55 feet below the existing ground surface at the exploration locations. Preliminary Pile Driving Recommendations Piles should be installed by driving continuously to virtual refusal with an appropriately sized air or diesel hammer. '~Virtual refusal" is typically defined as a driving resistance on the order of 6 to 8 blows per inch. For preliminary planning purposes, we THE RILEY GROUP, INC. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . I I I I Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington June 2,2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 380f45 recommend that the hammer should deliver at least 30,000 foot-pounds of driving energy per blow for the recommended pile type and capacity. It is noted that diesel hammers may experience difficulty in firing when driving through the loose/soft soil deposits. Specific driving criteria required to attain the recommended allowable capacity presented above can be established only after the actual pile size and driving equipment are chosen. We recommend that once the pile size and driving equipment have been selected, that a wave equation analysis (WEAP) be completed to evaluate better the driving requirements and compatibility of the pile and hammer. For this project and pile support conditions, we recommend that a safety factor of 3 be applied to ultimate dynamic driving resistance to evaluate driving criteria for the pile design capacity. To aid in the evaluation of the proposed driving equipment, we recommend that the contractor furnish the information requested to the geotechnical engineer for review at least three weeks before mobilizing pile driving equipment to the site. The results of the wave equation analysis should be checked at the start of actual pile driving operations. This will help confirm driving criteria, and provide better estimates of pile penetration. We recommend that the first piles be installed at design locations near the existing borings to act as test piles. Depending on the results of these test piles, additional test piles may be advisable. The test piles should be driven at design locations with the hammer that will be used for production driving. After being properly driven, test piles will serve as production piles. The test program should confirm driving criteria and give a better estimate of actual required pile lengths. Obstructions, in the form of boulders, debris, or possibly logs or stumps, could be encountered. This could prevent piles from penetrating to the necessary depth. If deep obstructions are encountered, it may be necessary to modify pile locations. If THE RILEY GROUP, INC. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington June 2, 2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 39 of 45 obstructions are shallow, it may be possible to dig them out and maintain the planned pile location. After driving, the pipe piles should be "lamped" to check for damage. It is also advisable to carefully monitor piles for potential heave, or for potential degradation of bearing soil due to pile driving operations. Accordingly, it is recommended that the top elevation of each pile be recorded immediately after the pile is driven, and that top of pile elevations be checked periodically to check for potential heave. In addition, after pile installation has been completed, a number of piles should be redriven to refusal to check for potential heave and/or degradation of bearing soil. Siabs-on-Grade -Commercial Development Although soil conditions at B-3 and B-4 are not considered suitable for shallow foundation support, they probably are adequate to support a lightly loaded slab-on- grade. Uncontrolled fill is unpredictable, and a slab-on-grade supported on uncontrolled fill would have a greater potential to settle than if it were supported on competent native soil. However, to avoid settlement would require supporting the slab on piles, which would be difficult to justify from a cost perspective. Subgrades for slabs-on-grade should be proofrolled and repaired as necessary, as described in the Site Preparation and Grading section of this report. If the on site soil can not be compacted to provide a dense and unyielding surface, it should be replaced with 1 foot of compacted structural fill. Immediately below the floor slab, we recommend placing a 6-inch thick capillary break layer consisting of clean, free- draining gravel or sand and gravel that has less than 5 percent fines (material passing a U.S. No. 200 sieve). This material will reduce the potential for upward capillary movement of water from the underlying soil and subsequent wetting of the floor slab. A suitable vapor barrier should be placed on top of the capillary break. The vapor THE RILEY GROUP, INC. I, I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington June 2,2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 400f45 barrier may be covered with 2 inches of clean, moist sand to guard against damage to the vapor barrier during construction and to aid in curing of the concrete. Subsurface Walls -Commercial Development If building walls are cast directly against soldier pile shoring, they can be considered to be subsurface walls. Proper drainage of walls: cast against shoring is important both for the wall and the stability of the retained soil. These walls should be waterproofed and fully drained. We recommend a drainage system consisting of pre-fabricated drainage panels, such as Miradrain, that are attached to the lagging face and connected to a pipe at the base of the wall. The pipe should then be tightlined through the footing to collector pipes that lead to a sump for discharge of collected water. A typical wall drainage detail is shown on Figure 7. If walls are constructed against the shoring, they can be designed for the same pressures that were recommended for the shoring. If basement walls are constructed, and then backfilled (such as in temporary cut slope areas for the parking structure), different design wall pressures apply. The lateral pressure acting on the wall is dependent on the nature and density of the soil behind the wall, the amount of lateral wall movement which can occur as backfill is placed, wall drainage conditions, and the inclination of the backfill. Subsurface walls should be provided with wall drains, as described above. For walls that are free to yield at the top at least 0.001 times the height of the wall (active condition), soil pressures will be less than if movement is limited by such factors as wall stiffness or bracing (at-rest condition). We recommend that walls supporting horizontal backfill and not subjected to hydrostatic forces be designed using a triangular earth pressure distribution equivalent to that exerted by a fluid with a density of 35 pcf for yielding (active condition) walls, and 55 pcffor non-yielding (at-rest condition) walls. THE RILEY GROUP, INC. · , I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project· Renton, Washington , .. ,' June 2, 2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 41 of 45 These recommended lateral earth pressures are based on the assumption of a horizontal . ground surface adjacent to the wall for a distance of at least the subsurface height of the wall, and do not account for surcharges. Additional lateral earth pressures should be considered for surcharge loads acting adjacent to subsurface walls and within a distance equal to the subsurface height of the wall. This would include the effects of surcharges such as traffic loads, floor slab loads, or other surface loads. Increased lateral earth pressure due to adjacent areal vertical surcharge pressures (such as uniform floor slab loads) can be taken as a uniform pressure equal to 0.3 times the vertical surcharge pressure for active conditions, and 0.5 times the vertical surcharge pressure for at-rest conditions. Traffic surcharges are often accounted for by assuming a. surcharge equivalent to 2 feet of soil, which corresponds to about 250 psfvertical pressure. Lateral forces on subsurface retaining walls can be resisted by friction and passive resistance, as described for footings, as well as by structural elements of the building. Drainage -Commercial Development . Construction We expect that water from shallow perched water could be encountered during construction. If it is, we expect it will be limited, and that the excavation could be dewatered with sumps and pumps. Surface Final exterior grades should promote free and positive drainage away from the building. Water should not pond or collect adjacent to the immediate building area. We recommend providing a drainage gradient of at least 3 percent for a distance of at least 10 feet from the building perimeter. THE RILEY GROUP, INC. I' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington Subsurface June 2, 2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 42 of 45 We recommend that wall drains be installed for all subsurface walls. This is discussed in the Subsurface Walls section of this report. We also recommend that perimeter footing drains be installed. This is discussed in the Shallow Spread Footings section of this report. In pile-supported sections there should also be a drain by the grade beams, similar to perimeter footing drains. Footing drains and roof downspouts should be tightlined separately to the storm drain. Utilities -Commercial Development We expect that any new utilities will be relatively shallow (say 5 feet deep or less). The soil within this depth can be excavated easily with a backhoe. Significant groundwater is not expected within this depth. Utility pipes should be bedded and backfilled in accordance with American Public Works Association (APWA) specifications. If local codes supercede APW A specifications, bedding and backfill should be completed in accordance with those codes. As a minimum, trench backfill should be placed and compacted as structural fill, as described in the Site Preparation and Grading section of this report. Where utilities are located below unimproved areas where some settlement of trench backfill is acceptable, the degree of compaction can be reduced to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by the referenced ASTM D-1557 standard. Pavement -Commercial Development Pavement subgrades should be proofrolled and repaired as necessary, as described in the Site Preparation and Grading section of this report. Regardless of the relative compaction achieved, the subgrade should be firm and unyielding before paving. As recommended for slab-on-grade subgrades, if the on site soil can not be compacted to provide a dense and unyielding surface, it should be replaced with 1 foot of compacted structural fill. The final subgrade should be proofrolled before paving. This THE RILEY GROUP, INC. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Geotechnical Engineering Report Prop6sed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington .:~ June 2, 2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 43 of 45 preparation should provide adequate support for flexible pavement. However, in areas where fill and/or peat are left in place, there could be some settlement of the pavement surface over time. For passenger vehicle parking lot areas, we recommend a pavement section consisting of 2 inches of asphalt concrete over 5 inches of crushed rock base. For passenger vehicle parking lot entrances and traffic lanes used by heavy trucks, we recommend a pavement section consisting of 3 inches of asphalt concrete over 8 inches of crushed rock base. As an alternative, the 5 and 8 inches of crushed rock base could be replaced with 3-1/2 and 5-1/2 inches of asphalt treated base, respectively. LIMITATIONS This report has been prepared for IDA Group, LLC. It is intended for specific application to the proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project in Renton, Washington, and for the exclusive use of IDA Group, LLC and their authorized representatives. The analyses and recommendations presented in this report are based on data obtained from the explorations on site. Variations in soil conditions can occur, the nature and extent of which may not become evident until construction.· If variations appear evident, The Riley Group should be requested to reevaluate the recommendations in this report prior to proceeding further with construction. Within the limitations of scope, schedule, and budget for our services, we have attempted to complete our work in accordance with generally accepted professional principles and practices in the field of geotechnical engineering followed in this area at the time this report was prepared. No warranty, express or implied, is made. THE RILEY GROUP, INC. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington June 2, 2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 440f45 We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you. If there are' any questions or comments concerning this report, or if we can provide additional services, ple,ase call. THE RILEY GROUP, INc. I EXPIRES 03f£lJlb41 William M. Kuck, P.E. Senior Engineer Report Distribution IDA Group, LLC Baylis Architects Attachments Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure A-I Figures A-2 to A-II Figures A-12 to A-16 Figures A-I7 to A-20 Figures A-2I to A-24 Site Vicinity Map Site and Exploration Plan Topographic Site Plan Typical Footing Drain Detail Retaining Wall Drainage Detail Shoring Pressure Diagram (I-l/2H: I V Backslope) Typical Wall Drainage Detail Unified Soil Classification System Boring Logs (B-1 through B-4) Test Pit Logs (TP-I through TP-12) Monitoring Well Logs (MW-I and MW-2) Grain Size Analyses THE RILEY GROUP, INC. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington June 2, 2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 450f45 References: References/Information Provided by the City of Renton 1. 2. 3. 4. GeoEngineers; May 16, 1991; "Prelimi,nary Geotechnical Evaluation, Landslide and Broken Sewer Lines, Slope West of Rainier Avenue North, Renton, Washington, for City of Renton" GeoEngineers; October 4, 1991; "Report, Supplemental Geotechnical Engineering Services, Sewer Line Reconstruction and Slope Stabilization, Slope West of Rainier Avenue North, Renton, Washington, for City of Renton" GeoEngineers; November 6, 1997; "Report, Geotechnical Engineering Services, Sewer Line Reconstruction, Rainier Avenue North and NW 7th Street, Renton, Washington", for City of Renton Geo Consultants; May 8, 1991; "Slope Failure Study, Mr. Chester Rindfuss' Residence, 676 Taylor Avenue Northwest, Renton, Washington", for Mr. Chester Rindfuss 5. Geo Group Northwest; February 18, 1993; "Slope St~bility Analysis and Landslide Stabilization Design, 676 Taylor Avenue NW, Renton, Washington", for Mr. John McFarland ReferenceslInformation from Previous Work by Riley 6. 7. The Riley Group; June 8, 2001; "Preliminary Slope Stability Study, Meyer Property, 559 to 625 Rainier Avenue North, Renton, Washington"; for Mr. Jack Alhadeff The Riley Group; October 29,2002; "Slope Evaluation, Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project, 559 to 625 Rainier Ave. North, Renton, Washington"; for Mr. Jack Alhadeff THE RILEY GROUP, INC. I~======----------------~-- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 46 O~----------~1I~2~~~~~~lmile approximate graphical scale SCALE I: 24000 CONTOUR INTERVAL 25 FEET The Riley Group, Inc. l0728 LAKE CITY WAY NE SEA TILE, WASHINGTON 98125 USGS 7.5 MINUTE QUADRANGLE RENTON, WA -REVlSED 1994 N + Rainier Avenue Mixed Use Project Site Vicinity Map Figure 1 Site Address: 559 -625 Rainier A venue N., Renton, Washington I I I I I "!-' ·~ '.' _-. ~::.~"? :-. ,,:.. 'r: .' .. '::' -,-~-' ':" - ....•..... -::a:....-.. _ .... Z"~' TP-4 -$- -$-TP-1 TP-5 -$- 333.75' -$- ~ • 53.25' i . Legend Test pit locations by Riley 7-11 April 2003 (TP-1 through TP-12) Boring locations by Riley 17-19 April -, 2003 (B-1 through B-4) Monitoring well location by Riley 19 March 2001 (MW-1 and MW-2) +N ---------------------------------------------~========:::::::::::::::::j t 60' 120' RAINIER AVENUE N. l_. __ . ___ ,, ___ ,_,,_,_, __ ,-'._,_'-.... _ ..... __ ... _ .... _ ... Reference: Survey & Site Plan (for Rainier Avenue Mixed Use), by.Baylis Architects, dated 01 April 2003 ,,-,,' , The Riley Group, Inc. 10728 LAKE CITY WAY NE SEATILE, WASHINGTON 98125 , I Graphical Scale: 1" = 60' Rainier Avenue Mixed Use Project J Site and Exploration Plan Figure 2 Site Address: 559 -625 Rainier Avenue N., Renton, Washington ......... <;;.;: .. ,.~'\ .. '<,;.'.:.0 .~~ ~I"! ~~ ;U I in J-in _51 wn ~ ~ ~ w . ~~ferenCe:BQundary & Topographic Survey "Rainier Avenue Mixed Use", -. . . . ",':by Triad Associates, dated 26 September 2002 _ • :_, ,"r """-." ... '~'. . ..~ .... 'If .. .. .... J fOr I , J The Riley Group, Inc. 10728 LAKE CITY WAY NE SEATILE, WASIllNGTON 98125 .' ~D I!~ .: .~ .~.~~~ J ~' I!·?\m~~~ ~ I I I , ~ II a t so 100' ; ! Graphical Scale: 1" = sa i~ ". I . . : +N I Rainier Avenue Mixed Use Project . .topographic Site Plan Figure 3 Site Add{ess: 559 -625 Rainier Avenue N., Renton, Washington i· . I~======-------------------­ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I • I I I I BUILDING SLAB 4" PERFORATED PIPE 3/4" WASHED ROCK OR PEA GRAVEL NOT TO SCALE FILTER FABRIC The Riley Group, Inc. 10728 LAKE CITY WAY NE SEATILE, WASHINGTON 98125 Rainier Avenue Mixed Use Project Typical Footing Drain Detail Figure 4 Site Address: 559 -625 Rainier Avenue N., Renton, Washington. I~======-------------------- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . I I I I 12" MINIMUM WIDE FREE-DRAINING GRAVEL 12" MIN. FILTER FABRIC MATERIAL SLOPE TO DRAIN .' . '. . :':. .. ' " '0 ••• 0 0 • • ,0,,,:," -; • ,°0 '0' • ....... 0'. . .' ," ., . :,' .. .. ' .. .. ' '. : .. .. 48 DIAMffiR PVC PERFORATED PIPE . . .0 : ',.' .... . . : .. . : '.: '0' • . ' . EXCAVATED SLOPE (SEE REPORT FOR APPROPRIATE INCLINATIONS) COMPACTED STRUCTURAL BACKFILL (NATIVE OR IMPORT) NOT TO SCALE _I The Riley Group, Inc. 10728 LAKE CITY WAYNE SEAlTLE, WASHINGTON 98125 Rainier Avenue Mixed Use Project· Retaining Wall Drainage Detail Figure 5 Site Address: 559 -625 Rainier Avenue N., Renton, Wash~gton I~--------------------~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I EARTH PRESSURE DESIGN PARAMETERS FOR SOLDIER PILE CANTILEVER WALL -1-1/2H:IV BACKSLOPE pcf Passive Earth Pressure = 200 pcf taken over 2 pile diameters 15 pcf over 1 pile diameter 1-------1/ below base of excavation Note: Value includes Safety Factor of 1.5. I Passive I Active I NOT TO SCALE Note -Active pressure taken over full center-to-center pile spacing above base of excavation Active pressure taken over 1 pile diameter below base of excavation Passive pressure taken over 2 pile diameters below base of excavation The Riley Group, Inc. 10728 LAKE CITY WAYNE SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98125 Rainier Avenue Mixed Use Project Shoring Pressure Diagram Figure 6 Site Address: 559 -625 Rainier Avenue N., Renton, washitigton . I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRAIN GRATE .. . CONCRETE FACING .•.. .. • • .. " A'.. •. CONTINUOUS MIRADRAIN 6000 OR EQUIVALENT .. SLAB-ON-GRADE FLOOR .. • • . . ' . . . .. .. ~ 4. A •••.•. ·;~ FO~NP~~O~;· ~ ~ :' ...... ... :.>:> ... : .... . ., .. ~., ." ."0"0° 0 ° 0 ° 0 ° 0 "0 ° 0 ° 0 °o"o~. "0 ° 0 •• ° 0 "0 ... "0 ° 0 ° 0 ' ••...... ., . .. ........................ .. .• ~ ~.. : .. ~: .; iT~J..Um NOTE: DRAIN THROUGH WALL SHOULD BE INSTALLED AT MIDDLE OF LAGGING. ._ The Riley Group, Inc. Rainier Avenue Mixed Use Project 10728 LAKE CITY WAY NE I SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98125 Typical Wall Drainage Detail Figure 7 ~;;;;;;;;;;;;~;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;~;S;i;te;A;d;d~re;ss~:~55~9~-~6~2~5~R;ai;nl;·~~A~v;e;nu;e;N2.~,R~e~n~to~n~,W~a~Sh~in~g;to~n~;;;;;;;;~~ I~---------------------- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I o w z ~C/) (9....J w O C/)C/) a:: ~ () o w Z -(f) ~~ (!)O wC/) z L-..J Ow 0> z~ ~(!) L-0>-~:5 -0 C/) MAJOR DIVISIONS LETTER SYMBOL TYPICAL DESCRIPTION GRAVELS CLEAN GW well-graaea gravels, gravel-sana mixtures, lillie .... or no fines. Q) More than 50 % GRAVELS t-------l---;::P:;-"o-o-.-rly--g--r--a-.-de--d'g-r-av-e'ls-, -g-ra-v-'el'-s-a-n-'-d -m-;-ix-'-tu-r-es-,--l ~ of coarse <5% fines GP little or no fines. .~ ~ fraction is G M Silty gravels, gravel-sand-silt mixtures, 2 .~ larger than No GRAVELS t--__ ·_-+--i::n~o.:....:.n-...J:-p~lla:..::s.::..:tic::...:fi~ln.:..::e:.=.:s.~---;--_;__~____:"_;__---_l mo· . with fines GC Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay mixtures, ~ ~t--_4_s_i_ev_e_~ ____ r-__ ~~p~lla~s~tic~fi~ln~e~s~. _~_~~_~~ ___ ~ ~ ci SANDS CLEAN SW Well-graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no LO Z fines. ffi ffi More than 50% SANDS SP Poorly-graded sands or gravelly sands, little or :5:5 of coarse <5% fines no fines. ~ fraction is SM Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures, non-plastic fines. :.;E smaller than SANDS No.4 sieve with fines SC Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures, plastic fines. ro ~ ML Inorganic Slits, roCK flour, clayey Slits Wltn sllgnt ·c.~ SIL TS AND CLAYS plasticity. .$ IJJ CL inorganic clays ot lOW to medium plastiCity, (lean ~ ~ Liquid limits clay). ..... 0_0 o' less than 50 % 0 L 0 _...... rganic silts and organic clays of low plastiCity. o Zt-----------r----r----------------~ LO c c m MH ~:5 SILTS AND CLAYS Inorganic silts, elastic. -: .... ~ CH ........ Liquid limits greater o m :2 ~ than 50% OH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, (fat clays). Organic clays of high plasticity. HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT Peat. DEFINITION OF TERMS AND SYMBOLS Density Very loose Loose Medium dense Dense Very dense Consistency Very soft Soft Medium stiff Stiff Very stiff Hard SPT (Blows/Foot) 0-4 4-10 10-30 30-50 >50 SPT (Blows/Foot) 0-2 2-4 4-8 8-16 16-32 >32 I I Tr Pp DO LL PI N 2" Outside diameter split spoon sampler , 2.4" Inside diameter ring sampler or Shelby tube Water level (date) Torvane reading, tsf Penetrometer reading, tsf Dry density, pet Liquid limit, percent Plasticity index Standard penetration, blows per foot • The Riley Group, Inc. 10728 LAKE CITY WAY NE I SBAITLE, WASHINGTON 98125 Rainier Avenue Mixed Use Project· Unified Soil Classification System I Figure A-J Site Address: 559 -625 Rainier Avenue N., Renton, Washington 'I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Boring No. B-1 I Logged by : GJK Date: 4/17103 Approximate Elev.: 97' Consistencyl Q.) (N) Moisture Soil Description Relative Depth c.. E Blows Content Density (feet) co 1ft (%) en Brush, topsoil -f- ". - - Silty sand, grey-brown, fine to -f-I coarse, with some gravel, Very Dense 55 moist, very dense, (8M), TILL -f- --5 I -I-82 12.3 Sand, grey, fine to coarse, -f-I trace gravel, moist, very Very Dense 50/6" dense, (SP) -- Sandy gravel, grey, fine 10 I gravel, fine to coarse sand, Very Dense -f-50/6" moist, very dense, (GP) Very Dense --I 50/5" -f- Silty sand, grey, fine to -I-15 coarse, with some gravel, -f- moist, very dense, (8M) -I- -l-I 50/4" -f- Rainier Avenue Mixed Use Project • The Riley Group, Inc. 10728 LAKE CITY WAYNE Test Boring Log B-1 I FigureA-2 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98125 Site Address: 559 -625 Rainier Avenue N., Renton, Washington I~---------------------- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . I I I I Boring No. B-1 (Cont.) Logged by : GJ K Date: 4/17/03 Soil Description Silty sand, grey, fine to coarse, with some gravel, moist to wet, very dense, (SM) Approximate Elev.: 97' Consistencyl ~ Relative Depth E (N) Moisture Blows Content Density (feet) ~ 1ft (%) -- -- Very Dense -- -- I SOlS" 10.4 --25 -- -- -- -- I SO/3" --30 -- -- -- -- I SOlS" --35 -- -- -- -- I SOI4" T (4/18/03) • The Riley Group, Inc. 10728 LAKE CITY WAY NE I SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98125 Rainier Avenue Mixed Use Project Test Boring Log B-1 I Figure A-3 Site Address: 559 -625 Rainier Avenue N., Renton, Washington .. I~---------------------------------- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Boring No. B-1 (Cont.) Logged by : GJ K Date: 4/17103 Soil Description Sandy silt, grey, with red-brown mottling, fine sand, with some gravel, wet, very dense, (ML) Bottom of boring at 48 feet Depth of water at 38.2 feet on 18 Apr. 2003 Observation well installed to 48 feet screened from 48 to 43 feet sand from 48 to 38 feet bentonite seal at 38 feet Consistency/ ~ Relative Depth E Density (feet) ~ ->- Very Dense -~ I -- --45 - - -- I - - --50 - - - - - - -- --55 -- - - - - -- Approximate Elev.: 97' (N) Blows 1ft 50/5" 50/5" Moisture Content (%,) 17.8 • The Riley Group, Inc. 10728 LAKE CITY WAY NE I SEAITLE, WASHINGTON 98125 Rainier Avenue Mixed Use Project Test Boring Log B-1 I FigureA-4 Site Address: 559 -625 Rainier Avenue N., Renton, Washington ' .. :." ll.-______________________________ ~_ 'I ,I 'I ,I il I I I I I II :1 I I I I ,I I Logged by : GJ K Date: 4/18/03 Boring No. B-2 Approximate Elev.: 93' Consistencyl ~ Relative Depth E (N) Moisture Blows Content Density (feet) ~ 1ft (%,) Soil Description Brush -- --Sand, grey, fine to medium, with some silt, with some gravel, moist, very dense, (SP/SM) Very Dense -i-I I I I I 5016" -I- 5 Very Dense __ 50/6" 12.1 Silty sand, grey-brown, fine to coarse, with some gravel, moist, very dense, (SM) Bottom of boring at 18 feet No groundwater encountered • The Riley Group, Inc. t 0728 LAKE CITY WAYNE I SEAlTLE, WASHINGTON 98125 -- --50/6" -- --10 50/4" -- -- --50/3" -f- -I-15 -i- -f- I 50/3" -- Rainier Avenue Mixed Use Project Test Boring Log B-2 I FigureA-5 Site Address: 559 -625 Rainier Avenue N., Renton, Washirigton , .,"<'1 I~--~------------------ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . I I Logged by : GJ K Date: 4/18/03 Soil Description (Silty sand -continued) - 6 inch peat layer at 23 ft -with peat layers up to 3 inch thick - 6 inch peat layer at 28 ft -fine to coarse sand, with some gravel Silty sand, grey, fine to medium, with some gravel, moist, medium dense, (SM) Boring No. B-3 (Cont.) Consistencyl ~ Relative Depth E Density (feet) ~ -I- -I- Medium -I- Dense Dense Medium Dense -I- -I-25 -I- -I- -I- -I- -I-30 -I- -I- -f- -c- 35 -r-- -f- -c- -f- -'-- I I I I Approximate Elev.: 48' (N) Blows 1ft 30 22 20 35 23 Moisture Content (%) 88.1 I • The Riley Group, Inc. ~ 10728 LAKE CITY WAY NE Test Boring Log B-3 I II SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98125 I Site Address: 559 -625 Rainier Avenue N., Renton, Washington Rainier Avenue Mixed Use Project FigureA-7 L..--__ ~ ___________ ______I I~----~"----------~----~---------- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I • I I Logged by : GJK Date: 4/18/03 Soil Description Silty sand, grey~brown, fine, moist to wet, very dense, (SM) Bottom of boring at 49 feet Depth of water at 17 feet at time of drilling Boring No. 8-3 (Cont.) Consistencyl ~ Relative Depth E Density (feet) ~ -I- Very Dense -l-I -I- -I-45 -I- -I- -l-I -I-50 -I- -I- -- -...:... --55 -- -c- -- -I- Approximate Elev.: 48' (N) Moisture Blows Content 1ft (%) 50/6" 93 Rainier Avenue Mixed Use Project FigureA-8 '-. I • The Riley Group, Inc. . ~ 10728 LAKE CITY WAYNE Test Boring Log B-3 I ~ SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98125 1~==========================~=Sl='re=A=d=m=eS=S:=55=9=-=62=5=R=ai=ni=cr=A=V=en=Ue=N=.=,R=e=nt=on=,W==~=hm=g=ro=n::======~ I~--------------------------------~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I f I I I I Logged by : GJK Date: 4/19/03 Boring No. B-4 Approximate Elev.: 50' Consistency! ~ Relative Depth E (N) Blows 1ft Moisture Content (0/0) Soil Description Asphalt Silty sand, grey, fine to medium, with some gravel, moist, dense, (SM), FILL Silty sand, mottled grey and brown, fine to medium, with some gravel, moist, medium dense, (SM), FILL Sandy silt, grey with brown mottling, fine sand, with some. gravel, moist, medium dense, (ML) Sampled on gravel, blow count not valid • The Riley Group, Inc. 10728 LAKE CITY WAYNE I SEA TILE, WASHINGTON 98125 Density (feet) ~ . Dense Medium Dense -I- -I- -I- -I- -I-5 -I- -I- -- --10 -- -- -- -- 15 -- -- Medium -- Dense -- I I I I I 44 47 46 15 13 I 50/3"? Rainier Avenue Mixed Use Project Test Boring Log B-4 I FigureA-9 Site Address: 559 -625 Rainier Avenue N., Renton, Washington I~--~--------------------------~-- I I I I I I I ·1 I I I I I I • I I Boring No. B-4 (Cont.) Logged by : GJ K Date: 4/19/03 Soil Description Consistencyl ~ . Relative Depth E Density (feet) ~ r-----------------------~--------~ : Silty sand. grey. fine to medium, with some gravel, occasional layer cleaner sand. occasional layer sandy silt. very. moist. medium dense. (SM) Peat. dark brown. fibrous. with non fibrous layers. with silty peat layers. moist, (Pt) -with some layers siltto sandy silt Sandy silt, grey. fine sand. trace wood fragments. moist, medium dense. (ML) Medium Dense . Stiff -I- -I- -I- -I-25 -I- -I- -I- -I-30 -I- -I- -f- . -,- -~ 35 Medium -- Dense -f- I I I I Approximate Elev.: 50' (N) Blows 1ft 25 22 21 26 Moisture Content (%) 167.3 -1- T (4/19/03) I • The Riley Group, Inc. ~ 10728 LAKE CITY WAYNE Test Boring Log B-4 j ~ SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98125 1~==========================~=Si=te=A=d=&=eS=S:=55=9=-=62=5=R=ai=ni=~=A=v=en=ue=N=.=,R=e=nt~~=,w==aS=hm=g=~=n~======~ Rainier Avenue Mixed Use Project FigureA-IO I~--------------------------------~ I I I I I 'I I 11 , II Logged by : GJ K Date: 4/19/03 Soil Description -wet, dense Silty sand, grey-brown, fine, . moist, very dense, (SM) -fine to medium sand, wet Bottom of boring at 54 feet Depth of water at 31 feet at time of drilling Boring No. B-4 (Cont.) Approximate Elev.: 50' Consistencyl (]) (N) Moisture c.. Relative Depth E Blows Content Density (feet) co 1ft (%) en -- -- Dense --I 40 -- 45 -- -- Very Dense --I 78 -- --50 -- -- --I 70 --55 -- -- -- -- I • The Riley Group, Inc. . II 10728 LAKE CITY WAYNE Test Boring Log B-4 I . ~. SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98125 Rainier Avenue Mixed Use Project FigureA-ll " I Site Address: 559 -625 Rainier Avenue N., Renton, Washington '---__ ~------------..I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I • I I I I Logged By: GJK Date: 4/7/03 Test Pit No. Depth (tt) Soil Description Sample TP-1 0.0 -0.3 Duff, topsoil depth (moisture) 0.3 -2.5 Silty sand, light brown, fine to coarse, with 1 ft (14%) some gravel, moist, medium dense, (SM) 2.5 -6.0 Silty sand, grey, fine to medium, with some 5 ft gravel, moist, medium dense to very dense, (SM), TILL " Bottom of test pit at 6 feet No seepage encountered No caving TP-2 0.0 -0.5 Duff, topsoil 0.5 -4.0 Silty sand, light brown, fine to coarse, with 2 ft (12%) some gravel, moist, medium dense, (SM) 4.0 -6.0 Silty sand, grey, fine to medium, trace 5ft gravel, moist, medium dense to very dense, (SM), TILL Bottom of test pit at 6 feet No seepage encountered No caving TP-3 0.0 -0,2 Duff, topsoil 0.2 -4.0 ' Silty sand, brown, fine, moist, very dense, 3ft (SM) Bottom of test pit at 4 feet No seepage encountered No caving The Riley Group, Inc. Rainier Avenue Mixed Use Project Test Pit Logs FigureA-12 10728 LAKE CIlY WAY NE SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98125 Site Address: 559 -625 Rainier Avenue N.,Renton, WA I I I I I I I I I I. I I I I I • I I I I Logged By: GJK Date: 417103 Test Pit No. Depth (tt) Soil Description Sample TP-4 0.0 -2.0 Silty sand, dark brown, fine to medium, depth (moisture) trace gravel, with roots and branch pieces, 1 ft moist, loose, (SM) 2.0 -4.0 Silty sand, light brown, fine to medium, with 3 ft some gravel, trace roots, moist, medium dense, (SM) '. 4.0 -6.0 Silty sand, grey, fine to medium, with some 5 ft gravel, moist, very dense, (SM), TILL Bottom of test pit at 6 feet No seepage encounter~d No caving TP-5 0.0 -0.2 Duff 0.2 -5.0 Sand, light brown, fine to medium, with 3 ft some silt, moist, medium dense, (SP/SM) 5 -13 Sand, light grey-brown, fine to medium, 6ft(11%) with some silt, moist, medium dense, TP-6 (4/9/03) 0.0 -4.0 4 -14 The Riley Group, Inc. (SP/SM) .. Bottom of test pit at 13 feet No seepage encountered No caving Silty sand with gravel, mottled grey, fine 2 ft to coarse, occasional wood debris, moist, medium dense, (SM), FILL Silty sand with gravel, mottled grey, fine 14 ft to coarse, moist, medium dense to dense, (SM), FILL Bottom of test pit at 14 feet Moderate seepage at 4 feet caving below 4 feet Rainier Avenue Mixed Use Project 10728 LAKE CITY WAY NE SEATfLE, WASI-llNGTON 98125 Test Pit Logs .FigUreA~13 Site Address: 559 -625 Rainier Avenue N., Renton, WA . , , I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Logged By: GJK Date: 4/11/03 Test Pit No. Depth (tt) Soil Description Sample TP-7 0.0 -1.5 Sandy silt, dark brown, fine sand, with some depth (moisture) gravel, with roots and organics, moist, 1 ft loose, (ML) 1.5 - 6 Sandy silt, light brown, fine sand, moist, 3 ft (25%) hard I very dense, (ML) 6-7 Sandy silt, grey, fine sand, moist, hard I 7 ft (25%) very dense, (ML) Bottom of test pit at 7 feet Minor seepage at 6 feet No caving TP-8 0.0 -0.2 Gravel 0.2 - 4 Silty sand, brown, fine to coarse, with some 2 ft gravel, with brick frag~ents, moist, medium dense, (SM), FILL 4 -12 Silty gravelly sand, brown and grey, fine to 12 ft coarse, occasional roots, moist, dense, (SM/GM), FILL Bottom of test pit at 12 feet No seepage encountered No'caving The Riley Group, Inc. 10728 LAKE CITY WAY NE Rainier Avenue Mixed Use Project Test'Pit Logs Figure A-14 SEA TILE, WASIDNGTON 98125 Site Address: 559 -625 Rainier Avenue N.,Renton, WA -'. I I Logged By: GJK Date: 4/11/03 I Test Pit No. Depth (ft) Soil Description Sample TP-9 0.0 -0.5 Topsoil, duff depth (moisture) I 0.5 - 2 Silty sand, grey-brown, mottled red-brown, 1 ft fine to coarse, with some gravel, trace roots, I moist, loose, (SM), FILL 2-5 Silty gravelly sand, grey, fine to coarse, 3ft I moist, loose, (SM/GM), FILL 5 -13 Silty gravelly sand, grey-brown, fine to 13 ft -'. I coarse, with wood, 'auto debris, tires and trash, moist, loose, (SM/GM), FILL I Bottom of test pit at 13 feet No seepage encountered I Moderate caving TP-10 0.0 -0.5 Topsoil I 0.5-2 Sandy silt, brown, fine sand, with some 1 ft(19%) gravel, with roots, moist, hard, (ML) I 2-4 Silt, lightbrown, moist, hard, (ML) 3 ft (30%) 4 ft (33%) I Bottom of test pit at 4 feet No seepage encountered No caving I TP-11 0.0 -0.5 Topsoil 0.5 -1, Sandy silt, light grey-brown, fine sand, 1 ft (24%) I moist, loose to medium dense, (ML) " 1-4 Sandy silt, light brown, fine sand, moist, 3 ft (23%) I hard / dense, (ML) • I Bottom of test pit at 4 feet No seepage encountered No caving I Rainier Avenue Mixed Use Project - • The Riley Group, Inc. I 10728 LAKE CITY WAY NE Tes/Pit Logs FigureA-15 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON Q8125· Site Address: 559 -625 Rainier Avenue N., Renton, WA I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,I I ,I ,f I I :1 I il I', " Logged By: GJK Date: 4/11/03 Test Pit No. Depth (tt) Soil Description Sample TP-12 0.0 -0.2 Topsoil depth (moisture) 0.2 - 4 Silty sand, light brown, fine to medium, with 3 ft (11%) some gravel, moist, dense, (SM) Bottom of test pit at 4 feet No seepage encountered No caving , 1 Rainier Avenue Mixed Use Project • The Riley Group, Inc. 10728 LAKE CI1Y WAY NE Test Pit Logs' FiguteA-16 SEATILE, WASlflNGTON 98125 Site Address: 559 -625 Rainier Avenue N., Renton, WA I .' I .. Boring No. MW-1 I Logged by : TF Date: 3/19/01 Approximate Elev.: 50' I Consistencyl Q) (N) Moisture Co Soil Description Relative Depth E Blows Content I Density (feet) co 1ft (%) en Asphalt : I -- --" I Silty sand, grey, fine, with I some gravel, dry, very dense, Very Dense -I-58 (SM) -- I 5 -- I -- Silty clay: grey, moist, stiff, Stiff --I 16· I (Cl) -- I --10 I -- Silty sand, grey, fine, with I --50/1" some gravel, dry, dense, (SM) Very Dense' I Sampled on a rock -r- -I-15 I -I-... (4/3/03) I Silty clay, grey, moist, stiff, Stiff -l-I 14 • (Cl) -- I I I • The Riley Group, Inc. Rainier Avenue Mixed Use Project. . 10728 LAKE CITY WAYNE I I SIlAITLE, WASHINGToN 98125 Monitoring Well Log MW-l FigureA-17 I Site Address: 559 -625 Rainier Avenue N., Renton, Washington I I Boring No. MW-1 (Cont.) I Logged by : TF Date: 3/19/01 Approximate Elev.: 50' I Consistencyl Q) (N) Moisture a. Soil Description Relative Depth E Blows Content I Density (feet) ttl 1ft (%) C/) : I -I- -l-" I No recovery, sampled on a -l-I 24 rock -l- I 25 -l- I -l-T (3/19/01) Silty clayey sand, greY,wet, Dense -l-I 37 I dense, (SM) -l- I -I-30 -l- I -l- I -I-50/6" Very Dense I -I- 35 Bottom of bori ng at 35 feet I Monitoring well installed to 35 -I- feet -l- I Depth to water: -l- f 27 ft on 19 Mar. 2001 , -l-I 17.3 ft on 03 Apr. 2003 Rainier Avenue Mixed Use Project FigureA-18 I " I Boring No. MW-2 I Logged by : TF Date: 3/19/01 Approximate Elev.: 48' I Consistencyl Q) (N) Moisture a. Soil Description Relative Depth E Blows Content I Density (feet) co 1ft (0/0) C/) Asphalt I -I- -I-, I Gravelly silty sand, grey, Medium -l-I 18 damp, medium dense, (GM) Dense -I- :1 -l-S -l- I -l- i -l-I 26 ;1 -l- I 11 10 -l-I I II Gravelly silty sand, -I-grey-brown, damp, very I , dense, (GM) Very Dense --50/6" :1 - - ~ I 15 'I -- Silt, grey-brown, dry, hard, - - I (ML) Hard --I 50/6" • -l-I I - 'I Rainier Avenue Mixed Use Project • The Riley Group, Inc. , , 10728 LAKE CITY WAYNE 1 '. I S,EAlTLE, WASHINGTON 98.'25 Monitoring Well Log MW-2 FigureA-19 I Site Address: 559 -625 Rainier Avenue N., Renton, Washington I~-------------------------------- I I I I I I I I I I I I I Boring No. MW-2 (Cont.) Logged by : TF Date: 3/19/01 Approximate Elev.: 48' Consistencyl ~ Relative Depth E (N) Moisture Blows Content I • I I Soil Description Sand, grey, fine, wet, very dense, (SP) Bottom of bori ng at 30 feet . Monitoring well installed to 30· feet Depth to water: 23 ft on 19 Mar. 2001 21.3 ft on 03 Apr. 2003 •• The Riley Group, Jnc. ~ ·10728 LAKE CITY WAYNE • .. II SBATILE. WASHINGTON 98125 Density (feet). JJ 1ft (0/0) --T (4/3103) -- I 5015" T (3/19/01) I 50/6" Rainier Avenue Mixed Use Project Monitoring Well Log MW-2 I FigureA-20 Site Address: 559 -625 Rainier Avenue N., Renton, Washington I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I • I I I I . PERCENT COARSER BY WEIGHT .....J a.. .. 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 .001 0 .-N rt) 10 co f"'-DO en .-.001 I--r-r-- .....J .....J en .002 .002 en .003 . 003 .......... ~ ~ CD_ .004 .004 ~ « ~ ::J-+J Z ~ ~~ « .006 .006 O-+J ~ en :::::!EE:: I.&J .008 .008 w 0 ~ N z: C,,) W en .01 .01 G: ti z :::2: ~ a (,!) .02 .02 ~ : 0 .03 .03 >-I .04 .04 .06 .06 --200 .08 -- CI ~~ .1 if) ~ ~ ~ w ~ 100 ti I.&J ~!-' z E:: """ .2 :::2: u::: 0 :.::; tri 60 .3 ::J 0.. ::::) 50 ·c ",'" u :r: It"" .4 :::2: rn 40 Lo-I-CD <> 0 ~ V' ~ ,6 z 30 1/ a:: . :::E en w II ,8 w a.. 20 . :::;J I II '63 :J: 1N t:fJ 16 :::E II en ::E II u... 2 Z if) 0 10 I-en a:: 8 1/ « I.&J w 3~ ,~ , ~ CD V ::E 1/ .(!) 0 « ~ 4 u z z « 4 l-t-~ 1/4 6 w G:i 8 I.&J 3/8 10 z -u::: en . en f3 1/2 C,,) II --I en :J: 5/.8 ::;) <> 3,/4 20 ~ 1 '/ ~ 11/.4 ~ 30 I.&J :5~ (,!) ~ o..-+J Z 1 1'/2 40 CD-z 0- I.&J 2 a.. 60 ~ 0 co!: . u... t-I.-a.. 0 3 80 C'I 100 E:: -+J w 4 en 'c :3 N W ~I-en .....J 6 CD CD 200 0 C,,) :;-12 300 I..--~ o· 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0) DO f"'-co 10 ..r rt) N .-.- PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT • The Riley Group, Inc. Rainier Avenue Mixed Use Project ,J 10728 LAKE CITY WAY NE Grain Size Analysis . F.igure A-21 SEATILE, WASHINGTON 98125 Site Address: 559 -625 Rainier Avenue N., Renton, Washington co N n N .-..- "- Q; Q; > > e c ~ C'I C'I CD CD u E e 0 rn -+J -'= -'= -+J :0= 'j: 3: 0 CI :z:: z c;i i1i ~ ~ en en :::::!E :::::!E en Vl .-N .-N I I a.. c... l-I- 0 • .- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . , I I I I .001 0 (/) .002 (/) ~ .003 c::r::: :::::E .004 Z :::::E c::r::: ~ . 006 0::: I.&.J .008 N W Vi .01 L:i z :::2i! ~ 0 (,!) 0::: .02 0 >-.03 ::c .04 .06 200 0 ~ ~ 100 en 60 ::l 50 .-:t: (J 40 ~ a:: 30 I.&.J c... 20 :I: f3 16 :::::E en lL. 0 10 (/) ffi 8 ~ [IJ :::::E c::r::: ::l z: z c::r::: 4 ~ 1/4 W ~ 3/8 -(/}f3 1/2 :I: 5/.8 (J 3,/4 ~ ~ 1 (,!) 1 1/.4 z 1 1/2 z ~. 2 0 lL. 3 0 I.&.J 4 N Vi 6 12 0 0 - • PERCENT COARSER BY WEIGHT .....J 0 IJ.. 0 0 0 ~ 0 -N P'l 0 0 0 10 co 0 0 ,..... DO CJl -.001 . r-- .....J .....J .002 .003 ......... ~ . 004 ~ .......... ::::I ..... eo I") 1i)r::: d N .006 .-Q) 0 ..... .-..- .008 (/') ::::::!:r::: L.U 0 .01 :z u G: .02 : .03 .04 , .06 .08 -r- )I lIlI .1 (/) i-" 0::: W lIlI 1--1-' L:i w Q) z > .2 :::2i! Ci: r::: 0 .2 ~ .... 0' . 3 :J II II a. ·c Q) .4 :::2i! u u I f-en ~ Q) :I Q) :!~ 0 ..... > II V .6 Z ~ "'0 r::: 0' I .8 w 0 ::::I Q) IN 8 ~ E 1/ 'in :! 0 (/) en ~ ID z: E .c: 2 r-0 ;'= c::r::: II) ~ w II 3 0::: ~ .c: 0 (!) ..... z 4 . .~ ~ ~ 1/ f-f-0 :z ~ V 6 ~ en 8 w II 10 :z: Ci: (/') u ::::::!: ::::::!: f.-(/') ~I~ (/') (/') 20 :::::> (,!) 30 .c: w .............. ~ 0."'; eo LO 40 ID-0 .......... U 60 ~ 0;'= 80 I-..... IJ.. LO ..-0' I 100 r::: ..... IJ.. I (/') .-II) CD L.U ~ ID I- .....J d31- CD CD 200 0 u 0 >. 0 0 0 300 ID 0 • CJl DO ,..... 0 0 0 0 0 L...-~ co 10 ..q-0 P'l N .- PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT The Riley Group, Inc. Rainier Avenue Mixed Use Project 10728 LAKE CITY WAY NE . Gr.ain Size Analysis I SEATILE, WASHINGTON 98125 FigureA-22 ; . •• Site Address:. 559 -625 Raini.er Avenue N., Renton, Washington I I I I I I I I I I I 'I :1 I I . I I I I .001 0 en .002 en .003 ~ .004 « ::::Ii: Z ::::Ii: « :?: . 006 0::: w .008 N W Vi .01 W :?: ~ ~ 0 Co!) 0::: .02 0 .03 >-::r: .04 .06 200 CI ~ ~ 100 vi 60 =i 50 ':r: 40 u :?: a::: 30 w c.. 20 :r: (/) 16 w ::::Ii: LL. en 0 10 en ffi 8 ~ CD ::::Ii: « :::::I Z z: « 4 f-1/4 W Gj 3/8 -en (/) 1/2 W :r: 5/.8 u 3,/4 :?: 1 :?: 1 1/.4 Co!) 1 1'/2 z Z w, 2 c.. 0 . LL. :5 0 w 4 N Vi 6 12 0 0 .... • PERCENT COARSER BY WEIGHT , .....J -0 Cl.. 0 0 0 '~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 ..-N I") III co I' DO Ol ..... 001 r-- -l .....J .002 .003 ...-.., ~ .004 a> '-'" L.. ::l ...... 'V co ~~ 0 r...: .006 0 ...... ..--..... en :::::i:~ .008 w 0 :z u .01 G: : .02 .03 .04 " . . 06 .08 I-r-~I" vII .1 en Vv l,.-II 0::: W II v W w z: II v .2 ~ I::&: ~ 0 I.-:,:::; i-' .3 :::J a. 17, ~"? ·c .4 ~ (,) en Iii a:; -a> > II ~ 0 > E E ~ .6 z 01 01 .8 w ~ a> a> ::» u IJ IN fa E 0 0 L.. II ::::Ii: en ..... II en ~ ~ ..... IJ 2 Z ~ 'i I-:I: II « w 0 ~ 0::: VI 3 (!) ~ :z en C1i II 4 u >-"0 l-f-~ I:: II 0 6 u; Ul ,~ 8 w 10 z: I I::&: en u :::::i: -l 1/ ~ en en :::::!: :::> 20 I-~ II ;I .£:....-.., 30 w 15......; U") LO ~ a>-N N 40 0 ........ N 'V 60 5~ 80 1-.... Cl.. ..--..... 01 I I ~ ...... 100 en .-en CD CD L.. a> W cB~ -l CD CD 200 0 u >- 300 L....-a> 0 • ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ol DO I' U) 10 ..r I") N ..... PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT The Riley Group, Inc. Rainier Avenue Mixed Use Project , I 10728 LAKE CITY WAY NE Grain Size Analysis J<:igureA-23 SEATILE, WASHINGTON 98125 Site Address: 559 -625 Rainier Aventie N., Renton, Washington I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I • I I I I - PERCENT COARSER BY WEIGHT ......J 0 a.. .001 0 0 0 0 0 0 I--r-.-N n ..r LO 0 0 0 0 0 10 I' QJ 0) .--.001 r--- (J1 .002 =h .002 (J1 ~ .003 « ~ .004 .003 . ,....... ~ z ~ . 004 ~ ........ « ~ . 006 ::::lI ...... .006 1i)c::: 0:: ..... .008 .-Q) N 0 ...... W til .01 .008 en :::::!:c::: W w 0 Z .01 z: u ~ ~ c;: 0 C,!) 0:: .02 0 : .02 >-.03 .03 :::r: .04 .04 .06 .06 ~ I-200 0 II .08 f-,..... ~ 100 ;I .1 (J1 ~ 0:: W W UJ vi 60 ,... z .2 ~ Li: c::: ;::; 50 0 .3 ::::1 :;:; .~ ~ a. 40 ·c (..) .4 ~ 0 ~ -en 30 Q) 0:: .~ 0 ..... if .6 z a.. 20 <: :I: .8 W ::::E(/) ~ 16 :::J .~ 1N fa ::::E (J1 (J1~ (f)0:: 10 8 2 z ~~ « II UJ «~ 3 0:: Vl ZZ t!) ~ «I-4 4 u w 1/4 -f- ~ I 6 -3/8 6 UJ (J1~ 1/2 I 10 z Li: :I: 5/.8 I en (..) 3'/4 u ~ ~ -~ en ~ 1 20 ::::J C,!) 1 1/.4 Z 1 1/2 30 ..... :5,....... z UJ ~ a. . ..... 2 40 Q)O::= a.. 0 ........ 0 u . u.... 3 60 o. ~ o~ 80 -"-a.. 0'1 ..... 4 N til 100 c::: ...... en .-en 6 ~ Q) W dSl-......J CD CD 200 0 u >. f--12 o· 0 0 0 0 300 Q) 0 0) DO 0 0 ~ 0 L.....-~ I' co LO 0 0 n N .-..- PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT • The Riley Group, Inc. Rainier Avenue Mixed Use Project 10728 LAKE CITY WAY NE Grain Size Analysis I SEA TILE, WASHINGTON 98125 FigureA-24 .-Site Address: 559 -625 Rainier Avenue N., Renton, Washington ..' ..- N ..- " Q) > 0 ~ 0'1 Q) E 0 en -'= ~ ~ 0 :z: U'i 1!' en :::::!: en LO N I CD 0 I ·1/ I I I / / ....... I .-----.~. . .. _._._._....../ ...\ .... I-:,.J:_ ...... \ \ c--_ ...... _--·', .... I--...... -··-.......... · ....... · .. --------.. --............ ,.. .. _ .. _ ...... --_, I I I I / I / i / 1/ J -.. -----~---,-j ------~ .............. !_ .• _1"1~::t"I"'.t:Io',aJ V1lfel>ef,.P. E. ••• .. · .. "' .... ____ 1 · "'''\ J 2 9 2~_Ql "\,.1 1" .. --.. ------+--11--.. 'EC~IVED ~[rL'C[U/'al FIlnin,<,>pr.<: • Landscape Architects • Cbmfnu~ity Planners·-CafJd SUivEh~4~s/'~I""lei(ihbori""""'" __ ...... _: __ .. 1 : l/( ... ,-- i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I, I I I I hereby state that this Technical Information Report for Rainier Mixed Use Parking Expansion has been prepared by me or under my supervision and meets the standard of care and expertise that is usual and customary in this community for professional engineers. I understand that King County does not and will not assume liability for the sufficiency, suitability, or perfonnance of drainaQe facilities prepared by me. . Technicallnformafion Report PREPARED FOR: JDA Group LLC 95 South Tobin Street Suite, 201 Renton, WA 98055 Contact: Jack Alhadeff PROJECT: Rainier Mixed Use Parking Expansion City of Renton, Washington 203615.10 PREPARED BY: Glenn Hume, P.E. Project Engineer REVIEWED BY: J. Matthew Weber, P.E. Project Manager June 2004 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I :1 I 'I I I TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 1. Project Overview ......................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Purpose and Scope ................................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Existing Conditions ................................................................................................................................ 1 1.3 Post-Development Conditions ............................................................................................................. 2 2. Conditions and Requirements Summary ................................................................................................. 2 2.1 Core Requirements ................................................................................................................................. 2 2.1.1 c.R. #l-Discharge at the Natural Location .............................................................................. 2 2.1.2 C.R. #2 -Off-site Analysis ......................................................................................................... 2 2.1.3 C.R. #3 -Runoff Control ............................................................................................................ 3 2.1.4 C.R. #4 -Conveyance System ..................................................................................................... 3 2.1.5 c.R. #5 -Er~sion/Sedimentation Control Plan ..................................................................... 3 2.1.6 C.R. #6 -Maintenance and Operations ................................ , ................................................... 3 2.1.7 C.R. #7 -Bonds and Iiability ..................................................................................................... 3 2.2 Special Requirements ............................................................................................................................. 3 2.2.1 S.R. #1-Critical Drainage Areas ............................................................................................... 3 2.2.2 Compliance with An Existing Master Drainage Plan ............................................................. 3 2.2.3 Conditions Requiring a Master Drainage Plan ......................................................................... 3 2.2.4 Adopted Basin or COnUnunity Plans ......................................................................................... 3 2.2.5 Special Water Quality Controls ................................................................................................... 3 2.2.6 Coalescing Plate Oil/Water Separators ..................................................................................... 4 2.2.7 Closed Depressions ....................................................................................................................... 4 2.2.8 Use of Lakes, Wetlands or Closed Depressions For Peak Rate RunoffControl... ........... .4 2.2.9 Delineation of 100 Year Floodplain ........................................................................................... 4 2.2.1 0 Flood Protection Facilities for Type 1 and Type 2 Streams ............................................. .4 2.2.11 Geotechnical Analysis and Report ................................. · ........................................................ 4 2.2.12 Soils Analysis and Report ........................................................................................................ 4 2.3 Preliminary Plat and SEP A Conditions .............................................................................................. 4 3. Off-.Site·Analysis .......................................................................................................................................... 4 3.1 Downstream Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 4 3.2 Upstream Analysis .................................................................................................................................. 4 4. Flow Control and Water Quality Facility Analysis and Design ........................................................ ; .. 5 4.1 Water Quality System ............................................................................................................................. 5 5. Conveyance System Analysis and Design ............................................................................................... 5 6. Special Reports And Studies ...................................................................................................................... 5 7. Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................... 5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Appendices Appendix A Appendix B AppendixC Figures A-l A-2 A-3 A-4 A-S Vicinity Map Soils Map Existing Conditions Map Developed Conditions Map Downstream Drainage Map TIR Worksheet Hydrologic Analysis C-l C-2 C-3 C-4 C-S C-6 C-7 C-8 C-9 C-l0 C-11 C-12 Drainage Basin Map SCS Western Washington Runoff Curve Numbers 2-year, 24-hour Isopluvial 100-year, 24-hour Isopluvial Pre-Developed Basin Summary Pre-Developed 100-year, 24-hour Hydrograph Developed Basin Summary Developed Basin 100-year, 24-hour Hydrograph Treatment Basin Summary Treatment Basin 6-month, 24-hour Hydrograph Level Pool Summary Conveyance System Summary Appendix D Geotechnical Engineering Report by The Riley Group, Inc., June 2, 2003 Appendix E Wedand and Stream Determination by The Riley Group, Inc., February 24, 2004 Appendix F Wildlife Reconnaissance by Raedeke & Associates, Inc. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 2. 1.3 Post-Development Conditions The project includes construction of a new 27 stall parking lot with associated access drive, sidewalk for pedestrian access, and stormwater management facilities. The stormwater management facilities consist of a bio-infiltration swale, catch basins and conveyance pipe. The project proposes approximately 10,880 square feet of new pavement while removing approximately 2093 square feet of existing pavement resulting in a net increase in impervious surfaces of 8787 square feet.- A concrete retained wall is required on the eastern edge of the access drive. The parking lot is graded so that stormwater runoff sheet flows towards the southern edge where it is introduced to the bio-infiltration swale through curb cuts. Rock protection is provided at the curb cuts to prevent erosion. The stormwater is treated by infiltration through the bio-infiltration soil mix within the swale. After treatment, the runoff is collected in an underdrain system and conveyed to the downstream system. For rainfall events larger than the 6-month, 24-hour event, the runoff overflows through a catch basin to be conveyed downstream. The existing 24-inch culvert is being extended to the west end of the parking lot to convey the existing ditch flows through the site and downstream maintaining the existing drainage pattern. A catch basin i~ located north of the parking lot to intercept runoff from the adjacent slope and prior to it running onto the proposed parking lot. CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY 2.1 Core Requirements 2.1.1 C.R. #1-Discharge at the Natural Location Currendy, runoff from the site and upstream is discharged through an existing culvert that connects to the storm system in Rainier Avenue. The culver will be extended by this project so that it will continue to collect the runoff from the existing ditch and convey it downstream. Flow generated on the site will be connected to this existing culvert to maintain the current drainage patterns. 2.1.2 C.R. #2 -Off-site Analysis AHBL staff performed a Level 1 off-site drainage analysis in March 2003. The analysis included: • Defining and mapping the study area; • Reviewing available information on the study area; • . Field inspecting the study area; and • Analyzing the existing drainage system including its existing and predicted problems, if any. 2 mmmil I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The downstream conveyance system consists of an existing storm drainage system located east of Rainier Avenue. The stormwater is conveyed north in this system for greater than a quarter mile to its ultimate discharge in Lake Washington. To our knowledge there are no existing downstream restrictions and the project site will only slighdy increase the flows through this system. Therefore, the downstream conveyance system should have adequate capacity to convey the additional flows from this project. 2.1.3 C.R. #3 -Runoff Control The project developed 100-year, 24-hour peak flow rate for the net increase in impervious area is 0.20 cubic feet per second which does not exceed 0.5 cubic feet per second greater than the existing flow rate of 0.06 cubic feet per second. Therefore, stormwater quantity control facilities are not required for this project. Water quality will be provided through a bio-infiltration system as described above. 2.1.4 C.R. #4 -Conveyance System The existing 24-inch culvert is being extended with a new 24-inch pipe at a slope slighdy greater than the existing culvert. The new conveyance system has capacity to convey the 100- year, 24-hour peak flow without surcharging. 2.1.5 C.R. #5 -Erosion/Sedimentation Control Plan An erosion and sediment control plan has been developed for this site and a report has been prepared under separate cover. 2.1.6 C.R. #6 -Maintenance and Operations A maintenance plan has been developed for this site and a report has been prepared under separate cover. 2.1.7 C.R. #7 -Bonds and Liability This project will provide for a Drainage Facilities Restoration and Site Stabilization Financial Guarantee and a maintenance and defect bond. 2.2 Special Requirements 2.2.1 S.R. #1-Critical Drainage Areas The project does not lie within a critical drainage area. 2.2.2 Compliance with An Existing Master Drainage Plan . The project does not lie within an area covered by an approved Master Drainage Plan. 2.2.3 Conditions Requiring a Master Drainage Plan The project does not meet any of the conditions requiring a Master Drainage Plan. 2.2.4 Adopted Basin or Community Plans The project does not lie within an area with an adopted Basin or Community Plan. 2.2.5 Special Water Quality Controls The project does not meet any of the conditions requiring special water quality controls. 3 mmmll I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 2.2.6 Coalescing Plate Oil/Water Separators The project does not meet any of the conditions requiring a coalescing plate oil/water separator. 2.2.7 Closed Depressions The project does not discharge to a closed depression. 2.2.8 Use of Lakes, Wetlands or Closed Depressions For Peak Rate Runoff Control The project does not use lakes, wetlands, or closed depressions for peak rate runoff control. 2.2.9 Delineation of 100 Year Floodplain There are no building associated with this project that would require separation from the 100- year flood plain. 2.2.10 Flood Protection Facilities for Type 1 and Type 2 Streams The project does not meet the any of the conditions requiring flood protection facilities. 2.2.11 Geotechnical Analysis and Report The project does not meet any of the conditions requiring a geotechnical analysis according to special requirement #11. 2.2.12 Soils Analysis and Report The soils underlying the project have been accurately mapped by the USGS; however, a geotechnical report was prepared by The Riley Group, Inc and is included in Appendix D of this report. 2.3 Preliminary Plat and SEPA Conditions Not Applicable 3. OFF-SITE ANALYSIS 3.1 Downstream Analysis Stormwater flows from the project site are conveyed to the east through an existing 24-inch culvert to the storm system in Rainier Avenue. From here the runoff is combined with runoff from Rainier Avenue and adjacent developments and is conveyed north. To our knowledge there are no restrictions in the downstream system. 3.2 Upstream Analysis The storm system located in Taylor Place NW discharges to a ditch west of the project site. This ditch conveys the flows through the project site to the existing culvert. Additionally, the site received runoff from the adjacent slopes. The upstream drainage pattern will be maintained in the existing system. 4 mmmll I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 4. 5. 6. 7. FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY FACILITY ANALYSIS AND DESIGN As stated earlier, stormwater peak discharge controls are not required per the 0.5 cubic feet per second increase exemption. Stormwater quality control systems are provided for the project. 4.1 Water Quality System The water quality system consists of a bio-infiltration swale as described in the 2002 Department of Ecology Stormwater Manual for Western Washington. The primary treatment function of the system is through plant uptake and filtering through the bio- infiltration soil mix which is 18-inches thick in the bottom of the swale. Because the underlying native soils are till, an underdrain system is provided below the bio-infiltration soil mix to collect the treated runoff and convey it downstream. The swale is designed to have a maximum ponding depth of 6 inches during the 6-month, 24-hour storm event. The entire volume of the 6-month event is infiltrated through the soil mix using a design infiltration rate of 1 inch per hour. 'Runoff from the parking lot is introduced to the swale through curb cuts. Runoff from the adjacent undisturbed slope was also included in the design basin because there was no practical method for diverting these flows around the facility. The design flow rate for the 6-month storm event is 0.07 cubic feet per second. During larger runoff events, a catch basin is provided to allow overflow from the swale to the downstream conveyance system. CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN The existing 24-inch culvert is being extended with a new 24-inch pipe at a slope slighdy greater than the existing culvert. The new conveyance system has capacity to convey the 100- year, 24-hour peak flow without surcharging. SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES Wildlife Reconnaissance by Raedeke & Associates, Inc. (Included as Appendix F) CONCLUSION This site has been designed to meet the 1990 King Coun!] Surface Water DeSign Manual guidelines for stormwater management. This analysis is based on data and records either supplied to, or obtained by, AHBL, Inc. These documents are referenced within the text of the analysis. The analysis has been prepared utilizing procedures and practices within the standard accepted practices of the industry. We conclude that this project, as proposed, will not create any new problems within the existing downstream drainage system. AHBL, Inc. Glenn Hume, P.E. Project Engineer 5 mmmll I I GCH/jlg I June 2004 20309010tirOS03.doc I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 6 mmmll I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I A-1 A-2 A-3 A-4 A-5 APPENDIX A Figures Vicinity. Map Soils Map Existing Conditions Map Developed Conditions Map Downstream Drainage Map I I I I I I I I I I I I, I I I I I I I A-l J21INortb':~ VICINITY MAP 1'--.WAIMU.I--____ ~"""":'""':"'~-__;____I ~a:.:~ Rainier Mi,'(ed Vse Puking EJcpansion _~0IiI 203615.10 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SOIlS MAP Rainier!\-fuccQ Usc Parking Expansion """""dIIIII 20',3615.10 A-2 I I I I ! J I· I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,C£ -fIIIMn -- ./ 1 J -......-~~ W=~~~~~~~~~~~~~~======~1 A-4 TACOMA, SEATTLE 2215 North 30Ih StnIeI. SUIIa 300, Tacoma, WA 98403 253.383.2422 lB. 318 0cddentaI A_ SauIh, IkIb 320, SeaIIIe, WA 98104 208.287.2425 TB. DEVELOPED CONDITIONS lID I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 2211..".,»"'BL $011113011 DOWNSTREAM DRAINAGE T;~~-:: "~~--:---:-__ --:-_-:-~_-""--:--;--;-_.,...,... ___ -:-__ -II :JA"'UIT.IFM Rainier lvlixed Use Parking Expansion 203615.10 A-5 I I I I I I I I APPENDIXB I TIR Worksheet II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 'I I I I I, I I I I I King County Department of Development and Environmental Services TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Project Owner JDA Group LLC Mr. Jack Alhadeff Address 95 South Tobin Street Renton, WA 98055 Phone Project Engineer Glenn Hume, P. E. Company AHBL, Inc. Address/Phone 253 383 2422 ~'~~~~,d~fJ~itif~f.~~Xl~:Ji~1·~;h;·1f~t~~~'~; Subdivison D Short Subdivision D Grading X Commercial D Other Community Drainage Basin Project Name Rainier Mixed Use Parking Expansion Location Township 23N Range 5E ............. Section SW~, 7 D DFW HPA D COE404 D Shoreline Management Rockery D DOE Dam Safety D Structural Vaults D FEMA Floodplain X Other D COE Wetlands West Hill Drainage Basin/ Cedar River DRiver D Stream __________ _ D Critical Stream Reach X Depressions/Swales D X Lake ____________ _ Steep Slopes _________ _ D Floodplain ________ _ X Wetlands _________ _ o Seeps/Springs o High Groundwater Table o Groundwater Recharge o Other _________ _ I I I I I I I: I I I I- I I I I I I I I Soil Type AgD Slopes 15-40% o Additional Sheets Attached o o o o REFERENCE o Additional Sheets Attached MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION o Sedimentation Facilities o Stabilized Construction Entrance o Perimeter Runoff Control o Clearing and Graing Restrictions o Cover Practices o Construction Sequence o Other Erosion Potential Moderate to severe. Erosive Velcoties LIMITATION/SITE CONSTRAINT MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS AFTER CONSTRUCTION o Stabilize Exposed Surface o Remove and Restore Temporary ESC Facilities o Clean and Remove All Silt and Debris o Ensure Operation of Permanent Facilities o Flag Limits of SAO and open space preservation areas o Other I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I D Grass Lined Tank X Infiltration Method of Analysis Channel D Vault D Depression SBUH X Pipe System D Energy Dissapator D Flow Dispersal Compensation/Mitigati on of Eliminated Site D Open Channel D Wetland D Waiver Storage D Dry Pond D Stream D Regional Detention D Wet Pond Brief Description of System Operation Storm runoff drains from pavement to bio-infiltration swale where it is treated through infiltration through topsoil mix. Overflow through CB to pipe conveyance to downstream. Under drain provided in bottom of bio-infiltration swale. Facility Related Site Limitations Reference Facility Limitation D Cast in Place Vault D Drainage Easement D Retaining Wall D Access Easement X Native Growth Protection Easement Rockery > 4' High D Tract D Structural on Steep Slope X Other Other lor a civil engineer under my supervision my supervision have visited the site. Actual site conditions as observed were incorporated into this worksheet and the attachments. To the best of my knowledge the information provided here is accurate. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I C-t C-2 C-3 C-4 C-5 C-6 C-7 C-8 C-9 C-to C-ll C-12 APPENDIXC Hydrologic Analysis Drainage Basin Map SCS Western Washington Runoff Curve Numbers 2-year, 24-hour Isopluvial tOO-year, 24-hour Isopluvial Pre-Developed Basin . Summary , Pre-Developed tOO-year, 24-hour Hydrograph Developed Basin Summary Developed Basin tOO-year, 24-hour Hydrograph Treatment Basin Summary Treatment Basin 6-month, 24-hour Hydrograph Level Pool Summary Conveyance System Summary I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -,.... "'*""- ~ II • ... I i ~~Ifr==~ffiffi~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~========~1 IMII~ ,..... TACOMA· SEATTLE 2215 Nor1h 30ttI snet. Sulfa 300, T_ WA 98403 253.383.2422 m 318 0cddentII A_ SaIJ1h. Sub 320, SeaIIIe, WA 98104 208.2872425 m DRAINAGE BASIN lAP C-1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I KINO COUNTY, WASJfINGTOl'f.·SO.RFA·CEWATER· DESIGN MAN'UAL t, ' ••••• " , .. sea WE8T£RH WASHINClTON RUNQFFCUI\~ ~ (PubIIa'*f·bV 80S -111Z) RlJnOlf C1rIt .. mb .... for _.:cad ~t&nI. subQrblln and .n la"" U$I for Typo ,,, rallifllll dlwiblAlOI\ Uohow IItcmI dul'$lort. CURVE NU .... ERS BY HYDROlOGIC SOIL GROUP 1.AHD US!D!$CIUP'nON At B C 0' . " ." IIndt1): --"':""'-..... ee 01 9t ~ " Mou"""" opvn 11U8: loW "tOWIng brutb .NI .. ., .. ,82, •• ea . " MNdow CltpuCln: e5 18 86 88 WOod orfenlt land: undlnll'bod ot cider MOCICId SlI'O'WIti .u 14 'til\. :' WOod Or tamt 1Im:i: ~nD ..oond ~ of" lInIah . iI5 12 ONIhaRtr wIIh cover oro, 31 ee . . 1M' , ' EJtsT OPsel.~ IIYmI, PIdl. gall eoint •. ~i i, Il!IIc:ftOllPfrv. , ' ',' , ~ ~t>w. GOOd cor'IdllJcJn: Qt. OcMt 0/1 1W ~ or mote of till .r. A 81) " 80:' IIIr condilon: gJUj CIOifW oiI_ to 7'6'&:01" If. '. 17 U laG 82 , ~~I ~ IftCl p..rmg.1oIa 7' 8S as 91, , """", DIn lCIdIlIId P*kfr1o loti 72 82 .. 17 ... ....;... ~., " ...--- ImpeMou. 1lUrie.c.., ~vtm..,t. tcota. etc. . Open water bOdrel: , lakeel weiland .. po~" tilct '98' SIll' rlr 98:. 100 'tOO" ., 100 .. " SI\fIt Ptri~ AeIfd_1aI ~ , DWaWng U't1/t,IGro,. Acft' .. 'ImpaMOiJi (:» , ' . . . 1.D DV1(1A 15 : S .... CUM~ . 1.1 OOIG" ' . . 2.0 : """.CCed. 2.0 DU/G" a Jcr pervlo\d alid U DU/GJ\' 30 ' , .I\IIOUI portion a.a oolGA , . , 34 ' oj m .... or buI'n. U ''JU/O.\ 38 ,', ... .0 DUfG/4. 42 ... S.DU/GA : " .'8 .'. e .. " DU~ .. .' Q ., , . S.I$ DU/GA .SO .... . , .' , , " .. ,;, " &0 r:.u~ 52 1,5 CUIG" . ' 54 .. " :' ' . ,,' '1.0 COIGA ',' ,M .. .... . -'. " " . ..... .. ; PI.m.cs unk dweIopnenta. ,. lmptl\llWi ',' ~ / OCndClm~ 'pl.llmentt. mlA1b.~ ." ' commarcla1 ~ .. el'd w :. InduIIrW·., .... " " , , . for .. MOrt daWlad d88Cfl onol, flClJlUtllllerd UMI cUM! NlmborI'. to l\iii1o~Ei -~ 11M C-2 .~----~----~*"-:'.' I I JU N 0 C 0 U :N T Yo WAS" J N G TON. , U. , A C 8 W It. 'l'B R DB $.] (i W M AN tI A L' . I r'" " . I I I ... I I I ... ...,.,. I " ........ I ' .. I I I I I r-;~'-c. 2-VEAR 24-HOUR ;P~ECIPITATION ... ---: . ~a.4"""" lSOPWVlALS Of ~'1EAR 2oWiOUR . TOTAl.. PRECIPITAllON IN INCHBS: I I--~· I , . o 1 ~ I .. I • .., .. MN' ... .'., e r.T', , 11 IQUOD. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I X I N 0 C 0 1) N T Yi WAS Ii I H " T (}:rt SUR PAC! W A T '& 1t D B 5-J G N M A' N U It. L 110Q..VEAR' 24~HOUR PREC1PITAlION ",.304 """-I8QPLlNfAt..8 0.' 14»"VEAR 24-ttOUR I . . TOTAL PREClprrAnON IN INCHES a , II S " 6' D '1 • Mil" "tp:;:m $. 3.5.1 .. 13 I __ ~~~.~. __ ~~_J'_M~:~O IcD ~,. .;':_ !. 4~ t~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I PRE·DEV Event Summary: BasinlD Peak Q Peak T (cfs) (hrs) PRE-OEV 0.06 8.17 Drainage Area: PRE·DEV Hyd Method: SBUH Hyd Peak Factor: 484.00 Storm Our: 24.00 hrs Area Pervious 0.2050 ac Impervious 0.0000 ac Total 0.2050 ac Supporting Data: Pervious CN Data: 2ND GROWTH FOREST Pervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Sheet SHEET FLOW CN 81.00 0.00 81.00 Peak Vol Area (ac-ft) ac 0.0348 0.20 loss Method: SCSAbs: Intv: TC 0.51 hrs 0.00 hrs 0.2050 ac Method Raintype Event floss SBUH/SCS TYPE1A 100 yr SCS CN Number 0.20 10.00 min length: Slope: 100.00 ft 6.00% Coeff: 0.8000 Travel Time 30.48 min C-5 I I Hydrograph 10: PRE·OEV • 100 yr I Area: 0.2050 ac Hyd Int: 10.00 min Base Flow: Peak Flow: 0.0650 cfs Peak Time: 8.17 hrs Hyd Vol: 0.0348 acft Time Flow Time Flow Time Flow hr cfs hr cfs hr cfs I 4.50 0.0003 12.00 0.0239 19.17 0.0168 4.67 0.0006 12.17 0.0236 19.33 0.0165 4.83 0.0011 12.33 0.0232 19.50 0.0162 5.00 0.0016 12.50 0.0230 19.67 0.0161 I 5.17 0.0023 12.67 0.0227 19.83 0.0160 5.33 0.0030 12.83 0.0223 20.00 0.0159 5.50 0.0037 13.00 0.0221 20.17 0.0158 5.67 0.0045 13.17 0.0219 20.33 0.0158 I 5.83 0.0054 13.33 0.0218 20.50 0.0158 6.00 0.0063 13.50 0.0218 20.67 0.0158 6.17 0.0073 13.67 0.0216 20.83 0.0158 6.33 0.0086 13.83 0.0213 21.00 0.0158 6.50 0.0097 14.00 0.0211 21.17 0.0158 I 6.67 0.0112 14.17 0.0210 21.33 0.0158 6.83 0.0131 14.33 0.0209 21.50 0.0158 7.00 0.0147 14.50 0.0209 21.67 0.0159 7.17 0.0168 14.67 0.0207 21.83 0.0159 I 7.33 0.0193 14.83 0.0205 22.00 0.0159 7.50 0.0215 15.00 0.0203 22.17 0.0157 7.67 0.0311 15.17 0.0201 22.33 0.0154 7.83 0.0471 15.33 0.0201 22.50 0.0152 I 8.00 0.0609 15.50 0.0200 22.67 0.0151 8.17 0.0650 15.67 0.0198 22.83 0.0150 8.33 0.0611 15.83 0.0195 23.00 0.0149 8.50 0.0587 16.00 0.0193 23.17 0.0148 8.67 0.0552 16.17 0.0192 23.33 0.0148 I 8.83 0.0509 16.33 0.0191 23.50 0.0148 9.00 0.0480 16.50 0.0191 23.67 0.0148 9.17 0.0446 16.67 0.0190 23.83 0.0148 9.33 0.0408 16.83 0.0190 24.00 0.0148 I 9.50 0.0382 17.00 0.0190 24.17 0.0127 9.67 0.0360 17.17 0.0189 24.33 0.0091 9.83 0.0340 17.33 0.0186 24.50 0.0066 10.00 0.0327 17.50 0.0184 24.67 0.0047 10.17 0.0313 17.67 0.0183 24.83 0.0034 I 10.33 0.0299 17.83 0.0182 25.00 0.0024 10.50 0.0290 18.00 0.0181 25.17 0.0017 10.67 0.0280 18.17 0.0179 25.33 0.0013 10.83 0.0271 18.33 0.0176 25.50 0.0009 I 11.00 0.0264 18.50 0.0174 25.67 0.0006 11.17 0.0259 18.67 0.0172 25.83 0.0005 11.33 0.0253 18.83 0.0171 26.00 0.0003 11.50 0.0250 19.00 0.0170 26.17 0.0002 I 11.67 0.0246 19.17 0.0168 26.33 0.0002 11.83 0.0242 19.33 0.0165 26.50 0.0001 I I I I I C-6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DEV Event Summary: BasinlD Peak Q (cfs) DEV 0.20 Drainage Area: DEV Hyd Method: SBUH Hyd Peak Factor: 484.00 Storm Our: 24.00 hrs Area Pervious 0.0000 ac Impervious 0.2050 ac Total 0.2050 ac Supporting Data: Impervious CN Data: ASPHALT Impervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Sheet SHEET FLOW Channel PIPE FLOW PeakT (hrs) 7.83 CN 81.00 98.00 98.00 Peak Vol Area Method Raintype Event (ac-ft) ac floss 0.0626 0.20 SBUH/SCS TYPE1A 100 yr loss Method: SCS CN Number SCSAbs: Intv: TC 0.00 hrs 0.02 hrs 0.2050 ac length: 60.00 ft 40.00 ft 0.20 10.00 min Slope: 1.50% 15.00% Coeff: 0.0110 42.0000 Travel Time 1.14min 0.04 min C-7 I I Hydrograph 10: OEV -100 yr I Area: 0.2050 ac Hyd Int: 10.00 min Base Flow: Peak Flow: 0.1956 cfs Peak Time: 7.83 hrs Hyd Vol: 0.0626 acft Time Flow Time Flow Time Flow I hr cfs hr cfs hr cfs 0.67 0.0009 8.67 0.0629 16.33 0.0241 0.83 0.0032 8.83 0.0644 16.50 0.0241 1.00 0.0053 9.00 0.0636 16.67 0.0241 1.17 0.0080 9.17 0.0512 16.83 0.0241 I 1.33 0.0102 9.33 0.0460 17.00 0.0241 1.50 0.0115 9.50 0.0492 17.17 0.0228 1.67 0.0137 9.67 0.0433 17.33 0.0223 1.83 0.0150 9.83 0.0431 17.50 0.0226 I 2.00 0.0159 10.00 0.0433 17.67 0.0224 2.17 0.0178 10.17 0.0393 17.83 0.0225 2.33 0.0189 10.33 0.0379 18.00 0.0225 2.50 0.0194 10.50 0.0388 18.17 0.0212 I 2.67 0.0201 10.67 0.0356 18.33 .., 0.0207 2.83 0.0205 10.83 0.0350 18.50 0.0210 3.00 0.0210 11.00 0.0354 18.67 0.0208 3.17 0.0214 11.17 0.0339 18.83 0.0209 3.33 0.0218 11.33 0.0335 19.00 0.0209 I 3.50 0.0221 11.50 0.0337 19.17 0.0196 3.67 0.0235 11.67 0.0323 19.33 0.0191 3.83 0.0242 11.83 0.0319 19.50 0.0194 4.00 0.0242 12.00 0.0322 19.67 0.0192 I 4.17 0.0269 12.17 0.0307 19.83 0.0193 4.33 0.0279 12.33 0.0303 20.00 0.0193 4.50 0.0276 12.50 ·0.0306 20.17 0.0193 4.67 0.0305 12.67 0.0291 20.33 0.0193 4.83 0.0315 12.83 0.0287 20.50 0.0193 I 5.00 0.0312 13.00 0.0290 20.67 0.0193 5.17 0.0341 13.17 0.0288 20.83 0.0193 5.33 0.0350 13.33 0.0289 21.00 0.0193 5.50 0.0347 13.50 0.0289 21.17 0.0193 I 5.67 0.0376 13.67 0.0276 21.33 0.0193 5.83 0.0386 13.83 0.0271 21.50 0.0193 6.00 0.0382 14.00 0.0274 21.67 0.0193 6.17 0.0436 14.17 0.0272 21.83 0.0193 I 6.33 0.0455 14.33 0.0273 22.00 0.0193 6.50 0.0446 14.50 0.0273 22.17 0.0180 6.67 0.0529 14.67 0.0260 22.33 0.0175 6.83 0.0556 14.83 0.0255 22.50 '0.Q178 7.00 0.0542 15.00 0.0258 22.67 0.0176 I 7.17 0.0641 15.17 0.0256 22.83 0.0177 7.33 0.0671 15.33 0.0257 23.00 0.0177 7.50 0.0655 15.50 0.0257 23.17 0.0177 7.67 0.1600 15.67 0.0244 23.33 0.0177 I 7.83 0.1956 15.83 0.0239 23.50 0.0177 8.00 0.1746 16.00 0.0242 23.67 . 0.0177 8.17 0.1110 16.17 0.0240 23.83 0.0177 8.33 0.0733 16.33 0.0241 24.00 0.0177 8.50 0.0966 16.50 0.0241 24.17 0.0034 I I I I I C-8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1- I I I I I TREATMENT Event Summary: BasinlD Peak Q Peak T Peak Vol Area Method Raintype Event (cfs) (hrs) (ac-ft) ac floss TREATMENT 0.33 7.83 0.1127 0.46 SBUH/SCS TYPE1A 100 yr TREATMENT 0.07 7.83 0.0258 0.46 SBUH/SCS TYPE1A 6-mo Drainage Area: TREATMENT Hyd Method: SBUH Hyd loss Method: SCS CN Number Peak Factor: 484.00 SCS Abs: 0.20 Storm Dur: 24.00 hrs Intv: 10.00 min Area CN TC Pervious 0.2160 ac 81.60 0.11 hrs Impervious 0.2460 ac 98.00 0.02 hrs Total 0.4620 ac Supporting Data: Pervious CN Data: EXST. VEG. LANDSCAPE Impervious CN Data: ASPHALT Pervious TC Data: 81.00 0.1900 ac 86.00 0.0260 ac 98.00 0.2460 ac Flow type: Description: Travel Time length: Slope: Coeff: Sheet SHEET FLOW 6.55 min 50.00 ft 70.00% 0.8000 Impervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: length: Slope: Coeff: Travel Time Sheet SHEET FLOW 60.00ft 1.50% 0.0110 1.14min Channel PIPE FLOW 40.00 ft 15.00% 42.0000 0.04 min C-9 I I Hydrograph 10: TREATMENT -6-mo I Area: 0.4620 ae Hyd Int: 10.00 min Base Flow: Peak Flow: 0.0704 efs Peak Time: 7.83 hrs Hyd Vol: 0.0258 aeft Time Flow Time Flow Time Flow I hr efs hr efs hr efs 1.50 0.0002 9.17 0.0224 16.67 0.0124 1.67 0.0007 9.33 0.0202 16.83 0.0124 1.83 0.0012 9.50 0.0215 17.00 0.0124 2.00 0.0017 9.67 0.0193 17.17 0.0119 I 2.17 0.0022 9.83 0.0192 17.33 0.0116 2.33 0.0027 10.00 0.0194 17.50 0.0117 2.50 0.0031 10.17 0.0178 17.67 0.0117 2.67 0.0035 10.33 0.0172 17.83 0.0117 I 2.83 0.0038 10.50 0.0176 18.00 0.0117 3.00 0.0041 10.67 0.0164 18.17 0.0112 3.17 0.0044 10.83 0.0161 18.33 0.0109 3.33 0.0047 11.00 0.0164 18.50 0.0110 3.50 0.0050 11.17 0.0158 18.67 0.0109 I 3.67 0.0055 11.33 0.0157 18.83 0.0110 3.83 0.0058 11.50 0.0158 19.00 0.0110 4.00 0.0060 11.67 0.0153 19.17 0.0104 4.17 0.0069 11.83 0.0151 19.33 0.0101 I 4.33 0.0073 12.00 0.0153 19.50 0.0103 4.50 0.0074 12.17 0.0147 19.67 0.0102 4.67 0.0084 12.33 0.0145 19.83 0.0103 4.83 0.0088 12.50 0.0147 20.00 0.0102 I 5.00 0.0089 12.67 0.0141 20.17 0.0103 5.17 0.0099 12.83 0.0139 20.33 0.0103 5.33 0.0104 13.00 0.0140 20.50 0.0103 5.50 0.0105 13.17 0.0140 20.67 0.0103 5.67 0.0115 13.33 0.0141 20.83 0.0103 I 5.83 0.0120 13.50 0.0141 21.00 0.0103 6.00 0.0120 13.67 0.0136 21.17 0.0103 6.17 0.0139 13.83 0.0134 21.33 0.0104 6.33 0.0147 14.00 0.0135 21.50 0.0104 I 6.50 0.0146 14.17 0.0135 21.67 0.0104 6.67 0.0175 14.33 0.0136 21.83 0.0104 6.83 0.0186 14.50 0.0136 22.00 0.0104 7.00 0.0183 14.67 0.0131 22.17 0.0098 7.17 0.0219 14.83 0.0128 22.33 0.0095 I 7.33 0.0231 15.00 0.0129 .22.50 0.0096 7.50 0.0228 15.17 0.0129 22.67 0.0096 7.67 0.0564 15.33 0.0130 22.83 0.0096 7.83 0.0704 15.50 0.0130 23.00 0.0096 I 8.00 0.0657 15.67 0.0124 23.17 0.0096 8.17 0.0436 15.83 0.0122 23.33 0.0096 8.33 0.0300 16.00 0.0123 23.50 0.0097 8.50 0.0391 16.17 0.0123 23.67 0.0097 I 8.67 0.0268 16.33 0.0123 23.83 0.0097 8.83 0.0271 16.50 0.0123 24.00 0.0097 9.00 0.0271 16.67 0.0124 24.17 0.0029 I I I I I C-IO I I I I I I' I I I I I I I I I I I RLPCOMPUTE [LEVEL-POOL] SUMMARY 6-mo PeakQ= 0.0704 cfs Peak Out Q: 0.0149 cfs -Peak Stg: 47.00 ft -Active Vol: 249.48 cf Summary Report of all RLPool Data Project Precips [2 yr] [100 yr] [6-mo] BasinlD TREATMENT HydlD OUTFLOW PeakQ (cfs) 0.0704 PeakQ (cfs) 0.01 2.00 in 3.90 in 1.28 in PeakT (hrs) 7.83 PeakT (hrs) 11.83 Node 10: BIO-INFILTRATION Desc: BIO-INFIL TRATION SWALE StartEI: 46.5000 ft Contrib Basin: Length ss 1 ss2 80.0000 ft 3.00h:1v 3.00h:1v Peak Vol Area Method (ac-ft) ac fLoss 0.0258 ,0.46 SBUH/SCS Peak Vol Cont Area (ac-ft) (ac) 0.0249 0.4620 Max EI: 48.0000 ft Contrib Hyd: Width ss3 4.6000 ft 3.00h:1v Raintype TYPE1A ss4 '3.00h:1v Control Structure 10: INFILTRATION -Infiltration control structure Descrip: Start EI 46.5000 ft Infil: Multiple Orifice Max EI Increment 48.0000 ft 0.10 1.00 infhr Multiplier: 1.00 Event 6-mo C-ll I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ROUTEHYD THROUGH [STORM] USING TYPE1A AND [100 yr] NOTZERO RELATIVE Reach Area Flow Full Q % Full nDepth Size nVel fVel CBasln I Hyd ac cfs cfs ratio ft ftls ftls ••••• _ ••••• R1 0.4620 0.3253 12.2383 0.03 0.1122 12" Diam 6.7252 15.5823 TREATMENT Reach Records Reach ID: Rl Section Properties: Shape: Circular Size Material Mannings n Routing Method: Travel Time Translation Hyd params By 12" Diam Smooth CPEP Length Slope 0.0120 Mannings Formula Entrance Loss 45.0000 ft 10.00 % Up Node Dn Node CB#1 CB#2 Conduit Summary: Trib Area Flow 0.4620 ac 0.3253 cf Ent Loss 0.140462 ft Node Records Exit Loss 0.702308 ft Node ID: CB#l Groove End Proj ecting Up Invert Dn Invert 44.3000 ft 39.8000 ft Capacity 12.2383 cf Frict Loss 0.003179 ft Velocity 6.7252 ft/s Start TW 40.0351 ft Desc: CATCH BASIN StartEI: 44.3000 ft MaxEI: Contrib Basin: TREATMENT Contrib Hyd: Hgi Elev: 44.5688 ft Normal Depth 0.1122 ft 48.0000 ft Struct Type: CB-TYPE 1 Classification Catch Basin Ke Descrip: CONC: Headwall: socket end ofpipe;.ke=0.2 Catch Depth: 1.4160 ft Bot Area: 3.9700 sf Condition: No particular shape. Status: Proposed Structure Approach C.redit: 0.0000 ft Node ID: CB#2 Desc: Start El: Contrib Basin: Manhole structure 39.8000 ft Hgi Elev: 40.0351 ft Max EI: 49.0000 ft Contrib Hyd: Struct Type: CB-TYPE 2-54 \ Classification Catch Basin Ke Descrip: CONC: Headwall: socket end of pipe;.ke=0.2 Catch Depth: 2.0000 ft Bot Area: 15.9040 sf Condition: No particular shape. Status: Proposed Structure Approach Credit: 0.0000 ft C-12 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I :1 , :1 I I APPENDIXD G'eotechnical Engineering Report by The Riley Group, Inc., June 2, 2003 The Riley Group, Inc. Geotechnical Engineering • Environmental • Wetland Services GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project 559 to 625 Rainier Ave. North Renton, Washington P,roject No. 2002-062B Prepared By: The Riley Group, Inc. 10728 Lake City Way NE Seattle, W A 98125 Prepared for: IDA Group, LLC 95 South Tobin Street Renton, Washington 98055 June 2, 2003 Offices located in Washington and Oregon 10728 Lake City Way N.B.· Seattle. WA 98125 • Tel (206) 417-0551 • Fax (206) 417-0552 ... + ...... ·,i;,'UJ'w 'R ilpv_r;rnnn,cnrn I I I I I , I I I .'"::,. I :.?; I I I .... ~ ,I L [I , . il i.. The Riley Group, Inc. Geotechnical Engineering • Environmental • Wetland Services June 2,2003 IDA Group, LLC 95 South Tobin Street . Renton, Washington 98055 Attn: Subject: Mr. Jack AlhadetT Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project 559 to 625 Rainier Ave. North Renton, Washington Project No. 2002-062B The Riley Group, Inc. (Riley) has completed a geotechnical engineering study for the above referenced project. This report summarizes our findings and recommendations for the geotechnical aspects anticipated for the project design and construction. We , previously completed an evaluation of the nature and origin of the steep slopes on the site, and summarized the results of our work in our letter dated October 29, 2002; and we completed a preliminary evaluation of slope stability and summarized the results of our work in our letter dated June 8, 2001. PROJECT DESCRIPTION In preparation of this report, we reviewed site plans provided by Rich Wagner of Baylis Architects on February l3 and April 1,2003, and discussed the projectwith him several times. We have reviewed several E-mails (sent in February 2003) from the City of Renton to Rich Wagner and/or Jack AlhadetT. Our understanding of the project is based on that information. Offices located in Washington and Oregon 10728 Lake City Way N .E. • Seattle. W A 98125 • Tel (206) 417-0551 • Fax (206) 417-0552 http:www.Riley-Group.com I I I I I I I I I I I I I Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington Project Understanding June 2,2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 2 of 45 The site is located at 559 to 625 Rainier Ave. North in Renton, Washington, as shown on the Site Vicinity Map, Figure 1. Existing buildings and proposed buildings are shown on the Site and Exploration Plan, Figure 2. Existing topography and existing buildings are shown on the Topographic Site Plan, Figure 3. We understand it is proposed to construct a mixed-use project that will include commercial development and private housing. These are considered to be 2 separate projects. Commercial Development Project The commercial development project will be in the level area adjacent to (on the west side of) Rainier Ave., and will include the following elements. 1. Building 1 (north side of site) 100 feet by 80 feet footprint, 3 story 2. Building 2 (center of site) 100 feet by 75 feet footprint, 2 story 3. Building 3 (south side of site) 130 feet by 70 feet footprint, 2 story 4. Parking Structure (west side of site) 250 feet by 60 feet, 2 levels, 1 below grade 5. Retaining wall (between Bldg. 2 & 3) about 12 feet tall by 170 feet long All of these are currently located such that they cut into the toes of existing steep slopes. We assume that foundation loads for the commercial buildings will not exceed about 5 kips per linear foot for continuous wall footings and 200 kips for isolated column footings. Housing Project The housing project will be located on the west side of the site, east of the cul-de-sac at NW 6th Street, at the top of a steep slope down to the commercial area. There are 16 dwelling units planned, in a configuration of either 6 or 4 buildings. The units will require cuts into the existing top of slope of up to 9 or 10 feet. Also, some fill will be THE RILEY GROUP, INC. I I I I I I " I I I I I I I I I Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington June 2, 2003 Project No. 2002-062B . Page 3 of 45 placed on the east-facing slope (in a topographic trough along a utility easement), and will require retaining structures. We assume that foundation loads for the residential structures will not exceed about 2 kips per linear foot for continuous wall footings and 50 kips for isolated column footings. The recommendations in the following sections of this report are based on our understanding of the design features described above. If actual features vary or changes are made, we should review them in order to modify our recommendations as required. In addition, we recommend that we be retained to review the final design drawings and specifications to verify that our project understanding is correct, and that our recommendations have been properly interpreted and incorporated into project design and construction. BACKGROUND The City of Renton Development Services Division expressed concern about the project with regard to slope stability. Specifically, there have been landslides north of the site, at NW 7th Street and Taylor Ave. NW. The City requested a geotechnical report for this project that meets the following requirements (based on an E-mail from Gregg Zimmerman [City of Renton], to Rich Wagner, dated 06 Feb 2003, at 09: 10). 1. 2. Incorporates a complete historical perspective of slide activity in the vicinity of this site Incorporates the information from previous geotechnical analyses done for this vicinity by the City 3. Specifically addresses features of the current development proposal 4. 5. Identifies and characterizes the types of geotechnical problems that exist on the site and how these problems might be impacted by the proposed development Analyzes the aforesaid geotechnical conditions and the development proposal and makes specific recommendations regarding how such a development could be constructed in a safe manner both for the development itself and for uphill THE RILEY GROUP, INC. I I I I I I I I I I ::i I I I I I I I I Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington June 2, 2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 40f45 and downhill properties (such recommendations to include such design features as construction methods, set backs, foundation systems, stabilizing/retaining structures that would be needed, drainage requirements, etc.) We also understand that the City would like the report to address the slopes to the north and south of the site, as well as the "central" slope (based on an E-mail from Lesley Nishihira [City of Renton], to Bill Klick, dated 14 February 2003, at 12: 18). ReferenceslInformation Provided by the City of Renton The City of Renton (Lesley Nishihira) provided us the following reports of previous geotechnical analyses done for this vicinity. Reports 1,2, and 3 were done for the City; reports 4 and 5 were done for private individuals. 1. GeoEngineers; May 16, 1991; "Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation, Landslide and Broken Sewer Lines, Slope West of Rainier Avenue North, Renton, Washington"; for City of Renton 2. GeoEngineers; October 4, 1991; "Report, Supplemental Geotechnical Engineering Services, Sewer Line Reconstruction and Slope Stabilization, Slope West of Rainier Avenue North, Renton, Washington"; for City of Renton 3. 4. 5. GeoEngineers; November 6, 1997; "Report, Geotechnical Engineering Services, Sewer Line Reconstruction, Rainier Avenue North and NW 7th Street, Renton, Washington"; for City of Renton Geo Consultants; May 8, 1991; "Slope Failure Study, Mr. Chester Rindfuss' Residence, 676 Taylor Avenue Northwest, Renton, Washington"; for Mr. Chester Rindfuss Geo Group Northwest; February 18, 1993; "Slope Stability Analysis and Landslide Stabilization Design, 676 Taylor Avenue NW, Renton, Washington"; for Mr. John McFarland THE RILEY GROUP, INC. I I I I I I I I I I t . -I I L. I • I ~ . I It.- I tH I - Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington June 2, 2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 50f45 References/Information From Previous Work by Riley We also used information from previous work completed by Riley for the project site. This information included the following letters. 6. 7. The Riley Group; June 8, 2001; "Preliminary Slope Stability Study, Meyer Property, 559 to 625 Rainier Avenue North, Renton, Washington"; for Mr. Jack Alhadeff The Riley Group; October 29,2002; "Slope Evaluation, Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project, 559 to 625 Rainier Ave. North, Renton, Washington"; for Mr. Jack Alhadeff SCOPE OF SERVICES The purpose of our work was to explore and characterize the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions, and develop geotechnical recommendations for design and construction of the proposed project. This included complying with the requirements of the City of Renton listed above. Based on the project understanding and background discussed above, our scope of services included the following tasks. 1. Collect and review readily available information on historical slide activity in the area. 2. 3. 4. 5. Research and review readily available geotechnical studies done by the City in the area. Identify features of the currently proposed development that have geotechnical significance. Complete a subsurface exploration program with borings and test pits to characterize subsurface soil and groundwater conditions Identify and characterize types of geotechnical problems that exist on site, and evaluate how these problems might be affected by the proposed development. THE RILEY GROUP, INC. I I I I I I I I I ~..:r I I ;::.;: !I !I I ; . 'I Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington June 2, 2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 6 of 45 6. 7. Perform engineering analyses and/or develop recommendations regarding the items listed below. a) Slope stability for those slopes directly affected by the project, and for adjacent slopes. b) Construction methods. c) Setbacks from top and toe of slopes. d) Retaining structures. e) Foundations for buildings. f) Drainage. g) Seismic design considerations, including site seismicity, Uniform Building Code CUBC) Soil Profile Type, liquefaction potential, and potential liquefaction-induced settlement. h) Site preparation and earthwork, including excavation, subgrade preparation, suitability of onsite soils for use as construction materials, fill placement, allowable cut and fill slopes, and potential necessity for dewatering during construction. i) Design pavement section. Prepare a report summarizing the results of our work. SURFACE CONDITIONS Existing conditions are shown on Figure 3. The site extends about 750 feet north-south along the west shoulder of Rainier Ave. North. At the NW .6th Street cul-de-sac, the site extends about 370 feet to the west of Rainier Ave. North. There are 3 slopes in the project vicinity, defined as follows for the purpose of this report. • The "north slope" starts at the north end of the site and continues north; its south- facing portion is adjacent to Building 1. THE RILEY GROUP, INC. I I I I I I 7, .... .1 0' J I ,I II I I Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington June 2,2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 7 of 45 • The "central slope" 0 surrounds the cul-de-sac at NW 6th Street; its east-facing portion is adjacent to Buildings 2 and 3 and the retaining wall in between them. • The "south slope" is south of the central slope, and is off of the project site; its north-facing portion is over 100 feet away from the proposed development. At the time of our field explorations, there were 3 buildings in the proposed commercial development area of the site. The ground surface was relatively level and flat, at about Elevation 50 feet (NA VD '88 Datum). Most of the site along Rainier Ave was paved with asphalt. Farther to the west there was some gravel surfacing with sparse grass, and some grassed areas. Between the level area and the NW 6th Street cul-de-sac was a steep slope ("central slope") up to the west that rose from Elevation 50 feet to Elevation 80 or 90 feet at average inclinations ranging from about 1.3 horizontal to 1 vertical (1.3H: 1 V) to 1. 7H: 1 V. There was a gully down the face of this east-facing slope associated with a utility easement where there apparently were 12-inch and 4-inch diameter water lines and an 8-inch diameter sanitary sewer. From the top of slope there was a gentle slope up to the west to about Elevation 105 feet at about a 1 OH: 1 V slope. North and south of this upper area were slopes down to the north and south (respectively) at about 1. 7H: 1 V. These slopes led to partially filled in ravines that trended west to east, sloping down to the east. The slopes were well vegetated with trees and brush. The slope south of the site ("south slope") sloped down to the north at about 1.5H: 1 V. The slope was well vegetated with trees and brush. The slope on the north side of the site ("north slope") had south-facing and east-facing slopes. Top of slope was about Elevation 100 feet. The south-facing slope sloped down to the commercial development area at about 1. 5H: 1 V. The slope was well vegetated with trees and brush. The east-facing slope sloped down to Rainier Ave. at THE RILEY GROUP, INC. I I I I I , I I , , I I I I I I I Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington June 2,2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 8 of 45 about l.3H: 1 V to 1. 7H: 1 V. The northern part of this east-facing slope was where there have been stability problems in the past. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Field Explorations Subsurface conditions were explored with 4 borings and 12 test pits completed in April 2003. We also considered 2 monitoring wells that were installed by Riley on March 19, 200l. The approximate locations of all the explorations we considered are shown on the Site and Exploration Plan in Figure 2. The test pits (TP-l through TP-12) were excavated April 7 to II, 2003, to depths of about 4 to 14 feet below the existing ground surface, with a rubber-tired Case 580E backhoe equipped with an extendahoe. TP-I through TP-5 were located on the central slope, and TP-6 through TP-12 were located in the lower, level area. The borings (B-1 through B-4) were drilled to depths of about 18 to 54 feet below the existing ground surface by a subcontractor using a track-mounted Mobile B-53 drill rig (B-1, B-2, B-3) or a truck-mounted Mobile B-61 drill rig (B-4). All borings were advanced with hollow stem auger, and samples were taken at 2-112 to 5-foot depth intervals in conjunction with performing Standard Penetration Tests (SPT). After completion, B-2, B-3 and B-4 were backfilled with bentonite. At B-1, a I-inch diameter standpipe groundwater observation well was installed, and a protective surface monument was placed. B-1 was located at the northeast corner of the housing area. It was about 48 feet deep, and was intended to explore soil and groundwater conditions for the full depth of the slope. The standpipe groundwater observation well was installed in it to allow long term monitoring of groundwater levels. B-2 was located at the southeast corner of the housing area, was about 18 feet deep, and was intended to check for consistent THE RILEY GROUP, INC. ,I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington June 2,2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 9 of 45 conditions across the slope. B-3 and B-4 were drilled to about 50 feet deep in the commercial development lower level area in locations where fill extended deeper than the bottom of the test pits. Soil Conditions -Central Siope/ Housing Project On the central slope, soil conditions were explored with 2 borings (B-1 and B-2) and 5 test pits (TP-l through TP-5). B-1 was 48 feet deep and encountered mostly sil~ysand with some gravel that was very dense at and below depth 3 feet. There was a thin layer of sand and sandy gravel from depth 7 to 12 feet that was also very dense. At 41 feet, we encountered sandy silt with some gravel that was very dense and continued to the termination depth of 48 feet. B-2 was 18 feet deep, and had conditions similar to those at B-1. Most of the soil was silty sand with some gravel that was very dense at and below 3 feet. TP-l through TP-4 were similar to the borings, and typically had silty sand that was very dense by depth 6 feet, and medium dense above that. At TP-5, the soil was medium dense sand with some silt to its full depth of 13 feet. Groundwater Conditions -Central Slope/ Housing Project Only 1 sample (in B-1 at 43 feet) was noted to be wet in the test pits and borings. A standpipe groundwater observation well was installed in it to allow long term monitoring of groundwater levels. The following measurements of depth to groundwater have been made to date. Table 1. Groundwater Levels -Central Siope/ Housing Project Depth to Groundwater (feet) Date Boring B-1 installed 17 APRIL 2003 17APR2003 38.2 installed 17 April; not yet stabilized 30MAY2003 dry dry at 45.8 feet THE RILEY GROUP, INC. I I I I I I ",; I I I ,.;'!. , I I I I I I I 'I I Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington Soil Conditions -Commercial Development June 2, 2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 10 of 45 In the commercial development area, soil conditions were explored with 2 borings (B-3 and B-4) and 7 test pits (TP-6 through TP-12). We also considered 2 monitoring wells (MW-1 and MW-2) that were installed by Riley on March 19, 2001. TP-7, TP-10,TP-ll, and TP-12 were located at the base of slopes (north and central), and encountered denselhard sandy silt or dense silty sand by depth 2 feet. At TP-6 (excavated in conjunction with removing a hydraulic hoist), silty sand fill was noted. From 0 to 4 feet, the fill contained occasional wood debris, and was medium dense. From 4 to 14 feet deep no wood was noted, and the fill was medium dense to dense. We suspect the fill was associated with the hoist. In TP-8 and TP-9, fill was encountered to beyond the termination depths of 12 and 13 feet. In TP-9, the fill contained wood and auto debris from depth 5 to 13 feet. Because these test pits did not get through the fill, 2 borings were drilled in the general vicinity of the test pits. At B-3 (near TP-9), there was loose to medium dense silty sand and sandy silt fill down to depth 17 feet, and an "obstruction zone" from depth 11 to 17 feet (this may have represented auto debris, as was observed in TP-9). From 17 to 35 feet, there was medium dense silty sand with wood fragments and peat pockets, and 6-inch thick layers of peat were noted at depth 23 and 28 feet. Medium dense silty sand was encountered at about 35 feet deep, and from 41 to 49 feet there was very dense silty sand. In B-4 (near TP-8), there was silty sand fill down to depth 15 feet that was dense down to about 10 feet and then was medium dense. From 15 to 26 feet, there was medium dense sandy silt and silty sand. Between depth 26 and 37 feet we encountered mostly THE RILEY GROUP, INC. I I I I I I I I --I I I I I I I I I Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington June 2, 2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page II of 45 peat with some layers of silt. There was medium dense to dense sandy silt from 37'to 45 feet, and from 45 to 54 feet there was very dense silty sand. Monitoring well MW-I was located northeast of building 2. It encountered layers of silty sand and silty clay that ranged from about 5 to 10 feet thick. Although nothing material noted on the log definitely indicated fill (for example, man-made debris), the decreasing density/stiffness from about 15 to 25 feet may indicate fill. The soil was then dense from 25 feet to the termination depth of 3 5 feet. Monitoring well MW-2 was located on the north side of building 3. There was medium dense gravelly silty sand down to depth 10 feet. Below that, it encountered layers of gravelly silty sand, silt, and sand, all of which were very dense. As with MW -1, nothing material noted on the log definitely indicated fill versus native soil. However, based on the consistent high density from 10 feet to the termination depth of30 feet, we suspect this was native soil. Groundwater Conditions -Commercial Development In the test pits in the commercial development area, there was moderate seepage in TP-6 at depth 4 feet, and minor seepage in TP-7 at depth 6 feet. We interpret this to be perched water. It is common for near-surface water to percolate through the upper, more permeable soil, and stop on the underlying, less permeable soil. This is referred to as "perched water". Volumes of perched water typically are greatest during the wet . winter months, and they decrease (or disappear) during the drier parts of the year. No seepage was noted in TP-8 through TP-12. Water levels were measured in the current borings after each boring was completed and before the auger was pulled from the hole. At the end of drilling, the depth to water in B-3 was measured at about 17 feet, and the depth to water in B-4 was measured at about 31 feet. Because the water level was measured at the end of drilling, and did not have THE RILEY GROUP, INC. I I I I I I . > I I I I ; .. I I I I I I I I I Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington June 2, 2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 12 of 45 time to stabilize (as it would in a standpipe groundwater observation well), it probably did not represent the static water level. At MW-I and MW-2, standpipe groundwater observation wells were installed to allow long term monitoring of groundwater levels. The measured levels should represent stabilized, static groundwater levels. Recent dates and depths to water are presented below . Table 2. Groundwater Levels -Commercial Development Depth to Groundwater (feet) Date BoringMW-l Boring MW-2 both installed 19 MARCH 2001 I 9MAR200 I 27 23 at time of drilling; not yet stabilized 03APR2003 17.3 21.3 More detailed descriptions of the subsurface conditions encountered are presented on the Boring and Test Pit Logs, Figures A-2 through A-20. A description of terms used for soil classification is presented on Figure A-I. Laboratory Testing Laboratory testing included determination of natural moisture content and grain size analyses. Moisture contents are presented on the boring and test pit logs adjacent to sample notation, and the results of grain size analyses are presented on Figures A-21 through A-24. THE RILEY GROUP, INC. I I I I I I I I I .~~' :1 ::i I I I I I I I I I Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS Whole Site June 2, 2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 13 of 45 The site is located within Zone 3 of the Seismic Zone Map shown as Figure 16-2 of the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC). This corresponds to a Seismic Zone Factor, Z, of 0.30. This, in turn, corresponds to an effective peak horizontal ground acceleration of 0.3g. We assumed the design seismic event was a Magnitude 7-112 earthquake with a peak horizontal ground acceleration ofO.3g. Central Slopel Housing Project It is our opinion that site conditions for the Central Slopel Housing Project best fit the UBC description for Soil Profile Type Sc, "Very Dense Soil and Soft Rock". Liquefaction is typically associated with loose, saturated fine to medium sand. Considering that the silty sand on the central slope is very dense, it is our opinion that there is not the potential for liquefaction. Commercial Development It is our opinion that site conditions for the Commercial Development best fit the UBC description for Soil Profile Type SD, "Stiff Soil Profile". Based on average soil density in the 4 borings considered, the potential for liquefaction is low. However, local areas of looser, saturated soil could liquefy. Considering the conditions observed in the borings (soil type, density, silt content; water table), it is our opinion that if there were liquefaction, it would be localized, of limited vertical and areal extent, and discontinuous. As a result, its effect would not be significant. Accordingly, the potential for liquefaction-induced settlement is also considered not to be significant. THE RILEY GROUP, INC. I I I I I I I I • I ;.~ I I I I I I I Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington HISTORICAL SLIDE ACTIVITY IN THE SITE VICINITY North Slope June 2, 2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 14 of 45 There is a history of slide activity in the project site vicinity. Numerous slides have occurred on the east-facing portion of the north slope, typically in the area starting at the right-of-way for NW 7th Street and extending to the north to as far as S 1 1 7th Place. These are described in the referenced GeoEngineers reports. A slide in April 1991, located along the eastward extension of NW 7th Street, sent slide ~ debris onto Rainier Ave. and severed a sewer line. The line was reconstructed, but was damaged again in February 1996 by another slide. This slide activity was limited to the east-facing portion of the north slope, and located about 200 feet north of the project site. On the south-facing portion of the north slope, some sliding reportedly occurred in the late 1980's. This was located south of Taylor Ave, and was attributed to a road cut across the toe of the slope. Central Slope Our historical information for the central slope is based on review of aerial photos discussed in the Riley letter of June 8, 2001 (reference 6). There were no obvious features indicating a major landslide in the past. The central slope also is not shown on the Renton Slide Sensitive Areas map as "Very High Landslide Hazards", indicating it historically did not have known mappable landslide deposits. South Slope The south slope also did not have obvious features indicating a major landslide in the past, and it was not shown on the Renton Slide Sensitive Areas map as "Very High Landslide Hazards". THE RILEY GROUP, INC. I I I I' I I' I I I -J I I, I I I I I I I, I Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington June 2, 2003 Project No. 2002-0628 Page 15 of 45 PREVIOUS GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSES DONE FOR THIS VICINITY BY THE CITY OF RENTON The GeoEngineers work for the City of Renton concluded that soil conditions in the slide area that damaged the sewer consisted of silty sand over silt. Water would perch on the silt and saturate the silty sand. When there had been a large enough volume of water, the silty sand became unstable, and there were slides. GeoEngineers completed slope stability analyses for a slope section along the sewer line, as well as for slope sections south of the sewer line. Their analyses indicated the sewer line section would indeed become unstable when saturated, and their recommended slope repair included drainage measures (in combination with removal and replacement of slope debris). They also concluded that the sections south of the sewer line were stable, even when' saturated. Further, they had the opinion that the slope south of the sewer slide area would likely remain stable, provided it was not destabilized by activities such as removal of vegetation, excavation, filling, or concentration of runoff. EVALUATION OF STABILITY OF NORTH, CENTRAL, & SOUTH SLOPES North Slope Based on the work by GeoEngineers, the south-facing portion of the north slope should remain stable, provided it was not destabilized by activities such removal of vegetation, excavation, filling, or concentration of runoff. Also, it was Riley's conclusion (reference 6), based on observation of apparent creep, that potential landslide activities would likely be limited to surficial failures. It is our conclusion that the south-facing portion of the north slope should remain stable with regard to deep failures, provided it was not destabilized by construction activities associated with the proposed development. THE RILEY GROUP, INC. I I I I I -I I I -I . - f I I I I I I I' I Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington Central Slope June 2,2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 16 of 45 Based on our borings, it appears that the central slope is comprised of very dense granular soil (silty sand or non-plastic sandy silt, but not clay or clayey silt) to its full depth of SO feet. The soil and perched groundwater conditions that are linked to the slides along the sewer on the north slope are not present in the central slope. Also, there are not surficial indications oflarge-scale landslides. We conclude that the central slope is stable with regard to large-scale instability, in its current configuration. Over time, weathering of near-surface soil could result in shallow, surficial ravelling of soil. This is supported by the current geometry of the east-facing portion of the central slope. It appears that it was the result of grading by man in about 1956 [Ref. 7], and with the exception of subsequent modifications (access road, utility installation), it has maintained what was likely the original cut slope inclination. This represents a period of about SO years, which is a normal design life for the proposed structures . South Slope The south slope historically is not considered to have a significant potential for a major landslide. Even if it did, it is far enough away from our subject site that it does not need to be considered, with regard to setbacks. We conclude that the south slope will not have an impact on either the commercial development or the housing project, and that neither of these will have an impact on the south slope. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS The proposed mixed-use project will include commercial development and private housing. These are considered to be 2 separate projects. Considering that the soil conditions and geotechnical concerns for each project are different, recommendations are presented separately for each project. This is intended to avoid intermingling recommendations for the separate projects in order to reduce confusion regarding which THE RILEY GROUP, INC. I I I, I I I II I -I • I I :1 I', " , I , I Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington June 2, 2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 17 of 45 recommendations apply to which project. repetition. However, it will also result In some ' General -Central Siope/ Housing Project Based on our study, it is our opinion that the site is suitable for the proposed housing project construction from a geotechnical standpoint. The buildings can be supported on conventional shallow spread footings bearing on medium dense to dense native soil. Setbacks from top of slope are recommended to reduce the impact of the structures on slope stability. Careful collection and disposal of surface water are necessary so this water does not flow over the face of the steep slopes or infiltrate into the core of the slope. Potential Impacts of Project -Central Siope/ Housing Project Potential impacts of the proposed project include those stemming from grading, surcharges from structures, and drainage. Cutting at the top of the slope would reduce the soil surcharge on the slope, and increase stability. Filling at the top of the slope, on the other hand, would increase the soil surcharge on the slope, and reduce stability. Filling on the face of the slope could reduce stability. The surcharge of structures near the top of slope could reduce slope stability. If the project resulted in additional water infiltrating the slope or flowing over the top of the slope, this could decrease stability. Measures to decrease the potential reductions in slope stability include limiting fill on the face or top of slope, providing setbacks from top of slope for structure foundations, and providing proper drainage. Setbacks from Top of Slope -Central Siope/ Housing Project We recommend that structure foundations for the housing project be set back at least 15 feet from the top of the steep slopes. This can be done by placing a normal depth footing about 15 feet back from the top of the slope. It can also be done by placing the THE RILEY GROUP, INC. I I, I I I I I I I ~~ , I I I I I I I I :, Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington June 2,2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 18of45 footings deep enough so that the bottom of the footing is a horizontal distance of at least 15 feet from the face of the slope, and thus providing an "effective setback". This is often done by deepening conventional spread footings, or by using drilled piers. Site Preparation and Grading -Central Siope/ Housing Project Site Preparation The first step of construction should be to log and grub the site. Any utilities that are in the proposed building footprint should be relocated to outside of the building footprint, to facilitate future repair of the utility, if required. Topsoil and vegetation should be stripped. At our test pits, duff and topsoil typically were up to about 112 foot thick. However, TP-4 had roots and branches down to depth 2 feet. The near-surface soil exposed after stripping should be silty sand. The silty sand is moisture sensitive, and will be difficult, if not impossible, to work with if it is not near optimum moisture content. Grading may involve cut and fill. In areas to receive fill or to remain at existing grade, we recommend proof rolling all exposed surfaces with a heavy piece of rubber-tired construction equipment (such as a loaded dump truck) to evaluate if any soft and yielding areas are present. If yielding areas are observed, they should be cut to firm bearing soil and filled to grade with structural fill. After cut areas are brought to final grade, they also should be proofrolled and repaired. As discussed above, the excavated silty sand is moisture sensitive, and will be difficult, if not impossible, to work in wet weather and/or if it is not near optimum moisture content. Fill Material It may be feasible to use the silty sand from excavation as fill in dry weather, if it is free of organics and debris, and properly moisture conditioned. If the site grading occurs in THE RILEY GROUP, INC. :1 'I ·1 I· I ·1 I, I I I I 'I I I I I I I I Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington June 2, 2003/ Project No. 2002-062B Page 19 of 45 the wet season or if additional structural fill material is required, we recommend importing material that meets the following grading requirements. Table 3. u.s. Standard Sieve Size Percent Passing 3 inches 100 percent No.4 sieve 0-75 percent No. 200 sieve o -5 percent * *Based on the mmus 3/4-mch fraction. Prior to use, Riley should examine and test all materials imported to the site for use as structural fill. A geotechnical engineer should be on site to monitor the site grading and verify soil compaction. Structural Fill Placement For the purpose of this report, structural fill is defined as fill that will support buildings, slabs-on-grade, pavement, and other settlement sensitive elements. Structural fill should be placed in uniform loose layers not more than 12 inches thick and compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density. Maximum dry density, in this report, refers to that density as determined by the ASTM D 1557 compaction test procedure . (Modified Proctor). The moisture content of the soil at the time of compaction should be within about 2 percent of its optimum. Temporary Cut Slopes We expect that unsupported temporary cut slopes will be used for basements and utility trenches, and we expect that the cuts will be made mostly in dense silty sand. For these soil conditions, we recommend temporary cut slopes up to 10 feet tall that are not subjected to seepage forces be no steeper than 1 horizontal to I vertical (lH: 1 V). If THE RILEY GROUP, INC. I, 'I M I I I I 1 I I I Geotechnical Engineering Report ProPosed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington " June 2, 2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 20 of 45 there were seepage, such as due to perched water, slopes at thi's inclination should be expected to be unstable. They might need to b~ made less steep. Permanent Cut and Fill Slopes If permanent cut or fill slopes are incorporated into design, they should not be steeper than 2H:IV Foundation Support -Central Slope/ Housing Project We expect that soil at footing bearing elevation will consist of medium dense to dense silty sand. If undisturbed, this soil will be suitable to provide moderate to high design bearing pressures for conventional shallow spread footings. If the footing bearing surface is disturbed, it should be overexcavated to expose competent medium dense to dense native soil, and replaced with compacted, well- graded, granular, structural fill. The term "granular" refers to soil that is predominantly sand and/or gravel, and that is not predominantly silt or clay. The exposed subgrade should be cleaned of loose or soft soil before placing the structural fill. ,If it is not feasible to place and compact structural fill of the type described above (such as if there is water in the footing excavation), rock spalls or crushed rock could be used instead. Perimeter footings should bear at least 1.5 feet below final exterior grade for frost protection. Interior footings should bear at least 1 foot below the floor slab. We recommend footing widths of at least 18 and 24 inches for continuous strip footings and isolated column footings, respectively. As discussed previously, the footings should be set back at least 15 feet horizontally from the top of the steep slope. This can be done by placing a normal depth footing about 15 feet back from the top of the slope. Alternatively, an "effective setback" can be achieved by deepening the footing so that its bottom is 15 feet horizontally from the THE RILEY GROUP, INC. I I 'I I I .1 I . 1 Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington June 2, 2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 21 of 45 face of the slope at the same elevation. This can be done by conventional spread footings in trenches, or with drilled piers. We recommend that a geotechnical engineer be present on site to inspect the foundation subgrade preparation before pouring concrete. The foundation subgrade should be undisturbed and medium dense to dense. If loose or disturbed soil is observed, it should be removed and replaced with structural fill or crushed rock. If prepared footing subgrades are to remain exposed during the winter season or periods of wet weather, it is recommended that they be covered with a lean concrete "mud mat" to help protect the subgrades after they have been inspected and until the footings are poured. For footings constructed as recommended, and bearing on undisturbed, competent (medium dense to dense) native soil, we recommend a design allowable bearing pressure of not more than 3000 pounds per square foot (pst). For short-term loads, such as wind and seismic, a 113 increase in this allowable bearing pressure can be used, as long as this conforms with the appropriate current UBC loading combinations. With the expected structural loading and the recommended foundation bearing pressure, total settlement of footings should not be more than 1 inch, and differential settlement between adjacent footings or across a distance of about 20 feet should not be more than 112 inch. We expect that most of the settlement will occur by the end of construction .. Lateral forces may be resisted by friction at the base of foundations and by passive soil resistance acting against the buried portion of foundations. To compute passive resistance, we recommend using an equivalent fluid density of 200 pounds per cubic foot (pct). This value is based on the foundations being constructed neat against undisturbed competent soil or backfilled with structural fill, and assumes that the ground surface on the resisting side is level for a distance of at least 3 times the depth of the foundation. The upper 1 foot of soil should not be included in the passive resistance THE RILEY GROUP, INC • I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,I I I I Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington June 2,2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 22 of 45 calculation because it can become disturbed by erosion or future grading activity. For base friction, a factor of 0.4 may be used between concrete and soil. The coefficient of friction should be applied to the vertical dead load only. These values include a safety factor of about 1.5 and 2 applied to the estimated ultimate values for frictional and passive resistance, respectively. We recommend that footing drains be installed on the outside of perimeter footings. The footing drains should consist of 4-inch-minimum diameter, perforated or slotted, smooth wall, rigid, PVC pipe, laid at the bottom of the footing. The drain line should be surrounded with free draining pea gravel or washed rock that is wrapped in filter fabric. The top 1 foot of backfill should consist of relatively impermeable material to limit surface water infiltration into the perimeter drain. A typical footing drain detail is shown on Figure 4. The footing 'drains and roof downspouts should be tightlined separately to an approved discharge facility. Siabs-on-Grade -Central Siopel Housing Project Subgrades for slabs-on-grade should be proofrolled and repaired as necessary, as described in the Site Preparation and Grading section of this report. If the on site soil can not be compacted to provide a dense and unyielding surface, it should be replaced with 1 foot of compacted structural fill. Immediately below the floor slab, we reco~mend placing a 6-inch thick capillary break layer consisting of clean, free- draining gravel or sand and gravel that has less than 5 percent fines (material passing a U.S. No. 200 sieve). This material will reduce the potential for upward capillary movement of water from the underlying soil and subsequent wetting of the floor slab. A suitable vapor barrier should be placed on top of the capillary break. The vapor barrier may be covered with 2 inches of clean, moist sand to guard against damage to the vapor barrier during construction and to aid in curing of the concrete. THE RILEY GROUP, INC. I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 I ·1 ·1 I ·1 Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington Subsurface Walls -Central Siope/ Housing Project June 2, 2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 23 of 45 Basement walls should be waterproofed and fully drained. Wall drains should be similar to those recommended for perimeter footing drains. There should be a zone of free draining material at least 1 foot wide next to the wall. The top 1 foot of backfill should consist of relatively impermeable material to limit surface water infiltration into the wall drain. The perforated pipe should drain to daylight. A typical retaining wall drainage detail is shown on Figure 5. As an alternative to a layer of gravel, a pre- fabricated drainage panel, such as Miradrain, could be used. The lateral pressure acting on the wall is dependent on the nature and density of the soil behind the wall, the amount of lateral wall movement which can occur as backfill is placed, wall drainage conditions, and the inclination of the backfill. Subsurface walls should be provided with wall drains, as described above. For walls that are free to yield at the top at least 0.001 times the height of the wall (active condition), soil pressures will be less than if movement is limited by such factors as wall stiffness or bracing (at- rest condition). We recommend that walls supporting horizontal backfill and not subjected to hydrostatic forces be designed using a triangular earth pressure distribution equivalent to that exerted by a fluid with a density of 35 pcf for yielding (active condition) walls, and 55 pcffor non-yielding (at-rest condition) walls. These recommended lateral earth pressures are based on the assumption of a horizontal ground surface adjacent to the wall for a distance of at least the subsurface height of the wall, and do not account for surcharges. Additional lateral earth pressures should be considered for surcharge loads acting adjacent to subsurface walls and within a distance equal to the subsurface height of the wall. This would include the effects of surcharges such as traffic loads, floor slab loads, or other surface loads. Increased lateral earth pressure due to adjacent areal vertical surcharge pressures (such as uniform floor slab loads) can be taken as a uniform pressure equal to 0.3 times the vertical surcharge pressure for active conditions, and 0.5 times the vertical surcharge pressure for at-rest THE RILEY GROUP, INC. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -I I ··1 Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton. Washington June 2.2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 24 of 45 conditions. Traffic surcharges are often accounted for by assummg a surcharge equivalent to 2 feet of soil, which corresponds to about 250 psf vertical pressure. Lateral forces on subsurface retaining walls can be resisted by friction and passive resistance, as described for footings, as well as by structural elements of the building. Retaining Structures-Central Siopel Housing Project Current plans call for building some retaining structures and placing some fill in the gully along the utility easement on the east-facing portion of the central slope. Considering that this filling would tend to reestablish the slope grade that existed before the gully was dug, it should not have a negative impact on the stability of adjacent slopes. We expect the structures would not be more than 10 feet talL They could be conventional concrete retaining walls, mechanically stabilized earth walls (such as Keystone walls or similar), or ecology block walls. The subgrade for the walls should be excavated to provide a level base for the walL Utilities in the gully should be located and potholed first so they do not get damaged. The subgrade should be medium dense to dense. If not, it should be repaired. Backfill behind the wall should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density. For a manufacturer's design, the following soil parameters can be used. • 120 pcf dry density • 35 degrees internal friction angle .2000 psf design allowable bearing pressure .0.4 frictional lateral resistance factor (includes safety factor of about 1.5) • 35 pcf equivalent fluid for active pressure .200 pcf equivalent fluid for passive resistance (includes safety factor of about 2) THE RILEY GROUP, INC. I I I I I I I I I ;:1 "J :1 ! I I I I I -I I ·"1 Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington Drainage -Central Siope/ Housing Project Construction June 2, 2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 25 of 45 We expect that water encountered during construction could come from shallow perched water, depending on the time of year. If minor water seepage is encountered or if rainfall collects in excavations during construction, we recommend that the contractor slope the bottom of excavations and collect the water into ditches and sump pits from which the water can be pumped and discharged into a storm drain. Surface Final exterior grades should promote free and positive drainage away from the building. Water should not pond or collect adjacent to the immediate building area. We recommend providing a drainage gradient of at least 3 percent for a distance of at least 10 feet from the building perimeter. All runoff water from paved areas, roofs, and other impervious surfaces. should be collected and discharged to the storm drain system. If there . are yar9sbetween the house and the slope, yard drains should be installed to collect wateranddiscl1arge it to the storm drain system. Water should not be allowed to flow over the slope, or to pond in yards and infiltrate into the ground. . Subsurface . We recommend that wall drains. be installed for all subsurface walls. This is discussed in the Subsurface Walls section of this report. We also recommend that perimeter foot~ng drains be installed. This is discussed in the Foundation Support section of this report. Footing drains and roof downspouts should be tightlined separately to the storm drain. THE RILEY GROUP, INC. I I II I I I I I I ,I I I I I I I . 1 .1 ,I :,1 Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington Utilities -Central Slope! Housing ProjeCt June 2, 2003 Project No. 2002-06213 Page 26of45 We expect that any new utilities will be relatively shallow (say 5 feet deep or less). The soil within this depth can be excavated with a backhoe. Significant groundwater is not , expected within this depth. Utility pipes should be bedded and backfille~ in accordance with American Public Works Association (APWA) specifications. If local codes supercede APW A specifications, bedding: and backfill should be completed in accord,ance with those codes. As a minimum, trench backfill should be placed and compacted as structural fill, as described in the Site Preparation and Grading section of this report. Where utilities are located below unimproved areas where some settlement of trench, backfill is acceptable, the degree of compaction can be reduced to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by the referenced ASTMD-1557 standard. Pavement -Central Slope! Housing Project Pavement subgrades should be proofrolled and repair~d ,~~,n,~,p~~s~;'Jls,d~scri\'>ed in :' '. ~)~ .. \~,~t;;1~h~h:~~:>/~,~i'D.~:~X"··· .. :",:',:: . " the Site Preparation and Grading section of this report.'R~gardlessof the relative compaction achieved, the subgrade should be firm andunyi~id'i~~ before paving. As recommended for slab-on-grade subgrades, if the on site soil ~a~'i1ofbe compayted to • "1 " provide a dense and unyielding surface, it s'hould be replaced with 1" f~ot' of compacted ' structural fill. The final subgrade should be proofrolled before paving. ,',. ,For residential passenger vehicle driveway and parking areas, we recommend a pavement section consisting of 2 inches of asphalt concrete over 4 inches of crushed rock base. As an alternative, the 4 inches of crushed rock base could be replaced with 3 inches of asphalt treated base . THE RILEY GROUP, INC. , I I I I I I I I I I , I I .1 I .1 I ·1 Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington General -Commercial Development June 2, 2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 27 of 45 Based on our study, it is our opinion that the site is suitable for the proposed commercial development construction from a geotechnical standpoint. It appears that Buildings 2 and 3 can probably be supported on conventional shallow spread footings . bearing on medium dense to dense or hard native soil. Building 1 and the parking structure are at least partially underlain by up to 40 feet of soil that is not suitable to provide shallow foundation support~ and will therefore require pile support (at least partially). We recommend against the proposed cut into the toe of the north slope for Building 1 and the parking structure. The proposed cut into the toe of the central slope for Buildings 2 and 3 appears feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. However, it will require a shoring system. Potential ImpaCt of Project -Commercial Development Potential impacts of the proposed commercial development are as~ociated primarily with the proposed cutting into the toe of slopes. The north and central slopes appear to·· .b.e, s,~a,ple in their current condition with regard to deep-seated soil movement. ',-, ", .. , . .. H(,)vI~~~r, due to their steepness, they are prone to surficial creep and surficial ravelling ov~r ti~e. To cut into the toe of these slopes without providing support would reduce therrstability. Also, other modifications to these slopes could reduce their stability. , Measures to maintain slope stability and protect the structures include providing support " ...... . to the toe of slope and providing a structure setback from the toe. For the central slope, it IS our opinion that for limited heights of cut (up to about 10 feet), cantilever soldier pile shoring will provide adequate support to the slope, and allow the buildings to be set . into the slope. For the north slope, it is our opinion that it is best not to cut into the toe of slope, but instead to provide a structure setback. Any work "incidental" to the project (for example, landscaping) should not remove vegetation from steep slopes, or alter (increase) water on the slopes. THE RILEY GROUP, INC. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -I I -I Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington Setbacks from Toe of Slope -Commercial Development June 2, 2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 280f45 For the central slope, we recommend a building setback of 10 feet from the toe of slope. As an alternative, the slope could be shored, and Buildings 2 and 3 could be set into the slope. For the north slope, we recommend against cutting into the toe of the slope for Building 1 and the parking structure, and instead recommend a building setback 25 feet from the toe of slope. If a debris wall were constructed at the toe of slope, the setback could be reduced to 10 feet. Excavation -Commercial Development The proposed construction will have 2 potential areas of excavation. Excavation may take place at the toe of the central slope. This would require shoring. Excavation in the level area of the site will be required for the parking structure for its below grade level. . This would probably be done with laid back, unsupported, open cuts. /. :.i ":" '":''' Temporal)' Cut Slopes The existing steep north and central slopes typically are at about 1-1I2H:IV inclination. It is advisable not to cut them any steeper, even on a temporary basis. Acc()rdingly, . temporary cut slopes do not apply to the north and central slopes. We expect that unsupported temporary cut slopes will be used mostly for the excavation. . for the parking structure. It is our understanding that the excavation will be relatively . shallow, and we assume it will not exceed 10 feet. We expect soil conditions in the depth of excavation to range from uncontrolled, loose silty sand fill with debris; to· dense or hard sandy silt. For these soil conditions, we recommend temporary cut slopes.- up to 10 feet tall that are not subjected to seepage forces be no steeper than 1-1/21:f: 1 V. If there were seepage, such as due to perched water, slopes at this inclination should be - THE RILEY GROUP, INC. . .. ; ....• I I I I ·1 I 'j ,I ·1 I -I -I Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington June 2, 2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 290f45 expected to be unstable. They could require some support, or might need to be made less steep. Shoring If it is decided to cut into the toe of the central slope, we recommend that it be shored. We expect cut heights will not be more than about 10 feet. Cantilever soldier piles and lagging seems appropriate for these heights. The shoring will be against steep backslopes (typically about 1-1I2H: 1 V), and lateral earth pressures will be high. Our recommended earth pressures, parameters, and assumptions for design of a cantilever soldier pile wall with a 1-1/2H: 1 V backslope are presented on Figure 6. The pressures are presented in terms of equivalent fluid density~ i.e., a triangular earth pressure distribution equivalent to that which would be exerted by a fluid with the density noted. The following assumptions and recommendations apply to the figure. \J • The water table was assumed to be at the base of the excavation, on both sides of the soldier pile wall. • Active pressure above the base of the excavation acts on the full center-to- center pile spacing: • Below the base of the excavation, active pressure acts on 1 pile diameter, and passive resistance acts on 2 pile diameters. • Any nearby surcharges (within a horizontal distance equal to the height of the wall) should be considered on an individual basis. Lagging can be designed for pressures equal to 50 percent of those shown for design of piles, due to arching effects. THE RILEVGROUP, INC • .. ,~ . . ':.' ", I I I I I I I I I I - I I I I I I I ·1 Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington June 2, 2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 30of45 A monitoring program should be implemented to verify the, performance of the shoring system. The first step in this program should consist of setting reference points for horizontal and vertical control, and setting monitoring points on the piles after they are installed and before any excavation is done. The documentation should include a photographic record. Monitoring of the shoring system should be done daily as the excavation proceeds, and then weekly once the excavation is completed. A registered land surveyor should be retained to establish the baseline data, and to complete a survey every 2 weeks to check the contractor's readings. Daily monitoring can be done by the contractor. Monitoring should continue until the permanent building walls are adequately braced. Monitoring should include surveying the vertical and horizontal alignment of the top of each soldier pile. Monitoring points should also be established'at the middle height of the shoring at 25-foot horizontal intervals. These mid-level points should also be surveyed to record horizontal and vertical movements. The project's structural and geotechnical engineers should review the monitoring data weekly, and at any time there is unexpected movement. Site Preparation and Grading -Commercial Development Site Preparation The first step of construction should be to demolish existing structures. Any utilities that are in the proposed building footprints should be relocated to outside of the building footprint. Pavement should be stripped. From a geotechnical standpoint, the concrete rubble and/or stripped asphalt could be used as fill if it were placed at the bottom of deeper fills in pavement (non building) areas, and at least 2 feet below final grade. If the rubble is to be used as fill, it should be broken up into pieces no larger than 6 inches, laid flat, and not "nested", and mixed with, soil to avoid creating voids. Concrete debris that is placed as recommended should THE RILEY GROUP, INC. I I I I I I I I ,I J I . 1 Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington June 2, 2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 31of45 petform adequately as structural fill; however, it could result in obstructions that would complicate trenching for utility installation. The near-surface soil exposed after stripping is expected to be silty sand or sandy silt. The silty sand is moisture sensitive, and will be difficult, if not impossible, to work with if it is not near optimum moisture content.: The sandy silt is even more moisture sensitive, and generally is not suitable for reuse as fill. We suspect grading may involve cut and fill, but we expect it will be of limited height. Prior to placing fill, we recommend proof rolling all exposed surfaces with a heavy piece of rubber-tired construction equipment (such as a loaded dump truck) to evaluate if any " soft and yielding areas are present. If yielding areas are observed, they should be cut to firm bearing soil and filled to grade with structural fill. After cut areas are brought to final grade, they also should be proofrolled and repaired. As discussed above, the silty sand is moisture sensitive, and will be difficult, if not impossible, to work in wet weather and/or if it is not near optimum moisture conteJ1~<' "" , Fill Material It may be feasible to use the silty sand from excavation as fill in dry :weather, if it is free " . '-"', -'. ', .. '.;' . of organics and debris, and properly moisture conditioned. If it . is' decided not to reuse it, and structural fill material is required, we recommend importing material that meets the following gradation requirements. Table 4. u.s. Standard Sieve Size Percent Passing 3 inches 100 percent No.4 sieve o -75 percent No. 200 sieve O' - 5 percent * *Based on the minus 314-inch fraction. " ',~ THE RILEY GROUP~ :INC • I I I I I .1 I I I I I I I 'I I I I I . 1 Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington June 2, 2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 32of45 Prior to use, Riley should examine and test all materials imported to the site for use as structural fill. A geotechnical engineer should be on site to monitor the site grading and verify soil compaction. Structural Fill Placement For the purpose of this report, structural fill is defined as fill that will support buildings, slabs-on-grade, pavement, and other settlement sensitive elements. Structural fill should be placed in uniform loose layers not more than 12 inches thick and compacted' to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density. Maximum dry density, in this report, refers to that density as determined by the ASTM D 1557 compaction test procedure (Modified Proctor). The moisture content of the soil at the time of compaction should be within about 2 percent of its optimum. Permanent Cut and Fill Slopes , JrP:ermanent cut or fill slopes are incorporated into design, they should not be steeper :'th;'2H: 1 V. FOlindation Support -Commercial Developinent B:~ed on our exploration, it appears that Buildings 2 and 3 can probably be supported , ., .... o~ 'Conventional shallow spread footings bearing on medium dense to dense or hard ruiti~e soil. Building 1 and the parking structure are at least partially underlain by up to 40 feet of fill and organic soil that is not suitable to provided shallow foundation support. They will require pile support in the areas of deep unsuitable soil. In other parts of the buildings, competent soil is at shallow depth. If the depth to competent native soil decreases enough across the building footprint, it may be desirable to switch back to spread footings. A depth of 5 to 10 feet (to suitable bearing soil) is commonly. considered the depth at which one switches from shallow foundations to deep foundations. THE RILEY GROUP, INC • I I I I I I I I I I I I I il II I I I I Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington Shallow Spread Footings June 2, 2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 33 of 45 Based on the available soil information in the vicinity of Buildings 3 and 2, it appears that there is suitable bearing soil (medium dense to dense silty sand or sandy silt) within a depth of about 5 feet below existing grade. Accordingly, it appears that shallow spread footings are appropriate for Buildings J and 2. Footings should bear on undisturbed, medium dense to dense native silty sand or sandy silt. If the planned footing bearing surface is disturbed or consists of fill, it should be overexcavated to expose competent medium dense to dense native soil, and replaced with compacted, well-graded, granular, structural fill. The term "granular" refers to soil that is predominantly sand and/or gravel, and that is not predominantly silt or clay. The exposed subgrade should be cleaned of loose or soft soil before placing the structural fill. If it is not feasible to place and compact structural fill of the type described· above (such as if there is water in the footing excavation from seepage or rain), rock spaUsor' crushed rock could be used instead. ". . . . Perimeter footings should bear at least 1.5 feet below final exterior grade for frost ". . . . protection. Interior footings should bear at least 1 foot below the floor slab.· . We ' . . ,.", . , . .. . recommend footing widths of at least 18 and 24 inches for continuous strip footings and ........ . isolated column footings, respectively. We recommend that a geotechnical engineer be present on site to inspect the foundation subgrade preparation before pouring concrete. The foundation subgrade should be . undisturbed and medium dense to dense. If loose or disturbed soil is observed, iishould .. ' '". ", be removed and replaced with structural fill or crushed rock. If prepared footing'· subgrades are to remain exposed during the winter season or periods of wet weather, it is recommended that they be covered with a lean concrete "mud mat" to help protect the subgrades after they have been inspected and until the footings are poured. THE RILEY GROUP, INC. I I I I I . 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I . 1 Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington June 2, 2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 34 of 45 For footings constructed as recommended, and bearing on undisturbed, competent (medium dense to dense) native soil, we recommend a design allowable bearing pressure of not more than 3000 pounds per square foot (pst). For short-term loads, such as wind and seismic, a 1/3 increase in this allowable bearing pressure can be used, as long as this conforms with the appropriate current UBC loading combinations . With the expected structural loading and the recommended foundation bearing pressure, total settlement of footings should not be more than 1 inch, and differential settlement between adjacent footings or across a distance of about 20 feet should not be more than 112 inch. We expect that most of the settlement· will occur by the end of construction. Lateral forces may be resisted by friction at the base of foundations and by passive soil resistance acting against the buried portion of, foundations. To compute passive resistance, we recommend using an equivalent fluid density 0[200 pounds per cubic foot (pet). . This value is based on the fo~ndations being constructed neat against undisturbed competent soil or backfilled with structural fill, and assumes that the ground surface on the resisting side is level for a distance of at least 3 times the depth of the foundation. The upper 1 foot of soil should not be included in the passive resistance calculation because it can become disturbed by erosion or future grading activity. For base friction, a factor of 0.4 may be used between concrete and soil. The coefficient of friction should be applied to the vertical dead load only. These values include a safety factor of about 1.5 and 2 applied to the estimated ultimate values for frictional and passive resistance, respectively. We recommend that footing drains be installed on the outside of perimeter footings. The footing drains should consist of 4-inch-minimum diameter, perforated or slotted, sinooth wall, rigid, PVC pipe, laid at the bottom of the footing. The drain line should be surrounded with free draining pea gravel or washed rock that is wrapped in filter THE RILEY GROUP, INC • I I I I' I I I I 'I I' I il I I I I I I I Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington June 2,2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 35 of 45 fabric. The top 1 foot of backfill should consist of relatively impermeable material to' limit surface water infiltration into the perimeter drain. A typical footing drain detail is shown on Figure 4. The footing drains and roof downspouts should be tight lined separately to an approved discharge facility. Pile Foundations General Building 1 and the parking structure are at least partially underlain by up to about 40 feet of fill and organic soil that is not suitable to provided shallow foundation support. They will require pile support in the areas of deep unsuitable soil. If the depth to competent native soil decreases enough across the building footprint, it may be desirable to switch back to spread footings. A depth of 5 to 10 feet (to suitable bearing soH) is commonly considered the depth at which one switches from shallow foundations to deep foundations. Pile Type We expect subsurface conditions include dense near-surface fill, deeper looser fill that contains obstructions (either natural or man-made), and suitable bearing soil at depths that will be highly variable. Drilled and cast-in-place piles (augercast piles) are not considered appropriate ~or the site subsurface conditions. These piles could be subject to loss of grout in debris (such as car parts) or oversized material, such as a pocket of cobbles and boulders. In addition, augercast pile equipment typically does not have the ability to crowd (exert downward pressure on) the auger, which could result in inadequate penetration into bearing soil. Driven piles appear to be the most appropriate type of deep foundation support. For this particular project, timber piles do not appear to be appropriate, due to their relatively THE RILEY GROUP, INC. I I I I' I I I I ;1 I I I I :1 I .1 J I _I Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington June 2,2003 Project No. 2002-062B . Page 36 of 45 low structural capacity, and the potential for damage to the pile during hard driving. Considering the anticipated variable depths of pile penetration, precast concrete piles also appear inappropriate due to their poor length flexibility (difficult cutting or splicing to adjust to changing field conditions). Accordingly, we recommend steel piles, due to their good length flexibility as well as their ability to withstand hard driving. Driven steel piles could consist of pipe piles or H-piles. It is our opinion that H-piles would probably be more successful in getting through or around debris and obstructions, and also more effective at penetrating into very dense bearing material. However, once driven, they could not be inspected for damage. Pipe piles would require harder driving to get past obstructions and into very dense bearing material, but they could be checked for damage after they were driven. We assumed that pipe piles would be used, and that they would have design capacities in the range of 100 kip per pile. We recommend that pipe piles be seamless.pip.~.{(~ot~.spiral welded), with a wall . thickness of at least 3/8 inch. The piles shoullJ~t~~1~~~::·:i6 practica~ refus~l with an .... , ' .. ~.'. ~-... :. . . appropriately sized pile driving hammer. (Pile inst~llation criteria· are discussed in a later section of this report.) We recommend thatth¢~;piles be driven closed-end and . . . . . r~,.. .:' . reinforced with a conical tip. The reinforcement. is intended to aid in penetrating into very dense soil, as well as to advance through debris,· boulders, or other obstructions that may be encountered.· Piles should. be placed at least· 3 diameter~ apart (center to center}to avoid reduction in capacity due to group action. Allowable Design Capacity Piles should be· driven through loose/soft compressible soil to refusal in the very dense silty sand unit that was encountered at about depths of 40 to 45 feet at the boring locations. The piles should be considered to act completely in end bearing. For undamaged piles that are driven to practical refusal with properly sized equipment, we THE RILEY GROUP, INC. .. '" I I' I I' I I I I I I I, I ,I ;1 i -.- II Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington June 2, 2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 37 of 45 recommend an allowable design end bearing stress of 100 kips per square foot (kst). For a 12-inch diameter pile, this bearing stress corresponds to 'an allowable axial downward (compressive) design load of 80 kips, and for a 14-inch diameter pile it corresponds to an allowable load of 110 kips. The recommended capacity is based on estimated soil characteristics only. Pile capacities based on the strength of pile materials should be determined by the structural engineer. Settlements of pile foundations that are designed and constructed as recommended are expected not to exceed about 112 inch under compressive loading. The majority of this should take place quickly after pile loading. The 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC) allows a 113 increase in allowable soil stresses for wind and seismic loads, for certain load combinations. If the appropriate load combinations are used, the allowable axial pile capacity recommended above can be increased by 113 when considering wind and seismic loads. Estimated Pile Penetration Depths Pile penetration depths will be a function of the depth to the top of the dense silty sand unit and the pile penetration into the dense soil. It is difficult to assess the depth of pile penetration, as it is dependent on the soil conditions and the driving equipment used. It . is' estimated that pipe piles may penetrate up to abput 5 to 10 feet into the dense sand. . At the exploration locations, the depth to dense sand was about 40 to 45 feet. Based on this, it is estimated that pile penetration depths could range from about 45 to 55 feet below the existing ground surface at the exploration locations. Preliminary Pile Driving Recommendations Piles should be installed by driving continuously to virtual refusal with an appropriately sized air or diesel hammer. "Virtual refusal" is typically defined as a driving resistance on the order of 6 to 8 blows per inch. For preliminary planning purposes, we THE RILEY GROUP, INC. I I I I, I I I I -• I I' I 'I I I' I I I Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington June 2,2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 38 of 45 recommend that the hammer should deliver at least 30,000 foot-pounds of driving energy per blow for the recommended pile type and capacity. It is noted that diesel hammers may experience difficulty in firing when driving through the loose/soft soil deposits. Specific driving criteria required to attain the recommended allowable capacity presented above can be established only after the actual pile size and driving equipment are chosen. We recommend that orice the pile size and driving equipment have been selected, that a wave equation analysis (WEAP) be completed to evaluate better the driving requirements and compatibility of the pile and hammer. For this project and pile support conditions, we recommend that a safety factor of 3 be applied to ultimate dynamic driving resistance to evaluate driving criteria for the pile design capacity. To aid in the evaluation of the proposed driving equipment, we recommend that the contractor furnish the information requested to the geotechnical engineer for review at least three weeks before mobilizing pile driving equipment to the site. The results of the wave equation analysis should be checked at the start of~6~~1 pile driving operations. This will help confirm driving criteria, and provide b~ttet ~~timates . of pile penetration. We recommend that the first piles be installed atdesig~l()Cations . . ' near the existing borings to act as test piles. Depending on the results of these test piles, additional test piles may be advisable. The test piles should be driven. at design locations with the hammer that will be used for production driving. After being properly driven, test piles will serve as production piles. The test program should confirm driving criteria and give a better estimate of actual required pile lengths. Obstructions, in the form of boulders, debris, or possibly logs or stumps, could be encountered. This could prevent piles from penetrating to the necessary depth. If deep obstructions are encountered, it may be necessary to modify pile locations. If THE RILEY GROUP, INC. I I' ,I, I' I I' I I I I I I I, I' I I I I I Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington June 2, 2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 390f45 obstructions are shallow, it may be possible to dig them out and maintain the planned pile location. After driving, the pipe piles should be "lamped" to check for damage. It is also advisable to carefully monitor piles for potential heave, or for potential degradation of bearing soil due to pile driving operations. Accordingly, it is recommended that the top elevation of each pile be recorded immediately after the pile is driven, and that top of pile elevations be checked periodically to check for potential heave. In addition, after pile installation has been completed, a number of piles should be redriven to refusal to check for potential heave andlor degradation of bearing soil. Siabs-on-Grade -Commercial Development Although soil conditions at B-3 and B-4 are not considered suitable for shallow foundation support, they probably are adequate to support a lightly loaded slab-on- grade. Uncontrolled fill is unpredictable, and a slab-on-grade supported on uncontrolled fill would have a greater potential to settle than if it were supported on . , '. ,\ '. . ., competent native soil.· However, to avoid settlement would require supporting the slab on piles, which would be difficult to justify from a cost perspective. Subgrades for slabs-on-grade should be proof rolled and repaired as necessary, as '. '. described in the Site Preparation and Grading section of this report, If the on site' soil can not be compacted to provide a dense and unyielding surface, it should be replaced with 1 foot of compacted structural fill. Immediately below the floor slab, we recommend placing a 6-inch thick capillary break layer consisting of clean, free- draining gravel or sand and gravel that has less than 5 percent fines (material passing a U.S. No. 200 sieve). This material will reduce the potential for upward capillary movement of water from the underlying soil and subsequent wetting of the floor slab. A suitable vapor barrier should be placed on top of the capillary break. The vapor THE RILEY GROUP, INC. ,. , I I I I' I I, I 'I I I . ~ II I I, I I, I I I' I Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington June 2,2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 400f45 barrier may be covered with 2 inches· of clean, moist sand to guard against damage to the vapor barrier during construction and to aid in curing of the concrete. Subsurface Walls -Commercial Development If building walls are cast directly against soldier' pile shoring, they can be considered to be subsurface walls. Proper drainage of walls: cast against shoring is important both for the wall and the stability of the retained soil. These walls should be waterproofed and fully drained. We recommend a drainage system consisting of pre-fabricated drainage panels, such as Miradrain, that are attached to the lagging face and connected to a pipe at the base of the wall. The pipe should then be tightlined through the footing to collector pipes that lead to a sump for discharge of collected water. A typical wall drainage detail is shown on Figure 7. If walls are constructed against the shoring, they can be designed for the same pressures that were recommended for the shoring . If basement walls are constructed, and then backfilled (such as in temporary cut slope areas for the parking structure), different design wall pressures apply. The lateral. pressure acting on the wall is dependent on the nature and de~sity of the soil· behind the wall, the amount of lateral wall movement which can occur as backfill is placed, wall drainage conditions, and the inclination of the backfill.' Subsurface walls should be . . provided with wall drains, as described above. For walls that are free to yield at the top at least 0.001 times the height of the wall (active condition), soil pressures will be less than if movement is limited by such factors as wall stiffness or bracing (at-rest condition). We recommend that walls supporting horizontal backfill and not subjected to hydrostatic forces be designed using a triangular earth pressure distribution equivalent to that exerted by a fluid with a density of 35 pcf for yielding (active condition) walls, and 55 pcffor non-yielding (at-rest condition) walls. THE RILEY GROUP, INC. I·" I I, I I :1\ I I, . 1 -II l' I I, I I. I II I I Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington June 2, 2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 410f45 These recommended lateral earth pressures are based on the assumption of a horizontal ground surface adjacent to the wall for a distance of at least the subsurface height of the wall, and do not account for surcharges. Additional lateral earth pressures should be considered for surcharge loads acting adjacent to subsurface walls and within a distance equal to the subsurface height of the wall. This would include the effects of surcharges such as traffic 'loads, floor slab loads, or oth~r surface loads. Increased lateral earth pressure due to adjacent areal vertical surcharge pressures (such as uniform floor slab loads) can be taken as a uniform pressure equal to 0.3 times the vertical surcharge pressure for active conditions, and 0.5 times the vertical surcharge pressure for at-rest conditions. Traffic surcharges are often accounted for by assuming a surcharge equivalent to 2 feet of soil,· which corresponds to about 250 psfvertical pressure . Lateral forces on subsurface retaining walls can be resisted by friction and passive resistance, as described for footings, as well as by structural elements of the building. Drainage -Commercial Development . Construction We expect that water from shallow perched water could be encountered during construction. If it is, we expect it will be limited, and that the excavation could be dewatered with sumps and pumps: Surface Final exterior grades should promote free and positive drainage away from the building. Water should not pond or collect adjacent to the immediate building area. We recommend providing a drainage gradient of at least 3 percent for a distance of at least 10 feet from the building perimeter. THE RILEY GROUP, ,INC. I: :1 II I' I t I II I ;. J, , I' I 'I I' I I, I I Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington Subsurface June 2,2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 42of45 We recommend that wall drains be installed for all subsurface walls. This is discussed in the Subsurface Walls section of this report. We also recommend that perimeter footing drains be installed. This is discussed in the Shallow Spread Footings section of this report. In pile-supported sections there should also be a drain by the grade beams, similar to perimeter footing drains. Footing drains and roof downspouts should be tightlined separately to the storm drain. Utilities -Commercial Development We expect that any new utilities will be relatively shallow (say 5 feet deep or less). The soil within this depth can be excavated easily with a backhoe. Significant groundwater is not expected within this depth. Utility pipes should be bedded and backfilled in accordance with American Public Works Association (APWA) specifications. If local codes supercede APW A specifications, bedding and backfill should be completed in . accordance with those codes. As a minimum, trench backfill' should be placed and . 9Qmpacted as structural fill, as described in the Site Preparation and Grading section of '. this report. .... Where utilities are located below unimproved areas where some settlement of trench. . backfill is acceptable, the degree of compaction can be reduced to at least 90 percent of .' : '. the maximum dry density as determined by the referenced ASTM D-15 57 standard. . Pavement -Commercial Development Pavement subgrades should be proof rolled and repaired as necessary, as described in the Site Preparation and Grading section of this report. Regardless of the relative .' compaction achieved, the subgrade should be firm and unyielding before paving. As recommended for slab-on-grade subgrades, if the on site soil can not be compacted to provide a dense and unyielding surface, it should be replaced with 1 foot of compacted structural fill. The final subgrade should be proofrolled before paving. This THE RILEY GROUP, INC. I I I I i I· I I •• I I II II ,I, I I I I I, Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington June 2, 2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 43 of 45 preparation should. provide adequate support for flexible pavement. However, in areas where fill and/or peat are left in place, there could be some settlement of the pavement surface over time. For passenger vehicle parking lot areas, we recommend a pavement section consisting of 2 inches of asphalt concrete over 5 inches of crushed rock base. For passenger vehicle parking lot entrances and traffic lanes used by heavy trucks, we recommend a pavement section consisting of 3 inches of asphalt concrete over 8 inches of crushed rock base. As an alternative, the 5 and 8 inches of crushed rock base could be replaced with 3-1/2 and 5-112 inches of asphalt treated base, respectively. LIMITATIONS This report has been prepared for IDA Group, LLC. . It is intended for specific. application to the proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project in Renton,:Wa~hi~gton,.; . .' .., , . -~-. -,,,"'., : ...... and for the exclusive us~ of IDA Group, LLC and their authorized representatives.' The analyses and recommendations presented in this report are based on data obtained from the explorations on site. Variations in soil conditions can occur, the nature and. . . extent of which may not become evident until construction. If variations appear evident, The Riley Group should be requested to reevaluate the recommendations in this . report prior to proceeding further with construction. Within the limitations of scope, schedule, and budget for our servIces, we have. attempted to complete our work in accordance with generally accepted professional principles and practices in the field of geotechnical engineering followed in this area at the time this report was prepared. No warranty, express or implied, is made. THE RILEY GROUP, INC. I I I 'I I I, I I I, I I Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington June 2,2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 440f45 We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you., If there are any questions or comments concerning this report, or if we can provide additional services, please call. \ THE RILEY GROUP, INc. I EXPIRES 03f£.l>2g:) 4 I William M. Klick, P.E. Senior Engineer Report Distribution IDA Group, LLC Baylis Architects Attachments Figure I Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure A-I Figures A-2 to A-II Figures A-I2 to A-I6 Figures A-I7 to A-20 Figures A-2I to A-24 Site Vicinity Map Site and Exploration Plan Topographic Site Plan Typical Footing Drain Detail Retaining Wall Drainage Detail Shoring Pressure Diagram (I-1I2H: I V Backslope) Typical Wall Drainage Detail Unified Soil Classification System Boring Logs (B-1 through B-4) Test Pit Logs (TP-I through TP-I2) Monitoring Well Logs (MW-I and MW-2) Grain Size Analyses THE RILEY GROUP, INC. I I :1 I , I I i I II I I I, I· I I I I , I I ~I I • -Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington References: References/Information Provided by the City of Renton June 2, 2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 45 of 45 1. GeoEngineers; May 16, 1991; "Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation, Landslide and Broken Sewer Lines, Slope West of Rainier Avenue North, Renton, Washington, for City of Renton" 2. GeoEngineers; October 4, 1991; "Report, Supplemental Geotechnical Engineering Services, Sewer Line Reconstruction and Slope Stabilization, Slope West of Rainier Avenue North, Renton, Washington, for City of Renton" 3. GeoEngineers; November 6, 1997; "Report, Geotechnical Engineering Services, Sewer Line Reconstruction, Rainier Avenue North and NW 7th Street, Renton, Washington", for City of Renton 4. Geo Consultants; May 8, 1991; "Slope Failure Study, Mr. Chester Rindfuss' Residence, 676 Taylor Avenue Northwest, Renton, Washington", for Mr. Chester Rindfuss 5.Geo Group Northwest; February 18, 1993; "Slope St~bility J\nalysis and Landslide Stabilization Design, 676 Taylor Avenue NW, Renton, Washington", for Mr. John McFarland ReferenceslInformation from Previous Work by Riley 6. 7. The Riley Group; June 8,2001; "Preliminary Slope Stability Study, Meyer Property, 559 to 625 Rainier Avenue North, Renton, Washington"; for Mr. Jack Alhadeff The Riley Group; October 29,2002; "Slope Evaluation, Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project, 559 to 625 Rainier Ave. North, Renton, Washington"; for Mr. Jack Alhadeff THE RILEY GROUP, INC. Ir:===========---~------~ I I I Ii Ii 1'1 . ',j \ ; o~' ------~~~~~ 112 lmile approximate graphical scale SCALE 1: 24000 CONTOUR INTERVAL 25 FEET The Riley Group, Inc . 10728 LAKE CITY WAY NE SEA TILE, WASHINGTON' 98125 USGS 7.5 MINUTE QUADRANGLE RENTON, WA-REVISED 1994 N + Rainier Avenue Mixed Use Project Site Vicinity Map Figure 1 Site Address: 559 -625 Rainier Avenue N., Renton, Washington I 1 I I I 1 I: I", '. ~i I,. Ii II /, : ..... ; c' I· ~', 1,::_, . ",',.,- II II II I i· It ,-' \ i ; \, .. -$-TP-1 601 Rainier Ave. N \t I I ·t L,l---'-,-.i."t."'.'---.;,--.-j'-\'''''U--~.·-... ·.,,.-·_"w __ ,ww __ , ",. --~"-.-""~-"--~-=-'-==-::'" ----'-.'I: «.,--"--.~. :;;::~-,--___ ,_ -........... __ ,.f ._---,-_____ • -~.A ----------------------------------RAINIER AVENUE N. Reference: Swvey & Site Plan (for Rainier Avenue Mixed Use), by Baylis Architects, dated 01 April 2003 -/fheRiley Group, Inc. ;10728 LAKE CITY WAY NE :SEATILE; WASHINGTON 98125 .. s,,· -$- -$- • Legend Test pit locations by Riley 7-11 April 2003 (TP-1 through TP-12) Boring locations by Riley 17-19 April " 2003 (B-1 through B-4) Monitoring well location by Riley 19 March 2001 (MW-1 and MW-2) +N Q &:1 120' . -----1 Graphical Scale: 1" = &:1 Rainier Avenue Mixed Use Project Site and Exploration Plan Figure 2 Site Address: 559 -625 Rainier Avenue N., Renton, I, . I j , I· ~ ~ I ;', I ~ f ·L II: I( II I{~j r ,.::'" I[~ If"} ! II I I Ih~~' I I t;~ I~':;::::l I II' I I· -:\. ! I "·., I .. :; ;:... ~ ... i i..., I r.:·j · ,":.:.J ~ !> . I::~··:: •1: .' ..•... I -,,' .~ ...". .... t U I in ill ~n 'J r 'I . C ~ I I '-1 J- Reference: BoundaIy & Topographic&ur.veY ~IRainier Avenue Mixed Use", by Triad Associates, cIated26 September 2002 .. < _, _ oJ· •• _:. _ "":-:"";"":.-. ~18 I!~ • iI I' " ~~. ~. .... 1f .. .. . ~ lOr -III ;s. "\ \ The Riley Group, Inc. 10728 LAKE CITY WAYNE SEATILE, WASHINGTON 98125 ,-'.:, ".\'," II a 'I t 8; tr +N Graphical Scale: 1" = 80' ! Rainier Avenue Mixed Use Project· Topographic Site Plan, .' ..... '. I·Figure 3 Site Address: 559 -625 Rainier Avenue ~.~RCtitOn; Washington .~. ~. • BUILDING SLAB .' .. r---+-~-""'-~~ 0-0 0 • o 00 0,. 0 4" PERFORATED PIPE 3/4" WASHED ROCK OR PEA GRA VEL NOT TO SCALE FILTER FABRIC The Riley Group, Inc. 10728 LAKE CITY WAY NE SEATILE, WASHINGTON 98125 Rainier Avenue Mixed Use Project Typical Footing Drain Detail Figure 4 Site Address: 559 -625 Rainier Avenue No, Renton, WashiJigton 12" MINIMUM WIDE FREE-DRAINING GRAVEL 12" MIN. FILTER FABRIC MATERIAL . . ':.~. " . '0' • SLOPE TO DRAIN • 0'. ., 0'· •••• .. ' ," ". :. :' '.' ... ..' ~. . EXCAVATED SLOPE (SEE REPORT FOR APPROPRIATE INCLINATIONS) COMPACTED STRUCTURAL BACKFILL (NATIVE OR IMPORT) 4· DIAMETER PVC PERFORATED PIPE NOT TO SCALE The Riley Group, Inc. 10728 LAKECITYWAYNE SEATILE, WASHINGTON 98125 Rainier Avenue Mixed Use Project Retaining Wall Drainage Detail Figure 5 Site Address: 559 -625 Rainier,Avenue N., Renton, Washmgton. EARTH PRESSURE DESIGN PARAMETERS FOR SOLDIER PILE CANTILEVER WALL -1-1/2H:IV BACKSLOPE pet , V"7'l:'1'7X7.'7X]ry~:77'}:;)"7'D":nh:""""'rTJ:7-r--...!.-::-rIf:i...jh.----+ -'¥_ --12" Passive Earth Pressure = 200 pcf taken over 2 pile diameters T II 111----4 15 pcf over 1 pile diameter II 111-----\/ below base of excavation Note: Value includes Safety Factor of 1.5. J--i1111 t------4 I Passive I Active I NOT TO SCALE Note -Active pressure taken over full center-to-center pile spacing above base of excavation Active pressure taken over 1 pile diameter below base of excavation Passive pressure taken over 2 pile diameters below base of excavation • The Riley Group, Inc. 10728 LAKE CITY WAY NE SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98125 Rainier Avenue Mixed Use Project Shoring Pressure Diagram Figure 6 Site Address: 559 -625 Rainier Avenue N., Renton, Washirigton .' WOOD LAGGING . 4 • " . ~ . CONCRETE FACING .A.: . . '. ~. . ill~ .• NATIVE SOIL ITi~ CONTINUOUS MIRADRAIN 6000 OR EQUIVALENT SLAB-ON-GRADE FLOOR EXCAVATION tI~ ill~ I · ~. . .. : ., .' . • .. '. A ~ . A • · . • '. "., • . '. .. . A .4 .. ..... DRAIN GRATE '. .. . . .................... . ........ ___ ~ _~_. :.s.4_ . ....:.;... ...... :....:..-. ....:.:..z..~.:...: ......:' :!..J; ~ . . • A" ............................................ . . ...::: :::::::: ::::: ::::: . • <if' ••••••••••••.•••••••••• NOTE: DRAIN THROUGH WALL SHOULD BE INSTALLED AT MIDDLE OF LAGGING. . The Riley Group, Inc. . Rainier Avenue Mixed Use Project· 10728 LAKE CITY WAY NE I--=-~-=-=::-::----------r---=---------J SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98125 Typical Wall Drainage Detail Figure 7 Site Address: 559 -625 Rainier Avenue N., Renton, Washington I~--------------------------------- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I o w z ~oo C)....J w O (/)00 0:: ~ o o w z. -00 ~....J C)O wOO Z L-0>-~::s -0 (/) MAJOR DIVISIONS LETTER SYMBOL TYPICAL DESCRIPTION GRAVELS CLEAN GW well-graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, little .... or no fines. ~ More than 50 % GRAVELS I-----lr-;:P·oo---.-rly--g--r--a-.de-d'g-r-av-e'ls-, -gr-a-ve'I--s-a-nd-;--m-;-ix"""'tu-re-s-,--..:...J co of coarse <5% fines GP little or no fines. .~ ~ fraction is GRAVELS GM Silty gravels, gravel-sand-silt mixtures, 2 .~ larger than No r--__ --l~n~o:.:....:.n--I:.p:.:..:lla:=s.::..:tic:....:fi~Jn:..=e:::.:s.~-;--~;--__:_~--'---_l co 0 . with fines GC Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay mixtures, ~ ~r-__ 4_s_i_ev_e_~ _____ r-__ --l~p~lla~st~ic:....:fi~Jn~e~s.~~ ___ ~ __ ~-=~ ___ ~ ~ ci SANDS CLEAN SW Well-graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no LO Z fines. ~ ~ More than 50% SANDS SP Poorly-graded sands or gravelly sands, little or :=:= of coarse <5% fines no fines. ~ fraction is SM Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures,non~plastic fines. ~ smaller than SANDS No.4 sieve with fines SC Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures, plastic fines. Q) Inorganic sTIrs, rocK1four, cTayey slitS Wltn slIgm co > ML ·C.~ SILTS AND CLAYS plasticity. ~ gOO CL Inorganic clays Of low to medium plastiCity, (lean '" Liquid limits I ) E N cay. less than 50 % ?F-ci ·0 L Organic silts and organic clays of low plastiCity. o ZI--------~------r_-----l~-----------------------_4 LO c: .~ £ SILTS AND CLAYS MH Inorganic silts, elastic. -.... ~ Q) Liquid limits greater CH ::E E than 50% 00 OH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, (fat clays). . Organic clays of high plasticity. HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT Peat. DEFINITION OF TERMS AND SYMBOLS Density Very loose Loose Medium dense Dense Very dense Consistency Very soft Soft Medium stiff Stiff Very stiff Hard SPT (Blows/Foot) 0-4 4-10 10-30 30-50 >50 SPT (Blows/Foot) 0-2 2-4 4-8 8-16 16-32 >32 I I 2" Outside diameter split spoon sampler 2.4" Inside diameter ring sampler or Shelby tube Water level (date) Tr Torvane reading, tsf Pp Penetrometer reading, tsf DD Dry density, pet LL Liquid limit, percent PI Plasticity index N Standard penetration, blows per foot I • The Riley Group, Inc. Rainier Avenue Mixed Use Project ~ l0728 LAKE CITY WAY NE U11lifiled Soil Classlijilcation SlJstem 1 Figure A-J ~ SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98125 ./ 1~ ______________________________ Si_te_A_dd_re_SS_:_55_9_-6_2_5_Ra_in_ie_rA_v_e_nu_eN_._,R_en_~_n_,W_~_h_m_g~_n __________ ~ Boring No. B-1 Logged by : GJ K Date: 4/17/03 Approximate Elev.: 97' Cons istency I J!2 (N) Moisture a. Soil Description Relative Depth E Blows Content Density (feet) co 1ft (%) en Brush, topsoil -I- -I- Silty sand, grey-brown, fine to Very Dense --I coarse, with some gravel, 55 moist, very dense, (8M), TILL -- -l-S I --82 12.3 Sand, grey, fine to coarse, --I trace gravel, moist, very Very Dense 50/6" dense, (SP) -- Sandy gravel, grey, fine 10 I gravel, fine to coarse sand, Very Dense -I-50/6" moist, very dense, (GP) Very Dense --I SOlS" -I- Silty sand I grey I fine to --15 coarse, with some gravel, -- moist, very dense, (SM) -I- -l-I 50/4" -- I • The Riley Group, Inc. Rainier Avenue Mixed Use Project . 10728 LAKE CITY WAY NE . Test Boring Log B-1 I FigureA-2 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98125 Site Address: 559 -625 Rainier Avenue N., Renton, Washington I I I Boring No. B-1 (Cont.) Logged by : GJ K Date: 4/17103 Approximate Elev.: 97' Cons istency I Q) (N) Moisture a. Soil Descri ption Relative Depth E Blows Content Density (feet) ctI 1ft (%) CI) -I- -l- Very Dense --I SOlS" 10.4 -- -'-25 -f- -- Silty sand, grey, fine to -l-I coarse, with some gravel, 50/3" moist to wet, very dense, (SM) -- --30 -- -- --I 50/5" -I- -I-35 -I- -I- -l-I 50/4" T (4/18/03) -I- The Riley Group, Inc. Rainier Avenue Mixed Use Project 10728 LAKE CITY WAYNE Test Boring Log B-1 I Figure A-3 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98125 Site Address: 559 -625 Rainier Avenue N., Renton, Washington Boring No. B-1 (Cont.) Logged by : GJK Date: 4/17103 Approximate Elev.: 97' Consistencyl ~ Relative Depth E (N) Blows 1ft Moisture Content (%) Soil Description Density (feet) c?J -I- Sandy silt, grey, with Very Dense -l-I red-brown mottling, fine sand, 50/5" 17.8 with some gravel, wet, very dense, (ML) Bottom of boring at 48 feet Depth of water at 38.2 feet on 18 Apr. 2003 Observation well installed to 48 feet screened from 48 to 43 feet sand from 48 to 38 feet bentonite seal at 38 feet II The Riley Group, Inc. 10728 LAKE CITY WAYNE I SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98125 -I- -I-45 -I- -J- I 50/5" -~ -l-SO -I- -- -- -I- -l-SS -~ -I- -I- -I- Rainier Avenue Mixed Use Project. Test Boring Log B-1 I FigureA-4 Site Address: 559 -625 Rainier Avenue N., Renton, Washington Boring No.· B-2 Logged by : GJ K i Date: 4/18/03 Approximate Elev.: 93' Consistencyl Q) (N) Moisture 0.. Soil Description Relative Depth E Blows Content Density (feet) co 1ft . (%) (j) Brush - - Sand, grey, fine to medium, -- with some silt, with some I gravel, moist, very dense, Very Dense -I-50/6" (SP/SM) -l- S I Very Dense _ -5016" 12.1 -- --I 50/6" -- Silty sand, grey-brown, fine to 10 coarse, with some gravel, --I moist, very dense, (SM) --50/4" -- --I 50/3" -I- -I-15 -I- -l- I 50/3" Bottom of boring at 18 feet No groundwater encountered -- • The Riley Group, Inc. 10728 LAKE CITY WAY NE I SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 9812l Rainier Avenue Mixed Use Project Test Boring Log B-2 I FigureA-5 Site Address: 559 -625 Rainier Avenue N., Renton, Washington IJr-----------~-~ II n Logged by : GJ K Date: 4/18/03 Boring No. B-3 Approximate Elev.: 48' 11 Consistencyl ~ (N) Moisture Soil Description Relative Depth E Blows Content 11 ~~~~ __________ ~ ___ D_en_s_it~y~_(f_e_et_)\~~~ __ /ft~+-~(O~~~)-+ _________ 1 Gravel fill II n Silty sand, dark brown, fine to coarse, with some gravel, pieces of charcoal, moist-wet, medium dense, (SM), FILL Medium Dense -- -I- -I- 111---___ ---4-_--+--1-5 II II Sandy silt, grey, fine sand, with wood fragments, wet, loose, (ML), FILL \} Loose -I- -- -- --10 II~O--bs-t-ru-c-tio-n--zo-n-e-s-t-art-i-n-g---1-1-ft~--------~­ Silty sand, grey, fine to coarse, II with some gravel, wet, (SM),FILL Sampled on obstruction 1 Blow II count not valid, possible auto debris or wood -- -- -f- -I-15 -f-II No recovery 1 Sampled on obstruction blow count not valid t-------+------+- Silty sand, grey-brown, fine to --II medium, with organics (roots, wood fragments, peat pockets), __ Medium Dense I I I I I 15 7 50/4" 50/4" T (4/18/03) 16 1!~w_e_t_,_m_e_d_iu_m_d_e_n_S_e_,(_S_M_) ____ -L ________ ~ ____ -L __ ~ ____ -L ______ L-__________ I I I • The Riley Group, Inc. ~ 10728 LAKE CITY WAY NE . ~ SEATTLE,WASHINGTON98125 I . Site Address: 559 -625 Rainier Avenue N., Renton, Washington 'I~~~~~~~~~~~==~~ Rainier Avenue Mixed Use Project FigureA-6 Test Boring Log B-3 I Boring No. B-3 (Cont.) Logged by : GJ K Date: 4/18/03 Approximate Elev.: 48' Consistencyl Q) (N) . Moisture a. Soil Description (Silty sand -continued) - 6 inch peat layer at 23 ft -with peat layers up to 3 inch thick - 6 inch peat layer at 28 ft -fine to coarse sand. with some gravel Silty sand. grey. fine to medium. with some gravel. moist. medium dense. (SM) • The Riley Group, Inc. 10728 LAKE CITY WAY NE I SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98125 Relative Depth E Blows Content Density (feet) co 1ft (%) CI) -f-30 -- -I- Medium -f-I 22 Dense -f- -f-25 -f- -f- -f-I 20 88.1 -f- -f-30 -I- -f- Dense -l-I 35 -f- 35 -I- -f- I Medium -f-23 Dense -f- Rainier Avenue Mixed Use Project Test Boring Log B-3 I FigureA-7 Site Address: 559 -625 Rainier Avenue N., Renton, Washington Boring No. B-3 (Cont.) Logged by : GJ K Date: 4/18/03 Soil Description Silty sand, grey-brown, fine, moist to wet, very dense, (SM) Bottom of boring at 49 feet Depth of water at 17 feet at time of drilling Consistencyl (1) Cl. Relative Depth E Density (feet) ~ - - Very Dense -l-I -I- -I-45 -I- -I- -l-I -l-SO -I- -I- -I- -I- -l-SS -I- -I- -I- -- Approximate Elev.: 48' (N) Moisture Blows Content 1ft (%) , 50/6" 93 • The Riley Group, Inc. 10728 LAKE CITY WAY NE I SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98125 Rainier Avenue Mixed Use Project Test Boring Log B-3 I FigureA-8 Site Address: 559 -625 Rainier Avenue N., Renton, Washington Boring No. B-4 Logged by : GJ K Date: 4/19/03 Approximate Elev.: 50' Consistencyl Q) (N) Moisture c.. Soi I Descri ption Asphalt Silty sand, grey, fine to medium, with some gravel, moist, dense, (SM), FILL Silty sand, mottled grey and brown, fine to medium, with some gravel, moist, medium dense, (SM), FILL Sandy silt, grey with brown mottling, fine sand, with some gravel, moist, medium dense, (ML) Sampled on gravel, blow count not valid • The Riley Group, Inc. 10728 LAKE CITY WAYNE . I SEA TILE, WASHINGTON 98125 Relative Depth E Blows Content Density (feet) ro 1ft (%) C/) -- -- .-r-I Dense 44 -I- -I-5 I --47 -- --I 46 -- --10 I Medium 15 Dense -- -- I --13 -I- 15 -I- -I- Medium -l-I Dense 50/3" ? -- Rainier Avenue Mixed Use Project Test Boring Log B-4 I FigureA-9 Site Address: 559 -625 Rainier Avenue N., Renton, Washington Boring No. B-4 (Cont.) Logged by : GJ K Date: 4/19/03 Approximate Elev.: 50' Consistencyl (1) c.. (N) Blows 1ft Moisture Content (%) Soil Description Silty sand, grey, fine to medium, with some gravel, occasional layer cleaner sand, occasional layer sandy silt, very moist, medium dense, (SM) Peat, dark brown, fibrous, with , non fibrous layers, with silty peat layers, moist, (Pt) -with some layers silt to sandy silt Sandy silt, grey, fine sand, . trace wood fragments, moist, medium dense, (ML) • The Riley Group, Inc. 10728 LAKE CITY WAY NE . I SEAlTLE, WASHINGTON 9812l Relative Depth E Density (feet) ~ -- Medium -- Dense --I 25 --25 -~ Stiff - -I 22 167.3 -- --30 --T (4/19/03) -- - -I 21 -- --35 -- Medium -- Dense -- 26 I Rainier Avenue Mixed Use Project Test Boring Log B-4 I Figure A-IO Site Address: 559 -625 Rainier Avenue N., Renton, Washington Boring No. B-4 (Cont.) Logged by : GJ K Date: 4/19/03 , Soil Description -wet, dense Silty sand, grey-brown, fine, moist, very dense, (SM) -fine to medium sand, wet Bottom of boring at 54 feet Depth of water at 31 feet at time of drilling Approximate Elev.: 50' Consistencyl ~ Relative Depth E (N) Moisture Blows Content Density (feet) c?J 1ft (%) -I- -I- I Dense -I-40 -I- 45 -I- -~ Very Dense -c-I 78 -- --50 -'- -- --I 70 -c-55 -- -'- -'- -r- • The Riley Group, Inc. 10728 LAKE CITY WAY NE I SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 9812l Rainier A venue Mixed Use Project Test Boring Log B-4 I Figure A-II Site Address: 559 -625 Rainier Avenue N., Renton, Washington I~------------------~----------~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Logged By: GJK Date: 4/7/03 Test Pit No. Depth (ft) Soil Description Sample TP-1 0.0 -0.3 Duff, topsoil depth (moisture) TP-2 TP-3 0.3 -2.5 Silty sand, light brown, fine to coarse, with some gravel, moist, medium dense, (SM) 1 ft (14%) 2.5 -6.0 Silty sand, grey, fine to medium, with some 5 ft gravel, moist, medium dense to very dense, (SM), TILL Bottom of test pit at 6 feet No seepage encountered No caving 0.0 -0.5 Duff, topsoil 0.5 -4.0 Silty sand, light brown, fine to coarse, with 2 ft (12%) some gravel, moist, medium dense, (SM) 4.0 -6.0 Silty sand, grey, fine to medium, trace 5 ft gravel, moist, medium dense to very dense, (SM), TILL Bottom of test pit at 6 feet No seepage encountered No caving 0.0 -0,2 Duff, topsoil 0.2 -4.0 Silty sand, brown, fine, moist, very dense, 3 ft (SM) Bottom of test pit at 4 feet No seepage encountered No caving The Riley Group, Inc. Rainier Avenue Mixed Use Project 10728 LAKE CIlY WAY NE SEATILE, WASHINGTON 98125 Test Pit Logs Figure A-12 Site Address: 559 -625 Rainier Avenue N., Renton, WA I~--------~--------------------~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Logged By: GJK Date: 4/7/03 Test Pit No. Depth (ft) Soil Description Sample TP-4 TP-5 TP-6 (4/9/03) 0.0 -2.0 Silty sand, dark brown, fine to medium, trace gravel, with roots and branch pieces, moist, loose, (SM) depth (moisture) 1 ft 2.0 -4.0 Silty sand, light brown, fine to medium, with 3 ft some gravel, trace roots, moist, medium dense, (SM) 4.0 -6.0 Silty sand, grey, fine to medium, with some 5 ft gravel, moist, very dense, (SM), TILL Bottom of test pit at 6 feet No seepage encountered No caving 0.0 -0.2 Duff 0.2 -5.0 Sand, light brown, fine to medium, with 3 ft some silt, moist, medium dense, (SP/SM) 5 -13 Sand, light grey-brown, fine to medium, 6 ft (11 %) with some silt, moist, medium dense, (SP/SM) Bottom of test pit at 13 feet No seepage encountered No caving 0.0 -4.0 Silty sand with gravel, mottled grey, fine 2 ft to coarse, occasional wood debris, moist, medium dense, (SM), FILL 4 -14 Silty sand with gravel, mottled grey, fine 14 ft to coarse, moist, medium dense to dense, (SM), FILL Bottom of test pit at 14 feet Moderate seepage at 4 feet caving below 4 feet ,." .. I ~----------------------------~----R-a-i-n-ie-r-A-v-e-n-u-e-Afl-,-x-ed--U.-s-e-P-r-oJ-·e-c-t----~ .~ The Riley Group, Inc. I 10728 LAKE CITY WAY NE Test Pit Logs Figure. A~13 SEATILE, WASHINGTON 98125 Site Address: 559 _ 625 Rainier Avenue N.,Repton, WA I I I I 'I I I I I I I I I I I I ,I I I '·1 Logged By: GJK Date: 4/11/03 Test Pit NO,. Depth (tt) Soil Description Sample TP-7 TP-8 0.0 -1.5 1.5 - 6 6-7 Sandy silt, dark brown, fine sand, with some gravel, with roots and organics, moist, loose, (ML) Sandy silt, light brown, fine sand, moist, hard I very dense, (ML) Sandy silt, grey, fihe sand, moist, hard I very dense, (ML) Bottom of test pit at 7 feet Minor seepage at 6 feet No caving 0.0 -0.2 Gravel depth (moisture) 1 ft 3 ft (25%) 7 ft (25%) 0.2 - 4 Silty sand, brown, fine to coarse, with some 2 ft gravel, with brick frag~ents, moist, medium dense, (SM), FILL 4 -12 Silty gravelly sand, brown and grey, fine to 12 ft , coarse, occasional roots, moist, dense, (SMlGM), fiLL, ·t~'·:~::··~~·.'~:~~;,,~~>, .. :-: .. \ Bottom of test pit at 12 feet No seepage encountered No caving The Riley Group, Inc. 10728 LAKE CITY WAY NE Rainier Avenue Mixed Use Project TesiPit Logs Figure A-14 SEA TILE, WASHINGTON 98125 Site Address: 559 -625 Rainier Avenue N.,Renton, WA ". " .. -', I~--------------------------------~ I I 'I I I I I I I I I I I I I Logged By: GJK Date: 4/11/03 Test Pit No. Depth (tt) Soil Description Sample TP-12 0.0 -0.2 Topsoil depth (moisture) 0.2 - 4 Silty sand, light brown, fine to medium, with 3 ft (11 %) some gravel, moist, dense, (SM) Bottom of test pit at 4 feet No seepage encountered No caving -,.' I~------------~------------~--~ . • ~ The Riley Group, Inc. Rainier Avenue Mixed Use Project I sloE7A2rr8 LLAKEE WCAISTYHINWGATYONNE98125 Test Pit Logs.:. ...... Figure A-16 , Site Address: 559-62~ Rainier. Avenue N., Renton, WA . :".-.'.,", ., ~ .. . " Logged by : TF Date: 3/19/01 Soil Description Asphalt Silty sand, grey, fine, with some gravel, dry, very dense, (SM) Silty clay, grey, moist, stiff, (CL) Silty sand, grey, fine, with some gravel, dry, dense, (SM) Sampled on a rock Silty clay, grey, moist, stiff, (CL) Boring No. MW-1 Approximate Elev.: 50' Consistencyl Q) Co (N) Moisture Blows Content Relative Depth E Density (feet) ~ 1ft . (%) Very Dense 1 58 5 Stiff 1 16 10 Very Dense 1 5011" 15 Stiff 1 14 .... (4/3/03) I • The Riley Group, Inc. g 10728 LAKE CITY WAYNE . ~ SEATILE, WASHINGTON 98125 IL::=:=:===============:===~~Si=te=A=d&=e=SS=:5=5=9=-6=2=5R=ru='n=ie=rA=v=en=u=eN=.=,R=e=nt=on=,W==~=hm~g=ro=n======~ Rainier Avenue Mixed Use Project Monitoring Well Log MW-J . Figure A-17 • The Riley Group, Inc. 10728 LAKE CITY WAY NE I SEATILE, WASHINGTON 98125 Rainier Avenue Mixed Use Project Monitoring Well Log MW-J T Figure A-I8 . Site Address: 559 -625 Rainier Avenue N., Renton, Washington Boring No. MW-2 Logged by : TF Date: 3/19/01 Approximate Elev.: 48' Consistencyl Q) (N) Moisture 0.. Soil Description Relative Depth E Blows Content Density (feet) ro 1ft (%) CI) Asphalt " - - '" -- Gravelly silty sand, grey, Medium --I 18 damp, medium dense, (GM) Dense --\ --5 -- -- -l-I 26 -- 10 .. I ~ -- Gravelly silty sand, -- grey,.brown, damp, very I dense, (GM) Very Dense --50/6" - - " 15 - - Silt, grey-brown, dry, hard, -- (ML) Hard --I 50/6" - - I~--------------------~----------~ The Riley Group, Inc. Rainier Avenue Mixed Use Project 10728 LAKE CITY WAY NE Monitoring Well Log MW-2 I Figure A-19 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98,125 Site Address: 559 -625 Rainier Avenue N., Renton, Washin'gton - Boring No. MW-2 (Cont.) Logged by : TF Date: 3/19/01 Soil Description Sand, grey, fine, wet, very dense, (SP) Bottom of boring at 30 feet Monitoring well installed to 30 feet Depth to water: 23 ft on 19 Mar. 2001 21.3 ft on 03 Apr. 2003 Approximate Elev.: 48' Consistencyl ~ Relative Depth E Density (feet) 8J -I- -I- (N) Moisture Blows Content 1ft (%) Very Dense -I- I 5015" --25 -- - - - - - - I 50/6" 30 -I- -I- -I- -I- -.--35 -I-"- -.-- -I- -I- ... (4/3/03) ... (3/19/01) •. The Riley Group, Inc. 10728 LAKE CITY WAY NE I SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 9812l Rainier Avenue Mixed Use Project Monitoring Well Log MW-2 I FigureA-20 Site Address: 559 -625 Rainier Avenue N., Renton, Washington. I •• ., I I \ I I 'I' I I .:1 I' I I ,I I I I .1. I .1 I J '-r-.001 0 en .002 en ~ .003 « ::IE .004 Z ::IE « ~ .006 0::: LaJ .008 N w u; .01 tJ z ~ ~ 0 (.!) 0::: .02 0 ~ .03 I .04 .06 t--.... 200 0 ~ ~ 100 Ii) vi 60 ::::i 50 =r! 40 (.) ~ ffi 30 D-20 ::I: fn 16 ::IE u.. en 0 10 en !tj 8 ~ ~ ~ z «to-4 W 1/4 ~ -3/8 enfn 1/2 ::I: 5/.8 (.) 3,/4 ~ 1 ~ (.!) 1 1/.4 z 1 q2 z LaJ 2 D-0 u.. J 0 LaJ 4 N u; 6 12 0 0 ..... • PERCENT COARSER BY WEIGHT -l 0 a.. 0 0 0 ~ 0 ..... c-... I") 0 0 0 0 10 co ,.... DO en 0 ...... 001 .-- -l --I .002 .003 ,...... cull-e .004 .... -::l-+J co N iiiE:: ,.,.; N .006 .-cu O-+J ..-..... .008 en ;:eE:: U..J 0 .01 :z: u lL. .02 .03 .04 , .06 1/1'11 .08 I-r- .1 en ~~ 0::: W j.-~ ~ ... I-' tJ IJJ z .2~ G: E:: 0 ~ .3 :::l i.;y c.. 'i:: .4 ~ 0 II ),1 I-m "'ii) cu cu ~ 0 > > .6 2 c C II .... .... C1 C1 1/ 1/ .8 W .:::IE :::::J cu cu 1N fii 0 E E ~ en :::IE 0 -+J m ..r:. ..r:. ~ 22 ~ ..... 1/ I-~ ·i U ,t' ~' '". . « . IJJ 1/ 0:::' ~ , 0 0 .. 3(!) :z: :z: .. <: <: 4 u en Vl 1-1-~ ~ II 6 en en B IJJ 10 z G: en 1/ u ;:e ::E ~I en en Vl 20 :::I ~ 30 :5....-;--IJJ ~ c..-+J ..- 40 cu-N o- u 60 .... o~ 80 I-..... a.. ..-N C1 I I 100 E:: -+J ~ 'i:: ~ a.. a... l-I-- --I ~I- CD CD 200 0 u 0 >. en 0 0 0 0 0300 '---cu 0 • DO ,.... co 10 ~ 0 0 0 ~ I") c-... or- PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT The Riley Group, Inc. Rainier Avenue Mixed Use Project 10728 LAKE CITY WAYNE Grain Size Analysis I figureA-21 SEATILE, WASHINGTON 98125 Site Addfess:559'; 625 Rainier Avenue N., Renton;Washington I, I ,I 'Ii I I' I I I I I I! ,I t, I, ,I, I I ,I .001 0 en .002 en .003 ~ .004 <! ::::E Z ::::E <! ~ . 006 a::::: La.J .OOB N W u; .01 W :z ~ ~ ·0 (.!) a::::: .02 0 .03 >-I .04 .06 -f-200 0 ~ 100 ~ en 60 ::;; 50 Z 40 CJ ~ ffi 30 Q,. 20 ::I: 16 ff3 ::::E ..... en 0 .' .10 en ffi I'~S::;:;".' 8 ~ CD ::::E <! ::l Z :z <C 4 f- 1/4 w Gj ".3/8 en ff3 1/2 ::I: 5/,8 CJ 3,/4 ~. 1 ~ 11/,4 (.!) :z 1 1'/2 ffi 2 Q,. 0 ..... 3 0 w 4 ~ 6 12 0 0 ~ .:-.: .c :."~,' • • ·,1 . " ··1~ 1;\'2.~ :$:\:;' '. PERCENT COARSER BY WEIGHT -I 0 CL. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -N I") ~ 10 to ,... DO en -.001 r- -I -I .002 .003 ,..... ~ . 004 E ........ ::1-~ I"") ]!~ 0 N .006 0-..... ..... en :::::E c .008 UJ 0 :z: u .01 lL. .02 .03 .04 -.... . 06 .08 --I , I ~II .1 en II II a::::: w Q) W w ~ z c > .2 ~ G: 0 E !oJ 01 .3 :::l a.. ·c cp II~ u u II .4 :::!: rn E Q) ~ cp 2~ C -> I I .6Z "0 E II c: 01 C II .8 W :::I cp B -E II IN 'in 0 en 2 rn II cp. E ..c: U Z 0 :0: 2 <! I-',rn . ,:I: w . '-';i:: C 3~ ~. -" ~ I) 'j 4' u 0 1-1-~. .~ II 6 en en II ~ 8 w 10 z II G: en u :::::E :::::E I en en en :::l 20 I- ..... :5.....-:-30 w ~ 0.._ to 10 40 CP ..... c ........ u 60 ... 0:0: 80 1--CL. 10 .-01 I I c -CL. 100 en .-rn CD ~. cp I-UJ -.J CDI- CD CD 200 0 u ~ 300 ----~ 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ol DO ,... to 10 ~ I") N ~ PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT Rainier Avenue Mixed Use Project The Riley Group, Inc. I 1 0728 LAKE CITY WAYNE Grain Size Analysis ~igureA-22 SEATILE, WASHINGTON 98125 Site Address: 559 -625 Rainier Avenue N., Renton, Washington I' I I I I I I I ,I I I I I I I I .001 0 (/) .002 (/) .003 ~ .004 « :::I: Z :::I: « ~ . 006 0:::: I.IJ .008 W N ~ en .01 z ::!: ~ 0 (.l) 0:::: .02 0 .03 >-I .04 .06 200 0 ~ ~ 100 ~ vi 60 ::::) 50 :C 40 (.) ~ ~ 30 20 :E: 16 en ~ (/) ~ 10 (J1 ; 8 ~ :::I: « ::::I Z z « 4 I-1/4 w Gj 3/8 -(/) f3 1/2 :E: 5/.8 (.) 314 ~ 1 ~ 1 1/.4 (.l) 1 112 z ffi 2 a.. 0 u... 3 0 I.IJ 4 N en 6 12 0 0 .- • PERCENT COARSER BY WEIGHT --I 0 a.. 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 .-N I") It) co ,.... IX! Q) .-.001 ~ ::I .002 . 003 .......... ~ . 004 ~ ........ ::l ...... ~ co ~~ 0 ,...: .006 0 ...... .-..... V> ::::::!:c: .008 w 0 u .01 z i:i: .02 : .03 .04 -- .06 .08 f-r-..... 1-' /11 ~ II .1 (/) I .... 11 0:::: W V ~ w :z c: 1/ I-' .2 ~ G: 0 I-' !P .3 :::l c.. 'c u II .4~ en "'iii "'iii r-Q.) > I :E~ 0 > E! E! II ,6 z Ol Ol 1/ .8 w Q.) Q.) ::::I U @ E 1/ 1N 0 E! :::I: . en ...... II (J1 .c: .c: ..... z. ...... 'i ~ 2 I-:' 'i II «", ~ ,Iv: , .. ' 0 ~ ~ . 0::::. c:- 3 ",: z: Vl U'i U 4 u >. 1.1 ..,:. ..,:. ~ "'C c: 6 en 0 Vl 8 w 10 :z 1/ 'G: en u ::E --I II -~ en V> ::E ::J 20 II I'-" .c: .......... 30 w 0.....; 10 10 ~ Q.)-N N 40 o-N ~ u 60 ... o:t: 80 f-.... a.. .-.-Ol I I c: ...... 100 V> ,-en CD CD W :s~ --I CD CD CD 200 0 u ijj' 300 0 • '---~ 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 Q) IX! ,.... co It) I") N .- PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT The Riley Group, Inc. Rainier Avenue Mixed Use Project I 10728 LAKE CITY WAY NE Grain Size Analysis figure A-23 SEATI'LE, WASHINGTON 98125 Site Address: 559 -625 Rainier Avenue N., Renton, Washington I I I I I I f.-,.... .001 0 en .002 en ~ .003 <: 2 .004 Z 2 « ~ . 006 c:::: ..... .008 N W Vi .01 W Z :::?! ~ 0 (!) c:::: .02 0 >-.03 I .04 .06 200 0 ~ ~ 100 ui 60 :J 50 :r: 40 (.) ~ f5 30 a.. 20 ::t: ~ 16 ·2 en~ 10 (f)f5 8 ~rD «~ ZZ «to-4 W 1/4 Gj -3/8 enffJ 1/2 ::t: 5/,8 u 3'/4 ~ 1 ~ (!) 11/,4 Z 1 1'/2 ffi a.. 2 0 . IL. 3 0 ..... 4 N Vi 6 12 0 .0 .- • PERCENT COARSER BY WEIGHT ....J 0 0- 0 0 0 0 0 ..-N I") V 10 0 0 0 0 0 10 ,.... DO en .-.001 r--- ....J . ....J .002 .003 ......... ~ .004 Ie- ::J ..... .,...... 1ilc:: N .006 .-Ii' .,...... 0 ..... .008 en ::EC:: w 0 .01 z: u. Ci: .02 : .03 .04 .06 ",/ .08 -.- '/ .1 en c:::: w ~ W UJ z .2 ~ G: c:: 0 :.:; .3 ::J 0. / ·c .4 ~ (J I-m Iii Ii' :E~ 0 > .6 z 0 ~ 01 II ,8 w ~ Ii' 1N 8 E :E 0 en m / ..c 2 z -~ ~. :s: I UJ 3 CIl 0 C) ~ z: c1i 4 Q --~ 7 6 en B UJ I 10 z G: en u ::E / -I en en ::> i-" 20 ..c 30 UJ .............. ~ 0.' 40 Ii''::: LO 0 ....... 60 ~ o~ 80 --0-N C'I 100 c:: ..... I ~ .c m OJ o~ ....J OJ OJ OJ 200 0 u >.. 0 0 0 0 0 300 --Ii' 0 en DO ,.... 0 0 0 0 ~ 10 10 v I") 0 N ..- PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT The Riley Group, Inc. Rainier Avenue Mixed Use Project 10728 LAKE CITY WAY NE Grain Size Analysis I SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98125 FigureA-24 Site Address: 559 -625 Rainier Avenue N., Renton, Washington I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The Riley Group, Inc. Geotechnical Engineering· EnvironITlental • Wetland Services . October 29,2002 JDA Group, LLC 95 South Tobin Street Renton, Washington 98055 Attn: Subject: Mr. Jack Alhadeff Slope Evaluation Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project 559 to 625 Rainier Ave. North Renton, Washington Riley Project No. 2002-062 Dear Mr. Alhadeff: This letter summarizes the results of the slope evaluation completed by The Riley Group, Inc. (Riley) at the Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project site located at 559 to 625 Rainier Ave. North in Renton, Washington. The purpose of our investigation was to evaluate the nature and origin of the steep slopes located on the property and evaluate whether the slopes on site qualified for a possible exception to the Renton Municipal Code prohibition of grading on, and setbacks from, protected slopes. Although some of the slopes are steep enough to be considered "protected slopes", some of them may have been modified from their original, natural, configuration. Our scope of work was to research and document the nature and origin of the existing slopes. Riley completed our services in general accordance with our Standard Agreement for Consulting Services, dated April 30, 2002, and per subsequent correspondence with Mr. Alhadeff and other design team members. PROJECT BACKGROUND AND UNDERSTANDING The Renton Municipal Code (RMC) Section 4-3-050-J-5 prohibits development on protected slopes. Protected slopes are defined as slopes with an average slope equal to or greater than 40 percent and a vertical height of at least 15 feet (RMC 4-11-190). However, an exception to this prohibition may be granted ("Exceptions thro~gh Modification", Section 4-3-050-J-5-b-ii) for: "Grading to the extent that it eliminates all or portions of a mound or to allow reconfiguration of protected slopes created through mineral and natural resource recovery activities or public or private road installation or widening and related transportation improvements, railroad track installation or improvement, or public or private utility installation activities, pursuant to subsection N2 of this Section, Modifications." There are slopes steeper than 40 percent on the site. This can be seen on the attached Boundary & Topographic Survey, Figure A. Offices located in Washington. Oregon and California 10728 Lake City Way N.E.· Seattle. WA 98125· Tel (206) 417-0551 • Fax (206) 417-0552 http:~~~.Riley-Group.coITI I· I· I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I JDA Group, LLC Slope Evaluation -Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, WA SITEIDSTORY October 29,2002 Riley Project No. 2002-062 Page 2/5 A Riley representative researched the easement and permit information available at King County, archived files at the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), and historical aerial photos available at Aerolist Photographers, Inc. in Renton and at Walker and Associates in Tukwila (3-D stereoscopic review). We also interviewed Mr. Randy Rockhill, a former school teacher and Renton City Council member, who has lived in Renton for approximately 69 years. During his 34 years of teaching, he regularly drove past the site on his way to and from work, and he still frequently drives by the site. In addition, we reviewed a Boundary & Topographic Survey for the site recently completed by Triad Associates. In the following discussion, references to supporting information attached to this letter are made based on bracketed Figure designation (alpha: A, B, C, ... ) and area or element designation on a given figure (numeric: 1, 2, 3, ... ). For example, [C-4] refers to area/element 4 indicated on Figure C. The designated figures are listed below. More detailed information on these figures is included in the Attachments list at the end of this letter. A. Boundary & Topographic Survey by Triad B. Air Photo -Walker -1936 C. Air Photo -Walker -1946 D. Air Photo -Walker -1956 E. Air Photo -Aerolist -1959 F. WSDOT Drawing, contract sheet number 11 of24 G. Title Report Plat Map H. Permit to Extend Slopes -1940 1. WSDOT contract reference card 1. Quit Claim Deed -1956 K. Interview log According to Mr. Rockhill [K] and historical aerial photo review (1936 & 1946 aerials), the east- facing slopes on the site previously extended to the current Rainier A venue. The remaining la~ge north-facing or south-facing slopes on the site were associated with two ravines, one on the north end of the site' and one on the southern border, that drained into the valley to the east. The ravines appeared to be natural drainage pathways from the terrain above (stereoscopic review). According to our conversation with Mr. Jim Johnson of the WSDOT Engineering Records Department, the two east-facing slopes along the subject property were altered via excavation and embankment as part of a WSDOT roads project, between approximately 1940 and 1942, for the purpose of highway widening from 2 lanes to 4 lanes. The attached WSDOT drawing ("SRI67, Seattle to Renton", for contract sheet 11 of 24 sheets, latest revision 8-23-44) [F) shows the portion of the subject property that runs along Rainier Avenue North. The drawing references WSDOT contract No. 2643. The attached copy of the reference card for contract No. 2643 [1] indicates the dates of the work (September 1940 through December 1941) and nature of the improvement (Grading and Paving). Also attached is a copy of the permit to extend slopes at the property (King County reference No. 3103931, WSDOT reference No. 323) [H]. The original drawing available at WSDOT has hand notes that reference the permit #323 directly on the subject property. Excavation for borrow material was THE RILEY GROUP, INC. 2002.062 [IDA Group· Renton Mixed Use· ietter 290CT2002] final I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I JDA Group, LLC Slope Evaluation -Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, WA October 29,2002 Riley Project No. 2002-062 Page 3/5 indicated at 2 locations [F-l, F-3] and fill was indicated at 2 locations [F-2, F-4]. Approximate areas of excavation are apparent on the 1946 aerial photos [C-2, C-l]. In this letter, the area of [C-l] is referred to as the northern east-facing slope, and the area of [C-2] is referred to as the southern east- facing slope. The title report for the property indicates that WSDOT owned the property up until 1956, and up until that time, the site was vacant and undeveloped. The site was then sold and developed by Mr. Robert Edwards (Quit Claim Deed dated September 13, 1956) [J]. Our review of the 1956 and 1959 aerial photos confirms this timetable. Mr. Edwards excavated the southern east-facing site slope further so that buildings could be constructed (Randy Rockhill interview and 1956 aerial). Aerial photograph review and current site conditions suggest that at least some of the soil may have been used to fill low spots on the north end of the property in order to level the site. Some of the soil excavated from the slopes may have been transported off-site to be used as fill material. Aerial photographs show what appears to be a road cut into the southern east-facing slope for access to the street above (1956 and 1959 aerials) [D-1], [E-l]. The current topography suggests the remnants of this road. The road appears to have started at the toe of the south end of the east-facing slope, traversed and climbed the slope as it headed north, and then turned west at the top of the north end of the east-facing slope to lead to the east end ofNW 6th Street. This would have involved grading along the east-facing slope, and at the top of the east-facing and north-facing slopes. The road appears to have been modified by subsequent utility installation (discussed below). The road is currently -abandoned. In addition to the cutting of the slopes for building construction and recovery of borrow material for grading by Edwards, and construction of the road, a utility trench was cut into the southern east-facing slope and the top of the slope in the 1980's (Title report). This resulted in limited-height (typically about 10 feet tall), steep, north-facing and south-facing slopes The south-facing and the remaining north-facing slopes, directly adjacent to the southern east-facing slope, also may have been altered. However, based on aerial photographs from 1956 to 2002, the shape of the level area at the toe of the slope and along Rainier A venue remained about the same, indicating that significant additional grading did not occur. No other anecdotal or recorded evidence was found indicating additional work on these areas. EVALUATION AND CONCLUSIONS Based on the results of our research, it is our conclusion that the northern and southern east-facing steep slopes, and the top of the north-facing slope associated with the southern east-facing slope, were man-made by WSDOT and/or the subsequent site owner, and that they were the result of natural resource recovery activities, utility installation, and/or public and private road improvements. This includes the limited-height (typically about 10 feet tall) steep north-facing and south-facing slopes associated with the utility installation that traversed the top of the steep southern east-facing slope (east of N.W. 6th Street). Accordingly, it is our opinion that these slopes qualify for Exceptions through Modification, as described in RMC Section 4-3-050-J-5-b-ii. The north-facing and south-facing site slopes, directly adjacent to the southern east-facing slope, also may have been altered beyond that discussed above. THE RILEY GROUP, INC. 2002-062 [IDA Group -Renton Mixed Use -letter 290CT2002 J final I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I JDA Group, LLC Slope Evaluation -Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project -Renton, WA LIMITATIONS , October 29, 2002 Riley Project No. 2002-062 Page 4/5 Within the limitations of scope, schedule, and budget for our services, we have attempted to complete our work in accordance with gerlerally accepted professional principles and practices in the field of geotechnical engineering followed in this area at the time this report was prepared. No warranty, express or implied, is made. We trust this letter satisfies your current needs, If you have any questions or comments, or you need additional information or services, please call. ~ ~L~-­~~r~~ Environmental Assessor William M. Klick, P.E. Senior Engineer Attachments: see following page cc: Rich Wagner, Baylis Architects THE RILEY GROUP, INC. 2002·062 [IDA Group· Renton Mixed Usc • letter 290CTIOO2) fl1lal I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I JDA Group, LLC October 29, 2002 Riley Project No. 2002-062 Page 5/5 Slope Evaluation -Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton. WA Attachments: Figure A Aerial Photos Figure B Figure C Figure D Figure E Figure F Figure G Figure H Figure I Figure J Figure K Boundary & Topographic Survey, "Rainier Avenue Mixed Use", by Triad Associates, dated 9-26-02 1936 -Walker and Associates 1946 -Walker and Associates 1956 -Walker and Associates 1959 -Aerolist Photographers, Inc WSDOT drawing, "SRI67, Seattle to Renton", for contract sheet 11 of 24 sheets, latest revision 8-23-44 Plat Map included in Title Report by Stewart Title, effective date February 26, 2001 King County "Permit to Extend Slopes", granted by Ray N. Latimer to WSDOT, dated May 1, 1940, King County"reference No. 3103931, WSDOT reference No. 323 WSDOT reference card for Contract No. 2643 Quit Claim Deed, granted by WSDOT to Robert L. Edwards et ai, dated September 13, 1956, file no. 4733794 Interview log, with Randy Rockhill, September 24, 2002 THE RILEY GROUP, INC. 2002-062 [IDA Group -Renton Mixed Use -letter 290CT2002) fmal I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I APPENDIXE Wetland and Stream Determination by the Riley Group, Inc., February 24,2004 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The Riley Group, Inc. 10728 Lake City Way NE Seattle. Washington 98125 phone: 206.417.0551 fax: 206.417.0552 TO: Matt Weber, P.E. AHBL 2215 North 30th Street. Suite 300 Tacoma, WA 98403 WE ARE SENDING YOU: ~ Attached ~ Report o Plans o Drawings 4/30/04 Pr~iect # 2002-061 c RE: Alhadeff Property Japanese Knotweed Control Letter Under separate cover the following item(s): o o Specifications o Copy of Letter o __________________________________ __ COPIES DATE No. DESCRIPTION 1 10/7/03 Alhadeff Property Japanese Knotweed Control Letter 1 8/26/02 Memorandum-Renton Mixed Use Project 1 2/24/04 Wetland and Stream Determination THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: ~ For Approval o For Your Use REMARKS: . Copies To: o Approved as Submitted o Approved as Noted ~ As Requested o For Review and Comment REC~IVED MAY 03 2004 A H B L, INC. Signed ~ I ,I I I I ,I 'I I I I I I I I I I I I I ) • 11 The Riley Group Inc. Technical Memorandum February 24, 2004 Mr. Jack Alhadeff JDA Group, LLC 95 South Tobin Street Renton, WA 98055 RE: Wetland and Stream Determination 625 Renton Avenue' N Property , Renton, Washington , Riley Project #: 2002~061c Dear Mr. Alhadeff: ,Per your request, The Riley Group, Inc. (Riley) has completed its determimition of the above referenced Site's northern wetland/stream system. Our detern:lination is based on our August 2002 and recent sitevisit (February 12,2004) and our interpretation of City of Renton wetland classification codes: The boundary of this wetland was flagged by our senior wetlands associate (Ms. Celeste Botha) in August of 2002. The wetland boundary is shown on the attached Figure (copy of survey prepared by Triad & Associates). Our' determination ,of the southern wetland/stream "system is documented under separate cover. , , The northern-most wetland is located in a ravine, west aIld behind the developed portion along Rainier Avenue. The wetland is dominated by black. cottonwood (Populus balsamifera) and Pacific willow (Salix lasiandra) in the overstory and red osier dogwood (Corn us stolonifera) in the shrub layer.' Red alder (Alnus rubra) is also present in the overstory. The ground layer vegetation is in general sparse, including native species such as small ... fruited bulrush (Scirpus microcarpus), piggy-back plant (Tolmiea menziesii) and stinging nettle (Urtica dioica). 'The ground layer vegetation is dominated in patches by various invasive exotic species, including reedcanarygrass (Phalaris arundinaceae); , creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens) and English ivy (Hedera helix). The wetland's eastern boundary terminates at the base of a filled embankment. The filled embankment was created, likely many years ago, to create more graveled parking area for the auto car lot. The wetland eastern boundary and vegetated portion of the buffer is dominated by Himalayan blackberry (Rubus procerus) and black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera). SERVING niE PACIFIC NORTHWEST Seattle Office: 10728 Lake City Way NE, Seattle, W A 98125 Tel (206) 417-0551 • Fax (206) 417-0552 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I JDA Group, LLC North Wetland/Stream Technical Memorandum 2 February 24, 2q04 Rilev Project# 2002-061 c The wetland buffers on both the north and south sides of the. wetland are dominated by Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menzieii) and big-leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum) and a diverse native understory. Water was observed flowing iIi the small stream during both oUr site visits in August 2002 and February 2004, and therefore is likely perennial. The stream is routed through a· culvert beneath the commercial property and Rainier Avenue and presumably beneath . Boeing Field. . . . .. . . . .. " .. Based on our findings, Riley concludes that the northern-most wetland isa Category 2 wetland for the following reasons: • The wetland lies within the headwaters of a watercourse, e.g., the small stream that flows west toe!lst through the ravine. • It meets Category 2 (e) in that much of the existing wetland shows little evidence of human related physical alteration such as diking, ditching or channelization. • The majority of the wetland carniot accurately be described as "severely disturbed"or "newly emerging", and fuus on balance meets the city's criteria as a Category 2 wetland. Based on our findings andinterpretation··ofthe Renton Municipal code; the wetland is subjectto the buffer and mitigation standards applicable to the Category 2 wetiand rating .. The standard buffer width for Category 2 wetlands is 50 feet. This buffer. width is essentially non-existent at the eastern end of the wetland since the area lying within 50- feet of the wetland edge is comprised. of fill, debris piles, blackberries, and black cottonwood growing on the fill material, as noted above. The effective buffer areas to the north and south, however are greater than 50-feet wide and primarily comprised of mature native forest and thus provide good buffer ti.m,ctions and values that compe!lsate for the reduced buffer width at the eastern end. Thank you for the opportunity to provide you with this information. Please do 110t hesitate to call with questions or comments. Sincerely, ~f~ -fr.r Celeste Botha Senior Wetland Associate Attachment Copy of Survey for Northern Wetland cc: Mr. Richard Wagner @ Bayliss Architects THE RILEY GROUP, INC. I· I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I THE RILEY GROUP, INC. Geotechnical "Environmental ' Wetland Services 1 0728 Lake City Way Northeast , Seattle, Washington 98125 Phone: (206) 417-0551 Fax: (206)417-0552 Memorandum Date: August 26, 2002 To: Jack Alhadeff ,From: Celeste Botha Re: Renton Mixed Use Project Total Two Pages ' cc: Paul D. Riley' Urgent 0' For Review 0 Please Comment 0' Please Reply '0 Please Recycle' Jack:' Per your request, The Riley Group, Inc. (Riley) has completed our initial literature review, site ' inspection and spent one full day delineating the wetland boundaries located closest to,Your proposed development. Due to the size ,of the Property and budget, Riley focused on delineating those areas closest to the proposed development and did not delineate the entire wetland boundary. This memo summarizes our site observations and findings for your and your design teams consideration. Based on our review of the city of Renton Sensitive Areas Inventory Maps, no wetlands or streams have been listed on the subject site. In addition~ the city of Renton Public Works map, lists a "ditch" west of the subject site, which ultimately flows into and across the site's southern ravine. However, based on our findings, the subject site contains two Category 2 wetlands., One on the northern portion and one on the southern portion of the site. Both these wetlands are ' associated with watercourses that appear to be perennially flowing "streams" since they were flowing in late August and this stll111:TIer has been a relatively low rainfall season. The word "stream" is used here as a precaution. It is our opinion that it is not in your best interest at this stage of planning to default these "watercourses" as "ditches". It is possible that they Will prove to be ditchesandlor are seasonal, but the City should venfy it in advance. Fill has been placed and graded out at the bottom of the southern and northern ravines. The date and origin of the fill material is not known. The fill on the northern portion of the site includes tires, scrap and construction debris and may have covered wetland. It is not known whether or not the city would require that the fill be removed or not. Because the southern wetland and stream system appears to be of most concern, the information discussed below primarily pertains to it. ,1. The stream within the southern ravine does not appear to have been excavated. , THE RILEVGROUP, INC. I·, ' \ ;, I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I April 30, 2004 2. The soils in the middle portion of the wetland associated with the southern stream system are organic, and the force of the flows appears to have carved a channel through this material that would resemble a ditch. . . . 3. Fill material has been placed around and over the 24-inch culvert discharging the stream off site and eventually into Lake Washington. 4. An invasive non-native plant, giant knotweed (Polygonum sachalinense) fomis a monoculture on this fill, which extenclswest approximately 30 feet. This fill material has effectively eliminated wetlands associated with the stream at this end. According to . the landowner of the property to the east of the Renton mixed use subject site, the city . attempts annually to eliminate this noxious weed,thoroughly urisuccessfully. The city of Renton allows permanent wetland impacts in specific cases with mitigation. Depending. upon the exact location of property boundaries, buildings, or other site improvements, restoration opportunities may be present. Assuming that the fills at the bottom. of the ravines could be removed, this could present a desirable area for mitigation (if requiied); . Several options do exist for mitigation if wetland impacts occur due to proposed development We recommend a meeting with owner and design team tofurther discuss our findings and a copy of the survey to verify that the wetland boundary has been accurately surveyed. If you have any questions regarding our findings please contact uS at (206) 417-0551. • Page2 I I I I I I " I I I I I I I I I The Riley Group, Inc. Geotechnical Engineering • En~ironmental • Wetland Services October 7,2003 Jennifer Toth Henning, AICP.· Principal Planner City of Renton Development Services Division 1055 South Grady Way . Renton, WA 98055 . RE: Alhadeff Property Japanese Knotweed Control Letter Proposed Mixed Use Project 559 (0 625 Renton Avenue South Riley Project #2002~061C Dear Ms. Henning: As you know, The Riley Group, Inc. (Riley) on behalf of the owner,has re~earched available information regarding the control of Japanese knotweed, (Polygonum cuspidatum), a Class B noxious weed in Washington State. An area on the subject site is infested with this noxious weed, which measures approximately 6,400 square feet in size (80.;feet x 80-feet). . . The knotweed infestation on the subject site occurs within a riparian corridor arid a Category 3 wetland. A heron nest has been identified adjacent to the wetland on the lot to the west of the Alhadeffproperty; however, according to the City of Renton, a single nest does not meet the city's criteria for a rookery. The wetland classification is based, upon' this information, as well as the wetland size (greater than 5,000 square feet); severe disturbance, including the dominance of invasive species within the wetland, specifically Japanese knotweed and Himalayan blackberry (Rubus procerus); the presence of fill material within the wetland at the east end as well as woody debris dumping; severe under-cutting of the stream, and; outlet modification (the stream enters a constricted culvert). . Attached is information on control methods recommended through the Washington State Department of Ecology's Water Quality website address, which links the user to an article prepared by weed control scientists for Clark County, Washington 3rd p. It should be noted that no other research is currently available. The attachedaiticle focuses upon chemical l11~eans of control, as biological control has not proven effective. The two chemical methods of control include foliar and cut stem applications. The latter method is the only one recommended by the article or one study for riparian areas, however Aquamaster, is the recommended chemical for application in riparian sites, is approved for foliar applications by the manufacturer. Offices located in Washington and Oregon 10728 Lake City Way N.E. • Seattle. WA 98 i25 • Tel (206)417-0551 • Fax (206) 417-0552 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I :1 I I' I AlhadeJf Property 2 Japanese KnotWeed Control Letter October 7, 2003 Riley Project 2002-061 Mr. Alhadeff will be SUbmitting an application for development of this property soon, which would preferably involve fill of the majority of the area currently infested with Japanese knotweed. This indeed is the outcome most likely to succeed in ultimately· controlling this pest. Nevertheless, the problem should be addressed immediately, before the plant enters winter dOffi1ancy or encroaches any further. -The following proposed restoration approach is designed to control further spread of the plant during the permit review process. First, knotweed throughout. the entire area would be cut and the debris removed to an approved disposal site or burned offsitewith a· fire permit from the appropriate fire district. Note that improper disposal of the cut stems is a primary means of dIssemination. The next stage in control will involve foliar application, using methods described in the attached . bulletin~ Next, the infested area Will be covered with weighted and· anchored black plastic to retard further growth. If the proposal to fill the area of infestation is not· approved within one year, the black plastic will be removed early to mid-summer 2004, the surviving· knotweed within the area allowed to regenerate, and within no more than· one month of the removal of the black plastic the area will be mowed and Aquamaster applied foliarly or to all cut stems in the infested areas at the discretion of Mr. Alhadeff. . . Thank you for the opportunity ·toprovide the City with this proposed approach. The·· owner will look forward to initiating control measures as soon as you have reviewed and approved this noxious weed control plan. Sincerely, . Celeste Botha Senior Wetland Associate President Enclosure. cc: Jack Alhadeff@ JDA Group, LLC (managing partner) Rick Wagner @Bayliss Architects (project architect)· Paul Baker @ City of Renton (code compliance inspector) THE RILEY GROUP, INC. I '. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I :1, I I I JAPANESE KNOTWEED . (Polygonum cuspidatum Sieb. & zucc.) DISTRIBUTION: Japanese knotweed has been found in almost every county within the State of Washington. Japanese knotweed is designated as a Class 'B' Noxious weed in the State of Washington. It ranges from Alaska to California east through most of the upper Midwest, and has heavily infested the northeast region ofthe United States and areas of the south and southeast. Japanese knotweed is found in natural areas, parks, gravel bars, and along riverbeds and stream banks,rights-of- way, and roadsides. It is also found BACKGROUND in riparian areas and upland sites.· Japanese knotweed thrives in moist soils, or where roots are able to grow into moist soils .. Plants often become established after being discarded from cultivated gardens, or as escapes from abandoned home sites. The spread of Japanese knotweed also occurs from mechanical mowing and the unintentional transport of cut rhizome segments into· neighboring landscapes. .. . BIOLOGY: Japanese knotweed, a member of the buckwheat family (Po/ygonaceae) is an upright, herbaceous, . shrub-like perennial that often grows to heights in excess of 10 feet. As with all members of this family, the base of the stem above each joint is surrounded by a membranous sheath. Stems of Japanese knotweed are smooth (bamboo-like), stout, and swollen at the joints where the leaf joins the stem. Although leaf size varies depending upon environment conditions, age, and other factors, they are normally about 6 inches long, and 3 to 4 inches wide, broadly oval to somewhat triangular, mostly pointed at the tip, and are alternate on the stems. The stems are hollow, but may be water-filled depending upon soil moisture levels and where it is growing. The lower one to two nodes may often be full of water. The small, pale greenish-white flowers occur in attractive, branched sprays in summer and are followed by small winged fruits. When they appear, seeds are triangular, shiny, very small about 1/10 inch long. Seed may not be borne under all growing situations, and normally not under conditions found outside the native range of Asia. Plants grow quickly and often form large thickets or patches. The roots are rhizomes that may extend 30 feet in length. Buds along the length of rhizomes may develop into new stems depending upon environmental and cultural conditions. Digging around the base of established plants encourages . new vegetative buds to develop along the rhizome system. Japanese knotweed is able to spread by sprouts from rhizomes of established plants and from sprouts ariSing from stems that have been severed from the mother plant.· Roots and stems are able to develop when stem nodes come in contact with soils that support plant establishment. I I I I I I I I I I I 'I I I I I~ I I I " " Note: " Care must be taken during control operations to prevent placing viable plant material or disposing of cut Japanese knotweed stems in areas that may lead to further infestations. Use of bio-barriers such as thick cardboard, tarps, or other non-permeable materials would be preferred materials to prevent wider spread of Japanese knotweed. Once plants have completely become devitalized, the barrier can be removed; "CONTROL STRATEGIES: The following information andtable are designed to provide control "options depending upon: • " The type of infested site • Level of infestation • Equipment available " Herbicide choices and rates vary depending upon SPECIFIC SITE and ApPLICATION METHOD. Note: Manual methods such as grubbing, cutting, and removal of top growth have not been successful for long-term control and may actually exacerbate the problem" further by encouraging new growth from rhizome segments. Vinegar.(5% acetic acid), and salt applications to cut surfaces have been completely ineffective in providing long:-term control. CONTROL STRATEGIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS " DISCLAIMER: The following information is provided from summary of data from numerous experiment~1I studies and commercial operations carried out over the last several years in southwestern Washington State. Consult the labels of products listed within the recommendations for specific restrictions and use guidelines, as well as local or state regulator officials regarding any labeling, licensing and" permitting that may be needed by the applicator for specific applications. The intent of this work was to focus on riparian areas, where Japanese knot:Weed seems to propagate more rapidly. Recommended methods resulted from proven results and factors surrounding ESA issues, environmental, and total program cost. The injection process in riparian areas has been the most effective against plant regrowth, as well as selective to the Japanese knotweed and posed no threat to the environment. The use of Aquamaster injected into each cane gave total control with no regrowth occurring following treatment for 22 months. In plant " " clumps, where the plant is too dense to inject ALL stems, inject all that can be reached, then return later, breaking away dead canes, and injecting the remaining stems. If 38 of 50 canes are injected, expect the twelve that were NOT injected to survive and reproduce. EACH CANE HAS ITS OWN SEPARATE RHIZOME SYSTEM. Even though the injection process is initially time consuming, it is more cost effective than several trips to the same site for foliar applications made over years with minimum results. I I I I I I I I I· I' I I I I I I I' I I .·JAPANESE KNOTWEED CONTROL STRATEGIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS ApPUCATION'METHODS: FOLIAR ApPLICATION Foliar Applications are those applications made with spray equipment designed to' apply small droplets over the entire plant (stems and leaves). These may be made with backpack applicators or hose-end sprayers. Applicators should use care to treat only the target species, and not desirable neighboring vegetation~ Foliar applications on new growth from rhizome segments and cane nodes, have been found to be effective on plants within the first 3 to 4 weeks of growth , (Less than 4 feet in height). On established root wads, the spraying of new growth may take several applicatiorisover several years to achieve control. Not recommended in riparian areas. Herbicide Rates and Uses: . Aquamaster® All Sites Rate: 8-10% v/v* Note: Depending upon size of infestation, foliar· applications may require re-treatment during the. growing season and possible follow-up treatment in successive years. *Volume to Volume CUT STEM ApPLICATION Cut stem applications are made by cutting the Japanese knotweecJ stem between the first and second internode, and delivering an herbicide into the' 'well' created by cutting the internode in half. Approximately 10-20 mls are delivered into the well using this method. Depending upon the site, several herbicide options (Listed below) eXist for this application method. Note: Follow recommendations noted above under Biology for care of cut plant material to avoid further spread of the weed. Herbicide Rates and Uses for-Cut Stem Application include the following: Roundup Pro® Aquamaster® Roundup Pro + Arsenal ® (Growing Season Only) . Roundup Pro + Garlon 3ATM (Growing Season) Upland Sites Riparian Sites Upland Sites Only Upland Sites Rate: 50% + 50% water Rate: 50% + 50% water Rate: 50% + 25% + 25% Water Rate: 50% + 25% +25% Water Note: Cut stem applications have proven to be about 95% effective on mature plants. After regrowth to 4 feet on remaining stems a cut stem or injection application should remove any regrowth. I. I, I I I I I' I I I I I I' I I I t I I I STEM INJECTION Stem injection applications are those applications made just below the first or second node above the ground. Typically, a Japanese knotweed probe is used to create a small opening on either side of the stem just below the node. This allows water to escape while the syringe metered to inject 5 . eel m Is of herbicide treatment, delivers the treatment dose on a downward diagonal through one of the two holes closest to the applicator. The second hole then may allow pressurized water to escape if the node is full·of water. Plants will normally take up herbidde within 20 minutes of injection. Herbicide Rates and Uses for Stem Injection include the following: Roundup Pro® Aquamaster® Upland Sites Riparian Sites -JAPANESE KNOTWEEDCANE(S) PROBE Rate: 100% (Scc/mls) Rate: 100% (Sec/mls) A ~'Insert the needle of . the syringe into same . . . holes made by the .. 'probe'. . Dr. Ron P. Crockett (Market Development Manager, Monsanto Co., Vancouver, WA.) Philip Burgess, Ron Hendrickson, Robin Simpson (Clark County Weed Management Department, Brush Prairie, WA) Published October 2002. I I I I' I I' I I 1\ I I I I I '. ..;~ .. , ... , ~JL+ ,', ·~,i,;;·" . ',' ' ..... :U:-i"~""""· .. '. -bl ~ .• ' '.' CITy,·OFRENTON .•. ···· . PlanningIBuildinglPublic Works DepartInent· . . 'Jesse Tanner, Mayor' . '. Gr:egg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator' . .' '. ~. '. . , :Nov~mber17, 2003 , .,: '. . Celeste Botha .. PaulRiley: ... " • 7 .. : .. .. . ~, ' . .'. ;~:' " " "." ," .: NOV1'E:?nnt The Riley Group.·... ,'.' ...... . " ... ", :", "" ,.- .. ' ..... :., ........ ,. 10728LakeCityWayNE . Seattle, WA98125 .. ' " . ~ " . '.' ." " .. De~r Ms. Bothaa~dMr: Rilyy: ••..... :',,:, ," .. ' .~ . . '." . ", \', • I ~niin receipt ofyour~lette~ofOctol?er7~;wherein'you detail plansioabat~ Japanese krlo~eed·'/ ",'" (Polygonum cuspidatum)on the subjec"tproperty> AsTunderstand.it, Japanese knotweedls '. '.> considered to be a Class BIloxiol,ls weed ill Washington State; and 'affects' approximately' 6,400. square feet of this property. Yau propose to utilize a four~stepapprmlch to abatethisnox10u~ .' .. '.,~. plant:' . . . . . . '. ',' .' .. ', . .... .:;." "'. > " .' .' '. ' ... ' .~ ,:',. " ,--\.., _:';., c''. . .' . '"',~ ',' , -,. A) . Cut and properly dispose; , '.' '. -.-." ." .. .;:. '," '". ~" ..... ' ........... : B) . Foliar application ofAq~amast~r;. __ " '.;: '. C) '. Cov~r·and w~ight thetreat~dare.a·~ith blackplasti~ to;etard furth.er groWth; D) .". Return to thei;;itein 1l1id-s~rillner2604andapply additional Aquamaster to treat .' · regrowth.. ,:.' ....:.--;... .. 'We have consulted with repie~entatives'from the I<ing C6untyNoxio"us Weed Program rega~dlng . abatement of Japanese Ialotweed adJacent to a wetland.' Based on these discussions, the approach outlined above and detailed,in your-October7tb correspondence is approved subj ect to the following limitations: . . . . -.' . . '. . 2) 3) 4) 5) . CutJapaneseknotwc;:ed mustbe disposed of at an appro~td disposal site or burned:: . offsite with a fire permit;.,' '.' . ..... . · Aquamaster may be used on the site :initiallyvia foliar application; 'Treated areas must be covered'~th weighted black plastic to retard further growth, Until additional abatement is accomplished during the summer of2004; .' Black plastic must be removed and property disposed of in the summer of 2004, to . accommodate mowing of the surviving Japanese knotweed, and foliar application of Aquamaster to all cut stems. . ',' .. ~ -.' . .' .. Subsequent application of Aquamasterbeyond the summer of2004rriay be required via cut stem application for established root wads ~nd any remaining Japanese knotweed .. ' --+lIIP.d,'Deii'\'i. i~Sioorllt:S,SliE\D~e.I'e"fflJo'O':p.seserldl\D~e:\':.&&i~I'IMal!!'lll-:fl.iiW!,gY;'o:JTTlI.p,J\CC1o:!l'lf'l'~es",p6orntft,!leetlllei:ee~\ltl~lIeflt't<lMile~e!lfhs;1It!1'''''I'F'6'e.r'IIs;l-Il1~ettleleFI':t,!ll&eeel.\eeeet'-f ----~R' . "E N' . '. T·· 0·" N' . .' .' . 1055 South Grady Way -Renton, Washington 98055··· . · . . ® This: paper contains 50% recycled mat~rial, 30% post consumer· AHEAD OF THE CURVE I· I I I I. I' I I I I I I I I I November 17, 2003 Page 2 " :.' .. 6) F~llowing treatment'ofthe site,with Aquarn.asterin'thesummer of2004, ' '., , ' revegetation/restoration of disturbed vegetation\vill be required in the wetland and , '" buffer areas, unless superceded by.the approval of,site development through the proper .e~vironmental and land use reviewpI:ocess.,::,' ' ' . , ",' ",' , ',',' "," ,',,' "" '! ' , " ' , We understand thatbased'on discussions withtTIyselfaiidotherstaff, weed control measuresA ' " ,,' 'tbroughC (as noted above) have occurred dUring the pastmqnth. Paul Baker, Code Compliance " Inspector,has visited the ,site, and verified the 'actions to date. ' ' ' , ' '. . . .. '. '. . , " .... ; ... . ;., Should you have any questions or co~ents ,regardingt:hi~corresp()ridence, please contact meat (425) '430-7286~ " ',' , , , ,'. " ,,', ~~. Jennifer Toth Henning, AICP, "Principal Planner, cc: : ' ,<', . .... , . ,.<', I, • The Riley Group, Inc. ~ 10728 Lake City Way NE Seattle, Washington 98125 phone: 206.417.0551 fax: 206.417.0552 TO: Matt Weber, P.E. AHBL LETTER OFT Date: 30 April Proje • : k4.~<;.e·t. Ol\.~ \.It\~\1 ~ 2004 ... rZIJ\JZ-I:JU~o _ RE: Geotechnical Information Renton Mixed Use Project 2215 North 30th Street. Suite 300 Tacoma. W A 98403 Renton, WA WE ARE SENPING YOu:\tJAttached OUnder separate cover via: WA.~ \ the following: o Report o Plans o Drawings 0 Specifications o Copy of Letter 0 __________________________________ _ COPIES DATE No. DESCRIPTION 1 Oct. 29. Slope Evaluation Letter (Project No. 2002-062) 2002 1 June 2. Geotechnical Engineering Report (Project No. 2002-062B) 2003 1 Feb. 21. E-mail from Rich Wagner to Jennifer Henning. et al, re: 2004 revisions to geotechnical report pages 27 through 32. (Attached to E:.mail are those revised pages.) THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: o For Approval ~ For Your Use REMARKS: . o Approved as Submitted o Approved as Noted ~ As Requested o For Review and Comment Matt: It was nice meeting you yesterday. Here is the geotechnical information you asked for. Paul is taking care of the wetlands report. Please get back to me with any comments or questions. Thanks. Copies To: Signed: I t I' I I I, !I I 'I I: .. Bill Klick From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Rich Wagner [wagnerr@baylisarchitects.com] Saturday, 21 February, 2004 13:07 jhenning@ci.renton.wa.us alhadeffjack@hotmail.com; william@riley-group.com FW: Rainier Steep Slopes 2002-0628 [Rainier Ave Mixed u... Jennifer ........... . Attached are six revised pages of the Geotechnical Engineering Report prepared by The Riley Group, which we offer as replacement pages in response to Mr. Watt's request for clarification of the report. The revisions primarily show on pages 27, 28 and 32 and include removal of language that might have been perceived as too non-committal. I hope the revisions allow your department to proceed with a favorable determination of the request for Exemption from the Steep Slopes CAO made to the city on November 6, 2003. Thank you for your assistance. Rich Wagner, AlA Baylis Architects 425.454.0566 -----Original Message----- From: Bill Klick [mailto:william@riley-group.com] Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2004 6:23 PM To: Rich Wagner Subject: Rainier Steep Slopes Rich- Here are the modifications to pages 27 through 32 of the Rainier Ave Mixed Use report dated June 2, 2003, that you and I discussed. They are in PDF format. Let me know if there are any comments from the City. Regards, Bill Klick, P. E. The Riley Group; Inc. 10728 Lake City Way N.E. Seattle, WA 98125 phone FAX 206-417-0551 206-417-0552 1 I, 'I" I, t· ,I I I I I I I, 'I I I I: Geotechnical Engineering RepOlt Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington General -Commercial Development June 2, 2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 27of45 Based on our study, it is our opinion that the site is suitable for the proposed commercial development construction from a geotechnical standpoint. It appears that Buildings 2 and 3 can be supported on conventional shallow spread footings bearing on medium dense to dense or hard native soil. Building 1 and the parking structure are at least partially underlain by up to 40 feet of soil that is not suitable to provide shallow foundation support, and will therefore require pile support where unsuitable soil is not removed. We recommend against the proposed cut into the toe of the north slope for Building 1 and the parking stlUcture. , The proposed cut into the toe of the central slope for Buildings 2 and 3 is considered feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. However, it will require a shoring system. Potential Impact of Project -Commercial Development Potential impacts of the proposed commercial development are associated primarily with the proposed cutting into the toe of slopes. TIle north and central slopes appear to be stable in their current condition with regard to deep-seated soil movement. However, due to their steepness, they are prone to surticial creep and surficial ravelling over time. To cut into the toe of these slopes without providing support would reduce their stability. Also, other modifications to these slopes (such as excavation, filling, increased levels of water, or removal of vegetation) could reduce their stability. Measures to maintain slope stability and protect the structures include providing support to the toe of slope and providing a structure setback from the toe. For the central slope, it is our opinion that for limited heights of cut (up to about 10 feet), cantilever soldier pile shoring will provide adequate support to the slope, and allow the buildings to be set into the slope. For the north slope, it is our opinion that it is best not to cut into the toe of slope, but instead to provide a structure setback. Any work "incidental" to the project (for example, landscaping) should not remove vegetation from steep slopes, or alter (increase) water on the slopes. THE RILEY GROUP, INC. I, ,I' I, I v I, I I,. I' ,t I ,I 'I, ,I ,II I II 11 I' I Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington Setbacks from Toe of Slope -Commercial Development June 2, 2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 28of45 For the central slope, we recommend a building setback of 10 !eet from the toe of slope. As an alternative, the slope could be shored, and Buildings 2 and 3 could be set into the slope. For the north slope, we recommend against cutting into the toe of the slope tor Building 1 and the parking structure, and instead recommend a building setback 25 feet from the toe of slope. Alternatively, if a debris wall were constructed at the toe of slope, the setback could be reduced to 10 feet. Excavation -Commercial Development The proposed construction will have 2 potential areas of excavation. Excavation may take place at the toe of the central slope. This would require shoring. Excavation in the level area of the site will be required for the parking structure for its below grade leveL This would probably be done with laid back, unsupported, open cuts. TemporalY Cut Slopes The existing steep north and central slopes typically are at about 1-1I2H: 1 V inclination. It is advisable not to cut them any steeper, even on a temporary basis. Accordingly, temporary cut slopes do not apply to the north and central slopes. We expect that unsupported temporary cut slopes will be used mostly for the excavation for the parking structure. 1t is our understanding that the excavation will be relatively shallow, and we assume it will not exceed 10 feet. We expect soil conditions in the depth of excavation to range from uncontrolled, loose silty sand till with debris; to dense or hard sandy silt. For these soil conditions, we recommend temporary cut slopes up to 10 feet tall that are not subjected to seepage forces be no steeper than 1-1I2H:IV. If there were seepage, such as due to perched water, slopes at this inclination should be THE RILEY GROUP, INC. I, Ii' I, I I 1\ i I I I I I I Geotechnical Engineering Repolt Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renlon, Washington June 2, 2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 290f45 expected to be unstable. They could require some support, or might need to be made less steep. Shoring If it is decided to cut into the toe of the central slope, we recommend that it be shored. We expect cut heights will not be more than about 10 feet. Cantilever soldier piles and lagging seems appropriate for these heights. The shoring will be against steep backslopes (typically about I-I 12H: 1 V), and lateral ealth pressures will be high. Our recommended earth pressures, parameters, and assumptions for design of a cantilever soldier pile wall with a 1-1I2H: 1 V backs lope are presented on Figure 6. The pressures are presented in temlS of equivalent fluid density; i.e., a triangUlar earth pressure distribution equivalent to that which would be exerted by a fluid with the density noted. The following assumptions and recommendations apply to the tigure. • The water table was assumed to be at the base of the excavation, on both sides of the soldier pile wall. • Active pressure above the base of the excavation acts on the full center-to- center pile spacing. • Below the base of the excavation, active pressure acts on 1 pile'diameter, and passive re~istance acts on 2 pile diameters. • Any nearby surcharges (within a horizontal distance equal to the height of the wall) should be considered on an individual basis. Lagging can be designed for pressures equal to 50 percent of those shown for design of piles, due to arching effects. THE RILEY GROUP, INC. I II I II I I" I' I, I I ,I, I I; I :,1 'I Ii I I Geotechnical Engineering RepOit Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington June 2, 2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 300f45 A monitoring program should be implemented to verify the performance of the Shoring' system. The first step in this program should consist of setting reference points for horizontal and vertical control, and setting monitoring points on the piles after they are installed and before any excavation is done. The documentation should include a photographic record. Monitoring of the shoring system should be done daily as the excavation proceeds, and then weekly once the excavation is coinpleted. A registered land surveyor should be retained to establish the baseline data, and to complete a survey every 2 weeks to check the contractor's readings. Daily monitoring can be done by the contractor. Monitoring should continue until the permanent building walls are adequately braced. Monitoring should include surveying the veltical and horizontal alignment of the top of each soldier pile. Monitoring points should also be established at the middle height of the shoring at 25-foot horizontal intervals. These mid-level points should also be surveyed to record horizontal and vertical movements. The project's structural and geotechnical engineers should review the monitoring data weekly, and at any time there is unexpected movement. Site Preparation and Grading -Commercial Development Site Preparation The first step of construction should be to demolish existing structures. Any utilities that are in the proposed building footprints should be relocated to outside of the building footprint. Pavement should be stripped. From a geotechnical standpoint, the concrete rubble and/or stripped asphalt could be used as fill if it were placed at the bottom of deeper fills in pavement (non building) areas, and at least 2 feet below final grade. Ifthe rubble is to be used as fill, it should be broken up into pieces no larger than 6 inches, laid flat, and not "nested", and mixed with soil to avoid creating voids. Concrete debris that is placed as recommended should THE RILEY GROUP, INC. I I I I I I I I I, I I I I I I I I Geotechnical Engineering Repolt Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington June 2, 2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 31 of 45 perfoml adequately as structural fill; however, it could result in obstructions that would complicate trenching for utility installation. The near-surface soil exposed after stripping is expected to be silty sand or sandy silt. The silty sand is moisture sensitive, and will be difficult, if not impossible, to work with if it is not ncar optimum moisture content. The sandy silt is even more moisture sensitive, and generally is not suitable tor reuse as fill. We suspect grading may involve cut and till, but we expect it will be of limited height. Prior to placing fill, we recommend proofrolling all exposed surfaces with a heavy piece of rubber-tired construction equipment (such as a loaded dump truck) to evaluate if any soft and yielding areas are present. If yielding areas are observed, they should be cut to firm bearing soil and filled to grade with structural fill. After cut areas are brought to final grade, they also should be proof rolled and repaired. As discussed above, the silty sand is moisture sensitive, and will be difficult, if not impossible, to work in wet weather and/or if it is not ncar optimum moisture content. Fill Material It may be feasible to use the silty sand from excavation as fill in dry weather, if it is fi'ee of organics and debris, and properly moisture conditioned. If it is decided not to reuse it, and structural fill material is required, we recommend importing material that meets the following gradation requirements. Table 4. u.s. Standard Sieve Size Percent Passing 3 inches 100 percent No.4 sieve o -75 percent No. 200 sieve o -5 percent * *Based on the minus 3/4-inch tractIOn. THE RILEY GROUP, INC. I I II I I I II I I; I I I I I I I I :1 II I Geotechnical Engineering RepOit Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington June 2, 2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 32 of 45 Prior to use, Riley should examine and tcst all matcrials importcd to the site for use as structural fill. A geotechnical engineer should be on site to monitor the site grading and verifY soil compaction. Structural Fill Placcment For the purpose of this report, structural fill is defined as fill that will support buildings, slabs-on-grade, pavement. and other settlement scnsitive elements. Structural fill should be placed in unitonn loosc layers not morc than 12 inches thick and compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density. Maximum dry density, in this report, reters to that density as determined by the ASTM D 1557 compaction test procedure (Modified Proctor). The moisture content of the soil at the time of compaction should be within about 2 percent ofits optimum. Permanent Cut and Fill Slopes If permanent cut or fill slopes are incorporated intodcsign, they should not bc steeper than2H:IV. Foundation Support -Commercial Development Based on our exploration, it appears that Buildings 2 and 3 can be supported on conventional shallow spread footings bearing on medium dense to dense or hard native soil. Building 1 and the parking structure are at least partially underlain by up to 40 feet of fill and organic soil that is not suitable to providcd shallow foundation support. TIley will require pile support in the areas of deep unsuitable soil. In other parts of the buildings. competent soil is at shallow depth. If the depth to competent native soil decreases enough across the building footprint, it would be acceptable to switch back to spread footings. A depth of 5 to 10 teet (to suitable bearing soil) is commonly considered the depth at which one switches from shallow foundations to deep foundations. THE RILEY GROUP, INC. 091 -. - r 1/1 I I.De .. IDL-...u. YJ.waIo:MW!lQlllr'~'WI:II'il'1x:.. r ., r .LDe IG ..n .., DaI J-. ~ -~lI!&11t1fiA ... ___ ._U _ -" ... 'tJ .~ J:I J.. ;:J~. \'41 3i\d~ 5 oe Oil 0 N -- -- ... raul - --- - -- - -- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I '. . . =~===---- I I I, I I I I I I ;1 I I I I I I I I I ., .. ~~ :" .> •• . , •~.'" .,'. --= . . :~,. ~ .,' . l~,' \~ .~ . . ~: ' ."'. . . . . ·····H t I I I I I I I ." I I I I I I ,I I I :1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I :1 I :1 I :·'N· .. ·· ,." '. I ..•.. 07£ I' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .<3 r " ~ cJ • o I' S , "!' . f~ ·h . ,~j ~t· tj~ ., '" I <>~ Lot -""1 "3J~.::-Rl.s-~w. M-:- _-1-"----- J.).Bor""l"e" S L.>-TIt"n::R·!) LAKE WA~I<'Ha.TON Pu .. T ") r. "' ...... ...... ~--__ I --l-_\..~~2f_l.!.o ('~ ....... -~...::...1'1J ~<oor-==I -C 40' -h-I / -- 7.0 71 zz Ao ...-- --- 3~-"14 . ?5. .. ~ '0 • ,-",v .. :c. " ,..~ ~ ____ IW ... 'A~:O-~;;.;;-~~~l,.".e~~q.k. -_.1.. ~~--).,lSc,.,..:--I-oe;.;.~"'':'''-' ~ .--rt-_ 1~;" _ -----. ~ __ ~~ ~('-. q-o",'.· '" ~.p. I I I "" r---'-"-r --_/ (j '---0--<0 ,----, '--..... sn'-ZO'E SII'ZYE -.. :---~ • 'C ~--" --~-----."----------------~- _ LE"'i~tin~ ZO' Concrc-to= "Po..ven"'c."t /:. _____ ==-L.!'!!~~===:=_-----~ -------~~--;:::.=- ~ <3 ---------------------~i :>tUbcr~l?~ Gl'UW'lhoo..nc -Inc. 4. 3 "O~ c.,lIr~. U>nc.. Slcl .... all., • (:.ta: " Dol·Hi.) on "Rt -:lq.Yd .. Spee.. Cone.. Curb ft Gull.r·{~. Detoils Sh ... t Ho.l} Lin. Ft _, __ .... ~ STA.~~.soTO _ ... LU._ hTA.I~OO MILE '2 (PART.) ClEMI"O 611.UOIIINO UIICUSSlnn EXCAYATIOI! STRUCTUIU: cu.s~ '1)' O'IlRJIAUl O'l£R1WJL Slon: TRUTHEIfT F1HISIIIN6 ROADWAY 6U'IU ~nu. S£L._I1WAY IIORROWU"" ... IIAUL) 011£ c.DUII!.[ :.ut£l.m::D t>RAV[l SUiif'. SAttO "lll[R(lNCL"AUl) CEH.COIIC.PArr. srb.I4Do('f "MIX Hl6H !:ARlY STR. • DIUY[WAY~'" !I'-O.14 DAy ....... ... HI6K lAAlY STR. PAVT. R£IIVOIlt.IN6 T"I PI: NO.1 OOWEl OAIn. WITH RUOUIl un 11fT£to • ..: tcIIt..CUR&·'Tb.14 DJ,Y MIX ,., AtRU 13 ,13.0 tU.YOl 1400 30 5330 CIr.ill.ST. 39!>80 orva .... '890 Ul\.rt :>~:sTA.(_1 10 Cu.v~ 13910 1100 11.0 "',,. ~YO'" !>9I ZII " .. I~OIlO U ... Oltly utt.n. RlMClYlltEo UI$l. PIPE HUDtR CATUI Wl!I' Cj 3 ,.: U? KING COUNTY .-r .... Ta OP' WA~ ~AIn'M1DfT ~"""""A"'" .":-5'R. ~ f! ~~q 1N:AUD..oftIz. • ~~~~ 1-..0.-. )0. [e .... ~ .. -.I.AIiyomco>~ ... ~huctcd O-f.iiiH\..,OIfAl. ~ r-... ..... . ... """'.....,. .,. d ... a..nH.,..b ..... ta"".......... a .. ... IIHHl :lc..c.r-.a3<rl a.ra!.dl ..... tltl ... ""'"'"n u.cc ;-L '. • ~ ~ c.,::.or.'r, ~4.:3" ..~ ~ ... ~~ PI' r ti ~Mod .-...a..c.. ~. .... _-; . SHEET 6 OF. 1 SH ." lton __ 3-2$-92 .... z~ /Wo4.n.,....... . ".~ rOR COHTRI\c:f • SHEET II or '24'~H .. !i :t" ,.=> ... diiir-/I." --3-"'. , ,.~.!! 01 .... Cam.conc.~1Iigh ~:Sl" .. ~ I'ovtment RainE on Rt '31~">U.... ~l'D ... 1 ~~ T~t.Dt"'1 !:l1.Reln[ TypeZ.o.~ on Rt _ ~ n~ Lt.&. ~101h 1Il0Lt... .Ori'teVroy onRi(~D-fo'" Sb.lG.J) ~900 Lb:'" ':.~ ~t ~on.C<lnc.on-....,.lIlgh tortr ~t" 19 '9-'fda. .: .. Inleg.ConC-Curb... • ", ... , L,n.Fl . . .. " . !-- Ono c..o. Conc.s.a.-IM:stCl.I4p";MU)~Jtt: '~"'~: ~Curb~6ultv .... 1It 1.25 '(ll\.fl. '1" ._- (Su D.tall,. sheef No. 'V " 50 ~ u ,. ~ 0: oJ .., IIIf>II£AA1.YSTRt .... T" :;Pf.C."COI1C.lUR~ ~6Un[1I. OII[ QIUIOS[ toHC.. SlOUYM.r.-STD. .. O>.V "'" T£HP.IIR1DG[ AOID3S PATT.(,mDOl"lnTYP[) &ITU"-SURf: TIIUX • PlAIn .,11 TYP[' tLUS r COnC"CTI:. C.LA~ ~~ 1810 1& 7'Z " ,,1 1114 " ... ~tn wALL RtU .... It. (.O"e. PIP .. r DlAH. . ". DlPP£DCOIIR.IROIIPI'[ ItO' ... 6A.II-DI.\I1. PL. COKe.. Olt ... c. ~tW£IU .. rt f.-DlAM. I OnlY I lUMPS"", !In URn. a 5& . r.~ .. 40 'X> '" -t. o· r: 1 ,;. '" ;. ,,; .j .. ~ of ---------- --<eOO'-V J! .. .. ,; ., Approo(h 10 Trull. on lI. /. Emb.nkm.nl 1'100 ("Yd,. ~.l Rood",,,,! Oar"", 290 X. &r"",1 ~urf. bO SOo,d fillrr .0 -0.16 'Yo I' " -.:.. ST~E'" RIJHroRc.lH6 e..A.R~ M WAllO R"l 'TY~E "Q.IOR1'D{5- H'-ItD PLAC.ED R'P P.AP ~"lll. 6RJt.I\OI\c.onc.... MAltHQU.( UhotR. 10') (""til ,a) CUll. 'nl£1 (CITY" ~UTTLt STO) ~P[[L\L WOOD 54"0 801. TI ... u" LUlU." (UHTR .. ",tO) 1/[11O'iI .... 'RUnT'"" ">In >loot ~[ Din (OHe.. p~n .. [rrr &RI(k lOf'tC.. !JID[V'r'-U RAIl. WA."1 e.UllDI"ft~ ("UA.RO RAIl. Rr. .... F'. COrtC.l"[.QJIrt",lO '-4 .. ,JUt&Jt. 10 cU.Y~ It. OnlY 3 IT 2 1.0& ... 1\. ... 1 OHLY 1.100 ~Q.'tD5- 3,,0 3' LUMP ~\W\ 10" lnt.n. ONLY ". ·11-.,,- ONt.CULV. ... I&'"' • ~nD. RLI .... r: t.Ort<..Wl.:V. p,p[. 1.4. ... 011,1'\. TRr:!nLl~: TIM ..... ,LU,.,!>tll(unUUTtD) ~lt1Q'I""tl1~'l. S'TR\KTURr AD.JU3.1."~ 0" U,I,T. "1"'&[1\ TRL31U. , .. ., ~II" 1'" QCo. "9 1'" UJ\.F'Y. D." t\.&.t\. LUMP' !.UM l.VHP S"'" 1 II .., .. ~ "!. J .., 0 .. .. -c: V .. ,.. (\ ~OO·v.C. ~ .. "! '" ... OVQ.r houl I "",Q".c,ot.-\Ctno .......,.HOLC, Ru,() " C.OVIt.R.. 39380 (lJ~Yd.-Mife.~ Overhaul 'Z 0 C.U Yd-st 0'". =--:-- ., ~ .. ... ~ ,.: ,. ~I.~'J!>'/. Drive.woy ; on Rl Un<..l U<.ov.' 1 ~ CuYd,,- SeL Rdw'y.ba-row '0' • / : ." :~.,; +.' p' -~ .... !,. - . ~ ~ ... :la. I I t, .. -, , :l<..Gra",,1 ~rC .0 A6. F .i I I Sol Rdw'y Borr . C.uYds 5el"d .. d Roo"""ay Borrow 5110 Cu.yds. • ___ ~S:.::".:l:.;Rd=VVY~'::.:.w:.:...:.r:.., _______ ......-: ."" ~011111( :.--c '.u,:,'Vd'. e.orrow (r or Roadway (mbon .... ) Cu Yd,. =- UI1t.l [x(.Qv. ( mbonk.rnf.nt C.U Yd," Cu.Yd," Unc.los~ifi"d l.xcovolion ""310 Cu.Yds. Unc.I.Ellcov. Cu.'fd,. '. ~ """" f.mbonlo.m"nt 11210 ~"-.... ....r: Embonkm<:nt (.u.'(d,. .i '1' 't. " ,/> ''1 110 />. 11'2 'n 0 ... '" at. a, ~ Sfc·, ....... _ /11 ,., 'It> 'I, .. ",--- DRAWERZ7 I·" I I Sanctity o{ Contract STEWART TITLE I f ORDER NO. --=2_o_().-..;/~J-..::3=-5--=-2--=~:....."_ Section. __ _ Township, __ _ Range __ Short PI2t Ret. No., __ -.-____ -'-_ Volume. ___ _ . .. Page~ II, c" 6) ." .. ~ ,,/ ~ .,4, ~ ~\, ~ + N I I I: I I I I I I I !. .. 0 .. • l ~ " 'Z • :3 ; .: :~ ... :~ ... @:::. .~ .. .! .. ... .. ··l ;. .. .... . " w .. .. • >;. .. .~ ~ ~ .' . . . '. I: .. " <l II " • 7 -:<" .. " ,6 .?" I .... " ~ .. --;:; ~-~ . ',) • ~/ ... > ~ : I 13, ~! , j": This sketch is provided without charge for your' information. It is not intended to show all matters ~e1ated to the property ~c1uding,: but not limited to area, dimensions, easements. encroachments or location ofboundanes. It is not a part of. nor does it modify. the commitment or policy to which it is attached. The company assumes NO LIABILITY for any matter related to this sketch. Reference should be made to an accurate survey for further information. Fl q. I I I I I I I :1~. -: . r: ... ~t.. I .. '- I I I I I I '., 3:1.0a9~U . PJlru(IT . TO B:XTEND SLOPES 'r.NOW. ALL M!If BY THP.:SY. PRESPm'S, That IlI.y IJ.L"til!',~r) !rBl/flL 8ireSTa/;,~ .... '°(Jt/SItCOi.If. Florida ' , of the County or &SCIfHsie-. Tjn the ·State."or ~,rCtr IUld in conSideration of the benefitlland other \"1\;"'- able ,eonsl~at1OM, and thea", or f~ '" . l):)l1ar" Inhaild,pafd;thc.rec.elpt whoreof 18 hereby Ilcknowl&dged, dO~ Mreb1 grant ~' tho Stil.~,,'or:~ •• hlnaton, thorlaht,prlvllo80 and permit to reml)Ye, aM/or place !l:~ dlJPoslt eart.bJ6aterlalfrom and/or upon the hereinafter described landa, adJacent :.0 the hi8hval"in',tho extension of slopes 'of. excavation and/or embankment: ns ::urvn;,,~ over nnt5 -liCro~:: Lots 1 IU'ld ;.~,;nock Ifi; r.ot~ 1-:':-:) <-no 1,?locy. ~2,i;.:i.kti::l':r'~ :, .. _ 'P!lrr: Jedit.lo'rl': (Vol\t'!\~ lij of I't;.t~::v,,,:" ;~::,) ~ ·'t-h~· ~!"'c!fi,=-C!~t.·::!l!: r.o:-:::::I.,ln;; ;J.l of whi~h ;"r~ to .:~ fl)'J!1r. 7;i~"hin that c~rt: i:"~ ... ;;.. 0; c"'finlt.~ locution no\": of r'.!corr;;· :.nr:: O!l fi l~, i:l :'h,. o!"!".i.cr;. o!" t.hp. f:lrector r>r . Hi(:hw..:'"r. ~It Ql:llI::in nd r-<':,ri:'1'; ti<';r, ...,!" ':, ro·".l :;r:hr',1:'.r,; eth~ l\l;::~ '~h:-':! l\.r,.,,-. . i:6vl:;''!G F':li't';;;.r:' Gth,19,;,) Tho rIght, pr I v 110Bo I and permi t of ingress and Cgr''l88 to an:! from sal:! lIIr.d for. the, p1Jr~8esherein9pecH'lod Md for the p~pooa of :nn!r.tllln1nB sa1d .slt;jl':!G, 1s horebygrantod. Dntod .this () : .. , ri..O!Ui,j., STATE OF.liX3Rl.~ ) ~ ) SB. County of k~effl1fjle ) t~Vr· . th"· unri~rl'ip'n~'i . I 8 Notp.ry Pub!1C in an1 fo!" the S'-~:': or vd~,do horcby certify tha:t on this ----J.!;:t, , .. day cf_--";i.i:!h;;." ____ _ ' •• D, 19~, personally appeared beiora J:ie __ ~::..: • .!:L::..::,..:·,~l'.::.~'.;.; .. r-__ '_. __ ....,-___ _ ~ me koovn to be the IndIvIdual described in and vho ex(:cuted the vlth:r. 1r.etr'J-r:en~ I a."ld·sclcnclvledgod the tHe. -signed and scaled· the SMe all It 15 free an~ ·/01Ul?-~i<8C_~; .. and:',d.eed, for t:hejiUrPOS,)B therain mcnt,lr.ned. . Clven under ICY "hand and official selll thede..y 8:1d yeal' .flrB~ above vritt'Jr.- '.:' ~ ~ ~c ,; :-d ;" 1, Notar~ In and for the Ste~c ;::" Ylor;'::', ~j.~, reBidir.g at PlAy,9.< • ..c... ,-I,e. J (LG F. :tf:. 32> C.(),.vr~fl(l-t:t 2({lt3 ~' 1n !\bi 1n d"· .: , t~r. ... ~:. : ::-;.--.. :.j~...l:-;~~ .,.: :. .... t.~ c:'" c:·:· , •. :":!J;I-":" . . • I .: ~ I· I f\& I I I I I I I I 5~~~~~~~t;f..fF··· i;':;~"·:~~:".~:::,::.~.·:.··.·~eCtion .. ' a;n{~-Ayenve_·!-·-:-'-:~::"'!.·"';=~~§~ififii : :':·:;,.f:·;·:·:;Sta; 5"..5 J-~aOJo_.s~~._'./.2..7 .;!;.B9-.0 __ . .:..-_--....,:-'.:,~:!~ .. ' .' :.:':~~~.·:~;:N~t~~;~nmproveinent . G v:o'iJ In',,' nPo'.v., YJ . :~i7~i:~~~~~t'.;:::':'-~~~~~;v..L~ ;(:;i;~8~hb:~clO~~~~~~t .. ~G. ;:=·3~~O_SI •..... ~. ·In..J'.J.v .• ~J..'y_.JIY-:'':~ . .. .' Sllre~' G:~'~L~S ~ol:f-y-G .. o:(Aln~r.n:Q_·_·:_---'-~;;:;: ~~~~f?~:':'::'~-;-:~-:-~I .,,:-:-. __ ~_~~~~~of.§ur~!r~':"~h o~.f= .. No ue r. ... _ .... ~_ .. __ .' _____ . __ .~;:.;.,:: I _._ •. _. _--=D=-=is~ct E_~~~!:.._R ,. H.I( C!n yo n .... : ___ "_" ._. __ .... _:_--,. ___ .....:..:. _...,....-_--=Resid~1!.t!,:ngin~~_G.e o".E'._Jo h n.So n. ___ . _______ ...:;.:...:; ~,!#;....:!::.e.!::...:~~~--------__'_--'-_:__---.. -.. -.---__:-.... -.---.. -.... -.... --......... -._ .. ----:......~~~~~ I ,! :..~~~~~~ __ :.~~ __ • _ ... __ ._._ ... __ ._ •. __ ........ .c .•. • ................... ,._ L.". .' : ........... I " . . " .'!' .. ":..:. "::.::." . . , . ............................... -... -............ -.---.. -... --., .. -.....;.~ ---_._--.-'-:"-'-'.-"~-' . __ . . ... ' -, .... _." . . ~ . I :::....,....~~,.:,£,:~..:..::.:....2.:.;.";,,...... _____ ----,_-----".,-_____ ~_----.......... ---... -.... __ ",,, ........ _ ..... __ ................... " :.:....:.;.:...:.:.;~~~I#.:.:,~~;:;i:..-_..;.:....;. __ -:-~ _____ . ___ . __ ._ ................ _ .... _. -.... --_.-.... -............ '. .. ... ,'_ ... ---..... ----------~.~ I ~~~~~~¢~~...:..:------'-~~----~:--... :.--..... -.. --.:.--.--~-.............. -_ ............. _ .. "'. "'.'-'''--".-_ ... ------'--'-'-.. ( ....... . .. . :":". ~---' -----_._._-_ ... ;:--_._--... I I I I I I t· '~ ( I~ ~. I ~ '. I ;~ , r it; I f1~ ;~" 'i;~ 'f~: ,'. ~ I ~-'? !i~ I t \i~ .. " :.~~ '0: I :;.,,- I I , '?~.r¥::~!~:§:#J~j~:;~::::,~,~:~;~:~ Ilf;:r~~rtm()r:~:.~~~~Bi#I!r;'. Sr ~a~~le to Renton (Bryn, Main-. BlaCk ll1 nrr) • f\& • I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Tlte Riley Group, Inc. 10728 Lake City Way NE SeattJe, Washington 98125 Ph. 206-417-0551 Fx: 206-417-0552 Company: -,11,-,~~·~ _______ _ .. Contact: !ZSNI) Y J2aCI<&t l.. Phone #: '11..5-1.$5·-H tV Notes: .. " ..... '''.-':" . 1=\ 6. K I I I I I I I I I I I ~ I I 'I I I I I I APPENDIXF Wildlife Reconnaissance by Raedeke & Associates, Inc. / I I I I I I I I I I I I I I :1 'I I I I September 4,2003 Mr. Jack Alhadeff IDA Group LLC 95 Tobin Street, Suite 201 Renton, WA 98055 Re: Wildlife reconnaissance of AlhadeffUplands, Renton Washington Raedeke Project 2003-029-001 Dear Mr. Alhadeff: ReCEIVED SEP 082003 BAYLIS ARCHITECTS As you requested, I conducted a wildlife·reconnaissance of the AlhadeffUplands project site located in the City of Renton, Washington. The project site consists of approximately 6 acres located west of Rainier Ave. South, south ofNW 7tlt Street, east of Stevens Avenue, and north ofNW 5tlt St. if extended to Rainier Ave. So. as per the IDA Group Townhome 2003 CPA Rezone figures provided by Baylis Architects. The specific objective of the survey was to respond to the August 26, 2003 letter from Mr. Gil Cerise of the City of Renton, Item 1 regarding the presence of herons and bald eagle habitat or nests on the subject site. My reconnaissance was conducted on the morning of September 3, 2003. At the time, the weather was clear and warm, with only a mild breeze, thus offering excellent conditions for observation of wildlife on site. The reconnaissance was conducted by scanning the site from Rainier Ave. South, NW 5tlt, 6tlt, and 7tlt Streets with binoculars, and traverses across the site down the ridge slopes, and up the two draws .. My observations are summarized below by species of concern. . Bald Eagles No bald eagles or bald eagle sign was observed on the project site or on the surrounding lands. No bald eagle habitat has been mapped for the area by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife in the Priority Habitats and Species program inventory. The closest bald eagle habitat is the nest and associated territory on the south end of Mercer Island. 5711 Northeast 63rd St. RAEDEKE ASSOCIATES, INC Seattle, VV,4 98115 (206) 525-8122 ! I I I I I I I I I I I I II I II I I ( Mr. Jack Alhadeff September 4,2003 Page 2 ( Given the lack of conifer trees of sufficient size or configuration for nesting or roosting, the high degree or urbanization and disturbance in the area, and the lack offoraging areas in the vicinity, the area does not provide any habitat for bald eagles. The few larger conifers that are found on the site are generally rooted in the lower areas of the site, and do not provide the type of access that eagles prefer. Also, the immature tops do not provide adequate branches to support a nest structure. An occasional transient bald eagle may be seen in the area, such as is common for most of the region, but this site would not provide any of the life requisites for eagles. Great Blue Herons No great blue herons, heron sign, or nesting sites were observed on the site. Again, the Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife in the Priority Habitats and Species program does not map any great blue heron nesting habitat on the site. The wetlands on the site likely do not provide substantial foraging areas for great blue herons, as they do not contain the hydrologic conditions conducive to supporting amphibians and other prey for herons. In addition, the wetlands are overgrown with exotic vines and shrubs that would make foraging by herons very difficult. Four great blue herons were observed to the south of the site, 75 to 100 feet northeast of the east end of the NW 5th Street (see attached figure). At least one of the herons was an adult. The hero~~_ were observed sitting and flying into a .. ~~!~I!Lb.em1ock tree within sight of the eastern most house on the north side ofNW 5t1'i Street. The tree is located about halfway up the slope. The tree in which the herons were observed is approximately 250 feet from the nearest edge of the proposed townhomes, and likely wo~ld be out of site of the development. It is approximately 50 to 75 feet from the closest house on NW 5th Street, and would be in clear view in the spring when the trees do not have their leaves. No nests were observed, ~wever it is likely-that one Ot two nests are Rtes~.nt in ~ as local residents reported seeing nesting herons in this location. If nesting occurs at this location, this is likely a ~emporary satellite nesting area for herons that are periodically forced to abandon the Black River colony when the bald eagles attack. Similar . temporary colonies have been found in other areas to the south, and they are eventually abandoned and the birds return to the main colony at the Black River site. The current I I I I :1 : I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ( Mr. Jack Alhadeff September 4, 2003 Page 3 ( site is very marginal great blue heron nesting habitat due to the extensive disturbance in the area and the lack of substantial foraging areas nearby. If you have any questions about the results of this reconnaissance, please feel free to call me at 206-525-8122 at your convenience. Sincerely, Ke th 1. Raedeke, Ph.D. Wi ife Biologist , . I I" I ( I I I II II I i I I I I I I I ., ~ 8 I· eI. I ... I ·1 \ \ L.....:::l.~~~T""-r--r--r Heron Tree 1 o 'JOA Group Townhome 2003 CPA & Rezone .. J03-M-11 (LUA 02-143) -Erosion Hazzard Map Corporate Boundary -StudyArea -Erosion Hazzard Boundary 300 1 : 3600 600 ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The Riley Group, Inc. Geotechnical Engineering • Environmental • Wetland Services CONCEPTUAL WETLAND DELINEATION & MITIGATION REPORT SOUTH PARKING LOT 559 TO 625 RAINIER AVENUE NORTH RENTON, WASHINGTON July 22, 2004 PREPARED BY: The Riley Group, Inc. 10728 Lake City Way NE Seattle, WA 98125 PREPARED FOR: IDA Group LLC 95 S. Tobin Street __ Renton, W A 98055 c/o Rich Wagner, AlA Baylis Architects 425.454.0566 . RILEVPROJECT No. 2002-061c Serving the Pacific Northwest DEVELOPME . CITY OF ~t'rr~NNING . N JUL 2 9 200~ RECEIVED Main Office: 10728 Lake City Way N.E.· Seattle, WA98125· Tel (206) 417-0551· Fax (206) 417-0552 www.Riley-Group.com I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I THE RILEY GROUP, INC. 1. Executive Summary This report presents the results of our wetland delineation and critical areas study regarding the Alhadeff South Parking Lot project. The project is located on the west side of Rainier Avenue North between 559 and 625 Rainier Avenue North in Renton, Washington, Including all ofParc~19564800176 (601 Rainier Avenue N, 1.84 acres), a portion of Parcel 9564800007 (245,500 square feet total, 5.64 acres); a portion of Parcel 9564800175(21;500 square feettotal, 0.49 acres); and a portion of Parcel 9564800070 (18,752 square feet total, 0.43 acres}',The objective of the study was to delineate' wetlands, evaluate the functions and values of these wetlands and any streams, determine their classification and buffer requirements, determine sensitive area impacts " and present a conceptual mitigation plan for proposed impacts. An approximately 16,600 square foot (0.38 acre) Class 3 wetland is located within a ravine in the vicinity of the proposed parking lot (the South Wetland) and an approximately 21,700 square foot Class 2 wetland is located within a ravine approximately 450 feet north (the North Wetland) withinthe same drainage basin. Class 3 ~et1ands are protected with a standard 25-foot buffer; Class 2 wetlands are protected with a standard 50-foot buffer.' " The proposed: project,' cmtently envisioned as 'additional parking to support Chang's Mongolian Grill, involves creating 27parking stalls through fill of 2,0 17 square feet of the SouthWetland'and culverting 120 linear feetofawatercourse west of T .. S Auto 'Sales. Much of the area of proposed alterations is, heavily' infested with Japanese ,knotweed(Polygonum cuspidatum), arid Himalayan blackberry (Rubus procerus). An additional 1 ,574 square feet of wetland-is considered "paper fill" because it will be de facto converted t6 wetland buffer for a total wetland impact of 3,591 square feet. Mitigation for wetland and buffer impacts is pr~posed to occur within and adjacent to the North Wetland at a 1.5:1initigation ratio involving a combination of3,591 square feet of wetland creation and the balance of the ratio; 1 ,800 squar~ feet; as wetland ,enhancement. Buffer averaging meeting the criteriaof RMC3-20.32 f. is proposed. In addition, the applicant ,is requesting authorization to fill the wetland simultaneous with wetlandmltigation activities rather thanthecode~mandated 12 months in advance, when , ,the full 1.5: 1 wetland creation:wetlartd fill ratio is not mef , ' , 1.1 STUDY-AREA DESCRIPTION<: There are two study areas associated with this project. The area of proposeclalt.erations ,(the southarea)includes a drainage' corridor and a scrub-shrub wetland at the ,bottom of a ravine. These features are severely_ disturbed: the watercourse is under-:cut and, • channelized; 'both the banks and the wetland ,are characterized by the dominance" of invasive species specificallyJapaneseknotweedand Himalayan blackberry (Rubus procerus); fill material, has been 'pushed into the wetlandlwatercolirse~t the east end;' Wetland Delineation & Mitigation Report ~ 1 July 22, 2004 South Parking Lot Project-Rainier Avenue North, Renton, WA Project #2002-061c I I I I 1 I I I I I I 1 1 1 I···· 1 '1 THE RILEY GROUP, INC. woody and other debris has been dumped into a ravine further to the east from upslope; and the watercourse outlet has been modified. (it enters a constricted culvert), The northern-most study area is also located in a ravine, west and behind the developed portion along Rainier A venue. This wetland is scrub shrub and forested,. with a sparse understory. A watercourse flows through this area as well, but due. to the mineral soils and lower base flow, there IS no significant undercutting. Water was observed flowing in both watercourses during site visits in both August 2002 .and February 2004, and therefore they were deemed to be perennial. The watercourses are routed through culverts beneath the commercial properties and RainIer Avenue, beneathBoeing Field and ultimately into Lake Washington. 1.2 BACKGROUND RESEARCH Prior to our wetland delineation field activities, Riley's wetland ecologist, Ms. Celeste Botha, examined available aerial photographs, drainage inventories and sensitive areas maps regarding the study area.' . . , . . ..' 2. Wetland Delineation .' On January 6, 2003, Ms. Celeste 'Bothawith The Riley Group, Inc. (Riley) e~amined the study area for indicators of critical' areas, such as . fish and· wildlife habitat · conservation areas. (including . streams; areas occupied b)T sensitive,' threatened, . or endangered species) and wetlands. Wetlands were identified based on the presence of . hydrophytic vegetation; hydric soil, and wetland hydrology using the method outlined in the 1997 Washington State Wetlands ''Identification and Delineation Manual (Washington State Manual), and following City of Renton regulations. The "routine on ... ' . site determination method" was used to make the wetlands determination. The. routine' method is used for areas equal to or l~ss than five acres ih size, or for larger areas with' relatively homogeneous vegetative, soil, and hydrologic properties. · During the study area evaluation, six .detailed data points were located ih distinct representative vege'tation units in order. to characterize the wetland and non-wetland communities. Field observations at each data point were compiled on preformatied Wetland Data Sheets, la~eled 1 through 6. . ." '.' . 2.1 . VEGETATION Vegetation wasevrutiated. across the study area to determine the presence. of hydrophyticplant commimities.Planf communities are considered hydrophytic when more than 50 percent of the dominant species in the plant community have a' wetland indicator status of facultative. (FAC+;. FAC, & FAC-), facultative 'wetland (FACW+, FACW, & FACW~), 'or obligate wetland (OBL),aslisted in the National List of Plant · Species That Occur in . Wetlands,Region 9. ~ Northwest (Reed, 1993 and 1988). The . indicator codes for plant speciesarenoted in Table 1. . Wetland Delineation & Mitigation Report 2 July 22, 2004 South' Parking Lot Project -Rainier Avenue North, Renton, WA Project #2002 ... 061 c I I I I I I II I I I I. I I I I THE RILEY GROUP, INC. . Table 1. Plant Indicator Codes 67-99% . to occur in wetlands or 34-66% 1-34% <1 Not * Note: FACW, FAC, and FACU also have + and -values to represent species near the wetter end of the spectrum (+) and speCies near the drier end of the spectrum H. Dominant species were recorded as species comprfsing more than 20 percent of the plant community in each stratum (tre~, shrub, and/or herb layer). 2.2 SOILS· . . Anaerobic (saturated) conditi(;ms cause soils to form certain characteristics·thatcan be observed)n the field. Hydric indicators include: ,the presence of a matrix chroma of 1 or. less in unmottled soil or 2 or less in mottled soil, gleyed soil, organic soils .(peats and mucks), and the accumulation Of sulfidic material. . . '. . . Soil pits w~re dug in each data point, using a shovel to depths of 16 to 18 inchesbelow ground surface (BGS):.Soils' textures were. characterized using NatUral Resources Conservation Service protocol, and examined forhydric indicators as described by the Washington State Manual. Soil colors' were identified using a Munsell soil color chart (Kollmorgen Corporation" 1988). D~pth of soil saturation was recorded for each data point. Wetland pata Sheets are· included in Appendix B. Several secondary. data points were examined across the' wetland/upland boundary in order. to qetelmine the approximate. boundary line, although data forms were not J '. completed at the secondary data points; The secondary data points were used to examine similarities or differences in soilsbetweeri major data points and to establish mapped s6ilunit boundaries. . 2.3 . HYDROLOGY.' '. At each data point, observation's of direct and indirect wetland hydrology indicators were evaluated, and recorded. Under noima! conditions,hydrologic indicators are used to determine if the. hydrology is either currently present or. can be inferred from the' . guidelines provided in the Washington State Manual. These indicators include: recorded . data, visual observation of inundation or saturation, w~termarks, drift lines, . sediment Wetland Delineation & Mitigatipn Report 3 July 22, 2004 South Parking Lot Project-Rainier Avenue North, Renton, WA Project #2002-061c I I I I I I I 1 I I I 'I I ,I ! :1 I THE RILEY GROUP, INC. , ' ' deposits, drainage patterns, local soil survey data, oxidized root channels, and water- stained leaves. . " ',3. Wetland Functions Assessment A general assessment of thefurictions of the wetland system was completed using the 2000 Wetland and Buffer Functions and Semi-quantitative Performance Assessment methods (Appendix C). 'Wetland community types were classified using Classification a/Wetlands and Deep,WaterHabitats in the Us. (Cowardin et aI., 1979). ' 4. Wetland Study Results , Riley identified and delineated two wetlands within the subject project, boundaries (Appendix B). A sUmmary of the vegetation, soils, and hydrology observed in tlle wetlands and the adjacent on-site upland is presented below. Wetland determination data forms are provided in Appendix A. '. 4.1 WETLAND 4.1.1 VEGETATION " , Within'the southern study area, both the watercourse edges and the wetland are characterized by' the domimmce of invasive species specifically Japanese knotweed. (Polygonum cuspidatum), a ClassB noxious weed in Washington State and Himalayan blackberry (Rub~s procerus). ,The area on the, subject site infested with knotweed is approxiniately 6,400 square feet in size (SO-feet )( 80-feet). Control measures as , detailed in a letter from The Riley Group to Jennifer Toth Henning, AICP at the City of Renton have been impleme:nt~d.' Further to the west, the wetland is dominated by Himalayan blackberry; Pacific" willow (Salix lasiandra), giant horsetail (Equisetum ,telmateia) and, lady fern (Athyrfum . filix-femina). Skunk, cabbage (Lysichiton americanum); "deadly nightshade' (Solanum' dulcamara) and vine· maple (Acer , 'circinatum) are also present This primarily emergent plant community is represented by DP5. Within the northern study area, the low-lying areas are dominated by black cottonwood. (Populus balsamifera) .. , and Pacific 'willow (Salix lasiandra) in the overstory and red osier dogwood' '(Cornusstolonifera) in the shrub layer. Red alder (Alnus rubra) is also present in the overstorY. The. ground layer is, spars~' in places but dominated in patches by various invasive exotic species, including reed canary grass (Phalaris arl1ndinaceae); creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens) and Englishivy (Hedera helix), although native 'species including small~fruited bulrush (Scirpus microcarpus), . piggy-back plant (Tolmiea menziesii) and stinging ,nettle (Urtica dioica) are also present: The eastern edge of the' wetlandis'filled with' primarily debris and dominated by Himalayan' blackberry (Rubus procerus) which has also invaded the eastern end of the buffer. A Wetland Delineation & Mitigation Report 4 July 22, 2004 South Parking Lot Project-Rainier Avenue North, Renton, WA Project #2002-061c I I I 1 I I. I I I 1 I I I I THE RILEY GROUP, INC. small watercourse was flowing from west to east through the wetland. Data points .1, 2, and 6 represent this area. .4.1.2 SOIL The site is not mapped in the Soil Survey of King County Area. Soil atDP 5 represents the southern wetland area. Soil here has a surface layer comprised of 6 inches of silt overlying gleyed sand to 16+ inches. DPs 1 and 2, which represent the northern wetland area, are located west of the property line; Soils at DP 1 have a: dark organic/silt surface layer underlain by low chroma sand to 16+ inches. Soils at DP 2 further to the west are low chroma silt loam, which is mottled below 8-inches. Data sheet 6 includes a . generalized description of vegetation within the on-site portion of the northern study area. 4.1.3 HYDROLOGY Direct evidence of wetland hydrology (i.e., inundation or soil saturation) wasobserved in DPs 1, 2, and 5 at the time of our delineation. .. . . 4.2 . WETLAND FUNCTIONS AND VALUES 2000 Wetland and Buffer Functions and Semi-quantitative Performance Assessment data forms are included as Appendix C. . . . 4.3 . GENERAL UPLANDS CONDITIONS . . . . The wetland buffers on. both the north and south .sides of both wetland areas are dominated by Douglas fir (Pseudotsugii menzeisii) . and big-leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum) .. With a diverse mostly·. native·· understory including Indian plum (Oemleria cerasiformis), salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), Pacific blackberry (Rubus ursin us) and swordfern (Polystichum munitum). This community is represented by DP 4. <,' ,. : '. .:' , . . . Both wetlands.' eastern boundaries terminate at the base of a filled embankment. The filled emb~ent was created, likely many years ago, to create more g~aveled parking area for the respective existing businesses~ The wetlands' easternbo:undaries and .. vegetated. portions of t4e buffers are·dominated by Himalayan blackberry (Rubus procerus) and black cottbnWood(Populus balsamifera). .. ·DP 3 represents all ar6a that does not meet all three wed and criteria located at the toe of slope · in the northern wetland within an area proposed for wetland creation. Neither hydric soil indicators rim direct wetland hydrology jndicators. were observed in this area, though it must be rioted that hydricsoil indicators are~ot easy to obserVe in sandy soils; Soilsin this areaarehighly permeable coarse sands apparently deposited through . seasonal stream flooding; raising the elevation just enough so as to appear notto meet the hydrology .criteria. Stinging nettle (Urtica dioica) IS dominant but otherwise vegetation in this area is sparse.· Wetland DelineatiQn & Mitigation Report 5 July 22, 2004 South Parking Lot Project-Rainier Avenue North, Renton, WA Project #2002-061c I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I' I THE RILEY GROUP, INC., . 5. Sensitive Area Identification & Classification' Based upon presence of the three requisite criteria, two wetlands are present as shoWn in Appendix B, at the south and north ravines. The South Wetland meets the criteria as a palustrine emergent Category 3 wetland. A heron nest has been identified adjacent to the wetland on the lot to the west of the Alhadeff property; however, according to the City of Renton, a single nest does not meet the city's criteria for a rookery. The wetland classification.,isbased upon this information; as well as .. the wetland size (greater . than 5,000 square feet); severe disturbance, including the dominance of invasive species within the wetland, specifically Japanese knotweed and Himalayan blackberry; the presence. of fill material within the wetland at the east end as well as woody debris dumping; . severe :under:-cutting of the watercourse, and; outlet modification (the watercourse enters a constricted culVert). . · The North Wetland falls between classification Categories 2 and 3. It meets Category 2 criteria (c) in that it lies within the. headwaters of a watercourse, e.g., the· small seasonal . watercourse that flows towards the east. However,this watercourse is piped several · hundred feet to Lake Washington and thus has minimal stream furiction. It also partially ,. ,', " meets Category 2 (e) in that; although the. eastern end of the wetland appears as though · it was historically filled, the currently existing wetland area shows little evidence of . human related physicalaheration .. such as diking, ditching or channelization. The wetland meets . criteria for classification as. Category 3 . in . that the eastern' end has evidently been historically filled, is' characterized in patches by invasive non-native · plants in the ground layer and has a modified outlet (the watercourse enters a constricted culvert). However, the majority of the remaining on-site wetland can not be accurately described ,as' "severely disturbed" or ~'newly .. errierging", arid thus on balance meets the' city's criteria' as a Category 2wet~and. . According t~ RehtonMunicipal code, the 'city will not accept a dual rating for a Category 2 wetland, such as a combined Category 2 and 3 rating, so· the wetland' is subje9t to the' buffer and mitigation standards applicable to the . Category 2 wetland rating. . . . .. Th~ flbwing water features present on the Alhadeff site are . highly unlikely to ,support salmonids. The primary source of hydrology is discharge from ~msite wetland and' upland environments, augmented 'by urban storm water ·supplied from the residential developments to the west. An· extensive uriderground culvert system conilects the · watercourse~tothecity's stonndrainage syste:m which ultimately discharge into Lake .Washirigtonseverai hundred feetto the northeast. Thewetrand lies within the floodplain of the watercourse, based lipon sedimentdepositsthr0ughout..·.· Wetland Delineation & Mitigation Report 6 July 22, 2004 South Parking Lot Project-Rainier Avenue North, Renton, WA Project #2002-061c I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I THE RILEY GROUP, INC. 6. Regulatory Implications Several Federal, State,and local-regulations applicable to development proposals in and/or· near wetlands and streams have recently undergone significant changes. A summary of applicable regulatory implications is given below. 6.1. FEDERAL REGULATIONS 6.1.1 'WETLANDS. Section 4()40f the Clean Water Act requires approval prior to discharging dredged or fin material into the waters of the United States, including special aquatic sites such as wet~ands.·Typicalactivities requiring Section 404 permits are: • Depositing fill, dredged,· or excavated material in waters of ,the U.S. and/or· adj acent wetlands. . • Grading or mechanized land. clearing of wetlands. . . • Placement of spoils from ditch excavation activities in wetlands~ • Soil movementduringyegetation clearing in wetlands .... • Site development fill for residential, 'commercial, or recreational developnients. • . Construction of revetments, . groins,breakwaters, beach enhancement, jetties, levees, dams, dikes,· and weirs. . . :-" . • .. Placement of riprap and road fills .. Waters o/the UliitedSt~tes include the, folloWing: a. All waters which are currently used, . or were used in the past, or maybe susceptible to use in interstate or foreign: coi:nInerce,including all waters which ate 'subjectto the ebbaild flow of the tide. . b.··· All·interstatewat~:rs inCluding interstl:lte '\\retlands .. . ,'".' " .c. All. other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent str~ams), mudflats,sandflats, wetlands, sloughs,prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, br naturai ponds; the use, degrada,tion or destruction of which could . affectlIlterstate or foreign commerce including any such waters: L which are or could. be used by interstate or' foreign travelers for . recreational or other purposes; or WetlaJ}d Delineation & Mitigation Report 7 July 22, 2004 South Parking Lot Project-Rainier Avenue North, Renton, WA Project #2002-061c I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I THE RILEY GROUP, INC. 2. from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or • foreign commerce;'or 3; which are used or could be used for industrial purpose by industries in interstate commerce .. d. All impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States' under the definition .. e. Tributaries of waters identified in paragraphs 1-4 above . . f. The territorial seas. . . g.Wetlands adjacent to waters (other than wetlands) identified in paragraphs 1-6 above. h. EPA has clarified that waters of the United States also include the following waters: . . . . 1. which are or would be used as habitat by birds protected by Migratory Bird Treaties; or 2 .. which ~e or would be used as habitat by other migratory birds which . cross state lines; or 3. which are or would be used as habitat for endangered species; or . '. 4. used to irrigate crops sold in interstate commerce. . . Waste treatinent systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons designed to meet the requirements of the' CW A (other than cooling ponds as defined in 40 CFR . 123.11(m) which also meet the criteria of this definition) are not waterS. of the . United States. It should be noted that we generally do not consider the following watersto be Waters of the United States. However, the Corps and EPA 'reserve •. t~e right on a case-:by-case basis to determine that a particular:waterbody within these categories?f waters is a water of the Unit{!d States. . e. Non~tidal drainage and irrigation ditches excavated on dry land. f. .' i\rtificially irrigated areas which would revert to upland if the irrigation ceased ....•.. . . ,', '" .,,'. " . , .' . g. Artificial lakes created by excavating and/or diking dry land to collect .. and retain water and which are used exclusively for such purposes as . stock watering, irrigatiori; settling basins, or rice growing. ' Wetland Delineation & Mitigation Report 8 July 22, 2004 South Parking Lot Project-Rainier Avenue North, Renton, WA Project #2002-061c I I I I I I I I I I 'I I ! I I I I I I I I -. THE RILEY GROUP" INC. h. Artificial reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating and/or diking dry land to retain water for .. primarily aesthetic reasons. .. . 1. Waterfilled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction. . activity and pits excavated in dry land for the purpose of obtaining fill, . . sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the definition of waters of the United: States. (33 CFR328 and Suppiementary Information). The determination of applicability of Section 404 is. the sole prerogative of the Corps of Engineers. Therefore it is advised that the Corps be notified of any proposed wetland alteration. '.' . 6.1.2 STREAMS Due to association with Lake Washington, a Biological Evaluation (B.E.) may be required for proposed watercQUrse aCtivities. The purpose of a BE is to establish, or identify, potential project impacts on any listed species under the· Federal Endangered. Species Act (ESA). The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (the Services) administer the ESA and all Federal actionagenciesm~stbe in compliance. '.' .' 6.2 WASHINGTON STATE REGULATIONS 6.2.1 WETLANDS . Washington State, through the Department of Ecology, has authority to issue Section ·401 Water Quality Certification for projects that require individual Corps permits under Section 404. The purpose of the certification process, which is initiated through a . Section 404 Public Notice and perffiitapplication~ is to ensure that federally permitted activities comply withthe federal Clean Water Act, state water quality laws, and any '. other ~pplicable state laws. 6.2.2 . STREAMS' The stat~ Legislature has' given' the Department of Fish· and Wildlife' th~ responsibility of preserving, protecting, and perpetuating all fish and shellfish resources of the state. To assist in achieving that goal; the state Legislature in 1949 passed a state law now knowrias the "Hydraulic Co~e" (RCW75.20.100-160). Although the law has been '. amended occasionally since it was. bi"iginallyenacted,the. basic authority has been . retained. The law requires that any person, organizatiori,or government agency wishing to conduct any, construction activity in or near state waters must do so under the terms .of a permit (called the Hydraulic Project Approval-HPA)issued by the Washington State Department ofFish and Wildlife. State waters Include all marine waters and fresh " .. , , . Wetland Delineation & Mitigation Report 9 July 22, 2004 South Parking Lot Project-Rainier Avenue North, Renton, WA Project #2002-061c I I I I I I I I I I I 'I I I 1 1 I'" I THE RILEY GROUP, INC. waters of the state. The major types of activities in freshwater requiring an HPA" include, but are not limited to: streambank protection; construction of bridges, piers, and docks; pile driving; channel change or realignment; conduit (pipeline) crossing; culvert installation; dredging; gravel removal; pond construction;" placement of Outfall structures; log, logjam, or debris removal; installation or maintenance (with equipment) of water diversions; and mineral prospecting. A Joint Aquatic Resource" Protection Application (JARP A) is required t6 apply for the HP A. If the project as proposed will adversely affect fish habitat, it may be approved with certain conditions attached, such as timing and construction methods, to prevent damage. If the project cannot be ,accomplished without significant adverse impacts on fish, shellfish, or their habitat, it may be denied. Of the approximately 8,200 applications received per year, less than one percent are denied. Most applications are processed and mailed within 30 days of receipt of a complete application ,and compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA Chapter' 43.12C RCW). A complete application consists of (I) general plans and specifications for the proj ect, (2) complete plans and specifications for work within the ordinary ru.gh water line, and (3) 'complete plans and specificatioris for the proper protection of fish life. 6.3 CITY OF RENTON REGULATIONS' , " .6.3.1 WETLANDS According to Renton Municip~l Code 4.3.050 M, "The overall goal of any . compensatory project shall be' no net loss of wetland 'function and acreage. and to strive for a net resource gain in wetlands over present conditions. The concept of "no net loss" means to create, restoreand/or enhancea wetland so that there is no reduction to total wetland' acreage andlor . function." and "Where feasible, created or restored wetlands shall be a higher category than the altered wetland. In no case shall they be lower ... " .. Required mitigation ratibs f()r Category 3. wetl~ds are '1.5 times the area altered .. The applicant proposes to meet thisl.5: 1 ratio through wetland creation at a 1: 1 ratio at the northeast side of the wetland as well as "through ellhancement of a minimum of the . . balan.ce of the 1.5:1 ratio within . the existing wetland. The mitigation plan provided. below is designed to meettheabove-cited code requirements. However~ the applicant 'is requesting authorization to' implement wetland mitigation simultaneously with wetland fill activities rather than the code-mandated 12 months in advance (when the full 1.5: 1 wetlandcreation:wetland fill ratio is not met). This. will require a modification to the sensitive areas requirements that are justified due to the poor quality ofthewetla:lld thafwili beirripa~ted, as described above in the Wetland Functions and VaI11es section. The standard buffer width for Category 2 wetlands is 50 feet, which can be reduced by 50% with buffer averaging consistent withRMC 3:-20;32.f. The existing buffer area at the east sideof the wetland is nearly non-functional since the area lying within 50-feet Wetland Delineation & Mitigation Report 10 July 22, 2004 South Parking Lot Project-Rainier Avenue North, Renton, WA Project #2002-061c I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I THE RILEY GROUP, INC. . of the wetland edge is comprised. of fill, debris piles arid blackberries; as noted above. This soil material will not readily support desirable native vegetation:. The effective buffer areas to the north and south, are greater than 50-feet wide and primarily comprised of mature native forest and thus provide good buffer functions and values that compensate for the reduced buffer width at the eastern end .. 6.3.2 STREAMS . . The City of Renton is in the process of revising the municipal code sections related to streams. The. City of Rent on defines stream, creek, river, . or water-course as, "any portion of a channel, bed, bank, or bottom waterward of the ordinary high water mark in which fish may spawn, reside, or through which they may pass, and tributary waters with defined beds or bank which influence the quality of fish habitat downstream. This includes watercourses which flow on an intermittent basis or which fluctuate in level . .. during the year, and applies to the entire bed of such watercourse whether or not the water is at peak . level. This definition does not include irrigation of ditches, canals, stormwatetrunoff devices, or other entirely artificial watercourses, except where they exist in a natural watercourse which has been altered by humans or except where there are salmonids." At this point in time, there is no stream classification system or buffer requirements in the municipal· code. 7. Wetland &' Stream Impacts The proposal is to impact approximately 3,591 squarefeet of the southern wetland and' to place 120 linear feet of the southern watercourse in a culvert. The irnpactand mitigation areas are shown on the attached plans prepared by DietzHartlage dated July 22, 2004. The impact area of the southern wetland and watercourse is highly disturbed, as noted above. ' 8. Wetland Mitigation' 8.1 OUTLINE OF THE PROPOSED MITIGATION PLAN The mitigation plan: is composed of the following sections: , A definition of mitigation goals, and a description of how this plan is designed to meet these goals; ·1. Implementation plan; ... . ' . . . . 2. Performance standards,which are tangible standards against which results can be compared;, , 3.· A monitoring plan, which. explains how the datawill be collected to compare against the performance standards and evaluate success; and, . 4. , A contingency plan for making mid-course' corrections in the event of problems. Wetland Delineation & Mitigation Report 11 July 22, 2004 South Parking Lot Project-Rainier Avenue North, Renton, WA Project #2002-061c '. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I '·1 .. I·" I ,I i ~I THE RILEY GROUP, INC. . 8.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE MITIGATION AREA As noted above, the mitigation area is associated with the North Wetland. Most of the' proposed mitigation will occur along the northeast side of the wetland in an area that, due to accretion is only slightly higher in elevation than the wetland. The buffer area is currently comprised of invasive and pioneer species capable of growing in poor soils. The proposed mitigation is illustrated on the attached plans prepared by DietzHartlage dated July 22, 2004. . 8.3' DESCRIPTION AND GOA.LS OF THE PROPOSED MITIGATION The mitigation proposal has four components as follows: • Creation of 3,591 square feet of wetl~d adjacent to . the North Wetland involving excavation to create wetland.hydrology followed by dense planting of . wetland plants. Due to steep slopes this will necessitate the use of ecology . blocks. • '. Compensation for buffer reduction totaling 5,028 square feet through buffer increase of 5,028 square feet. .. • Enhancement of a minimum of an additional 1,800 square feet of the North .' Wetland through removal of exotic invasive plants and interplanting 'with native speCIes. . . -. . • Enhancement· of the averaged wed and buffer east of the North. Wetland, involving removal of fill material and backfill with appropriate planting soils followed by dense planting of both wetland and upland vegetation. "-, . • Removal of invasive species in the area west of the proposed parking lot within the wetland and buffer adjacent to the South Wetland as required by the City of . Renton and replanting with native species. . . • Removal of Invasive plants in the.buffer· to the north and south of the South Wetland followed by interplanting of native species to. meet the City's landscaping requirem~nts.. . . .' . . The goal of the proposed mitigation is to comply with' the stated goals and mitigation ratios of the City relative to compensatory mitigation cited above. To accomplish the .. overall goal~ the functions of the N orthWetland will' be improved as. shown through'the . following functional assessment. This pre-development assessment pertains specifically . to the area pf proposed wetland alteration (the SouthWetland)"whereas the post- development values pertain to the enhancement/wetland creation (the North Wetland) . area with the objective of comparing. the pre-and post-development values. These conditions should be fully met by the 'end of the monItoring period. .. . . . \' ". '. -, '. Pre-development (Existing) Conditions (South Wetland): . . . Flood/Storm Water Control: moderate. Wetland Delineation & Mitigation Report 12 July 22, 2004 South Parking Lot Project-Rainier Avenue North, Renton, WA Project #2002-061c I' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I' I I I I THE RILEY GROUP, INC. Base Flow/Ground Water Support: low Erosion/Shoreline Protection: N/A· . Water Quality Improvement: moderate Natural Biological'Support: N/A Overall Habitat Functions: low Specific Habitat Functions: low Cultural/Socioeconomic: low These functions will be replaced. or improved over. existing conditions in the following . ways: Post-Development Conditions (North Wetland): Flood/Storm Water Control: Create additional wetland directly adjacent to a watercourse Base Flow/GroundWater Support: Maintain sheet flows through wetland Erosion/Shoreline Protection: r Significant improvement over existing conditions in watercourse channel Watei:' Quality Improvement: Increase vegetative cover Natural Biological Support: Provide high vegetl:l.tive structure . Increase plant diversity .. Reduce invasive. species Increase primary productivity . . Increase organic export . Increase habitat features Overall Habitat Functions: Increase habitat diversity Specific Habitat Functions: . Increa~e invertebrate and amphibian habitat Cultural/SoCioeconomic: Unchanged' Wetland Delineation & Mitigation Report 13 July 22, 2004 South Parking Lot Project-Rainier Avenue North, Renton, WA Project #2002-061c 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I 1 1 1 I- 1 1 I THE RILEY GROUP, INC. . 8.4 PLANTING PLAN The planting plan is shown on the attached Conceptual Wetland Mitigation Plan sheet prepared by DietzHartlageLandscape Architecture dated July 22, 2004.· . 8.5 CONSTRUCTION PLAN . In order to ensure that the following implementation activities occur as intended, a pre- construction meeting shall occUr with the landscapers and the project biologist -or - -landscape architect. During this meeting; the biologist shall review the planting material to ensure that it is as specified and that the crews understand the details of this planting plan; Construction (including grading, clearing and invasive species removal/spraying followed by seed dispersal) MUST occur during the dry months, from June through mid October. Planting of potted material must occur in October through November. Planting of bare root material must occur between December and February. In order to create wetland hydrology within the wetland creation area, six inches of soil will be removed. The soil removal will riot affect the suitability of the planting medium, as the top soil layer is· adequately deep to support plants. Care shall be taken to prevent compaction of soils during the excavation activities. Other details of construction will be provided with the final mitigation plan. 8.6 _. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS' Whenevaluated against monitoring data, perfortnance standards are used to determine the relative success of the mitigation project. Failure to meet these general minimum standards throughout the monitoring p~!iod will result in implementation of contingency measures. 8.6.1 VEGETATION STANDARDS Standards -regarding the vegetation criterion are' broken down by monitoring year as follows: Table 2. Performance Standards . , Criterion -Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 NATIVE PLANT COVER (%). 30 to 50 45 to 75 65 to 85 -.- Native woody plant cover (%)* 10-20 20-30 40 -60 - . Non-native, . invasive plant cover (see below) (% ) Woody plant survivorship 100 80 75 Wetland Delineation & Mitigation Report 14 July 22, 2004 South Parking Lot Project-Rainier Avenue North, Renton, WA Project #2002-061c I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I THE RILEY GROUP, INC .. Species diversity (see below) . * for forested areas 8.6.2 SPECIES DIVERSITY The following minimum standards apply to species diversity of plants, including both planted and volunteer species, within the various strata • trees = 4 species • shrubs = 4 species • ' herbaceous = 8 species 8.6.3 PLANT SURVIVORSHIP Plants are considered "dead" when more than 50% of the plant is decadent, with the exception of cottonwood, willow and red-osier dogwood, which will be considered live if any part of the plant is living. Emergerit zones will be subject to native general cover' criteria only. 8~6.4 CONTROL OF .INVASIVE AND NATIVE SPECIES , WITH A' TENDENCY TO OVERWHELM Himalayan blackberry (Rubusprocerus), reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinaceae), soft 'rush (Juncus effusus), and common cattail (Typha latifolia) may not exceed 30% cover , per species throughout the monitoring period.' 8.6.5 HYDROLOGY STANDARDS Wetland hydrology meeting the criteria of the US Army Corps of Engineers for the P':lget Lowlands will be provided throughout the area designated for 'wetland ,creation. 8.6.6W ATERCOURSE STABILITY .. .' . . Watercourse stability will be evaluated vi,sually to' check observe any evidence of eroSIOn. 8.7 MONITORING Monitoring willocc~ according to the following schedule to evaluate compliance with the performance standards. . Wetland Delineation & Mitigation Report 15 July 22, 2004 South Parking Lot Project-Rainier Avenue North, Renton, WA Project#2002-061c I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I THE RILEY GROUP, INC. Table 3. Monitoring schedule Biannual Maintenance Visits Monitoring Visit Report due to City by: Year I Between June I and July 15 AND Between August I and November 30 ,Between September I and October 30 September 30 Year 2 Between June 1 and July 15 AND Between August I and November 30 . Between September 1 and October 30 September 30 Year 3 Between June 1 and July 15 AND Between August 1 and November 30 Between September 1 and October 30 September 30 The vegetation sampling methodology will consist of inspection of the planted material to determine the bverall health and vigor of the installation. Secondly, the line intercept method (Canfield 1941), will be used. Randomly spaced permanent data points will be . . established along the transect. A table documenting linear density index, relative density, frequency, relative frequency, linear· coverage, relative coverage and importance value for each species in the shrub/tree strata will be produced. Photographs will also be taken of each data point during each monitoring period so. that progress can be tracked from year to year. The herb stratawill be monitored for frequency, relative frequency, coverage, relative coverage and importance value for each species. Sampling within each data point along the transect will occur within a one square meter area. Hydrology will be evaluated by digging soil pits at several points throughout the wetland creation area to assess soil saturation on the first spring wet season after stream flows have been reestablished through the wetland creation areas. Stream stability will consist of visual evaluati~n of the channel· to document any channelization..·' Evidence of wildlife use will be visually assessed and recorded. 8.8 MAINTENANCE PLAN· Over the three-year monitoring period, a rigorous.~emiannual maintenance program will be implemented as needed to eliminate undesirable plants, .and to protect shrubs and small trees from competition by grasses and herbaceous plants. The information obtained during the biannual maintenance visits will be provided to the maintenance crews to direct .the maintenance actions. A qualified wetland scientist will be on hand to supervise maintenance activities as needed. 8.9 . CONTINGENCY PLAN . In order to provide for the contingency that. performance standards may not be met during the .three-year implementation period, it may be' necessary to provide supplemental plantings. Plant attrition can be remedied by evaluating the cause, and replanting with the same or a more appropriate approved species. The landscaping contractor should guarantee 100 percent survivorship for one year from . initial pl~ting Wetland Delineation & Mitigation Report 16 July 22, 2004 South Parking Lot Project-Rainier Avenue North, Renton, WA Project #2002-061c I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I :1 I THE RILEY GROUP, INC. for losses due to defects in materials or workmanship. All plants that are used for replacement must meet the standards of the initial plantings. The causes of any mortality will be evaluated, and based upon the results of this evaluation, alternate species selection may occur. Thereafter, for the remainder of the monitoring period, 20 percent' tree or shrub attrition will be allowed without 'triggering the contingency plan. Replacement will be subject to the same conditions and be made in the same manner as specified for the original planting~ '.9. Limitations The Riley Group, Inc. warrants that this study and the mitigation plan are in accordance with generally accepted environmental science practices, including the technical guidelines and criteria in effect at the time this study was performed. The results and conclusions of this report represent the author's best professional judgment, based upon information provided by the project proponent in addition. to that obtained during the course of this study. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. Please call us at (206) 417-0551, or contact us by fax (206) 417-0552, if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, ~ .. ~\ . t;- C oilia .:' . ~-" President Attachments . Report Distribution Rich Wagner, Baylis Architects' Wetland Delineation & Mitigation Report 17 July 22, 2004 South Parking Lot Project-Rainier Avenue North, Renton, WA Project #2002-061c I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I THE RILEY GROUP, INC. REFERENCES Hitchcock, C.L., and A. Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. Univ. of Washington Press, Seattle. King County DDES website, http://www.metrokc.gov/ddes/gis/parcell Munsell Color. 1992. Munsell Soil Color Charts. Kollmorgen Instruments· Corp., . Baltimore, MD. . ) Reed, P.B., Jr. 1988. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: National Summary. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. BioI. Rpt. 88(24). 244 p. 1993 Northwest Supplement, Region 9,. December 1993. Snyder, D.E.,· P.S.Gale, and R.F. Pringle. 1973. Soil Survey of King County Area, Washington. U.S. Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C. Soil ConserVation Service. 1985. Hydric Soils of the State of Washington. U.S. Soil Conservation Service, W~hington, D;C. Soil Conservation Service. 1987. Hydric Soils of the United States. In cooperation with the National Technical committee for Hydric Soils. U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C. U.S'. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Northwest Supplement to National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Region 9. BioI. Rpt. 88(24). Washington State· Departm~nt of Ecology. 1997. Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual. Ecology Publication #96-94. Wetland Delineation & Mitigation Report 18 July 22, 2004 South Parking Lot Project-Rainier Avenue North, Renton, WA Project #2002-061c I I I I I I I I I I I . I I I I I I I I '. "., - " . DATA FORMl (Revised) " Routine Wetland Detennination .(WA State \\'etland Delineation Manual or 1987 CorDs Wetland Delineation Manual) Project/Site: JLfh lid eff If7 -bt~.· .... .-nJ ,;(V{ J ,"t:/7 1 1V n " Date: g / ICJ I () Z. " 'Applic:mt/ownl!r: AI ~tilef-:f-.. ' .. C ~ I--:Z;;/~\ Investi!::ltor(s): f~V'" 07' .. . 6lil ... ' no '. Y~s.·@;· . .' ·ves',~·.··· -,,'-":';' .:"'~'.:' Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site~ Is the site signific:mtly disturbed (atypical situatiol1l~ .' Is the area a potential Problem Area'? . · EXplanation of atvpic:il or problem area: ,.', County: '. State: srrlR: /<I~'c; . / , VEGETATION (For strata. indicate T = tree:S = shrub: 1-1 = herb: V = v~ne) ".\" '.' " -.' -Indic~ior Dominant Plant SpeCies' , , Ckco\"er . Ck cO\'er SIi-illum Slr:lIUm Dominant Plilnl Species " r170icd () uf"o / 1,- i~t {C r n16J)(' .. IPAr34·r;lu~>· 0tcT r ·.·Yo ('""' . .0 j .t-! ,. , '/0' -_ ... " .. ,'.; ,5" '. /0' .r~:·:" . . . ) , . 'A-:f I . /.. ./. /-1.' . ~.' '.'7 ...... . '? k.,r/f.·. ~'711·. -: ,'7 I~ ilL-, '. H\,DRQPH\'TIC\,E~E:r A T10~ INDICATORS: " " · %of domin~ntsOBt; F.o\CW: &FAC:: / () (7: ' .•.. Check all indicators thiltapJ)ly &; expl~inbelow: .. '. Ph)'s'iologicaJlr~pr6ductive :idaplations Wetland plant datilbase Personal knowledge of regional' plain communities' Other (explain), · Hydrophytic vegetation present? Rationale for decisionIRem:1rks: . HYDROLOGY , . Indk~to:r . -.-' Is it thl! gro\\'ing season'?@· no. . Water Marks: yes·~ Sediment D~posits: yes '.~ .' .. J A.;y;; .on Based on: v' V'''/\J_ soil temp (record temp ~ __ )... Drift Lines: yes '~'" Dr~inJge~:merns:Q::;:/ ~o· .. other (explain) . .' ' . t-::D:-e-pl-.• ·:""o':"r':""in-=u=nd=:'a=t:=io=n=: .~!,!,::!..l::;~~.:':': .. ~. ~~_'--=-in~c~h":'es-.<;;"'o;".-r/;"' .. -. ~';"";"-+'~O~x~id":":'i';"ze~d~R:'-oo---t ~(l~h-·e"'roo-.t-s)---+-:Lotal Soil Survey: yes: ~. . ..... I. Channels <12 in:"~)no" Vf.-r FAC. Neutral: ''Yes e> Depth tofree water inpii: ~ in~hes Depth to saturated soil: :.....:::=:-inches Water~5tilinedLeayes yes~ . Checkall that apply & explain below: Other (explain): Stream. Lake or gage data:· . __ Aerial photo2raphs: . _Other: Wetlarid hydrology present? no · Rationale for decisionlRemarks: . . . I . DATA FORM 1 (Revised) Routine Wetland Detennination .' ..... : (\VA State \VetJand Delineation Manual or' '-I 1987 CorDs "'etland Delineation Manual) . Project/Site: Ra 'nl~ y-. 4~ .. ,~~, Oat.:: I AppHc.ntlow""r. ,41f,~d e{"( . .. .. In\.-estil!:J.tons):t. ~ 1M. . 'County: State: srrlR: 8'/1'7 / ~ 2- (CiA? Do Nurmal Circumsl:lnces eltist on the site? '. .~ ··no I Is the site signific:mtly disturbed (atYPical situ:ltio~r~ " yes .® Is the area a potential Problem Area?' . ' ... yes .. e3 . . Community 10: .. Transect 10: ' D Plot 10: -P -' 2-;.. Explanation of atvpical or problem area: .. ' VEGETATION (For strata. indic:ue T = tree~ S = shrub: H = herb: V .=v~ne) -r ~" 'j.', . . • I • Indicator Dominant Plant Species h/}" .~ ../-rfh v' At ba" ,-y~ . PACU:ld~ ~eM­ .~., Vv~K' J/ej > f/1.!E$.,' N ->r Stratum ~ I I. } ./ .., I 'iC co\'er 10 .. ItJ , Indicator. ~A-[/ PMV(/ 1·Bt&!- . ".;.-- :~ .. rAc-t-:-ht1~! /1/£1 ' JoN L .... ~ I K Ub;ACY~C ·1 ·)iJt9+-r~.: -;;7m .. ~e'n~ ./. ·'/0 ~kC- ~.'~~'~"~'~~' -h~v-5~~'~"'-'-'~~/-' ~-.~:~'J-O~. ~~~.~-:6U~·~.·~&f:~·:~~·~c-· ~~-.-. ~-'~W-.~: -<.-~-::·~·.··~·~~··~W~~. I HYDROPHYTICVEGETATIOS INDICATO~:.,. / % of dominants OBL~ FAcW.&FAc:l00~~. _ " Checkall indicatorSthilt apply &:. expl~in beto\\': . VisualobseK'ation of plant species growirigiri ' .. areas of prolonged inundation/saturation : __ Morphological adaptations' Technical literature .. . .. Hydrophytic:vegetation present? .~>, no Rationale for decisiortlRemarks: ~ ',\ " Physiologic:ai/Teprodu~ti\'e adaptaiions . W.:tland plant database'. ,... . Personal knowledge of regional plant ct'mmunities .' Other (dplain) . .... -; .. I HYDROLOGY , ' ,.' Is it.th~ growing season? ·@.no " Water Marks: yes ~ S~dimerit D.:posits®~no,', I BaSed on: J ,4],. soil temp Jrecord lemp ~ __ ) ..~:ift lines: yes (§). DraioJgeP;llt,erns: ~no . other (explain) . . " . . . .' -. -~'~D~e~~-.~b~f~in~u=~~a=t~~=n=~~~~~~-~-~-~~~in-C-h-~-.~.-a-.~~~~9~X~~~i-~~d~R~oo~t~(I~i\-~-'~-l-S)-,~~~atS~ISu~~: ~s~ 1./.JJ'i'...,( . Channels <12 in,:@l: no Depth to free watedn pit: -==-inches FAC Neutral: )';ef~;,V. "'. Depth to saturated soil: -inches . '~".;;').' ."'l;~: . . 1-"-Check all that apply & explain below: ~;';>"<'--• '.. ..Othert(~xplain): I I Streain~ Lake or gage data: .. . . '.;' Aerial phot02rapJls: " .'.~. --:;it Other: . ,", WetJan.d hydrology present? . r.; (yes? __ Rationale for decisiortlRemarks?t:': \....:../ -- no Waier-stain.:d Lea\'esyes@) I DATA FORM 1 (Revised) .' . I Project/Site: . Routine Wetland Determination' (WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manuan ~/·r~t0 .. Date: .' ?/l 7'/02- "{~ .' .. ~ .. ,. I APp,;c.ntlOwner:lt!frtid.:l:: ... · ... In"esli!!ator(s): . ~/ 'Y....pV COUfUY: 'State: srrlR: I Do Nurmal Circumstances exist 00 the site? ..... lsthe ~ite signific;lntly disturbed (atypical situationr~ Is the Mea a potenti;lI Problem Area'? . ... ~ no .' .·yes ~ yes' C§). Community 10: Of::::>' ... Transect 10: . t--3 Plot 10: N.{ljf,./~/vAJ-13 Expl;m:ition of atvpical or problem area: . " .'. I VEGETATION (For strata. indicate T = tree: S = shrub: H = herb: V =v!ne) ,'. Ck cover Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Ck 'cover . Indicator ;;..L ! ,[?-;) PAc-.)-, I ~------' +--" "O'-";""4-----~"~ .. ' ._. ~"():-;r.:J/"Yl~'~::....I.:::' (j:...;.-~rl_· :~-..;."" ~~;;...;...--+----+~~ SW~ IrfM":'-'--:5""~Wr Af!1u'j:J/h' i-I '·.1 JJL- .. /-/> --. J f721c. . I Sa /v'v' .. ir yo ee- I Grjrn 6-frK 5 '~b' ··T T tM» IfflCW·· ." I HYDROPH\'TIC VEGETATlOS INDICATORS:,. 'k ofdo/11inants OBL: FACW.'&·'F.~C /0'0 ". '." ... II I I ~' ': Check all indiciltors thilt ilpply &~xpl~in bel 0"": ." . , Visualobser\"iltion of plilnr speciesg~owirig in areils of prolongedinundation/saturation . Morphological adaptations .. . ....' Technical Literature -" Hydrophytic: vegetation present? . Rationale for decisionlRemilrks: . ... ~/.: .• no . . :.- ;'. , .' "'. Physiological/reproductive adaptations ,- '. \\' etland planl database Personal knowledge of regional plant communities Other (explain) .. : ' I ~H~Y~D~R-O~L-O~G~Y---"-' ~.-.~--~----~~~'-'---.-"-:-.~----""----~------~--~-"-'~--~~ Is it th~ g~owingseason? ..'t'i!J: no . Based on: Jiu., soil temp'Crecord lemp_,,""""""'_' _) other (explain) . Water Marks: yes (!i9J on Drift Lines: yes & Sedin1ent Deposits:yes'~ .' .~ Drainage Patterns: yes ~ . ·;.'.1., . I I Dept. 'of inundation: .___ inche~ bIIJJM. Depth to free .",;ater in pit: . ~. iodles '(;.~~ Depth to saturated soil: .. .....:.....-inches i' WI . Oxidized Root (Ih'e rootS-L Channels <12 in~ .ves /'nof FAC Neutral: .'yes e~' ··LOcal·Soil Survey: y~s c0 , , Waler-stained Leaves yes (§) I I Check allth.n apply & explain below: Stream. Lake or gage data: .... ' _. __ Aerial photo!!raphs: WetJand hydrology present? Rationale for decisionlRemarks: Other (explain): Other: yes . . . . '. 1 .. DATA FORM 1 (Revised) . Routine Wetland Determination, '(WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or 1 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manuan . Projectl5ite:!l< IJ.-l n.t ".vI" . .' '12J2;/v!~ Date: 1 . Applic:mtlowner: .~k{ ht?-d-.?& . . .... . '. IT ( ___ ,-. : -c/ r Inveslil::nor( s): f:x:) [/r1.4 . County: State: .. srrlR: 1 00 Nurmal Circumstances exist on the site~,. .ls the site significantly disturbed (atypical situ:1tion r~ Is the ~eaa potential Problem Area?' . . ves' n" .. ~~ '. yes ... ' no Community ID: DID . Tr:msect 10: " r -, 'I PlotID: ' . ". . 1 VEGETATION (Formata. indicate T = tree:.S = shrub: H= herb: V = v~ne). .... . .. ExDlanation of atypical or problem area: . ~N"~;)Jji IJ.~ QA / L.' 1 'rrv~ Dominant Pliuit Species . Stratum I Domin.nt PI.nt SDe,ies /(J VLtv<. . "/VJJrr~' T ,S!J' . 1-/. .. . 4 0 ./v L- Stratum . Indicator 'k cover . Indicator I '. (' ffYtAr. / 0 IV t-~--~--~~'~--+-~"--~~~~~~----~~~~--~~-+----~r-----~~~~ 1 '1 1 1 1 1 ..... <::: . . '. ~' . ..... -,-FAr))' (l)£ljY1:a1'Y~ .. 1+. .-r-.. ·6~L HYDROPHYTIC VEGETA TIO~ INDICATORS: . Check all indicators that apply &expl~in bel6w: Visual' obser.·ation of plant species gro\~'i ng in areas of prolonged inundation/saturation. Morphological adaptations . Technical Literature I.' .:" . ,.' , . . . PhysiologicllUreproouctive adaptlltions . \\. c=tland plilnt diltilbaSe ..' ,. '. Pc:rs.onal knowledge of regionill plint communities.: .. Other (explain)' .. Hydrophytic: vegetation present? Rationale for deCisionIRemarks: ns .. ····cv .. ······ '. . HYDROLOGY ··@no Is it the growing season? I'i ,,,...- Based on: r,7( fly..£.· soil temp (record temp __ ~.') oth~r (exolain,.· .. Dept. of inundation: --CInches Depth to free water in pit: ' . ~ inchc=s J;.t/..l h;' Depth to saturated soil: . -inches?) '),.r) 1/ Check all that apply & explain below: i Stream. Lake or gage data: Aerial photo2raphs: Wetland hydrology present? Rationale for decisionlRemarks: Other: .yes Waler Marks: yes .. l® on Drift Lines: yes e/ .. , . Oxidized Root (live roo~" Channels <:.1 2 in.ves '. Cnol : FAC N~utrill: yes & Other (explain): Sc:dimentDeposits: yes \~ Drainl_!!e Patterns: ves hl0 ) .-~. ... . ' Locll Soil Survey: yes V'. . Water-stained Leaves ~es® I DATA FORM 1 (Revised) . .' Routine Wetland Detennination ." (WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or '. -- I ~~~~ __________________ ~1~9~87~C~o~rp!S~\~\~~~tl~a~n~d~D~e~li~ne~a~t~io~n~M~an~u_a_II)~ ________ ~~ __ ~ ______ ~ Project/Site: .RC//~v -".f?4-;W'~'-.' ,. Date:: ·./I::zg-/CJ~ .. · I Applic:mtlowner: .' . I.~ -::;1;.' . ~; ... :L1. H '/". If /i "AJ' a4?-)' '. . .:. .' .. ' .. ' . ....... ' County: V;"'" ". . . ~--<-~{ft..-r./-v--OLJ "St;ue:' :~/''-c;' I . ).r/'! ~ MI' . StrlR n\'estl!::ltor(s : ~£i//:;;1J L£(~ , : I 00 Nurmal Circumstances exist on the site? Is the site significantlydisturbed (atypic:lI situa[ionr~ Is the :u-ea a potential ProblemArea? . . .. yes yes' .... \"" Communit\" 10: "F.) p . Tr:msect 10:· .1./ . . f) Plot 10: .... " ..... ~ ' .. '<5 .' . r .' ."., . Explanation of arvpic:l1 or problem area: ~~'?1'~ I VEGETATION (For strata. indicate T = tree: S = shrub: H= herb: V = v~ne) .. / Dominant Plant Species Stratum Ck cover IndiCator Dominant Piant Species 'Stra'tum' :i1C cover 'Indicator CNl'-+O , I ~ . I ,'f' . ." / ~...»t~~~ Wr.A7/' ~ -r 'PN!:-:.' , .. ' . . ~ I'~~~~~·~~'~~~··~·~~·~.··~:~V_. ~I~·~_·_···'··~'~~'AG,~~~·'+".~~~~~' -+ __ -+ ___ ~ I I I I I I I I I HYDROPH\llC VEGETATIOS INDICATORS:, "';' '.#-"ftOt-., ... c£!;>fULf/ ~/~ tI?W-st&/U- %Ofdorriiriants6BL:FAcW.&F~~C 4e(i< ." WI,~' (lJ1L'~C4~,L,'.· ", .. Check all indicators that apply&:: expl~in below:, . .. . . Visual observation of plant species gi'o\~'ing in" . areas of prolongedinundation/s:lturation Morphological adaptations: Technical Literature ---'- --".: Hydrophytic vegetation p'resent? . Rationale for decisionlRemarks: " ~), no HYDROLOGY Is .it the growing season? t,: . PhYsiologicallreprod~c:ti ... e tidapt:ltions .. ' ----We:tland plant database '.' '. .'~ .. , .' P~rs6nal knowledge of region:ll plant communities Other (explain) .•. ' .. .. . ! " .:- .. ' . W Oller Marks: yes C..!!V Sediment D~posits: yes® . ~,··'no. BaSed on: '/Jh'-'sOil temp (~ecOrd temp) ~~ft Lines: yes 0!9J D .. rai,n .. J_.!.!, .. e pa.nerns/y@'no .... ~ __ ~~~~~'~o~th~~~r~(~ex~;p~lla~i~n~)~~' _. ________ ~~~~~ _________ '~~ __ ~ __ +-,~ Dept. 'of inundation: ~ inches . Oxidized Root (live roots) Local Soil Survey: .' yes ~ Channels <12 in~no Depth to free water in pit: . (; inches Depth to saturilted soil:, ,I/l' inches' Check all that apply & explain below:, Stream. Lake or gage data:' ' Aerial phot02raphs: Wetland hydrology present? Rationale for decisiorilRemarks: . Other: FAC Neutral:-yes0 Other (explain),: .' no I I· .. ' I" I I:. I······· I···· .~: ..• ';.;,." . ~'. I .. I' ".' : ..... 1 1 ;; . ':' ~' .. . ',., . I··.··:: .... 1 I: I 1 il '.: .. · ! . ... ' · ; .. ~ . , . . DATA FOR~11 (Revised) Routine Wetland Detennination . (\VA State Wetland Delineation Manual or '1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual) jJ Dat~: 2-//2f t. County: .·./G~ Investi!::1ton s): St:1te: '. srrlR: Do Nurmal Circumstance!' exist on the site7 &~'\ no· Com~unity.rD.: A / Is the 51te siptificantly disturbed (atypic::u situation.l-:' yesGoJ . Tr:1n:.ect ID" . / v, Is the :area a potentiill Problem Area J yeS '. ® -. .Plot 1011 /?'. _ ~ ExDlanation of ar\'Dic::u or j)roblem area: .. ' _v ~. ex.- \"EGETATION (For strata. indic:ue T ~ tree: S = shrub: H.= herb: V = vine) .' U .. '"~.' ., .... ~ .~.inv-~~'vvIL Dominant Plant Species Str:1tum .' 9, cover '. Inaic:1tor -Dominant Plant Soecies Str:uum 'iCc ++ .r.:. .' ~O I ~'" 70': . It) . )' - m· ... ' ". '., '~ .. _. V' '.' c. / ; I' r ·Y. I NM-tA,.1:!JTOc... .~ j 0> 'fi4t,f/t l/l~' ctr 'at I .- t . HYDROPHYllC VEGETA1l0S INDICATORS:' . . '. () ~ ~f dominantsOBLFAC.~.r. &: FA~ . loa '<, ••. . ' " . " . ." Check all indicators that apply &:expl~in belo\1.": . VIsual observ:ltion of plant species growing in areas of prolonged inund:1tion/s:1tur:ltion Morphologic:11 adaptations Te:hnical.Literature ' ; Phy·siologicallreproduc:tj\oe. adapt61tions -\\'~[Iand plant database. . _ .. ', .Person611 knowledge of region:11 plant communities .' ..... <'Other . (ex.pJmn j .. , H:'drophytic vegetation present'! Rationale for .dec:isionlRemm.s:·· HYDROLOGY" .no Is it the growing se:iSon7 yes,.@,) Based on: . ~soil'tenip (record temp . __ . __ ) other (explilin I Dept. bf inundation: -L-inches Depth to free water in 'pit:' Depth to saturated soil: Check all that apply & explain below: . Stream. Lake or gage data: '_ . Aerial phot02raphS: Other: . : ' ... . Water Marks: '. yes' .. ~) on Drift Lines: yes ~) . Oxidized Root (live roott) Channels < 12 in, ves ~o) FAC Neutral: .' yes C§) Other (explain): S~diment D Dr:1in:1ge P: Loe:11 SoilS Water -stainl , .' Wetland hydrology present'J yes no. Rationale for decisionIRemarks: · , : ~ I ···h~ App I iC:l.ntlo\loiler. . .. DATA FORM 1 (Revised). ' .. ' Routine "Yetland Determination. ." . (WA State ,,·edand Delineation Manualo"r . . .1987 Co ,~. \\" etl;~nd Delineation Manual) "', :",.". "'. ", 2/!~lOLf . :-... Dat~: qo N(1~ CittutnSiilnce5~xist Q'n .th~ site?' . . • . . . no .. IS the ~ite siPific::mtly disturbed (atypic~ situ:uion 1-:' ... y~ CliiY ... ' . Is the :li'ea a po'terui:li Problem Area? . " ye~ :. ® ;~:~~~~6:IDp V/jl ~ fti~:~ .. ? : ·PIOl tD: . '. ... . Ext)lan:1tion of 3tvoic:il or roblem area: . , ----I \ .•... ~ ... ··10' v '.,t--r .. 10 :~/o:> · ~lO,. . '... '. \. : .' . .... . 'c' ,..... ...., ': I Check illl indicators thi1~~pply &:. expl~in below: .•... Visual obsen-:uion ofplanl speci~ growing in I areas of prolonged inund:ltionlsaturation ' Morphological adaptations' ' Tei:hnic:al Literature' . ". " I Hydrophytitvegetation p~nt~ FJujonale for .decisionIRerTmks: DO .' I HYDROLOGY' Is it the growingse:lSon?' . 'yes @j ,. I Based on; ~SOi1 t~mp (rec~~d temp _ .... __ .. _> . oth~r (explain r I DepL 'of inund:ltion: Depth to free water in. pit: '. ~ inches • ... th to saturoted soil: ~ inch~ " __ . _ inches '. I Check all that apply & e.xplain below: \ Stream. Lake or gage data: . . . ~ . ',' , . . . ~ . . -;--., '.' l", ' T,·· <'" :" . . i . . ; ...... . "~'" . . -'. :,' ,.:. PhysiologjCiiJreproductjo.~e :idapt:itionS W etiarid p~ant datribase . '. . . P~rsonalknowledgeofregional plant communities· . Other (explain) . ,.' .. ' ',. '. Water MarkS: . yes . on Drift Lines: yes OxidiZed.Root (live roo..w.: • Channels <12 in. \'es Uto) FAC Neutral:· yes no Other. (explain): . . " . 'Drain~ge Patterns Local Soil Survey: Aerial hoto~raDhS: ~ Other. __ .. . I Wetland. hydrology present? Rationale for dedsionIRemarks: yeS no ~:'-:~ -~: , .. O~L .- . . . ". P,4OI- ' .. ".' ,\ I ~~W/'~',~,~;: .~----~----~~~--~~ ;:. I I~--~-' , ".:. ;' '7 WET'LAND BOUNDARY MA P 1 1 .;". .. -. "?:r.:...-.=- I " I" ""':', "..-, I,: .. ,.' I, ",':" ," '.:~' . I I I I I 1 1 I' 1 1 I I 1 --2000 Wetland and Buffer Fu~cti(;ns and Semi~iJa~titativePer10rrnance AssesSment. Wetland # .JJt-rf{t, Itj.t.'fU/,/~ Staff e,.Prm-riItA-Oate ¥ II q /0 ~ . , ". ;: Location S T R ., .... :: .. . .. ' N/A= NotAppll~ble"Nn = No ,information avancibie .,' . . ',' -,", T bl 1 D a e . etennlOlO~ . W I ···d·S····· . 'L" d et an Ize 10 an scape c ontext . . , ' ... , . Attribute Low (1 pt.) Medium (2 pts.) Hia"h (3 pts.) . Total Absolute Size . . 1-<=5 acres ) . ···5-10 acres > 10 acres I Wetland Loss in Basin '('>60%) .... 20-60% <20% I . Size Relative to Other .... 100o/~ .', Wetlands in Basin (on . 100 ~ioo % oft > 200% of, 'j NWImaps) a~ernop_ ... ' avetage size' '. .' average size . ..' Buffer Size < 75 feet' . (15:lo 20.0~ .' . > 200 feet .~ Buffer Condition > 60% disturbed '12'O::G"O"% distyrbOO < 20% disturbed .. : 2- If score is~rthengive the question a 1 . score/5 Relative Size .' . . If score is 1.5 to 2 then give the question a 2 '7::/~ : If score is 2.5 to >3 thCtlglVe the question a 3 . Function .. Floo dl . i.. 81m cumula1lve score (see Tabie 1) . Storm Water· 0Y8f1ne, or shaDOw dePression , ". Control'.' ~:'::10%iorestectcover . . ', UPCOI'1S!raned outlet'" . '. .' ' .. ' .poi~ 9. . ~Iocated kllower 11.3 of the ~~age .. ' Ground Water Support . Water Quality . Improv~ment ~nts~ (max 12) .... / .... ~Slze4Jmul8tJvescorEt (see Table 1) Lover1ne, Or shallow depression : Zlocaled In lower 11.3 of the d~ _ temporally flooded or saturated '. ~ .. _ Sparse grasshlerbs or no Wg 8IonQ OIiWM ........ ' '. \-~UandextendS<30~"1roni -.. ',' ~ . . OHWM ~_>600~ shoreline developed ~rapld flow through site '. . .. '. -, . _<500/0vegcover .. _ <20% shoreline developed .. . . _result from Table,2.·. ~ SolI cOarse ;gr'sve/, Sand, sandyloam " ts ". . . _ size cumulative score (see Table 1) _S1zecumuJative score (see Table 1) . ~~Ioped w8uand .... .". . . v10-30%foieSted~· . -" .', . ':-'~aIned outlet .. . _ Jake, depressIonS, headwaters, bogs ~== .. ":";Jocated Iri middle 11.3 of the drainage .'. .'. .JocatSd In upper 11.3 of the drainage -' . _~aJmula1lve score (see Table 1)_Slzecumulative score (see Table 1)· ___ m1~ wetllUlCI, .'. . . ~ 1ak8'~ons, heaclwatBrs,bogs _1oaIted I" middle 113" of the chnage . ~eason~JY:or semt-permanent!Y '. . _,;located kl upper 11.3 of the drainage '" _ . permanemlY 1IoOcJecI or saturated, . 1Iooded Or sallnted . . or' IntenilJttently exPosed >40;'kOSL ___ sparse wood or veg along OHwM '. _dense woOd or veg along OHWM . _ ~arid extEinds30· 60 m from . OHWM ~~to &l%slloielne ~iOPed ....;.; moderate flow through site ~-80 okcaver '. '," -',. . .. ' . 20 to 50~~ of basin upstream from' -'." , . . JlSUarid is developed /. resoll fro~ Table 2' '. ~J org~ic minerai mix . "-weUande~e~>200 ~ trom O~At--.' .... . • ~ <20% shoreune'developed. . Lslo~ fkiw Ihrough site _>8Q % vag cover. . ... ~/o of basin ~J)Sb'eam from . wetland Is deVeloped . result from Table 2 ::;... SoH heavy organiC muck arid peat . , :., ' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I '2000 Wetland and Buffer Functions arid Semi~qU~ntitative Periormance Assessm~nt' Wetland # Staff, ______ Date ____ ....... ___ _ Table 2: ()verland Flow Contain~d in Wetland '. : .... AttrIbute . Low (lpt.) · Medium (2 pts.l High (3 pts.) Total Configuration (Ptate:SJlap~~ Shallow bowl-Deep Bowl-I .~ . shaped shaped Drainage Basin Size ~~4_~ 2-5 acres ,'. > 5 acres -;-I Outlet Unconstrained' . · Semi-constrain eo rCQilsir.unea--: D ("7 .' .. 5> Input Groundwater Surface flowano" . 'SUrface· flOW;' . iJ;-~ ···only . Cgrol1Ildwater :. . -."' Basin Condition.· <20% .. ,20-40 % r:::~~~' 8 · , . impervious impervious' . Flow Contained ---score/S · . I . · /0 'f;'- Natural Biological Support . Functions poIri1sf " . " ". Slzecumulative·score (see Table 1)' .~~cumula~score (see Table 1) , _low connecllvltytD Yeg'd buffers .... .~ mod connectivity to ~'dbuffers ..~ connecllvilyto Yeg'd buffers" .' -.,;..slzecumuiaM score (see Tab181) . .. . _ag land, lOw veg'&1ruCtufe £,&yers of wge~ ..' . . . . . _hiQh vag sbucture ~seasonaI,surface Water~nt ~rf8ce Waler '. .' '. ~open waier poOls through sumnter ':-one habitat p . . ~ halllbrt tY,Pes. . . '. ."..: , ·~3 habitat types PAS POW PEM PSS PFO EST. '. ..· .. -PASPOW~~~ST • . PAS POW PEMPSS·PFO EST _low plant diversity « 6 sp8cIes) . L'" moderate ~~dlverslty(7 -15 spp) ~high plant dlvelsity (> 15 spp)' ~> 50 Ok Invasive species , ..... V'f'6to 50% 'Invasive ~. __ < 10% Invasl~,speCies .' \:it ~rganlc acamllJI~n. ~rrioder8te orDtU1Ic accum~1ion' . , " .' . .;....hlgh organic accumulation . ,_low 'organic export , . ..' '-:-LorDan/cexport ~highOrganlcexPort • =:L~~~ , : ~~=:~ ···:.~;:'connectedh:m~tDatiJuplandres habit' ' "aIs' ". _Isolated from upland habitats '.' .. '.' partially connected to Upland h~ . ~ ~ " " -, . . -. . . . _slzecumulati1Je scOre (see Table 1). ,'_size"cumuJaUw score (see Table 1) . ...;;..Io~ h_ dlY8rs1ty ~derate habitai diversity .... -. ,', ' . _low sanctuary or refuge ~moder'at9:~ or refuge :. ,..-'. ; . " . _size cumulallvescore (see Table 1) ~~habItat diversity '.' . Uhlgh sanctuary or refuge '. . Specific '. ·;..,..1oW Invertebrate habitat . , rnoderBie Invertebrate habitat ~~ate arnphIbi,an habitat . . _ high InVertebrate habIt8t ' ~ high amphibian habitat '~high fish habitat . H a b Ita t _low amphibian habitat /.. . Functions ~1o;;"fIsh h8bHal·. ' polnts if) . '';'';'IOW mammal habitat . .... (max 15) c_IoWbird habitat . t=::a:~nat · . . '.. moderate bird habitat .... -. '. . _.~t;!Qh ~ammalhabltat ' £hlgh bird habitat . I I I 1 I, I 1 I I I 1 1 I I II I I . 2000 Wetland and Buffer Functions and Semi~q'uantitativePerformance AsSessment Wetland # ·~CU.::rfil J (JJb-4U/fAA. StaffCJ~-tjU\./· Date .' 'S7lq/tJ~ , . Location $ I R '. N/A =' Not Applicable,NII. = No' inf0rrriationavailat>le' .. "; '. " . ',' .. '! ," Table 1:' Detetminin Wetland' Size' in Landscae" Context Attribute Absolute Size Wetland Loss in' Basin Size Relative to Other Wetlands in Basin (on . NWIma s . Buffer Size Buffer Condition "'r .~., . Relative Size If score is ~1 then give the question a 1 Ifscore is 1.5 to 2 th.en give the question a 2 .' If score is 2.5 to ~3 then . ve the uestion a 3.·: sCore/5 . 'Function . . Floodl . 'Storm Water .Control ,Base Flowl ~roundWater . Support .' _Size aJmulative score (see.TabIe 1) L !)'erine, or s~aJlow d~lon .• " £Iocated In lower. 113 of the drainage .' . _ temporally flooded ~ ~ . . 'polritsl·· . " / ' . 'VuM ~<20;~OBL Eroslonl , Shoreline Protection. '.' 'nIB' .... c:- po! --. Water Quality . :' Improvement ~.c (max 12) _ rapid ftowthroogh site . ~ < 50 % vegcover.· . . . ~ <2()O/~.shoreIlne developed ~tt from Table 2 '. . .. '. . ~ come -gravei, Sand, ~ctykiam Criteria '. '. _ ~ ~mulative score (see T~1) ,_'mI~ ~lIrtd,' ~ ~ In middle 113 of the dralnage , ~e8sonallY or seml-pennanently '1IOOdedor sallnted 20 to40%OBL .' .' , . sparse wood or vag alOng OHWM -.. '.. . _ ~~extencJs 30· 60 ~ froni. : 'OHWM _20 to 00% shOreIinedevelopecf . ~ rTloderate fIow,through site.'. 50 .80~/o COver -. . \ ~20 to 50% of basin upstream from' ~::~!~".' . _ Soil organic minerai mix. . _ Size cUmulati\Ie scOre (see Tab18 1) . :.-.18ke,~orls, headwaters,bogs ~1ocatBd,1n upper113 of the drainage _ ... permaneritly floOded or saturated, or Intermittently e~ >40%OBL ~deOse wood or vag along OHWM '. .' ...... ' . .....Weu~ extends:> 200 m from OHWM .. ' __ <2ook shOOtUne devek>ped .' ":.,," . _ SIO~ flow through site ..' ~80 % veg~Ver .. ' , Z 50"/0 of basin .upstream ;ro~ wetland Is developed _ . reSult from Table 2 . -" SoH heavy organic muck aM peat I I I I I I" I I I I· I I I, . . ~ . I '".; " " ,.:: 2000 Wetiand and Buffer Functions~nd Semi~quarititative Performance Assessment '. • • .' •• • ., t • .' ' .. Attribute . Low (1 pt.) . Medium' (2 pts.)_ High (3 pts.) . . Total Configuration I~late-shap~_ , .' 'shallow bowl-' . Deep Bowl-.. .s~e~ . shaPed .. Drainage Basin Size' < 2 acres' C::Z:S acres-->5 acres Outlet ' .• Unconstrained. Semi.;,..... ..... +->; .. ed V-Cotisttained -:---) Input Groundwater .' Sw:tace flow and· ,Surface flow ~ only_ .. I\, .. ,' .~ .. ~ .. ~ ..... Basin Condition <20% .. 20-40 % .• . . C::;400(~ ~ .. .. .impervious. " . . · ... ·imperVio~ . unpetvlOUS Flow Contained ' .• score/S . . . '. Natural ~slzecumulatlvesoore (seeT8b1e 1): '-mod'~ .': 'cum.~:. SCOI,.to<.8_. (seed' . ~.: 1) " .. _slzecumulatlYescore (see Table 1) . : BSIOulpO. p9o·.lcra t I. -.~ ag'ICOand··~.IedIIow~:~·~.·".· .. ·.··' , ...... :... ~mod_.H ......... ~~ '''lI:_hlghconnecll~toWg'cfbuffers Lag I --If.............. .~ Or V8g8tati0ri.' .' '..;...hIg1 Wg ~ ". ..... ._~oneAlsOhabltatNim~.:cewater. '.' ..... .... •.. '. ...... ...•.. •. _permanerit8urface~er .•... . . .. ~ open water pOoJS Ihrough Summer .' v", .n-~~hablt8tiypeS'·· ' .. > 3 habitat types . -PABPOW P~PFO EST~ •. ··S.AB_ ...... PONptant .. PE. Md' ~::::O.1E5STspp· .. ) .•....• -;;AB POw PEM PSS PFO EST . pOlnts I r;r .' .. - ._~~.Pol'~In'vasd~pecIes. )." \/rnc:.u........ IVC._.~\, .~highpl~dlYersttY(>15~) .. ' V~~ '" IVC..,............ '10to50%~spedei ...• ~~lO%lnvashiespecles,. : low organic 8ccumulatlOn;. . :mod~ 0IDardc: ~UlatiOn . '. _hlghorganlcaa:umul~rtjOn . '~w organic export . '. '.. ,. '_. . .. ~erate'h·abltatOrganfe·aturesIC •.. It .. ".:, . ......... .'_ hislti organic export Ltew habHat features . . ~many hatxbrt feabJres :_~, ~~m.±to~.upI·::··and··"'·· h"abIta!s'"'" '.'" _buffersnotdlsturOOd· _buffers very disturbed ' _Isolated from upland habitats V ~, \AIIu.......... . ~ well connected to uplandhablta1s . .. ', . . . " .. ,', Overall ~ .cumulatl~~core. (seeTable~) V size Cumulative ~ (see Table 1) ~slze cumulative score (seeTable 1) Habitat'. .. '. :L,IoWhabltatdlYerslty .. ' ........... ·_~~moderate:d8"rate~.ft abHft_at.ary.d.IYe .. orrsHyretuge.,· ..... : .... '. '~highhabltat~lverstty' .. Fun.:::£-_ioW~or_ < .. . v"; __ :...,;""' .......... "' ...... Specific Habitat Functions poIntsg .," (max 15) .. . . ~ _low Invertebrate habitat ~ low-amphibian h8bitat 4w fish habitat . Qlowmam~al hablt~' .'. iow bird habitat " . -. ,·:5? . " ""fff)." .. -g1':' ........... . . . . . .~ .' . '. '.' ". '7'·' /).' .. ····.·v.····: ". ." ... . . . _ hlghlnYertebrate habitat . ~ high amphibian habitat " .. ._ high fish habitat " "":'high mammal habitat ..... . high "bird hSbitat --. - .. \ "" ( '" 'CITY, OF RENTON Kathy Keolker, Mayor August 31, 2006 JDA Group 95 South Tobin Renton, W A 98055 Richard Wagner Baylis Architects 10801 Main Street, Ste 11 0 Bellevue, WA 98004 Re: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision datedA/25/2006; , City Clerk Bonnie I. Walton , Rainier Avenue MixedUse, South Parking Lot -LUA-04-093, SA and LtJA~05-133, V , ' , Dear Appellant and Representative: At the regular Council meeting ofAtigu~t 21,,2006, the Renton City Council took action on the referenced appeal by adopting the rec'ommendation ofthePlannirig'and,pevelopment G~ommittee to reverse thedeci~ionofthe-Hearing ExamIner and modified the decision by adding a :' , mitigation measure. ACopy ()fthePJanning.and Development Committee report.is enClosed. Unles's the'appropriate'land'useappeal from th;e ctecisiop of the City Council is filed with King " ·County.superior Counas indic,~tedin ',Reiltoti Municipal ,Code, the deeision'ofthe Ci'tyCouncil , will be finaL ' , " ' , For information regarding contlhuatf6nqf'the land use ~applicationprocess, please cali the ' " Development Servic'es .Divisiol1at425-:.4~O":7200. ,.,' ., , ' Pleas~ fet;llfree to contact meiflcanprovide further infdrrilation'or~ssistanee. , . '. " -,' .;.. ..,', " Sincerei.y, " -. '. . . " , Bonnie I. Walton ' , City Clerk, 'Enclo~~re 'cc: Mayor KathyKeolker C~uncil Pr~sidehi'Raridy Coriniin , Jennifer, Henning, P,riri~ipill PI~Iiner' Aiidrea Pretzel, DevelopmelJt.Services Div. 'Parties of Record'(9), :', " '. ~ .1. • ,,' .. ;,,1' " " , ,~ . . I ... , . AFPROVED BY '--'1 CITY COUNCIL i .! ·PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE COMMITTEE REPORT August 21, 2006 Date f-d/-~~(}" i\ ' ... ,', > .. , '.' '.', " . A;pp~~(py .~,Group~,)1~c ':, '.';' " -"'. ", File LUA3)$::-1~31:i')~:~d LUA'Q4-0893, SA: .' : ,.-" ,'" ' ... ":';~~~~,tt~i;hJ'tme: ,12; 2nO~ ':".' .';, .' The Planning and Development Committee e'P&D") heard this appeal on August '17, 2006., .' Applicant IDA 'Group, LLC, appealedtbe Hearing Examiner's denial of its V arianceRequ~st . . and Site Plan~ TheP&D Committee reviewed the record, the written appeal, and :the presentation . -and oral argument by Development Di~ector NeilWatts and Rich Wagner, Baylis ArchiteCts'on '., behalf of the ApplicanVAppellartt . Haywg(donc:n;o~, the P&:D Committee found that a substantial· error in law exists, and accordingl}';~reyersek,tbe' decisioIl'Of;the Hearing Examiner and .modifies . . :the decision by adding a mitigatio6me~lll'e. ? . .. }f·; ·"e':· . ' . .'£'t:. . .,(:.' "'. ."' .. 'The subject parcels are 10cated'we~tqfRaiilier Avenue S01,lth,.arid il(~rth ofari existing restaurant, '. Chang's Mongolian Grill .. Tliis~jte.,rs zRn~Q;';FqR¥Pe~~!al At:terHiP(C~).· Applicants~ek~ to' ."'" .', construct a 27 .. ~tan surfac~.parkin~-10t:giita~p'~o.~~~~t~,~~j20,OOO squar~ feet of a 1.5'5 acre P?fce! .. ' '. ' .. ' on the west sideofRainie~ Ay~pu~ N~~l]",:M~Jli~.~:Sg~e.~ts to ~hfl,Hg's;,~xisting parking lot. In , , . • .' ~..; , '.£<:. ....... ,'_"*' , .• :' " .. '" . ':".' .. ,.~. . ..... ." '. L.. . • .... ord.erto create this parking lot~ Applicanl;WQlild';~~ve to fill a ,snial1·mt~abfwet1and and' wetland' buffer. The lot with a Category 3 \Vet1ai:ta,,'c~~tains:~partially culvertQd drainage.stream .. Applicant seeks to further &ulvettJIi'istir~hage in ordetto~cco1J:llllo~fate the parking lot. In .. order to do so, the Applicant!;Qee4e9' to,remove the treesand'vegetl!lti'on within.25 feet ofthis: ' ... ': .' watercourse area. (RMC4-4-i,30)"T4is·reqtiir~d~tvari~ce:i .. ',' .. , . . 1">. :,(r:' ./ . . .,<.(" . '.' " ':? " ' : :Underthe CityCode, ·the Hearin;~~xamiile~ (,i'ijEX') reyi~-wrthe varian~e rt:ques~; '. Accordlngiy, the site plan application was1."also;,lnitb'ef6re the Heanng.Examiiler. The· Hearing. ~ . " . Examiner.held a hearing on March 14;2006. He issued his decision on April 25, 20Q6,. denYing,'" . . both 1) the variance; and ~}the,site:planapplication; The HEXfound that tllef,tppUcant's' .," property failec:Ho nleetthe fOUrcriteria:necessaryfor li variance, The HEX further 90nchid~d '.' " .,'. ',,: . ' t4at the "[tjhe'proposafis notc()mpatible with the enviroruneiltal obje9tives of-the: ".' .. "" . ;' .' ,,' .'60mprehensiveplan'; in that the HEX dId ~ot :tina that culverting.the creek would mitigate .. . ~nipacts. ' . .. . . .. .' .. ' .' Pursuantto'RMC4-8-11OF(S) and{6); theP&D Committ:ee'sdeclslon and reco~endation.is. . '.' .' , limited to the record, which 'con~ists Q( but is' not limited to the He~in:g Examiner's Iteport"the:,-. ' ... ' . 1 . Notice of Appeal and the'.8upmlssions. by the 'parties. Having dorie so, th~ P~D COmlnittee .... , . ', .... J:.. hereby find.s~ubstantial errortnthe HEX's' denial of the variance request· Thep~DColninittee ::: .•... : :.:~. " ...... ,: ".: firidsthf,ttApplicant's requ~stm~etsthe'standardJor a variance, is a reason8:ble use otth,e. . . . .• ..' :,"," property, and benefits the p'1,lbli9 ipt~re~t;FUI"ther;~?'teilding~~ existirtg cillven ()ver ~~'. ..' " " , ::: '; '::":\' ,,:'<;kaiJ;lagesti;:eannvill, not h~the, eriyirOnnieilt, '~d thepr()p'osed rem(;ld~atioil'W~aS~~s, are' .. ", .' :.' .' .. ':'aq~quate; . H()wever, t~e P&D CO~lt~eemodifies the decision toiriCI~4~ a t:nitigat.io~,rrieasure:·<~ l." ... ~ . : ,... • , ,~ ,!' ' •• ~ . : •• ' '.' ~ ... ' •. '; .'. ,':,'. ~ .. . .. , ........ " .... . ~ , : I· '. ",j 'i.' .. " '.,. .. . ,';. ,;"",:':. :,., .... . : ~~' " ;'" t' -', ,'" ':,\ 1 .:.,- ,", ...... ' .. ".- ", ~ . ): ';.'. ! ",' " . ' . .... 'r ,-<.:' .;; .... Planrung and Development Committee Report August 21,2006 . p.2 to build a rockery, rather than to fill a portion of the wetland area. This rockerystructUre will. eliminate the need to fill the portion of wetland area and~rther justify the variance request. The· placement and structure o(the. rocker}' will be subjectto the approval of Development Services. A)·/J.· Lb,tv\....-'~ . Dan Clawson; Vice Chair ~~;"': Marcie Palmer, Member ." . . :.' CC:' Neil Watts Jennifer Henning Lawrence J. Warren ." Fr~d' Kai.J.tfl1.fln ,'-.; " "').; . ~" • t~ • , ' .' . J. . I ,':,,' . -.', .,1," " r~' ••.. , ',: ~ " . ,'.:' ..• ~ '" ,,> ~ . ~. ,"', \ ',-':, ',to ."," r---·----.-------·-------····--···----··-·--·---··· ... ··-.---... ----.. -.-.... -.-.. -.... --.--.-----.--. --,.----... , .. --.. --.---... -... i 8qnnie Walt~m ,-Pa_rties of Record LLJA 05~ 133 and 04-093 ~ From: To: Date: Subject: Bonnie, Andrea Petzel Bonnie Walton 8/28/2006 12:56:26 PM Parties of Record LUA 05-133 and 04-093 Here are the two parties of record lists for LUA 05-133 and 04-093 so they can receive the Planning and Development Committee decision, There may be some overlap between the two, Thanks for your help, Andrea Andrea Petzel City of Renton -Development Services Division Renton City Hall -6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 425-430-7289 apetzel@ci,renton,wa,us PARTIES OF RECORD RAINIER AVE MIXED-USE PARKING Richard Wagner I Baylis Architects 10801 Main Street ste: #110 Bellevue, WA 98004 tel: (425) 454-0566 eml: wagnerr@baylisarchitects.com (contact) / Mary Jo Carlson 215 NW 5th Street Renton, WA 98055 tel: (206) 772-4271 (party of record) I Sherondia Renee Otis 211 NW 5th Street Renton, WA 98055 tel: (206) 772-8885 (party of record) Updated: 09/01/06 LUAO~-/ SA-A, ECF JDA Group, LLC/ID Kline Corp. 95 S Tobin Street Renton, WA 98055 tel: (425) 891-1002 (owner) / Ronnie & Roberta McDonald 216 NW 5th Street Renton, WA 98055 tel: (206) 772-4977 (party of record) / Lee & Peggy Christopherson 503 Rainier Avenue N Renton, WA 98055 (party of record) Rolland Dewing 210 NW 5th Street Renton, WA 98055 tel: (206) 772-6528 (party of record) / Bruce &. Sue Gregg 207 NW 5th Street Renton, WA 98055 tel: (206) 772-0811 (party of record) V Carl P. Burns 213 NW 6th Street Renton, WA 98055 tel: (206) 772-6903 eml: cpburns99@yahoo.cin (party of record) (Page 1 of 1) • I Matt Weber AHBL, Inc. PARTIES OF RECORD RAINIER AVE VARIANCE LU~5-133, V-H Jack Alhadeff JDA Group, LLC Bruce Sue Gregg 207 NW th Street 2215 N 30th Street ste: #300 95 S Tobin Street ste: #201 Renton, WA 98055 Renton, 98055 Tacoma, WA 98403 tel: 253-383-2422 eml: mweber@ahbl.com (contact) She ndia Renee Otis 211 N 5th Street Renton, 98055 tel: 206-77 -8885 (party of reco ) Mar Jo Carlson 215 N 5th Street Renton, A 98055 tel: 206-2-4271 (party of re rd) Updated: 09/01/06 tel: 425-891-1002 (owner) Lee eggy Christopherson 503 Rai . r Avenue N Renton, W 98055 (party of reco ) Ronni & Roberta McDonald 216 NW th Street Renton, 98055 tel: 206-77 4977 (party of reco ) tel: 206-77 -0811 (party of record) rl P. Burns 21 NW 6th Street Rent , WA 98055 tel: 20 772-6903 eml: cpbu s99@yahoo.cin (party of rec rd) Ro nd Dewing 210 W 5th Street Renton WA 98055 tel: (20 772-6528 (party of r ord) (Page 1 of 1) o Delineation o Reconnaissance evaluations o Permit assistance and agency coordination o Professional report preparation o Impact analysis and se<JUencing September 13,2006 Michael D. Dotson Engineering -Plan Review City of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 WETLAND PERMITTING SERVICES phone: (206) ~ Fax: (206):¢Ym9 Cell: (206) 2404.4J:s . .....,.@isp.com I RE: Rainier Station Wetland and Stream I I Mitigation planning and monitoring 0 Linear projects (roads, power and gas lines) 0 Environmental compliance during construction 0 Peer review and permit conditioning 0 Wetland inventories 0 Implementation of Emergency Mitigation Measure>.;s,...----------------- Dear Mr. Dotson: I have completed my field checks on the Rainier Station wetland/stream impacts. I visited the site on September 11 and again on the 12th to establish the wetland boundaries and the extent of recent impacts, and to direct (with plenty of help from Jim) construction with regard to implementation of mitigation measures. At this time, the unauthorized material has been removed from the wetland and stream. The entire fill bank has been compacted and smoothed to protect the black plastic from punctures. A silt fence has been properly installed at the toe of the bank at or just above the wetland boundary; A huge 40' X 200' sheet of heavy duty black plastic has been anchored to the bank with ropes and sandbags, and the silt fence at the top of the slope has been extended the full width of the area. I am satisfied with the above measures, which I am reasonably confident will protect the resources until next construction season, when the full buffer enhancement/wetland creation project can be implemented. However, I recommend that the city make regular site visits to inspect the work throughout the wet season to ensure that the sandbags are functioning to properly anchor the black plastic; the silt fence stakes being used as anchors for the sandbags are up to the task; and to inspect for wildlife damage, such: as deer running across and puncturing the plastic. In the event of large windstorms I am not sure how the ~~~lfue. . ~ South Norman Street Seatt\c, Washington 9111# Rainier Station Implementation of Emergency Mitigation Measures September 13,2006 There is a potential for runoff from the graded portion of the site to compromise the integrity of the mitigation measures, since much of the graded portion of the site drains back towards the stream/wetland. Jack and Jim and I have discussed possible solutions to address this possibility. I would encourage the city to ensure that this issue is properly addressed. Thank you for the opportunity to assist with this project. Please do not hesitate to call with questions or concerns. Sincerely, Celeste Botha Transmitted via email I Laureen Nicolay' -RE: Wetland Rainier Station From: To: Date: Subject: "Celeste Botha" <cbotha@cablespeed.com> "'Michael Dotson'" <Mdotson@ci.renton.wa.us>, <alhadeffjack@hotmail.com> Monday, September 11, 2006 10:05:56 AM RE: Wetland Rainier Station Thank you, Michael, for clarifying my scope of activities. I am available today to stop by and observe clean up activities. Soil amendment within the buffer is needed to enhance plant growth, as described in the approved buffer enhancement plan. To avoid wetland fill during implementation of the buffer enhancement plan, the existing bank must be pulled back approximately one foot beyond the wetland boundary so that the contractor can backfill with topsoil/compost. I recommend that removal of this additional material take place now. Once the material has been removed, I can mark the wetland boundary as required by the city so that the silt fence can be placed as described in the emergency mitigation measures letter I prepared last week. Backfill with amended soil can occur now or wait until next summer prior to planting; I suggest waiting until next summer to add the soil amendment. I will stop by the site this morning to explain this plan to the contractor and again this afternoon to mark the boundary of the wetland and indicate the proper placement of the silt fence. I would appreciate it if Jack and/or the city would alert the contractor to my role in the project so that they will be expecting me and open to my involvement. I can be reached on my cell phone at 206 240-2413. Thanks again, Mike. -Celeste ----Original Message---- From: Michael Dotson [mailto:Mdotson@ci.renton.wa.us] Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 8:47 AM To: alhadeffjack@hotmail.com Cc: cbotha@cablespeed.com; Andrea Petzel; Jennifer Henning; Kayren Kittrick; Laureen Nicolay; Neil Watts; Pat Miller Subject: Re: Wetland Rainier Station Jack, In our phone conversation on Friday we agreed that it was not necessary for the Wetland Biologist to be on-site at all times during the wetland restoration work. However I related that the oversight of the project would be as necessary to implement the plan. As you are aware, this wetland/stream work is an emergency measure that is required because of work performed outside of the project boundary. As we discussed in our phone conversation, our common goal is to insure proper restoration occurs to correct the inadvertent impacts to the wetland area. Oversight by the Wetland Biologist is necessary to accomplish this task. Therefore, due to the nature of the work, and that it may be necessary to amend the plan as it proceeds, "oversight" of the project by the Wetland Biologist (Celeste Botha) should include; directing the work prior to the contractor commencing, and daily monitoring and reports thereafter, until the work is complete. The initial plan set forth by your biologist provides for guidelines to accomplish restoration. Our staff will review any additional work or amendments to the plan that are deemed necessary by the Wetland Biologist. Page 11 Laureen Nicolay--RE: Wetland Rainier Station Please let me know if you have any questions. Mike Michael D. Dotson Engineering -Plan Review email: mdotson@ci.renton.wa.us Office # 425-430-7304 Fax # 425-430-7300 >>> "Jack Alhadeff' <alhadeffjack@hotmail.com> 9/8/06 3:10:51 PM »> Mike Dodson and Neil Watts: Mike, As per your letter and our discussion on the phone I have contracted Celeste Botha of Wetland Permitting Services to inspect and approve the completed work on the bank North West cornor of the site. We will not be having her supervise the actual work as was discussed in eailier conversations on site. Nell, I have not yet spoken to you directly about this ( I have left you a voice mail) but I was informed that you insisted that their be course of constrution supervision by Wetland Permitting Services. In futher discussing this with Mke Dobson we came to the conclution that inspection at completion would be satifactory. If this is not OK with you please call me at 425-891-1002 so that I can reschule the work to a time that Celeste can be availible. JDA cc: "'Andrea Petzel'" <APetzel@cLrenton.wa.us>, "'Jennifer Henning'" <Jhenning@cLrenton.wa.us>, "'Kayren Kittrick'" <Kkittrick@cLrenton.wa.us>, "'Laureen Nicolay'" <Lnicolay@cLrenton.wa.us>, "'Neil Watts'" <Nwatts@cLrenton.wa.us>, "'Pat Miller''' <pmiller@ci.renton.wa.us> Pa Andrea Petzel -Re: R.ainier Station wetland/stream im acts From: To: Date: Subject: Celeste, Michael Dotson Celeste Botha 09/08/2006 8:48:45 AM Re: Rainier Station wetland/stream impacts Your recommendations have been reviewed and approved. The plan you've set forth in your letter will now constitute the temporary mitigation plan measures: 1. Remove the debris described above from the area using a backhoe. 2. Mark the wetland boundary as required. 3. Expose the culvert and protect the area around it with straw bales. 4. Place silt fence at the toe of slope. 5. Lightly compact soil along the slope with a backhoe. 6. Place black plastic starting above the top of slope to the toe of slope at the silt fence, so that rain water hitting the slope will remain free of sediment and. will not clog the silt fence. The black plastic must be carefully anchored at top and bottom and at intervals along the slope .. Implementation of the plan is conditioned on having you oversee the work. No other work on the site will be allowed until the Mitigation Measures are completed. As you mentioned in your letter -the work should be done as soon as possible, prior to any rainfall. Please let me know if you have any questions. Mike Michael D. Dotson Engineering -Plan Review email: mdotson@ci.renton.wa.us Office # 425-430-7304 Fax # 425-430-7300 >>> "Celeste Botha" <cbotha@cablespeed.com> 917106 8:01:09 AM »> Mike, I am attaching a letter to address the issues in your email to Mr. Alhadeff. I am open to any of your suggestions about how best to prevent further damage to the wetland and stream resources, but the letter describes my recommendations. I am unsure of the spelling of Andrea's name (because when she spelled it for me I didn't have anything to write it down with!), so in case I misspelled it in the email address above, would you please forward the letter to her? Thank you! --Celeste Office: (206) 328-7775 Fax: (206) 328-7779 Cell: (206) 240-2413 }><{{{{'> }><{{{{'> }><{{{{'> }><{{{{'> }><{{{{'> P o Delineation o Reconnaissance evaluations o Permit assistance and agency coordination o Professional report preparation o Impact analysis and sequencing September 7,2006 Michael D. Dotson Engineering -Plan Review City of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 Phone! (206) ~ Fax: (206) ~ CelL(206)~l wpo@isp.com Mitigation planning and monitoring 0 Linear projects (roads, power and gas lines) 0 Environmental compliance during construction 0 Peer review and permit conditioning 0 Wetland inventories 0 RE: Rainier Station Wetland and Stream Construction Impacts and Mitigation Measures Dear Mr. Dotson: As requested, I conducted a site visit yesterday to evaluate construction impacts to the wetland and stream system at the Rainier Station project located on the west side of Rainier Avenue North between 559 and 625 Rainier Avenue North. Impacts, including dumping of debris and fill material, have been on-going for many years at this location. Recent debris dumping, including trees, concrete, metal objects and loose soil, occurred during demolition of structures within an approximately 6,000 square foot area ofwetlandlstream and buffer. Subsequently, silt fencing was installed at the top ofthe slope; however, as the majority of impacts occurred nearer to the critical areas, the silt fence is ineffective at protecting these resources. The text of your requirements is quoted below: As we discussed, prior to any work occurring in the vicinity of the delineated wetland(s), as shown on the site plan for Rainier Station, the wetland boundary must be clearly identified and marked, and the construction/buffer limits and erosion control measures must be complete. As you related (due to miss-communication with the construction site crew), some clearing within the buffer of the wetland may have already occurred. Due to that incident it's now necessary to have a Wetland Biologist submit a report and recommendation concerning the impacts of that construction. Please provide a report as soon as possible .. Unfortunately, it was impossible to mark the wetland boundary as required until removal of the debris described above. This letter addresses the requirement for a report and recommendations concerning the impacts. To prevent further damage, I recommend the following measures be implemented immediately, prior to any rain event occurring: 202S South Norman S_ Seattle, Washington 9111# Rainier Station Wetland/Stream Construction Impacts September 7, 2006 1. Remove the debris described above from the area using a backhoe .. 2. Mark the wetland boundary as required. 3. Expose the culvert and protect the area around it with straw bales. 4. Place silt fence at the toe of slope. 5. Lightly compact soil along the slope with a backhoe. 6. Place black plastic starting above the top of slope to the toe of slope at the silt fence, so that rain water hitting the slope will remain free of sediment and will not clog the silt fence. The black plastic must be carefully anchored at top and bottom and at intervals along the slope. Implementation ofthe full mitigation plan involves construction of a retaining wall adjacent to the wetland along the north slope, which~i11 involv:e use of large equipment and which, because there is inadequate time this year, will not occur until next dry season. This construction will involve additional impacts within the wetland and buffer; therefore, I do not recommend planting any vegetation within the wetland or buffer at this time. I also do not recommend use of hydro seed within the area for two reasons: firstly, the grass will not grow until after the rains commence, and in the meantime erosion will inevitably occur; and secondly, grass and other herbaceous plants will eventually threaten the native species that will be installed pursuant to implementation ofthe wetland creation and buffer enhancement plan. Thank you for the opportunity to provide you with this information. Please do not hesitate to call with questions or concerns. Sincerely, Celeste Botha Transmitted via email CC: Jack Alhadeff Andrea Petzel, Engineering Services, City of Renton Kilthy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor' Oct6ber20, 2004 Mr. Richard Wagner Baylis Architects," , 1 0801 Main Street #,110 Bellevue,WA 98004 . " CITY OF RENTON PlanningIBuildinglPublic Works Department Gregg Zi~niermaD P.E;, Administrator' ,-. ". Subject: Rainier Avenue'Mixed-Use South Parking Lot LUA-04,,093, sA.-A, ECF ' ' ,Dear Rich: As you are aware, the Environmental :ReviewCol)1l1littee met on Septer:nber21" 2004 to, review', " the subject project. The ERG tabled", the project. "Sub~equently,NeiIWatts', Development , 'Services Director spOke withJac~.A.lhadeff,,'owner, to' ~elay __ the information 'that a Variance • would be ,needed f.or culv~rtil,g Jhe,9rainage, course. This project ,has' be placed"()n~hold'iuntil, the required informaticin issul?mittecL ,,' , ' , .', , ' , , ,,' The presence of the streah,/waterc6ur!?eth.Clt,,;is,:p(opose~ to'be:culverted for a length of , .' approximately 200 feetisqne·of the issuest6b,~'re$6Iyed,as\Y~It'asthe comm¢nts from the " Watershed Company. AlthpugQ,yo~rY'letl~r1(f~99~§9Itant di<l t~:~po'rdtoThe 'Watersh~d Co" comments, the hydrology "ahdth~ 'effects';of'fHlillg~hew~tland 'need" to be analyzed arid "addressed at this timeinor.~erforthEf~RC;:'t9issO~'Jts~hrestlOld de'Cision and' to proceed with.", the project. , ' ,', ' " " ,,', '. ':,' ' , , -.: .~:. : . ,', " ,- As to the stream, please nOte 'that' theBiologisrsr~p6rt ~ubmitted with your application i'ndicates that water 'lias flowing';'withini'he'sfream,duriQ9 '~ite8isits.ln order: tc?: culvert this, ,stream and remove, vegetatiohfrom th'e reqLlired~'5 foot buffer from the ordinary high water " " mark of this stream,a VarianCe from'theTre,e Cottfng and LandCle,aring regulations' is , required. This variance would be heard by the Hearing Examiner. ' ' " " , .: '. . . ." . .,,' ". · Specifically,th,efollowi'nginformation' has been" dete.rmined to be necessary in, orde~ for the',' " , ,Environmental Review Committee (ERG) to make a reasoned deciSion regarding the project's . , environmental impactsand thene¢essary mitigation measure~ for the proposed project arid to , proc;eed with r~view of the site plan and variance. '" ' '1. Analyze ,and address ,the hydrology of thestream/watercourse' (effects of filling and;, ~ulverting). ~ PrOvide three copies of report ancj drawings. ' 2. Request a Variance fromtheTreeCuttirig and Land Clearing regulatiohsfor clearing within 25Jtof the drainage course and culverting. Please submit the requirecj fee of$25(j~00 (1/2' 'of full, fee of $500.00),' writteh 'justification, and other required submitt~'ls (a' copy of the, ", Variance submittal' requiremehtsis enclosed). " . , . , ' --;Hwo'-:;-;d'e:7.'lIe:-:-r----l:-:O-::-55~SO-u..."th-G::-r...,.ad-:-y--:W:,..,a,-y-,--::R-e-nt-o-n,-:-W:-:-a...,.sh,.,.,i-ng-t-on-98-0-5-5-----~ ~ * Thispapercontains50%recydedmaterial,30%postconsumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE Page 2 of 2 For these reasons, this project has be placed "on-hold" until such time that the required information is submitted. Once submitted, we can re-schedule ERC and schedule the Hearing Examiner Public Hearing for the Variance. With the variance, the site plan would also be heard by the Hearing Examiner in lieu of an Administrative Review. Please contact me, at (425) 430-7382, if you have any questions. Sincerely, Susan A. Fiala, AICP Senior Planner Enclosure cc: Jack Alhadeff, Neil Watts Jennifer Henning Parties of Record Project File Chang_Hold.doc I '; JDA Rainier Ave Mixed Use I File Nos. LUA 04-093, SA (Construct Parking Lot) & LUA 05-133, V (Variance) Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision to not approve proposed site plan for the creation of a parking lot, and the tree cutting and land clearing variance for the site located west of Rainier Ave North, and north of Chang's Mongolian Grill restaurant. Timeline July 29, 2004: to City of Renton Application for the Rainier Mixed Use South Parking lot submitted August 12, 2004:. Application for Site Plan Review deemed complete. Notice of Application sent to applicant, owner, and surrounding property owners. City also requests secondary review of the submitted wetland delineation and mitigation report. September 21, 2004: City's Environmental Review Committee meets regarding this proposal. October 20, 2004: Project placed "on hold", pending submittal of additional information regarding the proposal to culvert the on-site drainage course . . October 28, 2005: Application submitted for Rainier Avenue Tree Cutting Variance. November 10, 2005: Application for Variance deemed complete. Notice of Application sent to applicant, owner, and surrounding property owners. Note: Applications Combined for Environmental Review Committee & Public Hearing January 31, 2006: City's Environmental Review Committee meets to consider the environmental impacts of the Rainier Ave Mixed Use South Parking Lot Site Plan and Variance (LUA04-093, LUA05-133). City issues Environmental Threshold Determination, requiring project to comply with 6 environmental mitigation measures. 14-day appeal period commences with publication on February 6th. February 20, 2006: Appeal period for environmental determination ends, one request for reconsideration and concurrent appeal filed by applicant. . February 21, 2006: Environmental Review Committee reconvenes to reconsider mitigation measures. Two of the mitigation measures are modified. Revised Determination of Non-Significance Miti~ated is re-issued, commencing 14-day appeal period with publication on February 24t '. . . March 14,2006: Hearing Examiner conducts public hearing to consider the Site Plan and Variance. April 25, 2006: Hearing Examiner issues Decision denying the Site Plan and Variance request. A 14-day appeal period commences, ending on May 8th. ) May 8, 2006: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision received from applicant, Rich Wagner of Baylis Architects. June 12,2006: City Council refers appeal to Planning & Development Committee. August 17, 2006: Appeal Hearing with Planning & Development Committee j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j I I j I I z :5 D- " ~ ,;'" If) 1;ii< u.j '" .. "-z ~ ~~ =>w z '" 0 0 >= w :::; x 0 " '" "-' ei 0 z ~ 1i@ 1<: I J,:I ~ ~~~ .sl ~I"~I,' !U1 RAINIER MIXED USE PARKING EXPANSION 1HE SOUTHWEST OUARTER OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, WILlAMETTE MERIDIAN CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON \' , ' , ',I ':\ 'f,\~. ~ .. ~ ':'/gs'~ 1 e GRAPIUC SCALE , ~2:1~~ :E:;R;AP- ------.r--~:tGGED ~s J\(" (S",~~~H~oi.~ E:'~~) \ . a. \ '~'. \ \ \ , \', tF \, "\\ " I " , " , \' I, "\1 " \ ~., ~.~ » \,\ i > \ "I ...----" •• ~~ ",,1m 11., .. :. ! Ih ~~-s()~SD--~--~--~--"--SD~s~~i?_ i ~S_lO \~ ~ __ 55-9 -4SY ~---\ . \ I I \ N88"48'49"E _________ _ '-------------159.15' ._ SITE PLAN SCAl.E:._ .... /"""'" or l ; 1--:;· ""i BENCHMARK OTY(f1Dtaf3.R'o£Y0JN1RIl.1£TkA< 81I:M,.0AtI.It-dlHNrOICNI'OlICAI.DA1\,II'_I£T8!S(XA\tlIS5~ CCItOlEDTOUSFEET OTYtFREHTtlN!.UMYQJlllI(lPOMT:tI89 FtI.IIl f'lRASStlSCSTMftP"kC+21im"o.1 EASTtFlESTEDCEtF 1XIIl£I[5U1IAlJ[<II"D£IESTSD:tFR.-RAIOIlESWIH. LOCAIEDII FIOITtFlJ-IWI.lOITll (tJI1[R AT 4:;J R.-R 1.'0£ JQ!1H. nrYAlUI_ St.olt ... OISruDSOJ.w:tlHCR1HIESTCXRIER tFCCHCRETEPADtFPOIERV ...... T LOCAIED 115UDLK II FRIJITCf III.!II; AT Aal1ESS NCl515<11"D£ lEST SD: tFlt.v.R 1.\01.£. nrYAlUI_ 45.lt EROSION CONTROL NOTES. LIIRR:I«'fCOlSlRlJCllCllCRIDU.(REllTAC11'«tYOXlRS,A PRE-«IISTRt.IC1UIItE£fIIG IlIST IE I£lD 1I1H"D£ atY tFlOllJI tlPAImOT tFl't8.JCUICS,[(SICHDQUll 2.AU.IJrI1SCfQ£ARltGNIIMlEAStF'o£1VA1ICJIPllESERYA1IIJtAS~ <II"D£PlNI SllAU.IE arNU F\.AGClllII"D£ FlUI oWl CfiR'O IlIaIG """"""" l.AU.~~All[JI~aJ(llI(lrM:lfiESIlISTBEaJCSTJU:1I]) oWl II IJ'ERAIOI PImI 10 LA/CI Q£ARItG NII/f11. 0110 aJtSlRUCIDI 10 KDt:1HATSfllIOITlAOOIlAlERIXBHOTENlER"D£NAlU!AI.lRHNAOC M1Dl AU. EROSKJt NIl !£DIDT fAWlES rM.\U. IE IIIA1NTIIO II A SA&"...cnJn'CGGlICIIIIOlSUOlllETKATQ£ARIIGMfJ~CCJISTRUCfOIIS aJIII.£1EtINClPOtENTllLftWI<II-91EEROSDIIlASPASSm. "D£IFI.DDTAll[JI, IIMI1IlWC[.REPl..N:BDTIfl)AtD1UISroERll!Qf./5[lMJrTAlIJIaJ(1iIIl. sma.s SllAU.IIE"D£ IES'OISRJrYtF"D£PeUmL 4. "D£EROSIII4IfI)SfllIOITADCllCOI1RClSlSlDlSDEPICTED<IIlIISWIIIG NlEIltEl&D1OIE ........ IIElUOEIf1S1OIlEETMf1U'AIED91EaJOlIJIS. ASCCJISTRUCfOI~lHJlIVftt1EDCR!£ASaUl<XllllD6bCTA1E, "D£ PEIIIIT1EE 9IAU. MlU'AIE fllAT UIJIE ERO:9CJI NIl mJIDlAlIJI o:JI1Rtl fAWlES tilE IUISSMT 10 l19.li: CIIIPI.£1( SUADCII CXJI1IQ..<II"D£ PRIJIaBI!nE. £Ulll;lI£autSEtF~ITSllAU.lElI£CIlJGA.IICI( NIlfi£S'(JCBJTYtFlI£PEIIIIT1EE1OAlllRESSI«'fI£l'COI01OISmATMAY IE~IEDIJ'(IISN;1M1ESMfJ1Ol'II!I'IUoIIXI1XIIALfAW1ES,OYERNil ABO\£ ........ AEllRIIN1S,AS .. AYIEIEIJE)1OPIIOIECTAD.W:ENT PR1HRlESNlllAlERWAUlYCfll£lEElWIGlRHNAOCM1Dl 5.N'I'RO'tlltFlIISPl.MISF1JIER05J(Jf~A1ICIICXJmIIl('U. ITIXB HOTaJISlIMEM oV'PROYN.CfST1JllIRAlWZ~ !UEIICRLOCA"llClltF FftS. RES1RICTtIIS, awtnS, CR RE100DI fAClJ1ES. 6. [lRC 11£ 1M:POnlCfNO\OllER 1 nt!WIJlllNlOll1, AU.PRO.Ett D1STII!IIIISCl.MlEASCKAlERltIAN 5,000 SOJARE FEET, fllAT.w:1OIELlFT LMm<alralMCRE ltIAN nnw: (1Z)1ICU!S, SllAU.IlECO'€REDBY'llD\, SClDC,CRPlAS1ICal\OIIIC.. 1. II MrfM(A'HOIKASIEOISTIII'PEDtF'o£1VA"IICII MfJWEllENOFl.R1I£R .:R1SMlU'AIEDF1JI AP£JICDtF JODAlSCRIIIH, AU.D1STII!IIII MVS 1lIST1E1llUlAm..YST&mDII1H~QUSSFUNlJtGCR01l£R API'RO'I'ED EROSKII COf1RIl. tREAlIDT N'PI.JCoIB..E ro 11£ lIE tF 'tEAR II Cl£S1l(II. QUSSSEmNGAL.CI€ .... IEACm'TAELE(Jt.Y[lRIG1I£IION1HStF N'II.."RI!Ol.IQtSEP"lDllRINCl.I.ISM. SEmNGMAYPROCUO,lI1IE\(JI,oaEJ£YER 1TISII1I£IITDESTtF1I£PEllllmLBJTIIJSTllEAlQDlID 1I1H~ J£l1IIC,. CR 0110 tREAlIIDIT M'fFI(I\(JIBYTIE aTYtFlEIfla., omu 11£ """' ......... IlF1JlAU.ER05J(Jf~ADCXJmIIlfUllS.mTlEWDS1CRAC( DEPlHEXtmlS61NCKS, A FENCl, AIiIINIIUI tF lFEETItQI IS InURED. _1M 3:1SD:SUI'£S. I.A1DI'OWI'I'GRAw:J..CCICS1lIUC"IICIEJf1RAII(E,24'XS/Xt'tF4-105-tDI QlAlltrSPoIUS SllAU.IIE LOCAIED AT AU. fUllS tF"IOW.NIlG[SS NIl ElHSS1Oll£COISlRIJClICIISlE. ~ " ~ :ii!!l z -'i!!l !lS ~c: iig, O'ji55f !~ :::lil~ :s~ ~~~~ ~f als .: ...:-,S.9 o".,ii lila: ....,:ema: z 0 If: ~ w g ~ ...J 0 Z 0 III z ~ ~ ~ ~ W " ~ t-' !Ii 0 ~ IL t5 ~ E 0 ...J ; 0 :::e w a: 0 !I!! « a: g 1--H-t-++-'-1 T .E.S.C. NOTES. T.E.S.C. LEGEND 1.5EEaJrStJU::1IOf!£CllMCECII9£ETto.l. 2. AT"""'" AU. TUt.fEA1U£SSHAUEEIJISPEC1(J) Nl)1IAIITM€DPER Tl£saml.EPROIUD CIIfHS9lEl. 1. f" A IEllISENCOIIfTEREDIlRtGCOIS1RUC1KII,1H£canRACTlJI SHAUII01J'YMOTYIJ'RsnlJrl PRKRTtlABN()(JGtCPERW'M1'IIEKTIJ'ElXl.OGYSTNCWIDS. 4.1t£COC1RAC1tII9iIrIJ.BEFlUYRCf'(JCSIl.ERlttl£tOCA1ICIIN()PR01[C1DICfAU.DmIII: trTlJ1B. lI£ a:wTRACKR 9Wl. 'OfY AU. UllJTYlOCAlICRS PRICR lOct'IISlRIJC1ICI BYCMlJIG n£ \JUFIQ!CUIllOCAJEtJEAT1-D-424-5S5SAWlllLlltF4aHCI.IISPRlCRTtlNff£XtAVA1OI. 5. AU.IDUl.19O .... 1ERIAl9lAl.l BE IJSPOSED (I'F" SItE II NI Af'JIRO\m LOCAfOl 6. aJCJaCA1E.1HfUM'ltRFlRRElOCAD(f"EJ3STIttUlUlYI'O.£. INSPECTION SCHEDULE FOR ESC FAClLmES EROSKJtCCJf1RCl.IHJ~Wl1RCl(ESC)fM:lfiESWUNOtIEAU.OIEDrofAU.1fTO IIHPAIlAU.E5CfM:lfiESWUIlIG'EClEDASA ...... AC:aRIJIGroll£~ .,.... !lftlfASllf IMAY , • 5fPIDIfB W= (tIC[ A1IEEk IIIII I BJ'l&5[Jr!tocnm'-HDXftDIU.AIClNlER['o{RYRMf'AU.OOITPRClI.I(JtGUCFf. JEEmlI5'M!S SllAU.IE 1UlI: .... 24 HOJIS CRIMlL\IELY" POSB.L @lEJiIfIaW!TCOOlRIJC1ICIIOOIAIIC£@ ®STaIlIDlUllIUT1'II01£C1IOf@" ® Fl.TERracrna@ ® CWIIPl.AS1ICCO'IEIK,!lEPl.AS1ICCO'ElIINCM01ESCII9£ETCI.l @ 1EJFaWIYSEEDIIG,.!IE~II01ES(IIHETCU.!IIIatC(II'DE 1IIO-WL1IlA.1OfAREAS9W.lEEPERlI£ElD-lft.TRAlKJISWAI.£SEEDIIXCII 9lITCI.1. @<UmC"'" @JEII'OW!YIIIlElICfPTtRSWAI.£@ ~""""""""" IECOIMH:ED FQl"""",,,,-'"----'"----'"---- CALL 48 HOURS BEFORE YOU DIG 1-800-424-5555 TIIEU 0RAW1188 ARE .aT TO IE I UIIBI FIll ~ -. ,..., BY til! REYER8 A~ CHECKED FOR CDMPUAICE TO cm STAIDMOS DEMOLITION & T.E.S.C. PLAN Cl.Ol g D .. m~,_ DFI"_ G< -~ I'·~'I"~~ I~-'~.::.~" ~SIIC; .cMEo 1_20' ----. _ aut, ~ .cMEo '".20' FU-20l1115-<:101 ~ ~ ~7 '-' z« Il r~~ ~Z· wI? VlZ =>w 8 x '" f5 z ~ 0: ~ "- Ow ~~ t;:;~ ~'" o i"'-"! '" 0,-, zz ~ '-' i~ ::J: .!@ i; ~ ~ ~lll~ ! ~v '., ·~I ~I ~I ' ! I II -,,-,,~ BENCHMARK GRAPHIC SCALE RAINIER MIXED USE PARKING EXPANSION an IJ' IOTlI4 :i.fnIEl' carnta. t£mR( kw • ..IJ-1 (IJI'PU'rJ 1\QclI._20 It. THE SOlJTi.twEST OUARTER OF SECllON 7, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, WIlLAMETTE MERIDIAN CITY OF RENToN, KING COUNTY, WASl-DNGTON \mllCAl OAl1.II-fOIlII MOCNI \ERlICAl. DAM 19118 IV[RS (NA'I'D 158~ wnER1ID ro us IUT aTYIJ'FIEJf1I)I9JMYCO(lR(l~T2Ieg fWII) 'j" lIWS asc STAIftD "\(C-J-21m" o.t EASTIJ' lEST EIlC[ CF C(JI(J£1[ SIOAlJ( (11111£ IESTSIlIJ'RAII(JIAD.ESOOlH. I..OCA1IDIIIFRCNTIJ'U-fIId.IlJITAL(DIlIRAT45JRMmI \ -----\. /"....... ".':"-:-:--, / .. '-/ EEL. Gf5648OOoo11 '-./ --./ NE~ ECO BlOCK 4' HEI6HT -:-:--:--.:-- >1 .. , . I~'~~ '1\' < \ < '-;".;: , \ \ , , I·' . " ~ " "'11.("""" "!." .... , .. ,,. \~"" '~t _ .1, /CasnfDSOO.w:tlNCIIIHIESTCQ!I(R CF\ P,~ f'OIiRVAlULOCAlEDtl5lDAlKIi . )rr';~i'. ;"''' ....... 11 I~ d<,j::" • ./ f1I(JIT(J"IIlI.JINGATAlXRSSIIO.515Ct1~, '''''-E ,4]11' I~nnl~ c.\< \~., _ Jili .. !. '::i~,t ~',: \ ~\ " ~ 'Jl.~llh f!r:lf_ " 0\ . 'III 'frr " ~L':" , \"\:'1 I'I . :'. ' "~II,.';~'Z )n~, \~\, "'<III' :'Ih" \,h.: . '111'". ' ~. ,.~,:,~., ./,, ",I' -, '~I I 'l~",/ -\ '. 4"1;,, ,,~l/ \1'. i-~. "~Ii'ui', oJ -)1' '. " \ \ \ ~\'~ ..... TY<'t1 (CTI< sruCT\! ~. IPp;G;(4 ~3:; (IN_S) ~ 12: Cl,lP IE 4J51 (lN/OUTW) 24"CONC't2<9J(OUTW) NOTE·"EN02."NOlrno 1 e w f;j ., ~ '5:3 z ~~ !l!i ~!i Ii ()'iiOOi :::I"" .. :c .. ~~'!!:;= .l!:;= ~c I;'lj,§c ::ii "00 <-''''li lila: ~~~a: z 0 IX: F « w g ~ -' 0 ~ ~ i :;: 0-X 0 W 0 C z ;;!; < ~ c z ~ w ~ 0 0 w z ~ ~ a: !ll ~ ~ III Z -' ~ w-----------iL" --~ ~ . ~ f+++j-W ~ -____ ~ __ N8~~~.-W----~---1 \ ~-...::-...:: -=-'" --=---= ~ .-55 " «~ "V',, \ J-, ) ) III z ~ I SITE PLAN ~ I I ~:! ~(),: 2 ~ T1E8E ORA_ ARE lOT TO IE USED RIll CCETRUC1ICII ta.E88 IIEIED BY TIE REYEWII8 AaEIET __ -"', ....... J-:l. -, --~~.:- fECOIOEI<lB) """""",,,At. ~---- ~---­ ~---- CALL 48 HOURS BEFORE YOU DIG 1-800-424-5555 " ~, ~. II~.£=.~~;I ~ ~ GRADING & DRAINAGE PlAN C4.0 g ~ OA~e/C11fO'. ICAIb 1"_2'D' FU-20J61~_C401 "") toeT, 7 (IF, 7 ill ;'i NO.l~NIHS'o'M NO.lN3~ 3sna3XIW 3nN3AV ~3INI~ !L. llli NVld ),,3)1 o ~ DATA SOUTH PARCEL TOTAL PARGEL ~RK AREA IMPERVIOIJ5 AREA EXISTIN6 PROPOSED % OF TOTAL SITE LAND5CAFED AREA % OF TOTAL SITE ~~!~17 " EXISTIN6 AND PROPOSED STRlJC11JRES TOTAL EXISTIN6 Y'<ETLAND Y'<ETLAND FILL AGTUAL FILL PAFER FILL TOTAL FILL TREE COUNT, EXISTIN6 TO BE REMOVED 61,486 SF 13,200 00 SF ~,850 SF 15% 51,600 SF 85% NONE 16,600 SF 2Pl1 SF 1.514 SF 3~ISF >25 I J/I C:) I'" I I I I I I I I , I , \ \ , , , , , , , , I , I , I , ; I I TYPE V U~ FIXTlRE 12' H LI6HT POI..E 96° H X 24° DIA. C<>NCl<ETE6A5< (2f'L;0Gf5) ~TER GlJALITY S'fSTEM SEEC-ML ~\\\\\IYIIII/lII""'" \. \ \\\\ \ \\ \ \ \ \\\\\\ 6\\\\\ /1~\\\\\ j \\\\\ r\\\\\ \1\\ IIII IIII IIII ~ : \ \ ," I II , I I / \ \ =-~ DH£_5TllRY -~- EXISTING RESTAURANT SITE ~W~ ~-~ o SOUTH LOT AND SOUTH V'iETLAND FILL III :: 20 I $ PRELIMlNARY-NOT fOR CONSTRUo/ON ~:.::--- s..~~~~ w z ::> ~ z ~ W WI >:g~ «o~ a:::w w~ -I: Z z ~ ~ ct: ...J ~I::::! O~u. ...J ::>0 IOZ ~Vl:5 ::>O~ OZw Vl«~ ~ ~ ~ .... '_:$<1)00" --- SITE PlAN APPROVAL APPLICATION A002 DATA NORTH PARCEL TOTAL PARCEL ~RK AREA IMPERVIOI!5 AREA EXISTIN6 PROPOSED % OF TOTAL SITE LANDSGAPED AREA % OF TOTAL SITE EXISTIN6 AND PROPOSED STRUG1lJRES TOTAL EXISTIN6 Jl'lETLAND Jl'lETLAND FILL AG1lJAL FILL PAPER FILL TOTAL FILL TREE GOUNT. EXISTIN6 TO BE REMOVED LIMIT RI1URE BLD6. GONSTRlJC.TION FINISH 4 FINAL 2 FT. c. TOPSOIL EXGAYATIO! EXI5TI UNGONTROLLED FILL 24t>,131 SF ~,200 SF 00 SF 00 SF 15% 51,600 SF 0% NONE 21,100 SF 3;;<11 SF 5.028 SF 5.028 SF >so 4 EL.46' " " 1======:: Q BUFFER DETAIL N.T.s. , ,-'-,-..... /' ---/ .------:-.-- ~~=~ ~ ~~ '4' .. 00 CH ___ ftNa: ~D~;REBAII/C"'" o.cl'"XO-'&'S- NORTH ~ETLAND ENLARGMENT AND ENHANGMENT I" 20' $ '-/ " I \ \ \ \ \ \ / / / \ \ \ \ '. \ F'N:l 'ff "llIAIIfCAP (.5115661! PRE/.//1/NAIl.Y· NOT fOil. CONSTRUGlON ~!.:.,--~ E..~~~~ z ~ Z ~ w W I w ::> >:3~ « 0 ~ a:::w W~ -L Z z _ 0 ~ ~ a: "'Ui= I- "Z Z wW W I ZI: I: ~ ::SwO~ Ol-~ZZ Z w::s «« . ~Z I w Z w -~ ~ .... .-. ... :'00" --- SITE PLAN APPROVAL APPLICATION A003 ---/ ,.----..---" '/, --------\1/ " ' /,' ' \.--... "---/..,... /,/ _____ ~~-r-",_ ':::-. / " 7 " // /_ \.J- "-, , ,. ,-.......... \\.' -," ~" ',,', ' \ 1="",,, .. " ~-', \ ......... --........ ""-" ....... , '~---::"~...:::::-.~­----~'--~--....:::::.--~fl-" '-" '......... .......... "" ....... -....................... ,.-, --... NORTH Ji'lETLAND PLANTIN6 PLAN SOUTH Ji'lETLAND PLANTIN6 PLAN ----',~."'" @ @ BUFFER EIIIIAIICEIIEJI PLANT SCIEDULE .. OOANllT1ES TO E£ 0ElERWJH[[) IN FINAL W1nGAll~ Pl...m ImIII'UIITII8 10m NATIVE TREES, SHRUBS AND HERBS BASED ON WASTER PlANT sa-tEOULI. SPEaES AND QUANTITIES SHAll B£ DETERMINED BY LANDSCAPE AROlITECT OR WEllAND BIOlOGIST POST N(Jl-NATII,{ \{G[TATI(Jl ROIDVAL IlETUlllIIUfRR 1AT\1E 8&D III G:NERAl NOlES: 1. IT IS PREFERABLE THAT THE O£SlGl (J" THIS PlANTING PlAN SEEK TO REPUCAl£ NATURAl PLANT CQt.4WUNIlIES IN SPEaES C(),lPOSlll~ AND ARRANIDIENT. E'v£N SPAONG AND STRAlGIT -ROW PlANTING ARE NOT DESIRED. 2. A T£l,IPORARY IRRlGAll~ SYSTEN SHALl BE INSTAl..LED 'Mll-tIN THE ENHANCED WETlAND atHER AREAS. J. ADO TWO PIECES CF lARG: WOIl}Y DEBRIS (lM» F~ EAOi 1,000 SO. FT. l'Ml 15 1 STUMP 00 1 lOG (GREATER THAN 00 EClUAl TO 6-DIAMETER) AND 8-12' l~G. •. BAREROOT PlANT STOCl< MAY BE USED 'MiERE S£~ALLY AVAIlABlI AND GENERAllY MUST BE INSTALl.[[) DURING THE DORMANT S£A~ (APPROXIWATUY OCToorn 31ST THROUGI FEB 1ST). BAREROOT PLANT 5100< SHALL BE EQUAL TO OR GREATER lHAN THAT OF THE SPEOFlED CONTAINER SIZE. 5. t.lUlOi SHAll BE INSTAl.l£D AR()JNO All TREES AND SHRUBS TO ASSIST PlANT SUR\1VAL THE WULIli SHALL BE WEDlU'" GRADE WOOO OiIPS OR BEffiR. Ali N~-NATII,{ \{GETATI~ SHAli BE REMO\o{[) Wlll·UN THE 'll£lLAND BUfFER. THE LANDSCAPf AROlITECT ~ Yt£llAND BlOlooST SHALl flAG AREAS PRI~ TO RENOVAL AREAS YItlERE PlANlS HA\{ BEEN ROIOVEO SHAli BE REPlANTED WITH THE NAll\{ PlANlS USTED IN mE WASTER PlANT l£G£NO. lHE lANOSCAPE AROflTECT 00 WETLAND BIOlOGIST SHALl REiD LOCATE PLANTS WITHIN THES£ AREAS. srrn t.lIX A:. lJPPfR BUFfER -SFfQ Q!SWRBfD SO!! WlllUN THE fNHANcm B!.1FfER HYQROS£Ep NIX APPIICATJOO RAIfS P£R ACRf' D REGREEN SIfRllI SEED ""IX SEED t.lIXTUR[ 3CJ..B/ACRE "'" I.R(F[IITOSPECSRJI .oJtlW(llWAlUt. (1) ~:r~ P\.ANTIIIG DETAIL 2000 LB ERo-FlBER WOOOFlBER WULOi LB SEED t.lIX AS NOTED 200 LB 25-0-10 40 LB TACKIRER TO PREVENT RIPPUNG ,lUPOStS,tN'50itiiSNllFlfiliiSIOf[ n£C1ROSTA1ICPAlllED-CCURTOllAlOIfEN(I COAlIIGASN'I'RO'IeIBYOIHRSIURESEXTAml oo.artAtE-10'(F£MII(l fi-.rrt,COo\1(II-a.ASS2A(llACK) """" "" ... U€I'OSTMIlaua:POS1S't'Ul,oo, CCRIO NllPUJ.POSTS 2 lrr lD. ----t.~ ~ (;) CIt~!N,~ FENCE I!ETAI. .... """ WETLAND~ BUFFER 'I BOUNDARY MSOI E'IUI"I" 15lOSOFEET.1UIID IIa nt: FtIIaD NO. ATTACHD TOAtIEloll.lJI :'fEHCEPOST,4FEETTOBFEETMIO';I[Qto:(IInt:'ll£lLNlllU'FERn(f'lHE o !!!FFEI! _ARY SlGllAIlE """-PRfLlUINARY -NOT fOR CONSTRUC770N W ::J Z WW >~ «0 W 0::: x w~ Z « 0::: =-W~,~~~ ::....-~4i\~ 19mB .. TACOMA SEATTLE :lf15 ..... ___ Dl,T_WA_ ~m ,..~--.-,.,-.-- 204177.40 .w -£ .l.IlY 23. 2004 ~ ... --...... -, --"_~IOI) --- CONCEPTUAL PLANTING PLAN W1 " ~~ <, o.z w~ a::: VlZ w ::>W > '" 0 S u x ,. ffi z ~ :!~ I'~ I J I ~:I -~!i iUl181~, ' ! II I I I 1_ _.-.r-_~""---'~ --~~ RAINIER MIXED USE PARKING EXPANSION _ -... F _____ -1 !:.i ~ b , .. -~ '::THE SOl1THWEST OIJARTER OF SECTION 7. TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH. RANGE 5 EAST. WIlLAMETTE MERIDIAN • . . : CITY OF RENTON. KING COUNTY. WASHINGTON \ \ --.i .',: , ~\'\:\:~ :~\: ~ r ~ \ ~W~ ~~l ---,,-,j\ \~ ~--~ \--,r: \ '\I~ ',:.' . '. i' . .' Vi /""""-r· ··r , ~~_ _ __ \ TO.... Ii 'i ,"'". ,,;-I "'_._ \~ I ~~=~ __ ~jLhl. SITE PLAN SCALE:,~ TRENCH NOTE F 'DICER5 OOIR Ntf lJD()I CR OMR o:cAVAlOI RXR CR IICR[ FEET" r:£P1H lKAT DIXS MOT IIIT M: (J'EII RT IEllRIEII1SIF 'ISOOT S£C1OI2-C9.l($ n 9WJ.1E 9«RII MIl tHHD, M: CXII1RACTCIIAl.CllESlWLII:~Fl:R'ltRCERSIfElTMIlNB.ASSl.IIESIIOIIESPOISII.IIY, AIl.1RDIOISIfElTS'ISlDISSHAU.IIITIlElECI.HIOlSlFtI£USMIII:TlJIIOJS1III4.SN£TY NIll£ALlH ACT,OIAP1ER 49.17Q UTILITY NOTE MlOCA1KJCSIJ"EJmItGIJURCROJII)U1lJ1ESAREAPI'IiODIA1ttIUMIlHA\{IIOTBaN IUF'ElUJffi.T'IERHD BY 11£ a.ER III IlSIU'IESDITA1I't(..1I£!XJC1RACtlJI9WJ. 0CTElIIM: 11£ EUCTlOCADCF AU.[]l5II«Oulll1ES~ca.treOtG.:R( AlII ACRES Ttl IE RlLY ~fUlNfTAIIIH.1DNU4"5fHATHAI'POIDlETtlM:aJH1RACTtR'SFAI.lIIEltIUlCAlE EXACTl.TMIlPllESER\£NtfMllH.1I.1f1((11(J1Q.JU1lJ1ES.AI8.ASSl.IIESIIOUAllJTTRII1I£ tOCAntIICFUIIERQIOJI(lU1lJ1ES. FILL SPECIFICATION fUllAlERIAl9l,ouIfOTtXf(fAMI'£1R(l£UI,II'fIOOlIClS, lllSUlSTANClSIHQI AR[HAlNIlIl/S, ONllVlOJS.~(JI'HOIOll£RIISEWl.ATENlTSTAl[,F"EOOUL.(JII.DCAll.A',CIOIWIOCC(l£, IElUATKII,Rll£,CH£R,CflSTNGlNID. TOPOGRAPHIC NOTE THE EXISJJ«; aA.lURAlN«>Tm:lGRAF'HC IlATASHOWN ON THESE rRAWINGS l-W:i £fiN PRfPN!E[), .. PAAT, BJS[[) UPON N'ORMATlON FUMSI-ED 8'1' onos. ItCI.£ TIIS N"ORWAT1ONISBEl.JE\{l)TOIEREl.IAEl.E.NIIlCNCNOTENSlREK:JJJW:fNtlntJSlS NOT RESPmSB.£ FOR Tf£ N::OJPJCt (J" THAT NtIlMATlON (II fM Nt( £RR(J!S OR OlIISSKlNSWl-IOI~YHA~IEENIPfC(e'ORATtDIlffi)Tt£SEOI1MINCSASARESllT. AS-BUILT REQUIREMENTS nt:(D(fRAClORStWl.WK ..... REaIlOtIWI'ING(S)(J"AU.UIl1TIESSHQIJINONnt: PlANSNIlEXISTJIICUJUJTlE5EJ«:O..tflEREDASCOHSIRUCT1ONPROGRES5[S. THES£ DRAlIINGSSHAU.NIlCAlEOC'MT1ONSFROUTHEOCSIGNPlJH.REF!RENCEtlSTAHC£S E£TWIDIn£R£l.AlM:lOCATKJt(J"lHEI£WLYCONSTRUCTID~NIlA ~IIIARKERSIW.1IEOBTAINED.nl:I..OCATIlN(J"STF!OCTlIRES.VAl'«S,1ENDS, TE£S,NtlREl.ATtDAPf'I./RTENoIHCStW..l££II'Il..l((D.Tt£SERECORDSSIW.lBE AVAILABl.EFCf!Rf'o'IEWB'fTHEEMGItIIRATNt(TllEOURINGCOHSIRUCT1ON. Tt£ <:C.INJRAClm SIW.l GM: T1£S[ RECORD OIWIINCS TO nI: ENGIt£ER IlAlEtMffiY UPON COWP\..£T1ON CF AU. UTUTY INSTAlI.ATKlt \C.i ' : \1 ,\' . i:1 \1 I !:: ~. ,I' .11181951.55 ! ; ,.:1 I'j~-"""""""" ,w ~ i:.': ~-""'Ii. Iii 1(. iii: : CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE I. !Un{TMIlf\ACa.£MINGLIITS. 1.~MIlAT1EJ(IPIIECDISllIUClD6((1JIGIDlmYlFlOitII. 1. ClXla:*AlEOA.IMYCRFl:RrnotAlOIlJ"[]l5II«OutUITI'U.E. 4. I'IVCl: MISt. IOQJ1OI NIl QLVI MIl CKB AI£A .. a.£MING lMlS IEIRD Fl:R lIST.lUAlOIlJ"lDI'CRARTElIO'3ONWf1RIlfACl.ItlS.AIlEROSlQ(MIl!llllOTaJl1RU. fM1ItES SIWI 01 tI£ ER09IlI aJCTR!1PlM SIWL IE IISTMllD PRICII TO. III AS AfRST STAll: IJ" 91E I'm'ARAlOl So I'IVCl:txlHS1IIIJC1JlI£M1RMICt.Fl.tm flllllCFDlCENCllDF(RARTtnERaPTlJI SlW.[AS HIIII(J(HrTCI.o. 1It:24"0l.'oUIT00DIS0ISHAU.IEPROW:EDtulllC1It:1IlIAI. STACESIJ"COOlIIJC'IlIJITtltJIT(FfSI1[R.OWSCImltl£91EIllIlfIGCCICS1lIIJC11QN 6. tl£CXII1RACTCII9I1UII9'EtT£ROSICJ4CanRCl.'EASl.lESIE(ICLYNClPRO'IIEm>AI!SAS ""'" ,. QLVIoVIIt1UI1It:RDllHlRlJ"tI£SllE'MTIIHQ.URIIGlMlSMIlROOQlQUOCPROWlE FL1ERracFINCt:NIO..KIPIICI'OSEIlIlO-NlTRADSWN.ES.lI()-IQ.lRAllCIISlW.(SI1 9IN.l1tOTIEPIIO'GDlJ4llMREST(J"1It:91EHASII£N~YSTAII.J2Ell. 8.PIIO'o1ECO'I{IIIOSIRSTtlItQ.lUMIrIICRING,IU.OIMGANJK'ttJIOSIEDIIIGTtlSTMIJZE IIlUED ~ NIl PAE'o(NT tI£ tRNtSPCRT IJ" SEDIDT-lAlEN STtRIWAtm Cfl'-SIlE. !l. I'IICME SItAI S'I'SIDI. IIMfTAM 6" 'OtICAL MIl "S HIRZOHAl Q£ARAIICE (oorsu: 9.R"AaS)1£TIEBI SttAI tRMILI€SMIlOlllR EXST. UlUlYPf'ESMIlcao.m. 10. tEST SttAIIJIAIINZ CQl\UNIl: STSlDI f(JI L£MS AS.,. P!IOGIIESSES. U.I'IICMECAlOI~SEDllElfTPR01Et1D101A1lCATOiBASllCSPER[£TM.4019ETCI.I. I:L FIlE G1!.IK 91E MIl PAIL QXlDNAlE IJlII M mY Fl:R RE!lHD 1CSI'EClDCS. 1l.1DIO\E SEIMMT FRCII SltAI Pf'ES MIl CATOi BASIl :5Uf'S. 14.STMIJ2I AIlIOlAM«: [IS1IRID IfEAS.I'IICME IIO-NlTRAlDI Dill .. IIO-NllRAlDI SDl£S MIl Pl.ANI PER lAIIlSCN"E PlMS. 15.OXRlINAlEO I1ECTTlJ"lPtlIIratflUll.lCSPEC11CII. 16.1ll«M REIUMIG 1DI'(JLI,RY EROSIQII CXII1JIQ.I£WlS 'HM AI£A HAS BaN I'£RIrtIAIOlLY STAll.JZEDO'6£/ADNGlIUlOVAlISAPfRO\{()SYlI£mY. GRAPHIC SCALE k-.-LJ--J i 1""00-.-_-_ I~~)ft. BENCHMARK aTY(J'lDJtJf~aJmIQ.l£T1IJI( 'GtK:Al DA1lII-fIIJnH MlJICM W1nI:AI. IIARllli111 aE1ERS (lAW 88). aJf\(JIl[D1l)USfEET FO.I(l"f £IlASS1ISC STMFED "KC-..... z T99J" o.f(AST1F 'IlST EDGE (X CONCRElEUWOCCfl 11£1ESTUtFR.-:R AOI:SWTK. lOCA'/ED1H f1I(IITCFlHIMlROfToIlctrmRAT4SJRAMlI A'l9U:lOIlIl El.[VAJDt_S4.G32' "" DmlDSOJ.w:IHN(I!1HIE5TCIlI€R (FIlJO£T[PADtfPOllERVAlll LOCAlEDlHstOCIo\LJ(tlfRCtITIFfU.DtGATAlDESSIIO.515<J41l£1EST SIl£ IF RMEI A\9U. El.£VADCft_4I.T2' lIRZlJrIToIl 0A1\JiI-tdmt NOICM OAl\II l!183tr~ II£lERS (IuD aJ/tI~ aJfOlED lOUSf[[l 2 INCH IIIASS lISt II 411 X 411 aJICRElE POSTWlH PUOI .... II IICN.IDlCASEATn£~(I"tJIlAV£III'NIIrAlUII"\I(,", ........... E-J95J59.44111 FQ.II) 110111EBAR.1II eN' IXMI I.tll A 10 IlQlIllJUDTCASE AT 11( If1EI&C'lIIlICFTA'lURA'I£nAlllNl'41HSlliEIT. N-552l2.1QJ11 E_lII5512.66JM BASIS OF BEARING NADI5J/I18A!U1(J1ll£~(FNOIJ'16'!d'1'IET1EDIalY(J"RDIlO4 SlIMY CX111RQ.l«HlIOts NOS. 15!1 NCll57. LEGAL DESCRIPTION 'IHA'PORlIONtSuns'MCl2.a..ooo:'.Ll'INGSCllfllo£RLYN/tJEAS1[RLY (If nc C£NTtII LM (I VACAtED SQl.fn·~ 12lR!l STREET: EXCEPTntATPOII __ L'l'lNGHClUHERLYOF"AlJ'IE'IHOl1S110 ftETSOUTHDILYfl'IOWMClPAIW.J..El.TOTHESOUT1€lillYIII_OF$CIJTM 1221C)STRE£T: TOC£lMER.1H 1MATI'QR'llON c:JF'lOl' 3.1II..OCI( 1. L'I'ING 'IIESlERLY OF lI€ eOfltRLMOf' ... .u:A1[I)SOU1MI2JR1)STRE£T: AICI'fOI%lIoO_1M1.D1'S4_7,ILOCKI,EXCEPT'lWoTP<lRlICINLl'ING -'IUIlT NItJ US1DIlT rs VACA1EO SOUTH 12.KJ STRaT: MClTtJC£n€RlmIlI€ lHE.:sT.,.72FtETtS THE_I~FtE1'or nc_I~FtETrs lMIE~Iz:lFtE1'tT 1i'IE~I40FtETtT -. All) AU tTlOT 7,ILOO(2 ~~t,,-~a.&.z; ,~:;::=: 1i'IE1IIEST14.\IIlFtET~,tT All)ltIGETIO_1i'IE~'-IOOFEETtTUlT7.AII)M.LtTlOTe. -. AUtTlLOO($; lLOO(e,oa:PTMSCI.I1HI02FtET1H£R£CF", AUMW:XO'-CUHMDlIOII.~ro1i'lEPLAT1HDIE:tTlIElXlN)[Dll 1ICI..l*E.7tTPLAlS.PAGESI1NClnllElXRlStTICINeCOl.l'lTY, -. ==~~~T~O:?~~~V:=;­rr~=.,'t~~':~TYc).-~-::~~ NIl) SOftET 'IID1DI..'-w.£N IoIEASUII:ED ... TRlQtTAMClILS NfD~ RQALLY F"ROM1i'IE~mtUMEtTPRIWM1"ST"'TE_'-NO.2{RAHER"'o£MJE). All)EI!1"DClft;F"ROM..aH .... ,-~5T ... TIONS)+lOSClUTI«Rl.,-ro HlGHW ... Y£NCJMEER"SST ... TION 1I&+7!1: =TSn::T::'~T~':'~~~(J'1i'IESClUlIIll2f"EETtT ~~~:?a,.~4;= AECOJID[lII.I'CIDI ~ NU&RS 0SIl73 NIl) 2Dl2137, VACAlm~71HS1IIELTAS NCI.~REOCIItlEtIUIUR~ VACAlUt,"'TT~ro~PItI;P[RT1" tTVACAlmsmrlll I2JRO SmttT AS I'UiIIER 4357. RElXRlEDUJClER t.IPOMVM:AOON."TT~roSC) e w OWNER "' .... w: e5S(1IlH1lIINSlInT.Ul'E2OI _ ...... CXJrTACT: JID. NJWIJf ARCHITECT ''''IS'''''''''' IOlIIIMMlSTRttT 1Ill£V.I; ...... PH. (42$) 454-056Ii r.u(0)~3 CUlTACT: RIO! WAQD, HA CIVIL ENGINEER NB.. EtGEUtS, PVINRS, .I: !UI\£ItRS Z2151011H lOlHsnnT, Ul'EJOO TACXIL\ .... 184OJ PH. (253) JU-2422 r.u: (253) 3U-:z:rn corTAtT:IlATTED,PE SURVEYOR ""'''''''''''' 11814 n~ A'IOU II: _ .. - PIl(4~1!2I-1448 rAll(U5)CI-348I aJlTACT;iIQ(llAlI£SQ(,f{ SII'PLDDT .... SIJl\£fPllOlUDElYIfB.. 1MC, ..... 2IXM. SITE ADDRESS ~RMtOIA'«lUIOI1H 11D11tII,WA8lIlS5 PARCEL NUMBERS t5I4OOO .. _ PERMIT QUANmlES EM1\fIIJII(-\5QDaa:;TMII5\fIlJ (WoWlIllSAREFtRP£IIITP\IF05ESQU. QIf1RACflR!iHAIl.GIUll.A1EEM1HIUiI{ WNfV1tSRllaJCS1IIUC1IOl) o Jjj! !r:: Ill! Ep oiimp ~1 :iilh I;~ ~~I-~ h ~U§ s~ ~~d z o II: ~ w g ~ '"al/41tiS I~ LEGEND """" ~ ~ ~ . POU/1UE. PU.E el "".. < (f 1D.fF'IOI[1II ~ ............ W CATOI8A5If CJ """.. • Iii;;:; ~ w ¥ .,. , •• ",n.. ili:O: II: II. =-~aJIEt1Dt ~ ~ WAtERVAL\( 0 a l'-~ ::':~IIOX ; ",,",PCU iii ~ "'''''~IIIlS~=. II ---0---S1tRII:RMfLM: -0-III ---w---WAlERlK -w-~ ---5---SMlTNn'!£DLM: -5- It(O"lIWIIlJII( -RO- F'RCf'Im)PAIIIG C==:J I---_ .. rrolll! USED FOR coaTIIUC11OI .as I s;! -., IT lIE __ laacY ~ ~ ""'''''''''' ... '"----'"----'"---- CHECIED FOR COMPUAICE ~ TO cm STAlOAROS ""'--COVER SHEET CO.11 g ""'--CALL 48 HOURS 1)A'm6/07/04 FI..f.-2Ole15_(XII ~ BEFORE YOU DIG 1-800-424-5555 ~-= ~1·_40· ..en,1 OF,7 oJ ~ ~ ~II-I' ~ ~ .. 19G~f') J, ,.! II j If) I ,,-Z ,,-Q ,,-en ~ ~ " z ~ ~ o e I~~ 0<$ <:. "-Z V> W~ ~ enZ 0 :ow :z 8 x '" 5 z ~ '" u o w ,..: i!@> i' , ;1 Q I ~ I J;II ~; ~!a l ,AI AL~I,.' LUi HYDROSEEDIIIG NOTES, I. 1I'ItRO!HIINC!ilAU.Il N'PI.£DINACIXR)NI(( OInE "EROSIIIIaJC1R(1 NOltS"CltntS9IIT. 2. H'tlfIOS[E{B:; TO Il TI£ FW.a.lG lIIImI!E: (EX<IPT IIIIllCATm 1£IlNIIIl.fteRNfJI[TPQ(I9IOIlDFCUOInEYXUES ....,1lELOO) n'''F """ ...,.".."""""""" BYI[G(T PIRtT aJIIIIIA.lOI mlTtP(AptiI .) MNlAlRY£{LdUnrrd\lknm) 40S O£tDIGF£StI.E{F"atuc:anlbnlo:nmlltat:a)40S ( ........ a-..~ ... Kabt) 'HI[ MOl QlMR (1,..,. ~) 30 N'l\JCAlDIrolll00LBS/Aa!E. 4. 5OOlBS/AaIE lG-20-NFUl1UZER. 2OOOlBS/ACRE'MXIlF&RClI.1.llO!:£AfIl 4OLBS/1DIl. Stl..BMD (II TA(](I(;AClJ(l TOil N'lUDOmDlIXltIIE. So !IEDflDSPl.Nft£DB£TI(I)IIIAYIRII0CTaIJI3ImREa.lROAlDI NIl OnER IWITDCNCt ASI€ttSSARYTtI F'OS1ER .vGP!I'01£Cl JI£ ROOT """""" 6. FalSEIDIElSPlNIlEOEIE1lIl£N0CTl&R3IM11 ..... 3O,ARIII(RNCrFll£ !lED lED ti II: N[CISSNn'. (E.G.. wnrou:s. JJ1E IlAT. a£NI FUSTIC """"") 7. E£f(R SEmNC,. 1CSTMl. IUWl '.JHKL RUIOT WiTRIl.IOSlRS gJCH AS QtUJIT 1EIRACES. IItERCEPTCII t*[S, SUlS. I£'o{L Sf'IIVOOIS Nt) """'"""" a t!£!lEDBEll9iIUBEfRI_rn lFARYfM:SURrACE,FCI.1.OtIICSLIIF,I([ IIO.O£JtI«:.PERFlJIIIALLlPERAlDISACROSSCIIATRlQiTNllUSfOJI£ ..... •. FER1UZERS AA[ 10 IE usm MlXIDIC TO s.J'Pl.lRS RECCIIIEJIlAlDCS. AIDIIlSUSEDSlfCI.lDIEIItIMZEIl,ESl'E<W'uADJACENT TO WAltII8[IES .. """'" 10. S£ED SHAU. NOTIl USED IN N£J.S SIAI.ECT TO 'lEAR 8YOJfSTRI.ICiKJI TRAmC. IJICHIIFIL THAnON SWW SEED IIJXTURE ""IF"""" TAU.F£StI.E(ALTA,9OT,o,IlR,IJlfA-..} NKlAI.In'E(UlJJIIlIll.lFIJ!III) 'HIEQ.O'O(lRI1J.JMA£JIOIS) IlULClUNG NOTES. "" '" 1. II.l1)IlIAlERIN.5USEDSHAlLIEHAYCIIS'IRAW,NIlSHAllIE N'P1.£D AT1I£RAlECF2lCt1S/~ (WIt TllICJC) 2.IAlO£SSHItLIEN'P1.£D"AI.L~-.nIDPOSED!l.II'ES CllEAiERlHAH2:1. l. IIIlOKSH,lUI£USEDlIIIEIlIAiEUAflERSEmIlGCII .. NIEAS WIOICNKllIESEImlIECAlJSECFMSEASIJI. 4. AltNiEAS!fiMfGIMOISHAllIEClJ',{lUB'rr«M/&R 1. SOIL STOCKPILE NOTES. I. SiOOCI'USSHNJ.I£STta.JZED(OPlASllC(XI';(IR;CIIOTIlR AI'PIIO\tD 1U(t) DM.YIEJ'IEEN IIO\OI£R I N() IUIIOl 31. 2. .. ANY!DS(JI, SDJIlNTL£AOIIICfR(IISTOOCPlESIlUSTEl """""m. 3. llPSCI..SHNJ.tmElFUCtD-...r .. AFIIOZDI CllIItIIlYCOOiICIl 1H111I£~ISElt£S:9'onI'l(l.CII'aPaJllTDlSElIIST iHATIlAYD1I£JnIS[ElOClRlllEllIAlTOPRO'ERGrWJI(;(II PRCI'OSEIlSIXtIItGORSEIIIIIG. 4. I'REWl.aYESTAIllSI£D QlAIlESON 11£ AI9S TOlE ltPSCII.£I) SHAlL I£IIAIITAllEDo\CCCRI*GiDMN'F'RO'«DPLAH PLAsnc COVERING NOTES. 1. PLASlICSl£[lllCSHAlLIIA\£AIIINIIUI"IMOO£SSCF6I1l.SNIlSHAll. ET 11£ RE(UlIfi(Jn~ CF 11£ STAlE STNClAAD SPE~1DIS SECiKII t-IU 2. CO'omIIGSHAll.I£ICS1N..l£1)NIlIt ..... HAllED1&f1lY .. FVa8YtJSM; SAllllAGSCII iRSONRIJ'£S 'IlH AIIAXIUII()-fDOtIRlSPACJ«: .. AU. 1HCllCHS. AU. SUMS SHAll. lIE TJI'ED CII EQflED DIMI RlL lfNCTHMIl1l£RESHAll.IEATlEASTA121010'1elAPCFItLS£MIS. .1. Q[ARPlASTICCO\OIINGSHAU.IEICS1AU.D1I1MDAIElYON~ 5EEOOI1EJ'IEEN J«M&Rl NIlliNlOl31 N()RDI .... UMll W:GElAl\ON IS filii. Y ESTAIlBEl. , 1HXlI£CO\£RIMGlSusnIONlJf-mI£[lSlCf'ES,ITSHNJ.IEICEPT" f\.AC[ lIflllll: 1OT!imJNG PERIOO. So I'lASlICCO'I(IIItG9lITSHAU.I£IUI£I)"IW)FlITATMttPrE !l.II'ES" (IIIJI TO PI£'OT SlJlF"Nl: .... iER FI..OI'BDOllI H£TS. a. PlKFERIUlflDCNl(IINCUllES~Q£CI(SFaI'RI'SNIlCl!i.lXXlD ... RAINIER MIXED USE PARKING EXPANSION ~ 1HE SOlITHWEST OUARTER OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 23 NC>RTH, RANGE 5 EAST, WIl..LAMETTE MERIDIAN CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON .c: 15 D "':3 ~!i fLTDlf.8IC1lA1£RI~---~ 1IRNlI(l)IISCREQJV,IWff PRIF.LHCR1£IlNII """IJE z D&:: t'l(t'8Yl.CA._---~ fAIRCCREQlJYMDfT. .vm TtlPOST(t.OCATED 2.0'~ 1 -:;t t FD. TER FABRIC FENCE NOTES, t fLlERf.cBRICFBlIISHAU.BEPU!OtA!£DItAaJI1IUJSRaJ.AfClarrroll£l.[III;lH(FMBNIIIlIroAQ) ~ (F .aMTS.IHN.uus oViE I£C£SSARY, FllER ClOTH SHAlL IE SPUCED JOOC1I£R MY AT A 9.FPCRTPOST. o A""" &-IICJItMRlN'. NIl SEamYFASlDIll ATBOlH EIIlS TO POST. 1 6 =>0 u:s ili"2' ~~ <iii ::lil:lj-g.~~; ONDOIIIIl.SUO' Fl1ERfo\8RlC) PfIO'C£3/4"-lltr'IA3£D QIA't(lBAOaU .. IlnCINI) CtlBOlHUSCFfllERFDtCE FASIICCtlM!UlFNl: T x ," .xDPOST___. CIISlEaFtMClPOST ~ 8F1L~E~.FABRIC FENCE DETAIL o ~~~"~RUCTION ENTRANCE ~lOO."""" ~rw.ssCIIIlOO( ,,,. ,~IIH. I~;(/ """,,,~'<~ r~ ~ ...... """ IlI!YIIOTTlJICF' fl.1ER1lA1DIAI. tlB"IITTRDOI T X,'UIlPOSlS, STAMlNIDCIII!£1lER, CII STm. m«lPOST 2. POSlSSHAlLII:SPMllIAIIAlMIICF61lITN'NlJNIlDRl'OSEtlRlYlf1OlI£GRO.II)(\IMIUICFlO KH». l.A1IOOISHAlLII:oa:AVAlEDN'I'AO:IIIIIAlELyaIlCKSUNI)I2INO£SDEEPoIlfMOMIJ£CFPOSlSMI) IP.ilFEfR(IIMBNRER.1IISTIIDOlSHItLII:BACI(f1l£I)O'IA3£DGRA'8... 4. IHIISTN()AIIISTIOGlHf1.lIRFI8!ICISUSED,AIKIESHU'PCRTm«lSHAllII:FAS1EJI(l)SEQRlYTO'D£ IP.ilFEUCFlI£POSlSUSlNClOvr-oon1R:STAPL£SATl£AST1I101UJ1C,,1l:HSCIIHClGIIIIGS. 'D£ 1R:SHAlLDlOOIIIT01II: TIIDOl A ..... CF4I1CKSNIlSHMl!mEXlOOIICRE'llWt2411Q£5 o8l'I( 'D£IIIC1IUtCRCUIISJl'AlL ~ MSTNIlNI)S1IIfMG'DIf1.lIRFI8!ICSHMlII:STMlIDCllIllEDTOFDa,NIl20INO£SCFMFI8!ICSHItL IE OODIID .. TO M l1DDl1l£ FI8!IC SHltLtm EX100 IICRE 111114 2411O£S ABO'L MOUAlGRO.ll) ~AlLf1.1DIFABIICSHAlLtmI£STAPl£DTOEXIS'lIIG1RE£S. 6. IHJIEXIRA-S11OC1HfllERFacNl)a.os£RPOSTSPAa!CISUSED,nt:'MEIESH9.FPCRTfDIC[IIAYIE ~1ED. .. StOIACA!£,1II:fllIRFABIICISSTAFUIlCllIIIED[Ht'IlYTOM:POSlSO,IU0'lIfR fIIO'GCIISCFMRL1«lTESN'fl'tIIG. 1. FLJERFABIICFDlCESSHAI.1!mI£IPO\{))IERR:MI.P.IJFEMUKlSIIDII'£JIU.IfJ(TLYSTNIlZED. IS. FLlERFABIICFDtaSSHAllI£IISPEC1EDIIIKIIAIElYAflEREAOlRMF,IU NIl ATl£ASTDALYtullMGPRCl.CJtCED RMFAU.. ANY AEQlIIED IVAI!S SH,IU 1£ MADE IIIKlJAlELY. 9. !il.TftJaStiI£RSTALUDPMAUD. TO!iJJlECXIITtlJ!S. 10. CCII1R8J1IIGlfNCTH TOfDIC[ ti!ml£ QlUlIR 1IW1100 FlIT • II,OOtmRSTItLIIl.OIANOO1l£TPl'ECIIIDl 12.RSTAl.LIlIIBfiJfECF~1I1£AS. 13. OOMDTtR\'EO\{RCllFU0\UI5I.1F'EIIIS. CONSTRucnON ENTRANCE NOTES. I. IIAiIJlALSHNJ.1£4I01TOBIOI0JNR1 SPAl1SNIlIlAII£~OIIlOl TO JIOI RO:X (STAlE STNIlNI) SI'Et.flCAtxJCS,!i:ClICII &-1~) 03003 8EDIEIIT OILY "'""'""""""" 2. M:ROC1(PMlSHAllElATl£AST1211O£S nDNCl50fIDLCtIG.IIl1llSHAU.1E1II: F\UlIllllCFM:\EMCtEIIOIESSNIl PIIO'oU:CAlOI~mKMTPROiECiIONO ~BdIl&RTflOOJ,fR(IIFOSSEIC'oRMDlAl 1440" MIIUW. IlAY S. ''''''' ..... 3. AtOlIJW.IIOQ{9IN..LEloUlDPERlCDCltLY TOIIMflIllPRG'ERfI.IIC1\(JICFMPMI. 4. 1F"1II:PMlD!ESMOlADEWAlELYREIIO'I'ElI£ ItII)fR(IIlI£\{JIQ[wm5,M"-£D.S SHAlllEI«lSEDtJFl£FtR:M\{JIQ[ DIlERS A PA\(J) S1REET. III: 1lA!all:SHNJ.1£ oa£CtlA .... lXI'otml-.nlauHDRIXJ( NIl'IASH .... 1DISHAllOllAllTO ASEDIEIfI ~FAClJ1YCII"IlIItlDIAg.TfOI(X. SEAm£. .... 1BI0&-4'I41 1'10£: 1-«IHQ9-Ji11 o ~ ... SEDIIIENT PROTECTION !~. oij.c:~ a:.§ /'J,,"5!5 "'&:: <,dl- Iild! ~~d z 0 I ~ 9 0 ~ i 11. ~ >< W CJ 0 ~ Z < < 01 11. ~ ~ 0 ~ W ~ .t-' a: ~ ~ III g TEIIPORARY INTERCEPTOR SWW NOTES. UlEDFaR ~ lADS .-----.. a I TIESI! DRA_ ARI! IIOT TO -I _n11E___ II~~?~ ... I ~ I.~MIlIlll.QlSHNJ.ElN'fl(O""SIlATSrES1MI..ECQrIS1IIIJC"IDl (SEE If1tIIOSE[l*G MOTES) 2. NO£RO!KtISHAU.OCCUR"1I£SWN.I.I'ROWI:EJ€RGYDlSSlPAlICIfllEASUAES ASNE(ISSARl ... 0II1AYINQ.l[£IIOO(AIWORINCOCFSII9.lJIES. I£COOMKlEO ""'''''''''''-'"----'"----'"---- CHECKED FOR CDMPLIAICE CITY OF 8 TO CITY STANDARDS N DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ::==IT.E.S.C. NOTES I DETAILS C1.11 ~ ""- DIIA_ CCM DATE.6/1)7j04 (3) !~!~RARY INTERCEPTOR SWALE ~ ~~ FU:-2OJB1!>-Cll ~ ~ SHEET,3 01',7 <: ~ D- '-' w <:., ~ i:''' z ., -~ ILZ wI" C> <nZ "<! :::>w n: '" ::3 z x i5 " «: ffi <r '" z ~ ~ W ~ ~:I ~!i ,R[ R[,~[ . iii I I I I _ RAINIER MIXED USE PARKING EXPANSION THE SOUlHWEST OUARTER OF SECTION 7. TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH. RANGE 5 EAST. WIlLAMETTE MERIDIAN \ GRAPHIC SCALE !. , BENCHMARK OTT(FIlJm'IfSUR'l£YcarnnN£T'lQll( 'OlDlDA1\II-IDnH~'o{II'lICAlDAnIII9IlIIavERS(NA'ltllIlILCOfo(RlIJ)lOUSfI[l QTYCFIIBIltII SUR'l£YCXJmIU.fU02I119 1::i D -'" "'13 1: 0 CIT)' OF RENTON, KING COUNTY. WASHINGTON 1 I •• ~ .". ,:" I ',,,""" ••• ~ I 1\1 --"".""-_~-----~--\. ,",",'. ,\ i,j ~ '1:1 iii I I, I I I"~ Fliiil '. ~..:.:i'" et'\':~:" \, ~~~w:i=~~~~::r~~£IQ~Al~~~1HE "\,=.,."':"i.OJ2' , i1Bll , atSEUD SOJAAEIINIR1IAESTaR€R <FIXJIIIl£IEPAD<FPOt[R VAIl.TlDCAlEDllSIDAlI( II 'FRQ(l<FBlI.lIC "TAIDlESSIIO. 51501 IHEIlESTSIl:<FRMtERAIOI£. fl£VA1IQj .. 4&,I2' i ~~ Z DC !! ::>0 ll6l!i !I U 1lCf :::l "11' ~" ~~~;= .l!;= {i" O~!!l N:182075.57£:12977S1.45\ (-4S.50(24"s£j \ ...... """'""'" ~AAW~ ~~ ~ v. ••... \ t· " .. " r\ -so~S~so __ m __ m __ so " .. ~~. ~~ lWoo50.00 i I ~ r. so_ m>r I em STUcn .. ~~ .)td, \:::!\' .w • \ ft" I,." ' I ~ " 12" CONe If_ '97'l (IN-N) ~ 18" CONe Ie 27.~ (OUT-E) ~ \ : II·", I Ii'" "':~~ I \ @~=)~ L _____ -' ____ N~:;~~t----8J!!'EI _ . ,HllUtil!i18llS.9§ ."I'£RRRATEDCPEPO o.~catt:CTlOC811 SITE PLAN SCALE: 1"'~ , t/ f/ I.EIO-IIl.lRAll(IrInSHAU.II:~CONSTRIJCtIQ(SAICl. 2D-3O:lltlPSl1W1HLES5THM5%MAXMIIQ,UCCJmJ(I, ~:;:!:~l.Ui"<XII'OST.Al9lAU.EEE£T1EIH 2. F'I.Jf(1JtCSHAU.CCIISISTfTNA1l'o{S'ECESA8..E TO Ttl£RAl[ VARII8..E SI1IK1S1l.11£ IXIOlICIIS, POONG WoI.1IR FUJC1tJAlICffS,M(lYARlIQISl1M1JSM!ECCffIIMT.1II.lQI S!i,t,U.BEN'I'LlDT01I£SWAI.£EIOTttIIIS .... 1H(Jt AllERNA1MI.YlI£lIOwfn.1RAllOtSWALEy.uBE HltROSEEDWlH AuasnJlE Tll£RAIIT!lED"X.FAmD YXISUiI.JlEOPIIOWSIIlfSSHAUB£ru.DE lOPRO'IU SCAl.£:l",,4' ;-- l 'I "",,.' ii, "11'1 l'l ;:1· -G-GRADING SECTION 'A' -.,..--I W J . li~ " ,-,8' ",.,"""""" I£rAIIIIGWAU.W1H~ OWl LIIK fUU, sa -"-"''''' WAU.tlSIQI. <XKmE ~ ~'~ lV fz'\:" ~. "/.-<0.~/'('«<~ 1~ Il'!!!I ",. ' " "" """"" /'(/,Y..:\"/.,,, ' l: !~triPl!O\U vw,,,"',,,,, , ~"":::."'~'" ,.11 ~ _____ _ DAn;::fEV I ! EIDA_ \ I / UUIIIUI STORM PROFILE -2 """"', -H(IIl(II1At;I" .. 2O' IE<XMII'HE) FOR""""'''' "'----"'----"'---- TIE8E DRAW1188 ARE .,T TO • U8ED FOR co.rnoucnc. IIU88 ...., BY TIE REfEWII8 A8EI£Y CALL 48 HOURS BEFORE YOU DIG 1-800-424-5555 58'· --~ -- STORM PROFILE -1 \C{fX:N.;1"-5' H1R2tIfTAL:l".2O' ~~ S~ z 0 ~ g ---' ~ I ~ I g «~ 'E g;iU Ii': w ~ I I ~ ~ :i ~ ~ ~ II I U; CHECKED FOR COMPLIANCE CITY OF RENTON 8 TO cm STAIIDARDS ... --------''''--''''--GRADING & DRAINAGE PlAN C2.0 I g l'm""'/~ I~-=."~,, *CI\lb 1"_20' NJI __ -_ -,~ OllT1!'e,_ ~, 7 m FU _ 2OJG1~-t201 ~ ~ I-~II-:It ~ ~'11~ W) 'I.-Id j VI VI I z Il.o :t~ U1 ~ ~ ~ E§ '" Cl ~~ ~ ~;;i t3 o I-Wf-0 VlZ :z =>W '" W " <.!> W "" x :z '" ~ ffi Cl Z ~ .!@ ii ~ {I ~ ---,- ~ I ~lli' II' '!l i RAINIER MIXED USE PARKING EXPANSION lHE SOUTHWEST OUARTER OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, WILLAMET1E MERIDIAN CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE NOTES & SPECIFICATIONS 1. BEfORE 1m CONSTRUCTION OR DEVElOPWENT ACTMTY OCCURS, A PRE -coNSTRUCOON 1.IEET1NG MUST BE HELD WITH THE OTY OF RENTON ~ REVIEWER. 2. AU. CONSTRUCTION SHAI..l BE IN ACCORlW«:E WITH THE ~1994 STAN[W{l SPECifiCATIONS FOR ROAD, BRIDGE AND WUMClPAl CONSTRUCT1ON~ PREPARED BY W.S.D.O.T., AND THE AM~ PUBUC WORKS ASSOCIATION (APWA), AS AMENDED BY THE OTY or RENTON DEPARTWENT OF PUBUC WORKS. J. THE SURFACE WATER DRA/rooE SYSiEW SIW.1 BE CONSTRUCTED ACCORDING TO THE APPROVED PL.ANS WHICH ARE ON F1LE IN THE DEPARTIr.lENT Of PUBUC WORKS. 1m OEW.T1ON FROW THE .&PPROVED PlANS WIll REQUIRE WRITTEN APPROVAl FROW THE CITY Of RENTON DEPNmlM OF PUBUC WORKS OR SURFACE WATER UTIlITY. 4. A COPY OF THESE APPROVED Pl..ANS MUST BE ON THE JOB SITE WHENEVER CONSTRUCTION IS IN PROGRESS. 5. QATUW SfW.l BE NAVO 88. UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY CITY or RENTON DEPARlVENT OF PUBUC WORKS. REFERENCE 8ENCHt.IARK AND ELEVATION ARE NOTED ON THE PLANS. 6. AU. SroWENTATION/EROSIOH FACIUTIES WUST BE IN OPERATION PRIOR TO CLEARING AND BUILOING CONSTRUCTION, AND THEY MUST BE SATISFACTORILY WAlNTAiNED UNTIL CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETED AND THE POTENTW.. fOR ON-SITE EROSION HAS PASS£D. 7. All RETENTlON/OETOOON FACIUilES truST BE IKSTAlLED AND IN OPERATlON PRIOR TO OR IN CONJUNCTION WITH All CONSTRUCTlON ACTMTY UNLESS OTHERWISE APPRQVED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBUC WORKS, SURF,tC[ WATER UTlUTY. 8. GRASS SEED WAY BE APPUED BY HYDROSEEDIHG. THE GRASS SEED WlXTURE, OTHER THNl OTY OF RENTON APPROVED STANDARD IIIIXES, SHAlL BE SUBWITTED BY A lANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AND Af'PRO\ofl) BY THE OEPNmlENT OF PUBUC WORKS, SURfACE WATER UTlUTY. 9. All PIPE AND APPURTENANCES SHAlL BE lAID ON A PROPERlY PREPARED FOUNDAnoo IN ACCQROANCE WITH S£CllOH 7-02.3(1) OF THE CURROO STATE Of WASHINCTON ST~(lf,R() SPECIFlCATlOO FOR RQ,I,I) ~D BRIDGE COHSTRUCTlON. THIS SIW.1 INCLUOE NEC£SS.IRY l£'vruNG Of THE TRENOi BOTTOW OR THE TOP Of THE FOlINDATlON MAT£RIAl AS WElL /IS Pl.ACEWENT AND CO!.IPACTION OF REWRED BEDDING MATERIAl TO UMFORM GRADE SO THAT THE £NTIRE lENGTH OF THE PIPE WIlL BE SUPPORTED ~ A UNlFORlllLY DENSE UNYIElDING 8AS£. All PIPE BEDOING SHAll. BE APWA a.ASS -C~, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF PVC PIPE. All m[NCH BACKfU.1 SHALl BE COMPACTED TO IIIINlWUW 95 X FOR PA\o£W£NT AND STRUCTURAL F1L1 AND 90X OTHERWISE P£R ASTU 0-1557-70. PEA GRAVEl BEOOING SHAll BE 6" OVER MD UNDER P.V.C. PIPE. 10. GAlV,6HIZED STEEl PIPE ANO AlUMINIZED STEEl PIPE FOR ALl 0RAlNAGE FACIUTlES SI-W..l WIVE ASPHAlT TREATUENT #' OR BETT£R 1NSl0E ~D OIJTSIOC 11. STRtJC11JRES SIWJ. NOT BE PERWITTED wnHIN 10 Fffi OF lHE SPRING UNE OF N« STORM 0RAItw;[ PIP[. OR 15 FEET FROW THE TOP Of Alf( ~NEl BANK. 12. ALl CATCH BASIN GRATES SHAll BE DEPRESSED 0.10 Fill a8..ow PAVOIENT lEVEL 13. OPEN CUT ROAD CROSSINGS THROUGH EXISTING PUBlIC RIGHT OF WAY WIll NOT BE ALlOWED UNLESS SPEClFlCALLY APPRCMD BY THE CITY Of RENTON AOMINISTRATOR, DEPAlmlENT OF PlANN!NG/BUIlDING/PUBUC WORKS. 14. ROC!< FOR EROSION PROTECTION OF ROADSIDE DITCHES, WHERE REQUIRED, SHAll BE or SOUND QUARRY ROCK PlACED TO A DEPlli OF I FOOT AND MUST "'EEl THE FOLlOWING SPEaFlCATlONS: 4"-6"/40 ~-70% PASSING; 2"-4" ROCK/30%-4O% PASSING: AND -2" ROCK/l0%-m PASSING. 15. ALl BUILDING ~ AND FOOTING DRAINS SHALl BE CONNECTED TO THE STORt.I DRAINAGE SYSTEM, UNLESS APPRiMD BY THE OEPAImIENT OF DEVElOPIoIENT SERVICES, PLAN RE'v1EWER!OR SURFACE WATER UTIUlY. AN ACCURATB.Y DIMENSIONED CERTlflED AS-BUILT DRAWING OF THIS ORAINAC" SYSTEM WIll BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY OF RENTON UPON COt.IPlET1ON. , I 16. ISSUANCE OF THE BUIlDING OR CONSTRUCTION PERMIT BY THE CITY or RENTON DOES NOT RElIEVE THE OWNER OF THE CONTINUING LEGAL OBUGATION AND/OR lIABIlITY CONNECTED WITH STORM SURFACE "ill! 0ISP0SITl0N. FURTHER, THE OTY OF RENTON OOES NOT ACCEPT Nf( OBlIGATION FOR THE PROPER FUHCTIONING AND WAlNTENANCE Of THE SYSTEW PRCMDED DURING CONSTRUCTION. 17. THE CONTRACTOR SI-W.l. BE RESPQNSlBI..I FOR PROVIOING .tDEQUATE SAfEGUARD, 5N'ID DEVICES, PROTECTIVE EOUIPWOO, F1..AGGERS, AND 1m OTHER NEEDED ICTlONS TO PROTECT THE un, HULTH, AND SNTIY or THE PUBlIC, AND TO PROTECT PROPERTY IN CONNECTION WITH THE PERfORWANCE OF WORJ( COVERED BY THE CClNTRACT. 1m WORK wrTHlN THE TRAvn.ED RIGHT Of WAY THAT WAY INTERRUPT NORUAL TRAfF1C flOW SHAI..l REQUIRE AN APPROVED TRAmC CONTROL P\..AN BY THE TIW"F1C ENGIHE£RJNG OMSION or THE DEPARTWENT Of PUBlIC WORKS. ALl SECTICfIS OF THE w.S.D.O.T. STANtWID SP£ClF1CATIONS 1-07-23, TRAmC CONTROl. SHALl APPlY. 18. SPEaAI.. DRAINAGE WEASlJRES WILL BE REQUIRED IF THE PROJECT LOCATION IS wrIHlN THE AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA (APA). AU SlOTS I" WI! NOlES: I) IJSE .1HSTANDNlDPL\N B-20F1!ME. 2)lIAlERIALIDCXWL1IMlO'I!OOTSTNflNIDSPEatCA1lCIIS9-ClS.15(2). ~ o !~!~!yE GRATE '" [ 0000000000000000 V=-IRMWJ:~ 0 0000 000000°0000 ~ 0 000000000000000 0 00000000°000000 EXIRlIE)(I)OTill 0 000000000000000 4""""'''' 'Ql!' 0 000000000000000 PlAN ~ ~oo~ ~o~ k "" .... ~ c£iioOr ~~. '\ I A"J>'g;;r ~o~o~oO ' ..... rAllJl1:r .. C£PTH """"""" SECTION o ~OCK.PROTECTION I) 1RDICH.nH9iAUlI:o\SSPElJ'EDINSECllI*2-<J9.4CF Tl£STMClNlDSPECflCA1lOCS. 2)PFEztJlE8ACKF1LSHAUlI:o\SSPECHDINSEC1DI7.III.J(J)CF Tl£STMClNlDSPECflCAllCICS. 3) 1REJI()I BAOCFll9iAU IE PER 'ISOO1 STMClNII SPECH:AlIlf, 7.III.J(J~ 4) K ........ CO\ORltCJI£PSHAUII:2' .. PA'o{()AREASSI.8.ECt ID'oUIClURtR.Iif1CNIlI'lNl.NIlSCN'[MIEAS. ~ W(SEE""'L'1 1 ,~,l.~ o·~o·~ o.~L9'" ~tDI "'10 Q Q Q' ~"ll(JI .... , u u u uououd~ TIIERIIOPLASTIC PIPE DUCmE IRON PIPE 0B~'!.I!!G & BACKRLL PIPE IN TRENCHES o 1EOOIMHlED "".......,., .... ,,----,,----,,---- ""'" :"'~...':'~=~i~'" ""' ......... ( .... -". "" .,.,. "". "'i:~ ~~~~B.VI!D~ r~ ..... .... ""'''',..... l/<'~,=" "............. :'im .. "' ..... FRONT VIEW ~ ......... 1 SIDE VIEW ACCESS BARRIER DEl AIL IIOTlO!LAl£ ... °I.ltISS01l£R'EE """' ....... ;....",...."....."....".....~~~ PlAN =-::-\ ~I oo~~ o ou~u . ~no.ync.<z~,;; I..:.,r~ :~:""'"("'''''l -:3 SEC';:""": ~_~~:-:!:)PI'E) nEE DRAW118S ARE .aT TO BE I USED FOIl ~ __ I ,.., BY 11E IIEIER8 A~ CHECKED FOB COMPUAICE TO cm STAIIDARDS ~ " .<: '5 III 1: ~~ ~ "!i f!i 1i uliooi ::IlI~ ~~. ~~';;~ a:!i (;~~" "'ti «"') ,g o.;",i ~a: "')~cna: Z 0 c: ~ w g ~ -' ~ i ~ w 0 0 z ::: ~ OJ ~ III :::> 0 ~ ~ ~ a: !!! ~ ~ DRAINAGE NOTES I DETAILS C2.11 g --= D"~I/07~ ~ ~- m OU-lOlIIIS-c2,1 ~ 1tGt, 5 ~ 7 ~ '" z ~« C ~3: E '&z c:II w~ !i UlZ > :::>w C '" ... 8 x '" is z ~ if ::f, ii@ ~: ~ ;1 -----,-- f I ~!! ·~I ~I ~, ' II! ~ \ \ \ \ \ \ ~ [12S17790.91 PAYING PLAN LEGEND SW5lRlJJ(@ EXllUEl""'@ OOaJ!9CRM1A1Z(I'[NNC@ l,(: 'OlICAl.QRI~ ® OWIXQAilTlPE,hJllCIJIB c=J A9'HAU COIcmE PA'OENT@ 1/."[DIDlCllOO'o( RAINIER MIXED USE PARKING EXPANSION THE SOVTHWEST OUARTER OF SECT10N 7, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, WIlLAMETTE MERIDIAN CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON SITE PLAN SCAI.£: , _~w \ \ \ 1 e ~ GRAPHIC BCALE i..oJ W' --\,,;..''''' ...... ,ro ... ODHSTRAICHTIlATOI1.J€.ItOT TM~DT· l' 'P'oC04O'1KTERVN.SNtl AT AlLI..OWPCIO'STOPRO\U AC(OOATE IJtMU.GE TIf«lI[JI W!BS (JIlNClSCoII'EPl..AN1ERISLNClS.PI'E TOII:IFo{lJ.!DTOIlATOIrol([rE "'" m:='''''''''' ...... PA\£IDTQ.ASSB,ISDOT .... ."IaN. a!lISKD9.JFAONG _ ~ V¥Jl vv Ttl'CCU!S[,1SDOT8--Ol9(l) t.l>:..'"v l!ft 6V'1 v I I CCIiIPN;1E[)~15:l IIAlIUiI PlY IDSITY """ DEPlHS NEaII'AClED 1HIOOCS ASPHALTIC CONCRETE PAYEMENT STRUCTURE NOT TO SCM[ ~~I • I~' ~I-="-=-'/ HI IR!C. -_ ... "fU,_~ rPIIC,.IftBI&Jar -""""". La.IfOTIM_ o EXTRUDED CEMENT CONCRETE ~~!... ~ ... \ ........ ~,.. .. -to r. 1i'"f,"A ? W .... 1.1.OCI1I ___ ....... I. .--=a_ ... ___ ,,~ ....... 1U._." 0CURB DRAINAGE OPENINGS __ • i5 '" <> .<: ~~ 1: 0 z ;; <>" fl5 ~f o lPn, :f"" .. :z; :i~ ~~~~ 131:1:;.: a: 15 "00 ",1: (3~:i g~ -,:!Ecna: Z ~ II: w 0 ~ g z !il z ~ w z 0 c z ... 52 A-~ c:I Z W ;;: OJ C :::> A-0 w !i1 a: ~ ;;: a: III ...J 1= ... ""' ....... _ ..... - ""'" I. <DIOITm«:IU(!RIUEECUSSIL 2.CCWAClll)(fCllc:atcm'['lM.XSlO£E!mIWMllIDCSITY. J. EXP~.DNlSCOGSlJIGCFJ/tf8Y'4·PREWCllnl.QrITItATEmLSHNJ. El:PlAIE)Arl5fOOTIIUDNAlS,CIIAS[RClEDIlYHAROII1EC1\.ftIl F\NIS.I/."EDOCrJIOO'iESHNJ.El:PROWlEDAT.DfIEDOCS. 8 CEMENT CONCRETE SIDEWALK zl !a.~ J~~\Hr. ..... , !sl VERTICAL CEMENT CONCRETE C,!!!!,B_.,. IE<XlIOENlOD RlAN'l'l'<N"- CALL 48 HOURS BEFORE YOU DIG 1-800-424-6666 1 1iE8E DRA'" MIllOY TO BE I USED FOR CCIISTRUC1'IOIIlaE88 0 ~aaED~~n~nE~E~'E~.~"~~~~~,-__ ~~~~~~~ __ ~~ __ ~~ CHECKED FOR COMPUAICE ~ TO cm STANDARDS =====::==IPAVING PLAN C3.01 g ~--I~ -..----m 1....,.7 ~ DATE.6!07/O-' &cAlf, ,. .... 8ttRT, 6 c._. PARTIES OF RECORD RAINIER AVE MIXED-USE PARKING LUA04-093, SA-A, ECF Richard Wagner Baylis Architects 10801 Main Street ste: #110 Bellevue, WA 98004 tel: 425-454-0566 eml: wagnerr@baylisarchitects.com (contact) Carl P. Burns 213 NW 6th Street Renton, WA 98055 tel: 206-772-6903 eml: cpburns99@yahoo.cin (p rty of record) Lee & Peggy Christopherson 503 Rainier Avenue N Renton, WA 98055 (party of record) JDA Group, LLCjID Kline Corp. 95 S Tobin Street Renton, WA 98055 tel: 425-891-1002 (owner) Mary Jo Carlson 215 NW 5th Street Renton, WA 98055 tel: 206-772-4271 (party of record) Bruce & Sue Gregg 207 NW 5th Street Renton, WA 98055 tel: 206-772-0811 (party of record) Rolland Dewing 210 NW 5th Street Renton, WA 98055 tel: 206-772-6528 (party of record) Ronnie & Roberta McDonald 216 NW 5th Street Renton, WA 98055 tel: 206-772-4977 (party of record) Sherondia Renee Otis 211 NW 5th Street Renton, WA 98055 tel: 206-772-8885 (party of record) , August 21, 2006 ~~PE~lw~l~fDava~ t&~ J\pp~~?:~ainier MixedUse South Parking Lot, JDA Group, V-05-133 & SA-04- 093 - Renton City Council Minutes Page 280 in the workplace; and increase the number of bachelor and advanced degrees awarded in Washington, with emphasis on applied sciences and engineering. He noted that the Partnership will go before the legislature in 2007 asking for an increase in college enrollments to fill capacity in high demand fields such as computer specialists, engineers, life scientists, medical researchers, nurses, and secondary teachers. Mr. Drewel commented on the importance of technical and community colleges, noting that the Partnership wants 40 percent of the students who attend four- year institutions to come from these types of colleges. He pointed out that the region will need well-educated workers to replace retiring workers and to meet the demands of the new economy. In conclusion, Mr. Drewel encouraged attendance at the Prosperity Partnership luncheon on November I. In response to Councilwoman Briere's inquiry, Mr. McSherry stated that the marketing pilot project is aimed at middle and high school students. Planning and Development Committee Chair Briere presented a report regarding the appeal filed by JDA Group, LLC. The Committee heard this appeal on 8117/2006. The applicant, JDA Group, LLC, appealed the Hearing Examiner's denial of its variance request and site plan. The Committee reviewed the record, the written appeal, and the presentation and oral argument by Neil Watts, Development Services Director, and Rich Wagner, Bay!is Architects, on behalf of the applicant/appellant. Having done so, the Committee found that a substantial error in law exists, and accordingly, reverses the decision of the Hearin'g Examiner and modifies the decision by adding a mitigation measure. The subject parcels are located west of Rainier Ave. S. and north of an existing . restaurant, Chang'S Mongolian Grill. This site is zoned Commercial Arterial. The applicant seeks to construct a 27-stall surface parking lot on approximately' 20,000 square feet of a I.5S-acre parcel on the west side of Rainier Ave. N., which connects to Chang's existing parking lot. In order to create this parking lot, the applicant would have to fill a small area of wetland and wetland buffer. The lot with a Category 3 wetland contains a partially culverted drainage stream. The applicant seeks to further culvert this drainage in order to accommodate the parking lot. In order to do so, the applicant needed to remove the trees and vegetation within 25 feet of this water course area (City Code 4-4- 130). This required a variance. Under the City Code, the Hearing Examiner reviews the variance request. Accordingly, the site plan application was also put before the Hearing ·Examiner. The Hearing Examiner held a hearing on 3/14/2006. He issued his decision on 4/25/2006 denying both I) the variance; and 2) the site plan application. The Hearing Examiner found that the applicant's property failed to meet the four criteria necessary for a variance. The Hearing Examiner further concluded that the "[t]he proposal is not compatible with the environment objectives of the comprehensive plan" in that the Hearing Examiner did not find that culverting the creek would mitigate impacts. Pursuant to City Code 4-8-llOF(5) and (6), the Committee's decision and recommendation is limited to the record, which consists of, but is not limited to the Hearing Examiner's report, the notice of appeal, and the submissions by the parties. Having doneso, the Committee hereby finds substantial error in the Hearing Examiner's denial of the variance request. The Committee finds that the applicant's request meets the standard for a variance, is a reasonable use of the property, and benefits the public interest. Further, extending the existing .J August 21, 2006 PUBLIC HEARINGS Annexation: Leitch, SE 136th St& 140thAveSE , Renton City Council Minutes Page 281 culvert over the drainage stream will not harm the environment, and the proposed remediation measures are adequate. However, the Committee modifies the decision to include a mitigation measure to build a rockery, rather than to fill a portion of the wetland area. This rockery structure will eliminate the need to fill the portion of wetland area and further justify the variance request. The placement and structure of the rockery will be subject to the approval of the Development Services Division. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published in accordance with local and State laws, Mayor Keolker opened the public hearing to consider the 60% Direct Petition to Annex and R-4 zoning for the proposed Leitch Annexation; 14.59 acres (including the abutting street right-of-way) bounded generally by 140th Ave. SE, if extended, on the west, 143rd Ave. SE, if extended, on the east, SE 136th St., if extended, on the north, and SE 138th St., if extended on the south. Senior Planner Don Erickson reported that eight single-family dwellings exist on the site, and noted that future development will most likely occur on the larger under-developed parcels. He pointed out that Maplewood Creek flows . through the eastern portion of site, and except for the ravine on the eastern most parcel, the site is relatively flat. Mr. Erickson indicated that public services for the site are provided by Fire District #25, Water District #90, Renton sewer, and the Renton School District. Mr. Erickson stated that current King County zoning is R-4 (four dwelling units per gross acre). Renton's Comprehensive Plan designates the site as Residential Low Density, for which R .. :4 (four dwelling units pernet acre) zoning is proposed. He relayed issues raised by City staff as follows: I) Transportation Division noted that portions of SE 136th St., 140th Ave. SE, and 143rd Ave. SE will need to be widened and improved to meet City standards; 2) Utilities Division recommended the use of King County's 2005 .surface Water Manual, Level 2 for future development; and 3) Parks Division estimated a one-time parks development cost of $20,984. Reviewing the fiscal impact of the proposed annexation, Mr. Erickson reported that the City will realize a surplus of$13,773 at full development, assuming'an increase to 46 single-family homes and an average assessed home value of $450,000. He stated that the annexation proposal is consistent with City policies and Boundary Review Board criteria, and serves the best interests and general welfare of the City, particularly if it facilitates potential annexation of the unincorporated area to the southwest. Public comment was invited. William Sweezey, 13636 143rd Ave. SE, Renton, 98059, opposed the annexation, expressing concerns regarding the increase in density in the area, the wildlife that use and inhabit the Maplewood Creek ravine, the environmental impact of development on the ravine, and the close proximity of homes to each other in nearby developments. Councilwoman Briere noted that if the property is annexed, the zoning will be less dense than it is now in King County. Councilman Clawson pointed out that development must undergo a planning process, and environmental constraints will be addressed. • -. ~ , < ",.' '~ . -~>-~ ", 1'.. .. <~: ' .. ,.,' ,. PLANNING & .DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE CQMMITTEE REPORT August 21,2006 AFPROVED BY'--:'l CiTY COUNCIL 1 .; lOat4 f-~l~~t1~'i ~ m , .. ~;·"Apppat:'b~,JDAGroup;L~~?;:':·::";',,?'.>; ,"'~;'::,.: .' F~I~:LUA:P~"1.;3~;'V:and tuA04-,Q~3~'SA:'\~' ::. ,' .. ::':',,: . .',' ·,:i'~~,~:" , , . "', :~e{¢f:re,d!Juntn2; 200p'·'~' ,,,." " " . The Planning and Development Committee ("P&D") heard this appeal on August 17,2006 .. Applicant JDA Group, LLC, appealed the Hearing Examiner's denial of its Variance Requ~st and Site Plan. The P&D Committee reviewed the record, the written appeal, 'and the presentatioi1' and oral argument by Development Director Neil Watts and Rich-Wagner, Baylis Architects on ' behalf of the Applicant/Appellant Hav,~J}g'dones0~ the P&D Committee found that a sub~taniiai errorin law exists,. and accordingly,rey~rsesthe decisionof~e Hearing Examiner and modifies . the decision by adding a ~itigati(m' nie~1Jre. ; , ~.:~" :", .' . '. .-, .' .. ~ .. ' . <'/, ". ~()(+kt . ;'. ' :' '. The subject parcels are loca~ed we~t OrRainier Avenue ~f,aiiaR(nlh of an existing restaurant~ . Chang's Mongolian Grill. This~iteil's Z.Rii~~tCQ,lllmercial Art.eritil>(qA). Applicants~'ek~ to '.' , construct a 27-~tan si.rrface:'parking'10t~#.j,aRproximateiy'20,690squa1:e feet of a 1.55 acre pai"cel .. ' on the west sid~ ofRainiet Ay,e,pq~ NQ#4~«W~~9hcoMe:cts to €hfl:ng's{existing parking lot. 'In order· to ,create this parking 10irAppli6'anl~wij~itrh~Ve' to fill a ,sniifiYatea-of wetland aild",etland . buffer; , The lot with a Category 3 wetlatld[c~tains :~plll1iallY9ulvert.ed drainagestre3:ITl .. , Applicant seeks to further QulveI;t;ilii,s <ii~inage irioreter to acconynoc;l'ate' th~ parking Jot. ' In ' order to do.so, the Applicantflefd.eg to,remove the trees~ aridveget~iion within.25 feet of tills ·watereoursearea. (RMC 4-4-1~Oj;this-r~qui:reda variance;';':;!' ,1/;' .'. , , .... .... ...... . ' .. .; \. i\."C-\,-' ;<~.. .' .. ~ ·;,~,/,,,:fif· .'.... Ynderthe' C~tYCode,the Hearing E'xaminer ("B:EX"}revi~ws.the variance reque~t. . Accord~ngly, the site plan applicati0n\¥ds~aiso:;put'befo'i:~ the HeanngExarniner.the'"Heating , 'Examine~held a'hearing on MarCl1. 14; 2006. HeissJ,ledhisdecisioIlon Apri125,2006~,de~ying . botl{J)'thevariance; and 2)thesite,pianappliQation. The HEX found tharthe applicant's" " .... , property failed, to meet the four criteria necessary for ~ variance.' T\le, HEX 'further c;oncluded . that the "[t]he'proposal is not compatible with the environmental obje~tives, of the " "., " " ',:~otnprehens'iveplan'; in that the HEXdid notflnd that culvertingthe' creek would mitigate .' .. i,~~acts.' . ",'" ".' " ", . . . : ' . . . . : i>ursuanftoRMC 4':8-11OF(5) and {6kthe'p IGDCOminittee' s decision and recOliline~datiori.is. .:' .:. ,'.limited t()the record, which consists of,. put is' not limited:to the He¥.ing Examiner!sRep.oit,: the' ,':. . iJ-.. ' .. ' __ .:',' Notice of App.eal aQd the's,ulmiissionsby tneparties .. HaVing done so, th~P~O" ~onllnittee" ".'. '. , ' .. ' ;,:. ".,. >,'~. :~~repy.:finqs~l1bst~tial errodn the>fIEX~s'denialofthe yarianc~reqtiesi; Tii~rAiI>,CoPunittee;:' ;; .. " " , .... ::fi'rid~'·th~t:AP1mcant's reqtiest:m~etsthe"strulda:rdfor a·yariance, is a reasona:bleuse'9ftl1~:" ':" .. ' • ,,' ',j. : . ,:, .::',·,':ptoJ?erty,juidbenefit~ thep.~blic i~~~teskftirth~b e?'teri~iiig Jh¢~Xistihg ctilVeJ1oY~f.;t!t~' ••..... , .. :~' .. ', .. ,' ',' -:' ,' .. (;li~a~nage stre.annvill'ilOt·hapri tIie envii"onnient .. an~ the prqposed rem~diatiori )ne~tiies;~e.' :: ...... ',.::, '., ,",",ad¢quat¢; H;()w~ve~,the ~~D C9~ittee'modifies the decisiont6:iiiclude' a mitigatioil measure , . '. " " ' . • ,'.::':' ,!.~.,.", . ",,' ,':' : ,'.: ... :. ,'.:,.-.. ' ," " .. ;'.:', .. ':.,: . ." ". ,,_: . '.' ,',I ';". . ":' .; ..... .' .• :> ... .',.>"~~.' .";" :' ..... ( .. :':~: :-. .... ' • '., 1.", ~ •. _, , :' .'",' •. 'y' : • . ; .' .'.' . ,-. '. : ; J", '. \ I '" : '" .' .' "', ... ' ~.". "" " ....... - , :.,' . ,-. ,"." ! .. . ",' :.:.. ... ,'j, .. ' ->-" ;" ; ':": :':' ", '. .. , .;. . .;', . ',' .', . -"': .: 1 , " ~. '. . .' t_ ' ~ ~.'. ','. .:-'" .. " '.,'. . "I' \', ' . . \ . . . f.~; ." .; '.>'.' ,,' ,( • (, 1.-"'. :."" t '.' .. ,' . ,< . '! ~i,,·.' \.~ ' . "~: '; .-. '. , . ~ -.",'. 1". ." ~ • . ". • • ... . .. '. .' , Planning and Development C .iuttee Report , ' August 21,2006 ".,' : "p.2 " to build arockery, rather than to fill a portion ofthe wetland area. This rockerystJ;'ucture will eliminate the need to fill the portion of wetland area and furtherjustify the variance request. The . placement and structure oftherockery will be' subject to the approval of Development Services . . ~ .. . pan Clawson, Vice Chair CC: . NeiLWatts -' Jennifer Henning , Lawr~nce J. Warren ' ,Fr.ed Ka.utft1tJf'I .. ;." ;':0 . . .. ," . ; :. ,,' . . '.~ ... ', , r?.' . . ~' .' " ",', ", I,', ':', '" " -""" \:" : 11'. '," , ~ ". ,. .' .... "1' . '., ~. . ... ", ',' ',; • E'; ',: " . " . : .'~ .. ,., .. ,. :," . .' .. ' ,-' ,0',' " " . '., .. ~ . . -. ,. '. " ~. ,< ~ ._ : f'" J , . ,;.' :: ~'.:' .,-: . ,.' ,·,'t " ',' :)',: .... , .. ; '::' " ',' .. '~ . '," .... . , -. ,.;', . .: , .. ---" i,' . 'J. 0." --. . : .: " .. ' .. ' ,~ ,- . " ',.,,: .: . .; """," '.J. . :.: ,.-. '.' ".:"" . ~, ,,~' , . " .;: '.. ~ : .' ., ."/ .... . ~ .' '. . "~. . .... ,:. .: ", , C,,' ,',., ".'" C1T'4I<>F RENTON August 8, 2006 APPEAL FILED BY: JDA Group, LLC Renton City Council , CITY OF RENTON . . AUG 1 5 2006 . RECEiveD OITY CLERK'S OFFiCe: RE: . Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated 4/25/2006 regarding JDA Group, LLC's application to construct 27 parking spaces within a surface lot associated with Chang's Mongolian Grill restaurant, involving Administrative Site Plan review (File No. LUA-" 04-093, SA) and Variance review (File No. LUA-05-133, V) To Interested Parties: The Renton City Council's Planning & Development Committee will meet to deliberate the above-referenced item on the following date: . . Thursday, August 17, 2006 . . 3:00 p.m. , 7th Floor/Couridl Chambers . City'of Renton 1055 So~th Grady Way '. Rent()n,Washington This Council Committee meeting is open to, thepublic~ but it is nota public hearing. It is a working session of the Plaiming.& Development Committee. NQ neW testimony or evidence will be taken. However, the parties are expected to attend, and be prep~ed to explain why the Council Committee should. uphold or ov~rturri the decision of the Hearing Examiner. ' .' '. . . If you have questions regarding these meetil1gs, please phone Julia Medzegian, Councii Liai~ori" at425-430-6555.. .' .' .. Sincerely, .~~ .•. Terti Briere, Chair , Planping& Development Comm,ittee Rei,ltOh City Council . -~-:-:--..,... ,-10-5.....,5-S0-u.:...th-G-r.:...ad-Y-'w-.~7Y..,..-R-e-n-to-ri,..;,..w....;.a.;..sh-in...,.St.:...o.:...n-9-80.:....s..,..S..f.:.~ (-'4-25-)-43 ..... 0.:...~6-5-01-. -_.-: . ..,;.. •.. ~ . . ® This paper contains 50% recycled material, '30% po~t COnsumer AHEAD "OF THE CURVE JDA Group, LLC I.D. Kline Corporation 95 South Tobin Street Renton, W A 98057 Ryan Jeffries 2215 North 30th Street Tacoma, W A 98403-3350 Mary J 0 Carlson 215 NW 5th St. Renton, WA 98057-3416 Sherondia Renee Otis 211 NW 5th St. Renton, WA 98057-3416 Mike Dotson Development Services Richard Wagner Baylis Architects 10801 Main Street, Ste. 110 Bellevue, W A 98004 Rolland Dewing 210 NW 5th St. Renton, WA 98057-3415 Ronnie & Roberta McDonald 216 NW 5th St. Renton, WA 98057-3415 Lee & Peggy Christopherson 503 Rainier Ave. N Renton, WA 98057-5318 Jennifer Henning Development Services Celeste Botha 2025 S. Norman Street Seattle, WA 98144 Carl P. Burns 213 NW 6th St. Renton, WA 98057-3408 Bruce & Sue Gregg 207 NW 5th St. Renton, WA 98057-3416 Keri Weaver Development Services Ann Nielsen City Attorney's Office \ .... Kathy Keolker, Mayor August 16, 2006 M: J. Carlson 215 N.W. 5th St. Rimten, WA 98055-1016 CIT~F· RENTON City Clerk Bonnie l; Walton Re.: Appeal; JDA Group, L+-C; Rainier _Mixed Use South Parking Lot Dear Ms. Carlson: Thank you for your letter to the Renton CityCouncil-dated August 13, 2006, si:gfiedby you and four other partIes. Although thed~adline for submission of additional letters ~m the referenced appeal was June 9,.2006, copy ofthe.letter is-being forwarded-, to. all . Councilmembers, including th~ Planning and Development Committee members.· As you know, the appeal hearing will take placeonThursday~August 17,2006, at 3:00pm in the Co-uncil Chambers; t h floor, Renton City Hall. ...... .. ' _. . If I can provide further infonna~ion or assistance, pleaSe feel free to contact me . . Sincerely, . -. Bonnie.I. Walton - . City Clerk . cc:' Councilmembers . Aim Neilson, Assistant City Attorney,:- J emiifer Henning, Principal Planner \, ::' ,. ': , Aug. 13, 2006 City of Renton Council Members '.,. CCfflt O~ RB\3'roN AUG j 5 2006 B£CatlV~ arrv ~~ Of1FICE Re: Appeal Hearing JDA Group, LLC's application for 27 parking spaces at Chang's Restaurant. The Renton residents listed below would very much appreciate it if each of you would uphold the Hearing Examiner's decision not to allow extra parking spaces in this area. The reasons the Hearing Examiner stated regarding the environmental impact and the water drainage problem were substantial and should be respected. Much digging out of this area along Rainier has already taken place and we in this neighborhood are becoming concerned. Thank you. Ronald and Roberta'McDonald ''Y/IA..-t ~. ~att1.. \Jut. ~ c( 216 NW 5th St. Renton, WA 98057 206-772-4977 Mary Jo Carlson 215NW 5th ST Renton, W A 98057 .. /I1·OMJ~~ 206-772-4271 Sue & Bruce Gregg 207 NW 5TH ST 0 Renton, WA 98057 206~772-0811 ~ ~ G''''n Delores & Roland Dewing -~ ,,)'}ty, ~ 8~ 210 NW 5th St. , U.l Renton, W A 98057 206~772-6528 Lee and Peggy Christopherson 503 Rainier Ave. N Renton~ W A 98057 26-7722544 YJ4 ... \,..~. C t;-(.,FQ.~ .-'-._. , , June 12,2006 CAG: 06-025, Airport Security Gate Replacement, CA Carey Corporation, FAA Grant Appeal: Rainier Mixed Use South Parking Lot, IDA Group, V-05-133 & SA-Oi:. ..Q2] - CAG: 06-068, South Lake W A Roadway Improvements Community Services: Henry Moses Aquatic Center, 1 % for Art Project Renton City Council Minutes Page 199 City Clerk reported bid opening on 4/1112006 for CAG-06-025, Airport AirsidelLandside Separation Improvement Project Phase 2 (Security Gate Replacement); one bid; engineer's estimate $186,195.92; and submitted staff recommendation to award the contract to bidder, C.A. Carey Corporation, in the amount of $478, 186.88. Approval was also sought to accept a Federal Aviation Administration grant in the amount of $150,000 for this project. Refer to Transportation (Aviation) Committee. City Clerk reported appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision on the Rainier Mixed Use South Parking Lot project; appeal filed by Baylis Architects, 10801 Main St., Bellevue, 98004, representing JDA Group, LLC, accompanied by required fee. Refer to Planning and Development Committee. , , City Clerk reported bid opening to occur 611212006 for CAG-06-068, South Lake Washington Roadway Improvements. Refer to Committee of the Whole. Community Services Department recommended approval of the following: an etched stainless steel mural as a 1 % for Art project at Henry Moses Aquatic Center, the use of $10,887 in Fund 125 reserves for the project, the total project budget of $23,261.08, and a contract with Doug Kyes in the amount of$I,500 for final design drawings and installation supervision. Refer to Community Services Committee. Development Services: Baxter Development Services Division recommended acceptance of a deed of Meadows II, ROW Dedication, dedication for additional right-of-way at NE 18th Circle to fulfill a requirement NE 18th Circle, SHP-05-075 of the Baxter Meadows II Short Plat. Council concur. Finance: Public Safety Technology Infrastructure InterIocal Agreement Fire: Chief Appointment (David Daniels), Hire at Step E Human Resources: 2006 Group Health Cooperative Medical Coverage Contracts Transportation: Airport Maintenance Dredging & Shoreline Mitigation, Parametrix Transportation: Lake WA Trail South Lake Connector, WSDOT Grant Utility: Springbrook Creek Wetland & Habitat Mitigation Bank Instrument, WSDOT Finance and Information Services Department recommended approval of an interIocal agreement with Valley cities for a technology grartt to enable the cities to work together on public safety needs utilizing fiber and wireless media for communications. Council concur. (See page 202 for resolution.) Human Resources and Risk Management Department recommended confirmation of the appointment of David Daniels as the new Fire Chief at pay grade m49, Step E, effective 7/7/2006. Council concur. Human Resources and Risk Management Department recommended approval of the 2006 Group Health Cooperative medical coverage agreements for LEOFF I Employees, LEOFF I Retirees, and all other active employees. Refer to Finance Committee. Transportation Systems Division recommended approval of a contract with Parametrix, Inc. in the amount of $139,500 for the Airport Maintenance Dredging and Shoreline Mitigation Project Phase 1. Refer to Transportation (Aviation) Committee. Transportation Systems Division recommended approval of an agreement with Washington State Department of Transportation for a $500,000 grant for the Lake Washington Trail South Lake Connector Project. Refer to Community Services Committee. Utility Systems Division recommended approval of the Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Instrument with Washington State Department of Transportation in the estimated amount of $450,000 over the initial ten years after construction. Refer to Utilities Committee. l'Y OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENl.. _ ~ BILL I AI#: 1;. ·fL, Submitting Data: For Agenda of: 06/1212006 Dept/Div /Board .. AJLS/City Clerk Staff Contact. ..... Bonnie I. Walton Agenda Status Consent. ............. Subject: Public Hearing .. Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated 4/25/2006 Correspondence .. Ordinance ............. regarding Rainier Mixed Use South Parking Lot (Administrative Site Plan review File No. LUA-04-093 Resolution ............ Old Business ........ SA and Variance review File No. LUA-05-133 V) Exhibits: New Business ....... A. City Clerk's letter (5/30/2006) Study Sessions ...... B. Appeal -JDA Group, LLC (5/8/2006) Information ......... c. Hearing Examiner's Report & Decision (4/25/2006) Recommended Action: Approvals: Refer to Planning and Development Committee Legal Dept.. ...... . Finance Dept. .... . Other .............. . Fiscal Impact: N/A Expenditure Required .. . Transfer/Amendment. ..... . Amount Budgeted ...... . Revenue Generated ........ . Total Project Budget City Share Total Project .. SUMMARY OF ACTION: Appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision on the Rainier Mixed Use South Parking Lot was filed on 5/8/2006 by Baylis Architects, Representative for JDA Group, LLC, accompanied by the required $75 fee. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Take action on the Rainier Mixed Use South Parking Lot appeal. Rentonnetlagnbilll bh X CIT-"-OF RENTON. May 30,2006 APPEAL FILED BY: IDA Group, LLC City Clerk Bonnie I. Walton RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated 4/25/2006 regarding IDA Group, LLC's application to construct 27 parking spaces within a surface lot associated with Chang's Mongolian Grill restaurant, involving Administrative Site Plan review (File No. LUA-04- 093, SA) and Variance review (File No. LUA-05-133, V) ToParties of Record: Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Renton City Code of Ordinances, written appeal of the hearing examiner's decision on the Rainier Avenue Mixed-Use South Parking Lot project has been filed with the City Clerk. ' In accordance with Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-llOF, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. Other parties of record may submit letters in support of their positions within ten (10) days of the date of mailing of the notification of the filing of the appeal. The deadline for submission of additional letters is June 9, 2006. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the written appeal and other pertinent documents will be reviewed by the Council's Planning and Development Committee. The Council liaison will notify all parties of record of the date and time of the Planning and Development Committee meeting. If you are not listed in local telephone directories and wish to attend the meeting, please call the Council liaison at 425-430-6501 for information. Therec6nunendation of the Committee will be presented forcoitsidenition by the full Council at a subsequent Council meeting. Attached is a copy of the Renton Municipal Code regarding appeals of Hearing Examiner decisions or recommendations. ,Please note that the City Council wiUbeconsidering the merits of the appeal based.upon the written record previously established .. Unless a showing can be made that additional evidence could not reasonably have been available at the prior hearing held by the Hearing Examiner, no further evidence or testimony on" this matter will be accepted. by the' City Council. . For additional information or assistan:ce, please feel free to call me at 425-430-6502. Sincerely, ~·.J.tJ~ Bonniel. Walton City Clerk/Cable Manager Attachments cc: Council Liaison ~ -10-S-S -So-u-th-Gra-d-y -w"""'"ay-.-R-e-nt-on-, -W-as-hm-' gt"':":-on~98-0S-S-.~(4-2S-)-43-0--6-S-10-I-F-AX-(4-2-S)-4-30-.6-S-16-R E N TON A'HEAD OF THE CURVE * This paper contains 50% recycled material. 30% post consumer APPEAL OF I' ,RING EXAMINER'S DECISIONII :OMMENDATION TO RENTON CITY COUNCIL FILENO. &.19 e>40931 LVA 05-/.?3 APPLICATION NAME A?vAta:;,e -I!vr/w£ MYEP C/rc ..s:"Ji/rH &£&&'4-~,-rr- j / The undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the decision oA~~fiWl of the Land Use Hearing Examiner, dated /Ip/<,/~ 2'5 , 20~ MAY 082006 :":40 RECEIVED 1. IDENTIFICATION OF PARTY APPELLANT: Name: 71zt::J ~1?.vp REPRESENTATIVE (n;I~:f.RK'S OFFICE Name: ~/?5 &4='u/7if""0-:5- Address: % C:;;;~777' ~.6"/N Address: #g?l dt;te,h<? ~.e4T ~o;N, L-JA 9&055 k/EVVEc bJA feo~4t/ 7 2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Attach additional sheets, if necessary) Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is based: FINDlNG OF FACT: (Please designate number as denoted in the Examiner's Report) No. ___ Error: ________________________________________ _r~-------------- Corr~tion: ____________________________ _r~---------------------- CONCLUSIONS: No. Error: ________________ ~~~~--------------------------------- Corr~tion: ______ ~-------------------------- OTHER: No. ___ Error: __ -7~ ____________________________________________ _ 3. SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED The City Council is requested to grant the following relief: (Attach explanation, if desired) Reverse the d~ision or r~ommendation and grant the following relief: Modify the d~ision or recommendation as follows: Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows: Other ft;r ,47/#WEZ/ NOTE: Please refer to Title IV, Chapter 8, of the Renton Municipal Code, and Section 4-8-110F, for specific appeal procedures. l~: Lorr'l WA.rren, C;-l-y A-+kt-ru .. y . H:\CITY CLERK\APPEAL\APPEAL to Council.doc tJ e; I W tL4-l-s I 'D -«..v .$ Vc.S 1) I ('c.c.. ~(" F,.-e..d. W~ 1t\.U1, f1.Ul.ril1S Ex CLm-;;Jt!r- City of Renton Munic. Code; Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110 -•.• ~ls 4-8-11OC4 The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by a fee in accordance with RMC 4-1-170, the fee schedule of the City. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 4;'~-i i'oF: 'Appeals to City Council -Procedures 1. 1j.me for Appeal: Unless a specific section or State law providing for review of decision of the Ex~miner requires review thereof by the Superior Court or any other body, any interested party agg~v~ by the Examiner's written decision or recommendation may submit a notice of appeal to the ; .... Clty·~uncil; upon a form furnished by the City Clerk, within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the Examiner's written report. 2. Notice to Parties of Record: Within five (5) days of receipt of the notice of appeal, the City Clerk shaH notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. 3. Opportunity to Provide Comments: Other parties of record may submit letters in support of their positions within ten (10) days of the dates of mailing of the notification of the filing of the notice of appeal. 4. Transmittal of Record to Council: Thereupon the Clerk shaH forward to the members of the City Council all of the pertinent documents, including the written decision or recommendation, findings and conclusions contained in the Examiner's report, the notice of appeal, and additional letters submitted by the parties. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-1982) 5. Council Review Procedures: No public hearing shall be held by the City Council. No new or additional evidence or testimony shall be accepted by the City Council unless a showing is made by the party offering the evidence that the evidence could not reasonably have been available at the time of the hearing before the Examiner. IT the Council determines that additional evidence is required, the Council shall remand the matter to the Examiner for reconsideration and receipt of additional evidence. The cost of transcription of the hearing record shall be borne by the applicant In the absence of an entry upon the record of an order by the City Council authorizing new or additional evidence or testimony, and a remand to the Hearing Examiner for receipt of such evidence or testimony, it shall be presumed that no new or additional evidence or testimony has been accepted by the City Council, and that the record before the City Council is identical to the hearing record before the Hearing Examiner. (Ord. 4389, 1-25-1993) 6. Council Evaluation Criteria: The consideration by the City Council shall be based solely upon the record, the Hearing Examiner's report, the notice of appeal and additional submissions by parties. 7. Findings and Conclusions Required: If, upon appeal of a decision of the Hearing Examiner on an application submitted pursuant to RMC 4-1-050Fl, and after examination of the record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, it may remand the proceeding to Examiner for reconsideration, or modify, or reverse the decision of the Examiner accordingly. 8. Council Action: If, upon appeal from a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner upon an application submitted pursuant to RMC 4-1-050F2 and F3, and after examination of the record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, or that a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner should be disregarded or modified, the City Council may remand the proceeding to the Examiner for reconsideration, or enter its own decision upon the application. 9. Decision Documentation: In any event, the decision of the City Council shall be in writing and shall specify any modified or amended fmdings and conclusions other than those set forth in the report of the Hearing Examiner. Each material finding shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. The burden of proof shall rest with the appellant. (Ord 3658, 9-13-1982) 10. Council Action Final: The action of the Council approving, modifying or rejecting a decision of the Examiner shall be final and conclusive, unless appealed within the time frames established under subsection 05 of this Section. (Ord. 4660,3-17-1997) May 8, 2006 City Council Members c/O City Clerk City of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way Renton WA 98055 RE: JOB NO.: FILENO.: Subject: Rainier Ave Mixed Use M2-0589 LUA 04-093, ECF, SA-A, LUA 05-133, V-H Appeal of Examiner's Decision Dear Council Members: BAYLIS ARCHITECTS 10801 Main Street Bellevue, WA 98004 T 425 454 0566 www.baylisarchitects.com OITY Of: RENTON MAY 082006 I"WFV REOEIVED 'o!M' .. 0lEAk'S OFFICE On behalf of the JDA Group, LLC, we submit this appeal of the hearing examiner's decision of the referenced application. We request that, after examination of the record, Council determine that substantial errors in fact and in law exist in the record, that the Council reverse the decision of the Examiner accordingly, and that Council enter its own decision upon the application. This application is for Site Plan Approval and for a Tree Cutting and Clearing Variance related to the installation of a surface parking lot in a Commercial Arterial Zone. The existing area of the proposed parking lot contains a small, low class wetland, which at the time of application, was highly contaminated with neighborhood trash, tires and noxious weeds. The site also contains steep slopes . which will not be touched by the proposed improvements, and a small, intermittent watercourse in a shallow ditch fully contained within the wetland area. History as included in the record. Because of the underlying CA zoning and the poor condition of the wedand area, the applicant and city staff have worked diligendy for the last four years to find an environmentally and economically responsible solution for the productive use of this property. In 2004, the owner retained the services of a wedands consultant, Celeste Botha, regionally recognized for her work, including working direcdy for other Eastside municipalities. She conducted an on-site delineation, prepared a wedand report and became an integral part of the owner's design team, working for a solution with the city staff. Her leadership developed the concept that enlarging, enhancing and protecting an adjacent, higher and more productive wedand was environmentally far better than trying to salvage the subject small, low class and contaminated wedand. Thus the concept for re-development of the site was initiated. In early 2004, with city staffs conceptual agreement, the owner authorized the wedands consultant and the landscape architect to proceed with the preparation of the detailed staging, mitigation and landscaping plan, Renton City Council-Appeal May 8th, 2006 Page 2 which was completed in July 2004. This report was reviewed by city staff, and with their concurrence of the reasonableness of its conclusions, the owner then authorized the civil engineer to proceed with all the construction documents, including analysis of the drainage courses and existing culverted outflows, and to proceed with the construction permits application. During the permit review process, it was identified that the Renton Municipal Code requires that a Tree Cutting and Clearing Variance must be granted before any wetland can be filled ... no matter the quality of the wetland being filled nor the wisdom and strength of the proposed mitigation enhancements. This variance can only be granted by the examiner. And, since the project was now to go the examiner, so also must go the Site Plan Approval application, which up to this time was being reviewed by the administration. Thus, what was thought for four years to be a straight forward administrative application, resulting in an environmental and economic win-win, now fell into the cogs of municipal processing. Errors in the Findings of Fact and in Law During the course of the hearing, the examiner questioned the classification of the wetland, the enhancement plan for the adjacent higher category wetland, the value of the increased buffers of the adjacent wetland, the existing lack of surface water storage capacity of the wetland, and the relationship of the watercourse to the wetland; all issues which, as advanced in the examiner's report, he did not understand that led to substantial errors in fact and in law. Wetland Classification. Adjacent Enhancement and Fill The classification of the wetland has clearly become a pivotal issue for the examiner and clearly impacts his decision. On this point, it remains most important to note that, as demonstrated in its decision, the independent Environmental Review Committee accepted the wetland classification as Class 3, agreed with the value of the enhancements proposed for the adjacent Class 2 wetland, supported the buffer enhancements proposed and agreed with the proposal to fill the small Class 3 wetland The ERC put 5 mitigation measures into its revised determination, all of which are common mitigations in our city and to all of which the applicant has agreed. Further, it is important to note that, although there are many parties of record, no appeals of the ERC's revised determination were filed, and no other members of the public attended the examiner's hearing. Thus, the matter of wetland classification, which is the preview only of the ERC as point oflaw, is and should not have been before the examiner. Further, as a follow-up to the hearing, and at the examiner's request, the Development Services Director again issued the decision "that the wetland is a Class 3 wetland". Yet the examiner remains un-extricated from this issue. As demonstrated in finding 14, the examiner, in noting receipt of the Development Services Director's decision, purposefully uses a disjunctive which clearly belies the fact that the examiner remains un convinced. This opinion tainted the hearing as well as the report (pp. 3, 4 & 5). It overshadowed the value of the proposed mitigation measures and led to the dramatic, yet false, Conclusion 10: "Asp halting a wetland and culverting a creek does not do much to mitigate impacts to the subject site." Even Finding 6 recognizes only that the "second wetland would be enhanced to offset filling", which is factually in error as it totally misses that the second wetland would be substantially enlarged, the eastern buffer would be totally rebuilt after the decades of tires and garbage are removed, and the Renton City Council-Appeal May 8th, 2006 Page 3 renewed wetland would be fenced along the eastern edge where it is most vulnerable to the impacts of human trespass. Storage Capacity of the Wetland During the hearing, the examiner questioned "if the wetland is filled, will it displace water around it" (p 4, Para. 1). AHBL, the project civil engineer, addressed this concern in its testimony. Further, as demonstrated in the construction documents, which are and have been on ftIe with the city, and are part of the record, the engineer shows that the existing wetland has no existing surface water storage capacity, since the outflow of the wetland equals the inflow elevation of the existing culvert drainage pipe. Thus, no surface water storage capacity is being displaced. Yet the examiner notes, after the engineer's testimony, that he remains concerned "the first flush won't be swept off into the lake" (p 5, Para. 6). On this issue, city staff noted that it "did not know for sure", ... a most unfortunate statement, since the plans had been under review for more than a year. Staff's statement led the examiner to conclude that ''he would need to know this information prior to doing any work." Perhaps a factual statement, given staff's testimony, but certainly not a conclusion based on the actual facts. Relationship of the Wetland and the Watercourse Finding 15 notes that 'There is an onsite watercourse that drains the wetland area ... " This finding is not correct. As shown in the drawings of the application, the wetland connects directly to a culvert, which is the drain for the wetland. Finding 15 infers that the wetland precedes the watercourse and contributes to the water quality of the watercourse. In fact, the uplands seepage and city controlled roadway culvert drainage flow into the watercourse, which, in turn drains to the wetland area and then immediately into the culvert. This water remains in a culvert as it passes under the adjacent paved car lot, under Rainier Ave. and under the airport ... all the way to the final daylight at Lake Washington. As a final note, although not a finding of fact or law, the examitier expressed concern as to the length of culvert being proposed. As proposed in the application, the culvert ends west of the parking lot edge, extending under the full length of the westerly sloped grades. It should be noted that this length can be reduced by constructing an ecology block retaining wall at the edge of the new parking lot pavement and shortening the culvert. Finally, we would like to draw the Council's attention to the testimony of the staff on this application. After years of analysis and scrutiny by staff and the many technical consultants, staff concluded that 'The applicant has justified the variance request ... " (p 2, Para. 5). We encourage and look forward to your favorable consideration, and again, ask the Council ~o find that there are substantial errors in fact and in law in the record, that the Council reverse the decision of the Examiner accordingly, and that Council enter its own decision upon the application by approving the application as presented by the staff report. Renton City Council-Appeal May 8th, 2006 Page 4 Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, BAYLIS ARCHITECTS Meredith Everist for Richard L. Wagner, AlA cc: JDA Group-Jack Alhadeff AHBL-Matt Weber Riley Group-Celeste Botha Fred Kaufmann, City of Renton Hearing Jennifer Toth Henning, City of Renton, Senior Planner RLW: jlc TO City of Renton, City Council Members 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 ATTENTION o Enclosed o Original COPIES DATED IX! Copy of Letter o Shop Drawing MAY 082006 o Mail o FAX o Courier IX! Delv. o Prints o Disk DESCRIPTION 1 5/8/2006 Request for Appeal of Examiner's Decision These are transmitted as checked below o For approval o As requested o Approval as noted o For your use o For review and comment o Approval as submitted Remarks Copy to: Jack Alhadef, JDA Group, 95 South Tobin, Suite 201, Renton, WA 98055 10801 Mlin Street Bellevue, WA 98004 T 425 454 0566 IF 425 453 8013 wwvv.baylisarchitects.com ]OBNO M5-0106 RE Rainier Station FILE DATE 5/8/2006 FAX PAGES o Correct and re-submit o Forwarded without review Jennifer T oth Henning, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, W A 98055 Matt Weber, AHBL, 2215 North 30th Street, Suite 300, Tacoma, WA 98403 Fred Kaufman, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055 Celeste Botha, Riley Group, 2025 S. Norman Street, Seatde, WA 98144 IX! Mail o FAX Signed Thank You, o Courier Meredith April 25, 2006 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON Minutes APPLICANT/OWNER: LOCATION: SUMMARY OF REQUEST: SUMMARY OF ACTION: DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT: PUBLIC HEARING: IDA Group, LLC LD. Kline Corporation 95 S Tobin Street Renton, W A 98055 Rainier Mixed Use South Parking Lot File No.: LUA 04-093, ECF, SA-A And LUA 05-133, V-H West of Rainier Avenue North and north of Chang's Mongolian Grill. Southeast ofNW 6th Street. South Parcel, 20.012 square feet and a north parcel 59,951 square feet. Administrative Site Plan and Variance review for the construction of 27 parking spaces within a surface lot associated with Chang's Mongolian Grill restaurant. Development Services Recommendation: Approve with conditions The Development Services Report was received by the Examiner on March 7, 2006. After reviewing the Development Services Report, examining available information on file with the application, field checking the property and surrounding area; the E~aminer conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The following minutes are a summary of the March 14, 2006 hearing. The legal record is recorded on CD. The hearing opened on Tuesday, March 14, 2006, at 9:03 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affIrmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No.1: Yellow file containing the original Exhibit No.2: Neighborhood Map application, proof of posting, proof of publication and other documentation pertinent to this request. Exhibit No.3: Overall Site Plan Exhibit No.4: South Lot and South Wetland Fill Plan Exhibit No.5: North Wetland Enlargement and Exhibit No.6: Conceptual Planting Plan Enhancement Plan Rainier Mixed Use South PL .ilg Lot File No.: LUA-04-093, ECF, SA-A and LUA-05-133, V-H April 2S, 2006 Page 2 Exhibit No.7: Demolition and TESC Plan Exhibit No.9: North Wetland Grading and Drainage Plan Exhibit No 11: ERC Mitigation Measures Exhibit No 13: Letter from Hugh Mortensen, The Watershed Company, dated December 13, 200S Exhibit No.8: Parking Lot Grading and Drainage Plan Exhibit No. 10: Zoning Map Exhibit No. 12: Letter from Kathy Curry, The Watershed Company, dated August 31,2004 The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by Keri Weaver, Senior Planner, Development Services, City of Renton, lOSS S Grady Way, Renton, Washington 980SS. The proposal would create a 27 stall parking lot on approximately 20,000 square feet ofa I.SS acre parcel located on the west side of Rainier Avenue North with a driveway connection from the existing Chang's Mongolian Grill parking lot located off of Rainier. This is proposed to provide overflow parking for the restaurant and to accommodate the current rush hour parking shortages on the existing parking lot. The site of the south wetland area has significant areas of steep slopes with ravines and wetlands located at the bottom of those slopes and are largely wooded at this time. The site is bounded by residential properties to the west, the large change in grade does provide a natural separation buffer. The site is zoned Commercial Arterial (CA) and the parking lot is a permitted use within that zone. The proposed design of the parking lot drainage and access points does comply with the zone requirements. In order to construct a parking lot on this location, it will be necessary to fill a small area of wetland and wetland buffer on a wetland that has been identified by the applicant as meeting the requirements of a Category 3 wetland classification. This wetland is located on the south side of the property between two areas of steep slopes. The applicant proposed to mitigate this impact to the wetland by offsite creation and enhancement at a ratio of 1.S: 1 on what is referred to as the north wetland, a Category 2 wetland on a non-contiguous property under the same ownership. The applicant also proposed buffer averaging for the north wetland with a 2S-foot buffer instead of SO-feet on the east side, which is currently under review as Rainier Station. There is an onsite watercourse extending from the Category 3 wetland that is proposed to be culverted to accommodate the parking lot. In order to remove trees and vegetation within 2S-feet of this watercourse area, a variance will be required. The project is not subject to the current critical areas regulations. The applicant has justified the variance request by demonstrating hardship caused by the topographical limitations of the property including steep slopes, wetlands and the on-site watercourse that does prevent the majority of the site from being used for commercial development as allowed by zoning without significant alteration of the terrain and removal of sensitive areas. The project represents a minimal disturbance of the property. Mitigation conditions will be imposed through the SEPA DNS-M and the site plan conditions to prevent erosion and runoff and disturbance to wetland areas and to enhance an off-site wetland of a higher category. Prior to final approval, additional information will be necessary to finalize the category determination of the south wetland. Consultants have indicated that it may meet the requirements for a Category 2 wetland. This Rainier Mixed Use South Parlang Lot File No.: LUA-04-093, ECF, SA-A and LUA-05-133, V-H April 25, 2006 Page 3 does not impact the applicant's vested ability to undertake the proposed partial fill or to place the parking lot in the desired location. The Examiner stated that we should know what the category of the wetland actually is before proceeding any further. Ms. Weaver stated she had been informed that they could proceed with preliminary approval, as the location of the parking lot would not need to be altered, it was the off-site mitigation that could be required to increase on the north wetland without having an effect on the south wetland. If it is determined that the south wetland meets the requirements of a Category 2 wetland the applicant would be required to undertake additional off-site mitigation that would occur on the north wetland by increasing wetland creation, enhancements or buffers. A Category 3 wetland normally requires a 25-foot buffer and a Category 2 would require 50-feet. The modification to the parking was requested because currently Chang's has sufficient parking under code to serve the size of the restaurant. They requested a modification in order to provide additional parking off-site. It was determined, after review, that there is sufficient traffic and need to justify this modification. There was discussion regarding the removal of the natural detention provided by the wetland and whether or not that would contribute to future downstream problems or flooding. Rich Wagner, Baylis Architects, 10801 Main Street, Ste. 110, Bellevue, WA 98004 stated that the goals of the project were to make a commercially zoned property productive. There is an existing restaurant that could be much more productive, there are not a lot of alternative uses for a site like this and in this particular area given the boulevard that it is on, there is an immense amount of traffic but not a lot of transit. The City does try to keep. the amount of asphalt low and yet access high. The City parking cap is not necessarily applicable here and that is why they have asked for the modification. This site is separated from the residential and the residential people have been advised about this potential rezone. There have been no comments from these people concerning this application. The parking lot is going to be an important aspect to the existing restaurant, it is also believed that as this area continues to redevelop that parking lot will be in the right location. The quality of this wetland, based on research, is not the same quality as the Class 2 that is to the north. By enhancing the Class 2 the neighborhood is getting a better environment from this change. The Examiner stated that there is dispute over the wetland. The Category of that wetland has been undecided. Mr. Wagner stated that experts had been brought in to make a determination. Last year the City did invite an opinion from the Watershed Company, they did an independent investigation. Those findings were never seen until just a couple of months ago. Last year Watershed did another analysis. There seems to be two professional opinions that do not agree. The Examiner stated that that may be the case, but at this point he does not have the information that is needed to make a decision on this property. The City and applicant can resolve it and fmd it is a Category 2, or the City can decide that it is a Category 3 and then go ahead and expend the north wetland further. A third option is that the applicant can appeal the determination of the category of the wetland. Rainier Mixed Use South Pai __ .lg Lot File No.: LUA-04-093, ECF, SA-A and LUA-05-133, V-H April 25, 2006 Page 4 He would like to know the category of the wetland that is proposed to be buried, along with the stream course that feeds it and beyond. Also, according to the report, it is not known if the wetland is filled wiJ] it displace water around it. Mr. Wagner stated that HBL has taken this project aU the way to a building permit application and so it is known that it does accommodate a displacement. What he does not have is the documentation, but that can be presented to staff to make sure that that question is addressed and removed from the table. If for some unknown reason it were determined to be a Class 2 wetland, the actual work on this particular site would likely not change. The fiU mitigation that is proposed on the north wetland is an expansion of a Class 2 wetland to mitigate the fill of the Class 3. The wetland itself continues up into the valley and there would be plenty of opportunity to buffer average in that area. HBL was brought in two years ago for the examination of this site, basicaUy the intent is to clean up the trash and continue to clean up any noxious weeds that show up. The wetland area is fairly well cleaned up currently and that is because when the applicant took over ownership of the property they went in and cleaned the area. This site is owned by IDA Group. Because the site is so close to the Lake Washington basin, it was inappropriate to have retention/detention here, however, they were striving for water quality and that is why the biofiltering is being proposed. The Examiner stated that he would probably not close the hearing, Ms. Weaver is not at liberty to make that kind of decision at this hearing. The record would be held open until the matter is clarified. The City has environmental amenities that they try to protect, wetlands get moved, creeks can be put underground in a ditch or pipe and that may not be appropriate. The drainage course may be rerouted. Celeste Botha, 2025 S Norman Street, Seattle, W A 98144 stated that it might not be appropriate at this time for her to make a case for her determination. She went through the letter from the Watershed Company dated August 31, 2004 and explained the issues covered therein. The hydrology patterns have been addressed by the hydrologists and the engineers and require no further interpretation. Permits from the state and federal government are also standard and wiU be handled at the appropriate time. The minimum buffer that is required is regulated by the ordinary high water mark of the stream and that is included in the wetland so that the stream buffer is inside the wetland itself. The stream flows from the west towards the east and comes from offsite to the west and then goes into a series of pipes into the lake. As far as disturbance to native buffer areas, that will be addressed in the next phase and refers to the north wetland area where the mitigation is going to occur. The delineation report explains why this area, although the water is very close to the surface, the Watershed Company accepted the delineation and therefore agreed that it did not meet the wetland criteria. The performance standards have been changed in the most recent revisions to the wetland report will be submitted soon. The request was to put in the parking lot prior to the mitigation measures on the north wetland being in place for 12 months. The mitigation measures on the north would be in place and completed before any work was started on the south lot, they just would not have been monitored for 12 months. Item 10 in the Watershed letter has been revised for future submittal. A five-year monitoring schedule will be provided. Rainier Mixed Use South pari Lot File No.: LUA-04-093, ECF, SA-A and LUA-05-133, V-H April 25, 2006 Page 5 The next letter from Watershed dated December 13,2005 was the first time that the applicant became aware that Watershed was involved. This was the first that they became aware that the categorization of the south wetland was accurately delineated but there was some trouble with the categorization. The watercourses classification is difficult, the City did not originally classify watercourses. She discussed with the City and as she understood it, those sections of the Code were reserved. As far as buffers being increased where the slopes exceed 15% there is ample space on the project for this to occur, the drawings can be revised to show the increased buffer area. Mr. Wagner stated that in both letters from Watershed they talk about exploring different options, many options were explored although Watershed was not a part ofthat teamwork. The options are, you continue to add more parking or you reduce parking because of the topographic layout, this was the only option to develop the site in any usable way. One idea that Watershed did have was to not do a paper fill, but to do an ecology wall and that appeared to be a great idea. Ryan Jeffries, 2215 North 30th Street, Tacoma, WA stated that he was here to speak about the drainage on the property, the existing watercourse flows from the west into the site through the wetland via the stream and is currently collected in a catch basin in the middle of the site. That flow from the stream is adequately conveyed through the existing City storm system. The proposal is to add 128 linear feet of culvert at the west edge of the parking lot and convey that into the existing system basically at its current locations. Approximately 120 feet of pipe will be added. The parking lot will be collected in a bio-infiltration facility at the south edge of the parking lot where it will be treated and also a measure of water quantity will be provided via the infiltration facility there, water quality and quantity will be provided in this proposed facility. That facility will overflow into a catch basin and drain into the City system at its current location on the site, which has adequate capacity. The surface water runoff flow rates will be increased slightly, however they will be mitigated via the infiltration facility that will be provided on-site so that the downstream system will not be significantly altered in terms of its flow rates. The water quality portion of the facility will meet the requirements in terms of removal of total suspended solids, oils, and grease which will all be treated in the bioswale. The Examiner stated that it is very difficult to rectify existing conditions along Rainier with all the facilities that are present but this facility should be designed so that the first flush won't be swept off into the lake. A wetland and a stream course are being buried to create a parking lot, which is not necessarily an environmental amenity. Mike Dotson, Development Services stated that the engineer addressed most of the Examiner's issues. They would need to demonstrate that the downstream system is sized to convey any future condition flows and that would be a requirement of their engineering design, if it did not they would be responsible to increase the system so that it would adequately convey flows. It was also mentioned that on-site detention would be provided to meet the design storm standards in order to mitigate their on-site runoff from the new impervious area they are creating. As to how much water storage capacity is being replaced by paving the wetland and the area adjacent to the wetland, he had not seen the report and so he did not know for sure. The Examiner stated that it would seem that the applicant would need to know this information prior to doing any work. In this area the water table is not that low and so it is impossible to just carve out a potential holding pond, you might not have the storage capacity there. Rainier Mixed Use South Par •. -6 Lot File No.: LUA-04-093, ECF, SA-A and LUA-05-133, V-H April 25, 2006 Page 6 Mr. Wagner stated that one of the things that has happened on this application is HBL, on behalf ofthe applicant, has actually filed for construction pennits. It was a review of those construction pennits that triggered a couple of the things that needed to be revised for the tree cutting ordinance, which brought forth the variances today. The application that had been filed with the City was suspended because of the processing of that construction pennit pending this hearing. The information can be gathered and given to the Examiner ifhe wishes. The Examiner stated that he would close this session, but not the hearing. In order to go forward, he wants to know the Category or Classification of this wetland. If the parties wish to agree to the greater standard so it is final and done, that will be acceptable. The record will be open until that information is received. The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak, and no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at 10: 16 am. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The applicant, IDA Group, LLC, and J.D. Kline Corp., filed a request for a Variance from the Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Regulations, as well as a Site Plan approval. 2. The yellow file containing the staff report, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEP A) documentation and other pertinent materials was entered into the record as Exhibit # 1. 3. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC), the City's responsible official issued a Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M). 4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter. 5. The primary subject site is located west of 505 Rainier Avenue North and southeast ofNW 6th Street if that street were extended to the east. The site is located north of Chang's Mongolian Grill, a restaurant. If the variance allowing vegetation removal is approved, a parking lot would be developed to serve that restaurant. The applicant would also fill a portion of a wetland on this primary site to enable the construction of the parking lot. 6. A second parcel involved in the application is north of the first. It also contains a wetland. This second wetland would be enhanced to offset filling wetlands on the proposed parking lot parcel. 7. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as suitable for the development of employment generating uses, but does not mandate such development without consideration of other policies of the Plan. 8. The subject site is currently zoned CA (Commercial Arterial). 9. The subject site was annexed to the City with the adoption of Ordinance 1461 enacted in November 1963. Rainier Mixed Use South ParkJUg Lot File No.: LUA-04-093, ECF, SA-A and LUA-05-133, V-H April 25, 2006 Page 7 10. The parcel is approximately 20,012 square feet. The applicant would develop approximately 9,200 square feet for the parking lot. 11. The south parcel contains approximately 16,600 square feet of wetlands while the north parcel contains approximately 21,700 square feet of wetland. 12. The applicant proposes filling approximately 2,017 square feet of wetland and 1,574 square feet of required buffer for total fill of3,591 square feet to create the parking lot. 13. The parking lot would be northwest of the existing restaurant site. It would be to the rear ofan auto repair business. It would be connected by an approximately 80-foot long aisle way to the existing restaurant. The parking lot aisle would be aligned in an east to west direction with the parking stalls oriented in two tiers with cars parked in a north to south orientation. The lot would accommodate 27 vehicles. 14. As noted, there is a wetland on the subject site. The wetland is at the base ofa ravine in the slopes above Rainier A venue. The wetland was categorized by the applicant's wetland consultant as a Category 3 Wetland. The City's wetland consultant categorized it was a Category 2 Wetland. The status was unresolved at the time of the public hearing. Subsequent to the hearing, on April 6, 2006, the Development Services Director issued a decision that the wetland is a Category 3 wetland but noted in that decision that it appeared to be a close call. 15. There is an onsite watercourse that drains the wetland area and flows toward Rainer Avenue. The applicant proposes clearing vegetation within the 25-foot buffer and culverting the watercourse to develop the parking lot. 16. Chang's Restaurant has 43 on-site parking stalls. Staffreports Chang's Restaurant has 3,500 net square feet of floor area. Code requires 1 parking stall per 100 square feet for eating and drinking establishments or 35 stalls for the restaurant. Currently the restaurant has eight (8) more stalls than required by code. The applicant proposes developing 27 additional stalls for a total of70 stalls. A modification to develop the excess parking is required. It was approved by the Administrator. 17. The restaurant seats 140 patrons. The applicant maintains that during lunch and some dinner hours the existing parking lot is full and patrons leave since they cannot find parking. 18. Access to the new lot would be via a 22-foot wide driveway from Chang'S existing lot and its driveway on Rainier. CONCLUSIONS: Variance 1. Variances may be granted w~en the property generally satisfies all the conditions described in part below: a. The applicant suffers undue hardship caused by special circumstances such as: the size, shape, topography, or location where code enforcement would deprive the owner of rights and privileges enjoyed by others similarly situated; Rainier Mixed Use South Pa. .tg Lot File No.: LUA-04-093, ECF, SA-A and LUA-05-133, V-H April 25, 2006 Page 8 b. The granting of the variance would not materially harm either the public welfare or other property in the vicinity; c. The approval will not constitute a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other property in the vicinity; and d. The variance is the minimum variance necessary to allow reasonable development of the subject site. The applicant's property is not ripe for the variance requested. 2. An analysis of the requested variance involves not only the direct impact of approving the variance but the additional ramifications. In this case, the applicant seeks a variance to cut down trees or vegetation along a stream corridor but in fact granting the variance will result in the culverting of a surface water feature. So while it appears that only vegetation in the required 25-foot buffer would be removed if the variance is approved, the approval actually grants the applicant permission to remove a creek, a natural, if not critical feature, that is fed by a wetland, another critical feature, located at the base of steep slopes, yet another critical feature. The issue really comes down to whether or not an applicant who purchases or owns a severely constrained site, one with steep slopes, wetlands and a stream suffers a unique hardship that justifies clearing vegetation in the stream's buffer and then culverting the stream, effectively eliminating that stream. The entire request is driven by a request for more parking for a use that already has more than adequate parking according to code standards. The variance cannot be justified under these circumstances. Creating an enlarged parking lot over a portion of a wetland and eliminating a stream is contrary to City goals to maintain environmentally sensitive areas. Of course, as with any Comprehensive Plan policy, one can find a countervailing one. In this case economic development would be the other side of the coin. But using a need for more parking than required by code to eliminate a portion of a wetland and pave over a creek is untenable and does not strike a reasonable balance. 3. While neither the wetland nor creek are pristine, removing them from the inventory of environmentally sensitive site does not serve the public interest. The fact is that they were allowed to be degraded over the years because there was little interest in such natural features. But big rivers are fed by such little streams. The wetland and even this small drainage channel provide biofiltrationjust like the artificial swales created in many new developments only this one is natural, already exists and serves to filter water that eventually flows into Lake Washington. 4. Approving this variance would create an unjustified precedent. The steep hillside above Rainier Avenue is the source of many seeps. Many businesses can claim that they need more parking than code specifies. This would particularly be the case along Rainier Avenue where there are a number of restaurants and other businesses and no access to on-street parking. This office can completely sympathize with the restaurant. All businesses would want a larger customer base than they can support. The City, in adopting its parking standards, has relied on numerous factors and created a reasonable predictor -the square footage of the business. Economics have generally not been an acceptable basis for establishing a hardship. There must be a physical constraint and trading off a parking lot for a wetland and stream course is not appropriate. 5. There is no justification for approving this variance. Rainier Mixed Use South Parkmg Lot File No.: LUA-04-093, ECF, SA-A and LUA-05-133, V-H April 25, 2006 Page 9 '. : .• Site Plan 6. The site plan ordinance provides a number of specific criteria for reviewing a site plan. Those criteria are generally represented in part by the following enumeration: a. Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; b. Conformance with the Building and Zoning Codes; c. Mitigation of impacts on surrounding properties and uses; d. Mitigation of the impacts of the proposal on the subject site itself; e. Conservation of property values; f. Provision for safe and efficient vehicle and pedestrian circulation; g. Provision of adequate light and air; h. Adequacy of public services to accommodate the propose 7. The proposal is not compatible with the environmental objectives of the comprehensive plan. The applicant proposes filling in a portion of a wetland and while the applicant proposes enhancing a separate wetland, a surface stream will be eliminated and placed in a culvert. Natural features should be protected and enhanced. While enhancement is proposed it is not for this wetland but at an off-site location. This wetland is at the base of a steep hillside and drains into a creek. The creek, even as short as it is and as shallow as it is deserves to be protected. 8. Compliance with building code would be determined at a later date. The proposal involves exceeding the normal complement of required parking. While the modification was approved, it would result in sacrificing a surface creek. 9. The creation of additional parking probably would not have a significant impact on adjacent properties but it could result in additional air pollution and engine noise reaching properties upslope from the site. lO. AsphaIting a wetland and culverting a creek does not do much to mitigate impacts to the subject site. It is not appropriate to convert sensitive or environmental amenities to asphalt. 11. The development should not affect property values. 12. It would appear that pedestrian and vehicular circulation are adequate. DECISION: The Site Plan and Variance to allow tree cutting and vegetation clearing are not approved. Rainier Mixed Use South Pa. .1g Lot File No.: LUA-04-093, ECF, SA-A and LUA-05-133, V-H April 25, 2006 Page 10 ORDERED THIS 25th day of April 2006. ~4/(w~ FREDJ.KAiJJ 71 "" HEARING EXAMINER TRANSMITTED THIS 25th day of April 2006 to the parties of record: Keri Weaver 1055 S Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 Richard Wagner Baylis Architects 1080 I Main Street, Ste. 110 Bellevue, W A 98004 Rolland Dewing 210 NW 5th Street Renton, W A 98055 Ronnie & Roberta McDonald 216 NW 5th Street Renton, W A 98055 Lee & Peggy Christopherson 503 Rainier Avenue N Renton, W A 98055 Mike Dotson Development Services Renton, W A 98055 Celeste Botha 2025 S Nonnan Street Seattle, W A 98144 Carl P. Bums 213 NW 6th Street Renton, W A 98055 Bruce & Sue Gregg 207 NW 5th Street Renton, W A 98055 TRANSMITTED THIS 25th day of April 2006 to the following: Mayor Kathy Keolker Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison Stan Engler, Fire Larry Meckling, Building Official Planning Commission Transportation Division Utilities Division IDA Group, LLC I.D. Kline Corporation 95 South Tobin Street Renton, W A 98055 Ryan Jeffries 2215 North 30th Street Tacoma, WA Mary Jo Carlson 215 NW 5th Street Renton, W A 98055 Sherondia Renee Otis 211 NW 5th Street Renton, W A 98055 Gregg Zimmennan, PBPW Administrator Alex Pietsch, Economic Development Jennifer Henning, Development Services Stacy Tucker, Development Services King County Journal Neil Watts, Development Services Janet Conklin, Development Services Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 100Gofthe City's Code, request for reconsideration must be fIled in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., May 8, 2006. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors oflaw or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date ofthe Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth Rainier Mixed Use South Park...,g Lot File No.: LUA-04-093, ECF, SA-A and LUA-05-133, V-H April 25, 2006 Page 11 the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee' of $75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. An appeal must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., May 8, 2006. If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants, the executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or fmal processing of the file. You may contact this office for information on formatting covenants. The Appearance of Faimess Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. Project Location Map SltePLNJPt.doc \\\ fit ~ ,\ ' I " h I \ \ " \\ I , , ' , , , :t»' . '-\ ~ \ --\ ':2:\ -, m' -;0' ~II '\ f NOJ,!)NIft. . ~ 3SOCJ3XIW 3nN3AV~3rNIW -- ---_ ... __ .... .. ---....... -............ .-- ",:1 ONVlJ3M'l I Hl.flOS aNY II J..01 HJ1)OS t lit! !~~II fbi o N II = -S' <t '0 :z l;;- .-l Exhibit 4 ,. \ \ \ \ -~ \ /"':' ' {., , . "-,. ... : .. --.;. \;... . , ..... -~ I . I 1. . I ,. I :. !-. ; ..... ; ro;····;· . I I· r .. I. ,. I I I \ \ !\ " \ '" '" \ \ ) I I / ---- '11 ..: r---~ " , : , I · i, .", :.: :,' · / ~ · I - I I I , I ;l , I I , , I I , I Exhibit 9 CITY OF RENTON REVISED DETERMINATION OF NON .. SIGNIFICANCE·MITIGA TED MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA04-093, SA-A, ECF/LUA05-133. V-H APPLICANT: JDA Group, LlC& 10 Kline Corp. PROJECT NAME: Rainier Avenue Mixed-Use South Parking Lot DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAl: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and Administrative Site Plan review for the construction of 27 parking spaces within a surface lot associated with the adjacent Chang's Mongolian Grill restaurant. The proposal includes portions of two large parcels containing Category 2 and 3 wetlands. The Category 3 wetland would be filled to accommodate the parking lot. with wetland compensation proposed off-site that would include wetland creation, enhancement and buffer averaging. A variance from the Tree Cutting and land Clearing Regulations is required for proposed vegetation removal and work within the 25-ft. buffer of the onslte watercourse/stream. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: LEAD AGENCY: MfTIGATJON MEASURES: West of 505 Ranier Avenue N & southeast of NW 6th Street The City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section 1. The project shall be required to be. designed and comply with the Department of Ecology's (DOE) Erosion and Sediment Control ReqUirements, outlined in Volume II of the 2001 Stormwater Management Manual. 2. During site preparation and construction, the applicant shall install silt fencing with brightly colored construction flags to indicate the boundaries of the North and South wetlands and buffer areas adjacent to the proposed construction areas. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division and be completed prior to the Issuance of construction/utility permits. 3. After the development of parking lot and associated site improvements, the applicant shan install permanent fencing (i.e. split-rail fence or. other approved barrier) and signage along the entire eastern edge of the North and South wetland buffers. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division. 4. The applicant shall provide the total buffer fill square footage and an update landscape ptan illustrating the exact locations of where interplanting was installed on the South Parcel as part of the Wetland Mitigation Plan. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division. 5. In the event that archaeological deposits are found during construction, work shall stop and the contractor(s) shall contact the State Archaeologist at the State of Washington Office of Archaeology and Historic PreservaUon, phone (360) 586-3065. Exhibit 11 ERe Miligation Measures Page 1 of 1 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: PLANNINGIBUILDINGI PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM April 6, 2006 Fred Kaufman, Hearing Examiner Neil Watts, Development Services Director A1 fLu.) Wetland Classification -Chang's Parking Lot Expansion This memo is in response to your inquiry of the appropriate classification for the wetland area associated with the Chang's Parking Lot Expansion west of Rainier A venue N. I concur with the applicant's conclusion that this wetland area is most appropriately classified as a Category 3 wetland. The specific characteristics of this wetland do not neatly fall into any of the available definitions for either a Category 2 or Category 3 wetland. Our recommendation is based on our review of the definitions for these two categories, and of the characteristics of this particular wetland. This wetland is a section of sloped area, which is subject to seeps and ground water flow, which results in a continually wet condition. It is not a pond or typical wetland with any accumulation of surface water. The area is vegetated with noxious weeds, and has been subject to remediation efforts to remove the undesired plant species. The wet area is adjacent to a drainage course, which is classified as a stream. The stream begins upstream from this location, draining a small basin area consisting of homes, yards, undeveloped slopes and public streets. This wetland is not located at the headwaters of this drainage course. The wetland has very limited value in terms of normal wetland values and functions. It is clear that this wetland is not a Category 1 wetland. The decision is whether it is appropriately treated as a Category 2 or Category 3 wetland. Renton's wetland regulations list out various potential definitions for qualifying as either of these categories. This wetland does not meet any of these definitions, although it most closely meets definition "a" (severely disturbed) of the definitions for a Category 3 wetland. We are left with the last definition for these two categories. A wetland can be classified as a Category 2 if it is not a Category 1 or 3 wetland, or it can be classified a Category 3 if it not a Category 1 or 2. As the wetland fails to completely fit into any of the other definitions for either a Category 2 or 3 wetland, we are left with having to decide where it best fits based on its wetland values and functions. This wetland does not meet the values and functions of a Category 2 wetland as it provides little in the way of hydrological value, limited habitat value and has been severely disturbed with invasive plant species. Therefore, it complies with definition "c" for a Category 3 wetland and is treated as a Category 3 wetland, with associated buffer requirements and replacement ratio requirements. May 30,2006 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) § COUNTY OF KING ) BONNIE I. WALTON, City Clerk for the City of Renton, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says that she is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Washington, over the age of21 and not a party to nor interested in this matter. That on the 30th day of May, 2006, at the hour of 5:00 p.m your affiant duly mailed and placed in the United States Post Office at Renton, King County, Washington, by first class mail to all parties of record, notice of appeal filed by JDA Group, LLC of the Hearing Examiner's recommendation on the construction of 27 parking spaces within a surface lot associated with Chang's Mongolian Grill restaurant, involving Administrative Site Plan review (File No. LUA-04-093, SA) and Variance review (File No. LUA-05-133, V). Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE me this 30th day of May, 2006. Deborah I. Evans Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing in Bothell . " ~. , '" . " . -. . . ','-' , ", ,I , .' ·.·May~,O, 20.06 " • I> ',.' " • " r ,. : ~ , • •••• J...! .. < . t' '..... ,'City C~erk " , Bonnie I. Walton , , " . . , . , . ";0' '. . t . " . APPEAL FILEPBY·:·JDAGr~)Up;LLC ,,: ..•... ' , . \.' " . .. . , ~.,,' , '" • , " ',' '. • • • • . ..'. :'. • '" ..', • " " .' .'. '4 RE:, . Appeal:ofHearingExam~ner's'decision:dated 4/~,5/2006 regarding}DA Groupi LLC's ,._ . 'applicatio'n'to construct 27 parking 'spaces within a surface lot associated with:C4ang's '.', ,.- • Mqngolian <;irill restaurant; involving Adlllinistnitive. Site PIal). review (File No . .LUA-04-., . '.' , , 093; SA) and Varian~e review (FileNo. LUA-05-I33,y)' , . " , ". ,'. . . . . -" " ". ' ,", Pursuant"~o Title IV; Cl).apter' 8, RentoriCity C~d~ of Ordi~aric~s~ ~ntt~~ aPpeal of.the h~aring' '" . 'examiner's decision 'on the. Rainier Avenue Mix,ed-Use SouthPar~iilg Lofproject.has beenfile~l' '. . : with the Ci~y Clerk.', '. . " .' . "c:'" '. '.' ....., .',." , ", , .. ,. '. . . . '. ,. . ,In,,~ccordance'wiihRentol1Mu~icipaIGode Section. 4~8:-110F~:the.City qerkshaiInotify all ", " 'parties of record' of the receipt.of~heappeal. Other parties of.record may submit letters in .. ' •. support of~l1eir posi~ions w.ithin ten (0) days of the date 6f maUing.'of the notification of the , . filing of the appeaL The deadline for:submission of additional letters is June 9; 2006: '. ' . . " . " -.' . . .NoticE IS HEREBY GIVEN 't~at the written appeal and ',other p~iti~ent docunie~ts will'be" '.',. reviewed by the Council's Planning and:Developm,ent Comniittee: The Couricilliiiison will . notifyall parti¢sof.record of the date and timeofth~PlaiuiingaildDevel6pment Committ~e' .. meeting. Ifyotiare not listed in local.telephone directori~sand wish to attend the meeting, ' . please;caltt4e Councilliaison'at 425-430:-6501 for infonj1ation. The recommendation of the . Committee will be presented for consideration ~y tlie full Council at a subsequent Council " ." . _'meeting.,·,.·':. <, '" ',", ,'.' :" " ...... ;' .... , ":',. ,.':' '.' -. , " ),', ," Att~c.hed.is a copy otthe ~enton. M.unjcipal Code'r~g~fding app~a:ls. pi I:Ieann~ E~~iner: '.'"" deCISIOns or recommendatIons.', Please note that tJie CIty COUnyltwlll be ,~onsldenng the ments of the appe~l base~Lupon the written record previously eS,tablish~d.; Unles~, a' sp-owingcan b~ . made that additionale\:'idence could"riot reasonably have,be¢n available at ,the 'prior hearing held by the H.earing,Examiiler, no further evidence' or testimony on this matter will be ac~epted by the \", -,' - ,qty Council.' ',,' '... , 'l.'" .' , , , " I .-' , , For additio~al information Of, as~istarice, please feel free t~ 'call me at 425-430,.6502. ..' •• ," -.' ,', " ;.',' ""', : -. ," ," ,'<, " .:' " • : .;. • , .... ,.r' •••• : Sincerely; ..... " " ... 1,,' , . , " , Bonniel. Walton . . {,' City Clerk/Cable Manager .. , .', .. " .. -',\ Attacliffients '.' I', • . 'cc: CoUncil' Liaison ',,' . > ' ..... " , '-'\. ; . Jack Alhadeff JDA Group, LLC/JD Kline Corp. 95 S Tobin St, Suite #201 Renton, W A 98055 Lee & Peggy Christopherson 503 Rainier A v N Renton, W A 98055 Ronnie & Roberta McDonald 216 NW 5th St Renton, W A 98055 Matt Weber AHBL, Inc. 2215 N 30th St, Suite #300 Tacoma, W A 98403 Carl P. Bums 213 NW 6th St Renton, W A 98055 Rolland Dewing 210 NW 5th St Renton, W A 98055 Sherondia Renee Otis 211 NW 5th St Renton, W A 98055 Mary J 0 Carlson 215 NW 5th St Renton, W A 98055 Bruce & Sue Gregg 207 NW 5th St Renton, W A 98055 Richard Wagner Baylis Architects 10801 Main St, Suite #110 Bellevue, W A 98004 Parties of Record LUA-04-093 & LUA-05-133 Appeal to Council Mailing Labels May 30, 2006 APPEAL FILED BY: JDA Group, LLC RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated 4/25/2006 regarding JDA Group, LLC's application to construct 27 parking spaces within a surface lot associated with Chang's Mongolian Grill restaurant, involving Administrative Site Plan review (File No. LUA-04- 093, SA) and Variance review (File No. LUA-05-133, V) To Parties of Record: Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Renton City Code of Ordinances, written appeal of the hearing examiner's decision on the Rainier Avenue Mixed-Use South Parking Lot project has been filed with the City Clerk. In accordance with Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11 OF, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. Other parties of record may submit letters in support of their positions within ten (10) days of the date of mailing of the notification of the filing of the appeal. The deadline for submission of additional letters is June 9, 2006. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the written appeal and other pertinent documents will be reviewed by the Council's Planning and Development Committee. The Council liaison will notify all parties of record of the date and time of the Planning and Development Committee meeting. If you are not listed in local telephone directories and wish to attend the meeting, please call the Council liaison at 425-430-6501 for information. The recommendation of the Committee will be presented for consideration by the full Council at a subsequent Council meeting. Attached is a copy of the Renton Municipal Code regarding appeals of Hearing Examiner decisions or recommendations. Please note that the City Council will be considering the merits of the appeal based upon the written record previously established. Unless a showing can be made that additional evidence could not reasonably have been available at the prior hearing held by the Hearing Examiner, no further evidence or testimony on this matter will be accepted by the City Council. For additional information or assistance, please feel free to call me at 425-430-6502. Sincerely, Bonnie I. Walton City Clerk/Cable Manager Attachments cc: Council Liaison From: To: Date: Subject: Bonnie Walton Fred Kaufman 5/30/20068:18:51 AM Re: Request for Reconsideration Thanks for the clarification. The appeal & RFR were filed together and I mistakenly thought they were for the same project. I shall proceed with processing of the appeal. bw »> Fred Kaufman 05/30/06 8:16 AM »> The Request for Reconsideration was for a separate (although associated) project -Rainier STATION, not the mixed use parking lot. »> Bonnie Walton OS/25/06 3:19 PM »> I received the yellow file from your office today for LUA-04-093, Rainier Ave. Mixed Use, South Parking Lot (JDA Group/Baylis Architects). I am not seeing in the file the Request for Reconsideration that was filed 5/8/06, nor the response to the RFR. Has that been completed? I do not want to proceed with the appeal until the reconsideration is done. Please advise. Bonnie, x6502 APPEAL OF HE!tmG EXAMINER'S DECISIONIRE:MMENDATION TO RENTON CITY COUNCIL FILE NO. LV/? &94 09.3/ Lt/A 05-/.:?3 z./>lEP (/"'5"£ '::;;;;VT";-/ &£'&&4= c-csr-7 7 /? ~ APPLICATION NAME ,6;:v/ll/££ 61/w£ The undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the decision oRl<Y~IfiW1 of the Land Use Hearing Examiner, dated /'IP"e/L 25 ,20~ MAY 08 2006 ',.I,'SO RECEIVED .. 1. IDENTIFICATION OF PARTY APPELLANT: Name: .:712A &1?VP REPRESENTATIVE (llilAm-f,RK'S OFFICE Name: 4V5 &r::.cil/n-c:5- Address: ~ S;;~ ;;0",6"/ A/ Address: @??I ,4W-o ~..ep/- /J-Aff?2N, AlA 9&055 2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Attach additional sheets, if necessary) Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is based: FINDING OF FACT: (Please designate number as denoted in the Examiner's Report) No. Error: __________________________________________ ~-------------- Correction: -------------------------,r-.----------------- CONCLUSIONS: No. Error: _______________ ,+~4-----------__,----------------==~--- Correction: ------------;4-------------------- OTHER: No. Error: __ ~~-------------------------------------------------- 3. SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED The City Council is requested to grant the following relief: (Attach explanation, if desired) Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relief: Modify the decision or recommendation as follows: Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows: Other y'7F #"r~#ED «~/£-~/ ~YL/S 4zH/TEd5~---="..~4,-=+-@~_t!)_4. ____ _ ,;;> App~epresentative Signatute Date NOTE: Please refer to Title IV, Chapter 8, of the Renton Municipal Code, and Section 4-8-11 OF, for specific appeal procedures. ~ ~: L (M"r-'1 W 4.r ren, CIty A-+I-o-rI1 (.'1 H:\CITY CLERK\APPEAL\APPEAL to Council.doc tJ e; I W 4..1.·4-5 I 1) ~\I .s vc..s 'D, r"e.(.. -kJ(" Ft""e..d. k'~.f 1tlU'I, H-iU>.riI1S Ex CLm-il1('r' City of Renton Municipal Coue: Title IV. Chapter 8. Section 110 -Appeal~ 4-8-110C4 The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by a fee in accordance with RMC 4-1-170, the fee schedule of the City. (Ord. 3658,9-13-82) ' .. ,. ~ "f" .. \ ~,. .'!. 4:.8-11OF: Appeals to City Council -Procedures 1. lJme for Appeal: Unless a specific section or State law providing for review of decision of the Ex!uniner requires review thereof by the Superior Court or any other body, any interested party agm-f~veu; by the Examiner's written decision or recommendation may submit a notice of appeal to the ". '.';;'Cfty'CO,ilOCil; upon a form furnished by the City Clerk, within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the Examiner's written report. 2. Notice to Parties of Record: Within five (5) days of receipt of the notice of appeal, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. 3. Opportunity to Provide Comments: Other parties of record may submit letters in support of their positions within ten (10) days of the dates of mailing of the notification of the filing of the notice of appeal. 4. Transmittal of Record to Council: Thereupon the Clerk shall forward to the members of the City Council all of the pertinent documents, including the written decision or recommendation, findings and conclusions contained in the Examiner's report, the notice of appeal, and additional letters submitted by the parties. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-1982) 5. Council Review Procedures: No public hearing shall be held by the City Council. No new or additional evidence or testimony shall be accepted by the City Council unless a showing is made by the party offering the evidence that the evidence could not reasonably have been available at the time of the hearing before the Examiner. If the Council determines that additional evidence is required, the Council shall remand the matter to the Examiner for reconsideration and receipt of additional evidence. The cost of transcription of the hearing record shall be borne by the applicant. In the absence of an entry upon the record of an order by the City Council authorizing new or additional evidence or testimony, and a remand to the Hearing Examiner for receipt of such evidence or testimony, it shall be presumed that no new or additional evidence or testimony has been accepted by the City Council, and that the record before the City Council is identical to the hearing record before the Hearing Examiner. (Ord. 4389, 1-25-1993) 6. Council Evaluation Criteria: The consideration by the City Council shall be based solely upon the record, the Hearing Examiner's report, the notice of appeal and additional submissions by parties. 7. Findings and Conclusions Required: If, upon appeal of a decision of the Hearing Examiner on an application submitted pursuant to RMC 4-1-050Fl, and after examination of the record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, it may remand the proceeding to Examiner for reconsideration, or modify, or reverse the decision of the Examiner accordingly. 8. Council Action: If, upon appeal from a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner upon an application submitted pursuant to RMC 4-1-050F2 and F3, and after examination of the record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, or that a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner should be disregarded or modified, the City Council may remand the proceeding to the Examiner for reconsideration, or enter its own decision upon the application. 9. Decision Documentation: In any event, the decision of the City Council shall be in writing and shall specify any modified or amended findings and conclusions other than those set forth in the report of the Hearing Examiner. Each material finding shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. The burden of proof shall rest with the appellant. (Ord 3658, 9-13-1982) 10. Council Action Final: The action of the Council approving, modifying or rejecting a decision of the Examiner shall be final and conclusive, unless appealed within the time frames established under subsection G5 of this Section. (Ord. 4660, 3-17-1997) May 8, 2006 City Council Members C/O City Clerk City of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way Renton WA 98055 RE: JOB NO.: FILE NO.: Subject: Rainier Ave Mixed Use M2-0589 LUA 04-093, ECF, SA-A, LUA 05-133, V-H Appeal of Examiner's Decision Dear Council Members: BAYLIS ARCHITECTS 10801 Main Street Bellevue, WA 98004 T 425 454 0566 www.baylisarchitects.com env OF AENTON MAY (182006 t'\h~ ~~~eIVED ~~ I{ ~~S OF/RCE On behalf of the JDA Group, LLC, we submit this appeal of the hearing examiner's decision of the referenced application. We request that, after examination of the record, Council determine that substantial errors in fact and in law exist in the record, that the Council reverse the decision of the Examiner accordingly, and that Council enter its own decision upon the application. This application is for Site Plan Approval" and for a Tree Cutting and Clearing Variance related to the installation of a surface parking lot in a Commercial Arterial Zone. The existing area of the proposed parking lot contains a small, low class wetland, which at the time of application, was highly contaminated with neighborhood trash, tires and noxious weeds. The site also contains steep slopes which will not be touched by the proposed improvements, and a small, intermittent watercourse in a shallow ditch fully contained within the wetland area. History as included in the record. Because of the underlying CA zoning and the poor condition of the wetland area, the applicant and city staff have worked diligently for the last four years to fmd an environmentally and economically responsible solution for the productive use of this property. In 2004, the owner retained the services of a wetlands consultant, Celeste Botha, regionally recognized for her work, including working directly for other Eastside municipalities~ She conducted an on-site delineation, prepared a wetland report and became an integral part of the owner's design team, working for a solution with the city staff. Her leadership developed the concept that enlarging, enhancing and protecting an adjacent, higher and more productive wetland was environmentally far better than trying to salvage the subject small, low class and contaminated wetland. Thus the concept for re-development of the site was initiated. In early 2004, with city staffs conceptual agreement, the owner authorized the wetlands consultant and the landscape architect to proceed with the preparation of the detailed staging, mitigation and landscaping plan, Renton City Council-Appeal May 8th, 2006 Page 2 which was completed in July 2004. This report was reviewed by city staff, and with their concurrence of the reasonableness of its conclusions, the owner then authorized the civil engineer to proceed with all the construction documents, including analysis of the drainage courses and existing culverted outflows, and to proceed with the construction permits application. During the permit review process, it was identified that the Renton Municipal Code requires that a Tree . Cutting and Clearing Variance must be granted before any wedand can be filled ... no matter the quality of the wedand being filled nor the wisdom and strength of the proposed mitigation enhancements. This variance can only be granted by the examiner. And, since the project was now to go the examiner, so also must go the Site Plan Approval application, which up to this time was being reviewed by the administration. Thus, what was thought for four years to be a straight f~rward administrative application, resulting in an environmental and economic win-win, now fell into the cogs of municipal processing. Errors in the Findings of Fact and in Law During the course of the hearing, the examiner questioned the classification of the wedand, the enhancement plan for the adjacent higher category wedand, the value of the increased buffers of the adjacent wedand, the existing lack of surface water storage capacity of the wedand, and the relationship of the watercourse to the wedand; all issues which, as advanced in the examiner's report, he did not understand that led to substantial errors in fact and in law. Wedand Classification. Adjacent Enhancement and Fill The classification of the wedand has clearly become a pivotal issue for the examiner and clearly impacts his decision. On this point, it remains most important to note that, as demonstrated in its decision, the independent Environmental Review Committee accepted the wedand classification as Class 3, agreed with the value of the enhancements proposed for the adjacent Class 2 wedand, supported the buffer enhancements proposed and agreed with the proposal to fill the small Class 3 wedand. The ERC put 5 mitigation measures into its revised determination, all of which are common mitigations in our city and to all of which the applicant has agreed. Further, it is important to note that, although there are many parties of record, no appeals of the ERC's revised determination were f1led, and no other members of the public attended the examiner's hearing. Thus, the matter of wedand classification, which is the preview only of the ERC as point of law, is and should not have been before the examiner. Further, as a follow-up to the hearing, and at the examiner's request, the Development Services Director again issued the decision "that the wedand is a Class 3 wedand". Yet the examiner remains un-extricated from this issue. As demonstrated in fmding 14, the examiner, in noting receipt of the Development Services Director's decision, purposefully uses a disjunctive which clearly belies the fact that the examiner remains unconvinced. This opinion tainted the hearing as well as the report (pp. 3, 4 & 5). It overshadowed the value of the proposed mitigation measures and led to the dramatic, yet false, Conclusion 10: "Asphalting a wedand and culverting a creek does not do much to mitigate impacts to the subject site." Even Finding 6 recognizes only that the "second wedand would be enhanced to offset filling", which is factually in error as it totally misses that the second wedand would be substantially enlarged, the eastern buffer would be totally rebuilt after the decades of tires and garbage are removed, and the /7 - Renton City Council-Appeal May 8th, 2006 Page 3 renewed wetland would be fenced along the eastern edge where it is most vulnerable to the impacts of human trespass. Storage Capacity of the Wetland During the hearing, the examiner questioned "if the wetland is filled, will it displace water around it" (p 4, Para. 1). AHBL, the project civil engineer, addressed this concern in its testimony. Further, as demonstrated in the construction documents, which are and have been on me with the city, and are part of the record, the engineer shows that the existing wetland has no existing surface water storage capacity, since the outflow of the wetland equals the inflow elevation of the existing culvert drainage pipe. Thus, no surface water storage capacity is being displaced. Yet the examiner notes, after the engineer's testimony, that he remains concerned "the first flush won't be swept off into the lake" (p 5, Para. 6). On this issue, city staff noted that it "did not know for sure", ... a most unfortunate statement, since the plans had been under review for more than a year. Staffs statement led the examiner to conclude that "he would need to know this information prior to doing any work." Perhaps a factual statement, given staffs testimony, but certainly not a conclusion based on the actual facts. Relationship of the Wetland and the Watercourse Finding 15 notes that "There is an onsite watercourse that drains the wetland area ... " This fInding is not correct. As shown in the drawings of the application, the wetland connects directly to a culvert, which is the drain for the wetland. Finding 15 infers that the wetland precedes the watercourse and contributes to the water quality of the watercourse. In fact, the uplands seepage and city controlled roadway culvert drainage flow into the watercourse, which, in turn drains to the wetland .area and then immediately into the culvert. This water remains in a culvert as it passes under the adjacent paved car lot, under Rainier Ave. and under the airport ... all the way to the fInal daylight at Lake Washington. As a fInal note, although not a fInding of fact or law, the examiner expressed concern as to the length of culvert being proposed. As proposed in the application, the culvert ends west of the parking lot edge, extending under the full length of the westerly sloped grades. It should be noted that this length can be reduced by constructing an ecology block retaining wall at the edge of the new parking lot pavement and shortening the culvert. . Finally, we would like to draw the Council's attention to the testimony of the staff on this application. After years of analysis and scrutiny by staff and the many technical consultants, staff concluded that "The applicant has justifIed the variance request ... " (p 2, Para. 5). We encourage and look forward to your favorable consideration, and again, ask the Council 50 flOd that there are substantial errors in fact and in law in the record, that the Council reverse the decision of the Examiner accordingly, and that Council enter its own decision upon the application by approving the application as presented by the staff report. " Renton City Council-Appeal May 8th, 2006 Page 4 Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, BAYLIS ARCHITECTS Meredith Everist for Richard L. Wagner, AlA cc: JDA Group-Jack Alhadeff AHBL-Matt Weber Riley Group-Celeste Botha Fred Kaufmann, City of Renton Hearing Jennifer Toth Henning, City of Renton, Senior Planner RLW: jlc ~I TO City of Renton, City Council Members 1055 South Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 ATTENTION o Enclosed o Original COPIES DATED lEI Copy of Letter o Shop Drawing ~, o Mail o FAX o Courier lEI Delv. o Prints o Disk DESCRIPTION 1 5/8/2006 Request for Appeal of Examiner's Decision These are transmitted as checked below o For approval o As requested o Approval as noted o For your use o For review and comment o Approval as submitted Remarks Copy to: 10801 Main Street Bellevue, WA 98004 T 425 454 0566 IF 425 453 8013 www.baylisarchitects.cam JOB NO M5-0106 RE Rainier Station FILE DATE 5/8/2006 FAX PAGES o Correct and re-submit o Forwarded without review Jack Alhadef, JDA Group, 95 South Tobin, Suite 201, Renton, WA 98055 Jennifer Toth Henning, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055 Matt Weber, AHBL, 2215 North 30th Street, Suite 300, Tacoma, WA 98403 Fred Kaufman, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, W A 98055 Celeste Botha, Riley Group, 2025 S. Norman Street, Seattle, WA 98144 lEI Mail o FAX Signed Thank You, o Courier Meredith CITY OF RENTON City Clerk Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 425-430-6510 . Receipt N: 0559 Date S-/s/2 bOt, o J2ash '7/ " 0 yopy Fee 0 Notary Service f9' Check No. /.0 c:I-.-cB"Appeal Fee . 0 _--:-______ _ ~ " .-l1 ,n / J __ • v" Description: v#:tt.-.-,I {/B414&;;~1>i:SGf~~ Lkft -L/ T-C 9: /} ./1 ,) lJ 1'\..1.-., ~ \....A'" '1.("VC ~ / \ IL !?qln/eY S a-itOi'1 : I Amount $ Jr;-, 0 0 Funds Received From: Name ~A1~. Address=~:=WJ.0, , City/Zip k €yd 0 I] (;Un 9 j 05.6 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON) ) ss. County of King ) Nancy Thompson being first duly sworn, upon oath, deposes and states: That on the 25th day of April 2006, affiant deposited via the United States Mail a sealed envelope(s) containing a decision or recommendation with postage prepaid, addressed to the parties of record in the below entitled application or petition. Signature: Application, Petition or Case No.: Rainier Mixed Use South Parking Lot .File No.: LUA 04-093, ECF, SA-A LUA 05-133, V-H The Decision or Recommendation contains a complete list of the Parties of Record. [,-__ H_E_ARI_N_G_E_XA_M_IN_E_R_'_S_RE_P_O_R_T_~J April 25, 2006 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON Minutes APPLICANT/OWNER: LOCATION: SUMMARY OF REQUEST: SUMMARY OF ACTION: DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT: PUBLIC HEARING: IDA Group, LLC I.D. Kline Corporation 95 S Tobin Street Renton, W A 98055 Rainier Mixed Use South Parking Lot File No.: LUA 04-093, ECF, SA-A And LUA 05-133, V-H West of Rainier Avenue North and north of Chang's Mongolian Grill. Southeast ofNW 6th Street. South Parcel, 20.012 square feet and a north parcel 59,951 square feet. Administrative Site Plan and Variance review for the construction of 27 parking spaces within a surface lot associated with Chang'S Mongolian Grill restaurant. Development Services Recommendation: Approve with conditions The Development Services Report was received by the Examiner on March 7,2006. After reviewing the Development Services Report, examining available information on file with the application, field checking the property and surrounding area; the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES Thefollowing minutes are a summary of the March 14, 2006 hearing. The legal record is recorded on CD. The hearing opened on Tuesday, March 14,2006, at 9:03 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No.1: Yellow file containing the original Exhibit No.2: Neighborhood Map application, proof of posting, proof of publication and other documentation pertinent to this request. Exhibit No.3: Overall Site Plan Exhibit No.4: South Lot and South Wetland Fill Plan Exhibit No.5: North Wetland Enlargement and Exhibit No.6: Conceptual Planting Plan Enhancement Plan Rainier Mixed Use South Parking Lot File No.: LUA-04-093, ECF, SA-A and LUA-05-133, V-H April 25, 2006 Page 2 Exhibit No.7: Demolition and TESC Plan Exhibit No.9: North Wetland Grading and Drainage Plan Exhibit No 11: ERC Mitigation Measures Exhibit No 13: Letter from Hugh Mortensen, The Watershed Company, dated December 13,2005 Exhibit No.8: Parking Lot Grading and Drainage Plan Exhibit No. 10: Zoning Map Exhibit No. 12: Letter from Kathy Curry, The Watershed Company, dated August 31,2004 The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by Keri Weaver, Senior Planner, Development Services, City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98055. The proposal would create a 27 stall parking lot on approximately 20,000 square feet ofa 1.55 acre parcel located on the west side of Rainier Avenue North with a driveway connection from the existing Chang's Mongolian Grill parking lot located off of Rainier. This is proposed to provide overflow parking for the restaurant and to accommodate the current rush hour parking shortages on the existing parking lot. The site of the south wetland area has significant areas of steep slopes with ravines and wetlands located at the bottom of those slopes and are largely wooded at this time. The site is bounded by residential properties to the west, the large change in grade does provide a natural separation buffer. The site is zoned Commercial Arterial (CA) and the parking lot is a permitted use within that zone. The proposed design of the parking lot drainage and access points does comply with the zone requirements. In order to construct a parking lot on this location, it will be necessary to fill a small area of wetland and wetland buffer on a wetland that has been identified by the applicant as meeting the requirements of a Category 3 wetland classification. This wetland is located on the south side of the property between two areas of steep slopes. The applicant proposed to mitigate this impact to the wetland by offsite creation and enhancement at a ratio of 1.5: 1 on what is referred to as the north wetland, a Category 2 wetland on a non-contiguous property under the same ownership. The applicant also proposed buffer averaging for the north wetland with a 25-foot buffer instead of 50-feet on the east side, which is currently under review as Rainier Station. There is an onsite watercourse extending from the Category 3 wetland that is proposed to be culverted to accommodate the parking lot. In order to remove trees and vegetation within 25-feet of this watercourse area, a variance will be required. The project is not subject to the current critical areas regulations. The applicant has justified the variance request by demonstrating hardship caused by the topographical limitations of the property including steep slopes, wetlands and the on-site watercourse that does prevent the majority of the site from being used for commercial development as allowed by zoning without significant alteration of the terrain and removal of sensitive areas. The project represents a minimal disturbance of the property. Mitigation conditions will be imposed through the SEPA DNS-M and the site plan conditions to prevent erosion and runoff and disturbance to wetland areas and to enhance an off-site wetland of a higher category. Prior to final approval, additional information will be necessary to finalize the category determination of the south wetland. Consultants have indicated that it may meet the requirements for a Category 2 wetland. This .' Rainier Mixed Use South Parking Lot File No.: LUA-04-093, ECF, SA-A and LUA-05-133, V-H April 25, 2006 Page 3 does not impact the applicant's vested ability to undertake the proposed partial fill or to place the parking lot in the desired location. The Examiner stated that we should know what the category of the wetland actually is before proceeding any further. Ms. Weaver stated she had been informed that they could proceed with preliminary approval, as the location of the parking lot would not need to be altered, it was the off-site mitigation that could be required to increase on the north wetland without having an effect on the south wetland. If it is determined that the south wetland meets the requirements of a Category 2 wetland the applicant would be required to undertake additional off-site mitigation that would occur on the north wetland by increasing wetland creation, enhancements or buffers. A Category 3 wetland normally requires a 25-foot buffer and a Category 2 would require 50-feet. The modification to the parking was requested because currently Chang'S has sufficient parking under code to serve the size of the restaurant. They requested a modification in order to provide additional parking off-site. It was determined, after review, that there is sufficient traffic and need to justify this modification. There was discussion regarding the removal of the natural detention provided by the wetland and whether or not that would contribute to future downstream problems or flooding. Rich Wagner, Baylis Architects, 10801 Main Street, Ste. 110, Bellevue, WA 98004 stated that the goals of the project were to make a commercially zoned property productive. There is an existing restaurant that could be , much more productive, there are not a lot of alternative uses for a site like this and in this particular area given the boulevard that it is on, there is an immense amount of traffic but not a lot of transit. The City does try to keep the amount of asphalt low and yet access high. The City parking cap is not necessarily applicable here and that is why they have asked for the modification. This site is separated from the residential and the residential people have been advised about this potential rezone. There have been no comments from these people concerning this application. The parking lot is going to be an important aspect to the existing restaurant, it is also believed that as this area continues to redevelop that parking lot will be in the right location. The quality of this wetland, based on research, is not the same quality as the Class 2 that is to the north. By enhancing the Class 2 the neighborhood is getting a better environment from this change. The Examiner stated that there is dispute over the wetland. The Category of that wetland has been undecided. Mr. Wagner stated that experts had been brought in to make a determination. Last year the City did invite an opinion from the Watershed Company, they did an independent investigation. Those findings were never seen until just a couple of months ago. Last year Watershed did another analysis. There seems to be two professional opinions that do not agree. The Examiner stated that that may be the case, but at this point he does not have the information that is needed to make a decision on this property. The City and applicant can resolve it and find it is a Category 2, or the City can decide that it is a Category 3 and then go ahead and expend the north wetland further. A third option is that the applicant can appeal the determination of the category of the wetland. Rainier Mixed Use South Parking Lot File No.: LUA-04-093, ECF, SA-A and LUA-05-133, V-H April 25, 2006 Page 4 He would like to know the category ofthe wetland that is proposed to be buried, along with the stream course that feeds it and beyond. Also, according to the report, it is not known if the wetland is filled will it displace water around it. Mr. Wagner stated that HBL has taken this project all the way to a building permit application and so it is known that it does accommodate a displacement. What he does not have is the documentation, but that can be presented to staff to make sure that that question is addressed and removed from the table. If for some unknown reason it were determined to be a Class 2 wetland, the actual work on this particular site would likely not change. The fill mitigation that is proposed on the north wetland is an expansion of a Class 2 wetland to mitigate the fill of the Class 3. The wetland itself continues up into the valley and there would be plenty of opportunity to buffer average in that area. HBL was brought in two years ago for the examination of this site, basically the intent is to clean up the trash and continue to clean up any noxious weeds that show up. The wetland area is fairly well cleaned up currently and that is because when the applicant took over ownership of the property they went in and cleaned the area. This site is owned by IDA Group. Because the site is so close to the Lake Washington basin, it was inappropriate to have retention/detention here, however, they were striving for water quality and that is why the biofiltering is being proposed. The Examiner stated that he would probably not close the hearing, Ms. Weaver is not at liberty to make that kind of decision at this hearing. The record would be held open until the matter is clarified. The City has environmental amenities that they try to protect, wetlands get moved, creeks can be put underground in a ditch or pipe and that may not be appropriate. The drainage course may be rerouted. Celeste Botha, 2025 S Norman Street, Seattle, WA 98144 stated that it might not be appropriate at this time for her to make a case for her determination. She went through the letter from the Watershed Company dated August 31, 2004 and explained the issues covered therein. The hydrology patterns have been addressed by the hydrologists and the engineers and require no further interpretation. Permits from the state and federal government are also standard and will be handled at the appropriate time. The minimum buffer that is required is regulated by the ordinary high water mark of the stream and that is included in the wetland so that the stream buffer is inside the wetland itself. The stream flows from the west towards the east and comes from offsite to the west and then goes into a series of pipes into the lake. As far as disturbance to native buffer areas, that will be addressed in the next phase and refers to the north wetland area where the mitigation is going to occur. The delineation report explains why this area, although the water is very close to the surface, the Watershed Company accepted the delineation and therefore agreed that it did not meet the wetland criteria. The performance standards have been changed in the most recent revisions to the wetland report will be submitted soon. The request was to put in the parking lot prior to the mitigation measures on the north wetland being in place for 12 months. The mitigation measures on the north would be in place and completed before any work was started on the south lot, they just would not have been monitored for 12 months. Item 10 in the Watershed letter has been revised for future submittal. A five-year monitoring schedule will be provided. Rainier Mixed Use South Parking Lot File No.: LUA-04-093, ECF, SA-A and LUA-05-133, V-H April 25, 2006 Page 5 The next letter from Watershed dated December 13, 2005 was the first time that the applicant became aware that Watershed was involved. This was the first that they became aware that the categorization of the south wetland was accurately delineated but there was some trouble with the categorization. The watercourses classification is difficult, the City did not originally classify watercourses. She discussed with the City and as she understood it, those sections of the Code were reserved. As far as buffers being increased where the slopes exceed 15% there is ample space on the project for this to occur, the drawings can be revised to show the increased buffer area. Mr. Wagner stated that in both letters from Watershed they talk about exploring different options, many options were explored although Watershed was not a part of that teamwork. The options are, you continue to add more parking or you reduce parking because of the topographic layout, this was the only option to develop the site in any usable way. One idea that Watershed did have was to not do a paper fill, but to do an ecology wall and that appeared to be a great idea. Ryan Jeffries, 2215 North 30th Street, Tacoma, W A stated that he was here to speak about the drainage on the property, the existing watercourse flows from the west into the site through the wetland via the stream and is currently collected in a catch basin in the middle of the site. That flow from the stream is adequately conveyed through the existing City storm system. The proposal is to add 128 linear feet of culvert at the west edge of the parking lot and convey that into the existing system basically at its current locations. Approximately 120 feet of pipe will be added. The parking lot will be collected in a bio-infiltration facility at the south edge of the parking lot where it will be treated and also a measure of water quantity will be provided via the infiltration facility there, water quality and quantity will be provided in this proposed facility. That facility will overflow into a catch basin and drain into the City system at its current location on the site, which has adequate capacity. The surface water runoff flow rates will be increased slightly, however they will be mitigated via the infiltration facility that will be provided on-site so that the downstream system will not be significantly altered in terms of its flow rates. The water quality portion of the facility will meet the requirements in terms of removal of total suspended solids, oils, and grease which will all be treated in the bioswale. The Examiner stated that it is very difficult to rectify existing conditions along Rainier with all the facilities that are present but this facility should be designed so that the first flush won't be swept off into the lake. A wetland and a stream course are being buried to create a parking lot, which is not necessarily an environmental amenity. Mike Dotson, Development Services stated that the engineer addressed most of the Examiner's issues. They would need to demonstrate that the downstream system is sized to convey any future condition flows and that would be a requirement of their engineering design, if it did not they would be responsible to increase the system so that it would adequately convey flows. It was also mentioned that on-site detention would be provided to meet the design storm standards in order to mitigate their on-site runoff from the new impervious area they are creating. As to how much water storage capacity is being replaced by paving the wetland and the area adjacent to the wetland, he had not seen the report and so he did not know for sure. The Examiner stated that it would seem that the applicant would need to know this information prior to doing any work. In this area the water table is not that low and so it is impossible to just carve out a potential holding pond, you might not have the storage capacity there. Rainier Mixed Use South Parking Lot File No.: LUA-04-093, ECF, SA-A and LUA-05-133, V-H April 25, 2006 Page 6 Mr. Wagner stated that one of the things that has happened on this application is HBL, on behalf of the applicant, has actually filed for construction permits. It was a review of those construction pennits that triggered a couple of the things that needed to be revised for the tree cutting ordinance, which brought forth the variances today. The application that had been filed with the City was suspended because of the processing of that construction pennit pending this hearing. The infonnation can be gathered and given to the Examiner ifhe wishes. The Examiner stated that he would close this session, but not the hearing. ill order to go forward, he wants to know the Category or Classification of this wetland. If the parties wish to agree to the greater standard so it is final and done, that will be acceptable. The record will be open until that information is received. The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak, and no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at 10:16 am. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The applicant, IDA Group, LLC, and I.D. Kline Corp., filed a request for a Variance from the Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Regulations, as well as a Site Plan approval. 2. The yellow file containing the staff report, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) documentation and other pertinent materials was entered into the record as Exhibit #1. 3. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC), the City's responsible official issued a Detennination of Non-Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M). 4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter. 5. The primary subject site is located west of 505 Rainier Avenue North and southeast ofNW 6th Street if that street were extended to the east. The site is located north of Chang'S Mongolian Grill, a restaurant. If the variance allowing vegetation removal is approved, a parking lot would be developed to serve that restaurant. The applicant would also fill a portion of a wetland on this primary site to enable the construction of the parking lot. 6. A second parcel involved in the application is north of the first. It also contains a wetland. This second wetland would be enhanced to offset filling wetlands on the proposed parking lot parcel. 7. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as suitable for the development of employment generating uses, but does not mandate such development without consideration of other policies of the Plan. 8. The subject site is currently zoned CA (Commercial Arterial). 9. The subject site was annexed to the City with the adoption of Ordinance 1461 enacted in November 1963. Rainier Mixed Use South Parking Lot File No.: LUA-04-093, ECF, SA-A and LUA-05-133, V-H April 25, 2006 Page 7 10. The parcel is approximately 20,012 square feet. The applicant would develop approximately 9,200 square feet for the parking lot. 11. The south parcel contains approximately 16,600 square feet of wetlands while the north parcel contains approximately 21,700 square feet of wetland. 12. The applicant proposes filling approximately 2,017 square feet of wetland and 1,574 square feet of required buffer for total fill of 3,591 square feet to create the parking lot. 13. The parking lot would be northwest of the existing restaurant site. It would be to the rear of an auto repair business. It would be connected by an approximately 80-foot long aisle way to the existing restaurant. The parking lot aisle would be aligned in an east to west direction with the parking stalls oriented in two tiers with cars parked in a north to south orientation. The lot would accommodate 27 vehicles. 14. As noted, there is a wetland on the subject site. The wetland is at the base of a ravine in the slopes above Rainier Avenue. The wetland was categorized by the applicant's wetland consultant as a Category 3 Wetland. The City's wetland consultant categorized it was a Category 2 Wetland. The status was unresolved at the time of the public hearing. Subsequent to the hearing, on April 6, 2006, the Development Services Director issued a decision that the wetland is a Category 3 wetland but noted in that decision that it appeared to be a close call. 15. There is an onsite watercourse that drains the wetland area and flows toward Rainer Avenue. The applicant proposes clearing vegetation within the 25-foot buffer and culverting the watercourse to develop the parking lot. 16. Chang's Restaurant has 43 on-site parking stalls. Staff reports Chang'S Restaurant has 3,500 net square feet of floor area. Code requires 1 parking stall per 100 square feet for eating and drinking establishments or 35 stalls for the restaurant. Currently the restaurant has eight (8) more stalls than required by code. The applicant proposes developing 27 additional stalls for a total of70 stalls. A modification to develop the excess parking is required. It was approved by the Administrator. 17. The restaurant seats 140 patrons. The applicant maintains that during lunch and some dinner hours the existing parking lot is full and patrons leave since they cannot find parking. 18. Access to the new lot would be via a 22-foot wide driveway from Chang's existing lot and its driveway on Rainier. CONCLUSIONS: Variance 1. Variances may be granted when the property generally satisfies all the conditions described in part below: a. The applicant suffers undue hardship caused by special circumstances such as: the size, shape, topography, or location where code enforcement would deprive the owner of rights and privileges enjoyed by others similarly situated; Rainier Mixed Use South Parking Lot File No.: LUA-04-093, ECF, SA-A and LUA-05-133, V-H April 25, 2006 Page 8 b. The granting of the variance would not materially harm either the public welfare or other property in the vicinity; c. The approval will not constitute a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other property in the vicinity; and d. The variance is the minimum variance necessary to allow reasonable development of the subject site. The applicant's property is not ripe for the variance requested. 2. An analysis of the requested variance involves not only the direct impact of approving the variance but the additional ramifications. In this case, the applicant seeks a variance to cut down trees or vegetation along a stream corridor but in fact granting the variance will result in the culverting of a surface water feature. So while it appears that only vegetation in the required 25-foot buffer would be removed if the variance is approved, the approval actually grants the applicant permission to remove a creek, a natural, if not critical feature, that is fed by a wetland, another critical feature, located at the base of steep slopes, yet another critical feature. The issue really comes down to whether or not an applicant who purchases or owns a severely constrained site, one with steep slopes, wetlands and a stream suffers a unique hardship that justifies clearing vegetation in the stream's buffer and then culverting the stream, effectively eliminating that stream. The entire request is driven by a request for more parking for a use that already has more than adequate parking according to code standards. The variance cannot be justified under these circumstances. Creating an enlarged parking lot over a portion of a wetland and eliminating a stream is contrary to City goals to maintain environmentally sensitive areas. Of course, as with any Comprehensive Plan policy, one can find a countervailing one. In this case economic development would be the other side of the coin. But using a need for more parking than required by code to eliminate a portion of a wetland and pave over a creek is untenable and does not strike a reasonable balance. 3. While neither the wetland nor creek are pristine, removing them from the inventory of environmentally sensitive site does not serve the public interest. The fact is that they were allowed to be degraded over the years because there was little interest in such natural features. But big rivers are fed by such little streams. The wetland and even this small drainage channel provide biofiltration just like the artificial swales created in many new developments only this one is natural, already exists and serves to filter water that eventually flows into Lake Washington. 4. Approving this variance would create an unjustified precedent. The steep hillside above Rainier Avenue is the source of many seeps. Many businesses can claim that they need more parking than code specifies. This would particularly be the case along Rainier Avenue where there are a number of restaurants and other businesses and no access to on-street parking. This office can completely sympathize with the restaurant. All businesses would want a larger customer base than they can support. The City, in adopting its parking standards, has relied on numerous factors and created a reasonable predictor -the square footage of the business. Economics have generally not been an acceptable basis for establishing a hardship. There must be a physical constraint and trading off a parking lot for a wetland and stream course is not appropriate. 5. There is no justification for approving this variance. Rainier Mixed Use South Parking Lot File No.: LUA-04-093, ECF, SA-A and LUA-05-133, V-H April 25, 2006 Page 9 Site Plan 6. The site plan ordinance provides a number of specific criteria for reviewing a site plan. Those criteria are generally represented in part by the following enumeration: a. Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; . b. Conformance with the Building and Zoning Codes; c. Mitigation of impacts on surrounding properties and uses; d. Mitigation of the impacts of the proposal on the subject site itself; e. Conservation of property values; f. Provision for safe and efficient vehicle and pedestrian circulation; g. Provision of adequate light and air; h. Adequacy of public services to accommodate the propose 7. The proposal is not compatible with the environmental objectives of the comprehensive plan. The applicant proposes filling in a portion of a wetland and while the applicant proposes enhancing a separate wetland, a surface stream will be eliminated and placed in a culvert. Natural features should be protected and enhanced. While enhancement is proposed it is not for this wetland but at an off-site location. This wetland is at the base of a steep hillside and drains into a creek. The creek, even as short as it is and as shallow as it is deserves to be protected. 8. Compliance with building code would be determined at a later date. The proposal involves exceeding the normal complement of required parking. While the modification was approved, it would result in sacrificing a surface creek. 9. The creation of additional parking probably would not have a significant impact on adjacent properties but it could result in additional air pollution and engine noise reaching properties upslope from the site. 10. Asphalting a wetland and culverting a creek does not do much to mitigate impacts to the subject site. It is not appropriate to convert sensitive or environmental amenities to asphalt. 11. The development should not affect property values. 12. It would appear that pedestrian and vehicular circulation are adequate. DECISION: The Site Plan and Variance to allow tree cutting and vegetation clearing are not approved. Rainier Mixed Use South Parking Lot File No.: LUA-04-093, ECF, SA-A and LUA-05-133, V-H April 25, 2006 Page 10 ORDERED THIS 25th day of April 2006. ~ 4f:fw~ FRED J. KAiJm 1/ """ HEARING EXAMINER TRANSMITTED THIS 25th day of April 2006 to the parties of record: Keri Weaver Mike Dotson 1055 S Grady Way Development Services Renton, W A 98055 Renton, W A 98055 Richard Wagner Celeste Botha Baylis Architects 2025 S Norman Street 10801 Main Street, Ste. 110 Seattle, WA 98144 Bellevue, W A 98004 Rolland Dewing Carl P. Burns 210 NW 5th Street 213 NW 6th Street Renton, W A 98055 Renton, W A 98055 Ronnie & Roberta McDonald Bruce & Sue Gregg 216 NW 5th Street 207 NW 5th Street Renton, W A 98055 Renton, W A 98055 Lee & Peggy Christopherson 503 Rainier Avenue N Renton, W A 98055 TRANSMITTED THIS 25 th day of April 2006 to the following: Mayor Kathy Keolker Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison Stan Engler, Fire Larry Meckling, Building Official Planning Commission Transportation Division Utilities Division IDA Group, LLC lD. Kline Corporation 95 South Tobin Street Renton, W A 98055 Ryan Jeffries 2215 North 30th Street Tacoma, WA Mary Jo Carlson 215 NW 5th Street Renton, W A 98055 Sherondia Renee Otis 211 NW 5th Street Renton, W A 98055 Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator Alex Pietsch, Economic Development Jennifer Henning, Development Services Stacy Tucker, Development Services King County Journal Neil Watts, Development Services Janet Conklin, Development Services Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 100Gofthe City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., May 8, 2006. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth Rainier Mixed Use South Parking Lot File No.: LUA-04-093, ECF, SA-A and LUA-OS-l33, V-H April 25, 2006 Page 11 the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee" of $75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. An appeal must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., May 8, 2006. If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants, the executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or final processing of the file. You may contact this office for information on formatting covenants. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. SltePLNJPt.doc \\\ fll \\ \~ h II \ e I' \\ " \ '. , \ 0, ' , , \ ':Xl' . '--\ ~ , -\ Z\ -, m\ ")J' ~II - , , NO~HSVM ~ 3S003XIW 3nN3AV ~3INJW ------0C 0' --i-"----- _., --.. ... -' . -.. ... 1'1 ",::J ONVI.1.3fil H..tnOSONV II If! .1.01 H..tnOS l-~z ~~1U I-~I-U) --I-Ul XU) Wgt ~ in ! N 0 ~ s ~ ~ ~ I $ o N II = .-1 .-1 LL D z: « -' I- ill s:: :r. I- ::J () \.f) D :z « I- () .-1 I I-:J () \f) Exhibit 4 ., \ \ \ \ -. \ /. .. {., .. ~\.; I·' .-;:. / .. I .' J. . I . I I :: /. /. .... /"'= I .. : r . r I . ( I I \ \ !\ " \ /. ./ \ , ) I / / --------- ·.,:." j...--== IJJ ;: r-~~~ ,r I : .r I ..... .' i I ~.';) ~~ . / - :·1 I I I I I rL I I I I I I I I I Exhibit 9 CITY OF RENTON REVISED DETERMINATION OF NON .. SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGA TED MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA04-093, SA-A, ECF/LUA05-133, V-H APPLICANT: JDA Group, LLC& ID Kline Corp. PROJECT NAME: Rainier Avenue Mixed-Use South Parking Lot DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAl: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and Administrative Site Plan review for the construction of 27 parking spaces within a surface lot associated with the adjacent Chang's Mongolian Grill restaurant. The proposal includes portions of two large parcels containing Category 2 and 3 wetlands. The Category 3 wetland would be filled to accommodate the parking lot, with wetland compensation proposed off-site that would include wetland creation, enhancement and buffer averaging. A variance from the Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Regulations is required for proposed vegetation removal and work within the 25-ft. buffer of the onsite watercourse/stream. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: LEAD AGENCY: MITIGATION MEASURES: West of 505 Ranier Avenue N & southeast of NW 6th Street The City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section 1. The project shaU be required to be designed and comply with the Department of Ecology's (DOE) Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements, outlined in Volume /I of the 2001 Stormwater Management Manuar. 2. During site preparation and construction, the applicant shall install silt fencing with brightly colored construction flags to indicate the boundaries of the North and South wetlands and buffer areas adjacent to the proposed construction areas. The satisfaction of this requirement ~hall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division and be completed prior to the issuance of construction/utility permits. 3. After the development of parking lot and associated site improvements, the applicant shall install permanent fencing (i.e. split-rail fence or. other approved barrier) and signage along the entire eastern edge of the North and South wet/and buffers. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division. 4. The applicant shall provide the total buffer fill square footage and an update landscape plan illustrating the exact locations of where interplanting was installed on the South Parcel as part of the Wetland Mitigation Plan. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division. 5. In the event that archaeological deposits are found during construction, work shall stop and the contractor(s) shall contact the State Archaeologist at the State of Washington Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, phone (360) 586-3065. Exhibit 11 ERe Mitigation Measures Page 1 of 1 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: PLANNINGIBUILDINGI PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM April 6, 2006 Fred Kaufman, Hearing Examiner Neil Watts, Development Services Director Wetland Classification -Chang's Parking Lot Expansion This memo is in response to your inquiry of the appropriate classification for the wetland area associated with the Chang's Parking Lot Expansion west of Rainier A venue N .. I concur with the applicant's conclusion that this wetland area is most appropriately classified as a Category 3 wetland. The specific characteristics of this wetland do not neatly fall into any of the available definitions for either a Category 2 or Category 3 wetland. Our recommendation is based on our review of the definitions for these two categories, and of the characteristics of this particular wetland. This wetland is a section of sloped area, which is subject to seeps and ground water flow, which results in a continually wet condition. It is not a pond or typical wetland with any accumulation of surface water. The area is vegetated with noxious weeds, and has been subject to remediation efforts to remove the undesired plant species. The wet area is adjacent to a drainage course, which is classified as a stream. The stream begins upstream from this location, draining a small basin area consisting of homes, yards, undeveloped slopes and public streets. This wetland is not located at the headwaters of this drainage course. The wetland has very limited value in terms of normal wetland values and functions. It is clear that this wetland is not a Category 1 wetland. The decision is whether it is appropriately treated as a Category 2 or Category 3 wetland. Renton's wetland regulations list out various potential definitions for qualifying as either of these categories. This wetland does not meet any of these definitions, although it most closely meets definition "a" (severely disturbed) of the definitions for a Category 3 wetland. We are left with the last definition for these two categories. A wetland can be classified as a Category 2 if it is not a Category 1 or 3 wetland, or it can be classified a Category 3 if it not a Category 1 or 2. As the wetland fails to completely fit into any of the other definitions for either a Category 2 or 3 wetland, we are left with having to decide where it best fits based on its wetland values and functions. This wetland does not meet the values and functions of a Category 2 wetland as it provides little in the way of hydrological value, limited habitat value and has been severely disturbed with invasive plant species. Therefore, it complies with definition "c" for a Category 3 wetland and is treated as a Category 3 wetland, with associated buffer requirements and replacement ratio requirements. March 28, 2006 City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 Attention: RE: JOB NO. Mr. Neil Watts Rainier Avenue Mixed -Use South Parking Lot M2-0589 PRINCIPALS Brian Brand, AlA Richard L. Wagner, AlA Thomas Frye, Jr., AlA Subject: South Wetland Classification I LUA04-093, SA-A, ECF/LUA05-133, V-H Dear Mr. Watts: In recent conversations, both verbal and via e-mail, with City of Renton staff we resolved that the City would accept the Conceptual Wetland Delineation & Mitigation Report prepared by The Riley Group, Inc. dated July 22,2004, and classification of the South Wetland as a Category 3. It was agreed that the report would be accepted without amendment. Please accept this letter as our formal request to reconfirm this decision in writing. According to the City of Renton Critical Areas Ordinance in place at the time of application for the referenced project, wetland classification is determined when the wetland meets one or more of the criteria listed in a respective category. Classification of the South Wetland is outlined below and further explained in the attached letter by Celeste Botha, Wetland Biologist. Category 2 wetlands are greater than 2200 square feet and meet one or more of the following criteria: a) Wetlands greater than two thousand two hundred square feet that are not Category 1 or 3 wetlands; The South Wetland is classified as Category 3 -so it does not meet criteria (a). 10801 Main Street Bellevue, WA 98004 T 425 454 0566 F 425 453 8013 www.baylisarchitects.com City of Renton! Neil Watts March 28, 2006 Page 2 b) Wetlands that have heron rookeries or raptor nesting trees, but are not Category 1 wetlands; c) As noted in the Wetland Delineation Report, a heron nest has been identified adjacent to the wetland, how~ver, according to the City of Renton, a single nest does not meet the City's criteria for a rookery-so the wetland does not meet criteria (b). Wetlands of any size located at the headwaters of a watercourse, but are not Category 1 wetlands; The water in the South Wetland enters the drainage basin from an existing storm sewer culvert fed by the. right of way improvements along Taylor Ave to the west of the site. The water passes though the wetland and drains directly and immediately into a constricted culvert at the east edge of the wetland. This culvert is a part of an extensive underground culvert system which connects to the city's storm drainage system and ultimately discharges into Lake Washington. Since this watercourse does not function as a headwater, and has no fish bearing capacity, it not a headwater wetland. -so the wetland does not meet criteria (c). d) Wetlands assigned the Significant #2 rating in the current King County Wetlands inventory 1991 or as thereafter amended; The South Wetland is not so rated and does not meet criteria (d). e) Wetlands having minimum existing evidence of human related physical alteration such as diking, ditching or channelization. There is substantial evidence of significant human related disturbance of the South Wetland, including culverting and outlet modification and uncontrolled dumping - so the wetland does not meet criteria (e). Category 3 wetlands are greater than 5000 SF and meet the following criteria: a) Wetlands that are severely disturbed; The South Wetland meets criteria (a) -The wetland has been severely disturbed by the dominance of invasive species, the presence of fill material and severe under- cutting and modification of the watercourse. b) Wetlands that are newly emerging; City of Renton/ Neil Watts March 28, 2006 Page 3 The South Wetland meets the criteria for a palustrine emergent Category 3 wetland. c) All other wetlands not classified as Category 1 or 2, such as smaller, high quality wetlands. The south wetland meets criteria (c), it is not classified as a Category 1 or 2. Based on the delineation and Classification work of Celeste Botha, the Report filed by the city dated March 14,2006, and this recap and restatement of that information, we request that the City of Renton make the determination, or accept the determination of this qualified licensed professional, that the South Wetland is a Class 3 wetland subject to the Critical Areas Ordinance in place at the time of application. Sincerely, Attachment: Letter from Celeste Botha, Wetland Biologist Cc;:' M-.AtL" ~~v..:...e"' ME:amp <:> DeUneation <:> Reconnalssance evaluations Mitigation planning and monitoring <:> Linear projects (roads, power and gas lines) <:> Environmental compliance during construction <:> Peer review and permit conditioning <:> Wetland inventories <:> <:> Permit assistance and agency coordination <:> Professional report preparation <:> Impact analysls and sequencing March 21, 2006 Richard Wagner Baylis Architects Phon~(Z06)~5 Fax:(Z06)~ Celt: (Z06) 2.4°-~l wpo@lsp.com RE: Rainier Station Wetland Classification Dear Mr. Wagner: At your request, I am preparing this further explanation of :the wetland categorization on the Rainier Station/South Parking Lot wetland. Section 4.3.050M i and ii of the City of Renton's Municipal Code provides the classification criteria, quoted below. I have highlighted the relevant rationale that I used in determining the wetland classification. In brief, the wetland meets the criteria for the Category 3 rating, and thus does not meet the criteria for being a Category 2. ii. Category 2: Category 2 wetlands are wetlands which meet one or more of the following criteria: (a) Wetlands that are not Category 1 or 3 wetlands; and/or (b) Wetlands that have heron rookeries or osprey nests, but are not Category 1 wetlands; and/or (c) Wetlands of any size located at the headwaters of a watercourse, i.e., a wetland with a perennial or seasonal outflow channel, but with no defined influent channel, but are not Category 1 wetlands; and/or (d) Wetlands having minimum existing evidence of human-related physical alteration such as diking, ditching or channelization; and/or iii. Category 3: Category 3 wetlands are wetlands which meet one or more of the following criteria: (a) Wetlands that are severely disturbed. Severely disturbed wetlands are wetlands which meet the following criteria: (1) Are characterized by hydrologic isolation, human-related hydrologic alterations such as diking. ditching. channelization and/or outlet modification; and (2) Have soils alterations such as the presence of fill. soil removal and/or compaction of soils; and (3) May have altered vegetation. (b) Wetlands that are newly emerging. Newly emerging wetlands are: 202S South Norman Street Seattle, Wa:~ington 98!!t __ Rainier Station Wetland Classification March 23, 2006 ... 1. f ... (1) Wetlands occurring on top of fill materials; and (2) Characterized by emergent vegetation, low plant species richness and used minimally by wildlife. These wetlands are generally found in the areas such as the Green River Valley and Black River Drainage Basin. (c) All other wetlands not classified as Category 1 or 2 such as smaller, high quality wetlands. I hope this adequately meets your project needs at this time. Thank you for the opportunity to provide you with wetland services. Please call with any questions or comments. Sincerely, Celeste Botha PROJECT NAME: Rainier Ave Mixed-Use South Parking Lot PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-04-093, SA-A, ECF/LUA05-133, V-H PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Administrative Site Plan and Variance review for the construction of 27 parking spaces within a surface lot associated with Chang's Mongolian Grill restaurant. The proposal includes portions of two large parcels containing Category 2 and 3 wetlands. The Category 3 wetland would be filled in to accommodate the parking lot with wetland compensation proposed off-site and include wetland creation, enhancement and buffer averaging. The proposal also involves the removal of noxious weeds; piping of an existing watercourse; installing a retaining wall; utility improvements; and a parking modification. HEX Agenda 3-14-06 PUBLIC HEARING City of Renton Department of Planning / Building / Public Works PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER A. SUMMARY AND PURPOSE OF REQUEST: Public March 14, 2006 Hearing Date File Name: Rainier Mixed-Use South Parking Lot (Chang's Parking Lot) File Number: LUA 04-093, ECF, SA-A and LUA 05-133, V-H Project Manager: Keri WeaveJ Project The applicant is requesting Administrative Site Plan and Variance review for the construction of 27 parking spaces within a surface lot associated with Chang's Mongolian Grill restaurant. The Description: proposal includes portions of two large parcels containing Category 2 and 3 wetlands. The Category 3 wetland would be filled in to accommodate the parking lot with wetland compensation proposed off-site and include wetland creation, enhancement and buffer averaging. The proposal also involves the removal of noxious weeds; piping of an existing watercourse; installing a retaining wall; utility improvements; and a parking modification. Continued on next page Project West of 505 Rainier Ave. N. and southeast of NW 6th Street Location: Exist. Bldg. N/A Proposed New Bldg. Area: NA Area: Site Area: South Parcel-20,012 sq ft North Parcel-59,951 sq ft Project Location Map SltePLNJptdoc City of Renton PIB/PW Department Prelimin:leport to the Hearing Examiner LUA04-093 AND LUA05-133 RAINIER A VE. MIXED-USE S. PARKING Lv'-(SITE PLAN & VARIANCE) PUBLIC HEARING DATE: MARCH 14,2006 Page 2 0'11 B. EXHIBITS The following exhibits are entered into the record: Exhibit NO.1: Yellow file containing: application, proof of posting and publication, environmental review and other documentation pertinent to this request. Exhibit NO.2: Neighborhood Map (dated Nov. 10,2004). Exhibit NO.3: Sheet A001. Overall Site (Key) Plan (dated July 29, 2004) Exhibit NO.4: Sheet A002. South Lot and South Wetland Fill Plan (dated July 29, 2004) Exhibit NO.5: Sheet A003. North Wetland Enlargement & Enhancement Plan (dated July 29, 2004) Exhibit NO.6: Sheet W1. Conceptual Planting Plan (dated July 29, 2004) Exhibit NO.7: Sheet C1.0. Demolition and TESC Plan (dated July 29, 2004) Exhibit NO.8: Sheet C2.0. Parking Lot Grading and Drainage Plan (dated July 29, 2004) Exhibit NO.9: Sheet C4.0. North Wetland Grading and Drainage Plan (dated July 29, 2004) Exhibit No.1 0: Zoning Map, Sheet E 3 West (dated Dec. 28, 2004) Exhibit No. 11: ERC Mitigation Measures Exhibit No. 12: Letter from Kathy Curry, The Watershed Company, dated August 31, 2004 Exhibit No. 13: Letter from Hugh Mortensen, The Watershed Company, dated December 13, 2005 C. GENERAL INFORMATION: 1. 2. 3. 4. Owners/Applicants: Zoning Designation: Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation: Existing Site Use: 5. Neighborhood Characteristics 6. 7. 8. North: East: South: West: Access: Site Area: Project Data: Existing Building Area: New Building Area: SitePLN_rpt.doc JDA Group, LLC, and I.D. Kline Corp., 95 S. Tobin Street, Renton, WA 98055 Commercial Arterial (CA) Employment Area -Commercial (EA-C) Vacant Sixth Street short plat, zoned Residential-8 units/acre (R-8) Auto repair shop and espresso stand -zoned CA Chang's Mongolian Grill restaurant -zoned CA Single-family residential -zoned R-8 From Chang's existing parking lot off Rainier Ave. N 9,200 square feet (parking lot) of 20,012 sq ft parcel Area N/A N/A comments N/A N/A City of Renton PIB/PW Department > Prelimin: ~eport to the Hearing Examiner RAINIER A VE. MIXED-USE S. PARKING Lv-( (SITE PLAN & VARIANCE) PUBLIC HEARING DATE: MARCH 14, 2006 Total Building Area: N/A C. HIS TORICAUBA CKGROUND ACTION Zoning Comprehensive Plan Annexation Short Plat (Sixth Street) Site Development Plan (Rainier Station) Land Use File No. N/A N/A N/A LUA04-093, S-H LUA05-155, SA-H, V-H, LLA, ECF '~j LUA04-093 AND LUA05-133 Page 3 0'11 N/A Ordinance No. Date 5141 6/07/1993 4498 02/20/1995 1461 09/15/1963 N/A 11/04/2004 pending D. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE DEVELOPMENT REGULA TIONS (RMC TITLE IV): 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.B: Commercial Development Standards 2. Chapter 3 Environmental Regulations and Special Districts Section 4-3-050: Critical Areas Regulations 3. Chapter 4 Property Development Standards Section 4-4-030: Development Guidelines and Regulations -General Section 4-4-070: Landscaping Regulations Section 4-4-080: Parking, Loading, and Driveway Regulations Section 4-4-090: Refuse and Recyclables Standards Section 4-4-095: Screening and Storage Height/Location Limitations 4. Chapter 6 Streets and Utility Standards 5. Chapter 9 Procedures and Review Criteria Section 4-9-200: Site Plan Review 6. Chapter 11 Definitions E. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: 1. Land Use Element 2. Environmental Element 3. Transportation Element F. DEPARTMENT ANAL YSIS OF SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPLICATION: 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND SilePLN_rpt.doc City of Renton PIB/PW Department ) Prelimin: leport to the Hearing Examiner RAINIER AVE. MIXED-USE S. PARKING Lor SITE PLAN & VARIANCE ---LUA04-093 AND LUA05-133 PUBLIC HEARING DATE: MARCH 14,2006 Page 4 0'11 The subject project includes portions of two parcels (to be referred to as the South Parcel and the North Parcel). The applicant is proposing to construct a 27 stall surface parking lot with access drive, pedestrian connection and storm water management facilities. The filling of a Category 3 wetland on-site and off-site wetland compensation to a Category 2, piping of an existing watercourse, and installing retaining wall are also included on the south parcel development. The north parcel, which is not contiguous to the south parcel, would include wetland enhancement and creation, removal of uncontrolled fill, construction of an ecology block wall and wetland buffer averaging. The site is located west of Rainier Ave. South and north of an existing restaurant, Chang's Mongolian Grill. A request for a parking modification has been made by the applicant to increase the number of parking spaces for the restaurant. The applicant contends the parking lot is needed to support the restaurant by additional parking during peak hours, specifically the lunch hours and evenings of Friday and Saturday. Adjacent to the site is a auto repair with espresso stand to the east, to the south is Chang's, to the north is the approved but undeveloped Sixth Street short plat, and single family residential to the west. The site is zoned Commercial Arterial (CA) as designated on the City's zoning map and Employment Area - Commercial (EA-C) on the City's Comprehensive Plan. A utility easement exists on a portion of the existing south parcel and the adjacent restaurant parcel; however, reciprocal cross-access easements between the subject site and Chang's are required. The South Wetland and North Wetland are at the bottom of small ravines. The edges of both sites are bound by steep slopes that surface drain to a small watercourse. Existing vegetation includes maple, alder, cottonwood, fir and hemlock and an understory of blackberries and shrubs. One tree from the south parcel and four from the north wetland area are proposed to be removed. The applicant is requesting buffer averaging to reduce the required buffer of 50 ft for the North Wetland, to 25 ft on the east side in order to accommodate a future development proposal (Rainier Station). The applicant also requests a modification to the required wetland compensation timing, which would be reduced from a 12 month timeframe to be concurrent with filling the south wetland. Additionally, the applicant is requesting a variance from the Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Regulations for proposed vegetation removal and work within the required 25-ft buffer of the onsite watercourse/stream. The project is dependent upon approval of this variance, as the parking lot is proposed to be placed within the filled area of the South Wetland. The project is vested to its application acceptance date of August 12, 2004, and is not subject to the current Critical Areas regulations. 2. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and SEPA (RCW 43.21 C, 1971 as amended), on February 6, 2006 the Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non-Significance, Mitigated (DNS-M) for the project. The DNS-M included six (6) mitigation measures. A 14-day appeal period commenced on February 6, 2006 and ended on February 20, 2006. On February 20, 2006, the applicant appealed the DNS-M, and asked the Environmental Review Committee to reconsider and clarify the mitigation measures for silt fencing, wetland fencing and signage, and placement of an ecology block wall. The Environmental Review Committee issued a Revised DNS-M on February 23, 2006. A 14-day appeal period for the Revised DNS-M commenced on February 23, 2006, and ended on March 10, 2006. 3. ERC MITIGATION MEASURES Based on an analysis of probable impacts from the proposed project, the following mitigation measures were issued for the Revised Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated, dated February 23, 2006: 1. The project shall be required to be designed and comply with the Department of Ecology's (DOE) Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements, outlined in Volume II of the 2001 Stormwater Management Manual. 2. During site preparation and construction, the applicant shall install silt fencing with brightly colored construction flags to indicate the boundaries of the North and South wetlands and buffer areas adjacent to the proposed construction areas. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to SitePLN_rpt.doc -,' City of Renton PIB/PW Department ,. RAINIER A VE. MIXED-USE S. PARKING L'OT (SITE PLAN & VARIANCE) Prelimin: ~eport to the Hearing Examiner -LUA04-093 AND LUA05-133 PUBLIC HEARING DATE: MARCH 14,2006 Page 5 0'11 the review and approval of the Development Services Division and be completed prior to the issuance of construction/utility permits. 3. After the development of parking lot and associated site improvements, the applicant shall install permanent fencing (Le. split-rail fence or other approved barrier) and signage along the entire eastern edge of the North and South wetland buffers. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division. 4. The applicant shall provide the total buffer fill square footage and an update landscape plan illustrating the exact locations of where interplanting was installed on the South Parcel as part of the Wetland Mitigation Plan. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division. 5. In the event that archaeological deposits are found during construction, work shall stop and the contractor(s) shall contact the State Archaeologist at the State of Washington Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, phone (360) 586-3065. 4. STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS Representatives from various City departments have reviewed the application materials to identify and address site plan issues from 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. 5. CONSISTENCY WITH SITE PLAN APPROVAL CRITERIA As per RMC 4-9-200.E, "The Reviewing Official shall review and act upon site plans based upon comprehensive planning considerations and the following criteria. These criteria are objectives of good site plans to be aimed for in development within the City of Renton. However, strict compliance with anyone or more particular criterion may not be necessary or reasonable. These criteria also provide a frame of reference for the applicant in developing a site, but are not intended to be inflexible standards or to discourage creativity and innovation. The site plan review criteria include, but are not limited to, the following": A. CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, ITS ELEMENTS AND POLICIES: The subject site is deSignated Employment Area -Commercial (EA-C) on the City's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The purpose of EA-C is to provide for commercial uses requiring large amounts of land and/or high visibility and access to large' volumes of automobile traffic in areas outside of Centers and the Center Downtown designations. The proposal is consistent with the following policies intended to guide development in the EA-C land use designation: Policy LU-170. Individual development projects should be encouraged to: a. minimize curb cuts and share access pOints. The proposed parking lot shares the same curb cuUdriveway with Chang's Mongolian Grill to access Rainier Ave. North. Policy LU-174. Parking areas should be landscaped (including street trees, buffers, berms), especially along the roadways, to reduce the visual impacts. The proposal includes landscaped areas around the perimeter of the parking lot. Policy EN-B. -Achieve no overall net loss of the City's remaining wetlands base. The applicant is proposing to fill in a Category 3 wetland and compensation via wetland creation and enhancement to a Category 2 wetland in order to address code requirements and to maintain the same wetland square footage. Policy EN-9. -In no case should development activities decrease net acreage of existing wetlands. The applicant would provide wetland creation and enhancement to an off-site wetland to compensate for filling of an on-site wetland; thus no decrease of acreage would occur. SitePLN_rpt.doc City of Renton PIB/PW Department Prelimim ~eport to the Hearing Examiner RAINIER A VE. MIXED-USE S. PARKING LOI SITE PLAN & VARIANCE -LUA04-093 AND LUA05-133 PUBLIC HEARING DATE: MARCH 14,2006 Page 6 0(11 Policy EN -10.-Establish and protect buffers along wetlands to facilitate infiltration and maintain stable water temperatures, provide for the biological regime, reduce amount and velocity of run-off, and provide for wildlife habitat. Buffers along the wetland would be enhanced; however, the north wetland is proposed to have an ecology block wall separating the buffer from the wetland. B. CONFORMANCE WITH LAND USE REGULA TIONS The subject site is located in the Commercial Arterial (CA) zone as depicted on the City's Zoning Map. A variety of retail sales and services along high-volume traffic corridors, including medical offices and clinics, are permitted in the zone. The proposed surface parking lot would be an outright permitted use within the CA zone. The proposal's satisfaction of the applicable development standards of the CA zone are discussed below: Lot Coverage -There are no buildings proposed. Setbacks -The CA zone requires a minimum front building setback of 10 feet and no maximum setback from the street property line. No building is proposed as part of this application. Landscaping -The CA zone requires a minimum 10 foot landscaped setback from all street frontages. The site does not front any public streets. However, the perimeter of the parking lot is required to have a minimum width of five feet of landscaping. The parking lot is 9,100 sq. ft.; thus does not trigger the 5% landscaping requirement. The applicant is proposing to have an interplanting of plant materials around the parking lot. The landscape plan calls out a variety of native trees, shrubs and herbs to be determined by the Landscape architect or wetland biologist. The plan indicates that they would field locate plants within these areas. To ensure sufficient plants are installed, staff recommended as part of the environmental review a mitigation measure requiring a final landscape plan be submitted illustrating where and how many interplantings were installed. Buffer enhancement plant materials include: Vine Maple, Redstem Dogwood, willows, Red Elderberry; and Sword Fern, to name a few. The site does abut residentially zoned properties. The south parcel abuts R-8 to the north and west. However, due to the steep slopes and the wetlands, the side and rear yard landscaped areas would be provided for by the additional landscaping as part of the wetland compensation; thus the project complies with this development standard. Building Height -There are no buildings proposed as part of this development. Parking -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 applicant is requesting a parking modification to allow additional parking to support Chang's Mongolian Grill. Approval of the modification is made concurrently with the site plan approval. The parking ratio applicable to the site is: Eating and Drinking Establishments - 1 space per 100 sq. ft. Based on these use requirements and on the 3,500 net sq. ft. floor area, 35 parking spaces would be required to meet code. Currently there are 43 spaces on-site which is 8 greater than required. The applicant proposes to provide 27 additional parking spaces to total 70 parking spaces distributed between the two lots. The applicant's justification to support their request is as follows: In 2001, Chang's Restaurant took ownership of the facility. The facility is approximately 5,000 gross sq. ft. with a net area of 3,500 sq. ft. seating 140 patrons. The restaurant has been and is deemed to be successful with an ongoing stream of patrons during the busiest times (lunch) and evening hours of Friday and Saturday. They contend that potential patrons enter the parking lot and exit due to lack of parking and that the parking has become the de-facto cap on the growth of the business. To alleviate this cap on their growth, the restaurant has been looking for nearby locations to expand their parking. As no on-street parking is available or allowed and other sites are not available, the JDA Group SitePLN_rpt.doc r-~\ City of Renton PIB/PW Department _', Pre/imine. ,'eport to the Hearing Examiner . LUA04-093 AND LUA05-133 RAINIER A VE MIXED-USE S. PARKING LO f (SITE PLAN & VARIANCE) PUBLIC HEARING DATE: MARCH 14, 2006 Page 70'11 property abutting the restaurant property was identified as the best and only alternative by the applicant. Modifications may be granted by the Department Administrator for individual cases providing that a specific reason makes the strict letter of the Code impractical, and that the modification is in conformity with the intent and purpose of this Code and that such modification: a. Will meet the objectives and safety, function, appearance, environmental protection, and maintainability intended by the Code Requirements, based upon sound engineering judgment; and The applicant states that the existing restaurant does not provide adequate parking to support its business during peak hours and its format and popularity and continuing the limited amount of parking limits the potential economic development of the restaurant. The function, appearance and maintainability is met. Environmental protection is affected by the proposed parking lot by the filling of a wetland and piping of a watercourse. The applicant is proposing wetland compensation for the impacts to the on-site wetland by creating and enhancing an offsite wetland. b. Will not be injurious to other property(ies) in the vicinity; and The applicant states that the proposed parking lot is located on similarly zoned commercial property and is topographically isolated from other less intensively zoned properties nearby. The surrounding developed properties include the restaurant, auto businesses and an espresso stand. The residential areas are physically isolated due to the topography. The parking lot itself would not affect the surrounding properties. Parking currently exists for the restaurant and the additional spaces would maintain the associated use. c. Conform to the intent and purpose of the Code; and The applicant contends that providing sufficient parking for users of the restaurant is the intent of the Code by keeping the business viable and managing parking for the neighborhood. The Code does require parking dependent on the use proposed. Modifications to the code are permitted in order for unique circumstances, such as limited parking, and to provide for flexibility where justified. The additional parking meets the intent of the Code. d. Can be shown to be justified and required for the use and situation intended; and The applicant observed the existing traffic and parking patterns of the restaurant which confirms the need for additional parking. The additional parking appears to be justified for the continuing viability of the restaurant due to the constraint of the site and the surrounding development. e. Will not create adverse impacts to other property(ies) in the vicinity. As previously noted by the applicant, the site is isolated by topography and vegetation on the south, west and north and abuts an existing used car sales lot on the east. A parking lot is a permitted use in the zone and would not impact the other businesses in the vicinity. Staff recommends approval of the modification granted all other conditions and mitigation measures are complied with. Screening -There are no buildings proposed; thus screening is not applicable in this case. Pedestrian Connection -The CA zone requires a pedestrian connection to be provided from a public entrance to the street and in this case from the new parking lot to Chang's restaurant. The applicant is proposing to provide a four foot wide concrete pedestrian way flush with the pavement from the new parking lot to Chang's existing parking lot. Staff recommends as a condition of site plan approval that the applicant construct the pedestrian connection of a different material than the driveway to further SitePLN_rpt.doc , -, City of Renton PIB/PW Department , Pre/imine. :eport to the Hearing Examiner RAINIER A VE. MIXED-USE S. PARKING LOT (SITE PLAN & VARIANCE) -LUA04-093 AND LUA05-133 PUBLIC HEARING DATE: MARCH 14,2006 Page 80'11 define the separation of the automobile from the pedestrian and be clearly signed with text similar to "Yield to Pedestrians". C. MITIGATION OF IMPACTS TO SURROUNDING PROPERTIES AND USES The proposed development of the site as a parking lot is not anticipated to impact adjacent properties and uses. The filling of the wetland and piping of the watercourse may impact the surroundings. However, these issues can be appropriately addressed with mitigation of the wetland fill and an engineering design to address hydrology. The SEPA review addressed these environmental issues. The use is discussed within the site plan review. The properties to the west and north are zoned residential and are single family developments. These properties are isolated from the proposed parking lot by topography and existing vegetation. To the east is an existing used car lot and espresso stand and to the south is Chang's Mongolian Grill, all with same zoning of Commercial Arterial. The parking lot sited to the northwest of the business is to support Chang's Grill and would not be highly visible from the street. 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, including the Renton Municipal Airport. The airport also requires an avigation easement for noise and flyovers from airport traffic, which has been addressed in the site plan conditions. Potential short-term noise and traffic impacts would result from the initial construction of the project to adjacent properties. The applicant would be required to comply with existing code provisions that establish the allowed hours of construction activities for projects within 300 feet of residential uses to weekdays between the hours of 7:00 am and 8:00 pm. Construction activities are not permitted prior to 9:00 am on Saturdays and no work is permitted on Sundays. D. MITIGATION OF IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN TO THE SITE The applicant is proposing to fill a Category 3 wetland to provide for the construction of the 27 stall parking lot. A pedestrian connection would be provided to connect the main entry of the building to the public sidewalk and north to the parking lot. The proposal is expected to impact the site. Critical areas are present and have been discussed within the environmental review section of this report concerning slopes, wetlands and streams/creeks and compensation for impacts to the site. Construction activities related to the initial development of the project would be required to utilize best management practices through code requirements for an approved Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP). 2. As provided in the DNS-M Condition #2, a silt fence will be required, to be installed along all areas of the North and South wetlands that may be subject to erosion/siltation impacts from new construction and/or proposed mitigation activities. A permanent fence is required around the entire perimeter edge of the wetland buffer (including any newly created buffer) adjacent to the South Wetland construction area to provide awareness of the wetland location and prevent impacts from human activity. E. CONSERVATION OF AREA-WIDE PROPERTY VALUES The proposed development is not expected to decrease property values in the vicinity of the site. The development of the vacant site into a parking lot would include landscaping and infrastructure improvements including those related to surface water. F. SAFETY AND EFFICIENCY OF VEHICLE AND PEDESTRIAN CIRCULA TION Vehicular access to the site will be via a 22-foot driveway located at the northwest corner of the existing Chang's Mongolian Grill parking lot. The main portion of the Chang's parking lot has driveway access from Rainier Ave. N. SitePLN_rpt.doc City of Renton PIB/PW Department RAINIER A VE. MIXED-USE S. PARKING LOT (SITE PLAN & VARIANCE) PUBLIC HEARING DATE: MARCH 14.2006 Prelimir. ~eport to the Hearing Examiner J LUA04-093 AND LUA05-133 Page 9 0'11 Construction truck hauling hours are limited to between 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. under the Development Guidelines Ordinance in order to avoid conflicts with peak hour traffic. The Traffic Planning Section will review construction-related impacts prior to issuing final construction permits. G. PROVISION OF ADEQUATE LIGHT AND AIR Exterior onsite lighting, including security and parking lot lighting, would be regulated by code. Compliance with this code (RMC 4-4-075) ensures that all building lights are directed onto the building or the ground and can not trespass beyond the property lines. Staff does not anticipate that parking lot lighting would become an issue due to the siting of the parking lot and the adjacent uses provided code requirements are met. H. MITIGATION OF NOISE, ODORS AND OTHER HARMFUL OR UNHEALTHY CONDITIONS It is anticipated that the most significant noise, odor and other potentially harmful impacts would occur during the construction phase of the project. The applicant is required to submit a Construction Mitigation Plan that provides measures to reduce construction impacts such as noise, control of dust, traffic controls, etc. prior to any construction/building permits being issued. The proposed development does not appear that it would not generate any harmful or unhealthy conditions. I. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES TO ACCOMMODATE THE PROPOSED USE Fire Department and Police staff have indicated that the City's existing facilities and resources are adequate to accommodate the subject proposal. Water -There is an existing 12-inch water main located in Rainier Ave. N. The static water pressure at the street level is approximately 65 psi. The site is within the 270 Water Pressure Zone. The site is outside an Aquifer Protection Zone. No watermain are required to be extended. Water would be needed for the irrigation system and include the installation of a new water meter. Sanitarv Sewer and Storm Drainage -There is an existing 8-inch sewer main in NW 5th Place (portions of which have been vacated). The development of a parking lot will not require extension of sewer service. A Surface Water System Development charge based on a rate of $0.249 of the total sq. ft. of the new impervious surface area of the site. The fee is estimated at $2,187.96 for a total of 8,787 sq. ft. of new impervious (per the TIR) and is required to be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. J. PREVENTION OF NEIGHBORHOOD DETERIORA TION AND BLIGHT. The proposal would result in the construction of a surface parking lot with site improvements including landscaping, a pedestrian connection and lighting. No deterioration or blight is expected to occur as a result of this proposal. 6. STAFF ANAL YSIS OF VARIANCE REQUEST The applicant is requesting a variance from the Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Regulations for proposed vegetation removal and work within the required 25-ft buffer of the onsite watercourse/stream. The applicant proposes to fill a portion of the onsite Class III wetland (South Wetland), clear vegetation, culvert the onsite watercourse, and operate mechanical equipment for these purposes. A variance application was submitted on September 20, 2005 (LUA05-133). The project is dependent upon approval of this variance, as the parking lot is proposed to be placed within the filled area of the South Wetland. The South Wetland is located at the bottom of a small ravine, bounded by steep slopes that surface drain to a small watercourse. Existing vegetation includes maple, alder, cottonwood, fir and hemlock and an understory of blackberries and shrubs. One tree and understory vegetation is proposed to be removed within the 25-foot buffer. The project is vested to its application acceptance date of August 12, 2004, and is not subject to the current Critical Areas regulations. The variance request requires a public hearing and recommendation by the Hearing Examiner. SitePLN_rpt.doc City of Renton PIB/PW Department Prelimir\ ,Report to the Hearing Examiner RAINIER A VE. MIXED-USE S. PARKING LuT (SITE PLAN & VARIANCE) LUA04-093 AND LUA05-133 PUBLIC HEARING DATE: MARCH 14,2006 Page 100'11 1. Consistency with Variance Criteria Section 4-9-250B.5.a. lists four criteria that are required to be considered, along with all other relevant information, in making a decision on a variance application. A determination must be made that the conditions specified below have been found to exist: a. That the applicant suffers undue hardship and the variance is necessary because of special circumstances applicable to subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the subject property, and the strict application of the Zoning Code is found to deprive subject property owner of rights and privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity and under identical zone classification: The applicant contends that special circumstances apply to the subject site, which impose undue limitations on its development under applicable development regulations. Specifically, the applicant indicates that the presence of a wetland on the site and adjacent areas of steep slopes have constrained the buildable area of the site so that reasonable use is precluded without the requested variance. The topography of the site slopes steeply up to the north and south of the proposed parking lot. The applicant states that adhering to the 25-foot buffer requirements would create a protected area through the middle of the site with limited area outside of steep slopes, which would limit buildable area to a maximum 25-foot width on one side of the buffer and less than 25 feet on the other. These restrictions would prevent any reasonable commercial development from occurring consistent with the site's zoning and other developed properties in the immediate area. b. That the granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which subject property is situated: The applicant indicates that the proposed work within the buffer area will result in a paved area (parking lot), with stormwater runoff directed to a biofiltration swale and then to an existing conveyance pipe. The variance will permit extension of the existing stormwater conveyance pipe approximately 120 feet north of its current location, to culvert the existing onsite watercourse. Prior to receiving construction permits, the applicant will be required to demonstrate that removal of the natural detention provided by the wetland will not contribute to future downstream problems or flooding, and that the proposed stormwater pipe connection and the downstream system have sufficient capacity to serve the entire basin (future conditions) and build-out (reference proposed Plat Conditions #5 and 6). c. That approval shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitation upon uses of other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is situated: A parking lot is a permitted land use in the CA zone per RMC 4-2-070K. The project will be consistent with relevant development regulations in all other aspects. The applicant indicates that approval of the variance request would allow reasonable development of the site consistent with that allowed to other property owners, given the topographical limitations of the site and required buffers. d. That the approval is a minimum variance that will accomplish the desired purpose: The applicant contends that the request is a minimum variance needed in order to develop the proposal, due to the steep topography and limited buildable area. The parking lot will be limited to the south side of the parcel adjacent to existing development, which will minimize disturbance to undeveloped areas that would result from further extension of stormwater piping and placement of additional impervious road surface. H. RECOMMENDATION: SitePLN_rpt.doc City of Renton PIB/PW Department RAINIER AVE. MIXED-USE S. PARKING LOT (SITE PLAN & VARIANCE) PUBLIC HEARING DATE: MARCH 14,2006 Prelimineeport to the Hearing Examiner -LUA04-093 AND LUA05-133 Page 110(11 Staff recommends approval of the Rainier Ave. Mixed-Use South Parking Lot, Project File No. LUA- 04-093, ECF, SA-A, and the associated variance, Project File No. LUA05-133, V-H, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated that was issued by the Environmental Review Committee on December 28, 2005. 2. The applicant shall provide detailed landscape and lighting plans that shows proposed parking lot landscaping and lighting prior to the recording of the final site development plan, subject to review and approval by the Development Services Division. Lighting shall comply with RMC 4-4-075 and shall not create offsite glare that may interfere with aviation traffic. 3. The applicant shall be required to provide a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) designed pursuant to the Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements, outlined in Volume II of the 2001 Stormwater Management Manual, and to submit a Construction Mitigation Plan for review and approval by the Development Services Division, prior to issuance of construction permits. 4. The applicant shall submit a final wetland mitigation plan that complies with the Determination of Non- Significance -Mitigated, issued on December 28, 2005. The final plan shall include a five-year monitoring schedule for mitigation, with a maximum 10% cover of invasive plant species during the monitoring period. Per code requirements, wetland mitigation shall be conducted and shown to be successful for 12 months prior to proposed wetland fill impacts. The final plan shall include a detailed grading plan including at least two cross-sections through the wetland creation/restoration area, and a requirement that a qualified wetland biologist be present during grading of that area. As fill soils are removed, if the original wetland soils are revealed and found to be at an acceptable elevation for future wetland conditions, the grading plan will be field modified as approved by the wetland biologist in order to replicate original conditions as closely as possible. 5. A drainage analysis and design for this project is required to meet the standard of the 1990 King County Surface Water design manual. The report submitted with the application utilized a method for design of the bio-swale contained in the Department of Ecology 2002 manual. Approval of the construction plan is conditioned upon the applicant's demonstration that this method is equal or better than the King County 1990 design criteria for water quality facilities. The analysis shall also demonstrate that removal of the natural detention provided by the South Wetland area to be filled will not contribute to future downstream problems or flooding. 6. The preliminary design submitted with the application shows a 24" pipe connection to the downstream system. Prior to issuance of construction permits, the applicant shall provide additional analysis and verification to confirm that the proposed connection and the downstream 24" system, have enough capacity for the entire basin (future conditions) at build-out. 7. The applicant shall provide an avigation easement to the City of Renton Municipal Airport for noise and flyovers resulting from airport traffic, in a format to be determined by the Development Services Division and the Renton Municipal Airport. EXPIRATION PERIODS: Site Plan Approvals (SA): Two (2) years from the final approval (Signature) date. SitePLN_rpt.doc d J~:nI IHf I NO.1!>N/HSVM II -I 0 I lid 3sn03X1W • NVld )3)1 z ~ . ~.~~ 3nN3AV ~3INIVM I ! . fl., i o,f tlh h~ ~ ~ ~ C> ~ ~ /~ /l / ~ c:a:: .~ .,.. ~ _l ... _· __ .... ~-·--~-~ Exhibit 3 m x :T rr ;::::;: ~ DAT SOUTH ·PARYEL TOTAL PARCEL HOR)< AREA IMPERVlOUS AREA, EXISTING PROPOSED % OF TOTAL SITE LANDSCAPED AREA % OF TOtAL SITE EXISTING AND PROPOSED STfWG.1\.IRES TOTAL EXISTING I'E:lt.ANO r<t:tLAND FILL, ACTlJAL FILL PAPER FILL tOTAL FILL TREE GOUNT, EXISTING TO BE REl-IOVED Jp/ " -, -.. --~-...... --:: :-:~::~.~-,~-.. -~------ 61,486 SF 1:1,200 00 SF q,eso SF 15% 51,600 SF 85% NONE 16,600 SF 2Pl1 SF 1,514 SF S.5'lISF >25 I trw; , \ #) ~ o .... , , , , ~ , , " , '. \ ~\\ \·!··'rJ"/lIII" ... · " ~ \ \ \ \ '. •. "1\ , ' .. \"" , LI,t . '.'" • ,Il\ . ~\\\\\ 'm\ . I , I • \ ~ 1,1, I, r\ ~ \ ~ ~ "i' : I! ~ ~ ,t:: ... :...--..-:---~:------~:::~~~::..:.:--; ;' --::... ---- - -_"I,1'l9-~"-t _c:::::::::::-::-::;::::::::::::~ ',\' .. M /.//"......"."........-._- EXISTING RESTAURANT SITE ~ 'M- '" '. • SOUTH LOT AND SOUTH V'iETLAND FILL ~Nott~ III = 201 $ PHElII1INAKY· NOT fOR CONSTRUCTION !S"5£.--- ~ w z :J ~ zw-w"'~ ~~~ o:::w w~ -I: Z ~ ... ~. ~. " ...... ow ..... - :t:J b~U: -I:Jo :r::03 ~V) :JO ozl-: V)«~' - ---'_I~ SITE PLAN APPIIOVAL APPUCA110N A002 m X ::J 0-;::;: CJ'1 DATA NORTH PARC-EL TOTAL PARCEL t'IORK AAJ:.A IMPERVIOUS AREA, EXISTING PROPOSED 5i\·OF TOTAL SITE LANDSGAPED A.'<fA ill OF TOTAL SITE E~5n~AND PROPOSED STRlJCTVRES TOTAL EXlSnN6 I'E1l.AND I'£TLAND FILL, AC.TVAL FILL PAPER FILL TOTAL FILL TREE GOI.INT, EXISTING TO BE REMOVED LIMlT FII11iI'E eI.06. GONSTRl.JC.TION FINI5I<'FI1<4I.~ EXGAVAT{I 25'-0' 246,1SI SF q,200 SF 00 SF 00 SF 15llI 51,600 SF 05iI NONE 21,100 SF S.5'l1 SF 5.02& SF 5.02& SF >50 4 " " 1==::==:: I'EnANO !M'FER SUFFE§ RpAIL ~ ~T " /".-----,..,.- ...... --J"," -- NORTH ~ETLAND ENLARGJ'1ENT AND EN~ANGtv1ENT tN I" = 20' $ I, \ :;-;.~~ , . .,., ~-­~ w .~ :J ~ zw-~~~ <o~ o::~ !:!:!l: Z ~ t ~i<_ ... -"" .... "'j:' ~ oZ w J: Z~ofu ~~~zu o lii'5<~ Z~~ J: Z 7 W Ll \.. ~"'. ------,---.4\_-" Sm;PLAN APPR.OVAL APPUco.ll0N PHEU/1/NARY· NOTfORCONSTRfJCTION I AOO 3 I \ \ \ \ ) ~ ... -. :~ '.--J ~:/ _ 3sn 03Xlh 3nN3/\ 'if ~3INI'if~ (~I . ' ...... -. ~~. -.. ~ ~ z 5 .Jj <cD. ~() M ~:s OD. ~ <::::: ~ ~ ~ B • ~ ;~ '.<:: au '--~R ~ I "-. I~ ~ ~ rll ~ . I, ~ I ~ ~ !;;j gl ~ ,:~ i ~ IG .• i~ • t:Q II i rig .. IV Exhibit 6 m X ::r 0--...... .... 1= , VI VI ctr Q.~ Q.. ~ 3 Q. 1:i Q" ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~z .-. w~ ~ <IlZ :z ::ow a: 0 0 1= 'w :::J !S a '" ~ a: w Z ~ i ! RAINIER MIXED USE PARKING EXPANSION THE SOIJ'THWesT OUARTER OF 8EC'T1ON 7, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANO!: 5 EAST, WIlLAMETTE MERIDIAN .... ",. ""~,,~-.\c:rJY OF RENTON, KINO COUNTY, WASHlNGroN /; .,~" ", .. " -~~-Y (Ulf:~.L;{~ \ \ .. ~'tt, ,,,,,,.,, .~ -'l..-y _~9_....A\ \ T .E.S.C. NOTES, tm·~SEtIOJI'l:Of·SIIllCO.t. £ 2'. "1" VMIIIf. IU JUt. lD.1Im ~ allQ(tl[D 110 1WnARJ) fU: I\( soaw: PfrXC CNlWSlHtI, 1_ , A '!U IS tJICXlMDOu:tc ~ • ~ WLLICr.Il1!l' aT\' rT I!DflIII AQ:TO~FOIID'J,lttlllO(Fr;tJ.ftI~ 4..1I'(~!HC.l...AUT~RI!lMl.OCAtDI_N:Olttftlttl.ILL.Dml'IG I1ZU1O. K~!WiIL'GI'rIU.U1UtTt.r.aJI:JGPIIIOItlOO2mIIJtIICN"tlWlC1Ml ~ua.t[lI'II:Al1~~ .. lMf\Wcr"lCI.R5f'11/OtlOlKf~ 1. IU.ro&7JSMtt ... 'UULSMIU"Q'\PO$U)crrSl1tI'll .. ~LP:.\1DI. &. 0XJaiIAt[ 'QIi fUM'IIJI RP IItLC,UTQI cr 0IS'IMi mm Fa!.. i I INSPECTION SCHEDIiLEFOR ·ESC FACIUTIES ~!-,~"~ !lo.n ~ , , ; SITE PLAN ~ . ' \:.' '" 1 I"j r e· GRi.PIIIC SCAIB ~ r"""""" I . GllaIJllRJEt /''''' ..... ./ . l T.E.S.C. LEGEND @---@ ®$lt'AItICt.NlfIUI~@ ® flltlt,atma:@ ® OlMfUSlICCUIOIIIO,SlIIIUSlIeCOlDDlO.rm;:5(t1I1l1Q.1 @ tD/PIINafSlllllQ"R1IMR:1Sm:1c;IOtDOtRttW,mIMOOItIt: II:).fttQl1ll)lMtUSMlU.ElPDtlll"ftO.If'llU,1DI$IbI,ISIID_0I HnaJ. . ® .... "'" ® 1D1F'CRQ'J' I'CDaPftR sau @ ~"""'f_ j ~ ... :':':' ' BENCHMARK err crllJmlt SWIa CDrJICl m'IQW =::=-::_OOlOll. ...... (MaO!B). em cr fIXIOt U\I[T conIIIl pmn ZID RUDr~_SUiII'lI) ........ 21t1tc:rtlS1rrCS1'u:ctCl' aIICIIEIt sa:aur: PI' 11( 1Bf!lD( CI" IUiID A1DU samt lOCfJtDft f1IPI1t:1IM1Al.IIIITIlCOtlDtUUlM!llltlOll: ... 1ln'l1Dl-kOl1 fa< 0I5DtD $111M( ft IIJItInIt'sI caIO t:I CDam'1Il t:I f'OIQ 'QtlI' tr.(IJt)"SlDlUItFlCln'tlM.!IC" AZr:IImIQ mot "tat sa:trtQcUIA\£Q. 1IMlDI'''''' EROSION CONTROL NOTES. L I!EnIIIlIT aII$RICJDI tit 000JAIDIl CIm CIC:QRI. , AI[~IIttUICIlmBtt[lDQt1lCarrcrllDROfllPlalllOO' trPllllC'll:MS.ID:JllOOQJl t ILlUlmI7QE1t11;: MDNDSIS ~f'laJ!QQ)fCFJOCra:D or KFUII SlVUBtCUNlTfUCD_.fQD .aC85DIWDD.IIICI -- ~~:s,=:r::==nJ::~~C:S I'fQ, lllStRI:1QIS, OIIMU. at ~ fll.ll'ltL ~~~~ro.~=,~.J}:~un ~crt~~'4(U)fDJtS.IW.l.IIQ)9U1ITMIlDI. ~ ~ ~I 56 !~6, !I ~ ~II .I!;t ~ ~3: ~g aUg ~i q~d I I ~ ru '"' ~ I I I ~ I j. I : .•.• j ~~"f "RllIU.~eanJ:Q.POCIS_1II.OUOA1BlCl f91I oau:s 'IOQ.' ma. '1IC\'IIIIIa. (f .J rm .. ft IUUa. 11111 11 SU!l.CPES. t.'~_'oQ.~DnIIiJG."'I'Jllrr(l""·IOt­""G.WlIYSPlUJS*U IlUlQQmU 1I1.1'CInSG""'OaJ.MIIGISS.-maslOtlCCQmJluCfQln.. Inua..-uWROT'. OBiI _l'OII __ _n!1!llllVnIllU_ ~ ellRlCED FOR COMPI.IA/ICE 10 ern STAlllJARDS CITY OF RENTON OEPARTMEM'T' OP PUDUO WORKS ,,----. ="":'I;;;~~":iT~~"":'':= OT___ ::== DEMDLmON 8. T.E.S.C. PlAN C1.0 2 """'" "'---""--~ e """"""NAIl.""""""' .... "'" CALL 48 HOURS .... ""... ..._ .. ", .... ,-, -"'V""""""",''' "' ........ """ ....... _ .. """_"""'. BEFORE YOU DIG :; .... ,'.", _-. -.. III '~ ...... """''''''' ..... -~_ .. _1Il .. ""-L 1-800-424-5555 -.. __ 2 ... 7 ~ m X :J" 0-::+ co RAINIER MIXED USE PARKING EXPANSION THE 8OU'IliWEST OUARTER OF SEcTION 7. ToWNSHIp 23 NOFI1li, RANOE 6 EAST. WI\.I..AMETTE MERIDIAN '-\ OIW'l!lC SCALE I CITY OF REMoN, kINO COUNTY. WASHINGTON l' " .-_" ______ . __ ~ ks~~!,:,>,.,. T \ \ ~II.IIIW~\ ---....-T\j "\' \ ~ ~ ,,-' -. . ~ -. -. ·;==-,L.-.. ~.L .. ___ ~ ___ ,, ___ .. _._ .. __ .... , .... _,,_.1..." .~. Tff,ui~F/Q X~ ~~: .. 1&0'15; "" • "~ '''''>"IV' \' \ rCDllt".4U. (Wo-a '. "-." ... , .. ., r n"CQCc ".""",_", .... '.11'"""" . :::=:~f:rt?tJ "t '\ / ... \ - \ \ \ ~ \' - - -.,.~'--.-. YI/!mh" ~'t \' t '--- ----, '9.11 ~mIWA SITEPLAN --.-,.,-SCA.l..eI-OQU .... L 1IWRItr._ ... MIlt IDS ~ wa. ."1I"M ... LOS IIIAM U"'" cur cacmn. toIOJO.oJ:II-"wtCCWOSt.fllfIMAU,RIItftIDC URO ... 2.F\M'fIGNLCQtIncr ~-....r_'1II;lS ---... -.. HUK.lI'ftIDlO "-...:rIO -.... IIXISU1UZDPIIC -........ • T'lPtI-U'CI ""'~ . -.-t--an ... I~ :1 • IOU' CBI2, TYPE 2-84' SOIII.Crt:i r ;:=--, ..... \'DmQIc.OUJIoaIt IIIEIQCM G1ICiII.Dl1W IM ___ Q). ~ tDosnn CI1TcrIlDl:DUI'O~",,"_ ='~M':::P~4~,=~::"%~~M .\::..~ . :cm ... _fIOftnOTCQIIflII tlCDICII1r,.crf'I:IIDI"'-U~III"'. IIIQrtrTlUIU:IIQ"M1r.DlD1Il SlSClil " __ crfWG.tw:JQ:. """"""7$ i .1,---,.--,.._ ..... r--.. ···.-_ . '. -11 :1 ·I~_jl -t--H a ~I· ·~~~~r~ ~I I 'Gi!;;:',' rp I 1 I I (If I ,... .... STORM PROFILE 11 _ .... ~r .. I I i' \, .. ~ ~ i i ~ ~ ~ ~ I GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN C2.0 m X :J" 0-;:::;: CD ~ 15 ! !I~ qw 11 .11l! ~ ~r!l GRAPHIC SCALE k;-;wl;j..,J i· 01 t'lrftZt) I"". to n. RAINIER MIXED USE PARKING EXPANSION THE SOtJTi..Iwssr 0lJARTER OF SECT10N 7, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH. RANQE 5 EAST, WIU..AMETTE I.IERIOIAN CITY OF RerroN. Kt/Q COUNTy, WASHlNaTON " ,"p .------..... -. " // '-", .............. -.// ------7 _ 1-..... --{\.,\ -~-~'\ . . .~ fARGEL • q56A16000~:)1) ~':>~", ,., " '-----------,. ~~~=-~~{~~ IL--___ 137,'" I I; "I _'.'41 , , J \/ :; .' \ \_---,,- " ~ ~ ... ",i,' ~~ ,,----"-,,~ 1=~fl:·II;~R:sY~g~~ ml!IUtm I!'ImQ _ 1.800.424-5855 BENCHMARK ClTrrlllllmWD'OCDnIQ.CI'II:IIt 'G\T.4.~.-.c.eflC,It0l.1\II_1[1f.IS_II),COI'GDtDastttt art ar.1II;JCftJiI SUM'r CII:iN1IIIl. Nn 2Ia RUB,. JIIIISS =a-m"tco.H tIJt 1.1 tdTfl1afUlC(" CCIICI!Dt SIDIU are lit 'lllSfSlt" ........... 1ICUIL ~ ... tI ...... IDftJILCOI'IIQm,..... =..~ ~~ I.. \. &iiam ... ~o:ar.a . tie . YllUUICAD_I!IZ"IIUt" IIDrtcr.lbUtIIIltl:l:flDlllO."'''' _ A.'tO«. ""' ... • ... ,t ' ~\ ;':1' '::1:. :~\ 1 \\'9 ~\ ~ '\l._.~_ ~ \ \:. ~h . "·f'C • .tt.iI~-J) ''-CWIII UM,.IfN'Wj : .... CCIIIC"~.U(QJ't., ldnt:W.tlCllI·"no . : .. ~ " ~ 'l il Ii If 'j. Ih. i§j ~:!j I~ I i~ ~ iKe I ~ I ! I I ~ ! lIr~IEEI~U~" .. :~? j ""~ I I .... -1 :.::~~---::. ~:-~ I -..u. , ••• ___ ..... ~ ., "I ....... r-~-l~ ___ ~___ _7a..7 ,'" _-----:-::1 ---~--------- - --------- CJ~13th~ CJ114th SLID ~ CJ~15th st.ID DO ~ , c=;] 115th pI.ID ~ --'----.-.-.--- .-.---- ------------.~.--- --'-.---._-'---- --,--._--- --- t:=::::::=::~~116th st.D Do ~ r=iJ {17th st.ID r=J ; r=iJ !t7th pl.D 0 IM(P) ~ 1'---...,1 r-=======~ r=LI ~18th St. JD ...--..-----1 ~ k19t~ st.lD ..... _.Lh.I\~t ~ k20th StD ~~ ~ h21st s1.D J-b'-~~~ Is-122n~ St. S 123rd st [8 123rdl. S S 123rd PI fs 123r~1 PI. S 124th St ~ S1. IM(P) ___ -IleDton Ill..,. Umtlll 6 200 4~ E. ··3·· 1<4800 7 T23N R5E W 1/2 S307 Exhibit 10 CITY OF RENTON REVISED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA04-093, SA-A, ECF/LUA05-133, V-H APPLICANT: JDA Group, LLC & 10 Kline Corp. PROJECT NAME: Rainier Avenue Mixed-Use South Parking Lot DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and Administrative Site Plan review for the construction of 27 parking spaces within a surface lot associated with the adjacent Chang's Mongolian Grill restaurant. The proposal includes portions of two large parcels containing Category 2 and 3 wetlands. The Category 3 wetland would be filled to accommodate the parking lot, with wetland compensation proposed off-site that would include wetland creation, enhancement and buffer averaging. A variance from the Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Regulations is required for proposed vegetation removal and work within the 25-ft. buffer of the onsite watercourse/stream. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: LEAD AGENCY: MITIGATION MEASURES: West of 505 Ranier Avenue N & southeast of NW 6th Street The City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section 1. The project shall be required to be. designed and comply with the Department of Ecology's (DOE) Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements, outlined in Volume II of the 2001 Stormwater Management Manual. 2. During site preparation and construction, the applicant shall install silt fencing with brightly colored construction flags to indicate the boundaries of the North and South wetlands and buffer areas adjacent to the proposed construction areas. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division and be completed prior to the issuance of construction/utility permits. 3. After the development of parking lot and associated site improvements, the applicant shall install permanent fencing (i.e. split-rail fence or other approved barrier) and signage along the entire eastern edge of the North and South wetland buffers. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division. 4. The applicant shall provide the total buffer fill square footage and an update landscape plan illustrating the exact locations of where interplanting was installed on the South Parcel as part of the Wetland Mitigation Plan. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division. 5. In the event that archaeological deposits are found during construction, work shall stop and the contractor(s) shall contact the State Archaeologist at the State of Washington Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, phone (360) 586-3065. Exhibit 11 ERe Mitigation Measures Page 1 of 1 To: Gregg Zimmerman, Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator Dennis Culp, Community Services Administrator Lee Wheeler, Fire Chief Alex Pietsch, EDNSP Administrator From: Jennifer Henning, Development Planning Rainier Ave Mixed-Use South Parking Lot (Weaver) LUA04-093, SA-A, ECF/LUA05-133, V-H The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and Administrative Site Plan review for the construction of 27 parking spaces within a surface lot associated with the adjacent Chang's Mongolian Grill restaurant. The proposal Includes portions of two large parcels containing Category 2 and 3 wetlands. The Category 3 wetland would be filled to accommodate the parking lot, with wetland compensation proposed off-site that would include wetland creation, enhancement and buffer averaging. The subject project includes portions of two parcels (to be referred to as the South Parcel and the North Parcel). The applicant is proposing to construct a 27 stall surface parking lot with access drive, pedestrian connection and storm water management facilities. The proposal also involves the removal of noxious weeds; piping of an existing drainage ditch; installing a retaining wall; utility Improvements; and a parking modification. Proposed development on the South Parcel includes: filling of a Category 3 wetland on-site; off-site wetland compensation to a Category 2 wetland; piping of an existing watercourse; and installation of a retaining wall. Development on the North Parcel, which is not contiguous to the South Parcel, would include: wetland enhancement and creation; removal of uncontrolled fill; construction of an ecology block wall; and wetland buffer averaging. Renton Bible Church Addition (Ding) LUA05-162, CU-H, SA-H, ECF The applicant is requesting Hearing Examiner Site Plan Approval, Hearing Examiner Conditional Use Permit Approval, Hearing Examiner Variance Approval, and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the construction of a 14,797 square foot addition to an existing church structure. The subject site consists of two parcels, which total 81,099 square feet in area located within the Residential-8 (R-8) dwelling unit per acre zoning designation. Access is proposed to the site via a 30-foot wide driveway access off of Union Avenue NE. cc: K. Keolker, Mayor J. Covington, Chief Administrative Officer B. Wolters, EDNSP Director ® J. Gray, Fire Prevention N. Watts, P/B/PW Development Services Director ® F. Kaufman, Hearing Examiner S. Engler, Fire Prevention ® J. Medzegian, Council P. Hahn, P/B/PW Transportation Systems Director R. Lind, Economic Development L. Warren, City Attorney ® . , ',' CITY C" ~" ~ENTON,' ,PlanningIBuildin~ublicWorks'Departmeni : ',.' 1," Kathy Keolker,Mayor' . February 23, 2006 .Matt Weber '. AHBL, Ihc. . ,. 2215 N ~Oth Street· ste: #300 "; , . Tacoma, WA9840'3 ... , . SUBJECT: Rainier Avenue Mixed-Use Sout.h Parking' Lot tUA04-093, SA-A, ECF/LUA05-133, V~H . Dear Mr. Weber: . Gregg Zimmerman P;E., Ad~i1istrator , . . This letter is written on behalf of th~ 'ErwirqnmehtaL R~view COrnmitt~e (ERC~ '~(r advis~ you that they . . < .have completeQtheir review of the subject proj~ct and:haye issueda.REVISED.thresholc:i Determination " of Non~Significal1ce-Mitigated withf\l1itiga,tion:¥easures. Please {efer to the enclosed ERC Report and· ,'" ., Decision, S~ction C fora list of the Mitigation M~asures; " ' . . . . App~alsof the environmental deter~rri~ti6n"must 'be fU~c;J:ih\~htlng' 'on·6r·before 5:00 P,M Oh March· to, ,2006 .. Appeals, mustb$.fiie~ ih wr'iting~together wi~h,th¢, requjj'ed$75.00application fee with: Hearing ·Examiner, City of. RentorC1 055 :S6utt:i·GradY~Way, Renton, WN98055. App~als to tfieExaminer .. are governed by City of Renton MunlcipalCo'de S.ectlon4~8iftO;8'. . Additio~al iriformCltionregarding the . appeal process may be 'obtained' froin the l~etlton.GityGlerk'~~O'ffice,\(425}430-~51 o~ ',:. , ' . '. .'". ..' , ",' '" . ,.:", , . .l,' Please 'note,~that the Publ,ie lifearih9:whi~h, WCl~ ,previ~usly.s'che~l.iled, for :March l:;2006 has been rescheduled ·to Ma~ch 14, 2006. by.theR.eNon .Hearing,Exa/Tliner':.in.the Council Chambers on the . seventh~floo'r 'Of City Hall,: 1055 ,South Grady. Way, Rentery',-'WMllirgto'O', 'at9:00, AM ,t090nsider the Variance request. The' applicahtor representative(s)' of the ci'pplic'antis' required ,to· b~; present. at the public . hearing. 0 •• A' copy of ttie staff repprfwill·beniailed· to youp'riorfq .:the hearing. If the:Environmental Oeterminationis.appealed, the appe~I,wlll'beheClrd as part oqhispUblic:hearing. ,Y. • , • ."" • • • -. . t", • • ~ The pr,etedinginforrriation will assist Y(>l/i~'~pjannin~forimpl~lil~ht~tioO o~,your: ~roj~ct'~and '~n,aQle.yOU to . 'exercise your app'ealrights more fuliy. :ifyou choose to 'do so .. If. ,you have any cjuestionsor, 'desire 'clarification of the above, please call me at (425).430-7;382. ' . , .. /(t'·.i. '. "~" .... : '.,: " '. .'. . I .~' .. ' ,(n A. J# .. ' .' ..... , ..... ~~ 'KerL Weaver .' . Senior Planner . .... ; , cc: JDA Group,lLCc& 10 Kline'CQrp/Owner(s) .' '. ,'. .".: .... .' '. Rollaf1d pewing, fv1aiyJoCai"lson;'Ronnie & Roberta McDo,n'Cild;Bruce & Sue Gregg, . Sherondia HeneeOtis, Lee & !=leggy Christopherson; 9ai'l p.~urns I Party(ie's) of Record . Richard Wagner IC~ntaGt' , ",,' ..' , .. ", .'. EnClos.ure . ,;, " ~ ----'---'-:----:-~lO,.;..S~S ·:-:-So-'-u-th-G-r-ad-y';"'. W~a-y~. ~-=-R'"'-en-' £0-0-', ,-W-as-h-in-gt-'-on--':"9-S0-S-:"S.-, -'-..:....;..--...,....,.~ ,R EN ,T O'N , ~ This paper contains 50% recYcled material, 30% po~t consumer 'AHEAD OF THE CURVE --', , ";'-- '.;: >,-1: " , ,,' ,:CITYC ., RENTON' , , . . -.~ ~. ,J , PhinningiBuildirigIPublib Work$' D~partme'Iit , Gregg ZimniermilnP.E.:; AdminiSttator ' KllthYK~~lker,A1ayor February 2.3, 2006 Washington State " , Department of Ecology " Environmental ReView'Section PO Box 47703 ".' " <?Iympia, WA 98504-7'703 ., , ' Subject: , REViSED Enyiro'nmental Determinations ." . " , , " Transmitted herewith is a'coPY of the Revised Environmental Determination for the following pr6ject reviewed '. by the Ei1vironmeiltal· Review Committee (ERe) on 'February 21, 2006: . " . ' ;' " J , , REVISEDDEtER~INATIONOF NON-SIG'NiFICANCE -MrrIGATED ',' :', :, PROJECT.NAME: pROJEct 'NUMBER: LOCATION:':' DESCRIPti()~:: RainierAvenueMlxed-Use South Parking Lot, . , " LUA04-093, SA:A;ECF/LUA05~133, V~H ' , , West ,of 505 Ran'ie'r Aven~e N &' southeast of NW 6th Str~et t~eapplic'ant iis' rEique~ting~ f'nvironmental. (SEPAiRevie~ and; , Achninistrative' Site' '·Plan, ' lieview for a 27,-~paceparklrig '.,Iot' A: ' , 'portiori"oraCa~egory3 ,wetianc;fwould,beflliedWith offs'jtew~!lan,d: mitigation.Av~ri~nce from the tre~Cu~ing, ~n~ Land<C!,e'aring': ' Regulations.is:r~quired f~r w.ork' Within,th.e"25-ft,, bljffer,of ,th~ " onsita watetco~rs~/stream.~. . , '. .'., " .. . -j' ',' .. , ... ·-... '-·r~"·-,~: .',~.' -~~.~,.;"",>.,.;','~":'" ~," ," .,,:·"·-r· ':.~:."." Appeals of the'environm.ental, det~rmin'ati,on;i11ust,t,le filed~in' wr.lting::on or ,befo~e 5:00: PlVt on .'March·tO; 2006; ,AJ:iPealsrnustbe, filed in I,\iritingJ9getherwith th~ required$75.00application:fee w,ith: " 'Hearing Examiner,-<Clty,6f:Renton; 1055Sdut~ 'Grady Way; Renton, WA ga05Q': Appeals ,to ,the E)(~fhlrier. . , 'are go.verned by' C'ityofRehton Municipal Coqe Section 4~8-11 O.B., AClditiqna! info·rmalion. regarding ..the' ,appe~lI processinC3Y"OebDtain~d(rom theRebtQrf~ity Clerk's Office; (425):430-6510.:' :",.;.:.: '.~, ' .!'.: ,.if:YoU, have questio:ns,please ,callrrie at(425)~43Q~7~82. , ~.,. ~ .. • < ' • • i ~, For 'the EnvirorimentaiHeviewCommitfee, • y~~~. iFV;··, ::', -,'. "',,' '.' '. ", ," .~,., " .;., _'l. .', , . ' . ~-~:' .' , , , ' ";. ;', ,.' " . "Kerr We~v'er 'SeniOr Planner' , ','. ".; --' '. : " cc: ',' King County~a~iewaterTreatrrient.Division ' VVDFW,StewarfReinbold . ',' . _', " , , David F. Di~tzman;, Department of Natural Resources ' W,SDOT, Nortnw~~.t ~egTori' " ',,' " , Du~amish TrlbalOffice ' _, ". • , 'Kar~n Walter; Fisheries, Muckleshoot'lndian Tribe (Ordinance). Meliss~ Caiver:t, MUGkleshoot.Cul~uraIResq4j"cesProgram . US Army Corp. of En'gine~rs "",,., . '~' . Stephanie I<tamE!r;'office of Archaeology ,& ;Hist6ric' Preservation , '.'" '. '. ", .. , " , .',,' ,'. , . ~ " '. . ~' . " , ' ", :." .. -...... . ; .,. ,~: Enclos'iJfe -, " .: I'~ ----'--,.,........:.---.,.--:-~.--'l o-S...:.s--'So-·u-tl1;...' ~....;,' """'ad-y-'W-a-'-y--'-, --:R--'e~";"to-o"':', W-, -as-h-io-"gt-oo---'-9-80-S:-S -------'--'--.. ~. ~ , -'. ' , AHEAD 'OF TIlE CURVE ~ Thjspaper"';ntajns50~/.'~C'edmateria,,30%post~nsumer . , . ' CITY OF RENTON REVISED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) APPLICATION NO(S): LUA04-093, ECF, SA-A / LUA05-133, V-H APPLICANT: JDA Group, LLC and I.D. Kline Corp. PROJECT NAME: Rainier Avenue Mixed-Use South Parking Lot DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and Administrative Site Plan review for the construction of 27 parking spaces within a surface lot associated with the adjacent Chang's Mongolian Grill restaurant. The proposal includes portions of two large parcels containing Category 2 and 3 wetlands. The Category 3 wetland would be filled to accommodate the parking lot, with wetland compensation proposed off-site that would include wetland creation, enhancement and buffer averaging. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: LEAD AGENCY: West of 505 Rainier Ave. N. and southeast of NW 6th Street The City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). Conditions were imposed as mitigation measures by the Environmental Review Committee under their authority of Section 4-6-6 Renton Municipal Code. These conditions are necessary 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 10, 2006. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11 O.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. PUBLICATION DATE: DATE OF DECISION: SIGNATURES: February 24, 2006 February 21, 2006 ~/~//O cj /~~~~~~~ 'JLge Date ' v Lee e er, Fi Date Fire Department , ,.' ~ . ' .. :'" .... " ":., ,.,. .. .'. .... '.' .. ' .,t· ._r .,' .' CITY o.FRENTON: , REVISEODETERn,n'NAt'IONOF N()N~SI'GN:n:ICANeE-MITIGATEO . . . o/~ M'IJ"IGATION:MEA$URE.S,:' . . '.,', . -. '.~ , .' . :... '.,' ,.', . ';APPLICATION NO(S):" LUA04~093, SA-A, ECF/LUA05~t33; V-H . . ,.':. '. ", .:. '". " ." '.~ ,.:'_." .... :'JDAGroup, LLq &'10 Kline Corp:, . ,APPLICANT: . . ~ .' . ,.' 'p~OJECr NAME: . " .... ' .. ' RainierAvenue Mixe~-Us~ South.,parkingLot, · '.~' ,qE~CRIPTlqN OF PROPO~AL::" " . Th,e applicant is '. ·reque.stirigEnvi~b~menfal: (SEPA)· R~vi~w ,ari4 .. '. " Administrative Site . Plan review'for ,the':co~$truction . of ·27' parking' spaces 'withina surface I()t assoCiated with :ttie' ~ ... . ", ,adJacent· Chang's ' Mongoli~~:'(3'rjlr restaurant Th~' prop,osal',includes portions. of~o . large par<~,~I$ containing. , Category 2Cind 3 wetlands;:Th~C~tegbry3 wetland wO!Jlqbefilled toatcoitunodate the. parkirig::lot; with wetland , .' compensation propos'Sd dff-sit~: that, would;includewetl~nd ,CrElation;enhal')'ceiTient and buffer averaging.' A ' , ' variance from. the Tree Cutting' and 'Land Clearing Regulations is, required for 'proposed vegetation removal'arld . worK within.the 25-ft. bufferof1lleAnsite watercourse/strearn; " . . W~§tOf:5@5''Rani~rAvEmue N& sodthea'st ofNW 6th·Street.: -.f"· .".\:" """-;' '. LOCA lION OF PRoPosAL: :LI;AOAG~NCY: . . :, .:<}~I:'~·J"~~City:qfRento~~';:~'(~};;'i1" ...... . ...... ,. ... •. · ,', ., . , .,::~t,;(" .Departroenf~,of,plai1r:1ing/~~i1(jir;lg/publitWorks· , ... , , :' ;;~\:, .' \OevefOpmerit:Plannir)g.,.Secti9rR~>·· , .. ' " " ,,"M~;i~~+ION:MEASURES: ..• ' If::~;~I?>!f'' " " 1:~~D?¥i2:;;.,i~):(~;" "";:'<:'~>;:;::\;~':~\t .": ;',.' ", ;, .. ., 'J, . Th~ project shall be req'uired td'-be 'd'e~igned :~nd~t~~i:npJY :vJittl the;~pepartnfient 'of E;cology's (DOE) ErosJon' and . :·SediineriCGontrol Requiremeritsr:ot;ltliiledin '.\/01i}m~~;flfo't"ti:lei260~'Stbrmwater~ahagenient.ManuaL .. ',", , . . / .. ~' ,.:.:.'. ~«' ... ' .' ' . ,' .. ~:~: .. ~~~ft~);·'·;.:~·' .. ;'.'::'~~:i}~<:·~~,J'l~f:5gt~t3::;!:~?K~~~H;;~:::"'· ... <' ,:t ~~~~~K, '.f.'~;.:, ' .. ~ .. ' . .:: .. '.': ":' "'. '~.' ~ .:. ... ' ·,2, . Dud6g,site,preparation and con$~~uctii;>n:~,theqlppliq~nt ~n'aJ.til')stallsilt;fendirigWJth :brigntly coloredconstrubtioriflags .. '. .' , . . • , .. , .'''' ..... ' • -,.~ .•.. ~~ .. , . .'.,;~\ " .. ~ •.. ~-J;"i • " . ~. . " l:~" '. ',' .. ."'." ,~ .• , -. to ilidiqatetheboundaries'of,the)Nor'th and SQl!t~!Wl:!tland~~ar:)~:fbufferareas.;aqjacent to the proposed co.nsUwction., ,.... . , . .. ~ ~~\.,~ .. ". "' ~, . '."' "".? .-.; ~.~~ . ':y"'R ,"';A'.. .". '}-'" • ~'~'. • • • ',.. •• ' •••• ,.... • · .: ~r~~s.<Thesatisfaction'.df .this. req9iretn~nt:shallbestjbje'9t t(f;th~ r~View,a,hq~approvar 91 the 'Development;Services ' , .. ;Oivi~iOn:~nd be completed prior,to'::~~eiis§,y,~nc~of constructign/utility;~erri1it~.f' \' ...... .' ."'" .', . . : ',:" , " .;:.,: ,~""""'., " "~"'. ;\~.{ ','.;,;i.tf.· ,~" ':~~~ ' ..... '.' '. : ..... ..:y;~ .. ,:"".:.,,_ ... :"+ .. "."~./' ...... , '.' ." . '. .~, ~ .:": .:!. ; .. :'!'~".'"'' . ;,;~,~ .. ,Afte.r:th~'development of parking 'lot;;8I:\d a~sociated<site'irn'prO:v¢ments/tt:1e applicant. shall' installpermaneritJenCing . , " :Ji:.e;·'5prlt~rail,fe.hce'.or otherapprhve~~~'rtief) anp~~~igllag~~a'r.ohgjt1~.'i~ntire·e~ast~rQ ~e,cfge. of. t~e.Nor:th,a.~d :S0u,th .. '~w~tlflhd bYffers; The, satisfa'ctioh 'Of.thisi~qlJiteme[lfst!aIFb~}subj~,RtjtO the ·re~iewC3.od approval of the:peveI9pm~nt .{~1~!~~~'~:ivi~ion. . "". ,:. , . ,,"';\<':t.~f'i;:;{~;,~;:~!f,;~;,~~:J?" . . .' : .. :~.,': .,.' ". .,;,':',,:"J/'. · . 4: Th~,.appliCC1nt shall provide the Jotal,b.uffer fill. squ8refQQ.tage. ,alip an updatela~qscapep,lan :ilhistrating::JhE;(~xact-.,' .I6:catlon's.::of Whereinterplanting was~installed. onth~;'$outh' Pargel .as. part.of:the:We.tlandMitigatidi1;F?lah:\The ;safisfactio'n; of this requiremerit shallbe:5ubJect to the review and approval: of the OeveiopmeritServices,l::;>i.visiorl'.<' .,." . .$,;~,)n::t~~·~ev~nf lhatarchaeological' d~ROSi.ts·are. found'qurin'~ ·'conStruction, yvorksh~';i ~tQP ~;'d' 'thecdn~~act~~(i)~~~Ji'" . · .:' .. ' ,:conta'c~.the State Arch~eologi~t~t t~~ State ofWashingtoricQ.ffieeof Archaeology and Hi.storic Preserva'tiQIi",.phone .' .. ~360X$86~3065. ','.' . "::; .. .. . '", '. ,'. ; '.~"> :'. . ' , • I.' " " ...... " .. I, • ., · './ "'.':'" . ~.. .' ,: , , ' . :,-.'; ... .' '. ~:. .... .'. ':, ' ~.; 'I' • • • ';"~ :.,': • 4 , ";.". ,'! ",:: ' .. :.,.'. ~:. '~" .: -.~ ~ '! ..•• ,: ,: ' • ERC';MitigatidnMe.a~ures :",. , ; " .',,' \.. " ... ' ';~ I '. " .. .. '., '.,:. '." " ." . .. , .... ;"., .' . .... '. . "" f· .',:' ~. .': " ., .... , .. ..' '. ~ .' . ~ . , , , .... ~ -'.' .... , , ..•. ., '- . l' 'J" •••. ".' .. ,). STAFF City of Renton REPORT Department of Planning / Building / Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE A. BACKGROUND ERC MEETING DA TE February 21, 2006 Project Name: Rainier Ave. Mixed Use South Parking Lot (Chang's Parking Lot) -Site Plan Review (LUA04-093, ECF, SA-A) I Rainier Ave. Mixed Use South Parking Lot (Chang's Parking Lot) -Tree Cutting Variance (LUA05-133, V-H) Owners/Applicants: JDA Group, LLC and 1.0. Kline Corp. 95 South Tobin St. Renton, WA 98055 Contact: Richard Wagner, Baylis Architects, 10801 Main St., Ste. 110, Bellevue, WA 98004 File Number: LUA04-093, ECF, SA-A Project Manager: Keri Weaver, Senior Planner LUA05-133, V-H Project Description: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and Administrative Site Plan review for the construction of 27 parking spaces within a surface lot associated with the adjacent Chang's Mongolian Grill restaurant. The proposal includes portions of two large parcels containing Category 2 and 3 wetlands. The Category 3 wetland would be filled to accommodate the parking lot, with wetland compensation proposed off-site that would include wetland creation, enhancement and buffer averaging. Continued on next page Project Location: West of 505 Rainier Ave. N. and southeast of NW 6th Street Site Area: South Parcel-13,200 sq. ft. of a 67,486 sq. ft. parcel (1.55 acres total) North Parcel-9,200 sq. ft. of a 246,731 sq. ft. parcel (5.66 acres total) RECOMMENDA TlON Staff recommends that the Environmental Review Committee issue a Determination of . Non-Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M) SITE Project Location Map ERC_ ChangPkgLOT.Feb2006.doc City of Renton PIBIPW Deparlment RAINIER AVE. MIXED· USE S. PARKING LOT (SITE PLAN & VARIANCE) Environmb".. ..... ' Review Committee Staff Reporl LUA·04·093 AND LUA05·133 ERC REPORT of February 21, 2006 Page 20f8 PROJECT DESCRIPTION CONTINUED: The subject project includes portions of two parcels (to be referred to as the South Parcel and the North Parcel). The applicant is proposing to construct a 27 stall surface parking lot with access drive, pedestrian connection and storm water management facilities. The proposal also involves the removal of noxious weeds; piping of an existing drainage ditch; installing a retaining wall; utility improvements; and a parking modification. Proposed development on the South Parcel includes: filling of a Category 3 wetland on-site; off-site wetland compensation to a Category 2 wetland; piping of an existing watercourse; and installation of a retaining wall. Development on the North Parcel, which is not contiguous to the South Parcel, would include: wetland enhancement and creation; removal of uncontrolled fill; construction of an ecology block wall; and wetland buffer averaging. . The site is located west of Rainier Ave. South, and north of an existing restaurant (Chang's Mongolian Grill). The applicant has requested a parking modification to increase the maximum allowable number of parking spaces for the restaurant. The applicant contends that the new parking lot and additional parking spaces are needed to support the restaurant during peak hours, specifically the lunch hours and Friday/Saturday evenings. Adjacent development includes: East: Auto repair shop and espresso stand West: Single-family residential (R-8 zoning) North: Steep slopes on undeveloped land under the same ownership (CA zoning). South: Chang's Mongolian Grill restaurant. The site is zoned Commercial Arterial (CA) as designated on the City's zoning map, and Employment Area - Commercial (EA-C) on the City's Comprehensive Plan. A utility easement exists on a portion of the existing south parcel and the adjacent restaurant parcel; however, reciprocal cross-access easements between the subject site and Chang's restaurant will be required. The South Wetland and North Wetland are at the bottom of small ravines. The edges of both sites are bound by steep slopes that surface drain to a small watercourse. Existing vegetation includes maple, alder, cottonwood, fir and hemlock and an understory of blackberries and shrubs. One tree from the south parcel and four from the north wetland area are proposed to be removed. In addition to the parking modification request, the applicant is also requesting buffer averaging, and a modification to the required wetland compensation timing, from a 12 month timeframe to be concurrent with filling of the south wetland. A variance is also requested from the Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Regulations for proposed vegetation removal and work within the required 25-ft buffer of the onsite watercourse/stream. The project is dependent upon approval of this variance, as the parking lot is proposed to be placed within the filled area of the South Wetland. The project is vested to its application acceptance date of August 12, 2004, and is not subject to the current Critical Areas regulations. B. RECOMMENDA TION Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommends that the Responsible Officials make the following Environmental Determination: DETERMINA TION OF NON· SIGNIFICANCE Issue DNS with 14 day Appeal Period. ERC_ChangPkgLOT.Feb2006.doc DETERMINA TION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGA TED. xx Issue DNS-M with 14 day Appeal Period. Issue DNS-M with 15 day Comment Period followed by a 14 day Appeal Period. City of Renton PIBIPW Department RAINIER AVE. MIXED-USE S. PARKING LOT (SITE PLAN & VARIANCE) Environm&, ...... 1 Review Committee Staff Report LUA-04-093 AND LUA05-133 ERG REPORT of February 21, 2006 Page 30f8 c. MITIGA TION MEASURES 1. The project shall be required to be designed and comply with the Department of Ecology's (DOE) Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements, outlined in Volume II of the 2001 Stormwater Management Manual. 2. During site preparation and construction, the applicant shall install silt fencing with brightly colored construction flags to indicate the boundaries of the North and South wetlands and buffer areas adjacent to the proposed construction areas. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division and be completed prior to the issuance of construction/utility permits. 3. After the development of parking lot and associated site improvements, the applicant shall install permanent fencing (i.e. split-rail fence or other approved barrier) and signage along the entire eastern edge of the North and South wetland buffers. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division. 4. The applicant shall provide the total buffer fill square footage and an update landscape plan illustrating the exact locations of where interplanting was installed on the South Parcel as part of the Wetland Mitigation Plan. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division. 5. In the event that archaeological deposits are found during construction, work shall stop and the contractor(s) shall contact the State Archaeologist at the State of Washington Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, phone (360) 586-3065. Advisory Notes to Applicant: The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the environmental determination. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for environmental determinations. Planning 1. 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. Building 1. Parking stalls must meet ADA requirements. 2. Building permit required for retaining walls greater or equal to four feet (4 ft.) in height. Fire Department 1. Maintain turning radius for fire equipment. A 45 ft. outside and a 25 ft. inside radii. Plan Review -General 1. All plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards. 2. A construction permit is required. The permit requires three copies of the drawings, two copies of the drainage report, a construction estimate, application and appropriate fee (this may be submitted at the sixth floor customer service counter). Plan Review -Surface Water 1. A drainage analysis and design for this project is required to meet the standard of the 1990 King County Surface Water design manual. A cursory review of the report submitted with this application determined that it met the criteria except for the following: The report submitted with the application utilized a method for design of the bio- swale contained in the Department of Ecology 2002 manual. Approval of the construction plan will be conditioned on showing that this method is equal or better than the King County 1990 design criteria for water quality facilities. 2. The preliminary design submitted with the application shows a 24" pipe connection to the downstream system. It will be necessary to further verify that the pipe systems being installed, and the downstream 24" system, have enough capacity for the entire basin (future conditions) build-out. This analysis and verification will be required prior to approval of the utility construction plans. 3. It appears that the area being filled previously provided some natural detention. And it is understood that the disturbed wetlands will be mitigated off-site (within an adjacent drainage basin). However, it must also be shown that the removal of the natural detention will not contribute to future downstream problems or flooding. 4. The S stem Develo ment Char e shall be at the rate of $0.265/s uare foot of new im ervious the TIR re orts ERG_GhangPkgLOT.Feb2006.doc City of Renton PIBIPW Department RAINIER AVE. MIXED·USE S. PARKING LOT (SITE PLAN & VARIANCE) ERC REPORT of February 21, 2006 Environmb. ~/ Review Committee Staff Report LUA·04·093 AND LUA05-133 Page 4 of 8 that a total of 8787 square feet of new impervious will be added. This would result in a fee of $2328.55.) This fee is payable upon recording of the final site plan and is subject to change. D. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS In compliance with RCW 43.21 C. 240, the fol/owing project environmental review addresses only those project impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and environmental regulations. 1. Earth Impacts: The City's Critical Areas maps depict the presence of steep slopes and erosion hazards on site. Slopes equal to or greater than 40% are to the immediate north of the proposed parking lot. The applicant requested an exception through modification for these slopes of which a portion are on the subject site. The portion of the slopes which are approved for a modification are located at the northeastern corner of the site. The remaining onsite slopes are not included in the exception. As part of the previous review of the slopes, a geotechnical report was submitted and has been re-submitted as part of this project as described below. The applicant submitted a Geotechnical Report prepared by The Riley Group, Inc., dated June 2, 2003 with the land use application. The report addressed soils, groundwater, landslide hazards including historical slide activity, foundation systems and site preparation. The report discussed conditions for multiple parcels under the same owner. The report is assumed to address similar conditions for the subject site. The geotechnical report discussed the proposed commercial development along Rainier Ave. N. and stated that potential impacts to the slopes would be at the toe. Likewise, the proposed parking lot would abut the toe of slopes located to the north and south of the lot. The lot appears to be as close as 2 ft from the toe of the slope. The geotechnical report stated that no cutting into the toe of the slope should be done due to the steepness of the slope, which is prone to surficial creep and ravelling over time. The applicant indicates that no excavation will occur at the toe of the slope. In order to reduce the potential for erosion and control sedimentation to the site and to adjacent properties, staff recommends additional mitigation, including a requirement that the project be designed and comply with the Department of Ecology's (DOE) Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements, outlined in Volume II of the 2001 Stormwater Management Manual. Mitigation Measures: The project shall be required to be designed and comply with the Department of Ecology's (DOE) Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements, outlined in Volume II of the 2001 Stormwater Management Manual. Policy Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations. 2. Surface Water Impacts: The site drains to Lake Washington via the West Hill drainage sub-basin. The applicant submitted a Storm Drainage Technical Information Report prepared by AHBL, dated June, 2004. The report states that current runoff from the site and upstream is discharged through an existing culvert that connects to the storm system in Rainier Avenue. The culvert is proposed to be extended by this project, in order to continue to collect runoff from the existing ditch and convey it downstream. The upstream analysis addresses the storm system located in Taylor Place NW, which discharges to a ditch west of the site. This ditch conveys the flow through the project site to the existing culvert. The report indicates that the upstream drainage pattern would be maintained in the existing system. The drainage analysis and design for this project is required to meet the 1990 King County Surface Water design manual (KCSWDM). Staff review indicates that this criteria is met, except for the use of a bio-swale designed to the Department of Ecology 2002 manual. During construction plan review, the applicant will be required to justify how this method is equal to or better than the 1990 KCSWDM design criteria for water quality facilities. ERC_ChangPkgLOT.Feb2006.doc City of Renton PIBIPW Department RAINIER AVE. MIXED-USE S. PARKING LOT (SITE PLAN & VARIANCE) ERC REPORT of February 21, 2006 Environmb. ...1 Review Committee Staff Report LUA-04-093 AND LUA05-133 Page 50f8 Additionally, staff review indicates that the 24-inch pipe connection to the downstream system will require further analysis and verification that the system would have enough capacity for the entire basin (future conditions) upon build-out. This will be required prior to the approval of the utility construction plans. Furthermore, the wetland area to be filled provides some natural detention. Offsite mitigation for this wetland fill is proposed within an adjacent drainage basin. The applicant must also demonstrate that the removal of the natural detention will not contribute to future downstream problems or flooding. No further mitigation is recommended; however, the applicant is required to address these issues as stated above prior to utility construction plan approval. (Also see following discussion on Wetlands.) Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation is recommended. Policy Nexus: N/A 3. Wetlands/Streams Impacts: The applicant submitted a Wetland Delineation & Mitigation Report prepared by The Riley Group, Inc., dated July 22, 2004. The purpose of the study was to delineate wetlands, evaluate the functions and values of wetlands and any streams, determine classification and buffers, determine impacts and present a conceptual mitigation plan. The study delineated an approximately 16,600 sq. ft. Category 3 wetland within the ravine on the parking lot site (the South Wetland) and an approximately 21,700 sq. ft. Category 2 wetland on the north parcel (the North Wetland). A portion of the South Wetland is proposed to be filled (3,591 sq. ft. of impact includes 2,017 of wetland and 1,574 of buffer). Mitigation of these impacts is proposed to be off-site, to the North Wetland, at a 1.5: 1 ratio resulting in 3,591 sq. ft. of creation and 1,800 sq. ft. of enhancement. The applicant is requesting buffer averaging to the North Wetland to accommodate future development of the parcel to its east. According to the wetland report, the South Wetland meets the criteria as a palustrine emergent Category 3 wetland. The wetland is classified due to the size (greater than 5,000 sq. ft.); severe disturbance, including the dominance of invasive species within the wetland, specifically Japanese knotweed and Himalayan blackberry; fill material within the wetland at the east end as well as woody debris dumping; severe under- cutting of the watercourse; and outlet modification (watercourse entering a culvert). The applicant has previously undertaken noxious weed abatement of the Japanese Knotweed. . The North Wetland is classified as a Category 2 wetland in that it lies within the headwaters of a watercourse. This watercourse is piped to Lake Washington and has minimal stream function. Although the eastern end of the wetland was historically filled, the wetland area shows liUle evidence of human related physical alteration such as diking, ditching or channelization. On December 13, 2005, the City's wetland consultant, The Watershed Company, provided an analysis of the wetland delineations, classifications, and proposed mitigation measures. This analysis indicated that the South Wetland should be considered a Category 2 wetland as it is located at the headwaters of a watercourse. The classification has not yet been resolved. If the South Wetland is determined to meet the criteria for a Category 2 wetland, the required buffers and proposed mitigation measures will be increased according to code requirements (RMC 4-3-050). The flowing water features on the site are unlikely to support salmonids. The primary source of hydrology is discharge from on-site wetland and upland environments. An underground culvert system connects the watercourses to the city's storm drainage system. The applicant is requesting buffer averaging of the North Wetland's code required 50 foot buffer. The wetland report indicates that the North Wetland's existing buffer area on the east side is nearly non- functional since the area lying within 50 feet of the wetland edge contains fill, debris and blackberries and would not not support desirable native vegetation. The proposed increase to the buffer area on the south edge of the North Wetland 100 ft wide at its widest point, with a total area of 5,028 sq. ft. ERC _ ChangPkgLOT. Feb2006.doc City of Renton PIBIPW Oepartment RAINIER AVE. MIXED-USE S. PARKING LOT (SITE PLAN & VARIANCE) ERC REPORT of February 21,2006 Environmb. AI Review Committee Staff Report LUA-04-093 AND LUA05-133 Page 6 of B To ensure that disturbance to the wetland and buffer does not occur during and after construction, staff recommends that silt fencing be installed around the wetland and buffer during construction and permanent fencing be installed after construction. The applicant is proposing to install a 6-ft high chain link fence along the west edge of the reduced 25 ft. wetland buffer along with signage. From review of the required wetland compensation of the wetland fill and buffer fill, it appears that the square footage of the fill area is less than required by code. The wetland area is noted as 2,017 sq. ft. with a buffer fill of 1,574 sq. ft.; however the filled buffer compensation square footage is provided only for the west part of the buffer. The 25-ft buffer surrounds the entire wetland, to its north and south. It appears that the loss of the buffer would be partially mitigated outside of the parking lot, but the square footage has not been provided. Additionally the water quality facility is proposed to be located within the proposed buffer enhancement area which would reduce the amount of interplanting area. Staff recommends that as part of the final mitigation plan the applicant provide the square footage of buffer fill, and provide a landscape plan showing where and how many plants were interplanted on the South Parcel, or else obtain approval of a variance. Additionally, as previously noted, the classification of the South Wetland must be resolved in order to correctly determine the required buffers and mitigation associated with the development proposal. Staff also informed the applicant that a variance from the Tree Cutting and Land Clearing regulations would be required, for the proposal to culvert the onsite watercourse/stream and remove vegetation from its required 25-ft buffer area. A variance application was submitted on September 20, 2005 (LUA05-133). The impacts of the proposed variance have been addressed in the wetland impact analysis and the proposed mitigation for the parking lot development. Mitigation Measures: 1. During site preparation and construction, the applicant shall install silt fencing with brightly colored construction flags to indicate the boundaries of the North and South wetland areas and buffers. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division and be completed prior to the issuance of construction/utility permits. 2. After the development of parking lot and associated site improvements, the applicant shall install permanent fencing (Le. split-rail fence or other approved barrier) and sign age along the entire eastern edge of the North and South wetland buffers. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division. 3. The applicant shall provide the total buffer fill square footage and an update landscape plan illustrating the exact locations of where interplanting was installed on the South Parcel as part of the Wetland Mitigation Plan, or obtain a variance. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division. Policy Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations 4. HabitatIWildlife Impacts: A wildlife reconnaissance report was conducted and submitted with the land use application as prepared by Raedeke Associates, Inc., dated September 4, 2003. The reconnaissance was required as part of the approval for the "JDA Group Townhome 2003 CPA & Rezone". The reconnaissance report stated that no bald eagles were observed on-site or on the surrounding lands as conducted on September 3, 2003. No bald eagle habitat was mapped for this area by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife in the Priority Habitats and Species program inventory. The closes bald eagle habitat is the nest and territory on the south end of Mercer Island. The report continues to state that the lack of conifers of sufficient size or configuration for nesting or roosting, the urbanization and lack of foraging in the area does not provide any habitat for bald eagles. An occasional transient bald eagle may be seen in the area, such as is common for most of the region, but this site does not provide any of the life requisites for eagles. ERC_ChangPkgLOT.Feb2006.doc City of Renton PIBIPW Department RAINIER AVE. MIXED-USE S. PARKING LOT SITE PLAN & VARIANCE ERG REPORT of February 21.2006 Environmb. AI Review Committee Staff Report LUA-04-093 AND LUA05-133 Page 70f8 The second wildlife type reviewed was the Great Blue Heron. The report states that no great blue herons or nesting sites were observed on-site. No great blue heron nesting habitat was mapped for this site by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife in the Priority Habitats and Species program inventory. The report continues to state that the wetlands on site do not provide substantial foraging areas for great blue herons as the hydrologiC conditions conducive to supporting amphibians and other prey for herons is not present. Four great blue herons were observed to the west of the subject site at the east end of NW 5th St. One of the herons was an adult and were observed to have been sitting and flying into a western hemlock tree located about halfway up the slope. This tree would be out of the development site. No nests were observed, however, it is likely that one or two nests are present in the tree as local residents reported seeing nesting herons. If nesting occurs at this location, this is likely a temporary satellite nesting area for herons that are periodically forced to abandon the Black River colony when the bald eagles attack. Similar temporary colonies have been found in other areas to the south which are eventually abandoned and the heron return to the main colony at the Black River site. Staff received correspondence from adjacent neighbors concerning the heron in the area. The applicant has provided their consultants review of the issue to address a condition of the previous rezoning of the site. The subject site does not appear to contain any heron nests or a colony and would not interfere with any existing nests within the surrounding area; therefore, no further mitigation is recommended. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation is recommended. Policy Nexus: N/A 5. Archaeological and Cultural Resources Impacts: The proposed construction of the parking lot will occur on a portion of a wetland to be filled. A letter was received from the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation concerning the proposed project. Staff also contacted the Office concerning the contents of the letter for further information. The letter was forwarded to the applicant. The applicant has responded that the owner has not identified any ethnological history on the subject parcels and the fill over existing soils, they contend, would preserve any ethnographic and geologic history of the site. The State's letter indicated that there are six ethnographic place names adjacent to or surrounding the project area. The distances from the subject site to these place names are as close as 300 feet and as far as 2,600 feet. Four of these places are within the 1 ,000's of feet from the site. These places are clustered in the vicinity. There is also a small seasonal watercourse and a wetland. These factors combine to increase the probability for archaeological resources to be present. Staff recommends as a mitigation measure that in the event that archaeological deposits are found during construction, work must stop and the contractor(s) must contact the Washington State Archaeologist. Mitigation Measures: In the event that archaeological deposits are found during construction, work shall stop and the contractor(s) shall contact the State Archaeologist at the State of Washington Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, phone (360) 586-3065. Policy Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations E. COMMENTS OF REVIEWING DEPARTMENTS The proposal has been circulated to City Departmental I Divisional Reviewers for their review. Where applicable, these comments have been incorporated into the text of this report as Mitigation Measures andlor Notes to Applicant . ....K...-Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File. __ Copies of al/ Review Comments are attached to this report. Environmental Determination Appeal Process: Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM, March 10, 2006. If no appeals are filed by this date, the action will ERC_ChangPkgLOT.Feb2006.doc City of Renton PIBIPW Deparlment RAINIER AVE. MIXED· USE S. PARKING LOT (SITE PLAN & VARIANCE) ERC REPORT of February 21, 2006 Environmb._ .... 1 Review Committee Staff Reporl LUA·04·093 AND LUA05·133 Page 8 of 8 become final. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4·8·110.E. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430·6510. ERC_ChangPkgLOT.Feb2006.doc 1'1 !Hj :. NO.u:>NIHSVM ~b:i'r'ml l /1·1 0 , IIII I "Il : z ~ Iidl 3snC3XlW NVldJa)f Ih!1 ~~~ i fllill. 3nN3AV ~3INI~ . 11.1 '" ! i lb ililil HIl t .... "'~~ ~ (~I § ~ 8 ~ ~ /~ /1 / ~ c:c: .. ~ ... ! _I ... _· ___ I.UI __ -_~·t~_"""_ DATA SOUTH PARCEL TOTAL PARe-EL i'IORK AREA IMPERVIOlF.> AREA, EXISTING- PROPOSED % OF TOTAL SITE LANDSCAPED AREA % OF TOTAL SITE EXISTING-AND PROPOSED STRUCiVRES TOTAL EXISTINIS YiETLAND Y£TLAND FILL, ACtUAL FILL PAPER FILL TOTAL FILL TREE GOUNT, EXISTING- TO BE REMOVED b1.4e6 SF 13;;200 00 SF q,eso SF 15% 51,b00 SF 85% NONE Ib,bOO SF 2Pl1 SF 1~14 SF 3~ISF >25 I 1JIij.' OJ ..... WI'M/ , , 1'T'fe V LI6KT RXTtRE 12' H UdKT' PCllZ !56°Hx2 .. "D\A, """"'"'" ...... i2'lAGeI ""8 c:rJ.otrU1Y SYS1'B't ""GML (i) , .... \.:J \'," WI!. '/11111"'" "":\ '-. \, \ '" . \,." " ,t\. I, ,,\\\ ;~\\\\\ , \::\\ ,\1,\',\ , 1:1 ~m~ ~-~ . tr-""""'""'" ,,"",,"-.err EXISTING RESTAURANT SITE ~ .... '? • SOUTH LOT AND SOUTH ~ETLAND FILL 1'Nc?tt~ III = 201 $ . PHEUI1INARY· NOT fOf{ CONSTRUmON _0_ ~-=:..---~~ z o Z ~ wwz w :> ~~~ rt W w~ -L ~ 5·: ~ ti· ~- ,..,U.2OCM 2,. ll! -ON ..J I-I:::! 01-1.1. ..J:>O IOZ 1-V):5 :>01-oZw V) «~. ! ~ ... '011·" __ -- 51TEP1AN APPROVAl APPUCATlON A002 RAINIER MIXED USE PARKING EXPANSION THE SOUTHWEST OUAR1ER OF SEC1lON 7, TOWNSHP 23 NORTH. RAHOE 5 EAST, WIlLAMETTE MERIDIAN BENCHMARK Iii 3 0.. '" r.5 ~~ ~ ~:i 0-' ... ~ .;,s 13 ... :z '" 0 8 § x 0 ;; ::; '" w w Cl Z ~ li@ ~~. 21,if .' I 01.1 1-'·i , I,§I §I.XI.' ;r;-;;K f.n1) \ ~ ~. ""." ~\ - -.J!;9--' Y \ \ ~ i I T .£.S.c. NOTES. ~ ~ t !EE CtIIS1IIJC1ICM DIJC( (If H£l co.l. 1 41" ...... 'Ll Jut. ftlllm !iIWJ. ~ IIRl:D .., IWfTMID POt 11£ sao.u P'I!IMIIt QttllSHtI. 1. f'AIE11.ISOIXUfJEREtIlIRCaJS1IIlJC1QI,HQlII1lICftI:StWJ.II01FYKancrllKTat flllCllJO~IUIXPM1IDTf7D:a..lmsrNCWIDS. 4, HCtIf1tIC!atMl..fW.TlIDPaI!IU:nltMUlCA"'_PI01D:IOIf1IoIU~ t/1UtD. M CQfIR.IC1tII!IW1 \OfT A1. UlII1YlOCA1UeMClllO CCII5TlIIC1IIIITCIWC III: \ICOCIIIUI)LOQUEe.-ATI-IOI)..Qt-S!I5S,...,cr4l1lUlS1'II(Jt1OI«fDtl.'M1IIl !. ti[OQJHD1M1EIIIlHILLElII!J'OSDIarrnMoUIoV'IIIIMDUlCA1Dl LQXJIQtl1tW1llfllJl'ltnltFQIllO.OCAlDIGFEI$1IIOIIIlm'P(l£. INSPECTION SCHEDULE FOR ESC FAClUTJES =-.. ~~~~~~~~~,:::ta: ....... tl!!'ppNll"-IlJD!I!f!'*actAII[[k EI!)1!!t rq;gp 1 --an DIU. IIIIC If1l1 E'OT Wf'oIlL ('OT I'IIUIJCIC 1UICfF. j ~ IlfB8IlI£NIItSttlUlI:wa:"Z4I01tSotllUlAE..TfPOS9lU. ~,,~; IllC!AII/C6P-F OF FENTON, KING COUNTY, WASH!NGTON 02_' •• aus \ \ \ ~\a. 1 \\1 Q1Y(s~UMY<XIIrTIQ.1CIDII ~ !I 01U. OAtI»CInII--=-~ 0A1III_1d11S (MIII.~ CCIfQU 'III us FEEl OTY«EmlfSIInIETCDftIQ..PCIn_ if :6 l'i:J:u-..sr~~~r:::T~~~:r.1I ~hfl ADIT II' v-MI. DUl. CD'D AT CSJ .... AOI: IIR1II. 1lMTD • ...". t.~ ~\.\ , ~ C-" GRAPHIC SCAlE W 0\. ~ F a. OISQ!Dt:IJM[lIlIIt1ftOTaMJI (lOlIIaI'IE'AD"I'QIDYAll.T LOWED .. Sl£aJtIl fDJ'cr ... AT causllO. SlSCII H tm !II" ...... I.U.£ EllYl .. • .. tr I~ ~i ~~f e., f q;liS S· k-.-u-r i \ .~~'~ \\ ~' --~~:~=~ '\0::',\ '·_"".IM, r .. "Co.tI(4':U(".'5) 22'Cl:l'CI(2' .. t .. -W) • ,'o(4112po·II' \ EROSION CONTROL NOTES. § I S llERllEllltrCDmllllC1DlatONl.aJllDTICIMI'I'OCQIIS,A \ PII:~IIElICIIIII'EiI1DQHQ1YIJ"IIOI1ON((Jt.MIfT fSNlJl:aa.IODIDaIER. ..J 2. Ml,.1.II!S II' ClLWIG .. olIOS II' lBITA .......... AS M3aIIm \. CIt.fUII tuu.8[ QUl,.l'fUGlDli. FII.D _ canDPIIG """"""" • 1 IJ. ImIID SDIJftA~ CDQIQ. nate 1IISf'-: COIS1rIICIm L ::=&n~U:Ua:'.:'.s:.a:'-=== II I ~iY-mIDl au. QID!CIII *> amor rAClRD Nl.IUIWIID .. A tA15fACD'l' CIXI1I::I1I1n1. MII_ .. 1 U£WllllfJtra ~ G CI:JIIII.[O,., POIEIIlIIl Ra Cllf..n DUDlIIAS'AS. 1II111UJOTA .... ~ ~~~:~QJmQ. (j ~ ;='.'" , ..... ""< 1\' .~ "'1In'CIISaITr"1II:~lOmIIESS"";tnCDClllk'llS1MAT.o\1' .ClEA1£DI1'IIS~"lOlIIfDtII%.am:IUlrAtlJllS, 1iMIt,lN) .,.,; ... JIJUIBIJIft. qIMYl[1UIG 1ON:D1m1iDMCDlT ~ ~ SITE PUN ~ ......,"". ""'''- j"" ...... I ' l T .E.S.C. LEGEND @_ ......... _@ ® SlIJIIIMtIU'lIlllallJ:llM@ . O!) FlU FIIIIIIC RJCt@ ® CWltfW1l::~EN.S1ICo:MIIICIID1t5C11H[1'a.1 ® 1DftRMT'" U tral'IS!mC II01D 01 !I&T t:LI, SEta !iii H .,........aMDS!ilWJ.I!IEPB! 1£ ...... 1ItA ... -.r.mIDOl om .. , @..-"", @-""""""" .... @ ~ ..... T __ .. ~ IiI, ~' , ,: ;: II!TlCM8ClT!D ---... ,,-------,,-------,,------- CALL 48 HOURS BEFORE YOU DIG 1-800-424-5555 ~ fID'OIO ,..a CUIU1T t6 K fIIIMIO """'" M1EIL ~-=:::s,,::~:=-~~~~,:.~ I PFQ, IID1IICDS. aw.u. CR tnM1CII FMI.I1I1 ~ .. CUWC ..... PBaCF ... ' 1IWMfIIIMCIIJI, NJ.f'IID£r IISUIID SOl lIDS ClOD .,. $,GIlD !QJM[ Rn, IlAT ME to • lD1 IINrRCEDRaIKR_ T'B'«(12)IIUIS"SIW1I1[CI1GEDITIIlOI. ~ SIDIIID, atl'lASlC CIMMC. ~ .. ~~~==-~~.=~ l:tSUs.£FES. .. I. w.cMn'GU.Wlc:acs1JU:D:ltEnt.lla, Z4' I!IIJ r" ... mt-101 OWMT PM1S HU. • laD A' "'" II'OIr!S rI WJIIUM ..-ss Mel GllSSIOKCDSIIIIC1ItJtIE I~ DIIWII idIOT 10 *1 _PGII __ .. n. __ ,!li[~ ( :r: s~~~~ ~~~"I ~aO .. §3 ,.,. I , CIIECIEJI POR COMPIJAICE 11IcmITAIOUDI CITY OF RENTON Ii' O&PAaTMlDrT OF P1JB1.IC ""0'" ---------------:::::: DEMOLITION & T.E.S.C. PLAN C1.0 ~ -0A~1/O'/04 IIIU-lOlIl~1 ~ ICALIo \ •• 20'" ~ ___ -_ ~ 1IaT.2w.7 < ~;;C § 1 fn'" a..z a..Q a.. VI ~ ~ i:j 0-g ..., ~ Ii:~ ~ ~Z ~ ....,~ 0 VIZ :ow ">l 0'" w '-' x z "i ~ '-' :!@~ " ~ ;t ~ JaIl ,! ~I fi RAINIER MIXED USE PARKING EXPANSION THE SOUTHWEST OUARTER OF SEClTON 7. TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH. RANOE 5 EAST. WIl..1..AMETTE MERIDIAN \ GRAPmc SCALI!: _ CITy OF RelTON, KINO COUNTY. WASHINGTON 1 \ '. kw.-LJ-1 i"l \ --~------\ .~~).. ~ \ . .. ~ .. a~~, ~ \\\. =~8AIIREII 'l " ~ ~-~'" . __ ~_\1." 't, ~'!l';, ,,,. • "~'''''''''L/ \t~,\ .,/ ra.:I£'12*t--() r .• --\-rec.:1(4'~(",S) . \ n·co.cl(l' ... ~-") ~;'~'~~~("_"J I 51 \, ... -."~ ... ,-,, I' j€'-¢~~-- I ffi==-""':. ~ II L:-.;;,ev{nP.4 ur.A105) 'nF'[l-$4"CI .' ....... ,,~--~ ----------~ Ii£t,f" _, ". --t---[lIST. Wi. , IO'lt ... l! 81TE PLAN -""\. ..... DST. 1:/ ~ .. .., cae; !!~~ 2'54' ' •. "IUFtIRABave G.CIQlI,ClJl£tIOCIII ;/ C-:! 10 ~/ r ---', I """ t ......... 1ICII ... »w1E_COISDIIClgSMC, 2O-lOI1tPD. _uss 111M SS~ ClATCCIfDf. ,.. 2G-D GIUIC Wf 0JI'0n PM 5UU. .: IIEI'/IEBI ......... 2.PI.MI1ICHU,CICIISIS1'II'MN!iJI£tOMUIO TIlDIAI[ -.r Q.IQSIR. CI:I01DIS.I'IIDC_O JUl:'1IMlOIS,MClWfIIa.ESCl.ICISU[CI:IfEWt. IU.DI 9W.L(I(N'l'\EDIOKSllUlmllr_tID., 'UtlllANLr H .o-wt.lRAlCII SIN,[ lAY III lnIJIJO&D'DfAmsllIIElIlfJtWI!lmM1r'm 1IX1S1tlI.IZEO~SUIU..Ml:JOPIIDG I--54: " .,.- .. ~1DII'WJlL 0-GRADING SECTION 'A' I lOT .. """ '" 1 < d~ " .. " JI ,. " .=I"iY_" BENCHMARK aTTlI'SIllmIIUMTCDr1I:1ICUr; 'UIIC'l.DA ........... MII:M 'G1IQ1l MlW l_IIODIS(M_. COIn01ED 101.I5f[[T af'f1l'1IOOIII Ul'CTCCIIlIIClPllln l1li fOUID t IltASScat STMFED 'kC-J.z 11tT o.TWI'r7UEDCIfS COIGI[1[ SIOU (It 1£ IEST_ rl'IIMUAWJII SIrIL ug,u ItRIDITfSU..fWI.IIJIDlCDD AT 4531.t1O "\ :="",?,....". :me au.: " ta'IIIGl' CIllO ar CXIQ(l( PAD ar I'OlIJI YAll.J LOCltED" 5ItWU It FIOCTar ... ATIIDDSMa. mDl K IlST a fStMU A\OI£ gBlYA".jj \ :~-.. -.... -.--.... -.--.. ~ jt I~ a:~ I ~] /III~ ~ ~ .. ;1 o~t51 id~ "u~ ~~:!!] I "I r!tj ~I ~ •. ~=. ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ STORM ~~FILE 11 .... II ~ ~ _r.w I ~ ~I I 1""'""\ I '"""iii! 1 I I \ r I I .... STORM PROFILE -2 \O'ICM.: ,°4 1IllIZ!IfUl:,"·Ztt ...,.,...,.,.., ..... -.... ,,----CIIl'IIIED fOIl COIIIPUAJICE TO cm ITAIDAIIDS /" 1 c ,,----,,-------GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN C2.01 g 1=I'I1II ..... ::.: .. _.TO. III I BEFORE YOU DIG _ .... 1MII_ _ 1.800.424.5555 CALL 48 HOURS -; DA"',/01/OO IOIIUo ,'''ZO" q ! ..... -mlI'~1 ...,. 4 ~ 7 3 0.. 1§1 Ow S2~ g~ ~ . o.z ~~ ~~ Cl "',., j";;-'d 0: cr 0 0<.> ,., ZZ x ~ ~ 0: <.> ,., Z 8i ~~ iii I 'Ii" ~ I ,;:. ',j _···.:-/1 I ' GRAPHIC SCALE 'ki-.ooiJ-J RAINIER MIXED USE PARKING EXPANSION THE SOlJriiwesr OUARTER OF SECllON 7, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH. RANGE 5 EAST, WIl.lAMETTE MERIDIAN CITY OF RENTON. KtIG COLffi'Y, WASHINGTON (. rar I 1 .... _10 n. \ , .,,::. ...... ....----.--" ,-'-/' ..... /' -.../ t6'4 EGO 8LOGK 4' HEI6HT ---------1 " - r.a.RC.EL . ~eoooo'l ENHANGeD I'E11.ANDEU'FEl< ~~ ,-_ .. _. " --........ '. /' > ~OF 1NGREA5e!>1 ( ' •. • 5.021> !IF /. .. / . / r C> ,:'. . .... '~'" " 1---" i\'\ \ """~-----~:~~~ '!..-------~ N.~'l'~ _____ _ -----iL / 5 - ---- ---137.~' \_---"'--- " ~ III! snEPLAN ~ t I I J ;;; .1 . , BENCHMARK O1YtlJlEmllUIlYo:nIIllII"r-.: 'D1D. DA1IIt«InII MIM* &1Q. DA1\II .. lOllS (IIA'CIII), IXlnER1ED lD US FEET Iii artClIllElfltllls.w.lCXll1lQ.NIlq ., FQII)ratASSCI5CsrAIRD"tt-.I-2taro.TWTtJEST£DQ[lSallCllRUIIlICtJlK:@: ;;8 =:= .... -"7~ ... -~~ ..... -........ -~11i B~ t:.... ..... _ ....... /0 -.... ""........... Z O'!i:~Z' fIiOCt«F .... AtArlllSSII1S!5t11 A'«IIL .,j(j ::Iil:tj' -.-.. :~ \ I i~ !~i~' y', A ;1 q~~i ~'a g I .. :.. \\ ~ ..... \' ,<--11 ~ \~cI>~I.~.Ct"'S'IUC~ .. ,.I»IC .... »C-O-S) U"CW'I( d.ll! (10/01.1'" 2'"(:QIIOC1(2.U(ClUTf!J Il001(' • OG 2"· MOT no .. ~ i ~ I i ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ I ~ r-~C~HE~C-UD~~~R-CO~MP~UM~CE~~--~~~~~~==~--~~ I I ! I """roS """.....,. ... I II: I . :--: GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN C4.0 2 1 -11+--+ -1_ DiIi1iIiB idIOt TO. ~ I CALL 48 HOURS -. !Il ~ i iiUADI'OII--BEFORE YOU DIG., ~~"",.. I~-""'>-<~ 'S TO em ITAIDARDS nRPAaTMEKT or PUBLIC WOaJUI . _n__ _ 1-800-424-5555 ..... ,' • ., ----. m 110. ... _ ... " ....,,71»07 ~ " I I I I i I I I CIJ ~h---!-~~~~ ..c: ~ "<t< co e ZONING + ft + PIBIPW TICIINICAL SBllVICBS 12104/03 - - - -IleDton mt,y LIml .... IMCP) IMCP) 6 200 "yo E3 114800 7 T23N R5E W 1/;'307 DAfA NORTH PARGEL TOTAL PARCEL ~RK AREA IMPERVIOUS AREA, EXISTIN6 PROPOSED 511 OF TOTAL SITE LANDSCAPED AREA 511 OF TOTAL SITE EXISTINiS AND PROPOSED STR!JCTlIRES TOTAL EXISTINiS i"lETL.ANl:) V'lETLAND FILL, AGiUAL FILL PAPER FILL TOTAL FILL TREE c.otJNT, EXISTINiS TO BE REMOVED LIMIT RIM'E 8LP6. GONSl"RlJCnON FINISH. FINAL 2 FT. TOPSOIL EXGAVAn EXISTI th<GONTROU.ED FILL 25'-0- 246,131 SF q,2oo SF 00 SF 00 SF 15!\\ S1pOO SF 0511 NONE 21,100 SF 3,5<11 SF SP28 SF SP28 SF >50 4 i'ETLANPEliFFER " " 1======': @ BUFFER DETAIL , N.T.S. , , " ' '-/ -.....". ..... ----~":"':­;' NORTH V'iETLAND ENLARGHENT AND ENHANGHENT •••. ~C;o..~ tN I" 201 $ \ \ J'ICI.1/r'1IOAII/rJ' UIIM:I" _e_ .:..-:....-=..- s..~~~ W ,~ :::> t; zw~ WII)U] >:::>~ < 0 > OC W w?:S -l: z Z 0-~ i;~. ....,U.lOCM I-- I-Z o~ W :r: ZI:oI: t;::5 w ~ Oti:i~~z -aN z>..J « >z :r: W Z w.o. --- ~ ... ....... "' .. -- SITE PLAN APPROVAL APPUCATION PREUI1INARY·NOTfOHCONSTRUCTlON I A003 ./ ----;- ........ <.1 I " '/, ....... _ •• __ ~/'r - - - - -' .... ::::-~':;.~:' ,</ ~7 --\-~/ ./ " " " , , ur. .... ~ .... , ''-. "'-........ _ __ ,,'\ " .---i/--. l~ ~"-::,,', . '. '--,'--." ' ...... " .. -~-........... '----~-~-.--:-" ~----'-7!'" -" ' ............... ' ............. , -................... /" --.. NORTH ViETLAND PLANTING PLAN SOUTH ViETLAND PLANTING PLAN @ @ --IfAIIVE 1REIS, SHRUBS 00 HERBS BASED ON II.ISTER P!.AHT SCHEIlUl.E. SPEars !IG) QUAHllTES SHAll. BE OETERIIHD BY LANDSCAPE ARCHlT£.CT OR ¥itl\N() BlClOOST POST NON-NAn\{ >{CETAnON REIIOVAL ~_IIA __ _ GENERAL NO~ I. IT ~ P\\mRIIlLE THAT THE IlESIQ< IF THIS PLINlI<C Pl.IN S££l( 10 REPUCATE IfATIJRAL Pl.INT _lIES II SPEOES CXIIPOSITIO< !IG) ARRANGDIDIT. EI{N SPoICIfG !IG) S1I!JlGHT-RO'I Pl.INTIIIG ARE NOT 1lE9RED. kA~~':j,~~All. BE \NSTAlJ.Il) 11- ~.~ ~ ~~ ~:,~(=(;: ': E~ ':' 6" DlAmER) 00 8-lt 1.CtIG. 4. BAREROOT PlANT STOll< IlIA Y BE usm tItGE SEASCfWJ. Y AVAlAIl[ 00 GENERAU.Y IIllST BE INSTAlJ.Il) DUlINC THE OORIIANT SWOO (_Amy OCTOOER JIST THROUGH FEB IS1). BAREROOT Pl.INT STOO< SHAll. BE EQUI!. 10 <Jl CRLITER THAN THAT IF THE SPEOIIED ca<TAINER SIlE. 5. WlO< SHAll. BE \NSTAlJ.Il) ARMO All. TREES 00 _ TO ASSIST P\.AHT &lR\1VAL THE l1li.0< SHAll. BE IIEDIUII <:RAIlE WOO) O<PS <Jl BETTER. AU. NCft-NAlM \'{GtTAllCW 9tAl.L II: RDIO'.tD IfIHIf THE I\ElLIND Bt.mR. THE lANDSCAPE AR01ITECT (Jl I\E1LINI) BIClOGlST SHAll FlAG AREAS PRIM TO RB!OVAL AA£M, HRE P!.AH~ HA>{ BEElI REIIOI{I) SHAll. BE RIl'lAHlID 111M 1HE MAIIVE ~ USTED " THE II.\STER PlANT LE(lJt(). THE lANOSCAP( AR01Il[CT <Jl IIETlAND BQ.OOSl SHAll. f1EU)lOCATE PlANTS 'MTH14 TH£S[ AREAS. SEfD IIIX k UPPER BUFIER --SEED I!SDJRW) SQ! !!11H!N Dff ENHANCED BUffIB. tf1DBOSffD MIX NJ'lCAJJOi RATES pm AQI· O REG\!EDt STERlE SEED IIIX __ SEED 1IlX1URE 3WI/ACRE ..... llUll1)ftCSnII --- 2DIJO lB ERO-FmR IIOOOFI9ER 1\lI.0< LB S£ID UlX AS NOTED 200 lB 25-0-10 40 lB TACI<RR TO PRE>{NT RlPPUNC "'"' ~"'I< a.tJ:IafA1IC~CC&4t1l)1IA1IQ4fUCl CQlIIIGASAI'I'IVG"~IIEJIIIEDTAN _ ..... iiiiitQll[·iir'CI'E*iI t.-n.adD·CUU21(l.AClO tKPOST_IutXPOSIS1'l.O.,o.t aao.PW.1'IIm21/TlD. --1- ----,1 -.... mLANDjJ BUfFEll 1- ~~ARY W ::J Z WW >~ «0 W 0::: x w~ Z « 0::: ------IBldell TACOMA· •• ",TTL. ~-: ........ --.. -:.~:-............ .. 2041'17,44 "" .... ..u.y 23, 2.004 CONCEPTUAL _!lCllOOt'tJS1I)"FEnLlUfZDWllMNfDlBoIIIIEA,ATlIOIDlO'.,.llal I PLANTING PLAN UDFtuf'O$f, 4F1rr1ll'fm_4ItIItCII H IIRMIUfO _ tx1ll: (1) con~ PLANT!I!Q DITM (2J C!!!'" ~ FEItC!! pmn, --o IUFfll\IO\IIIDARJ I!t!!!AQI """ .... PRELIMINARY -NOT fOR CONSTRUCTIONI W1 () Cc:. PRINCIPALS Brian Brand, AlA Richard L. Wagner, AlA Thomas Frye, Jr., AlA February 20, 2005 Hearing Examiner City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way, 6th Floor Renton, WA 98055 Subject: Appeal of ERC Determination CIty OF RENTON RE: Rainier Avenue Mixed Use South Parking Lot LUA04-093, SA-A, ECF/LUA05-133, V-H Dear Mr. Examiner: ~lE fa 2 1 7.006 AECt::IVEO ~'llY ~·S C:FACE ,,..L~ p~ By this letter our office, in behalf of the Owner of the referenced Project, appeals to your office to amend three of the five Mitigation Measures of the ERC's determination of Non-Significance - Mitigated. In particular, we request that the following amendments be made. 1. Acceptable as written 2. Delete in total The applieltftt shall revise the wetlaae plaa te ffle I e the eeeleg, wall fl'effl its prepesee leeatiea te aa area etltsiee ef the requiree 50 ft. Buffer ia ereer fer h, erelegy aae wilelife te fua~tiea. The satisfaetiea ef this l'equireffleat shall be subjeet te the revie"W aae appre I al ef the De I elepffleat Serviees Divisiea aae be eefflpletee prier te the issuaaee ef. wastruetiea/utility perfflits.' 3. Amend as noted: During site preparation and constru~tion, the applicant shall install silt fencing with brightly colored construction flags to indicate the boundaries of the North and South wetland area.§. and buffer.§.7 adjacent to the proposed construction areas. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division and be completed prior to the issuance of construc.tion/utility permits. . . 10801 Main Street Bellevue, WA 98004 T 425 454 0566 F 425 4538013 www.baylisarchitects.com City of Renton February 20, 2006 Page 2 4. Amend as noted: After the development of parking lot and associated site improvements, the applicant shall install permanent fencing (i.e. split-rail fence or other approved barrier) and signage along the entire Easterly edge of the North & South wetland buffers. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division. 5. Acceptable as written 6. Acceptable as written TUSTIFICA TION - For support of the appeal, the following background and information is provided. Please refer to Drawing A001, Key Plan, dated July 15, 2004, of the Site Plan Approval Application. 2) Ecology Wall Location -North Wetland / The ecology wall is proposed only along the north edge of the north wetland. It is intended to allow for the excavation at the toe of the slope, an excavation necessary to extend the floor of the existing wetland, increasing the wetland area and extending the wetland hydrology, flora and fauna. Locating the wall at the buffer edge, 50 ft away from the wetland edge will force a mass grading of approximately 1,000 yards and revegetation of approximately 9,000 SF of existing third growth vegetation. This work is vehemently opposed by the geotechnical engineer. 3 and 4) Fencing Both the South and the North Wetlands extend far to the west into the respective valleys, well beyond the area of work. Additionally, almost half of the South Wetland extends onto our neighbor's property, well beyond the applicant's property. The easterly edge of the North Wetland, extending approximately 100 ft west of the commercial development, is the only area affected by the future commercial development being proposed under separate application. The wetland extends approximately another 250 ft to the west for a total of approximately 350 ft from any commercial property. The ~asterly edge of the South Wetland, extending approximately 30 ft west of the commercial development, is the only area affected by the proposed parking lot. The wetland extends approximately another 125 ft. onto our neighbor's property and into the valley. Further, at the time that the delineations were being done, it was recognized that both these wetlands were at the toe of very steep and high slopes and were therefore thought to be relatively inaccessible. To permanently fence the entire north wetland would require approximately an additional 1,150 ft of fencing. To permanently fence the entire south wetland would require approximately an additional 450 ft of " c, ," ... City of Renton February 20, 2006 Page 3 fencing, half of which would be off the applicant's property. Further, all of this quarter mile of fencing would mandate construction impacts in areas that are otherwise, fortunately and respectfully, untouched by this project. As can be seen in the neighborhood map, both these wetlands back-up to the rear yards of single family residences built 30 to 50 years ago. Thus, the juxtaposition of the wetlands is well known to the residences. Note further, that the fencing that the ERC suggests is not intended to be a barrier to actually stop an intruder, but only a prompt or reminder of something beyond. A split rail fence, as suggested, would not stop access human access and any fence that would, would also stop wildlife access. Please also note that the text amendment suggested by the applicant, is to protect access from the east to both the north and the south wetlands, not just the south as might otherwise be inferred from the staff report. To the extent that you determine that these fences should run up the steep slope some distance (25 ft?) beyond the boundary to deter a trespasser, this might be a more reasonable alternative. With this background, we encourage the Examiner's favorable review and adoption of the proposed re-statement of the ERC's Mitigation measures. Respectfully, BAYLIS ARCHITECTS, INC. Cc Jack Alhadeff -Owner Matt Weber -AHBL Celest Botha -Wetland Keri Weaver -Renton P /B/ PW RW:jf ! CITY OF RENTON City Clerk Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 425-430-6510 Receipt N~ Date 2/2-1/0 ~ , 7 0516 o Cash 0 Copy Fee 0 Notary Service ~heck No. ~ 5 71 ~Appeal Fee 0 ________ _ Description: 4ptea I to ;IE' X LvA--o ~-0 OJ ~/ t.vA, OV)~l"?" . -, Funds Received From: Name JDA bhJuf'. LLC Address City/Zip '.'\.." , q ~ S. -r;;6ir1 51 1f-Zo I t1..rAA fCrvl M/ /I q ¥" S-:s-r ~~~ I A:Uount $ 7<J; 00 I CITY OF RENTON RECEIVED FEB 20 2006 BUILDING DIVISION PRINCIPALS Brian Brand, AlA Richard L. Wagner, AlA Thomas Frye, Jr., AlA February 20, 2005 Environmental Review Committee City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way, 6th Floor Renton, WA 98055 Subject: Request for Reconsideration of ERC Determination Rainier Avenue Mixed Use South Parking Lot LUA04-093, SA-A, ECF/LUA05-133, V-H RE: Dear committee Members: By this letter our office, in behalf of the Owner of the referenced Project, requests your reconsideration and amendment of three of the five Mitigation Measures of the ERC's determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated. In particular, we request that the following amendments be made. 1. Acceptable as written 2. Delete in total The applieaat shall revise the wetlaad plaa to move the eeolog, wall from its proposed loeatioa to aa area otltside of the reqtlired SO ft. Btlffer ia order for h, drolog, aad wildlife to fuaetioa. The satisfaetioa of this requiremeat shall be stlbjeet to the review aad approval of the De. elopmeat Serviees Divisioa aad be eompleted prior to the isstlaaee of eoastrtletioa/tltility permits. 3. Amend as noted: During site preparation and construction, the applicant shall install silt fencing with brightly colored construction flags to indicate the boundaries ·of the North and South wetland area.§. and buffer.§.7 adjacent to the proposed construction areas. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division and be completed prior to the issuance of construction/utility permits. 10801 Main Street Bellevue, WA 98004 T 425 454. 0566 F 425 4538013 www.baylisarchitects.cam City of Renton February 20, 2006 Page 2 4. Amend as noted: After the development of parking lot and associated site improvements, the applicant shall install permanent fencing (i.e. split-rail fence or other approved barrier) and signage along the entire Easterly edge of the North & South wetland buffers. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division. 5. Acceptable as written 6. Acceptable as written TUSTIFICA TION . For support of the appeal, the following background and information is provided. Please refer to Drawing A001, Key Plan, dated July 15, 2004, of the Site Plan Approval Application. 2) Ecology Wall Location -North Wetland The ecology wall is proposed only along the north edge of the north wetland. It is intended to allow for the excavation at the toe of the slope, an excavation necessary to extend the floor of the existing wetland, increasing the wetland area and extending the wetland hydrology, flora and fauna. Locating the wall at the buffer edge, 50 ft away from the wetland edge will force a mass grading of approximately 1,000 yards and revegetation of approximately 9,000 SF of existing third growth vegetation. This work is vehemently opposed by the geotechnical engineer. 3 and 4) Fencing Both the South and the North Wetlands extend far to the west into the respective valleys, well beyond the area of work. Additionally, almost half of the South Wetland extends onto our neighbor's property, well beyond the applicant's property. The easterly edge of the North Wetland, extending approximately 100 ft west of the commercial development, is the only area affected by the future commercial development being proposed under separate application. The wetland extends approximately another 250 ft to the west for a total of approximately 350 ft from any commercial property. The easterly edge of the South Wetland, extending approximately 30 ft west of the commercial development, is the only area affected by the proposed parking lot. The wetland extends approximately another 125 ft. onto our neighbor's property and into the valley. Further, at the time that the delineations were being done, it was recognized that both these wetlands were at the toe of very steep and high slopes and were therefore thought to be relatively inaccessible. To permanently fence the entire north wetland would require approximately an additional 1,150 ft of fencing. To permanently fence the entire south wetland would require approximately an additional 450 ft of City of Renton February 20, 2006 Page 3 fencing, half of which would be off the applicant's property. Further, all of this quarter mile of fencing would mandate construction impacts in areas that are otherwise, fortunately and respectfully, untouched by this project. As can be seen in the neighborhood map, both these wedands back-up to the rear yards of single family residences built 30 to 50 years ago. Thus, the juxtaposition of the wedands is well known to the residences. Note further, that the fencing that the ERC suggests is not intended to be a barrier to actually stop an intruder, but only a prompt or reminder of something beyond. A split rail fence, as suggested, would not stop access human access and any fence that would, would also stop wildlife access. Please also note that the text amendment suggested by the applicant, is to protect access from the east to both the north and the south wedands, not just the south as might otherwise be inferred from the staff report. To the extent that you determine that these fences should run up the steep slope some distance (25 ft?) beyond the boundary to deter a trespasser, this might be a more reasonable alternative. With this background, we encourage the Examiner's favorable review and adoption of the proposed re-statement of the ERC's Mitigation measures. Respectfully, S ARCHITECTS, INC. Principal Cc Jack Alhadeff -Owner Matt Weber -AHBL Celest Botha -Wetland Keri Weaver -Renton P /B/ PW RW:jf REVISED ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION & PUBLIC HEARING ISSUANCE OF A REVISED DETERMINATION OF NON·SIGNIFICANCE • MITIGATED (DNS·M) POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: Ranier Avenue Mlxod·Use South Parking Lot PROJECT NUMBER: LUA04-093. SA-A, ECF I LUA05-U3. V·H LOCATION: Weat of 605 Ranle, Avenue N & southeast of NW 8th Street DESCRIPTION: Tho applicant Is reque.tlng Environmental (SEPA) Rav .. w and Administrative Site Plan revktw for a 27~.pace parting lot. A portion of a Category 3 wetland would be filled with offslte watland mitigation. A variance from the Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Regulations I. required for wort within the 250ft. buffer of the onelt. watercourao/atraam. 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 detennlnatlon must be flied In writing on or before 5:00 PM on March 10, 2008. Appeals must be filed In writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner. City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Ranton, WA 98055. Appeals to the examiner are govemed by City of Renton Municipal Coda Section 4-8-110.9. Addttlonallnfonnatlon regarding tha appeal process may be obtained from the Ronton City Clork'a Office, (4251 43Q.8510. A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER AT. HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON THE 7TH FLOOR OF CITY HALL, 1055 SOUTH GRADY WAY, RENTON, WASHINGTON, ON MARCH 14.2006 AT 9:00 AM TO CONSIDER THE VARIANCE REQUEST. IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION IS APPEALED. THE APPEAL WILL BE . HEARD AS PART OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING. FOR FURTHER , CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEVELOPMENT DIVISION AT (425) 430·7200. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION CERTIFICATION I, \Ikra Jall'c6b , hereby certify that ~ copies of the above document were posted by me in ~ conspicuous places or nearby the described property on SIGNED:,>DR /L=: ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn before me, a Notary Public, in and for the State of Washi ~, tJfl--.oOthO~L'YOf ru 1.f,,,J REVISED ENVIRONM ENTAL DETERMINATION & PUBLIC HEARING ISSUANCE OF A REVISED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED (DNS-M) POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: Ranier Avenue Mixed-Use South Parking Lot PROJECT NUMBER: LUA04-093, SA-A, ECF I LUA05-133, V-H LOCATION: West of 505 Ranier Avenue N & southeast of NW 6th Street DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and Administrative Site Plan review for a 27-space parking lot. A portion of a Category 3 wetland would be filled with offsite wetland mitigation. A variance from the Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Regulations is required for work within the 25-ft. buffer of the onsite watercourse/stream. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRON~ENTAL 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 10, 2006. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON THE 7TH FLOOR OF CITY HALL, 1055 SOUTH GRADY WAY, RENTON, WASHINGTON, ON MARCH 14,2006 AT 9:00 AM TO CONSIDER THE VARIANCE REQUEST. IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION IS APPEALED, THE APPEAL WILL BE HEARD AS PART OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING. ON, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION AT (425) 430-7200. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE Wlr-HOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION surrounding the main storm channel is created from runoff and seepage from the adjacent slopes on each side of the wetland and not from stormwater backing up at the culvert. Because there is no significant stormwater attenuation occurring in the current conditions, the limited wetland fill proposed by this project will not significantly increase downstream flows. Let me know if you think this will satisfy the examiner's concerns. Thanks Glenn cc: "Matt Weber" <Mweber@AHBL.com>, "Glenn Hume" <GHume@AHBL.com>, "Celeste Botha" <cbotha@cablespeed.com>, <alhadeffjack@hotmail.com> From: "Rich Wagner" <wagnerr@baylisarchitects.com> To: "Keri Weaver" <KWeaver@ci.renton.wa.us>, <jhenning@ci.renton.wa.us>, <nwatts@ci.renton.wa.us> Date: 03/14/20065:40:11 PM Subject: Rainier South Lot Compensator Capacity Keri, Jennifer and Neil... .. In support of our testimony this morning at the hearing, AHBL has prepared the following note of clarification regarding the compensatory storage required by the fill. You will note that, in the proposed project, AHBL did study the issue and determined that there is no capacity for storage on the existing site. I trust this satisfactorily addresses the examiners questions on this particular topiC. If more information is needed, please let me know immediately. If it is appropriate that I send this info directly to the examiner, please also let me know. Thanks ..... . Rich Wagner, AlA Baylis Architects 425.454.0566 www.BaylisArchitects.com From: Glenn Hume [mailto:GHume@AHBL.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 14,20063:44 PM To: Rich Wagner Cc: Matt Weber; Ryan Jeffries Subject: Parking Lot Wetland Fill Rich, Ryan filled me in on the hearing examiner's concerns regarding compensatory storage for the wetland fill for the parking lot construction. The following is my response based on my understanding of the examiner's concerns. Approximately 120 cubic yards of fill are proposed within the wetland boundary. Currently, stormwater is conveyed through the proposed wetland fill area in a defined swale with an average channel centerline slope of 5.75%. The existing 24-inch culvert has an invert that matches the bottom elevation of the swale and has a conveyance capacity greater than the stream flows. Therefore, there is no existing storage volume or significant attenuation of stormwater flows. The wetland area the public out of these wetlands and would also want to fence. The wording selected here is "along the entire edge of the wetland buffer". Again, we would ask that this be clarified that this is only the edges that are adjacent the new construction. Thanks for clarification. Rich Wagner, AlA Baylis Architects 425.454.0566 www.BaylisArchitects.com cc: "Meredith Everist" <everistm@baylisarchitects.com>, "Matt Weber" <Mweber@AHBL.com>, "Celeste Botha" <cbotha@cablespeed.com>, "Jack Alhadeff' <alhadeffjack@hotmail.com> -----Original Message----- From: Keri Weaver [mailto:KWeaver@cLrenton.wa.us] Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 10:55 AM To: Rich Wagner Cc: Jennifer Henning Subject: Re: South Lot Mitigation Measures Hi Rich, Re your questions: 1. I received a voice mail from Celeste today re the ecology wall, and will return her call. 2. The silt fence is required along all areas of the wetland that may be subject to erosion/siltation impacts from new construction and/or proposed mitigation activities. This is likely to be a larger area than just what is adjacent to new construction, but not necessarily the entire wetland. 3. The permanent fence is required around the entire perimeter edge of the wetland buffer (including newly created buffer), since, as you note, the purpose is to make people aware of where the wetland is located and to permanently keep people and activities out. A linear section of fencing does not meet the definition of a permanent boundary fence, since people can simply go around either side of it. #2 and #3 will be clarified in the Hearing Examiner report and conditions, as noted above. If you have additional questions, please call or email me- Regards, Keri Keri A. Weaver, AICP Senior Planner, Development Services City of Renton tel (425) 430-7382 fax (425) 430-7231 kweaver@ci.renton.wa.us »> "Rich Wagner" <wagnerr@baylisarchitects.com> 02/07/06 9:55 AM »> Hi Keri ..... I've reviewed the 6 Mitigation Measures contained in the ERC Report and would request clarification of items 2, 3 and 4: 1 ) 2) Ecology Wall location -I've asked Celeste Botha to give you a call on this measure. Please note that locating the wall as proposed is at the toe of the adjacent slope. By locating it as requesting, the wall will be much higher up the existing rising slope. 3) Installation of the Silt Fence is understandable, but the wording requires it around the "boundaries of the wetland". We would ask that this wording be clarified that this is only the boundaries that are adjacent the new construction. 4) Permanent Fence -the owner shares the city's goal of keeping -- From: To: Date: Subject: Hi KerL.. .. "Rich Wagner" <wagnerr@baylisarchitects.com> "Keri Weaver" <KWeaver@cLrenton.wa.us> 02/15/2006 11 :04:03 AM RE: South Lot Mitigation Measures Thanks for the clarification. I think we can work with your response item 2, but 3 remains problematic and, in fact, not possible. (Please refer to Drawing A001, Key Plan, dated July 15, 2004, of the Site Plan Approval Application) Both the South and the North Wetlands extend west into the respective valleys, well beyond the area of work, so much so, that the westerly reaches of both wetlands were (with the city's agreement) never delineated. Additionally, almost half of the South Wetland extends beyond the applicant's property. The easterly edges of the North Wetland were delineated to approximately 100 ft west of the commercial development, beyond which the wetland is thought to extend another 250 ft. The easterly edges of the South Wetland were delineated to approximately 30 ft west of the commercial development, beyond which the wetland is thought to extend another 125 ft. onto our neighbor's property. Thus, there is no delineated edge of the westerly reaches of either wetland. Please know that, at the time that the delineations were being done, it was recognized that these wetlands were at the toe of very steep and high slopes and were therefore thought to be relatively inaccessible. To permanently fence the entire north wetland would require approximately an additional 1,150 ft of fencing. To permanently fence the entire south wetland would require approximately an additional 450 ft of fencing, half of which would be off the applicant's property. Further, all this quarter mile of fencing would mandate construction impacts in areas that are otherwise untouched by this project. It would also seem that the fencing that the ERC suggests is not intended to be a barrier, but only a prompt or reminder of something beyond. A split rail fence, as suggested, would not stop access. With this clarification of the existing conditions, I would ask that Mitigation Measure 3 be amended such that the edges to be fenced are those adjacent the new construction. To the extent that the department determines that this fence should run up the steep slope some distance (25 ft?) to deter a trespasser, this might be a more reasonable alternatives. Thanks Rich Wagner, AlA Baylis Architects 425.454.0566 www.BaylisArchitects.com J STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF KING } AFFIDA VIT OF PUBLICATION PUBLIC NOTICE Jody Barton, being first duly sworn on oath that she is the Legal Advertising Representative of the King County Journal a daily 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 referfed to, published in the English language continuously as a daily newspaper in King County, Washington. The King County Journal 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 King County Journal (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 24, 2006. The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of $134.40. ~~~\'\\ ",,, 604{ hi", .• ~ ............ 8~ " : ~.~\~SIOIV €"..i;" ~ I" J~Yn t /'!~OTARr\\ \ Legal Advertising Representative, King County Journal ~: 0 _._ (/J: ~ S;;;I. and swo~ day of Fcl>ruary, 2006. \ ~"" "UBLle /~ j j(. I" ~;"'~9'19-o1 .. "~.f' ff." 0 ........ ~~ ... -)~ . , III, F: WAS'" ,. .. .. KaIhY~· .. "",~."., Notary Pubhc for the State of Washington, Residing in Covington, Washington ~ PO Number: NOTICE OF REVISED ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE & PUBLIC HEARING RENTON, WASHINGTON The Environmental Review Com- mittee has issued a Revised Determination of Non-Significance- Mitigated for the following project under the authority of the Renton Municipal Code. Rainier Avenue Mixed-Use 'South Parking tot HUA04-093, SA-A; ECF I LUA05-133, V-H Location: West of 505 Rainier Avenue N & southeast of NW 6th Street. The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPAl Review and Administrative Site Plan review for a 27 -space parking lot. A portion of a Category 3 wetland would be filled with off site wetland mitigation. A variance from the Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Regulations is required for work withiri the 25-ft. buffer of the onsite watercourse! stream. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on March 10, 2006. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Exam- iner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11O.B. Additional infor- mation regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. A Public Hearing will be held by the' Renton Hearing Examiner in the Council Chambers, City Hall, on March 14, 2006 at 9:00 AM to consider the Variance request. If the En- vironmental Determination is appealed, the appeal will be heard as part of this public hearing. Interested parties are invited to attend the public hearing. Publication Date: February 24, 2006 Published in the King County Journal February 24, 2006. #848761 STATE OF W ASIDNGTON, COUNTY OF KING } AFFIDA VIT OF PUBLICATION PUBLIC NOTICE Jody Barton, being first duly sworn on oath that she is the Legal Advertising Representative of the King County Journal a daily 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 daily newspaper in King County, Washington. The King County Journal 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 King County Journal (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 6, 2006. The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of $151.20. ~~~;r~Ar""" :-I *~ ....... ,.,.~~ ", -'t"" .···,S5\ON ~;:'" G' "I : ..... ~'\ ' ... , .. ,"'.,. I. Barton : /t" \OTAA;..~··;~··.. ~ gill Advertising Representative, King County Journal ~ : 0 \'" __ ._ ~; ~ Subscribed and sworn to me this 6th day of February, 2006.~ .n '. /::" 1':" I;:' .: ~ ; ,u).,. ..,~ .. ~. : 0 :: ~-y"'J ;1."": " J'~'" P·19-q .. · _,-c, :-" •• " 0 .. ,. .... ':(\,..--- '" F WAS .... - "\\. :\.""''''''" .... .... or the State of Washington, Residing in Covington, Wa~mgton NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE & PUBLIC HEARING RENTON, WASHINGTON The Environmental Review Com- mittee has issued a Determination df Non-Significance-Mitigated for the following project under the authority of the Renton Municipal Code. Rainier Avenue Mixed-Use South Parking Lot LUA04-093, SA-A, ECF I LUA05-133, V-H Location: West of 505 Ranier Avenue N & southeast of NW 6th Street. The applicant is re- questing Environmental (SEPA) Review and Admin-istrative Site PIan review for the construction of 27 parking spaces within a surface lot associated with the adjacent Chang's Mongolian Grill restaurant. The proposal includes portions of two large parcels containing Category 2 and 3 wetlands. The Category 3 wetland would be filled to accommodate the parking lot, with wetland compensation proposed off-site that would include wetland creation, enhancement and buffer averaging. A variance from the Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Regulations is required for proposed vegetation removal and work within the 25-ft. buffer of the onsite watercourse/stream. Appeals of the environmental deter- mination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on February 20, 2006. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Ex- aminer, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. Additional infor- mation regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. A Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner in the Council Chambers, City Hall, on March 7,2006 at 9:00 AM to consider the Variance request. If the Environ- mental Determination is appealed, the appeal will be heard as part of this public hearing. Interested parties are invited to attend the public hearing. Publication Date: February 6, 2006 Published in the King County Journal February 6, 2006. #848630 '" ... ~) / CITY OF RENTON CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 23rd day of February, 2006, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing Revised Environmental Determination & Mitigation Measures documents. This information was sent to: .. ".'" N.Q~'~,;:;~;':·,:.~,":2,.:;~:; " /:,; ·>~':.~.~I" :;;-·".j;:;.ti~::~~~~;lfll~'~l~~~iii~g":' ~ :'~r ;.'.':;i;i' .:th Agencies See Attached Matt Weber Contact JDA Group/lD Kline Corp Owners Richard Wagner Contact Rolland Dewing POR Mary Jo Carlson POR Ronnie & Roberta McDonald POR Bruce & Sue Gregg POR Shrondia Renee Otis POR Lee & Peggy Christopherson POR Carl P. Burns POR (Signature of Sender): ~j.. ,-:Jvf;~V . ~ .' . ." . .~ ~ CHARLES F. KOKKO ~ -)0 -· NOTARY PUBLIC ~ STATE OF WASHINGTON ~'STATE OF WASHINGTON ~ ) SS ~ COMMISSION EXPIRES ~ COUNTY OF KING ) MARCH 19. 2006 ~ ~ ~ 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 the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. > P !J . Dated: -i~hh ~~~ I Notary Public in and for the Sate of Washington Notary (print):_----=:;C_ .. ~__:::_,;-_+_~~f~~~~....:...../!D------- My appointment expires: 3/ f1/66 Ra~nier Avenue Mixed-Use South Parking Lot LUA04-093, SA-A, ECF/LUA05-133, V-H 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 Jamey Taylor· 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 -Stewart Reinbold • Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept. • c/o Department of Ecology Attn: Karen Walter or SEPA Reviewer 3190 160th Ave SE 39015 -172nd Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98008 Auburn, WA 98092 Duwamish Tribal Office • Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program • 4717 W Marginal Way SW Attn: Ms Melissa Calvert Seattle, WA 98106-1514 39015 172nd 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 72nd Place 220 Fourth Avenue South Newcastle, WA 98059 Kent, WA 98032-5895 Puget Sound Energy City of Tukwila Municipal Liason Manager Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official Joe Jainga 6300 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 Real Estate Services Title Examiner 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900 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, PMT's, and the notice of application. • Also note, do not mail Jamey Taylor any of the notices she gets hers from the web. Only send her the ERC Determination paperwork. template -affidavit of service by mailing ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION & PUBLIC HEARING ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED (DNS-M) POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: Ranier Avenue Mlxed-Use South Parking Lot PROJECT NUMBER: LUA04-093, SA-A. ECF I LUA05·133, V-H LOCAnON: West of 605 Ranier Avenue N & southeast of NW 6th Street DESCRIPTION: The appficant Is Rlquestlng Environmental (SEPAl Review and Administrative SMe Plan review for the construction of 27 parking spaces within a surface lot associated with the adjacent Chang's Mongolian Grill restaurant. The proposal Includes portions of two large parcels containing Category 2 and :I wetlands. The Category 3 wetland would be filled to accommodate the parking lot, with wetland compensation proposed off-site that would Include wetland creation, enhancement and buffer averaging. A variance from the Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Regulations's required for proposed vegetation removal and work within the 25- ft. buffer of the onsite watercourse/stream. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITIEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. I Appeals of the environmental detennlnatlon must be filed In writing on or before 5:00 PM on February 20, 2006. Appeals must be filed In writing together with the required 575.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Ranton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.8. Addltlonallnfonnatlon regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk'. Office, (4251430-6510. A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON THE 7TH FLOOR OF CITY HALL, 1055 SOUTH GRADY WAY, RENTON, WASHINGTON, ON MARCH 7, 2006 AT 9:00 AM TO CONSIDER THE VARIANCE REQUEST. IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION IS APPEALED, THE APPEAL WILL BE HEARD AS PART OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING. CERTIFICATION _W:),.~"""" - R A " I, J)roaJs.. Jbc"'... . ' her~by certify that 3 copies of ~he above j~~.nf6·'~~~\' were posted by me In ~ conspIcuoUS places or nearby the descnbed pro~~;.~\sS AI ~"% I" d ! ~ :'0 NOTARy:o\ ~ ~ DATE: :Jf ~I 0, SIGNED: .D 8< . ~ ~ j:J:".-~ ~ : I ~ ~ " tfl'" UBUC ... : ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn before me, a Notary Public, in and for the State of washi~gton residi~~~~: !.~:~~. ~-;;.~~:! ~ett& VlA,O"Ib' :;, d"of1tbvvto.1PooIo. Qd/l.-!cv~,~~~ NOTARYPUBLICSIG~ - CITY OF RENTON CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 2nd day of February, 2006, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing ERC Determination documents. This information was sent to: Name Representing Agencies See Attached Matt Weber, ABHL, Inc. Contact Richard Wagner, Baylis Architects Contact JDA Group, LLCIID Kline Corp. Owners Rolland Dewing POR Mary Jo Carlson POR Ronnie & Roberta McDonald POR Bruce & Sue Gregg POR Sherondia Renee Otis POR Lee & Peggy Christpherson POR Carl P. Burns POR (Signature of Sender): AA'.A'.tI-'-~ ~~ STATE OF WASHINGTON ) tJ ) 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 the u~as~-a~"A"\' purposes mentioned in the instrument. I ~;~~~''':'''~~..f:::\\\1 J /J ,/J ~ ~ .. ~\~\OAJ i:""-<t.k, 0, Dated: 'Z/'7 Db ~~""\ : ~ .... ~ ~\~'" Nota~ Public in and for the Sate of Was in~6h -._' ~ ~ ;0 ~ ~ :. PUBLIC : ; 1 _AJ .//'1_1", " ~" : ,-Notary (Print): dc:Inah tJ /Tt.e/)(Ot, r:::;LU-r I, ~ .. Ol~lg oR> .... ~./ I ". -.' ~o, My appointment expires: J -I; -6 -6 '\\\~;:-WAS~\\--\C:-.- ",', .................. '"'- Project Name: Rainier Avenue Mixed-Use South Parking Lot Project Number: LUA04-093, SA-A, ECF/LUA05-133, V-H 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 Jamey Taylor * 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 -Stewart Reinbold * Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept. * c/o Department of Ecology Attn: Karen Walter or SEPA Reviewer 3190 160th Ave SE 39015 -172nd Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98008 Auburn, WA 98092 Duwamish Tribal Office * Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program * 4717 W Marginal Way SW Attn: Ms Melissa Calvert Seattle, WA 98106-1514 39015 172nd 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 72nd Place 220 Fourth Avenue South Newcastle, WA 98059 Kent, WA 98032-5895 Puget Sound Energy City of Tukwila Municipal Liason Manager Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official Joe Jainga 6300 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 Real Estate Services Title Examiner 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900 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, PMT's, and the notice of application. * Also note, do not mail Jamey Taylor any of the notices she gets hers from the web. Only send her the ERC Determination paperwork. template -affidavit of service by mailing ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION & PUBLIC HEARING ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED (DNS-M) POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: Ranier Avenue Mixed-Use South Parking Lot PROJECT NUMBER: LUA04-093, SA-A, ECF / LUA05-133, V-H LOCATION: West of 505 Ranier Avenue N & southeast of NW 6th Street DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and Administrative Site Plan review for the construction of 27 parking spaces within a surface lot associated with the adjacent Chang's Mongolian Grill restaurant. The proposal includes portions of two large parcels containing Category 2 and 3 wetlands. The Category 3 wetland would be filled to accommodate the parking lot, with wetland compensation proposed off-site that would include wetland creation, enhancement and buffer averaging. A variance from the Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Regulations is required for proposed vegetation removal and work within the 25- ft. buffer of the onsite watercourse/stream. 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 February 20, 2006. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON THE 7TH FLOOR OF CITY HALL, 1055 SOUTH GRADY WAY, RENTON, WASHINGTON, ON MARCH 7, 2006 AT 9:00 AM TO CONSIDER THE VARIANCE REQUEST. IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION IS APPEALED, THE APPEAL WILL BE HEARD AS PART OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION AT (425) 430-7200. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION 'CITY. RENTON: <1 ' Plaruiingl13uU4ingIPubllc Works Department _ Kathy Keolker, Mayor February,2,2006 ,Matt Weber AHBL,lnc. 2.215 N 30th Street ste:#300 Tacoma, WA 98403' ,SUBJECT: Rainier Avenue fV1ixed~Use South Parking Lot LUA04~09:3, SA:'A; ECF/LUA05~133, V-H, • , ,Dear Mr. Weber: , GreggZJjDmerm.an P.E., Administrator , This letter is written on behalfoftlie Environmental R~vieW Committee (ERC) to' advi~e you that they have completed their review of the subject proj~ct, ~nd have issued a threshold D~terminationof NOr1- .Significance-Mitigated with Mitigation Measures. Please refer to the enclosed ERC Report and Decision, Section C for a list of the Mitigation M,easures. ' ,Appeals of the e.wiromnental.' detenniriation must', b~filed. ,in writing o~ or before . 5:00PM on February 20, 2006. 'Appeals must-be :filed in writing 'together wi.th·:iherequi~d $75.0Papplicatioh fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of 'Rempn; '1 055~~ut~ ~rCldy ':Nay, Rentoh; WA 98055' .. Appe~lsto the Examiner are governed by, City.of' .Renton Municipal:~ode :,Section 4-8,.110;8: Additional'information , regarding the appeal processmay,pe 6bt~inedJrolT:lthe"Rent6nCitY Clerk's'Office, (425)"430'-651 O~ . . . , '~.". ::.-.;" ' . /,-; .".> ~.: ". . A Public Hearing will be heldpy the Renton HearingExa.min~ri,n the Council Chambers"or:' the seventh: ,floor of City· Hall, ,1 055 South Gi"ady:Way, R,entori~Wast1iiigton, on ~ar6h7 ,2006, at ~:OO.AM· tb' consider' ,the Variance request. Theapplicant::o~ r~presentatiye(s) 'of the appli~antis required to'be present ~t the public hearing~. A copy 'of Jhestaff r~Pbrt will be mailedtoyoiionewe"e.k before··tM.hearing. If the Environmental Determination is appeal,ed, the appeal.will be,heareFas part of this public hearing. ,'. . .; . ~ .' "" •• .r 'The preceding, information will assis(YQucjn planning for implernentatibn, of your project-and enable you to . ,exercise your appeal rights more fully,' if 'you choose. to 0050. 'If you ,have 'any"q!Jeslioris ',or desire , . Clarification o(the above, please call r:ne:at .(425) 430-7~82;; , .., .. :,: For the Environmental Review Cornmitt~'e; Keri Weaver Senior Planner' . ' . . ' cc: JDA Group, LtC & 10 Kline Gorp I Ownet(s) . . .' , . , Roiland De\Ning, MarY Jo Carlson, Ronnie & Robert~ MCDonalQ, Bruce & $ue Gregg, '" Sherongia Renee Otis, lee&,'Peggy Christopherson, Carl P: BurnsrPartY(ies) o(Record . '. Richard. Wagner I ContaCt ' , ,.' , ' , Enclosure .:" ,", ", "r , " " . .." '. ',. . -------10~5-S~S-ou~th-G-r-ad-y-W-:-' a-y,.,-'-"'-R-en-t"'-on-, -W-a-'--Sh-m"";"'gt-o-n-9-S0--'S-S-' "-,-...:-" -'---... ~ •... ~ '.,' . AHEAD OF THE CURVE , ~ This pape;COntBiris 50% recycled material, 30% PQStconsuiner ' . ". . . . . . '. . -. . . . , ' .. '. ' ··CITY •• l~.ENT()N, '. " Plaiming/Buildingi!>ublicWorks Department. . GreggZimmertnan P .E., Administrator Wa'shJngton State Dep?lrtment of Ecology Environmental Review Section 'PO Box 47703 . Olympia, WA 98504-7703 . Subject: Envi(onmental[)eterminatio~s Transmitted herewith isa~opy Clfthe Environment~I'beterminatioh for the. following proj~ctreviewed,by the, Environmental Review Corillnittee (ERG) on January 31, 20d6: .... . , DETER~INATI()NiOFNON.SiGNIFICANCE. MITIGATED . PROJECT NAME: PROJECTNUMBER: LOCATION: . 'DESCRIPTION:'" . -' Rainier Avenue Mixed~Use,South Parking Lot UjA04';093,SA~A,ECFiLUA05.133, V~H' . ' . We~tof505RanierAv,nue N.&sOotheast ()f NW-6tli' Stre'ef. , 'The applicantl~ requ~sting' Emilronmental''($EPA). Reviewa,ndc '. , Administrative'Sl.te. Planr~vlewfor the construction Pf2t par~ing ". 'sPClc~swithi!la!;urfacelot' assQciated with the a~jacenf Chang'~:, '. 'MongQlian (3r:lllrestaurant: The proposai'lncludes,portioris .qf two '. :,Iarge. parcels co~tainingC~tegory2and 3 wetianCJs.' The Category , ", 3 ,wetland' woLild·be. filled,to,accommodatethe;parKinglot,with ' wetland :compensati6ri;',proposed' Off~site',thaf\'V04Id:iridude' . wetl~ndcreatic)n,' :e ... nanc~meQt 'and ,buffer" averagihg .. A • variariC~; .. ·· ;, . from, the 'Tree' ,Cuttlng:~Clnd Land Clea'ring Regula~lons 'Is required., for proPC?sedvege\atl~ii removal and \Nork wlthlhthe25~ij.' buffer. " , of theonsltewaterco.ur~~IStream~ . A~peals,of\ theenviro~nni~rii~l:, deie~minatjo~rnust'b~' fiied in-writing on or befo~e5:'00PM;on F:ebrucl,ry. 20; 20'06. . Appeals niOst be filed ihwriting :together with ,the required $75;00 application fee.' ' with: H~aring Examin~r, ,qtlof Renton, '1055 Soutlj Gf~9y-Way, Renton,WA ,980.55,' Appe~ls to the: ,Exarriinerar~ gOVerned bY.'City of Renton: Municipal' Code 'Section 4~8-11 O~B .. Additional' information" . regarding the appeal· proces$:may be obtained from the' R,~nton' City Clerk's Office, (4?5)430~651 0.'. . . ,:,' , -, • ','" -'. I,' .If you have questions, please call me at (425) 43.0-7384,-' .' , '.' . , -- (e7ttheZ:iI;~me;tal R~iliew Committee, ·I·"'.'e£v.:"~~ , : .: I . : ~ , , keriWeaver Senior' Planner .' ' . - Ki~g' Cburlty 'Wastewater'treatment Divi~ion WDFW, StewartReinb6ld. ',," , David F.Dietzman, Depaftn;ent of Naturai Resources _ WSDOT; NorthWest Region , . ,,' , Duwainish Tribal Office" , , , .. . , .' . cc: . ,'.: Karen Walter, Fisheries, Muckleshootlndian Tribe (Ordinance) , Melissa Calvert, rviucklesho,cit Cultural Resources Program, qs Army Corp. of Engineers . . .,' . " , ~tephanieKramer, ~ffice6lArchaeology & HistoricPfeservation '. ". .' '. . " -' -=En ..... c.."lo ... s-ur ..... e·'-----i-O'-'55-S-'O~U..,-;th.;..Gr~··~ad-Y.;..W-a-Y---R'-,en-t---on-,-W-as-h-in-g-t. ~-n-"9---8---0---55-:-"'--'-"":""...;.o...--•• ~ ~. , . , ,'AHEAD OF'Tin'CURVE, .\(J!/ This p~per contains 50% recycled matelial, 30% post ~~sumer. CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) APPLICATION NO(S): LUA04-093, ECF, SA-A / LUA05-133, V-H APPLICANT: JDA Group, LLC and 1.0. Kline Corp. PROJECT NAME: Rainier Avenue Mixed-Use South Parking Lot DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and Administrative Site Plan review for the construction of 27 parking spaces within a surface lot associated with the adjacent Chang's Mongolian Grill restaurant. The proposal includes portions of two large parcels containing Category 2 and 3 wetlands. The Category 3 wetland would be filled to accommodate the parking lot, with wetland compensation proposed off-site that would include wetland creation, enhancement and buffer averaging. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: LEAD AGENCY: West of 505 Rainier Ave. N. and southeast of NW 6th Street The City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21 C.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 February 20, 2006. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11 O.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. PUBLICATION DATE: DATE OF DECISION: SIGNATURES: Dennis Culp, Admimstr Community Services February 6, 2006 January 31,2006 '." . . "',' :.~'.; .: '. . .~ . ' .. ~ " " .,' .:' -.... ' . . :: :. , :". . :. '. /., .. ,', ,.,""" ...... CI1"'{9fR'E~'I.qN.,. .,;. '.' .', .,. ". ~" ... ' ., .... : DETERMINATI'ON OF NON.;SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED' : .' '\.; .. ', MiTI'GATiQN:~lYfEASURE'S~"; ".;,,' "" . .. ' . , .1 .. '. _.... . . .l .. , APPqcATioNN()(S):;' <; LUA04~b93' SA;.AECF/LUA05-133 V~H<. . . '. . '.: ~ ~.' -.~. :" • .' . '. :'-"'.", >, , . . ~ ., ... ' , .JDA Group, LLC &JD Kline Corp. " ,,': " . '. ..' . ~ PROJECT NAME: . Raini~r Aven!.J~ Mixed-U~eSouth Parking,L~t .... : .... " .' , ~. ) 'DESCRIPTION ,OFPROJ=l()SAL: ' ...... The . applicant , :is" '. requesting Envfronrn$ntal '(~E~A):Revie,VJ" i1@t Administrative, Site' Plan review for the bonstructionofZ7 parking spaces withinasui;fa'ce lot associated~withtl1e .'. adjacent Changig MQng()lianGriliJestaurant<~he :proposal'in.cll,Jdes 'port.ions ~&ftwo, large ,par~~Is:coritalning', ' . . :Category 2 8'1d'3 wetlsl1ds.:TheCategoty 3 weJland wo:uldbeMed toaccobimodate the, parking .I,ot, ,with, wetland' COhlpeIlS'ation,pioposed,'bff,:site' ; that would •. ihcl~d~,wetlarid .' cre~tion, enhancement and buffe.raV~ragihgtA' vari~nce.from'the Tree"Cutting and,Land Clearing ~egl.ilation5 is'requireqforproposed:vegetatioi1. rel)1ovai'and~'. '. work'withintbe25.:ft.buffer ofthe'.onsitewatercourse/stream. '. ',', .~, ,,' .. ,' " .' . ",' ,." . " .' >, '.' . , . ' .. Westof"505"Ranier,Avenue N· & southeast' bf:NW'6th Str~ef: . 'A,::~2{&~~~~2it;;~~"~ento~~'~~;f:,:~:~;,;" ~ .. ,: ..• ,.: ,:':--' .. ,., " "~'. ..' /};,~$'/,;::{ bepa1n,JeXLOf,e!~nnlfiglB.~ildi~9/PUbliC wprks· . ' ", " , ' ,". . . LEAD:AGENCY:' '. ,{, ", ·','tDevelbpmEmtp,lahning~$,ectiQni\.. . . '. '. . . . . ", .. . MI~IG~TION.M~ASURES:, . ',£17 , > ,,' ....,... ':':\::;;:·~"t,~.,)r1' );~\\.;.; ... " .,'" .,"'." . .. \ .,,' "... ."', ." '}"', .i;"~,·(~;,.,~i11rj~:~~~ '" "'\"1' , .';', ; "" t, The'project)hali-be required t9 be~:desigQe9,;,~n~}~';;i," the "Department. of Ecology~s, (DOE) Erosion and' , . . .. : -. , . .. ",.. . f: , . (P.,;. ": ,:{·"-·':'''''fY~J..¢.':;;~),i P "1'\ .f .' SedimenteontroLReqLiirements\,outllnedHnVbIW:T'l~;,1H 01 Storrpwa!er MaAag~l'J"Ient Manual. . , \ .' 2. . The appJIC<;lht shall Jevi~e th~'~$tiafld pjJri,to~~~yJ1ii~e'ee~lQ~Y'~ali' iibm Its prbpose(i:iofatidl1~ to ahar~~o~t~ide~~{' .•. , ' , . the required .50 ft. buffer in order-for hy"qrqlogy,'and:wildlife'ft$?Junctip'n.i<fhe s~tisfacti9ii o(thls requi[e~entsh"all 'be . subject to theJeview and' approval, Qf, tfi~ 'pe,velopment Services Di~J~ton';an~ be completeQ -prior to: the· issuance of '. ,': constru~tlo~(utUi~perr.ryits; , '. "\'t;C:;;~,;'i:j::>:',,, . ', .. ,. .,,:":~>~:~~:~'Y3l/' .' , .. :;"",,~';"'" ", ;.'~ :;;'~':., . 3~ '. Du r.ing 5itep~~paration and ,cotl~'tr~,cii~!;I~,t~"~ .al?pli~\(If~i1~iT;ln~.t~L~i~'f~~6Ing witl;1 t>righ~iY:·,¢9IQredc()n~~ri.Jetion~ ,flags' ,...... . to ,indicate the: boundaries :of:thewet!and;:~rea'jand. buffet: Thfsalion of this requirerher:ltshall be,sUbjec,Moth~"; , review arid" approval of, the' Develbpm'~nt~" S~rvii:f3's', DlvlStQQ, ~nd', becomp'j~te:(rpri.or. to the, issua,hce . (:jf. .. ' constructio~jl:Jtility permits. " " :', ;;t~ \' \.' >;v,.\:'~"":<' , ' ", ,":' .: .' " . "-4. ~ After the' ci~veJ(>ijmeilt of pa,rk!ng; I~t' ah.d'~S~oci~tedsit~.i~~t6v,E!~~nts,thE! apPlicai1ts.h~li:~Ii1sti;l11 perman,ent:fe~tiM~> " (Le:' split-hiii'Jence or-other approve~Lbarder) and sign~ge along the 'eritire·edgeot: thewetiand' buffer. The sa~isfa~tiqn' of this requirement shall be subject to ,the review'and approval of the DevelopmentServices Division. ',' , ' ,,' ,5, .' The .• apPIi~i:mts.h~upr9'Vi~e'tlie.t~tal;~:Jffer : fill squar.~·f6ot~~~· ,~h(f:~~'upqat~ I~Qd5'C~p'~"p;a~,jIlUl)tr~tin'gth~:' ~x;dL , . , . locations, of ·i"vhe,re'. interplarithig ;~a5. 'i9s~alledori,th~' Soyth ~P,argel, .as, part' of. the'>yvett~'rld;rytitig~ti.O'l: p,lai;h,The satisfaction of this Tequirement shall :be,. subject to: the revi,ew and approvar of the DevelOPri1eof SerVices Division.,:~· '::," : ,6.'lq the evel1t'that'archaeplogical dep6~it~:.~r~ ,fou~d d~ri~g.constru6tion,work shali ~toP~hd,th~coht@~tor(~)~:h'~iI:, .. , 'Gon'tact the $tat~ Arphaeologistatthe. State'of WashingtonO.ffice;Of'Nchaeology ahd Historic,PreserVation" phOrie' ., (369)586:-3065;: ':" .. ' .. ,--"(','" ':, ::. "::"..... '::~.'. ....... ..,<,.:, ... ' '., :':' '.' <~,;:.":',- ' .. =,'. ... .' .' ". . ";~ . .' '. . '.' .: :. ." >.' ': '. "' .. ' ".'. < • '. • '-ERe Miiigati~ri Meas'ur~s ,",' " , . ',. '" ' .. ' '.' :. '. ; '.:' ::" ..... '.,:--:' , ,"", ~ f '. ~ '.' .;, .:" .. '-'. ' .. ;: ;: . " '~. ' .... : " , ..... '. .~ "" ' " ,., i . .' '.' "':' '. <,I'. ~ '. :': .. . ', .' ",. ,' . ",'.,,' . ...• : ", t .... ,', . .' .. : :~; . " " j~, '. '.-.:' ...... • ",>' ,t' " ·i.,' ..•• ~., .",; , . ., ... .. , , . .'). ~ , . ,: '. !'. . .... ' .... , "',.' -'. '~: . ~ '~. . ;. ~- .. '." .' -~. ;' . ", .. ,,, .. ,\'. , , ,APPLICATIONNO(~): '. . . ':-, : :: .. ,,\'.,'. . ... , -.. ' ; '.'. ";'. ',:" ,IJJA04;093' SA-A ECF/LUA05':133:·V-H " ,f.. . '. . :.' t.' ~;: '. t" .' <",.'. -.' : '. '. , APpLicANT:":'~' '. : ..... .' .... ':,~bA:Gr.oup,I.,~C &Jq Kline ~orp;' ':, ..... . ,::. , . '.' ',.' . '.{. ~., . '," _, . PROJEGTNAM~:' ',RainierAvenueMlxed~Use;$ou!hJ~~~king;Lot , " " .. , ' .. ;: .... .,',:'. . ,.. .','; . . .. OESCRIPTION:,PF PROPoSAL:, .", ':: The' applicant· iste~uel)tih'g:'g_nYironmerital' ,(SEPA) 'Revie~ 'and\., ~.: ':', ',', ·Administrative~ite:Plah teyiew,for'theconstructio!1' of 47 parking ~'spaces\NHhl~'a s4'rface lot associated'With'th,9' , J '.' -; . . ," , ". :adJacent, Chang!s .MongQI,i~n <;3rill r,estauF.;,uiLTheprop6sal,includes,·:por'tiPDS. ,at ,twQ' large'parc~ls;¢ontainirig:' ., .,'., ',. CategorY 2and3\\1etl~nOs. The Category3wetland'wouldbe'fiIiEidt6:~9cQ'rnmd9C3te:~he parkinglot.'wit~w~tland',,· ". ,compensation.proposed off~si~e ~th,al 'v"buld; incfude wetland :creatiori,'enh'a'ncemeFlt arid buffer -averaging.'A, _ .... ...: variance' from the Tree Cutting and· [and Clearing Regulations is req'uir~({f&rprop()sed vegetation' rel110valand .: , " '.' work Within' the' 4'5'"ft.buff~r:of:theonshe watercourse/stream~ ,,' .' ,':' . . . .". , ':~, ':',' ;".:;" . '.,' .'" . . , . ".:c.. . .•. ; "",' .. ,":" , ," ~:1;,:" .. ".ii(i:::F;"~~i,i.;,.".:,.,",;,; ,.," ." .... : ." " " ' LOCATION'OF'PROPOSAL:, ' ", ,:~fV;:we;st'to{505'Ranier Av~nue N,&'sQ~iheast of NW 6th Street'..., .....• , ........ ·LEAllAGENdV: .. ·• •.... . .. ·;l/.;~S!~%:!~~~n~~~;~:i;;~~"biidL~s ..•......... . ... , " ,> " ' /~: f/o,4~!'o me1I\¥~pr~,~\ng:S~~~9n)\,:.~,?' . . l, , '. " ",-'. -, ,.', '. : ~,' .' !4'dvISQ'iy, C? ~$,:,tQ;AilpJicarit:J. ",' __ If, ' , " . , , . , / the fol/owing notes are'supplemei1tamnfdrni;Jtlon;pf!fs~ide'Un ;c.o(ljimctiot;J'!r;wiih ,the environmenta; determination. ' . . ,,',' ~ecause theseJJo~~s ,are'pr~vid~d',af i~~CI!iffa~gifi:lf!.jY,,~tli~y a.r.~i'J(~'WsPb~e,~~ to the appeaiproc,essJ~r ' " : : ,,'.' ,',' , envl.lonme!J(al detfilrmmatlons. ",;:J',',' " : ' " . I,' ':"', .': '. "',', ,,) ... , . ".--. "' .. ' ~I~nhin~ . , " ",".,' .. ,".' ,'\,::,:::;~:;\~", ,~st;;,I, ':':;~f.0) ,/:~;;;~:':i',:", ." '<, "," ,< ,: ", .. , , \; 1.: yom,mercial, rriulti-;family; n~w ,singreJ~rJ1i1~ an(;t,''?ther npnresiq~rfti~J.cq~st~~ction activities,shall be"restricte~ ,to the, .. ':' " -,' Hours between seyen o'clock (7:00)"a:f1J., i;!n'cH~iglit'o~clock' (8:'00,) p.m./Mb'hday 'through' FridClY: Work'on Saturdays, ,;:: ~hall ,be restricted to the' hours betweet\'hin~, o:doGk (9:00) 'a:m.,.'al\c,.r6ight o~dbck (8:00) p.rn: {'Jo, work, shall b~ ~ ': ' . S d' , " .,.. " " ", ,II -" ' , , -. .. ,permlttedon un ?lY~:, ", ,', ~1,"',~.,)" ":' ,;" .. ,~,y/," '. ,'; .. ,' "" ;,'" ':;.': ..... ,. .":,,;,' "".' ' "';~'·','*::."':(:,;""",",',.,.t~,,;3i'" :... .,'.: .'" , .. ,' ...... ". ' ....... , .. " ,Building." , ,: "~,' ...,<:' . '/.' .. -" ... ~ .. ".: . ~, ' .' . .' . ":','., ... ··1.·; "~' . : < ,~ " .. ' •• " • • . " ':1:, Parking stalls must,meet AD .. A ~equirem~nts. , . : ,'. " ,: ,,,, .. , ' '. , ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ( , ~ ( \. , 'J ': , ~. 'I' (~ , >' -'. • ., ":-_'. " 2:,' Building permiJ,reqtJired, for retaining walls,gre~ter or equal to four feet (4 ft.Yin f!'eight. ' , .' ,~. . " .. . .-, .: . . '~ :'. " -\., " ~~~, .. ;:.:.'. '.::</ . .' : .. ~, r . ~'. --.~ .,. . .' ~~ :.-;.' ;,.:'>~., .:. ",.,,,:,, :.. ... .. ' .. . ' Fire'Department ,," " . " I'. ,,: ", f '~.' :. ::., ... ."... . :'" . ," :;: :':, -" ". ," .. . . .'." . ':. "': ., :,: >, . "'. ,:.:: ,",' ;:'! T '." 1:: .; J-1aiptain turnilJgradiusJqr:fire~eqLJIpmeht:' A. 415 fLo\Jtside arid ~;215 ft. inside, radii: ," , '. ' " ", ~ " ," -,'., . ~ ' .... ' '. : ,.:..." -> ..' : .. ' :'. -:' ) ,'. " . . / ,'.' " " . : ',' . . " ~ , . "," . '. .. . '.' :, .: ,,' '.' .. ::~ . " : ',,:_ p,la~.~;~iew-~enera(:,",:::,"".;'·,>: _ :'.:, .. " ;"<,' I, I'" " " '., ,,~J:;f.llpl~n·s sh~lI:c9nfontrto,.~~~~,~~~t?P Dr~fting $t~nda~ds~ , ." '.: < ,. :; , ,'" ".'c, / .: .' .. ~ , .. , .... <".' : "" . : .. " " 2." A';,to~~tru~ti~n perrjiit' i,s (~quire(;f: Th~pe"rinit' requires, three copi~s of lhe 'd~awings;'twc?' copies of: ~he drain'ag~, report, ~ ," . , a construction estimate; application' and appropriate .fee (th,is may' be sub,mitted at-the sixth' floor cu~t()iner serVice ... " " c·~~·l)t~rj. ,.' 'y' " .; " '> ,.,.' .~., c " . ", ,':,:,,)."'. " ",' •. " ' ,,'. ..." "'" '~ " '.' .... ,: .. ;' i ".: ~ '; .. ' \'~ . . ,. :,': :~ .. '.,,: . . " . .' ~ ". PlahRevi~~ :"'sul'faceWatef>, ~;",>,~."~>i ::',,',' ,; .' . : ,:::' , ", '. '.' ~ ".', , ,,:),' .. ' .. '.; {f 'A' drainage analysi~ and ,(jesi~n Jo~ :this pr~je~t. is required' to meet the standiir.d of ' the 199'0 King' C"o~nty ,Surface, ., , " .. : Water :design l1J~mual. A c~rso!y reylew of the'~eport sqbmi'tted with 'thi~ application'determined that 'it met,the, criteria' , , " :. .... ".: e~cepn~r the folloVVing: The' report 'suQmitted, with' the <;Ipp,lication utiliied, a ·'m~thod,.t~r '~esign ,of ;the" bio-swale ", .' ~', ;. 1""',? .... ::: •.... ~ ,.' '. " ,' .. ' .::, .. ~.:; .• ..." _'. '.<' ,.,.' . > '.,1 :: ... :' '.,\.".. .. ~: • :' ~ .' :'~-,~,'. '.'.:.' •• " • ': ." • ,". " •• '.' ( ,." ~ :. :. # -• J' ~ ~ " ,.... • • , • ':. ....'," ' ",: '\page1 of2' . , . .... ,'"ERC'f\c:i~isorY No~es ' '"." . . :' . ","'; .,,' ",' .. " .",.\ ','. , ." "',' '.. '. '~ .. .; . .".", ~. . '. ~ . , ~. "< . .. ' . ,', ',f' C::" -,' .' .~ " "i' , '.,': ,;', -,' ,contained in ,the Department of Ecology 2002 manual.Appr6v~1 ~oLthe,~ c6nstru~tiorujli:m \¥ill be <?ondiJiQr1ed on, .". . showing that this method: is equal or better than the ,King COUrlty' 1990 -design, criteria for water quality facilities>' .. " . :' ", ·.:~'2':,:Thepreli~i~~~ ~~~lgn sUb~_i'ttedwiththe:·a-ppiication-shows. ~24;; pip'eCbnn~~ctibfl tb th~ downstream s'y~te~::·'lt.~jlf" ., ,,' be n~cessarY to'further ~efjfy thaftnepipe,systerris being installed;and,'!he' downstream.24"system~. ha've:,enbugh: . . :~, capacity for the. entire-b.asih(fqture conditions) build-out: This,.arialysis: and verification. will, be' required' prior, to .' <approval.oUheutilitYcqnstructlonplari,s. '.-" " " ' . ";-, ;', . ' '-.. ' ~ :3.::ltapp~a:rs th~t theatea-being,filled previOuslyp'rovided some natural' detention. And it isu~derstood that' the , ',,; disturbedwetl;:inds will p,e. mitigated 9ff-site;(Within anadjateritdrainage -'basin}. However; it 'must also-bes.hown.that ....theremovalofthe naturEli detenticjn'willnotcciritribute to future dowrlstream,proQlems or floodhlg. ..: . ,'. '. . .. ' '" . .':::4.-'~1-h~$ystem 'D~veloimlentChargeShalibe'at t~e rate of $0.265isquarefoo(~f.new imperVious '(the' TIRr~portsthati , ," ,," .'total of 8787~quarefeefofnew imp~rviou.s,will I:>e added., ThiswouldreslJlt in a fee of$~328.55.) ThiSfee is,payable . , upon.recording of the· final site plan and is s!J~je~ftbchange. -,,' , " .. ".' ,,:" " .-' .:'.,' .. , .:' :,. ..... " '.' . .. :: . ',; ."'r'" .','(' : .•. ' .r; , : ~ ", ".:' " , : '. ',~' . .;' :t· -, .. :,. . ,. ,.,',;. . :' ;: .. . !'.' ~ i.. • , .' . ",,; ; .. ~, ".' . ':., .: ''', ~ , ,~. .- '., ," , ~-' . ',-'. " :. \ ': .. . '. \' ')"!;' . '. '. ,'. :< . " .. ' '" ,,-~ " . ,', ,' .. :!' .. .t,' ( .... , ,'.~ :' ': ,:. ,.,: , ", "~.,, :1' i! " ~ ",'" , ,: "l • . : ., . ,", ' , , .> : .. , :r. . .f., ;' ;:, ' ~' .' ',.,.1. , :'. . " ';. ';:.' .' '.r, : . :. ," ,'.' .... ' ,';' "~' . './: ~' . .i ., ;' .. " , ", ,;, ,.ERCAdilisoiyNoles',· ." .,.".',.;, '. ',',., '"," \"',. '.' " .; ( . '.;- . ": .. '~: ' ,'. ',' ... ,.".', ~, '. ',! ' ~age 2,of2 " To: Gregg Zimmerman, Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator Dennis Culp, Community Services Administrator Lee Wheeler, Fire Chief Alex Pietsch, EDNSP Administrator From: Jennifer Henning, Development Planning ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Rainier Ave Mixed-Use South Parking Lot (Weaver) LUA04-093, SA-A, ECF/LUA05-133, V-H The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and Administrative Site Plan review for the construction of 27 parking spaces within a surface lot associated with the adjacent Chang's Mongolian Grill restaurant. The proposal includes portions of two large parcels containing Category 2 and 3 wetlands. The Category 3 wetland would be filled to accommodate the parking lot, with wetland compensation proposed off-site that would include wetland creation, enhancement and buffer averaging. The subject project includes portions of two parcels (to be referred to as the South Parcel and the North Parcel). The applicant is proposing to construct a 27 stall surface parking lot with access drive, pedestrian connection and storm water management facilities. The proposal also involves the removal of noxious weeds; piping of an existing drainage ditch; installing a retaining wall; utility improvements; and a parking modification. Proposed development on the South Parcel includes: filling of a Category 3 wetland on-site; off-site wetland compensation to a Category 2 wetland; piping of an existing watercourse; and installation of a retaining wall. Development on the North Parcel, which is not contiguous to the South Parcel, would include: wetland enhancement and creation; removal of uncontrolled fill; construction of an ecology block wall; and wetland buffer averaging. Renton Bible Church Addition (Ding) LUA05-162, CU-H, SA-H, ECF The applicant is requesting Hearing Examiner Site Plan Approval, Hearing Examiner Conditional Use Permit Approval, Hearing Examiner Variance Approval, and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the construction of a 14,797 square foot addition to an existing church structure. The subject site consists of two parcels, which total 81,099 square feet in area located within the Residential-8 (R-8) dwelling unit per acre zoning designation. Access is proposed to the site via a 30-foot wide driveway access off of Union Avenue NE. cc: K. Keolker, Mayor J. Covington, Chief Administrative Officer B. Wolters, EDNSP Director ® J. Gray, Fire Prevention N. Watts, P/B/PW Development Services Director ® F. Kaufman, Hearing Examiner S. Engler, Fire Prevention ® J. Medzegian, Council P. Hahn, P/B/PW Transportation Systems Director R. Lind, Economic Development L. Warren, City Attorney ® STAFF City of Renton REPORT Department of Planning / Building / Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE A. BACKGROUND ERC MEETING DATE January 31, 2006 Project Name: Rainier Ave. Mixed Use South Parking Lot (Chang's Parking Lot) -Site Plan Review (LUA04-093, ECF, SA-A~ Rainier Ave. Mixed Use South Parking Lot (Chang's Parking Lot) -Tree Cutting Variance (LUA05-133, V-H) Owners/Applicants: JDA Group, LLC and 1.0. Kline Corp. 95 South Tobin St. Renton, WA 98055 Contact: Richard Wagner, Baylis Architects, 10801 Main St., Ste. 110, Bellevue, WA 98004 File Number: LUA04-093, ECF, SA-A Project Manager: Keri Weaver, Senior Planner LUA05-133, V-H Project Description: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and Administrative Site Plan review for the construction of 27 parking spaces within a surface lot associated with the adjacent Chang's Mongolian Grill restaurant. The proposal includes portions of two large parcels containing Category 2 and 3 wetlands. The Category 3 wetland would be filled to accommodate the parking lot, with wetland compensation proposed off-site that would include wetland creation, enhancement and buffer averaging. Continued on next page Project Location: West of 505 Rainier Ave. N. and southeast of NW 6th Street Site Area: South Parcel-13,200 sq. ft. of a 67,486 sq. ft. parcel (1.55 acres total) North Parcel-9,200 sq. ft. of a 246,731 sq. ft. parcel (5.66 acres total) RECOMMENDA TlON Staff recommends that the Environmental Review Committee issue a Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M) Project Location Map ERC_ ChangPkgLOT.Jan2006 City of Renton PIBIPW Department Environ. tal Review Committee Staff Report RAINIER AVE. MIXED-USE s. PARKING LOT (SITE PLAN & VARIANCE) LUA-04-093 AND LUA05-133 ERC REPORT of January 31, 2006 Page 20f8 PROJECT DESCRIPTION CONTINUED: The subject project includes portions of two parcels (to be referred to as the South Parcel and the North Parcel). The applicant is proposing to construct a 27 stall surface parking lot with access drive, pedestrian connection and storm water management facilities. The proposal also involves the removal of noxious weeds; piping of an existill9 drainage ditch; installing a retaining wall; utility improvements; and a parking modification. Proposed development on the South Parcel includes: filling of a Category 3 wetland on-site; off-site wetland compensation to a Category 2 wetland; piping of an existing watercourse; and installation of a retaining wall. Development on the North Parcel, which is not contiguous to the South Parcel, would include: wetland enhancement and creation; removal of uncontrolled fill; construction of an ecology block wall; and wetland buffer averaging. The site is located west of Rainier Ave. South, and north of an existing restaurant (Chang's Mongolian Grill). The applicant has requested a parking modification to increase the maximum allowable number of parking spaces for the restaurant. The applicant contends that the new parking lot and additional parking spaces are needed to support the restaurant during peak hours, specifically the lunch hours and Friday/Saturday evenings. Adjacent development includes: East: Auto repair shop and espresso stand West: Single-family residential (R-8 zoning) North: Steep slopes on undeveloped land under the same ownership (CA zoning). South: Chang's Mongolian Grill restaurant. The site is zoned Commercial Arterial (CA) as designated on the City's zoning map, and Employment Area - Commercial (EA-C) on the City's Comprehensive Plan. A utility easement exists on a portion of the existing south parcel and the adjacent restaurant parcel; however, reciprocal cross-access easements between the subject site and Chang's restaurant will be required. The South Wetland and North Wetland are at the bottom of small ravines. The edges of both sites are bound by steep slopes that surface drain to a small watercourse. Existing vegetation includes maple, alder, cottonwood, fir and hemlock and an understory of blackberries and shrubs. One tree from the south parcel and four from the north wetland area are proposed to be removed. In addition to the parking modification request, the applicant is also requesting buffer averaging, and a modification to the required wetland compensation timing, from a 12 month timeframe to be concurrent with filling of the south wetland. A variance is also requested from the Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Regulations for proposed vegetation removal and work within the required 25-ft buffer of the onsite watercourse/stream. The project is dependent upon approval of this variance, as the parking lot is proposed to be placed within the filled area of the South Wetland. The project is vested to its application acceptance date of August 12, 2004, and is not subject to the current Critical Areas regulations. B. RECOMMENDA TION Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommends that the Responsible Officials make the following Environmental Determination: DETERMINATION OF NON·SIGNIFICANCE Issue DNS with 14 day Appeal Period. ERC_ChangPkgLOT.Jan2006 DETERMINATION OF NON· SIGNIFICANCE· MITIGA TED. XX Issue DNS-M with 14 day Appeal Period. Issue DNS-M with 15 day Comment Period followed by a 14 day Appeal Period. City of Renton PIB/PW Department Environ. lal Review Committee Staff Report RAINIER AVE. MIXED-USE S. PARKING LOT (SITE PLAN & VARIANCE) LUA-04-093 AND LUA05-133 ERC REPORT of January 31, 2006 Page 30f8 c. MITIGA TION MEASURES 1. The project shall be required to be designed and comply with the Department of Ecology's (DOE) Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements, outlined in Volume II of the 2001 Stormwater Management Manual. 2. The applicant shall revise the wetland plan to move the ecology wall from its proposed location to an area outside of the required 50 ft. buffer in order for hydrology and wildlife to function. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division and be completed prior to the issuance of construction/utility permits. 3. During site preparation and construction, the applicant shall install silt fencing with brightly colored construction flags to indicate the boundaries of the wetland area and buffer. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division and be completed prior to the issuance of construction/utility permits. 4. After the development of parking lot and associated site improvements, the applicant shall install permanent fencing (i.e. split-rail fence or other approved barrier) and signage along the entire edge of the wetland buffer. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division. 5. The applicant shall provide the total buffer fill square footage and an update landscape plan illustrating the exact locations of where interplanting was installed on the South Parcel as part of the Wetland Mitigation Plan. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division. 6. In the event that archaeological deposits are found during construction, work shall stop and the contractor(s) shall contact the State Archaeologist at the State of Washington Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, phone (360) 586-3065. Advisory Notes to Applicant: The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the environmental determination. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for environmental determinations. Planning 1. 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. Building 1. Parkihg stalls must meet ADA requirements. 2. Building permit required for retaining walls greater or equal to four feet (4 ft.) in height. Fire Department 1. Maintain turning radius for fire equipment. A 45 ft. outside and a 25 ft. inside radii. Plan Review -General 1. All plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards. 2. A construction permit is required. The permit requires three copies of the drawings, two copies of the drainage report, a construction estimate, application and appropriate fee (this may be submitted at the sixth floor customer service counter). Plan Review -Surface Water 1. A drainage analysis and design for this project is required to meet the standard of the 1990 King County Surface Water design manual. A cursory review of the report submitted with this application determined that it met the criteria except for the following: The report submitted with the application utilized a method for design of the bio- swale contained in the Department of Ecology 2002 manual. Approval of the construction plan will be conditioned on showing that this method is equal or better than the King CO!Jnty 1990 design criteria for water quality facilities. 2. The preliminary design submitted with the application shows a 24" pipe connection to the downstream system. It will be necessary to further verify that the pipe systems being installed, and the downstream 24" system, have enough capacity for the entire basin (future conditions) build-out. This analysis and verification will be required prior to approval of the utility construction plans. 3. It a ears that the area bein filled reviousl rovided some natural detention. And it is understood that the ERC_ChangPkgLOT.Jan2006 City of Renton PIBIPW Department Envirom. la/ Review Committee Staff Report RAINIER AVE. MIXED-USE S. PARKING LOT (SITE PLAN & VARIANCE) LUA-04-093 AND LUA05-133 ERC REPORT of January 31, 2006 Page 4 of8 disturbed wetlands will be mitigated off-site (within an adjacent drainage basin). However, it must also be shown that the removal of the natural detention will not contribute to future downstream problems or flooding. 4. The System Development Charge shall be at the rate of $0.265/square foot of new impervious (the TIR reports that a total of 8787 square feet of new impervious will be added. This would result in a fee of $2328.55.) This fee is payable upon recording of the final site plan and is subject to change. D. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS In compliance with RCW 43.21 C. 240, the following project environmental review addresses only those project impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and environmental regulations. 1. Earth Impacts: The City's Critical Areas maps depict the presence of steep slopes and erosion hazards on site. Slopes equal to or greater than 40% are to the immediate north of the proposed parking lot. The applicant requested an exception through modification for these slopes of which a portion are on the subject site. The portion of the slopes which are approved for a modification are located at the northeastern corner of the site. The remaining onsite slopes are not included in the exception. As part of the previous review of the slopes, a geotechnical report was submitted and has been re-submitted as part of this project as described below. The applicant submitted a Geotechnical Report prepared by The Riley Group, Inc., dated June 2,2003 with the land use application. The report addressed soils, groundwater, landslide hazards including historical slide activity, foundation systems and site preparation. The report discussed conditions for multiple parcels under the same owner. The report is assumed to address similar conditions for the subject site. The geotechnical report discussed the proposed commercial development along Rainier Ave. N. and stated that potential impacts to the slopes would be at the toe. Likewise, the proposed parking lot would abut the toe of slopes located to the north and south of the lot. The lot appears to be as close as 2 ft from the toe of the slope. The geotechnical report stated that no cutting into the toe of the slope should be done due to the steepness of the slope, which is prone to surficial creep and ravelling over time. The applicant indicates that no excavation will occur at the toe of the slope. In order to reduce the potential for erosion and control sedimentation to the site and to adjacent properties, staff recommends additional mitigation, including a requirement that the project be designed and comply with the Department of Ecology's (DOE) Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements, outlined in Volume II of the 2001 Stormwater Management Manual. Mitigation Measures: The project shall be required to be designed and comply with the Department of Ecology's (DOE) Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements, outlined in Volume II of the 2001 Stormwater Management Manual. Policy Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations. 2. Surface Water Impacts: The site drains to Lake Washington via the West Hill drainage sub-basin. The applicant submitted a Storm Drainage Technical Information Report prepared by AHBL, dated June, 2004. The report states that current runoff from the site and upstream is discharged through an existing culvert that connects to the storm system in Rainier Avenue. The culvert is proposed to be extended by this project, in order to continue to collect runoff from the existing ditch and convey it downstream. The upstream analysis addresses the storm system located in Taylor Place NW, which discharges to a ditch west of the site. This ditch conveys the flow through the project site to the existing culvert. The report indicates that the upstream drainage pattern would be maintained in the existing system. The drainage analysis and design for this project is required to meet the 1990 King County Surface Water design manual (KCSWDM). Staff review indicates that this criteria is met, except for the use of a bio-swale ERC_ChangPkgLOT.Jan2006 City of Renton PIBIPW Department Environt. .al Review Committee Staff Report RAINIER AVE. MIXED-USE S. PARKING LOT (SITE PLAN & VARIANCE) LUA-04-093 AND LUA05-133 ERC REPORT of January 31, 2006 Page 50f8 designed to the Department of Ecology 2002 manual. During construction plan review, the applicant will be required to justify how this method is equal to or better than the 1990 KCSWDM design criteria for water quality facilities. Additionally, staff review indicates that the 24-inch pipe connection to the downstream system will require further analysis and verification that the system would have enough capacity for the entire basin (future conditions) upon build-out. This will be required prior to the approval of the utility construction plans. Furthermore, the wetland area to be filled provides some natural detention. Offsite mitigation for this wetland fill is proposed within an adjacent drainage basin. The applicant must also demonstrate that the removal of the natural detention will not contribute to future downstream problems or flooding. No further mitigation is recommended; however, the applicant is required to address these issues as stated above prior to utility construction plan approval. (Also see following discussion on Wetlands.) Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation is recommended. Policy Nexus: N/A 3. Wetlands/Streams Impacts: The applicant submitted a Wetland Delineation & Mitigation Report prepared by The Riley Group, Inc., dated July 22, 2004. The purpose of the study was to delineate wetlands, evaluate the functions and values of wetlands and any streams, determine classification and buffers, determine impacts and present a conceptual mitigation plan. The study delineated an approximately 16,600 sq. ft. Category 3 wetland within the ravine on the parking lot site (the South Wetland) and an approximately 21,700 sq. ft. Category 2 wetland on the north parcel (the North Wetland). A portion of the South Wetland is proposed to be filled (3,591 sq. ft. of impact includes 2,017 of wetland and 1,574 of buffer). Mitigation of these impacts is proposed to be off-site, to the North Wetland, at a 1.5: 1 ratio resulting in 3,591 sq. ft. of creation and 1,800 sq. ft. of enhancement. The applicant is requesting buffer averaging to the North Wetland to accommodate future development of the parcel to its east. According to the wetland report, the South Wetland meets the criteria as a palustrine emergent Category 3 wetland. The wetland is classified due to the size (greater than 5,000 sq. ft.); severe disturbance, including the dominance of invasive species within the wetland, specifically Japanese knotweed and Himalayan blackberry; fill material within the wetland at the east end as well as woody debris dumping; severe under- cutting of the watercourse; and outlet modification (watercourse entering a culvert). The applicant has previously undertaken noxious weed abatement of the Japanese Knotweed. The North Wetland is classified as a Category 2 wetland in that it lies within the headwaters of a watercourse. This watercourse is piped to Lake Washington and has minimal stream function. Although the eastern end of the wetland was historically filled, the wetland area shows little evidence of human related physical alteration such as diking, ditching or channelization. On December 13, 2005, the City's wetland consultant, The Watershed Company, provided an analysis of the wetland delineations, classifications, and proposed mitigation measures. This analysis indicated that the South Wetland should be considered a Category 2 wetland as it is located at the headwaters of a watercourse. The classification has not yet been resolved. If the South Wetland is determined to meet the criteria for a Category 2 wetland, the required buffers and proposed mitigation measures will be increased according to code requirements (RMC 4-3-050). The flowing water features on the site are unlikely to support salmon ids. The primary source of hydrology is discharge from on-site wetland and upland environments. An underground culvert system connects the watercourses to the city's storm drainage system. The applicant is requesting buffer averaging of the North Wetland's code required 50 foot buffer. The wetland report indicates that the North Wetland's existing buffer area on the east side is nearly non- ERC_ChangPkgLOT.Jan2006 City of Renton P/BIPW Oeparlment Envirom, lal Review Committee Staff Reporl RAINIER A VE. MIXED-USE S. PARKING LOT (SITE PLAN & VARIANCE) LUA-04-093 AND LUA05-133 ERe REPORT of January 31, 2006 Page 60f8 functional since the area lying within 50 feet of the wetland edge contains fill, debris and blackberries and would not not support desirable native vegetation. The proposed increase to the buffer area on the south edge of the North Wetland 100 ft wide at its widest point, with a total area of 5,028 sq. ft. The 50-ft. buffer on the north side of the wetland would be provided beyond the proposed ecology wall that separates the created wetland area from its required buffer. The Watershed Company has indicated that the ecology blocks would reduce and interfere with the adjoining wetland buffer hydrology and wildlife functions and is not an appropriate method; thus the wall should be moved. Staff recommends as a mitigation measure that the applicant revise the wetland plan to move the ecology wall from its proposed location are outside of the 50 ft. buffer in order for hydrology and wildlife to function. To ensure that disturbance to the wetland and buffer does not occur during and after construction, staff recommends that silt fencing be installed around the wetland and buffer during construction and permanent fencing be installed after construction. The applicant is proposing to install a 6-ft high chain link fence along the west edge of the reduced 25 ft, wetland buffer along with signage. From review of the required wetland compensation of the wetland fill and buffer fill, it appears that the square footage of the fill area is less than required by code. The wetland area is noted as 2,017 sq. ft. with a buffer fill of 1,574 sq. ft.; however the filled buffer compensation square footage is provided only for the west part of the buffer. The 25-ft buffer surrounds the entire wetland, to its north and south. It appears that the loss of the buffer would be partially mitigated outside of the parking lot, but the square footage has not been provided. Additionally the water quality facility is proposed to be located within the proposed buffer enhancement area which would reduce the amount of interplanting area. Staff recommends that as part of the final mitigation plan the applicant provide the square footage of buffer fill, and provide a landscape plan showing where and how many plants were interplanted on the South Parcel, or else obtain approval of a variance. Additionally, as previously noted, the classification of the South Wetland must be resolved in order to correctly determine the required buffers and mitigation associated with the development proposal. Staff also informed the applicant that a variance from the Tree Cutting and Land Clearing regulations would be required, for the proposal to culvert the onsite watercourse/stream and remove vegetation from its required 25-ft buffer area. A variance application was submitted on September 20, 2005 (LUA05-133). The impacts of the proposed variance have been addressed in the wetland impact analysis and the proposed mitigation for the parking lot development. Mitigation Measures: 1. The applicant shall revise the wetland plan to move the ecology wall from its proposed location to an area outside of the required 50 ft buffer in order for hydrology and wildlife to function. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division and be completed prior to the issuance of construction/utility permits. 2. During site preparation and construction, the applicant shall install silt fencing with brightly colored construction flags to indicate the boundaries of the wetland area and buffer. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division and be completed prior to the issuance of construction/utility permits. 3. After the development of parking lot and associated site improvements, the applicant shall install permanent fencing (Le. split-rail fence or other approved barrier) and signage along the entire edge of the wetland buffer. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division. 4. The applicant shall provide the total buffer fill square footage and an update landscape plan illustrating the exact locations of where interplanting was installed on the South Parcel as part of the Wetland Mitigation Plan, or obtain a variance. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division. Policy Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations ERC_ChangPkgLOT.Jan2006 City of Renton PIB/PW Department Envirom. tal Review Committee Staff Report RAINIER AVE. MIXED·USE S. PARKING LOT (SITE PLAN & VARIANCE) LUA·04·093 AND LUA05·133 ERC REPORT of January 31, 2006 Page 70f8 4. HabitatIWildlife Impacts: A wildlife reconnaissance report was conducted and submitted with the land use application as prepared by Raedeke Associates, Inc., dated September 4, 2003. The reconnaissance was required as part of the approval for the "JDA Group Townhome 2003 CPA & Rezone". The reconnaissance report stated that no bald eagles were observed on-site or on the surrounding lands as conducted on September 3, 2003. No bald eagle habitat was mapped for this area by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife in the Priority Habitats and Species program inventory. The closes bald eagle habitat is the nest and territory on the south end of Mercer. Island. The report continues to state that the lack of conifers of sufficient size or configuration for nesting or roosting, the urbanization and lack of foraging in the area does not provide any habitat for bald eagles. An occasional transient bald eagle may be seen in the area, such as is common for most of the region, but this site does not provide any of the life requisites for eagles. The second wildlife type reviewed was the Great Blue Heron. The report states that no great blue herons or nesting sites were observed on-site. No great blue heron nesting habitat was mapped for this site by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife in the Priority Habitats and Species program inventory. The report continues to state that the wetlands on site do not provide substantial foraging areas for great blue herons as the hydrologic conditions conducive to supporting amphibians and other prey for herons is not present. Four great blue herons were observed to the west cif the subject site at the east end of NW 5th St. One of the herons was an adult and were observed to have been sitting and flying into a western hemlock tree located about halfway up the slope. This tree would be out of the development site. No nests were observed, however, it is likely that one or two nests are present in the tree. as local residents reported seeing nesting herons. If nesting occurs at this location, this is likely a temporary satellite nesting area for herons that are periodically forced to abandon the Black River colony when the bald eagles attack. Similar temporary colonies have been found in other areas to the south which are eventually abandoned and the heron return to the main colony at the Black River site. Staff received correspondence from adjacent neighbors concerning the heron in the area. The applicant has provided their consultants review of the issue to address a condition of the previous rezoning of the site. The subject site does not appear to contain any heron nests or a colony and would not interfere with any existing nests within the surrounding area; therefore, no further mitigation is recommended. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation is recommended. Policy Nexus: N/A 5. Archaeological and Cultural Resources Impacts: The proposed construction of the parking lot will occur on a portion of a wetland to be filled. A letter was received from the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation concerning the proposed project. Staff also contacted the Office concerning the contents of the letter for further information. The letter was forwarded to the applicant. The applicant has responded that the owner has not identified any ethnological history on the subject parcels and the fill over existing soils, they contend, would preserve any ethnographic and geologic history of the site. The State's letter indicated that there are six ethnographic place names adjacent to or surrounding the project area. The distances from the subject site to these place names are as close as 300 feet and as far as 2,600 feet. Four of these places are within the 1,OOO's of feet from the site. These places are clustered in the vicinity. There is also a small seasonal watercourse and a wetland. These factors combine to increase the probability for archaeological resources to be present. Staff recommends as a mitigation measure that in the event that archaeological deposits are found during construction, work must stop and the contractor(s) must contact the Washington State Archaeologist. Mitigation Measures: In the event that archaeological depOSits are found during construction, work shall stop and the contractor(s) shall contact the State Archaeologist at the State of Washington Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, phone (360) 586-3065. Policy Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations ERC_ChangPkgLOT.Jan2006 City of Renton P/BIPW Department Envirom. ,al Review Committee Staff Report RAINIER AVE. MIXED-USE S. PARKING LOT (SITE PLAN & VARIANCE) LUA-04-093 AND LUA05-133 ERC REPORT of January 31, 2006 Page 80f8 E. COMMENTS OF REVIEWING DEPARTMENTS The proposal has been circulated to City Departmental/Divisional Reviewers for their review. Where applicable, these comments have been incorporated into the text of this report as Mitigation Measures and/or Notes to Applicant. ~ Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File. __ Copies of all Review Comments are attached to this report. Environmental Determination Appeal Process: Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM, February 20, 2006. If no appeals are filed by this date, the action will become final. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.E. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. ERC_ChangPkgLOT.Jan2006 :b. l-'-'=-~~ :t;Jl~~~~ ~ NO.L~NIHSVM NO.LN3~ 3sn03XIW 3nN3AV 'd3INI~ ~ o z II .. Hn NVld )",3>1 o ~ DATA SOUTH PARCEL TOTAL PARC.EL I"lORK AREA IMPERVI0J5 AREA EXISTIN6 PROPOSED % OF TOTAL SITE LANDsc,APED AREA % OF TOTAL SITE ............ ~-!il_ EXISTIN6 AND PROPOSED STRlJC,nJRES TOTAL EXISTIN6 I'lETLAND I'lETLAND FILL, AG11JAL FILL PAPER FILL TOTAL FILL TREE c.otJNT, EXISTIN6 TO BE REMOVED 61,4!l6 SF 13,200 00 SF q,eso SF 15% 51,b00 SF e5% NONE 16,b00 SF 2Pl1SF 1,514 SF 3,5'lISF >25 I uUJJJ/ ", :=:-::~ ---... .." .,," , lYf'f!"LIIS+tTFI~ 12'HL.16+ITPOlE 3&' H )( :2'" DIA ~ ...... (JfVGEOJ ""TER GlJALITY S'T'Sl&f ""'OM' Ci) , ..... 1 I , ""bo \ . , \ . 'r.l '0'. \lI"III :;)(. ;~', ~\\\"., 'I "'''" \\""" :\;i \ 'll ". I'll '11ff/f"'" is>\ '; . " " I' :,~\ ~ \ \'\ \' . \ ",', " \' r\\\\\\ I ',\\\\ I ',',""\ ~c~~~~~~~~~~~t~~fi~\\m~~-+ EXISTING RESTAURANT SITE ;.M· ~-.,f l<-.\ sr. I:~ . I ~ --;] ru ..... ~,~ ~w\. OCIf1I_~. .~ • SOUTH LOT AND SOUTH ~ETLAND FILL I\Nott~ III = 201 $ PRELlt1INARY· NOT fOR CONSTRUGlON __ 0- ::""i:..n,.~--- ~~~~~.: z w 0 :> ~ zw~ w"'~ >:::> > < 0 > a::~ w--L Z Z C' -f ~ ~ ~ll.ZOCM ...J I-I:::! Ol-u. ...J:>O IOZ I-Vl~ :> 01-OZw Vl<~ -~ ~ .... .......... u --- SITE PlAN APPROVAL APPUCATION A002 z :s Cl. '-' w z ~ ::s Ii:~ !)i • z & o..Z wg Cl v>Z ~ ::>w a: <:> 8 z x C5 ~ « a: '" w <:> Z ~ .!@ j! ~ ,; ~ :~ " 2 ~ 1'1 ' Inslt( I -.. I 'f i til;. '+11-[:. I <\1 I I I T'··'-iii g RAINIER MIXED USE PARKING EXPANSION THE SOUTHWEST OUARTER OF SECT10N 7, TOWNSHIP 23 NOR1H, RANGE 5 EAST, W1Ll.AMETTE MERIDIAN BENCHMARK aTTrsllllml(unrr<Dl1lllll€TW:R1: '01DItOl.J.IIooCf[lHMEJIItNIIU1CoIrlW.MltIIII~(MV\lIB).1XII'01flI1tIU5rEIT a1T(lIIJfTtIISll'€'fc:amt!lil'l»ftllllt 'eTSlJErsRMUAftlUSWlIl LDCAtEDllflIOIITlFU-+Wl.I(JITH.!IJOEJIAT4S311MNE11 ~ --T-- CIT)' OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON 1 \ GRAPffiC SCALE \ '. k·...,w...; i"i i ~ --------~ ~~ ,~~)" e \ \ -.::-\ ,-=..,... 'AHBL' .,' FQII) l' BRASStISC STMf'£D 'KC-.f-21t1J" o.t usr cr mrBXl CFlXIIXTE U'BUt (iii H ~ .\=-~~ G8 ~SWMI:IINCRlIfESTctIIIO fXCDICII:1tP",rlI'OfIERYN.lTUlCA.1EDIIUWAlJ(tI ~i FIIOf1'f7Ul1NCAToGflSSlG.$I$0t1ll:1I.STUIJ'RMC[RA'I£!U. >. 1-·~B~·ll·W h !i B!j o~ili:2' ::I"~1 ~~ .... ~ Z£alDlifl L..--ItlS201157 £:1217m.U \ •· .... 0·'" \ ...... """ .... 21bi =t7fIm;1 I. I I 11""1, _'"-u_ w. \ \ ~IIJOK ~~_ ~~. .~~~""~~--~-~·····-~-\h! =8'ir·· ft,¢---4"P£lI'tmUD'EP o.rm.CXJt€tTIOQIfI SITE PLAN SCAlI: .-_ .".. 1. ....... 1IU.1QSCl.SHAU.IIE~~SWJ. Zl)-JClKP5lIl .... tf5SIIWf~IIWCIII.IIQ.AyCOC1DlT. All) 211-l:JICIIIIOIM:WI'CXIIPOST. PIIlJW.1. Elf: I£IIEII ....... l.f\M1ICSIW.1.CCItSlSTrlllA1M.5f'ECXSWlO lCUJII,1[YllflWUD.IIJI$\\II[COCIlDIS,PQOCWAO n.ut1UAlDIS, MIl VNUBl D. IIlSUI[ canon. IIIDI StW.1.BEIf'PlE)1OHSIUI.!IICI'IQr'IIItJHO:. Al.1UIIA1Ml1' II: IID-Ift.mA1IOI SIW.£ KAT lIE ~WIHAIICISIIR 1tURMT 1m)1IX,f""m:D IIXlSVRJZ[DPIIOII9(JI5S1W.1.1IE1IoI«101'I!OI& -0-GRADING SECTION 'A' _ .... -I I ~ i~ ASI'MAI.taJ«X1( @=..:aJOI£I[ XI =......,...... (PA'IODT,CUSSl,r I ~OOIUID ~~ ItIII.LWPAClEDOO'lH 1.rm .1 r:C~'OItA' OWIUlc:FDICE. so: _ ......... "" ...... ;-= ....... ~~"-----I DSJ.2'· ~=''')/\''\ "~,"",.(.-" r e" CONe I( ".5~ ( ... S) \. n· toIiC or 1711fi( ..... ) ?;·t[C;.!.·I2,.{~~'~ ( ....... ) I ~ ,,'_'''-~('''H) \' ~ SCIiU:,' • .i' Ii) :! STORM PROFILE 12 fE<XUSClB) """ ........... \Of'JICN.: , -~ H<R2tlNT.Il;I'.2I1 "'----"'---- CALL 48 HOURS I =-~.:aa: II BEFORE YOU DIG _1Y11II_AGEIIC'I 1.800.424-5555 a~'!i8 ~=:Z:I;;O; i II ~ .J 0 ",.,.!l'!' g:!il\l~ ~ ~ ~ ~ STORM PROFILE 11 II I '4ER1Ol:I'.S HtII2DfTIl;I'·2ff CIlElllED FOR COMPUAICE TO cm ITAiDARDS til g CITY OF RENTON ! ~ .. ~ ~ !i! ~ ~ ''''--.. ,,--GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN C2.01 ~ --~ D"'I"/01~ .aou. 1·.20' "-"-2OJI1!t-Czoi ..-r,4OF.7 ~ ~ '" ~ !i, ,[,;;1 1 ,: ~ ~~ If..), I ,n , til til I z :tQ CL~ 1:5 ~ 0.. Ow ~~ ;oo~ o i!="<! cr 0,-, Zz ~ '-' f! i:~ i!~ --, RAINIER MIXED USE PARKING EXPANSION GRAPlflC SCALE ko-...w-' (Df PUT I I t.h _ 211 ft. 1HE SOUTi-twEsr OUARTER OF SECTlON 7, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, WIlLAMETTE MERIDIAN CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHJNGTON \ " .". ~ ....... ..-------, // '-'" ..... /' --./ 1 " ~~- j\ ' \ " " \ ENHANc.ED O'IETLAND ElJFffR ~%55~ ,\ [P~EL • C56-4eOOOCI1I '\ ..... oS" ',,,, "-"-"-,\ "-"--------------L ""\,--~~~-_2~~~ 5 ________ N8TJ1'56-W .:3'7.;;.--- ---- -/ I t I \_--~~--- ~ BENCHMARK OrYtsAOOtllurcCDl1Jll1IV'1!J1[ \llflICoIl [lAlIII-CInH MEII:M 'IDmCIiI. o.U\1I11III1IIE1£RS(/tA'oO II). CIJI'OJtD ltIUSftET arrtsJemMSR'oEYCOI1lIl.fQfTlIlIII FCI.NI$'IIIASSIIStSTAII'£D"kC-.I-2:1m"o.1EASJIJI[ST£DtItSCCIICi£I:SI£DI.J(tNlII: IESfUtFRAIIO'A'IOLI:SI.lI1II. I.OColIEDIlFIlCICTCFtl-fWlIOiTAlCDllDllT4$JRAMII ''flU IICRDI. ~"'DlI"M.Olt \ A= "'" I, OtsnDlSClJAllEIINCR1IfIESTtaID ~~~ POIDVALl.Tl.OColtEDlISlElN.XII RIOITIJ'Il.lJlNg o\T.tmIES,";lIO. 515111 .IOU. ~,~·u " ~~ \ ~,! \\ If \ ,;~, ~ , ~ T~~II;:'" .[eTl! Slutl ~ 6'P~1( '8.3$ ("'_S) , 12" twit '.).!ol (>N/OUl W) d'- ~".r~:..o2;:.3~O:~ ~ " ~ ~I p u~:ij ~f :1,,15' ~~ ~:!i~~ a:§ 13~~!5 U g~l\"l! ~ I ~ - ~ i i ~ w ~ ~ I ~ III => 0 ~ ; ::E a: I!I z § ~ ~ z I , ~ '"'I ~/ ~ I' iE"-l5?i~~i Iii '!!l ~ ¥", II It> i " SITE PLAN ~ CHECKED FOR COMPUAIICE CITY OF RENTON ~ "" i SCIt!: 1'.20' S't____ TO em STWARDS DEPAB'noIBNT OF PUBLIC WORKS I I ~I , I : :: GRADING" DRAINAGE PLAN C4.0 2 ~ i + i _--_ ....... TOBI CALL 48 HOURS IL _~ ~~ ~_ ~ I _,;-coa:r.ucna; CII.ESI BEFORE YOU DIG A COl "/01/04 2OlI1H40 ~ ii, I g I ..... " TIII..-o lG1!llCyllI1-800-424-5555 -"" ~~ ,'. "" 1--· -. ID I • NO. ___ ,y __ OATIl __... 1MU:1,7 Qf',7 ~ IM(P) IM(P) - - - -Renton dtty IJmjljj Y AD .£fo E3 11.£800 7 T23N R5E W 1/~ E)~a ZONING + ~ + PIBIPW TBCHNIOAL SBB.VICBS It 12104/03 ~ONING MAP B~K ~ Resource Conservation ~ Residential dulac B Residential 5 dulac [§ ResldenUal 8 dulac ~ Residential Manufactured Homes 10-10 I ResldenUal 10 dulac I R-14\ Residential 14 dulac I RH-I I Residential Multi-Family InliH I RM-N I Residential Multi-Family Neigbborhood Center 10H-C 1 Residential Multi-Family Suburban Center MIXED USE CENTER ~ Center Neighborhood- ~ Center Suburban- lue-N11 Urban Center -North PC-N21 Urban Cenler -North 2 ~ Cenler Downtown- ~ Center Office Residential CQMMERCIAL ~ Commercial Arterial- ~ Commercial Office- ~ Convenience Commercial INDUSTRIAL W Industrial -Heavy o Industrial -Medium o Industrial -IJght ePl Publicly owned ___ Renton City IJmlts __ . __ Adjacent City IJmits _ Book Pages Boundary KROLL PAGE 10.-T 1 ResldenUal Multi-Family Traditional I RH-U I Residential Multi-Family Urban Center4' • May include Overlay Districts. See Appendix maps. For additional regulations In Overlay Districts, please see RMe .-3. PAGE# INDEX SECTfTOWNfRAN<1E . I DATA NORTH PARCEL TOTAL PARCEL ~RK AREA IMPERVIOUS AREA, EXISTING PROP05ED S!; OF TOTAL SITE LAND5GAPED AREA S!; OF TOTAL SITE EXISTIN6 AND PROP05ED STRiJC.TURE5 TOTAL EXISTIN6 1'IETLAND Y£TLAND FILL, AC.WAL FILL PAPER FILL TOTAL FILL TREE C.OUNT, EXISTING TO BE REMOVED LIMIT FV1'\RE 6LD6. WNS"'I"RlJG.nON FINISH. FINAL 2 FT. C. TOPSOIL E,XC.AVArIOI EXIST! UNCONTROLlED FlU. EL.3a't EXISTl~ .-ETl.ANP 25'..0- 246,131 SF ~,200 5F 005F 005F ISS!; S1pOO 5F 05!; NONE 21,1005F 3,5'11 SF SP285F SP28 SF >50 4 .-ETl.ANP OO"I'ER " " " ~ : " I " " 1'::-=====': Q ~~L , N~S. .------;---- ----, ---. .. / '-/ -../ NB'i eGO m.oc.K )'tAlL __ 4' HEI6HT NORTH It'{ETLAND ENLARGMENT AND ENHANGMENT tN I" 201 $ .. / " ( \ \ \ \ \ \ / / / \ \ \ \ \ \ ~;.~~""fC>P ~:.::--- a~~~~ w ,z :J § Z z W WI >:3~ <o~ a::W w~ -I: Z z _ 0 ~ r "'--ow "'''i=' I- Oz Z W W IZLOL ~:5w tj otu~~z z>:5 < >Z I W Z W ~ .... ......... , .. " --- SITE PLAN APPROVAL APPLICATION PRELII1INARY· NOT fOR CONSTRUmON I AOO 3 ..-/' -----;- '/, ...... ______ -~/'F ' ___ <7 /~:_,....... '\. '--. --,/ /,'" _ ........ _ __.. _ -V::.-:r '. /'>- ""7 \ / f~ """ '::",-~.t'':':.....~. .......... ___ ....... --~,-~~ ,,"--~ -:. -= -= ::::.~~~----" ~-----"-7:-'-~ '-' ................ ,--..... ........ ,'-...... "-..,. -..... , ""- NORTH ViETL.AND PLANTING> PL.AN SOUTH ViETl.AND PL.ANTING> PL.AN a a ............. _ 1101!1 HAlllJE TREES. SHRUBS AND HERBS BASED ON MASTER pwn SO£M...E. SPEaES AHD WANTlTlES SHAll BE DETERMINED 8Y LJ.NOSCAP£ ARCHITECT OR YiETI.AND BlClOGlST POST NON-NA TlYE YEGETATIOO Ra!OVAL IIIIWIIURRUTmi _III GENERAl NOTES: 1. IT IS PREFERABlE lMAT mE ~ (f' THIS Pl..A1H1HG PlAN SEEK TO REPlICATE NATURAl. PlANT taMINIlTES IN SPEars CCWOSITIOO ANO ARRANGEMENT. E\{N SPAaNG AND STRAlQiT-ROW PLANTING ARE NOT OESIRED. il :=~~~~AU. BE INSTALlED ~rnlN .~.~ ~ ~~SiL~,~~a:~(~~F: EE~ li~ 6" DIAMETER) AND 8-12' LONG. 4. 8AREROOT PlAHT STOQ( MAY BE USED MiERE SEASl)lAUY ,AVNl..AEI..£ AND GEN£RAI.1.'f WST BE INSTAllED DURING THE OORWANT SEASOO {APPROXIWATElY OCTOOER 31ST THROOGH rEB 1ST}. 8AREROOT PlANT STOCK SHAll. BE EQUAl. TO 00 GREATER THAN THAT (f' THE SPEOflED CONTAINER SIZE. 5. MULa-! SHAll. BE INSTAU.ED AROONO AU.. TRtIS ANO SHRUBS TO ASSIST PLANT SJR\1VAL THE UUlOl SHALl BE WEIJlUU GRADE WOOO otIPS 00 BETTER. AlL NOH-NATIYE YEGETATION SHAll BE REWO\{[) VI1lHJN THE WE~ BtJFFER. THE lANOSCAPE ARQilTECT 00 .rn..ANO 8la..OGIST SHAll FlAG AREAS PRIll!. TO REMOVAL AREAS HRE PlANTS HAVE B£EN RDfO\'Ul SHALl BE REPlANTED "'TH lHE NAllVE PlANTS USTED IN THE MASTER PLANll[lD(). TIt[ lANDSCAPE AROIT£CT OR WEltAND BI(l..OGST SHALl Flao LOCATE PlANTS WlrntH THESE AREAS. :m> MIX k UPPER BUfUH --:;un IISWRBED SOO WJHJH THf EJiHAHW) BUffER HYDROSfIQ MIX APPt !CA](Ji BAITS PER g. O REGREEH STtRn..E SEID ... x S[£[) t.rIXTURE 3ll.B/Arn£ """ \.A£1DIIlOSl'EtSftII --"" (,) CO!!TAPIER "" m ,.., PUN1!!!Q PETAL 2000 18 ERo-f13ER WOOOfIBER MULCH 18 SEED I.IIX AS HOlED 200 LB 25-0-10 .0 LB T ACKIFlER TO PRE't{NT RFPUHG IiLPII5I\CJilStRlilS.fiiI)f1i1llCS TGil £l£C1ItOS1A1I:PMllEP-CWltTOMAlOIfUItt aMIIICASJiIIPIIOGIYOINlISIll'IIE'SElI1AlM _ ..... D(lB.£GA1[-IO'O'DIIC fWI'ILcw.'IEP-CWS2A(!UCX) ...,... ..... LKI'OS'IIIGtRACE1'OSl5 tU1~oo. aIIO MfJPW.P0ST5: Iff LO. ~~ ----,1 (2) ~ ~ FElICE DETAn. .... .... WETLAND~ BUFFER '/, ~~ARY 01[" ['OI'ZS IOsonn IUaD onM1M[fEIIUII MEA. An.lOO toA IIlTM. (II 1DlImul'OS'l.'ft£T1O.ftE'I~QllWl:OII1£I(1)III)URR_(7H. .... CD 8UFFIR BOIII!I!ARY 8!!II!A!II ""m"", PR£UA/INARY -NOT fOR CONSTRUC1!ON w' :::l Z WW >~ «0 W 0::: x W~ Z « 0::: ----. == . mmmm T ... COM .......... TTI-IE ttII _______ _ m __ :::-........... -- .~~.77.~ ... .J.JLY23. 2~ ~ ... 1 __ _ -~-T. __ ~_.oe.s.,." --- CONCEPTUAL PLANTING PLAN W1 ~ u,I·~I·: 'I "II!~ i V') V') I 2 ~~ a.. 2 Z ~ :5 ~ "- '-' U ~~ ~ !li . ,...: "-2 wE' ~ ~~ § c 5 "' ~ 0 '" :::;; 0: W "' '" z ~ 'h~J (S!"ll~:;~~~ [;i~l \ RAINIER MIXED USE PARKING EXPANSION THE SOUTHWEST OUARTER OF SEC1lON 7, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN ~,,~; IIts .... fl:,.,.-F OF RENTON. KING COUNTY, WASHNGTON 020' •• C 2~ S \ \ \ ~~ ~~'~ 1 \\1. SV'- GRAPHIC sCALE W ~\ i " _____ _~ --' ' j'':''':':'-ko-.-Li--i' i i \. ~ .. I ~ -~ __ ~"'''.''PT'''' (m"'" • ' .~~ s:c..... _ ....,BY..... .......... , \',\ ,t\~\:~, ~~_m'~ I F "\ ,\ BENCHMARK aTYGrIlll1tl!SlI!'Ocamta.J€JUX 81U. CAT1.IIoCIt1II MOCM 01Dl CAUl ... w;JD!S (IIA.'IO 118). aJMII1EDlOUSf[[J aTYGrIEJlllJlSll!'OCOf1IIQ.PlMTZI. l'i:J~~st~~&-~tA~~~~1I FRaCT fJ' u-Ml.lIElfTM. CDf1Dt AT OJ ItAOCD A'OJ( IKR1H. BLYA1UI_54.Ol2' iJ, IH5ElfI)SlllNlEIIIIR1IftESTOJID fJ'caa£l:PADfJ''''''YALlT LDCl1m .. SDIlJ( II FROIfT II'IlII.mIG It.tallSSlIl "'(111\£ CSt SUI7~A\IJIJL aLVAD_"'1! EROSION CONTROL NOTES. l.lU1IIEllffaJfSllaJC1Dllltoce.cAlJ(fAClNTYOCO.RS"A PIl-c:tllS1lllJC1D fllIKlIlIstll:lIlD WlH H aTYCFIDTtM IIJ'MIWElfT fJ' !UIJC IIlICS" tESM 0QlIll 1. AU. lMJ'S CF Q£NIC MIl HAS II' 1GET,,1ICII PIDDIVlD AS f'I8lUD (111I£PlM 3W111: QUflTflAGGEDlI1ME fUD AM)<BSDMI) tuIICG """"""" iii " s= ;l!~ 1i J ~5 85 11 ~Ht i~ ~iji~ a::!l "'~ !l 5l~ ~~~~ ~ I g 0 --·--·~:~::::jk a ~. ~',S\_ ". -w-. L 1 Mll£llllll)EIIOtl1lCllftJlC9tll aJf1lICl f1ClJlESlII5taECOCSfIU:1tD ::=~u:,.~1OIa.:":~~~ smDl IU £JICIICft MIl m.:IIT FAClJ1IS!HM1. aE IIMfTMID II A SAIISFACTDIn'COOICIII.If1lSUOl.IIIlTauMClIfJ/f#CXICSIIlICDCIIIS CXII'l!DMI)POtDf1W.ftIII.UOllSMIIAS'lSSED. 1I£II'LEIOtA1I(II, ~ ~~ I ~ I §i:1 I ~" !-I l ~~§ I ~ ~_'O _ ssy _ -:=9_-" \ \ T .E.S.C. NOTES. I. UaJlSllllC1lCltSEO.lllCECllHETCtI.l. 1. A.TA ....... AU.T.u.C.f[AU£S~£(IG'Et1tONClMMfTAIOP[JIlI£somuPRl1ClEO (JI1ItS9ET. 1. .. A E.l1S0fCCUI1[It£D DI.IIKi COIS1RUCT'OI, 1£ CXJI1U,CJIJt 9lAU..IIOTfY Han (F1lXTaI FDJITOA8NClCJIDIOPERttPM1I(MTCFEtCl.QG1'STIIIClMDS. 4. 1H[~lW1l1EnuTIO'aISIl!FQl1I£U'ltA1IItIfC)Pft01tClQI(FoIllOlS1ttG U1lJ1D,.KcamIAC1aISHIU'OFYN.l.U1lJlYl.CCoA1DISI'MJlJO~BVCAU..llGII4E UMDEJIGIIOUII)t.OCA.l(lJI[ATHDHZ4-!J555AWllUlor48IQ.1!SI'MJITOI«t(XtA'lAtQl So AU.COI1.IHDILI.'EIUL!WU.Bl:OI!J'IO!B)OT!lI[IIMoV'PII7OU'ltA1Dl .. QXII:DIlAl(IQIF\IM'I'ORn.IIEl.OtADGrElllSmlGIfIlm'PClL ~ \ INSPECnON SCHEDULE FOR ESC FACILITIES EROSIONCOIfIIIIl.MC~c:arIII.(DC)rACl.llES9WJ.NOTII:At1.OIED1I)r'l.\.lfttI tISRP_ 'l.\.[SCranlS3W.l II: IG'EtIED AS A ...... , AC:CaaC '10 11( ftlJ.OIK: "'""" IBT 'fA !\lIT , -<mrW!EB l!)). (K( A. 1UK KI'fA'iOtf«:J!BJ!' -HIf!l II} DIU, NClNlUIE\6!1RA11f"AL1E\9fTPRCDJCIfGIUQ'r. i g I MEElDREPMtS!lllUtlltll«on.tZ4tm1SCllIIIlIAlELYfPCISSIU. SITE PLAN ~ T.E.S.C. LEGEND @1EJII'UW!T0JISlIUlI(II0f1ItMtt@ ® SltAIDRMIIUTPII01tt1IOf@ . ® FUEliroWlCFOU@ ® QIMPLASD:CO'OMC.:&f'I.AS1I:CO'EfIIIOM01E5Q1HUCI.1 @ 1DI'IJWtf!UDfC.UH'l'tllOSUDllGII01ES(JIHETCI.1,!EEliICCllIIt: 1IO-Ift.1U.1IIII NI[A$ SHlU.EEPEII1HE 1IO-Ift.1RA'Q S&Il[ mIl III QI 9£[lCI.I. ® a.-um @ 1DI'IJt«YtnlJIClPltRSM£@ ~ ..... r ....... ."',~""" '''.<l \r" \ e'tOlOCO(".'l(""-S) 21'COOoClt2le6("-W) ~;_~;.!;'~I~;;~ (",.H) ~ ~~~:~'lDtCOORO. ~ ~ ~ '"' ; ......... _ ... _., \\ ' .~ 4.l£EIIOSD MIl 5E111DfTAQ CQf1R(l $YSlDIS IIJ'IC1ED (111IIS DIt\.u; II«.IfIDIlD1OaE ...... 1lEG.lPElm1OIlEfMllt'l'I1[D91[COQ1QIS. AS 0JIIS1IIUClDI AIOI:II£S:e MIl II€lIRt1l1I at!ldlUl CXI01IM [lCTll£. K~SKlUMlICI"1EIIIlT .. BIOSI(II_mMJlTADcoctRCl FACIJlES •• lUl'SSMTlOIGKCXM".£1[Sl.T" ... CCII1IIClCltlll f'ItI:PQSlI)S1E. £UIIIOlI£t.:r:UI£tfaJCSDU:lUf,lTtWLlI:K(llJ;AtDI NClIICJ'CIGIJIJtYCF1I£POIITIEIII)GII!lSSIItflO'CCIOlDISIIIlTllAY I![ CIEllED 8T IE JC1N1lS ., 10 f'RIMl: M01UCAl FM:lI1n CMIt MIl 18M: .... IElIDIJI1S,AS .... YII:1UDED101'ROlEtT~ PIUUI1(S.,-.1ERCU.IlJTftfKlEtlJlMCllUlUQ:smDl 2 i « ~ j"" ..... 1 .~. 'j:) .~. T£<XMeCa) """..." .... BY ___ _ BY ___ _ CALL 48 HOURS BEFORE YOU DIG 1-800·424·5555 5.~tf1llS1\IIIII$RltEflO!iOl/Sl*Jft11lllCOf1llClal..T. ITDClS CJtCOl5l1llt[lIIIoIfiPIIIO\'N..GrSItBDItMUClIDGI\szt:JI.1IlOCADtf' f'lUfIf:51III:1tRS. Di.IIIIe.S, IJtIl1Dl1Ol FACI.fllS. .. tlIRIOK_PBlCDCfIlCMJ&!l11ll\OJllllIIMDIJl,IU!'IIOLCT CISI.IIID nllfASalEAu 111M UD Slll.lfl[RIT, 1M' ME: roEl[ LEFl I.IMR'JDftlllllllEllWlnnw:(t2)IOItS,SHlUII:CXMIUIBTIIlOI, UDIG, lit PW1IC CXMJIIIG. a.ftllllIl1.~AlIJICI:If1RtI.PlJm1KJl(1I(IVDSlCR.I«. IIJ'II DUEDSllOO, AftJItI. A ...... (f' 3 FttTlGIlStIElIJRD. DI :t.t a!URS. .. A lDI'CRMYlIIl'«l.ctIIS1RllClOI£If1RMtt, 2(k!JI krGr'" 101-IOIQUNltTSPIU.S~lElI:r:AlElI"AU.IQC1SGrWHCWiltIGl[SSNCI G'II£SS1U1I£CQCSIIU;a(IIn. I_DllA_AlllIOTTODI _fGIl~_ ~T1II __ ~ ~ ! g CHECKED fOR COMPUAICE T1ICmlTAIIIIAROS CITY OF RENTON i DEMOLITION & T.E.S.C. PLAN C1.01 g O'O' .... G._ I'U-%OJI!~-(Icl ~ ""'" _., K.ALl. !'_20' ~ M.7 From: To: Date: Subject: 1 Gregg Zimmerman Abdoul Gafour; Jennifer Henning; Keri Weaver; Neil Watts 01/13/20066: 19:20 PM Rainier Ave. South Mixed use project The Mayors Office was clear that they would like us to use our collective expertise to find mutually acceptable solutions to the outstanding issues on the subject project. That will require some creative solutions because the outstanding issues that currently exist would prevent the project from going forward. During our meeting today with Rich Wagner, the main outstanding issues were brought forward and discussed. I list these below, along with the direction that we should take toward finding a solution: 1) The delayed lot line adjustment. This has been recorded, so is no longer a problem. 2) Can we have the HEX hearing on the site plan earlier than March (as currently scheduled). Please provide response on this. 3) Wetlands: Use of the new standards and the 75-foot setbacks would preclude the possibility of this portion of tbe development from going forward. Other phases of this project are subject to the older setback requirements (25-feet). Since there appears to be a nexus for connecting the newest submittal with the older submittals (a mitigation connection), we should explore this and determine if it is reasonable to apply. the 25-foot setback standards. 4) There is an ongoing disagreement between tlie developer's ecologist and the City's ecologist as to whether to classify the wetlands on the Chang parking lot site as Class 3 or Class 2. This has to be brought to resolution. Again, consideration has to be given to feasibility of building the project in our efforts to resolve this dispute. 5) Water line. At the meeting we offered to split the costs of the water line along 6th st. 50%/50% with the City paying full cost for the street overlay (incorporate into the annual overlay program). While on the generous side, I think this can be justified due to the benefit that other water customers will derive from this line. If this offer is acceptable to the developer we should go forward with it. That would bring closure to the water line issues. 6) Rich Wagner brought up an issue that was new to me after Jennifer had left the meeting. Apparently a commercial back yard setback variance will be needed behind the commercial buildings. They would like a variance to reduce the required setback from 15-feet to 0-2 feet, impacting 2 houses that would be higher on the ~Iope. Part of the proposal was to record a restrictive covenant on the house lots giving notice of the reduced setbacks to future home purchasers. I am not familiar with setback criteria, but according to Rich this item will have to be worked out in order for the project to be feasible. Anyway, see what you can do with this next week and report back to me. Thanks. Gregg cc: Jay Covington ( -f'" ", "')_ -,,', ~\TheWatershed com;an.y "0 " , . DE ......• 13 1)ecember 2005 ' , ' '.' V?, .:J~hr~NI~ . ' :l(eri W.eaver,Se~ior Planner' . . '.' ' DEC 1 5"~r:... . " ' ,City otRenton Planning Departffiertt . ~u(J~. '.'1055 South GradYWay . ··RJ:L,C/tIJ .. ·rt::ft· " ',' '. Renton, W A 98055 ' -tlii.U . Re: "~ainier A venue Parking Lot prbiect -E~vironmerttal Review Dear Keri: .~ ~',;Thaflk' you for the oppo~nity:to "review the ~hove.ref<:iieticed'proj~ct f~r . compliance .. : . . with the pre-June 2005 'City or-Renton Critical. Areas Ordinance. 'This is the second' .' '. '···review' provided by TheWatet:shed,Company for this-project. The "initiafwork Wru; a -'.' .. ' "'revi~w of the wetland:niitigation plan. by Kathy CurrY;.fonnerly with this office. Kathy,: , I did not conduct a site visit to verify the wetland 'boundaries and, classifications. During' , . " . ,this review, I did make a site visit to COI'npl~te those'tasks. I also'read through Kathy's ", " '8/31/04 ,review letter; the origimtl report by The ,Riley Group, fuc.entltled:·ConceptUal C ' "'Wetland DelineationapdMitigationReport,SOlith Parking Lot and dated 7122/04, Per a", ' " Colwersation'with yoti~ this report has not beenruriended, or, revised: '. ;, I~ls()reviewed the followingadditibilaldocwrtents:. ",.'. . 1)' City ofRent~nStaJtRepo~, dated9/21104 .' . . . t • ' . ' , -', • I " .. -.,". . -.~ . 2) City of Rtmtonlett,er to Rich.W'agner,d~ted iO/20/04 . AHBL Proj~ct Memo;Report,.dated 4IL5/05 ..... -~. . ~ ,r : . _. ·3) .4): '. AHBL letterto'}eIinifer H(;mnirig(Ci,ty~lanner), dated 9/39/05 " ,f -. . ..~'. ".' , '.' _ ._ ,:. ," ' . . ,The site visit was completed on the 5th of Decefuber2005. I ~ • ' . '. . :-. . .' ) '~-' . ~;.. , ... . Finclings' .Th~ 'southern wetlarid.~ppears-to have been ,a.ccurately delineated, cQmp~ed to the .... -., ' .~,providedsurveymap.an<i to several 014 flags. founqon the property. However, the' .• '~etlandhas not been acc-qrately classified· as a Category 3 wetland .. TheordinaIlce gives .. , .:--: .. ,five. criterIa, oilly one of which must awetianomeeHo'satisfy a Category 2 designation. ,.' '.'" . . .,Critenop "c" is wetlruids of.a.ny size locatedat't~e.headwaters of a watercourse. This', .'. '.;' "wellaIid persists on a slo~e'and f<:ieds,water' to·t~e:streatIl. it is therefore a headwater ' . . wetland." . . . 'The nO.rthern wetland wa.saccur~te~y deHneated and:classified. ,~reither watercourse was ~lassified' in the Ril~y-Gio~p'report per 4-:3-050, L"Shorelines , StreamS ,and Lakes." t;~ing thissystem;'both'-~ateico~rsesw6uld meet the definition of " . ". ' :GJass'3 waters as they are perennhll, but ate niirh·saHnonid 'bearing; , The culverts beneath. ~RairiierAvenue Southare migration barriers t~ salm,oIv ... ' . '.' , . .,' ' .. . . '~in~e the Conceptual Wetland:Delirieation '~d 'Miti~a.tion Report hasnotb~eh,updated; ,th¢comments found' itiThe' WatershedCdmparty revIew 8/3'1104 letter are still valid. In . additiqn" a~ceptable fina,; mitigation p'lanssqouid ',show <;letalleg . grading plans including' • , • _'" 'w' • • .' "! , .~ , , ,'1410 Market Street~Kirkland, WA98633 ~ (4~5)i~22'5242 :--fl:I)«425) 8278136' . .... . watershed@watershedc6';corTl' ..;wWw.watershE!dco.com . ' , " : ,:y_ I.~' J . ~ .. . \ " " ' t, '. ' , .. ' . ::, ... / .. , \ I , ," .. Keri Weaver ,.: . , '13 D~ceniber 2005 . Page 20f3 . ' . . at least-tWQcross ~~cti~n,sthtough th~ w,etland' cre~tionlrestoration area~',Plans should .' .' 'also include a provision that ~a 'qualified' w~tlandbiologist b'e present during grad~ng. As . . the fill soils ~ remOved, if the original wetlands6ils are reveaied and fO,und to, be at an ac'ceptable elevatiori for future wetland conditions, the 'gi-adingplan will be field m~dified •. > ," . 'jn order' to replicate ,original coriditionsascloselyas' 'possit;le. Also, there ; should 'be, a ' , proposal for maximum 'buffer slopes. These 'slopes should not exceed 15 p~t~ent, uriles's · tlie buffer is wider than the staridard, width req\liredin 'th~code. . , .', .. ' , The ,City of Renton Critical Areas Regulations it;l place at the date of vesting list" 3 · requirements which must b:e' met. in order for a perinit, approval (Section4-3";QSO' M 2.). Requirement a. is, that a proposed I;lction .avoids.adverse Impacts ortalces'appropriate ,'., measUres to minimize and ,compensate for impacts .. : , . . . , " . 'While no detailedco~~~ni9ti<?riphins for thep~kirig'10twere pr()vided;'it appears that wethmd area,will befillec:lto:thewest,. outsi'de,(jfthe parking lot pavement: The use of a ., poured or stacked 'concrete' block retainingw~ll~t:the Western end :oftlie lot could' , possiblyreduce the wethind impacts somewhat.' ';~:' . " , Requir,emeIit c. is thatdeilial,ofthe permit wQuldresultin the denial of aU reas,onable use , .... ' · of theproperty~' " ..'.. . , The applicant is' assertmg that the parking lot is nee4ed to serve,Chang'sMongolian Grill '. restauran~.' Apparently~'the'Chahg'~slot is'notlarge'enoughto handle'busycdining tim~s: . The recent lot lineadjtistrrientJeaves,little rOOlhfor use of the property withoufwethind, ' and stream impacts. However; The applicant has{no('shown that· ot11erdevefopment proposals with 'less impact. to the' wetland, buffers,aridth'estreain are' not possible. ' The . use ,of the, site as apar"ing, 16t,issurely' not the onlyp()ssible reason@l~ use of this .. proper,ty,:, .'.,'., . .~ " ,The applicant is also seeking-a variance from the 'tree cuttingand,"1!in,4Clearing " . , '. ,regulations to allow approxifuately 65 percent pfthe'~n~site stream length to,be::i>laced' in: .. a culvert. In order for a varian~et6 be grant~d> theapRlicant mustp~oY_ean·i.mdue , hardship. it is acknowledged, fhit this properly {sJiighly cqnstrained by topography arid, . 'critidll~areas; However, as stated above, the appli.cailthas not shown that tlle~e:l~ 'nooiher •... possible develop~ent option that;,wo\ild result In fewer impacts to thestre~m corridor;' . .._ ,:'B~fferwi~ths on both thenoith ·~(i south ~etland~, sho~ld be wider th~ ~h6~ri~ 'Slopes- , '.wIthin these buffers vary, 'but are noted as being'upjo'40percent, and'R9ssibly st~eper' ,where topography is not:$ho~non the plansoi'is di,ffitulttoread. Se~ti(m·4~3'r050 fvL6 . d; iv : requires increases in bliffer",vidths when sl6p~s exceed '15 percerit. ' . .'.' ' Recommend'ations . ' : ... " ,.' ~ . , .~,. .' ':. ',.",< .... \; . , . : " -~ . ", ::. > .~' ,: .' .' .' " " ,~. '\' . ,'.;-:: . '" , ".' . . !, " ," ;';"'-.:"".,. t' , , '. ' .. ' ' . ',,',; '.,"'"'' . .' .' ~ ~ I ... • " : ... The' following tasks arc'ree<:mimertdedfor'coiTettiQns to the submittal: , \.. .c, ' 1). Revise the reporftoretlect the category<2 ~lassification of the 'southerri .' .. , ? .. ' . 'wetland."', '" ' .' ' ".' ' . . '.'\' .' ~. , < 2) The applicant should" explore other develppment options whicl:1-hav~ 'fewer i~pacts that' the curre~t pr?po~a1. , ':. .' ' ,', -:.'," ,', ;1" \ '\.;.' '. ".:". " '\, " , . . ,', .. '" . '. Ke~rWe~ver ';. .. 13 December2005 Page30f3' ,', .. , . ,', . 'j .,' :',' , ,/"" :". " . :' . ~,~), .. : .-.~~ ,. mitigatiori.· ,~lan should . be' a1tered~-tq . reflect ,'our . prior 'review:-iette~ .' 90inments andiric1urledetaiis ori.gradingas noted 'above. _ ' ,4) .' Buffers' on both wetlands,. inc1udirig,.tlie .. wetl~md mittgatioflarea,shotild:.be ' .. . I. iri~reased wherethe:'s1opes exce~dJ5'percentThe'applicant's consultant .' ," shoulclpropo'~'ebtiffe:r-widths thatiri-eju~tified by the best' availablestieri¢,e'~6n: .' : _ ". siolled: .b.uffers. . :: '., ' . " ~ ... ,', " ,./ ' .", " ',,'::.,.. . , '. . '., . "t' . . . 5)' ....... : The buffer on the newlycreated'weti'and are*sh~uidbe less thanJ5p~J:cen(or: . '. . ····,the bufferwidth:shouldbe i~creased;-,. .'.' .' '. '. ....', .. ' .. ' . ..... impl~inentation of these. reco~endations will ensure'that the project meets'the letter , ;an(inteniofthe City of Renton CAO. --, ' , .. -: '.~~~~~~.' ·Sin~eiery",· I, " ... <'~. 7~~~1e',' ~ . ..... ! :. Hugh MOrtehsen . ,Ecolo~stJpWS . • t '.', • ", J. j , . "\ . ' ,., ,f' .'. :'" . " " , ',,' . ". ',., .. ,.'. : .1' . .. ,,' ....... ; '. ~,'. ,". ', ... "', . "".,.> ,,", , .1_; ,"" . ' ,-:. ~. . ,.:'., " . ~ ":., .' . ,.'J ,',., " -' ':,1 . : ~.', ' ., i ., '/ .. ' ' ," .' " , '-.' .J,_ t . :,> - . ;J . -' ','." , "" .. '.(, .... ' ',u. "" ..... . ' . . ,' ),,', ' ,. '.' . ..... :' ,! , ,j ,'. . ~"'.' .: .... .' , . :<. "',', '.' . . " <":.,'.;) :'.<-~" . , l ~. . ,: .' " -...... . " .;- f " ,.;" • ., ,.',' ,- , .. " , '.' ::' ' . ", ~. . ,\t ", ,'J ... .,u, ... .,,-Wheeler, Mayor CITY &~~RENTON PlanningIBuildingl!?ublic Works Department Gregg Zi~mer'man P.E., Administr~tor' - . October 20, 2004 ML Richard Wagner . . Baylis Architects. . 10801 Main Street #.1'10 Bellevue,WA 98004 ' .. . . .' '.' ~ . Subject: . Rainier Averiue'Mixed~Use South Pa~king Lot ... LUA-04~093, SA·A, ECF .' . Dear Rich: ' .. As you are ,aware, th~EnvironmentalRevieVYCollllTlittee met on :SepteITlber21,. 2004 to review" the subject project TheERC .. tabled.~theproject. "'$uQpequently, Neil ·Watt$,Development.· , . Services .. Directorspokewith.Jacl<.A.lhadeff,·'owner, toroel~:lY-'the informatiOn' that a Variance .' would be .neededf6rculverting Jhe.c;lrainagecOur~e. This projScthas be placed "9n';hold" until the requiredinformationissubmltte&,·· '. . .. . '.' .. '", ".' .. " ". .' ..... " ..... .:.' .... The· presence of' the stream/water,cour$e tl1.at·:.\s"Ptoposedtobe,culverted for a length • of , ..•.... approximately 200feetisQne,of the issuestb~ti~r:~re$6Jved, 'as welt~sthe comments frOm the .. Watershed COfllpc;tny: AlthpugplyoyrYV¢tI~,~p,~~rj§(Jliantcliqt¢.$.po~n.d .. to The Watersh~d Co .. ' . comments, th,ehy'drologyand'th~effe.c1s.·~f:JIH,~g~l1e , .. w~ti~r'1dr)e~d" to be ancllyzed arid '., addressed at this time in order for the"ERC to IS5ueJts ~hresl1old deCision and to proceed with the project. .... ': " ', .. ::.'" As to the stream, , please· n61e 'th8V the BiOIQgjsrs'r~po~~lJbmitted with your applieption " "indicates that water \h'as.f1O\Nin!;i'within,the~tream duriQgsite'·~isits.ln .order.'to·culvert this . . . . stream and removev$getatioh :fromth:e reqLiired~'S foot buffer fronlthe6rdinarY high water '. : mark of this stream; 8. VarianCi3 from~theTre.e Cutting and LandCle.aring r$gulatlons; is <' . required. thisvari~nce woUld be heard by tneHeari~g Examiner. ' " ' . , Specifically,th,efollowitlginformation has been dete,rmined to be' neces,saroy in>orde~ for the' " EnvironmentarReview Committee (ERC), to make a reasoned decis.ion regarding the project's . , environmental impClCts and thene¢essarymitigation measur~s. for the proposed project and to proceed with review of the site plan anq variance, '. ' '1.' Analyze. and address the hydrology of thestream/watercourse' (effects of filling and culverting)JProvide three copies of report ancl drawings. . ' . . . , " 2. Request a Variance frorntheTreeCuttihg' and Land Clearing regulatioRsfor clearing within 25Jtof the drairiage cQurse and i::ulverting. Please submit the require!=! fee of ·$250~00 (112 of full fee of $500.00),writtehju~tifi6ation and other required $ubmitt~ls (a copy of the' Variance submittal requiremehtsis enclosed). . " . ~" 'H'WolC;-;d le""I1,,:::"r ----:}=-=O'"'='ss-=-='"so-u""":th-G=-r.....,.ad-:""y--=W:--:. a-y-.-:::R:-e-nt-on-.-:::W::-:-a"""sh,...."in-g-to-n-9-S-0-Ss-----'----R. E N TO N . * This paper contains 50"10 recycled material, 30% post consumer AHE~D OF THE CURVE Page 2 of 2 For these reasons, this project has be placed "on-hold" until such time that the required information is submitted. Once submitted, we can re-schedule ERC and schedule the Hearing Examiner Public Hearing for the Variance. With the variance, the site plan would also be heard by the Hearing Examiner in lieu of an Administrative Review. Please contact me, at (425) 430-7382, if you have any questions. Sincerely, Susan A. Fiala, AICP Senior Planner Enclosure cc: Jack Alhadeff, JD Neil Watts Jennifer Henning Parties of Record Project File Chang_Hold,doc From: To: Date: Subject: "Rich Wagner" <wagnerr@baylisarchitects.com> <sfiala@cLrenton.wa.us> 09/15/2004 9:07:33 AM Alhadeffl South Lot Response to Comments RE: LUA-040093, SA-A, ECF Susan ........... . Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the three correspondences that the city received concerning the Alhadeff South Lot SPA application. The following comments are provided by the applicant as additional information and should clarify the outstanding issues. Letter from The Watershed Company, August 31,2004 Our Wetlands Biologists, Celeste Botha of The Riley Group, conducted the field reconnaissance and prepared the Mitigation Report included in the application. She has reviewed the comments from Watershed and responds to each item in the attached memo. «Response to WC comments 091504.doc» Letter from the Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, August 26, 2004 The Office notes that "there are six ethnographic place names adjacent to or surrounding this project, several archaeological sites in downtown Renton, and the project area is near the former embayment and the former confluence of the Black River." The owner has identified no ethnological history on the subject parcels. There is certainly a much appreciated and rich ethnographic history for the Black River area, but that particular area is more than three-quarter miles from the site. Additionally, the proposed construction involves a fill over the existing soils, thus preserving any ethnographic and geologic history of the site. Letter from Ronnie McDonald, et ai, August 23, 2004 This letter from our neighbors puts forth three comments. Regarding the classification of the southern wetland, the wetlands biologist who made the determination went to great lengths to document her decision, including a detailed reviews of the city's and of the state's criteria, multiple field investigations and a review with her peers. Based on her documentation, which is included in her report, she determined that the proper classification is Class 3. Her work was then reviewed by the city's own wetlands consultant who took no exception to the determination based on the findings. Regarding the limitation of buildings shown as "Rear Building Lines" on the original plat, it should be noted that this condition would have applied to actual buildings, not construction of site improvements. The last item relates to the "protection of species such as the great blue heron". This environmental concern was identified years ago when the property was proposed for rezone. At that time, the owner retained Ken Raedeke, a recognized and respected specialists in this arena, who conducted field reconnaissance, made the necessary determinations and filed his report with the city. His report was included in the rezone information, and was included as an attachment to the environmental checklist for the subject application. I hope this information is helpful. Thank you for the opportunity to respond. Rich Wagner, AlA Baylis Architects 425.454.0566 cc: <alhadeffjack@hotmail.com>, "Celeste Botha" <cbotha@cablespeed.com>, "Matt Weber" <Mweber@AHBL.com> TO: Phone: CitY 01 Renlon P/B/PW Department 1055 South Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 Rich Wagner Baylis Architects 425-454-0566 Date: 0512712003 FROM: Susan Fiala Development/Planning Development Services Phone: (425) 430-7382 Fax Phone: 425-453-8013 Fax Phone: (425) 430-7300 I SUBJECT: Changs Parking Lot and Residential Uplands I Number of pages Including Cover Sheet: REMARKS: o Original to o Urgent D Reply D Please D Foryour be mailed ASAP Comment review Rich: The response has also been emailed to you, however, I wanted to fax you a copy of the Advisory Notes from the JDA rezone and the street vacation [unofficial document from King County Recorder's office website]. Please forward as appropriate. HC: Jennifer Henning, Neil Watts Da1nf~n ..L '-\.1.1.1 L\J.I...l.. Ahead of the curve RE: Pre-04-049 -Chang's Parking Lot Wetland Delineation -The entire south wetland does not have to be surveyed, however, disclosure of the classification and size of the entire wetland is to be provided as part of the wetland evaluation and report. Creation, enhancement and restoration are required as noted in the pre-application comments to meet wetland regulations. Stream Definition -The site survey provided with the pre-application materials indicates the presence of a "stream". It is the applicant's responsibility to evaluate and determine if this element is classified as a stream/watercourse or ditch per the City of Renton's definition for a stream by your wetlands/fisheries consultant. The evaluation is provided to the City by the applicant for review as part of the proposal. As you may recall, as noted in the Advisory Notes for the JDA Group rezone (LUA02- 142, ECF, R, CPA), a stream and wetland delineation report must be provided to determine whether or not a stream is present. Biological Evaluation -The term Biological Evaluation typically refers to the study of the presence of salmon. If there is a stream present on site, your evaluation should include appropriate discussion. However, a Habitat Data Report is required. As you may recall, as noted in the Advisory Notes for the JDA Group rezone (LUA02-142, ECF, R, CPA), a habitat data report must be prepared for the subject site, which this parcel is, to identify heron habitat and nesting sites. Multiple letters concerning the presence of heron were submitted from the surrounding neighbors. Pedestrian Access -A pedestrian connection is needed. It must be demonstrated that the widest available width of pavement would be provided at this "bump-out". With a clear demonstration of the width of the land available and how the retaining wall is designed as part of the submittal, staff will likely recommend as a condition of approval that the pavement type in this area be different than the remaining asphalt/concrete surface or other approved method. However, painting a line would not suffice. The width of the paved surface provided here must be at its widest width, but no less than 18 feet for vehicles and 4 feet for pedestrians for a total of 22 feet. Additionally, at the point where this bump-out ends and the larger land area starts, the pedestrian connection must continue at 4 feet in width (varied pavement type) and the paved driving surface must be 20 feet for a total of 24 feet in width. Property Boundaries -Staff notes that a street vacation was completed in 2002 (see Recording #20020402002350 and/or Ordinance #4955) of which the right-of-way vacation exhibit does not appear to match the south property line as shown on the pre- app drawing. Please verify the property boundaries on the south which on the pre-application drawings shows a "bump-out" however, the street vacation appears to be a different configuration. RE: Alhadeff Residential Uplands In reference to the fax sent on May 18, 2004, we offer the following response: Private and Public Streets -A request for a modification to the street standards would be required. Please see RMC 4-9-250.D. for criteria which must be clearly demonstrated through written justification. In order for eight lots to utilize the same road, you will need to evaluate which of the following approaches you wish to follow: 1) You may request a modification to the street standards for a private street to allow additional lots on the private street. This may likely involve increasing the widths from the required 26 foot wide easement with 20 feet of pavement. OR if you chose: 2) You may request a modification to the street standards for a residential street which requires a right-of-way of 50 feet with 32 ft. of pavement to a ROW of 42 ft. with 28 ft. of pavement per RMC 4-6-060.R. 3. My initial take is there would be a compromise between the two requirements for right- of-way and pavement width. Also, if you go the public street approach, setbacks would likely become an issue. One project which has a private streets is the Orchards development in the City of Renton, you may wish to check the project files in the City Clerk's office. From: To: Date: Subject: Susan ....... "Rich Wagner" <wagnerr@baylisarchitects.com> <sfiala@cLrenton.wa.us> 05/27/200412:08:44 PM Update on Rainier South Lot I met this morning with Celeste Botha to determine the best direction for the project application and we resolved to proceed on a number of issues. To the extent that the direction we are going is unacceptable to the city, I request your immediate response. Further Wetland Delineation As described in my email of May 20 to you, Celeste is not convinced of the benefit of further delineation. Additionally, since the Pre-Application meeting, she has devised other solutions for mitigation and enhancements of the north wetland that hold to the east end of the wetland rather than extending westward along the existing north edge. Stream Definition We will be removing all use of the term "steam" on our drawings. Since the watercourse runs down the middle of the wetland any environmental issues related to definitions would be addressed by the BMP's of the wetland itself. Biological Evaluation The already completed wetlands delineations include information on the soils, hydrology, flora and fauna. Therefore, we will not be conducting further BE assessments for the project. Mitigations Sureties As required by code (4-3-050M 17), the owner intends to post the performance surety device for the north wetland mitigation at the commencement of the construction of the south wetland fill. We propose that this device also be used as the mechanism to waive any requirement that the mitigations at the north wetland be in place for a year prior to the filling of portions of the south wetland. Because of the immediate need for the parking lot construction and the imminent availability of fill material from a downtown Renton site, any delay of the fills in the south wetland would not be feasible. Pedestrian Access The existing boundary of the property lines at the access drive and important pedestrian walk is severely constricted. The total width at the tightest point is approximately 23 ft from the face of the existing rockery on the west to the property line on the east. In this 23 ft, we will provide a 1 ft wide cast concrete retaining wall on the east edge, in lieu of the 3 to 4 wide ecology block, and a 22 ft wide asphalt drive. Along the east edge of this drive, we will provide a 4 ft wide painted pedestrian walkway. This will allow a minimum 18 ft wide clear auto drive when the pedestrian way is occupied and a 22 ft wide drive when necessary. Additionally, we will provide caution signage at each end of the walk. Susan, I hope you are able to concur with these proposals. They are all important to the advancement of this project. From: To: Date: Subject: Susan ..... "Rich Wagner" <wagnerr@baylisarchitects.com> <sfiala@ci.renton.wa.us> 05/24/2004 10: 18:49 AM Rainier/Alhadeff South Wetland Celeste Botha, our wetlands consultant, has asked a few questions for which I need your thoughts: * You advised caution in the use of the term "stream" which shows on the original survey. If we call it a ditch, as discussed, is a later determination of its classification needed? If so, is this something that the applicant researches or is it made by the city? * How is the determination made if a aiglggieal sHah latina (BE) for "stream" impacts is or is not needed for this project? Or, does such a determination result from the classification of the ditch? Thanks ..... Rich Wagner, AlA Baylis Architects 425.454.0566 cc: "Celeste Botha" <cbotha@cablespeed.com>, <alhadeffjack@hotmail,com> From: To: Date: Subject: Susan .. "" ... ""~,",,,_'. ,~, .. "¥ A',. ,," , )elineation "Rich Wagner" <wagnerr@baylisarchitects,com> <sfiala@ci,renton,wa,us> OS/20/2004 7:04:26 PM Rainier MU Extent of Wetland Delineation Please clarify the distance beyond our property line and beyond the proposed development to which the wetland delineation must extend. When Celeste did the wetland delineation for the entire project, she extended her study up into the north and south valleys to a point well beyond any development was ever anticipated or now proposed. However, because of the size of the wetlands, the delineations do not include the entire wetland. The northern delineation, extends approximately 120 ft beyond any proposed development; the southern delineation extends approximately 40 ft beyond our property line. Both delineations are sufficient to indicate an area greater then 5000 sf total and both delineations extend sufficiently to show that the wetland then hug the toes of the adjacent steep slopes. These delineation were then surveyed and are shown on the Land Survey prepared by Triad Assoc .. I think these delineations will give designers and decision makers all the information necessary for proper management of these environmentally sensitive areas. And, as Celeste indicates below, the task of defining additional information will be horrendous. Further, we would then need to recall the surveyors to transfer the delineation to a map. I hope you can determine that the information already gathered is sufficient. Your counsel is appreciated. Rich Wagner, AlA Baylis Architects 425.454.0566 -----Original Message----- From: Celeste Botha [mailto:cbotha@cablespeed.com] Sent: Thursday, May 20, 20044:24 PM To: Rich Wagner Cc: 'Paul' Subject: Wetland delineation Rich, I was just remembering that the gal at the city said we had to delineate the whole wetlands including off site portions. Did you ever find out if we could just use the contours or if I really do need to go back out and flag the whole enchilada? I sure hope not, it's a horrible job! Paul, if I do need to do it I'll need someone to help me! -Celeste .,., ..... ,<.,y, .. y¥'-•• "."-.~.~~ .... -.".>.-. •••• "" ..... ,,-~~>."~~ .. ~~ T"' ....... _...... , •• ,. --A ... •• _ I ,"",,,, ''C' "'''''''--,~ • """,,,,,,, ' ... ,,' ""," ." ,'"'''' '" '" ''',"v,E,eg~,J': CC: "Paul" <paul@riley-group.com>, "Celeste Botha" <cbotha@cablespeed.com>, <alhadeffjack@hotmail.com> ... CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE APPLICATION NUMBER: APPLICANT: PROJECT NAME: ADVISORY NOTES LUA 02-142, ECF, R, CPA JDA Group, LLC JDA Group Commercial #2 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezone (a.k.a. JDA Group CA Rezone-South) DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: JDA Group, LLC has requested a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Residential Single Family (RSF) to EmploymeRt Area Commercial (EAC) for 0.57 acres of property on two parcels located along the north side of NW 5t Street (vacated), about 120 feet west of Rainier Ave. N. Concurrent with this request is a requested rezone from Residential-8 (R-8) to Commercial Arterial (CA). LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: Near NW 5th Street & Rainier Ave. N. LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton Advisory Notes to Applicant: Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section 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. A stream and wetland delineation report must be provided with any development application. The report must either show where the stream and wetland is located, or confirm that there is no stream or wetland on this parcel. A note to this effect will be recorded on the City's Sierra Permit system by parcel number for future land use actions. 2. A habitat data report will need to be conducted on this parcel to identify heron habitat and nesting sites prior to any development land use action. A note to this effect will be recorded on the City's Sierra Permit system by parcel number for future land use actions. advisory notes.doc ;: ,.' :: .:. :: .' .... :. Ordinance Reference Number(s) of [on page __ of document(s)} .••.. .;: Grantor(s) (Last name first, then first 1. Cl.t~/'~'f\),~,enton 2 ,,: "';;::, 3 ,:' ';',: .:::. '. ::::~ .: .... , .. 4. nres on page __ of document plat or secllon, township, range) th!~~ast:: quarter of the southwest quarter of Sect10n ~~ng .. ~ 5;;E~:S't,~, W.M., 1n K1ng County, Washington, Ptge(:_,~~:6f~i~a?:e °f'-} ..... . ::: .... ::::.. ",:" .' .,' .' .' .' '.' . " .. ' .' .:' " .~:,: .. , ,., .' " .' .. , .... " n AddItional legal is OD page~or docJm.e,IW,~::' .... \";. Assessor's Property Tal ParceVAccount Nu 420240-1500 [J Adddional legal Is on page_of document .... '~' .. ::: ", .:. . ,' :: ';. .... /.:\:: .. :>: :,' ::: :; ;.' :.',' ..... :~: •. : . .' .' .' ::' CERTJrtcATE .. : .' ",:. /............. I. the undersigned City Clerk of the .:. City of Renton, Washington, certify ::"""':'.. :.; that this is a true and correct copy of .' :./' ./'-"""':::" CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTO~t Ordlnan:' • ~9$S Subscrtbed , ..... ;:' ./. i/' .... ::: ./ ...... " .. ,'\. and ~'aay ofJi~, 2~~~ . .:" .. / ... , .... \. ':: 9aoINANCENO 4955 ~.J.6tJ~ "'::"::/ .;: .,' .:' ,.:' :,' ::::' /":/ City Clerk :~N:/'o:b~~tE .. /d~ TH~;;:!:.tn:· .. ·"QFi.::: .. RENTON, WASHINGTON, VACArING,.A':POltTI.ON QJi'.{kw"S'b ST.R~EttFROM RAINIER A VENUE NORTil.,. TO 91.~:r.' AVEN~J:Er~OUTlf.~,:(C~G BROTHERS INC. AND MILLER·f'VA,e'tH.OOS) .. / ): /' :,i':':"':: ". :/ .J: .:':: :./.:.";:"~ ./" ;,.:-:: WHEREAS, a pro~:~ ~tlho~":foryka~fug ~~t ,portK)~: of NW 5,;~'~:~reet, from Roomer Avenue North to 91 01 Aven:~ S~~~h,./~~"":~~~::,:fjl~ ,}v~h t4e 9.t:t::i~~rk on or about October 22, 2001, and Satd petitIon ha~~ ~n si~n~ br.:~~ ~~Js J~r~~ntmg more than two- tl1uds (2/3) t~~rY abuttmg upon ~':~"?~~~:,~ l~j{a!;~t::::;:""\ /l) WHE~AS, the CIty COUDetl, by Resolutlon"No .3537;' p'~sed arief' approv¢ o.rf Nove~~ 5/·;:~:1, J after due mvestlgatlon dId fix and de:;rih~e ;{he :~;J~ NQ':Qi:~r.:,~~, 200.f(~t ~/~O\!i::':f7io p.m.)n the CIty COUDCll Chambers of the Clt;:~t'Re~to~:..{;J~:·tl\l:irne an~' P1a~~:::fo'/:~ p~i~{~aryn~;::~hereon, and the' CIty Clerk havmg given ~:~::'n6~~~/~~ such .::::;. .:< /' .. ,/" '''~: ::~ ':::. hearm~·m..Jhe.~~r p.tbVld¢d bYla~.{and·~ persons havmg been heard appearmg m favor or lD Opposlt\on thereto;\ ani:,·t~· Gl./~O~ij ~~mg .... consldered all mfonnabon and arguments presented to It, and .\: .. ::,:,", ............ "'/ ::::: :::' .::::::;::,'/ ,',::";: ""'~.'" " " .: •. : .. ::~:::~. WHEREAS, the Ad~~~t~~"~h~ ~~~~ild~b.~bb~ Works Department haVlDg duly considered said petition for ~~"~a~~;'lolan(.{~~.' fci~nl~:"~~"'~:m the publtc mterest and for the publtc benefit, and no mJury or J~g¢;~~ ari~' ~~i~~':.~rope~;~':··~ result from f, ... :.,./·'·' ./' .:" ".:: .' "'''''\ ,::' ._00.". such vacatIon, .' .' .... ,:/ .:,,' .. ,... . ';"::. NOW, THEREFORE, TIIE CITY COUNCIL OF:~~ cf~Y:hF~NT.6~ .. <~\: .' . ".:.J.:",' ,:,':' /' :/;«~::. / :,' ./; .. :.:?, .......... . •••••• • " " " ...... n ••• • •• :· '~' •.. -:: :: :~., .. ,., •.. <. . ... :/ , ..•. : ,::' . ."' WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS SECTION I. ::t·'.~~~. ,':(\/' .. ,/' ":'.:. :: The followmg descnbed portlon ofNW 5th Street, t6:.,~t .,./.: /'/;'<:~ :i'".,. . "",... ::. " ,;:.. ../ /,;:,// '~'.. " .:..:,." .. ~. ';.;; , " ':" .. ' :} :/: . '~' .. ::' :: .;:::, . . : :\:··:::i .~.: :; :.~''': ;: .... "':~" "" ORDINANCE NO 4955 " .. /: :?":~'-: " \"'" /'/~:"':.,::/ (k~··'iK?rtton ofNW Slh Street, from RainIer Avenue North to 91 st Avenue South) ';"'\:~,:;,," .,.,'/.',/ ,// .:/:~'~~ EJb~.'IlAI!')ittaChed hereto and made a part hereof as If fully set forth ,'".,.-.:' ,;: herem:;' .. / """ .. """""" :~;be,/~d:.'t~e.::"~ ~{h~feb~:j v.~~~{:~(S\f':e~t."tQ" an easement over, across, under and on all that :(, ::" ::" t' /;' ,/ .:{.:;") ":,,. ;// ~> ;':::" portion "ilS dC$cnbed" on"ExJp1)1t :~I,\r::iri" fa~or/0f'th~ Crty Tlus easement lS for the purpose of ':':':.':.. /,i' ,/ :./... '{-:. ,:,'); .. \::~ .. / constructing, recoF1StfUctuig, ~al14lg, rep,£fir#}gf"replacmg, enlarging, operatmg and mamtammg ,::' .~.:. .:': .~."" .. -::,: .:\~ ~~.: utilities and utility pipeliA~,/~lud~g/but.,··h~t,..'btei:no;::.water, ~'~e,.r and storm drainage Imes, together with the nght of'mgi~~:Lkd/~gre''-/~~ef~io}~~:hot¢':'!~i~ mstltutton of any SUIt or proceedmg~::pf law and without in~ur£g::'y{~eg~" q1;>h;~~f~.i':r';~ffY"the..f.efOr ~"Clty may from tune':{: ~~~':construct such additional fa:~ti;~"~:~t~~ r~~u:~::~';T~'~:e~mepi~,~:bject to the fopl~i~ci~:'~d conditions '."", .. " ;::.'.:'::./':< ,/."...' .. ,,' .. :':'~:"~:"""" /:/ :,/"/ ,/:::/ .\' :: :: :; .' .:: .... , ..... ,:~ ~.: :.~~ .~. // T~t a.;~~ilit; easement be retained over the entire ri~i~f"'w~y, ~t~/~h~/~derstanding tl~: the.:;;IG~~,ky'~·~:~~toped fully if the existmg utilities are relo:~~t~~;~~ t!1~' sole cost ofthe de:;i6pet;~8.Il":.':'.::/;': ./':;""."')' .} /""."""':::. . "':/ That this \~Jin~~~ ~:'~,,'W~th '~he ~d deSCrIbed herein, and shall be binding upon the parties, theIr heirs:"'~~cce~~~lin '~er~:~::~,.:~s;i~. :?:>:, SECTION II. "t:'~~toiilLl~~~f6charge • fee of $63,000 as • " :~. ,,:' " :: " street vacatIOn fee, wluch has been paid :,~ the,i~·~ty.,:,./ ./.: /"'''\ >' .. "". SECTION III. TIus ord~::;;;;ri't ~J~.i~J! l~'~;;'.Pproval, and ':::.,,;' .," ./:. ..: ..... / .. " .• ,/ ."""::" .::. ,::',:, .•. ~ .. ,··::~:;:,.t "" ·'···~· .. :r " ,',' " " .::' :::: / '.::. ~" .~:">"""'" """""/' \, ... ,.<:. "':'::,;/ ,/.:' .' ,;., .... ".",:'. \""" " ",:> / .. ' {'?,,/<''''';' five days after Its pubbcatJon 2 0'" /:" :/':;.}" ':::~:.:.:'" ,f :~. ':"'.:.,.,.i" ;/ :;-'/ "';::y " .::' ·:;:::·.~i~ .. ·.' .. ' :.~.::: .,.. . .. : .... ~~ '., :; ORDINANCE NO 4955 ". // ';':'/~;:~~rtjfied copy of this ordmance shall be filed wIth the Office of Records and Elections, '\ \"""/ /;~,'~61;~ proVIded by law ... ::':'.... ", .:' .' ...... ,-";'., •• 1: ~:r,I'~ •.• " •.• :' .~'.' ".: .. ' .,' .::'.: •• f .;~ •••• ' •• ". ~';:~::. ,J '~As';k i;lm:i:;i~"CQuCGII::lh1$ 2 5th day of February ',i \\",:.:,:,~~:,//,:;/';t:::,,~,::'::;') ,2002 ":' ... ' ./ .:': """~';"~ UJ~ ' .. / ( .' J." ,,;: : .• /./:;/. ;Bopru~) W.~i;0~:·C;ty Clerk ~¥RQy'.~:D ... :: .. BY TIlE ~:o;L (:~{;~;';/"::':'?~~:~~t\,t";. 2002 .' ••• 1 •• ,1•••••.••••• • .••••• '~. .' •• : •• " .. ;,~ ......... / ,: :/{.l ~ ',w j ~ ~ ,", '/"'.:, !',f (:: ('? "f",,/'//li / ,'/ /'" (J~Mi~'...,,;..../ <: .. ;.: .... :/ .,., .,".' ":. Jes~er, May6{ /:. /': :g "'''.;. .J:./'.... .: ...... : .. :/ ~ £::::,'f(::';)~'\ Lawrence J w~~.o~\j "i', ORO 974.2/4/02·ma .?~ 3/1/& 0 ~:2" ·<·(::~.~a;:~) .;/. .;:? ./":"':" ... ,;;, .. ",., ....... / ::'/ i: .::/ .. / ::/: /:.:......... '~' ... , ... , . Date of PublicatIon :i···· .1··· ...... <::.). :: /':: .. , .. :: ..... : ... :/://.:: . , ... :: ........ ;: .. : .. :. ":,'.':. : " ···:::::·.:1 ...... :···,·:· .::' .• " ..' ..... ;: ......•..... :{ .. . ' •... ~ ... :::: 3 .' .{ ... ,:;:.:::: .. : .. ,> . . ,~.}: :: :: ,:. " . ,;. ,: ,/ // ./.,;. :::,} .............. .. ORDINANCE NO. 4955 :.:. .::. I" .. { .~.: .. :\ ... , /,' .. f ./' .:CO~E DESIGN. INC • . ,.,""., ... _ ... ", / .," BE~LEVl.JJ; .. wA·98()07 . .:' .\' .:' .:," ":. ., ...... <,.,i{eg~,Z¢~~~n j.4:~:~2,~~~n, Core Project No 01068 9/10/01 ':',.:: :,:: :\: ...... / .::/ ;.( ,,/~·i:~~· ..... ;:.~F··:/ '\:~~ That pOj:ton of th~'·southea.$'tlh.iarter of ... the.:$o~t quarter of Section 7. Township 23 North. ~~ .. ~.'Eas~";W ~f, In ~ng ~~~~'.".Washlngton descnbed as follows' Commencing at th:ln04s~;~~·~·~f'LotA. Block 21 of the P!~t of Latnner's Lake Park Addition, accordlng·t()Jhe pI~t ~feof:,fecqt'd~fl'i'Vol!Jme 18 ofPta,ts, page 63, records of saId county. said comer betng o.ri the"south~rtY nght-of':'way m~rgll:~'of Northwest Sill Street (Fairweather Street) accortll.ng .. to s;Sid P.!'at;;.the~O(f~89dP4·5.~.lhiiong the north hne of said Block 21 and said soutI'W!iIy giarg.lfl. 1·S.~':feef~. 'fie ~Otn~:of Beginning of the herein desaibed tract; thence conbnuln~f·~.~go04'5z.1: along 'saI9:nc¢ 1l~9.~~ souther1y margin.;.33 28 feet to an angle point 'In ~Id nOrtb4.lne a~~' sOO,thefIY maf9t~4 thence /:':" N71'18'5~~ along said north hne and s~rty ~rgl~'; 14f78 fe.~t .. tQ;~ ~.nt on Uie )'1 ~terty ngh~:-of.way margin of Rainier Avenu.~ (~tate:.R~(j Nq,,,2X~ald'J:)()It1 belr:t9 on'the #c of a,;~63.1:1 foot radiUS curve to the left. ~"Cent~r of.WhI.ch bears"'S88°~ '2ffW ,/ . . ·'the~ riOrthei:lY along said curve and margin throuQh,a .. ,tentral angte.:of ~:01Qr14"/a .:/ dls~nce 6f 60'.65 feet to the south hne of Block 22 of said I».at ab.C.l . ..tI1e n<?fth~ny nght-of • . .::-,. wa,y ma~ln otsald Northwest 5111 Street according to said plat thence S17°f8'5~"W along ./,. ~Id sqUth II~ an,d.QprtherIy margin. 63.25 feel to the southeiiypr9l'0~g'a~ of1he east ,/ IJl1e gfBlocl(Q .. o( the Ptat of Woody Glen Addition according to the':p\~t tl)ereqf'recorded In .\:\.. Vi1'd91U7"mfeete1:,7" ?th' (' Pla~·'.E2~t· 91 and f92; thd eBnlockce N61 OOth41 t53"Wsn~1108~g52s.?~thel·:on·~'Pthe: roIongathtlol n .:. . (1' e ~u,,~~. comer 0 sal • ence yy a 9 sou Ine ·:;'·of.sakf'BlC),d< «}.~ndjhe OOrtt..tec1Y··~rgin of said Northwest 5th Street, 80 26 feet to the southwesf comer 9f S8!~ .f3fOCk 6 ari<!. the southeast comer of Lot 8. Block 3 of said plat; thence ~o43'21'''W .~ th.9·~uth:)ln~.~f said Lot 8 and northerly margin. 24.20 feet, thence SO~.()5'08"Vt·6~.01 fbet fQ th~ P9lrit.Of Beginning .. :::, .. ::." ....... : :. ,:,r ":::1/ /' .~:,,:' .:'.::~ .. Contains 10,S37± sqJare :ieet"{Q.,24t{} ±.~~es{ '.,?: q /ltJ/o' .. \::;"", .......... ,/ .. /' .r ./:' ./ ~~~~ :: " '~~'''''';: .' ..• ' •..•.••. ',.,'.=.: .' .: ..... .:' " .' ., ';"',:' ,:' .' :;',::..::/;: .' '::":'., .' .::. .. . ~:'f ,:' ,~:~:/6"""'" ': • •.• ~ .•• ::. ::~: ':::,./: ./ ,0' .... •• .. • .. ::· 0I068L02Ie~'a~·:;;;ro~. ~~';:i /',/ <:' .. :' .. ,.,' .... " " i l / /l., .. i' .... ··~· .. :r , I ....... :::: .•. ~. .:' :: .. : ,·r .~ ........ . ':. ORDINANCE NO. 4955 ,.;... ... ~: . .' :;.; .:' . :~ ~ /' ~~ ~;I; ~I= ~Ii . ~ .. ~ . .OJ i ~ .. ':~ } .' : " I~'" ~.. . ... I"'~ ):): llil Ig ~~ ~~ i· ~~ ~II ~I~ ~I~ ~~ ISlli ~c i I!!IS zz zz ~'" -a==ei.~~ SCAlE.: t--r;JJ' .' " ... ;:~:.'.' •......... ..... :;. ~G I!!! lli -I~ ~.~ S ~ ~ .. , ... '. " . "'::. L... RIGHT-oF-WAY YACAnOH EXHIBIT ···P. 1 cit.:: ':' .. JOB NO.o"'Oee . ~:.:> ./ ~~Z6.m~ .... / .' :: ........ ~ . :: .,' .' .: ..•. :,.-::. ,':' City Of Renton DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON AUG 262004 RECEIVED Development Services Division 1055 South Grady Way - 6th Floor Renton, WA 98055 Attn: Susan Fiala-Senior Planner RE: LUA04-049ILUA04-093 1 August 23, 2004 Ronnie & Roberta McDonald 2l6NW 5th ST Renton, W A 98055 Alhadeff proposal for expansion to Chang's Mongolian Grill parking lot Parcel number: 956480-0110 Address: 505 Rainier AVE N Dear Ms. Fiala, We are writing our comments in strong opposition to the proposed filing of a wetland and creation of a parking lot under the above-mentioned application. This property, which sits to the east from our residence, is home to a wide variety of plant and animal life. The associated ravine upstream of this wetland, through which a water-course runs year round, combines to form a wooded area that is in fact denoted on the face of the recorded plat of Woody glen Addition (Volume 47 Pages 91 & 92-see attached) as a an area restricted from building beyond recorded "rear building lines". The proposed area to be filled sits at the end of this year-round running water course. We have lived at our residence for nearly 50 years and have watched the water flow through this ravine at all times of the year. The fact that water flows through this ravine year round must indicate some sort of base flow of waters that are fed by old culverted streams andlor seeps and springs throughout the West Hill area. This water reaches it terminus at the wetland described as the "Southern Wetland" by the application. This very large (16,600 sq ft per the wetland delineation report) and diverse wetland provides not only a home to wildlife but also provides a process of water quality treatment to the combined stream water and storm water runoff from surrounding neighborhoods of the West Hill area before reaching the outletting storm drain pipe and ultimately entering the waters of Lake Washington. We believe the filling ofthls wetland will impact the water quality of the stream runoff prior to reaching the lake. The ravine with the stream upstream from the wetland is formed by rear yards of the residents on the north side ofNW 5th ST and the residents of the south side ofNW 6th ST. All lots adjacent to the stream are restricted from building beyond a noted "rear building line" that is recorded on the face of the plat of Woody Glen Addition. This should preclude the ability to construct or grade in the area assumed to be off limits to property owners encumbered with such plat restrictions. Would it not be a requirement by state law that would require a plat amendment to remove such a restriction or condition from the face of the recorded plat? Would it not require all property owners within the plat to agree to the plat amendment? The attempt by the applicant to adjust the propew line in an effort to get rid of this restriction on the lot in order to expand a parking lot does not seem to us a fair and reasonable use of one's property from the standpoint of the neighbors encumbered by the restriction nor the environment, which this restriction attempts to protect. It also appears that this encumbrance would restrict the proposed eight lot short plat to development behind or to the north of the rear building line for Lot 8 of Woody Glen Addition. With regards to application itself and the information provided there are deficiencies with regards to what we feel to be a mistake in the categorization of the wetland. 2 In the Environmental Checklist provided by the applicant, the wetland that is proposed to be filled is described as "Degradated (sic) Wetlands". This we assume is a reference to the "Wetland Delineation & Mitigation Report" prepared by The Riley Group, Inc. and dated July 22, 2004. This report reads in part on Page 6: "The south wetland meets the criteria as a palustrine emergent category 3 wetland A heron nest has been identified adjacent to the wetland on the lot to the west of the Alhadeff property; however, according to the City of Renton, a single nest does not meet the City's criteria for a rookery. The Wetland classification is based upon this infOrmation. as well as the wetland Size (greater than 5,000 square fiet); severe disturbance, including the dominance of invasive species within the wetland, specifically Japanese knotweed and Himalayan blackberry; the presence of fill material within the wetland at the east end as well as woody debris dumping; severe under-cutting of the watercourse, and; outlet modification (the watercourse enters a constricted culvert). First we must address the issue of "dominance o/invasive species" found within the "Southern Wetland". We cannot think of any area within in this City or County that has a watercourse or wetland within it that does not have Himalayan blackberry growth on it. And one only needs to drive the entire length of the Cedar River, including some of its wildest stretches to view the presence of Japanese Knotweed. These two invasive plants are everywhere but are not evidence of a "severely disturbed" wetland. Indicating this growth of weeds as reason for classifying this wetland as a Category t wetlana IS oS ridiculous. There are alternatives to removing noxious weeds from a wetland other than filling it and placing a parking lot atop it. Secondly, " ••• the presence of fill material within the wetland at the east end" is the result of years of dumping by the associated businesses into the wetland to create a larger parking area and working surface. Although this area has been an encroachment into the wetland area, it does not yet reach the existing pipe inlet. This incursion into the wetland, although a violation of City ordinance, does not significantly degrade the wetland to extent that the wetland delineation report purports. 3 Thirdly, a reference to another factor of severe disturbance " •.• as well as woody debris dumping ...• " When reading this one can only infer that the author(s) is/are either suggesting that woody debris from the wooded slopes surrounding the wetland have dropped leaves and branches within the wetland during seasonal changes and storms or that neighboring properties are dumping material over their property lines. If it is the former, is this not the natural state of affairs for all wetlands and wooded areas? And if the later, how will mitigation address the dumping by the existing perpetrators and by residents of the newly created eight-lot short plat proposed by Mr. Alhadeff'? There are no neighbors near enough to the boundaries of the wetland that could impact it by dumping lawn clippings or any other woody debris. Dumping may be occurring far upslope of this wetland but well over 200 to 300 feet away. This is simply not an impact and again is an exaggeration of the actual situation. Finally, in the reports attempt to relegate a Category 3 to this wetland, it refers to "severe undercutting of the watercourse, and; outlet modifICation". Severe undercutting of the watercourse mayor may not be occurring. If in fact that is true, then it is evidence to the fact that continued development within the contributing basin upstream is causing more runoff to enter the water-course which may be creating a larger wetland area. If filling is allowed to take place and severe undercutting continues to cause damage to the water- course then one can only assume that upstream properties will be impacted by an expanding wetland caused by the additional waters. Could such an impact be the source of litigation by adjacent property owners that as tax payers in the City, we would all share in the cost of mitigation/compensation? Because of the poor information provided in the wetland delineation and mitigation plan we are requesting that the City take the following course of action before approving any of the proposed applications within Lot 8 of Woody Glen Addition including but not limited to the Proposed Lot (Boundary) Line Adjustment to sever the wetland from the lot; the proposed eight-lot short plat, and; this application to fill the wetland to create a parking lot: 1) Conduct its own assessment of the "Southern Wetland" as we believe it has been incorrectly categorized and should be categorized as at least a Category 2 wetland. We believe it to be a vital and well functioning wetland that serves an abundant and diverse wildlife for the area. 2) Provide a written explanation as to the allowance of applications beyond the "Rear Building Lines" in the original Plat of Woody Glen Addition (Volume 47, Pages 91 and 92). The proposal for these land use applications does not appear to address this in any of their application material. It is our view that any and all proposals for construction of building and grading be done on the north side of the "rear building line". How is it that the creation of plat in 1950 and the subsequent construction of the residences in the plat were able to adhere to the restriction on the face of this plat but in 2004, a time of much stricter environmental regulation, wetlands can be filled and steep slopes can be re- platted? . 4 3) Clarify in writing the discrepancy between Washington State Fish and Wildlife regulations regarding protections for species such as the Great Blue Heron and the City of Renton's detennination that one Heron nest does not constitute a rookery as is noted by The Riley Group in the aforementioned quote. We thank you for our listening to our concerns regarding this badly conceived proposal and look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, QL --.-1' '''I}I ' • ...... ULrOUIQ "\~ OH s 3huro f\cl,~~ e.t)ee. Dft'~ ~ I N vJ CS+l} .st., '~c.V) 1 L-QR 9~OS5 (20.0)772 -g~8S OR..~~ d-Su..~ Gl(. 2..0, -"I W 5"1'!f ;'0& ~C.oJ+"'N./ LU 4 "Ie .. !:>!,] (20(;.) (1,:( -0 '1rlJ ~~-p~cLfop~ 1-~e <;' H~5 Chlt,stoph..JU[;ol\} 503 ~fu'ni~R-17~. N. F\-eNrO~ W/t 9'gos-s -II The Riley Group Inc. Technical Memorandum September 14, 2004 Susan Fiala City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 RE: Rainier Avenue Mixed-Use South Parking Lot, File #LUA 04-093, SA-A, ECF Response to The Watershed Company Comment Letter, August 31, 2004 Dear Ms. Fiala: Thank you for the prompt review of the Conceptual Wetland Delineation & Mitigation Report -South Parking Lot prepared by The Riley Group, Inc. (July 22, '2004). I would like to address each of the comments provided by The Watershed Company below. Comment 1: As there was no observed blockage within the culvert at the outlet end of either the north or the south wetlands, i! Ys.Urtlikelythat any tn:m~~ts.w.~uld ,occyr in the remaining portions of the south wetland following site construction, provided that the civil engineers are careful to properly size and place the new pipe beneath the proposed parking lot. This concern will be brought to their attention and addressed per Comment 1. Comments 2 and 3: We are aware of the need for state and federal permits. Comment 4: We will revise the graphics in the final mitigation plan to show the stream buffer. This buffer will lie entirely within the wetland buffer and will not affect the designs. IliJhO;t: <\\"Du..+ vu~ cN~cJu"'U-\'& pi f'~J), V~-: Comments 5 and 6: Excavation and construction ofthe retaining wall may damage tree roots. We will avoid disturbance of native vegetation to the greatest extent possible; however, within the area of the north wetland proposed for wetland creation, Himalayan blackberry is a dominant component of vegetative cover. More native vegetation is found upslope from the mitigation area. As with Comment 1, the project's civil engineers will evaluate options for addressing the concern about buffer hydrology. Comment 7: The delineation of the area proposed for wetland creation excluded a portion of the floodplain of the stream that is only slightly elevated above the level of the wetland as a result of sand deposition during flood events. As the soil is sandy it is assumed that capillary action does not wick water to the surface to meet the hydrology criterion. The wetland delineation was performed during January 2003, which further corroborates this conclusion. SERVING THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST Seattle Office: 10728 Lake City Way NE, Seattle, WA 98125 Tel (206) 417-0551 Fax (206) 417-0552 • The Riley Group Inc. Comment 8: The performance standards will be revised in the final report as suggested regarding invasive cover. Comment 9: The applicant has shown himselfto be responsible. He has followed through with invasive species control at the south wetland. Further, he will post a 130% bond that fully addresses the costs of the installation, maintenance, and monitoring costs. Comment 10: The final mitigation plan will include five years of monitoring. Thank you for your consideration ofthese comments. Sincerely, Celeste Botha Paul Riley Senior Wetland Associate President, The Riley Group .. ,~ SERVING THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST Seattle Office: 10728 Lake City Way NE, Seattle, WA 98125 Tel (206)417-0551 Fax (206)417-0552 City of R&mon Department of Planning / Building / Public hVI*s ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS DUE: AUGUST 26, 2004 APPLICATION NO: LUA-04-093, SA-A, ECF APPLICANT: JDA Grou ,LLC/ID Kline Co . PROJECT MANAGE . PROJECT TITLE: Rainier Mixed-use South Parkin Lot PLAN REVIEW: Micha SITE AREA: 66,760 s uare feet BUILDING AREA ross: N/A LOCATION: NW of 507 Rainier Avenue N I WORK ORDER NO: 77296 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and Administrative Site Plan review for the construction of 27 parking spaces within a surface lot associated with Chang's Mongolian Grill. The proposal includes portions of two large parcels containing Category 2 and 3 wetlands. The Category 3 wetland would be filled in to accommodate the parking lot with wetland compensation proposed off-site and include wetland creation, enhancement and buffer averaging. The proposal also involves the removal of noxious weeds; piping of an existing drainage ditch; installing a retaining wall; utility improvements; and a parking modification. 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 Earth Housina Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation .....- Environmental Health Public Services 'p- Energy/ Historie/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14 000 Feet mLi\. B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional info ti is needed to properly assess this proposal. From: To: Date: Subject: Hi Susan, "Kramer, Stephenie (CTEO)" <StephenieK@CTEO.WA.GOV> 'Susan Fiala' <Sfiala@ci.renton.wa.us> 09/01/20045:14:45 PM RE: 082604-36-KI (Rainier Parking Lot) An ethonographic place name is basically a landform, stream, etc. that has a known Indian name attached to it, from long ago. In the 19th and early 20th century, ethnographers and historians interviewed Native elders and recorded as much of their culture as they could, because the thought at the time was that it was being "wiped out" and we needed to write down as much as possible. So, there are a couple volumes of interviews and data and some maps which describe and depict locations of villages, or sacred places, or sometimes just locations on the landscape for the Puget Sound area. Fortunately for us, King County Roads has compiled them into a GIS layer for all of King County. Some times these names are very specific, like "winter village" and other times less so, like "place of many salmon" (as a fictional example). Because these locations were important enough to have names, these names are good indicators that people were on the landscape in those locations, and for that reason they increase the liklihood of archaeological resources being present. I'm sure many more places had names than we now know about (and the Tribes probably know more of these locations than we have in our GIS layer). -Downtown Renton-in:generalhascmany,-and there are several-large village sites in Renton, as it used to be the confluence of the-Ged~r ana~BlacICRivers~nd was an important fishing and living spot. My guess isthat there is a lot of'''undiscovered''-archaeology~ in Renton still. The/distances are: 2,600 feet 300 feet, 1500,1752, 1650, 1300 feet. The project area is literally surrounded. The names are Indian names, but they have meanings !;uch as many little marshes, where Black River flows out of Lake Washington, a place near the head of the Black River, etc. The significance of these names would require more research, but, the reason I mader:riy-rec0mmendati0nis-bec~~_se there are so many-clust~red rigl'lt therr, and plenty of places in Renton where there aren't any at all. SO,Jhis area re~IIyst§1ng~ ~part! I hope this clarifies some things. Let me know if not. And feel free to call or email if you have any further questions. Stephenie -----Original Message----- From: Susan Fiala [mailto:Sfiala@ci.renton.wa.usj Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 1 :02 PM To: Kramer, Stephenie (CTEO) Cc: Jennifer Henning Subject: Log:082604-36-KI (Rainier Parking Lot) Stephenie: In receipt of your letter for the subject project, LUA 04-093, Rainier Parking Lot. I have a couple of items that I would like clarification and/or a definition of. This will help me provide information to our Environmental Committee as well as my own understanding. • .. ) What is an ethnographic place name? What ethnographic place names are adjacent to the project area? How far are they from the subject site (100 feet, 1 mile, etc.)? Thank you in advance for the additional information. My email is:sfiala@cLrenton.wa.us Susan Fiala Senior Planner Development Services Division Development Planning (425) 430-7382 This message has been scanned by the City of Renton's filtering gateway. From: To: Date: Subject: "Rich Wagner" <wagnerr@baylisarchitects.com> <sfiala@cLrenton.wa.us> 09/15/2004 9:07:33 AM Alhadeffl South Lot Response to Comments RE: LUA-040093, SA-A, ECF Susan ........... . Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the three correspondences that the city received concerning the Alhadeff South Lot SPA application. The following comments are provided by the applicant as additional information and should clarify the outstanding issues. Letter from lheWatershed CompanY,=August 31, 2004 Our Wetlands Biologists, Celeste Botha of The Riley Group, conducted the field reconnaissance and prepared the Mitigation Report included in the application. She has reviewed the comments from Watershed and responds to each item in the attached memo. «Response to WC comments 091504.doc» Letter from the Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, August 26, 2004 The Office notes that "there are six ethnographic place names adjacent to or surro'unding this project, several archaeological sites in downtown Renton, and the project area is near the former embayment and the former confluence of the Black River." The!owner has identified no ethnological history on the subject p~rcels. .J There is certainly a much appreciated and rich ethnographic history for the Black River area, but that particular area is more than three-quarter miles from the site. Additionally, the proposed construction involves a fill over the existing soils, thus preserving any ethnographic and geologic history of the site. Letter from Ronnie McDonald, et ai, August 23, 2004 This letter from our neighbors puts forth three comments. Regarding the classification of the southern wetland, the wetlands biologist who made the determination went to great lengths to document her decision, including a detailed reviews of the city's and of the state's criteria, multiple field investigations and a review with her peers. Based on her documentation, which is included in her report, she determined that the proper classification is Class 3. Her work was then reviewed by the city's own wetlands consultant who took no exception to the determination based on the findings. Regarding the limitation of buildings shown as "Rear-l3uildingLines'J~on the original plat, it should be noted that this condition would have applied to actual buildings, not construction of site improvements. The last item relates to the "protection of species such as the great blue heron". This environmental concern was identified years ago when the property was proposed for rezone. At that time, the owner retained Ken Raedeke, a recognized and respected specialists in this arena, who conducted field reconnaissance, made the necessary determinations and filed his report with the city. His report was included in the rezone information, and was included as an attachment to the environmental checklist for the subject application. I hope this information is helpful. Thank you for the opportunity to respond. Rich Wagner, AlA Baylis Architects 425.454.0566 :: cc: <alhadeffjack@hotmail.com>, "Celeste Botha" <cbotha@cablespeed.com>, "Matt Weber" <Mweber@AHBL.com> .. The Watershed Company August 31,2004 Susan Fiala City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 DEVELOPME CITY OF~~~~NING SEP - , 2004 RECEIVED Re: Rainier Ave. Mixed-Use South Parking Lot Wetland Delineation and Mitigation Review, City File #LUA 04-093, SA-A, ECF Dear Susan: Thank you for the opportunity to review wetland and buffer mitigation associated with the proposed Rainier A venue mixed-use south parking lot project. In response to your request, I have reviewed the Conceptual Wetland Delineation & Mitigation Report -South Parking Lot prepared by The Riley Group, Inc. (July 22, 2004). Comments below are based entirely on this report. A site visit was not conducted as part of this review and, therefore, delineated wetland boundaries were not field confirmed. Review Comments 1. The applicant proposes to fill or otherwise impact 3,591 square feet of the lower portion of an on- site Class 3 wetland and proposes to pipe 120 linear feet of a watercourse through the proposed wetland fill area. According to the above-referenced report, the total wetland size is estimated to be 16,600 square feet. The report does not discuss potential impacts to the upper portion of the on- site Class 3 wetland that may occur as a result of proposed fill and watercourse piping in the lower portion of the wetland.-Proposed fill and piping will likely change hydrology patterns and may impact additional wetland area such that further mitigation should be required. The applicant should provide additional infonnation analyzing potential impacts to un-filled wetland that may result from proposed actions. . 2. Proposed wetland fill will require pennits from, and coordination with, the Seattle District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Washington Department of Ecology. 3. The above-referenced report refers to two watercourses. Proposed piping or alteration of these .. watercourses will likely require coordination with, and pennits from, the Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife and the Seattle District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 4. According to the Renton Municipal Code (Title IV, 4-4-130 Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Regulations, D, 3, b), a minimum buffer area of 25 feet is required from the ordinary high water mark of a stream. This application should be revised to reflect this required buffer. 5. Proposed wetland mitigation includes wetland creation that will cause disturbance of buffer area that is described in the above-referenced report as being predominantly vegetated with native vegetation. The applicant should provide further infonnation that describes conditions within the proposed mitigation areas. Mitigation should only be targeted for areas that will not require disturbance of existing predominantly native vegetation. 1410 Market Street. Kirkland • WA 98033 • Phone (425) 822-5242. Fax (425) 827-8136 ,'\0/ fl· ~,' Fiala, S. August 31, 2004 Page 2 of2 6. Proposed wetland mitigation includes wetland creation that, due to steep slopes, reportedly necessitates the placement of ecology blocks at the wetland edge. This is not acceptable because the ecology blocks will reduce and interfere with adjoining wetland buffer hydrology and wildlife functions. Plans should be revised to address this issue. 7. Proposed wetland mitigation includes wetland creation accomplished through removal of the upper 6 inches of soil. The applicant should provide supporting hydrology information that shows that wetland hydrology is present at this shallow depth sufficient to accomplish wetland creation, but not sufficient for the area to presently meet jurisdictional. wetland criteria. 8. Proposed mitigation performance standards include an allowance for up to 30% cover of invasive plant species. This shoUld be revised to include a maximum of 10% cover of invasive plant species during the monitoring period . . 9. The applicant has requested that the City authorize proposed mitigation to occur concurrently with proposed wetland fill and watercourse piping. This would not be allowed under the current City Code which requires that proposed mitigation for Class 3 wetland impacts that does not meet required mitigation ratios be conducted and shown to be successful for twelve months prior to completion of proposed wetland fill/impacts. It is not recommended that this Code requirement be waIved due to sufficient uncertainties regarding the success of proposed mitigation as noted above. 10. Proposed mitigation includes a three..,year monitoring schedule. This should be revised to include a five-year monitoring schedule. This concludes my review comments for this project at this time. Please feel free to call with any questions about this information. Sincerely, ~7 Kathy Curry Environmental Scientist, PWS .' ., CITY <:. ,~RENTON ~ Keo,lker·Whe:eler. Mayor PlanningIBuildinglPublicWorks Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E~Administrator September 1, 2004 Richard Wagner Baylis Architects 10801 Main Street #110 Bellevue, WA 98004 Subject: Dear Rich: Rainier Avenue Mixed-Use South Parking Lot LUA-04-093, SA-A, ECF This letter is to provide you with copies of recent correspondences received concerning the subject project. These are for your information and action where and when appropriate. ' , ' Please contact me at (425) 430-7382 if you have any questions. Susan A. Fiala, AICP Senior Planner Enclosures cc: JDA Group, LLCIID Kline Corp. / Owner Jennifer Henning Project File' ------}-OS-S-s-o-ut-h-G-ra-d-y-W:-ay-.-R-e-nt--'o-n,-W:-a-sh-in-g-to-n-9-S-0-SS------~ * This paper contains 50% recycled material, 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CU'RVE , City Of Renton DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON AUG 2 6 200~ RECEIVED Development Services Division 1055 South Grady Way - 6th Floor Renton, W A 98055 Attn: Susan Fiala-Senior Planner RE: LUA04-049ILUA04-093 1 August 23,2004 Ronnie & Roberta McDonald 216NW 5th ST Renton, WA 98055 AlhadeffproposaI for expansion to Chang's Mongolian Grill parking lot Parcel number: 956480-0110 Address: 505 Rainier AVE N Dear Ms. Fiala, .. We are writing our comments in strong opposition to the proposed filing of a wetland and creation of a parking lot under the above-mentioned application. This property, which sits to the east from our residence, is home to a wide variety of plant and animal life. The associated ravine upstream of this wetland, through which a water-course runs year round, combines to form a wooded area that is in fact denoted on the face of the recorded plat of Woody glen Addition (Volume 47 Pages 91 & 92-see attached) as a an area restricted from building beyond recorded ''rear building lines". The proposed area to be filled sits at the enclofthis year-round running water course. We have lived at our residence for nearly 50 years and have watched the water flow through this ravine at all times of the year. The fact that water flows through this ravine year round must indicate some sort of base flow of waters that are fed by old culverted streams and/or seeps and springs throughout the West Hill area. This water reaches it terminus at the wetland described as the "Southern Wetland" by the application. This very large (16,600 sq ft per the wetland delineation report) and diverse wetland provides not only a home to wildHfe but also provides a process of water quality treatment to the combined stream water and storm water runoff from surrounding neighborhoods of the West Hill area before reaching the outIetting storm drain pipe and ultimately entering the waters of Lake Washington. We believe the filling of this wetland will impact the water quality of the stream runoff prior to reaching the lake. The ravine with the stream upstream from the wetland is formed by rear yards of the residents on the north side ofNW 5th ST and the residents of the south side ofNW 6th ST. All lots adjacent to the stream are restricted from building beyond a noted "rear building line" that is recorded on the face of the plat of Woody Glen Addition. This should preclude the ability to construct or grade in the area assumed to be off limits to property owners encumbered with such plat restrictions. Would it not be a requirement by state , / law that would require a plat amendment to remove such a restriction or condition from the face of the recorded plat? Would it not require all property owners within the plat to agree to the plat amendment? The attempt by the applicant to adjust the propeI1Y line in an effort to get rid of this restriction on the lot in order to expand Ii parking lot does not seem to us a fair and reasonable use of one's property from the standpoint of the neighbors encumbered by the restriction nor the environment, which this restriction attempts to protect. It also appears that this encumbrance would restrict the proposed eight lot short plat to development behind or to the north of the rear building line for Lot 8 of Woody Glen Addition. With regards to application itself and the information provided there are deficiencies with regards to what we feel to be a mistake in the categorization of the wetland. 2 In the Environmental Checklist provided by the applicant, the wetland that is proposed to be filled is described as "Degradated (sic) Wetlands". This we assume is a reference to the "Wetland Delineation & Mitigation Report" prepared by The Riley Group, Inc. and dated July 22, 2004. This report reads in part on Page 6: "The south wetland meets the criteria as a palustrine emergent category 3 wetland A heron nest has been identified adjacent to the wetland on the lot to the west of the AlhadejJproperty; however, according to the City 0/ Renton, a single nest does not meet the City's criteria/or a rookery. The Wetland classification is based upon this infOrmation, as well as the wetland Size (greater than 5,000 square feet); severe disturbance, including the dominance 0/ invasive species within the wetland, specifically Japanese knotweed and Himalayan blackberry; the presence 0/ fill material within the wetland at the east end as well as woody debris dumping; severe under-cutting of the watercours~, and; outlet modification (the watercourse enters a constricted culvert). First we must address the issue of "dominance of invasive species" found within the "Southern Wetland". We cannot think of any area within in this City or County that has a watercourse or wetland within it that does not have Himalayan blackberry growth on it. And one only needs to drive the entire length of the Cedar River, including some of its wildest stretches to view the presence of Japanese Knotweed. These two invasive plants are everywhere but are not evidence of a "severely disturbed" wetland. Indicating this growth of weeds as reason for classifying this wetland as a Category t wetiana IS !S ridiculous. There are alternatives to removing noxious weeds from a wetland other than filling it and placing a parking lot atop it. Secondly, " ••• the presence offill mIlterial within the wetland at the east end" is the result of years of dumping by the associated businesses into the wetland to create a larger parking area and working surface. Although this area has been an encroachment into the wetland area, it does not yet reach the existing pipe inlet. This incursion into the wetland, although a violation of City ordinance, does not significantly degrade the wetland to extent that the wetland delineation report purports. r 3 Thirdly, a reference to another factor of severe disturbance t' ••• as well as woody debris dumpi1lg .... "'When reading this one can only infer that the author(s) is/are either suggesting that woody debris from the wooded slopes surrounding the wetland have dropped leaves and branches within the wetland during seasonal changes and storms or that neighboring properties are dumping material over their property lines. If it is the fonner, is this not the natural state of affairs for all wetlands and wooded areas? And if the later, how will mitigation address the dumping by the existing perpetrators and by residents of the newly created eight-lot short plat proposed by Mr. Alhadeff? There are no neighbors near enough to the boundaries of the wetland that could impact it by dumping lawn clippings or any other woody debris. Dumping may be occurring far upslope of this wetland but well over 200 to 300 feet away. This is simply not an impact and again is an exaggeration of the actual situation. Finally, in the reports attempt to relegate a Category 3 to this wetland, it refers to "severe undercutting of the watercourse, and; outlet modifICation". Severe undercutting of the watercourse mayor may not be occurring. If in fact that is true, then it is evidence to the fact that continued development within the contributing basin upstream is causing more runoff to enter the water-course which may be creating a larger wetland area. If filling is allowed to take place and severe undercutting continues to cause damage to the water- course then one can only assume that upstream properties will be impacted by an :. expanding wetland caused by the additional waters. Could such an impact be the source of litigation by adjacent property owners that as tax payers in the City, we would all share in the cost of mitigation/compensation? Because of the poor information provided in the wetland-delineation'and mitigation plan we are requesting that the City take the foll<;>wing course of action before approving any of the proposed applications within Lot 8 of Woody Glen Addition including but not limited to the ProPQsed Lot (Boundary) Line Adjustment to sever the wetland from the lot; the proposed eight-lot short plat, and; this application to fill the wetland to create a parking lot: 1) Conduct its own assessment of the "Southern Wetland" as we believe it has been incorrectly categorized and should be categorized as at least a Category 2 wetland. We believe it to be a vital and we]] functioning wetland that serves an abundant and diverse wildlife for the area. 2) Provide a written explanation as to the allowance of applications beyond the "Rear Building Lines" in the original Plat of Woody Glen Additi9n (Volume 47, Pages 91 and 92). The proposal for these land use applications does not appear to address this in any of their application material. It is our view that any and all proposals for construction of building and grading be done on the north side of the "rear building line". How is it that the creation of plat in 1950 and the subsequent construction of the residences in the plat were able to adhere to the restriction on the face of this plat but in 2004, a time of much stricter environmental regulation, wetlands can be filled and steep slopes can be re- platted? , 4 3) Clarify in writing the discrepancy between Washington State Fish and Wildlife regulations regarding protections for species such as the Great Blue Heron and the City of Renton's detennination that one Heron nest does not constitute a rookery as is noted by The Riley Group in the aforementioned quote. We thank you for our listening to our concerns regarding this badly conceived proposal and look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, . Q\... -,"rJ) ..... LU..C<7'd IQ '-'-€.rue... ON's ~U\Of\cI,~~e.f)ee. ott's 211 N'Jj 'S~ 3t .. . ~<X) I '--OR 9<0055 (~ 172-g~~S o R.LlLl.R,.. v Su...~ G ~ 2.0, -"-l W 5"1:/:1 ;,a& ~C.lJ+~N/ LUll ~9p~!l (2o~) 1.1 ~ -Otrn ~~-P~t!Lfop~ i~e cr" ff~J eh/?;iS:tophJU~ON 503 'R(U'ni~R-17~. N. 1<..-eNrO~ WIT 9goS"s r 0812612004 THU 16:04 FAX 360586:' ARCHY & HIST PRESV ._ .. @OO.l __ OEVaoPMENT SERVIces cnv OF RENTON August 26, 2004 STATE OF WASHINGTON Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation 1063 S. Capitol Way, Suite 106. Olympia, Washington 98501 (Mailing Address) PO Box 48343 • Olympia, Washington 98504-8343 (360) 586-3065 Fax Number (360) 586-3061 Ms. Susan Fiala. Senior Planner City of Renton 1055 So. Grady Way Renton. W A 98055 In future correspondence please refer to: Log: 082604-36-KI Re: LUA04-093 Rainier Avenue Mixed-Use Parking Lot and Wetland Mitigation Dear Ms. Fiala: AUG 27 2004 RE·CEIVED We have reviewed the materials forwarded to'our office for the proposed project referenced above. There are six ., t.1hnographic place names adjacent to or surrounding this project area, several archaeological sites in downtown Renton, and the project area is near the former embayment, and the former confluence of the Black and Cedar Rivers. The checklist also mentions a small seasonal watercourse and a wetland. These factors combine to increase the probab11ity for archaeological rcsources to be present We reCommend a professional archaeological survey of those areas, especially the wetland mitigation area, proposed for any excavation associated with the proposed project be required. We also recommend consultation with the concerned tribes cultural committees and staff regarding cultural resource issues. In addition, if a federal pennitjs reguired, as mentioned on the checklist, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act; as amended) and its inlplementing regulations, 36CFR800. must be followed to dctennme if any historic properties or archaeological sites will be adversely affected by the project and proper mitigation measures. This is a separate process from SEP A. These comments are based on the infonnation available at the time of this review and on behalf of the State Historic Preservation Officer. Should additional infonnation become available, our assessment may be revised. Thank you for the opportunity to conunent on this project and we look fotward to receiving the survey report. Stepheni Kramer Assistant State Archaeologist (360) 586-3083 StephenieT<@cted.wa.gov cc: Cecile Hansen Richard Brooks Donna Hogerhuis ADMINISTERED BY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY. TRADE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT The Watershed Company August 31, 2004 . Susan Fiala City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 OEVELOPM CITy O%~~~~N/NG SEP ~ 1 200~ RECEIVED Re: Rainier Ave. Mixed-Use South Parking Lot Wetland Delineation and Mitigation Review, City File #LUA 04-093, SA-A, ECF Dear Susan: Thank you for the opportunity to review wetland and buffer mitigation associated with the proposed Rainier Avenue mixed-use south parking lot project. In response to your request, I have reviewed the . Conceptual Wetland Delineation & Mitigation Report -South Parking Lot prepared by The Riley Group, Inc. (July 22, 2004). Comments below are based entirely on this report. A site visit was not conducted as part of this review and, therefore, delineated wetland boundaries were not field confirmed. Review Comments 1. The applicant proposes to fill or otherwise impact 3,591 square feet of the lower portion of an on- site Class 3 wetland and proposes to pipe 120 linear feet of a watercourse through the proposed . wetland fill area. According to the above-referenced report, the total wetland size is estimated to be 16,600 square feet. The report does not discuss potential impacts to the upper portion of the on- site Class 3 wetland that may occur as a result of proposed fill and watercourse piping in the lower portion of the wetland.-Proposed fill and piping will likely change hydrology patterns and may impact additional wetland area such that further mitigation should be required. The applicant should provide additional information analyzing potential impacts to un-filled wetland that may result from proposed actions. 2. Proposed wetland fill will require permits from, and coordination with, the Seattle District U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers and the Washington Department of Ecology. 3. The above-referenced report refers to two watercourses. Proposed piping or alteration of these· watercourses will likely require coordination with, and permits from, the Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife and the Seattle District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 4. According to the Renton Municipal Code (Title IV, 4-4-130 Tree Cutting and "Land Clearing Regulations, D, 3, b), a minimum buffer area of 25 feet is required from the ordinary high water mark of a stream. This application should be revised to reflect this required buffer. 5. Proposed wetland mitigation includes wetland creation that will cause disturbance of buffer area that is described in the above-referenced report as being predominantly vegetated with native vegetation. The applicant should provide further information that describes conditions within the proposed mitigation areas. Mitigation should only be targeted for areas that will not require disturbance of existing predominantly native vegetation. 1410 Market Street • Kirkland. WA 98033 • Phone (425) 822-5242 • Fax (425) 827-8136 , Fiala, S. August 31, 2004 Page 2 of2 6. Proposed wetland mitigation includes wetland creation that, due to steep slopes, reportedly necessitates the placement of ecology blocks at the wetland edge. This is not acceptable because the ecology blocks will reduce and interfere with adjoining wetland buffer hydrology and wildlife functions. Plans should be revised to address this issue. 7. Proposed wetland mitigation includes wetland creation accomplished through removal of the upper 6 inches of soil. The applicant should provide supporting hydrology information that shows that wetland hydrology is present at this shallow depth sufficient to accomplish wetland creation, but not sufficient for the area to presently meet jurisdictional wetland criteria. 8. Proposed mitigation performance standards include an allowance for up to 30% cover of invasive plant species. This should be revised to include a maximum of 10% cover of invasive plant species during the monitoring period. 9. The applicant has requested that the City authorize proposed mitigation to occur concurrently with proposed wetland fill and watercourse piping. This would not be allowed under the current City Code which requires that proposed mitigation for Class 3 wetland impacts that does not meet required mitigation ratios be conducted and shown to be successful for twelve months prior to completion of proposed wetland fill/impacts. It is not recommended that this Code requirement be waived due to sufficient uncertainties regarding the success of proposed mitigation as noted above. 10. Proposed mitigation includes a three..,year monitoring schedule. This should be revised to include a five-year monitoring schedule. This concludes my review comments for this project at this time. Please feel free to call with any questions about this information. Sincerely, ~7 Kathy Curry Environmental Scientist, PWS ~.: : i " ~' .f' .• ' .~~,"'. '. " '. '., ,', ,,:" .... '\' ',' , " ., 1: " ~ --: .~ '. '. ' " -~ .'J • ~~ ··':ffi.e.W~te~~h~d:QompC11'lY·' ••. '. " .' ' ...... '.' .< . . _ , . ~', • ' \ • " • ',' • '. I. ' ... ,: • ~ ," l , /, :' ' !. ~~ ~ _ ~',:, _.. '-: . ~ 'J 1 . '~'., .J • I i.'~ . " . . ~ .;'~. ,~_ • • • ,..' iI'", ',' >~:. -',',. ,'." :1,: '.-' '. '" .' :,' . :-," .• .' J, ',1 ',," ''-. "~J'::' :,. :',~, .. ,:.:'.::,;>:'::;::;:" ?EVEttj~~~NiP",: ,'.>::. <,,'. ,',: " " (;. , " :,'.:': ' ,~ " ~. . '.' c' ,"., .' . ~ '"~ ',' .... : ' ... ", . . . ' .. ,' .: :'" t. " , :. ~ v , ,'j,. -!~"·r •. ' /," " ~·,.Aug~'St:31,'.2bo4:: . "~', ,:-",,:~ :',:<, ' ,", L, ',;' .,< ." .'CI1iY0FAEf:n.~~NiNG "-,,:;:,, , ' " .' .. '2~r::;:td~ •. ' •.• '. ' . .' "; .•.. , .. , ,,;<~,:,: ',' ' •.. ' ,; '.', " . ..:' '~':; ';'R1P" t2fX!+;..~> \,' •. l055SoUth.-Orady Way':, :' ~ '," ,'. '., "\ ",.;:\ . :'. '.' '",", ".',,, \,CEI\(ED.',: ' ' :, .' Rent6nWA98055·'::· ",>' ~,:"',;, " '::'.,C. ,,' ':" ': ' " ." ", .. ':.' " , ',.' . ;' .... ,' . " , '.' .... _ ,. \ .' '.: • ' ..•. .'. . ,,' '. '.' '. .• ". ~.' -" ",,' : . .' .J., ~ c '~'.' '. t', .: ,:> ': ". ' -''', '. ' . ..,v ":., -, -;, , , "".' .... .-: ": "., ~' ,: l',;'~·. _~; .. .,..,,~'.' ... ~ •. >, .. IL:I· .. ~ .. ' '< .. ·.i.~. :' .. ' , ... :. ~'~~':-~<.;'~\" .. , "~.',1-':' ...•... '" ~:: .. ~ .... ,_ ... ::~.t~<,~~:",>\ ,-~, '. ' . .... Re:'" .. Raihier,.Ave.Mixed~tJse$outh~arIqI?-g"Lot:·Wetlruid I?ylirieati()n,~d ~~tig,*i2i1 R~v~ew, .citY. .; ,' . .. ' , File#LUA04-;093, SA-A,ECF' .. ·< . ",'>.' ,.;,:'<' ,';',~:':. " .. ",,:'" ',' .. , '~'\..' .. , .' ,1' "'.' ',' '~"~ i. "f '" ", -'I".j'.: ~"",I r" ' .. '. 'J' "\' ":,~ \, _~, , ' ;1' ~ 'I,: ... -.,' .... , '",,,,' -·t" ,'. '. ~".'\ ,.': \ .,:., :"",,~~,' ".:. ".' ,":,.\,"", ~':J'.~ :.:':~ ',' , Dear.'.'Su·s'an'.'" " .' .. , v'.... ,'\.. ". : {. ," :"',:'/ '" ; .': .. ,: """ .... ':.: ',' -: ..... ", " t', ,: ''t-,,,: .~ •• J,: ~~., ~~( , r \ "J.. " , • • • .' ~ • • )' ' \ I ~ , ''\ ~' ,~ \: ".' f·,::··.· ,'~"'" .. : ... '" ,1 Ie.":. :.,"., .... ,.::,.':.:\ ... , ~ .. ' .... , ....... ~-.~:,~.', ..... '.;'.: ';'.' ". ~~,:' :': .... ::1,.1.'··<..·,·..;1: ...... :. ". '-"':"" 5h~ )iOU f<jr.'theopp6rtunity,to)'eyi:e}V~ wetland,and pliffe(niitigation;as~~p~at~d with, tb.e. proposed' ; ,',:<." , I~Rainier Avenue mixed-use ~outh·parkinglot,project. .ip ie~ponse t,o'y~lfr)'eq~est"t~ave review~d the" " ," ". 'C;onceptual Wetlan.d Delineation &':Mitigatjon R'epor~ -.',SOlfth Parking"Lo.(prep¥ed by:Jlie~:Riley ",' : _ . : Group, Inc. '(July 72, 2(04). Comment's be,low' are ba§ed· e~tirely, on' this '~eport-. ' A site \,isit '~as;not~ '. . ' .... " .... " conducted" as 'p'art ~ oC.thls . review cand, 'th~refore~' <telindlte~:.~~tlalld~, boundaries . wer~'not",field;', '.,< .. -' ·cortfimied.<~.' , , " .'.":'::~',.: . "'.,.' '.::"';,;,,.'.'.'.:";,::'::, \'i,:,",:.::. "",." : :", ,?,:>'" ',;:,.;' .': " ,-) , " '., ,',I ,', .:" :_'" .. ~. , ••..••. ,,'. ',,,,.l~ .. ':,'r'.~"~ ",,, .,:\,~ .:\' _ ,', " .. " R~vi~~cbm~~r~s ',:' :."""; ',". ': ,".,;':.": ;""0;"" /~,' <>':':., "'J",~,~: ~:: ',,' ".' :', :::,.'.'.',.>: .' j ':' .. ,;', _ '.. " ,. :, ~ ,.' ,:.'1: . The: applicant proposesJo.. till or otherwise, impact, 3,5,,9.:1' sq~are, feet ·~f tIle lower.portjon :of-anon-.. ,J' ';:.' •. ,,", ., , .,' . , ,:,' 'site':Clas~ J,wetland. ~d,prbpqs~~;,tp:pip~,~}.i9,'fipe,ar:fe~t;,of a :wa~e,i90Urs~':thiollgh'~J~~,P~OP9's~d;: '. ':' , , ,~:'~,\" . 0; wetlarid)ill area .. AGchidirig :to ihe,ab6v~~ref~rencedreport, tpeioiiil.:wetlfUld,size is: estim.a.Jed to:, . " ' ,be J6,600 sq~~e feet: T4ereport~does not 'discus,s,potenti~limpacts to'th.e uPEer:poitiQn o,fthe 'on-. , " . ':'.' ' I. ..' 'site Class 3 wetland that-'may occUr as a ~esuh,'of proPQsed fiU and' wat~rcouise~piping in the 19w.er' '. ", ." : '" '" ,'. .po(tiol,l,of .the wetland. ,'Proposed.fin and'"pipirig"'Vill likely-chtfuge hydFol~gy .patte!ns,'~d may;: ,,'. ',:' . .' "<.' ".' impact' aclditionai wetland. arecr such that, further_ miiigatioll should:, be '.required:.' :~he' ~ppFcant " ~.,' , .' " s40uid pro~ide additiQnal.infol1Ilation'.an~lyiing p.~tential i¢pact~ to,·oo-filled-,wetland·that may :.~- , tfs~ltfroiri proposed~ a,ctiorts. ,,'.,;.' : .':: ',: . ': <,:. :. :<·".:c, ~ ',>\ .' , ,; , ,: ',,' "'''':: .,'.:: ",";'. ., ': .', '. : 2'. : . Pr~posed :~etland" 'filL~ilr -requit~ ,permi;s~Jro~; ~d "c66rdina~io~. ~ith, ~he S6~tr~~':Pist~ic~ u. s:, :':"""'" , ,,' I . . . ,.' . '~ " . .:' . --. • "'. I : .. " "I:' .' " ". . . " . ... • t, • ."'. ' • , " '" .. , , .' ;' .; ' .. AImyCOipsofEngineers and:t1J,e,Washington,Departinent,dfEcologY:: .. ~,' ,,:t, ", ... : > '.::' ".':,: ~ I.' ". : > ••••• , •• ': •• ,,' ~, • .' • ''; -,' ,-., .' l~'" ,', ,\' .. ' •. :,' •.. ,~: .. -. " ...... ,,' .. ,: " .;. ,,",' ',". l ' .• : ", .~\., • ". '3 ;'''' TheabQve-referenced' rep,ort,' refers :to_~·twQ:watercoufies. Propos~d;:'pipimi .0r.'aJter,atib~ of thes~: ,'. , \, '. , .. ',: watetcqurse,s\viUlikely require: coordiil~tibn'~it~>~dpehriits ,from" ±~e, ~ashingtO:n Depafiniertt .' "', " . ' 'bfFi~h and'\vildlif~:and the Seattle rii~triCt,tl:S.AIniy,ccirPs:~fErig'lneers. ';:i;;: {:' ~":,;':,':,', .:' ~; ,:~)-:.: , .: .',.' ••• > •••• ~ • ~) •• ,'/':'. , •• ;.: -:;'J(t".~""-"<':" ',' .:' ..... ;,,',' " " ',' ~:.'" '~'.' .... ':--c" ._"~..;.::.,"} '. :.::;. ~. ,. " . ',.,~ '-'.\ .... ' '".'~ I. ~ '4. According to" t,heRentoil'·~tinicipal'; Code (fitle IY., :'4~.4-130; Tree,' Cuttirig,'and'Land'Clt:aririg-.. ·~, " " Regulations, D,.l;'b); atniniinillri buffer area:: 6f25:',feet.,is.-requiied·"fmnl the'ordll1¥fhigli:water, " . :"" -.' ":," "··markof.a stieani. This applic.atiQh'sh~hid.'b~'revised tQ reflect·th.is.requir,ed .buff~r:.·:,.·~;.',\> " ".' .. : ", >'''. '. :". 5.: p~opp,se'~.;~~dand~iii~a~ion:'in~l~des,,~ed~~:'c;~~tio~',tli~t-'~~ll~q~J~'~'i~!~~~~,~c~~'~'/b.~f.~~,; ~ea' ':', _ · v . , ' .'. ,". that 'is ;d~s~ribedjn:.the, aOQve:.r,efe'renced, report as ,being'predo.ro.imintly vegetat¢d with' native'." :', , " ,".: ~,~' \iegetation . .' The :applicant' sho~~d provide' Mther·:infon1;l~tiOlJ tliat:aescti.be~, conditioQ.$' within the'. ' " . I ) ':', ' , 'proPQsec( niitig~tion \ueas.· :Mhigation·.should :onlybe~t~get~d for, ar~as" ,tha(wiH not'require,,, :~:.~ :",' . I,' '" '. ~ 'disturbanceofexistlng"pre40minantly'riative,veg'~tation:' ",".-,:-' <>" :., ", :',,. '.' '," ',': :.""j-':" ,',." . ~, ' ... ". . .. ".', \ . ' \'-"'. ~ ~ . ' ~ ~ ~~ -', ;: ... ~ .,:': ' .. :-. .".--.", . : ~ ~} , . \, : .. ,~ .. -,.. ~ :. .... ~,. , ~ . . '. " ,. '. ..... ,~ ,;" . ", . "'.'.: "' , '.:. ,~-.; . ..:. ,,,,.\ ':'.,.; :'.",': .' '.\-., -~ :; :.'. " IS' ' ','\', v'l \ .' : . ( .~ .••• . ,. .', ,"; . ' • '.'""' . ') J.-' • " " ,....... " " t l.,'~ " ' , _ I' .~' , ' .• '~" '/"1 :~ -'~, ' .. ", ... ; 1'\, \.: ..... "~ •. " "., '.,.' '. ,", ~./'. ,'I • ~, .:."~,.' , .... " , ... .', '.\..10: '., ,_. ," :\~':-';', '.:'.""" ," . '~4iO¥ar~e~Stieet,~.Ki~1s1a~d:~WA .~8633::~'PhonEd425')'~;i~$242'.~,P~~~'(i~5r8i7i~,~3~ "" ,:":,.,;,,':-::". ", :'., :~' .•. ~ .. : :c'. , i; ,. ., : ,.,. . ... ;', "~,.'" , .. :...... ',,', ~::".,\ '.,' ",:.,~.« ....... \ 'I" -,,: \'~::I: .~\:':. r ... ~~~: ••• / • ',',"", '.~'." .... ' _ :, • .; ,j' • • " :, 'I".' ", " , "'-"" • .': 'j ,". " ... " "~; : .' • ," ". ' '. " '" • : " .... ~ . • .... • ' .~ :; •. ,' ':. . '. .', ~'_-' r _." "',". I.. ..,:~. ,.':"." ... :' ••• "v' .~,' ... ,.:J.~ ''', J . " ", ". ... ,;, .", , . ' . '. ) ~~ l' . , • C '. . , ',.' II· ~ .. ' .\ :-': . "1 ~ --1: ~.';'. \.. • , ' . ' ...: .... , . , . " ., . . Fi~la,.~. ". . ':. I " • I August 31, .2004:..' :: ," ' . . I : , ' . .J.:>age 2,0{2:.-' .. -. , d ,,:-~" '. ".' ',. \' J d;. ,... ,,' -_ '.", . ,.,' .' .. '~ ;,' , ~/., ,,\~. ":.J. . ,. .' . 'to , < " ••• -.... ' .,.\ , , If. ". 1'.'" • • ':, 'r. ') ',.' ,i. ' .' , I . "", \ ' \, ' '<. /. >~ ( • .,' • .""! ' ',..-".' ;-( ':, .. ~:~ .. ,\' ... '~") . ~,~ . ." ;" ," ,.> . ~_~c'.~ : •. J ..,(,." ,~.: • ,,': :"., F ,1'-' .:. ~ ,-' _:. '" , -.' 6, Proposed wetland. mitig~tion . inCludes' .wetland . creation that, ·du~ to.·' ste'ep' . slopes, . reportedly . . , " ~ 'n~ce~sitates the placement of ecology blo'cks' at the .wetl.and edg·e. This 'is 'nQf ~6cepta~le because: ... ": ' , : the: ecology biocks will redtic~ and interfere ~th adjoIning wetian4 ~uffer hydrology and wildlife :funct.ions: .Planssh?,u~~.~e .revised;to _,~ddr~ss!~isj~sue.~/::: "", :,':,." -:; '/:.; ", .',. ..', , :.,' '" '~. 7, Propo~~d wetla:ndriiifigati9n includes wetland'creationacsoqlpl~sne,dthroughrem6val'ofthe upper ." \ : .6 jriches .ofsoil.'~The,applicant·· should 'provide supporting'· hy~tology infdrrnatiori'that shQ",s :that'; '. c' wetland ,hydrology is present at tlUs' shallow depthsl;lf,ficierit. to:accoinpiish wetland creaJio'ii,but.·· : .~notsufficieri(for th~':area tQ.pr~stmdy ine'etJur,isdictl6i1al ~etlaild~rit~da..:: '. ,.' . " J." '" i :PrbP~~ed mitigati~~:performance st~dcirds' incl~de-~' a1l6~anc~ fOf' u~to. ~Q%\6ver of invasive .. , :,' plant speCies. ' This should.be revis~dt9,'inthide am~innim 9f1Q% cbverofil1vasive pl~t sp,eci~s··,:·" , " .• ,during .!herrt~nit~,ri*~p~ri~~. '.' :'" . , .. <' '~':'l-:' > .. ',": ,i, .. ~~;.:/'.':: ,'; ';':' . ::;~~... >:,' ':< "~ .. ,:':, , . 9.,Tlle: applicant llas reqties,ted that the',~Gity ,autborizeproposed mitigatiori,.to,oc~Ur concUrieritlywith' .' pr~pos~d wetlandflll and watercqurse piping: . This would not.l;>e' 'a1low~d ,Un:der th~,,·curreIit CitY, .. ' Code which. requires 'that proposed ~itigation'fQ:r Cla~s '3 .Wetla1)dimpacts' that'dQ'es~ not"nieet ,.',' '.' ': required' mitigation' rati0S b~ conducted a,nd 'sh~Wn to~ ·be ' succes·sful. f<?r .. ~,elve ~onths prior 'to ".;. :' , completion of propQsed wetland fill/impacts. It is not recomrilenqed, that. this Code req~irement be '. ~aive(:l:due to :sufficiel1t Wlcertrunties:tegarplrig the succe'ss of pfoposedrilitigation as'noted' aboye~:, , (~.' • • • • " • : ' • , .' •• ',. { : J " ."' .. • • • ;,\ • ~ r :.' \ '. ,':' .' : I J '. '10. Proposed mitigation ~ncludes a three-year monitQriilg s~hedule., This sh<?l:114 be revised to include a . five.-~earmQ,nitoring ~9he,dul~" . . .. " .",""'" . \ . '. "<:, < . -'.'" , '. . ".' .. ' \ ,",' . , . ~ • ' ,'. . ~. ,'. I', ' /_ , ' , ',' '., This :cOIicludes my review comments for, 'this . project at thi~ 'time. Please 'feel free':to call ~iih any , 'questions about this information~.: ' " .... .>'. ", ' " ' ,.-, , . " .. , ' ' , .. .. • • ' 'r" :, • .~ ,'-'. r '; •• '. ..' ) • . :,.-t ~ I : . -', . I', .' ,.1, : 'j . 't ..... ,.' .;. , '. SihcerelY'~'" ,. , to" J • .'" ' ., . ..... , '; " ~~,.': ,.-' ; . '-'" " '.. '.--': ..... ; .. ' .. , " , .. :' " . -' , , ,,- , :,.. ~ . ':.. . ;. (' -' ·r· .' . :' ,,,:' '," ' ':;> .' ~ ~ ;"1 . ,", ,> , '~ ,I '. ., .) ;., ,..d ".' " l '':'. ~.~ "., • ,,'-, .,'. 11,._ " '. , , . ) . , .' ,~4 .-• '~'....'. • , ,'. ' ~, '., ~ ;. " , ) ,'< •• , '; . . " , " . -'~ . -. ~ .:, . v", .\',-" " ' . , ,', '," , , .. , \, ~ . .;", : .\ , ~" '; . " . , , , " . . : . ',' ~ . ,., ~. . " ,I , . .. " ,~' ..... ' t;., ',-} ,! . ', . , .. " , -'.1 _ ~.. ~-• 1 '~ ,'" ,,'. . "-,- , \, ' .. ~, \ ... :. . \ . ... , r' , . " . , '~ , : , .' ,).' ':", :' ...... ,'~.: ':':' \ :' , \~ :~~.~ d. ~~ J t" • -. ' .,' ," ' :..:,' :,' . " -, ', .. ' " " , . " . "~I '( _.r < ,,..! " _.j '.':' '. '.:' " . :," '"" " <~ .-: , '. \ • ", • )," ~ I.. • _ ~." '\ '-~ 'j', : ", , ,.,.!, -,: '; , '. I> -J,,; .... ,.,F.., ,r : __ ,::, " ,.' . . '\.. '" ~ <'" , ~., '. , ,1 ," , /. ~: ,~:.'. <' , " .' . , , , ',.' '. , ,,'.' . .'~ . ':, , ' ~ , '! .' f' "':' , ( , < '-, ~, '" ' .' ",' ,; l ,,~. . '. ;: , ,,' ~ , " \ ~ < ", ,.J '," ~, !, .,', _ '/ '.';, ',. j :. , . , " , .~ -.. , ' ,-. ,~'." ,! .• ,< '" ',' ' . ',I ," " / .,: .. ' .. ". f ,', .. , ~ ,)' . ~' .,. .' " REtei. veol fRXeelcce~ CI1 , " _ ~128Jo~ ~ DEVELOPMENT CITY OF AE~~~NING August 26, 2004 STATE OF WASHINGTON Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation 1063 S. Capitol Way, Suite 106. Olympia, Washington 98501 (Mailing Address) PO Box 48343 • Olympia, Washington 98504-8343 (360) 586-3065 Fax Number (360) 586-3067 Ms. Susan Fiala, Senior Planner City of Renton 1055 So. Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 In future correspondence please refer to: Log: 082604-36-KI Re: LUA04-093 Rainier Avenue Mixed-Use Parking Lot and Wetland Mitigation Dear Ms. Fiala: AUG 302004 REceIVED We have reviewed the materials forwarded to our office for the proposed project referenced above. There are six ethnographic place names adjacent to or surrounding this project area, several archaeological sites in downtown Renton, and the project area is near the former embayment, and the former confluence of the Black and Cedar Rivers. The checklist also mentions a small seasonal watercourse and a wetland. These factors combine to increase the probability for archaeological resources to be present. We recommend a professional archaeological survey of those areas, especially the wetland mitigation area, proposed for any excavation associated with the proposed project be required . . We also recommend consultation with the concerned tribes cultural committees and staff regarding cultural resource issues. In addition, if a federal permit is required, as mentioned on the checklist, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, and its implementing regulations, 36CFR800, must be followed to determine if any historic properties or archaeological sites will be adversely affected by the project and proper mitigation measures. This is a separate process from SEP A. These comments are based on the information available at the time of this review and on behalf of the State Historic Preservation Officer. Should additional information become available, our assessment may be revised. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project and we look forward to receiving the survey report. Stepheni Kramer Assistant State Archaeologist (360) 586-3083 StephenieK@cted.wa.gov cc: Cecile Hansen Richard Brooks Donna Hogerhuis ADMINISTERED BY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY, TRADE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM Date: August 27, 2004 To: Susan Fiala From: Mike Dotson~ Subject: Rainier Mixed-use South Parking Lot LUA-04-093, SA-A, ECF The following Utility and Transportation comments concern the Environmental (SEPA) review for the subject 27-space parking lot construction. EXISTING CONDITIONS WATER -This project site is located in the 270 Water Pressure Zone. The static water pressure at the street level is approximately 65psi. There is an existing 12" watermain located in Rainier Ave N. The site is outside the Aquifer Protection Area. SEWER -There is an existing 8-inch sewer main in NW 5th Place (portions of which have been vacated). SURFACE WATER -The site drains to Lake Washington via the West Hill drainage sub-basin. STREETS -This site does not front a public street. Access to this site is through private property. The private property fronts on Rainier Ave North. CODE REQUIREMENTS SURFACE WATER 1. A drainage analysis and design for this project is required to meet the standard of the 1990 King County Surface Water design manual. A cursory review of the report submitted with this application determined that it met the criteria except for the following: The report submitted with the application utilized a method for design of the bio-swale contained in the Department of Ecology 2002 manual. Approval of the construction plan will be conditioned on showing that this method is equal or better than the King County 1990 design criteria for water quality facilities. 2. The preliminary design submitted with the application shows a 24" pipe connection to the downstream system. It will be necessary to further verify that the pipe systems being installed, and the downstream 24" system, have enough capacity for the entire basin (future conditions) build-out. This analysis and verification will be required prior to approval of the utility construction plans. 3. It appears that the area being filled previously provided some natural detention. And it is understood that the disturbed wetlands will be mitigated off-site (within an adjacent drainage basin). However, it must also be shown that the removal of the natural detention will not contribute to future downstream problems or flooding. I :IPlan ReviewlPlan Review -new computer\Rainier Mixed use greenfolder.doc 4. The System Developmt::l1t Charge shall be at the rate of $O.249/;;>l.Juare foot of new impervious (the TIR reports that a total of 8787 square feet of new impervious will be added. This would result in a fee of $2187.96.) GENERAL 1. All plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards. 2. A construction permit is required. The permit requires three copies of the drawings, two copies of the drainage report, a construction estimate, application and appropriate fee (this may be submitted at the sixth floor customer service counter). CONDITIONS 1. Temporary Erosion Control shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the Department of Ecology Standards and staff review. cc: Neil Watts 1:IPlan ReviewlPlan Review· new compulerlRainier Mixed use greenfolder.doc City of Remon Department of Planning / Building / Public wurks ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: 5".,r.Q ~~~~ COMMENTS DUE: AUGUST 26, 2004 APPLICATION NO: LUA-04-093, SA-A, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: AUGUST 12, 2 APPLICANT: JDA Grou ,LLC/ID Kline Cor . PROJECT MANAGER: Susan Fiala PROJECT TITLE: Rainier Mixed-use South Parkin Lot PLAN REVIEW: Michael Dotson SITE AREA: 66,760 s uare feet BUILDING AREA LOCATION: NW of 507 Rainier Avenue N WORK ORDER NO: 77296 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and Administrative Site Plan review for the construction of 27 parking spaces within a surface lot associated with Chang's Mongolian Grill. The proposal includes portions of two large parcels containing Category 2 and 3 wetlands. The Category 3 wetland would be filled in to accommodate the parking lot with wetland compensation proposed off-site and include wetland creation, enhancement and buffer averaging. The proposal also involves the removal of noxious weeds; piping of an existing drainage ditch; installing a retaining wall; utility improvements; and a parking modification. 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 Earth Housina Air Aesthetics Water LighVGlare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transoortation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additiona' mation is needed to properly assess this proposal. City of Remon Department of Planning / Building / Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: 'Pl '0)(\ ~~.u-J COMMENTS DUE: AUGUST 26, 2004 APPLICATION NO: LUA-04-093, SA-A, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: AUGUST 12, 2004 APPLICANT: JDA Grou , LLC/ID Kline Cor . PROJECT MANAGER: Susan Fiala PROJECT TITLE: Rainier Mixed-use South Parkin Lot PLAN REVIEW: Michael Dotson SITE AREA: 66,760 s uare feet BUILDING AREA LOCATION: NW of 507 Rainier Avenue N WORK ORDER NO: 77296 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and Administrative Site Plan review for the construction of 27 parking spaces within a surface lot associated with Chang's Mongolian Grill. The proposal includes portions of two large parcels containing Category 2 and 3 wetlands. The Category 3 wetland would be filled in to accommodate the parking lot with wetland compensation proposed off-site and include wetland creation, enhancement and buffer averaging. The proposal also involves the removal of noxious weeds; piping of an existing drainage ditch; installing a retaining wall; utility improvements; and a parking modification. 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 Earth Housina Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS , -4u. ~ ~.ddz7 ~ 2~ 2,009 We have reviewed this a ication with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or mfo" tion is needed to properly assess this proposal. City of Renton Department of Planning / Building / Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: ""Ti'ft.ns o~Q.p{O,\ COMMENTS DUE: AUGUST 26, 2004 ~A~P~P~L~IC~A~T~IO~N~N~O~:~LU~A~-~04~-~09~3~,~S~~~A~,~EC~F~ __________ ~D~A~T~E~C~I~R~C~UL~A~T~E~D~:~A~U~G~U~S~T21S2,~2~0~~ac~~~SERV~!B APPLICANT: JDA Grou ,LLCIID Kline Co . PROJECT MANAGER: Susan Fiala CITY OF RENTON PROJECT TITLE: Rainier Mixed-use South Parkin Lot PLAN REVIEW: Michael Dotson SITE AREA: 66,760 s uare feet BUILDING AREA ross: N/A LOCATION: NW of 507 Rainier Avenue N I WORK ORDER NO: 77296 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and Administrative Site Plan review for the construction of 27 parking spaces within a surface lot associated with Chang's Mongolian Grill. The proposal includes portions of two large parcels containing Category 2 and 3 wetlands. The Category 3 wetland would be filled in to accommodate the parking lot with wetland compensation proposed off-site and include wetland creation, enhancement and buffer averaging. The proposal also involves the removal of noxious weeds; piping of an existing drainage ditch; installing a retaining wall; utility improvements; and a parking modification. 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 Earlh Housina Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transporlation Environmental Health Public Services Energyl Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airporl Environment to,OOOFeet 14,000 Feet No ~, B. POLICY-RELA TED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional i 'on is needed to properly assess this proposal. Date City of Remvn Department of Planning / Building / Public W,-,,(s ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: l7o('-op~~ S'll~~ ... COMMENTS DUE: AUGUST 26, 2004 APPLICATION NO: LUA-04-093, SA-A, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: AUGUST 12, 2004 APPLICANT: JDA Group, LLC/ID Kline Corp. PROJECT MANAGER: Susan Fiala PROJECT TITLE: Rainier Mixed-use South ParkinQ Lot PLAN REVIEW: Michael Dotson SITE AREA: 66,760 square feet BUILDING AREAJgros~: N/A AUG 12 2004 LOCATION: NW of 507 Rainier Avenue N WORK ORDER NO: 77296 C'l.Y OF RENTON .. '-, ;;)T~II;M5 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and Administrative Site Plan review for the construction of 27 parking spaces within a surface lot associated with Chang's Mongolian Grill. The proposal includes portions of two large parcels containing Category 2 and 3 wetlands. The Category 3 wetland would be filled in to accommodate the parking lot with wetland compensation proposed off-site and include wetland creation, enhancement and buffer averaging. The proposal also involves the removal of noxious weeds; piping of an existing drainage ditch; installing a retaining wall; utility improvements; and a parking modification. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More EnvIronment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Element of the Probable .Probable More Environment Minor Major Informaiion Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Li.ahtlGlare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public SeNices Energyl Historic/Cultural Natural Resources PreseNation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional '. ation is needed to properly assess this proposal. f -2 Z-2..0e? Y Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date b {f~'? I. e . \_----------------~-----7 e-eu.,'j 1.5 Cf;>/,',dn5 29 e ktl#/dOX-, DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF BENIO~ , .~, AI:JG2 ~ .. 2001a-~-------- RECEIVED :*, " .... L_ "1 ) .. I ' ! , ;+ J _1 ___ _ i _ .ll . L __ h • , Ii l -l - -Li - -l.] l.] _ 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. Development Planning. 1055 So. Grady Way. Renton. WA 98055 . .... File NO./Na1e: LUA04-093. SA-A. ECF / Rainier Avenue Mixed-Use South Parking Lot NAME, [ar ~ /? q;-~ ~ ADDRESS: 2 1 Aj rL ~)'*e~-J-. ~/htt 98os-s-.~ 7 TELEPHONE No.~21P~ 772-1z9tL? I ~~~ ~ ~. ;j'J -s:. '" ;5- '" (;) L _: \ I City Of Renton DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON AUG 262004 RECEIVED Development Services Division 1055 South Grady Way - 6th Floor Renton, WA 98055 Attn: Susan Fiala-Senior Planner RE: LUA04-049/LUA04-093 1 August 23,2004 Ronnie & Roberta McDonald 216 NW 5th ST Renton, WA 98055 Alhadeffproposal for expansion to Chang's Mongolian Grill parking lot Parcel number: 956480-0110 Address: 505 Rainier AVE N Dear Ms. Fiala, We are writing our comments in strong opposition to the proposed filing of a wetland and creation of a parking lot under the above-mentioned application. This property, which sits to the east from our residence, is home to a wide variety of plant and animal life. The associated ravine upstream of this wetland, through which a water-course runs year round, combines to form a wooded area that is in fact denoted on the face of the recorded plat of Woody glen Addition (Volume 47 Pages 91 & 92-see attached) as a an area restricted from building beyond recorded "rear building lines". The proposed area to be filled sits at the end of this year-round running water course. We have lived at our residence for nearly 50 years and have watched the water flow through this ravine at all times of the year. The fact that water flows through this ravine year round must indicate some sort of base flow of waters that are fed by old culverted streams and/or seeps and springs throughout the West Hill area. This water reaches it terminus at the wetland described as the "Southern Wetland" by the application. This very large (16,600 sq ft per the wetland delineation report) and diverse wetland provides not only a home to wildlife but also provides a process of water quality treatment to the combined stream water and storm water runoff from surrounding neighborhoods of the West Hill area before reaching the outletting storm drain pipe and ultimately entering the waters of Lake Washington. We believe the filling of this wetland will impact the water quality of the stream runoff prior to reaching the lake. The ravine with the stream upstream from the wetland is formed by rear yards of the residents on the north side ofNW 5th ST and the residents of the south side ofNW 6th ST. All lots adjacent to the stream are restricted from building beyond a noted "rear building line" that is recorded on the face of the plat of Woody Glen Addition. This should preclude the ability to construct or grade in the area assumed to be off limits to property owners encumbered with such plat restrictions. Would it not be a requirement by state law that would require a plat amendment to remove such a restriction or condition from the face of the recorded plat? Would it not require all property owners within the plat to agree to the plat amendment? The attempt by the applicant to adjust the propeI1Y line in an effort to get rid of this restriction on the lot in order to expand a parking lot does not seem to us a fair and reasonable use of one's property from the standpoint of the neighbors encumbered by the restriction nor the environment, which this restriction attempts to protect. It also appears that this encumbrance would restrict the proposed eight lot short plat to development behind or to the north of the rear building line for Lot 8 of Woody Glen Addition. With regards to application itself and the information provided there are deficiencies with regards to what we feel to be a mistake in the categorization of the wetland. 2 In the Environmental Checklist provided by the applicant, the wetland that is proposed to be filled is described as "Degradated (sic) Wetlands". This we assume is a reference to the "Wetland Delineation & Mitigation Report" prepared by The Riley Group, Inc. and dated July 22,2004. This report reads in part on Page 6: "The south wetland meets the criteria as a palustrine emergent category 3 wetland. A heron nest has been identified a4jacent to the wetland on the lot to the west of the Alhadeff property; however, according to the City of Renton, a single nest does not meet the City's criteriafor a rookery. The Wetland classification is based upon this infOrmation. as well as the wetland Size (greater than 5,000 square feet); severe disturbance, including the dominance of invasive species within the wetland, specifically Japanese knotweed and Himalayan blackberry; the presence of fill material within the wetland at the east end as well as woody debris dumping; severe under-cutting of the watercourse, and; outlet modification (the watercourse enters a constricted culvert). First we must address the issue of "dominance of invasive species" found within the "Southern Wetland". We cannot think of any area within in this City or County that has a watercourse or wetland within it that does not have Himalayan blackberry growth on it. And one only needs to drive the entire length of the Cedar River, including some of its wildest stretches to view the presence of Japanese Knotweed. These two invasive plants are everywhere but are not evidence of a "severely disturbed" wetland. Indicating this growth of weeds as reason for classifying this wetland as a Category t wetlana IS S ridiculous. There are alternatives to removing noxious weeds from a wetland other than filling it and placing a parking lot atop it. Secondly, " ••• the presence offill material within the wetland at the east end" is the result of years of dUmping by the associated businesses into the wetland to create a larger parking area and working surface. Although this area has been an encroachment into the wetland area, it does not yet reach the existing pipe inlet. This incursion into the wetland, although a violation of City ordinance, does not significantly degrade the wetland to extent that the wetland delineation report purports. 3 Thirdly, a reference to another factor of severe disturbance n ••• as well as woody debris dumping •••• " When reading this one can only infer that the author(s) is/are either suggesting that woody debris from the wooded slopes surrounding the wetland have dropped leaves and branches within the wetland during seasonal changes and storms or that neighboring properties are dumping material over their property lines. If it is the former, is this not the natural state of affairs for all wetlands and wooded areas? And if the later, how will mitigation address the dumping by the existing perpetrators and by residents of the newly created eight-lot short plat proposed by Mr. Alhadeff'? There are no neighbors near enough to the boundaries of the wetland that could impact it by dumping lawn clippings or any other woody debris. Dumping may be occurring far upslope of this wetland but well over 200 to 300 feet away. This is simply not an impact and again is an exaggeration of the actual situation. Finally, in the reports attempt to relegate a Category 3 to this wetland, it refers to nsevere undercutting of the watercourse, and; outlet modification". Severe undercutting of the watercourse mayor may not be occurring. If in fact that is true, then it is evidence to the fact that continued development within the contributing basin upstream is causing more runoff to enter the water-course which may be creating a larger wetland area. If filling is allowed to take place and severe undercutting continues to cause damage to the water- course then one can only assume that upstream properties will be impacted by an expanding wetland caused by the additional waters. Could such an impact be the source of litigation by adjacent property owners that as tax payers in the City, we would all share in the cost of mitigation/compensation? ' Because of the poor information provided in the wetland delineation and mitigation plan we are requesting that the City take the following course of action before approving any of the proposed applications within Lot 8 of Woody Glen Addition including but not limited to the Proposed Lot (Boundary) Line Adjustment to sever the wetland from the Jot; the proposed eight-lot short plat, and; this application to fill the wetland to create a parking lot: 1) Conduct its own assessment of the "Southern Wetland" as we believe it has been incorrectly categorized and should be categorized as at least a Category 2 wetland. We believe it to be a vital and well functioning wetland that serves an abundant and diverse wildlife for the area. 2) Provide a written explanation as to the allowance of applications beyond the "Rear Building Lines" in the original Plat of Woody Glen Addition (Volume 47, Pages 91 and 92). The proposal for these land use applications does not appear to address this in any of their application material. It is our view that any and all proposals for construction of building and grading be done on the north side of the "rear building line". How is it that the creation of plat in 1950 and the subsequent construction of the residences in the plat were able to adhere to the restriction on the face of this plat but in 2004, a time of much stricter environmental regulation, wetlands can be filled and steep slopes can be re- platted? 4 3) Clarify in writing the discrepancy between Washington State Fish and Wildlife regulations regarding protections for species such as the Great Blue Heron and the City of Renton's detennination that one Heron nest does not constitute a rookery as is noted by The Riley Group in the aforementioned quote. We thank you for our listening to our concerns regarding this badly conceived proposal and look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, QL . ---u ~Lu.n:rd IQ k€.nDe-lJl1' S 3hu\Of\cI,~ ~e.nee.. Ott's> 211 N\ij ~+I, .st., .~<.V) 1 \..-OR 9~OS5 Czoto) 772.. -g&8S t3~V\..\.IL d-Su...e... G,,~ ~o\ -AJ.w 51l< ~,G& ~C.IJ+~N/ LU 11 ~9p6!3 (2.0") "'11 ~ -0 '1S"rJ oZ£~-P~~fof~ )...~e ~. ?~J eh~iSt-ophJU.~()N 503 ~a.inN('R.. 17v..e. N. RfNrO~ Wit 9'goS"s ...... v, ....... -Wheeler, Mayor August26,2004 Carl P. Burns 213 NW 6th St. Renton, WA 98055 CITY. RENTON PlanningIBuildinglPublic Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator Subject: Rainier Ave. Mixed-Use South Parking Lot File No. LUA 04-093, ECF, SA-A Dear Mr. Burns: Thank you for your note received on August 24, 2004 regarding the above-mentioned project. If you have not already reviewed the proposal, I would encourage you to visit the 6th Floor of the Renton City Hall building to review the land use application along with the . required studies (i.e. wetlands, geotechnical report,storm drainage). Please find enclosed a copy of-our development regulations on Wetlands. Additional City of Renton Municipal Code standards can be found via the City's website - . www.ci.renton.wa~us. I have included you as a party-af-record so that you will receive a copy of the staff report and project decision. Please contact me at (425) 430-7382 if you have any additional comments or questions. Sincerely, usan A. Fiala, AICP Senior Planner Enclosure cc: File ------l-O-SS-s-o-u-th-G-r-ad-y-W-a-y---R-e-nt-o-n,-W-a-sh-i-ng-to-n-98-0-S-S-----~ ~ * This paper contains 50% recycled material, 30% post consumer A,HEAD OF THE CURVE City of Reillon Department of Planning / Building / Public ~v,J(S ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: L.oI'\5>·h .... "".;:p(lYI ~L..~... COMMENTS DUE: AUGUST 26, 2004 ~A~P~P~L~IC~A~T~IO~N~N~O~:~LU~A~-~04~-~09~3~,~S~A-~A~,=EC~F~ __________ ~D~A~T~E~C~I~R~C~U~LA~T~E~D~:~A~U~G~U~S~T~1=2,~2~O~~~~~N+~~C!S APPLICANT: JDA Grou ,LLC/ID Kline Co . PROJECT MANAGER: Susan Fiala CITY OF RENTON PROJECT TITLE: Rainier Mixed-use South Parkin Lot PLAN REVIEW: Michael Dotson SITE AREA: 66,760 s uare feet BUILDING AREA ross: N/A LOCATION: NW of 507 Rainier Avenue N I WORK ORDER NO: 77296 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and Administrative Site Plan review for the construction of 27 parking spaces within a surface lot associated with Chang's Mongolian Grill. The proposal includes portions of two large parcels containing Category 2 and 3 wetlands. The Category 3 wetland would be filled in to accommodate the parking lot with wetland compensation proposed off-site and include wetland creation, enhancement and buffer averaging. The proposal also involves the removal of noxious weeds; piping of an existing drainage ditch; installing a retaining wall; utility improvements; and a parking modification. 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 Earth Housina Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transf)Ortation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14 000 Feet B. POLICY-RELA TED COMMENTS C. COD'5iELATED COMMENTS -(J~ s;tFa&~'~4'I!)/1~, ~~~~~~>~.' 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 a itional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Sign Date / ' City of Reiuon Department of Planning I Building I Public l'Vvrks ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: ~) ("oL-COMMENTS DUE: M:J~ ~lf~T(i26~QP,4\17 re """""'\ APPLICATION NO: LUA-04-093, SA-A, ECF DATE CIRCULATED il1, I I.!::I ~ I~ U '(j t=. I':,.<:UIJ .. APPLICANT: JDA Group, LLC/ID Kline Corp. PROJECT MANAGE H1J an Fjl;lla PROJECT TITLE: Rainier Mixed-use South Parking Lot PLAN REVIEW: Mic ~el tsorfU\J I., LUU4 W SITE AREA: 66,760 square feet BUILDING AREA (gr ss): .. ",n f"\r nr"Tr\ ~ ~ LOCATION: NW of 507 Rainier Avenue N I WORK ORDER NO: 177296 FIRE OEPAfHMENT SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and Administrative Site Plan review for the construction of 27 parking spaces within a surface lot associated with Chang's Mongolian Grill. The proposal includes portions of two large parcels containing Category 2 and 3 wetlands. The Category 3 wetland would be filled in to accommodate the parking lot with wetland compensation proposed off-site and include wetland creation, enhancement and buffer averaging. The proposal also involves the removal of noxious weeds; piping of an existing drainage ditch; installing a retaining wall; utility improvements; and a parking modification. 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 Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Licht/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment to,OOOFeet 14,000 Feet 8. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS IJ) C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS I <"/' ;()l' II1II r '7", 0,'te bLI1 aCe e.1~ t1 pt/ /ttrl1l/rq..' ja/ittttl'· (!/ rflq I r7 val 1 '" r ---..J We have reviewed is application with areas where additi nai information is Signature of Date .. ----y NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED (DNS-M) DATE: August 13, 2004 LAND USE NUMBER: LUA040093, SA·A, ECF PROJECT NAME: Rainier Avenue Mlxed·U.e South Parking Lot PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Tho applicant Is roquostlng Envlronmontal (SEPA) Rovlaw and Admlnlslrallvo Slte Plan review for the construction of 27 parking spacss within a surface lot associated with Chang's Mongolian GrilL The proposal Includes portions 01 two large parcels containing Category 2 and 3 wetlands. The Category 3 wetland would be filled In to accommodate the parking lot with wetland compensation proposed off-site and include wetland creation, enhancement and buffer averaging. The proposal also Involves the removal of noxious weeds; piping of an existing drainage ditch; Installing a retaining wall; utility improvements; and a parking modification. PROJECT LOCATION: NW of 507 Rainier Avenue N OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON·SIGNIFICANCE, MITIGATED (DNS·M): As the Load Agoncy, the City of Ronton has determIned that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project. Therefore, as permitted under the RCW 43.21C.110, the City of Renton Is using the Optional DNS-M process to give notice that a DNS-M Is likely to be Issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS-M are integrated into a Single comment period. There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non·Slgnlflcance· Mitigated (DNS·M). A 14·day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS·M. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: July 29,2004 Augu.t 13, 2004 APPLICANTIPROJECT CONTACT PERSON: Richard Wagn~r Tel: (425) 454·0566 Email: wagnerrObayUsarchltects.com Permlls/Revlew Requested: Other Permits whIch may be required: Requested Studies: Location whore application may be reviewed: CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Land Use: EnVironmental Documents that Evaluate the Proposed Project: Development Regulations Used For Project MItigation: Environmental (SEPA) Review, Administrative Site Plan approval Utility, Construction and Fire Permits Wetland Delineation, Stonn DraInage and Geotechnical reports Plannlng/BulldinglPublic Works Department, Development Services Division. Sixth Floor Ronfon City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way. Ronton, WA 98055 The proJect sIte Is designated Employment Area -Commercial (EA·C) on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and zoned Commercial Arterial (CA). The proposed parking lot is considered a pennltted use within the zone and associated with Chang's Mongolian Grin restaurant. The proposal appears to comply with the applicable CA zoning development standards. SEPA Checklist, Wotland Oellnoatlon and MItigation Report The proposal Is subject to the City's Environmental (SEPA) Review Ordinance, Zoning Code, Critical AreasJWetland Regulations, Public Works Standards, Uniform Fire Code, Bnd other applicable building and construction standards. I I 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 abovs. Wetland Delineation & Mitigation Recommendations: fo/low recommendations of report for compensation. FencIng and slgnage of critical area may bOl'9qulred. Traffic MltIgallon Fee: equIvalent to $75.00 pef each new avsragB weskday trip attributable to the proposal. GeotechnIcal Study Recommendations: (oflow general recommendations of geotschnlesl report for grading and site preparatfon. Seasonal or westher-related work IImltst/ons may apply due to site conditions. Cornmants on the above application must be submitted In....rlrl!!o.gto Susan Fiala, Senior Planner, Development Services Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055, by 5'00 pM 00 Augyst 28 2004 If you have questions about thIs proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional notification by mall, contact the Project Manager. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party at record and will be notified of any decision on . this project. CONTACT PERSON: SUBan A. Fiala, Senior Planner Tel: (425) 430-7382 PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION NSibHP.:1Pf<.HC&O ce7l>dL MAP flAfNIBR. "'-~. ,41/"s.o·v~e ~'J1-f f'NU4IJ4,LDT 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, Development Planning, 1055 So. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055_ File No.lName: LUA04·093, SA·A, ECF I Rainier Avenue Mlxed·Use South Parking Lot NAME: __________________________________________ __ ADDRESS:~---------------------------------------- TELEPHONE NO.: _______________ _ .................. """" ............ '-t t-l KAt\.t "II CERTIFICATION .::-~~ ......... C~ '" ;-.:.~~S'ON i~ .. ~ I, -.~ .~. "TA)' ~. '1. ; 'tc::''! OTAR ~\.it' ~ ~ [0 ~ ... _Y ~1 ~ (Derek. JorcLQi\ , hereby certify that.3 copies of the ~ : . -, ..,. .------~ .ft ~ ,oUBUC .: ..... "ove document were posted by me In conspICUOUS places on or nearby ~";"" .~-1\ lr 1\ \ ",{;: ••• 8.29_01 .... -;;..O lhe described property on tt-l,,~ "'-At-II:> l 04.004 .... ",;>~·WAS~~ ...... -: SI·gned'. ~~ )~?AAA--A~~ 'h\", ......... ·.... -L.l.l If ~v.....-.....---0 V ATTEST: SUbscrib~~e me, a Notary Public, in and forAe St e of Washington residing in ~ ,on the ;)0 t(:/I. day of Ullf!' CUZ()tJ. MARILYN KAMCHEFF MY APPOINTMENT EXPIRES 6-29-07 City of Renton Department of Planning / Building / Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: E:l..OII\O 1'11\ l'-1)t...v'. COMMENTS DUE: AUGUST 26, 2004 APPLICATION NO: LUA-04-093, SA-A, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: AUGUST 12, 2004 APPLICANT: JDA Group, LLC/ID Kline Corp. PROJECT MANAGER: Susan Fiala --PROJECT TITLE: Rainier Mixed-use South Parking Lot PLAN REVIEW: Michael Dotson Ht.-;~~ ·/'1 ~ SITE AREA: 66,760 square feet BUILDING AREA (gross): N/A AIJ('; 1 ':l ?nnJ LOCATION: NW of 507 Rainier Avenue N WORK ORDER NO: 77296 ,~ .. '" SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and Administrati e ~1el=~~;Wfqr,!1/;l5l construction of 27 parkin spaces within a surface lot associated with Chang's Mongolian Grill. The proposallncluaes pOlllum; UI IWO large parcels containing 8ategory 2 and 3 wetlands. The Category 3 wetland would be filled in to accommodate the parking lot with wetland compensation proposed off-site and include wetland creation, enhancement and buffer averaging. The proposal also involves , the removal of noxious weeds; piping of an existing drainage ditch; installing a retaining wall; utility improvements; and a parking· modification. 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 Earth HousinQ Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14 000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional infonnation is needed to properly assess this proposal. Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC PLANNING MEMORANDUM DATE: August 27,2004 TO: rJt Susan Fiala FROM: '-IfY~Rebecca Lind STAFF CONTACT: Don Erickson SUBJECT: Rainier Mixed-use South Parking Lot, NW of 507 Rainier Ave N; LUA-04-093 Background: Staff reviewed and commented on this proposal as a pre-application on May 3rd of this year and at that time recommended supporting "the concept of an additional parking lot in the south lot but do not support this specific proposal" stating that additional information was needed in terms of wetland protection, shared signage, pedestrian circulation and safety, and landscaping. Findings: The applicants revised drawings indicate that a sidewalk will be provided along the eastern edge of the access driveway to the parking lot but, if so, these same drawings do not indicate any grade separation between the road surface and the proposed "sidewalk." We believe this is a major oversight and the sidewalk, for safety reasons should be at least 5 or 6 inches higher than the surface of the finished roadway. Left flush with the roadway as currently proposed, this so-called "sidewalk" is likely to get asphalted over during future resurfacings and will not serve it's intended purpose of providing a secure walking area for pedestrians. The current drawings (A002) do indicate at least two 12-foot high light poles in the parking lot as well as an existing light pole near the top of the drive that is intended to stay. The applicant has provided a detailed landscape plan coving the north wetland but has not provided a comparable landscape plan for the parking lot itself. Conclusion: Unless the pedestrian vehicular safety issue is addressed with a grade separated sidewalk and a landscape plan is submitted addressing proposed landscaping around and possibly within the proposed new parking lot, staff cannot support this application. Relevant land use policies are included in the attached May 3,2004 memo regarding this project. Attachment cc: Don Erickson Docliment2\cor 'l ' •. ' t·.. ," 50 Agencies See Attached (S' t f S d ) ~ A --/J -, .... , .... "'\\,\" Ignaureo en er: ~ -........ ~tlKAM,"III ./ "":~~ ........ o~. I, ./ -.' SION ". ~~ , STATE OF WASHINGTON ) :"N .:~~t:" ~.to .. '~ ", ; ~/cY OTA/i ~\~ ~ ) ss '" . () ~ y t1'. ~ ) -' : en: -, ~ . ~.-. '" ., ~ '" C : : ~ tJ)" ""USL\ : .. .,~.. ..;:~ I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Stacy Tucker \ "1'~···"~'29_01 .•• ···r-..0.! signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act fo"'~~l~~"-.:" purposes mentioned in the instrument. "'"''''''', .................. ... COUNTY OF KING Dated: Ctu-o:-~, ~.1f 7n . o ashington Notary (Print):---MIVIA~RIfI-'t:¥II''NHlfAf6I~Mldie~tIIAEfI";e--__________ _ My appointment expires: MY tOPOINTMENT EXPIRES 6-29-07 Rainier Avenue Mixed-Use South Parking Lot LUA04-093, SA-A, ECF 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 Jamey Taylor· 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 -Stewart Reinbold • Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept. c/o Department of Ecology • 3190 160th Ave SE Attn. SEPA Reviewer Bellevue, WA 98008 39015 -172nd Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092 Duwamish Tribal Office • Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program 4717 W Marginal Way SW • Seattle, WA 98106-1514 Attn: Ms Melissa Calvert 39015 172nd 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 72nd Place 220 Fourth Avenue South Newcastle, WA 98059 Kent, WA 98032-5895 Puget Sound Energy City of Tukwila Municipal Liason Manager Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official Joe Jainga 6300 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 Real Estate Services Title Examiner 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98104-5004 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, PMT's, and the notice of application. • Also note, do not mail Jamey Taylor any of the notices she gets hers from the web. Only send her the ERC Determination paperwork. template -affidavit of service by mailing CITY OF RENTON CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 13th day of August, 2004, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing Acceptance Letter documents, This information was sent to: Richard Wagner Contact JDA Group, LLC/ID Kline Corp, Owner ffiJ ~ "''''''''''''' __ ----...... '~ KA~ "'II (Signature of Senders, ~ .:---~ ........ elY. '" .f . ~ ... ~Ci,S\ON i.t· .. ~ I" , ~ ... ~ ~' • .-(\ I, STATE OF WASHINGTON : ~:a~,OTAA'-~'" ~ ) SS ~ : o'~ r ~ ~ ~ , . -. . .-. ~ ~ : . ~ COUNTY OF KING ) ~ .ft \ PUBUC ! .... : ~ u·,,·. .. o~: ~ ,. '. .., .'!-'-., I 'f h I k h ' f ' h S T k " .,~ ", 6'-29·0 I ,.' 0 .: certl y t at now or ave satls actory eVidence t at tacy uc er I" ~ o"':;';~~~~ .... : signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for t"~,~~~~ ... '" purposes mentioned in the instrument. ""'" Dated:Clu-1 W, ~9 Notary (Print): _____ nIllol:Mt.ARM..II'aWolI~I(jIllllA~~4C .... I:lIliilm:FF_--_________ _ My appointment expires: MY APPOINTMENT EXPIRES 6-29.07 Rainier Avenue Mixed-Use South Parking Lot LUA04-093, SA-A, ECF NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED (DNS-M) DATE: August 13,2004 LAND USE NUMBER: LUA04-093, SA-A, ECF PROJECT NAME: Rainier Avenue Mixed-Use South Parking Lot PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and Administrative Site Plan review for the construction of 27 parking spaces within a surface lot associated with Chang's Mongolian Grill. The proposal includes portions of two large parcels containing Category 2 and 3 wetlands. The Category 3 wetland would be filled in to accommodate the parking lot with wetland compensation proposed off-site and include wetland creation, enhancement and buffer averaging. The proposal also involves the removal of noxious weeds; piping of an existing drainage ditch; installing a retaining wall; utility improvements; and a parking modification. PROJECT LOCATION: NW of 507 Rainier Avenue N OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE, MITIGATED (DNS-M): As the Lead Agency, the City of Renton has determined that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project. Theref.ore, as permitted under the RCW 43.21 C.11 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: NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: July 29, 2004 August 13,2004 APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON: Richard Wagner Tel: (425) 454-0566 Email: wagnerr@bayllsarchitects.com Permits/Review Requested: Other Permits which may be required: Requested Studies: Location where application may be reviewed: CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Land Use: Environmental Documents that Evaluate the Proposed ProJect: Development Regulations Used For ProJect Mitigation: Environmental (SEPA) Review, Administrative Site Plan approval Utility, Construction and Fire Permits Wetland Delineation, Storm Drainage and Geotechnical reports Planning/Building/Public Works Department, Development Services Division, Sixth Floor Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055 The project site is designated Employment Area -Commercial (EA-C) on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and zoned Commercial Arterial (CA). The proposed parking lot is considered a permitted use within the zone and associated with Chang's Mongolian Grill restaurant. The proposal appears to comply with the applicable CA zoning development standards. SEPA Checklist, Wetland Delineation and Mitigation Report The proposal is subject to the City's Environmental (SEPA) Review Ordinance, Zoning Code, Critical Areas/Wetland Regulations, Public Works Standards, Uniform Fire Code, and other applicable building and construction standards. Proposed Mitigation Meas ... ",s: The following Mitigation Measures will likely LJtI imposed on the proposed project. These recommended Mitigation Measures address project impacts not covered by existing codes and regulations as cited above. • Wetland Delineation & Mitigation Recommendations: follow recommendations of report for compensation. Fencing and signage of critical area may be required. • Traffic Mitigation Fee: equivalent to $75.00 per each new average weekday trip attributable to the proposal. • Geotechnical Study RecommendatIons: follow general recommendations of geotechnical report for grading and site preparation. Seasonal or weather-related work limitations may apply due to site conditions. Comments on the above application must be submitted In writing to Susan Fiala, Senior Planner, Development Services Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055, by 5:00 PM on August 26. 2004. 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: Susan A. Fiala, Senior Planner Tel: (425) 430-7382 I PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION I ~ NE./bHftxD/Vfa90 DETAIL MAP ~N'ISR. 04\1!!. ~/){E.D'I.J\!!>E ~71"t P~1-l4> t.eIT 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, Development Planning, 1055 So. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. File No.lName: LUA04-093, SA-A, ECF / Rainier Avenue Mixed-Use South Parking Lot NAME: ________________________________________________ _ ADDRESS: ____________________________________________ ___ TELEPHONE NO.: ________________ _ CITY )F RENTON . :. ~ ",""U'A".·Wheeier, Mayor PlanningIBuildinglPublic Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator August 12, 2004 Richard Wagner Baylis Architects 10801 Main Street #110 Bellevue, WA 98004 Subject: Rainier Avenue Mixed-Use South Parking Lot LUA-04-093, SA-A, ECF Dear Mr. Wagner: The Development Planning Section of the City of Renton has determined that the subject application is complete according to submittal requirements and, therefore, is accepted for review. It is tentatively scheduled for consideration by the Environrriental Review Committee on September 14, 2004. Prior to that review, you will be notified if any additional information is required to continue proc'essing your application. Please contact me at (425) 430-7382 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Susan A. Fiala, AICP Senior Planner cc: JDA Group, LLC/ID Kline Corp. I Owner ------------1~O~5-5~So-u-th~G-r~a-dy-W;--ay---R-e-n-to-n,-W;-a-S-hi-ng-t-on--9-80-5-5------------~ * This paper contains 50% recycled material, 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE CITY ~F RENTON Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor PlanningIBuildinglPublic Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator August 12, 2004 Ms. Kathy Curry The Watershed Company 1410 Market Street Kirkland, W A 98033 Subject: Wetland Delineation and Mitigation Report -Requested Secondary Review Rainier Ave. Mixed-Use South Parking Lot -LUA 04-093, SA-A, ECF Dear Kathy: We are requesting a· secondary review of the Wetland Delineation and Mitigation report associated with the construction of a parking lot for the Rainier Avenue Mixed-Use development that is proposed by the IDA Group. The applicant is proposing to fill in a Category 3 wetland and enhance, create and buffer average an off-site Category 2 wetland for compensation. Please find enclosed a copy of the report, project narrative; conceptual planting plan and the site plan drawings. I am working on the schedule for the land use application which I am planning on taking the project to the Environmental Review Committee on September 14, 2004. Please let me know if this fits in with your review as I would need to have comments to incorporate in my staff report which is due on September 9th• . If you have questions, please contact me at (425) 430-7382 or by email: sfiala@ci.renton.wa.us cc: IDA Group LLCIID Kline Corp.-Attn: Jack Alhadeff/Owner Rich Wagner/Contact . Jennifer Henning Project File ------}:-::07SS::-.-=-So-u-=th-G-=-r-a"'7dy-W=-ay----R-e-nt-o-n,-W-a-s-hi-ng-t-on-9S-0-S-S------~ * This paper contains 50% recycled material, 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE . ,. DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON City of Renton LAND USE PERMIT LOA 05-155 JUL 292004 RECEIVED MASTER APPLICATION PROPERTY OWNER(S) PROJECT INFORMATION NAME: JDA GROUP, LLC PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: . ADDRESS: 95 S. Tobin Street Rainier Avenue Mixed Use -South Parking Lot . PROJECT/ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION AND ZIP CODE: CITY: Renton ZIP-: 98055 Approximately 507 Rainier Avenue N. -Renton 98055 TELEPHONE NUMBER: 425·891·1002 KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): APPLICANT (if other than owner) 9564800110 I 9564800007 NAME: JDA GROUP, LLC EXISTING LAND USE(S): Vacant COMPANY (if applicable): PROPOSED LAND USE(S): Parking Lot ADDRESS: 95 S. Tobin Street EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: EA-C Employment Area -Commercial CITY: Renton ZIP: 98055 PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION TELEPHONE NUMBER 425-891-1002 (if applicable): EA-C -Employment Area -Commercial EXISTING ZONING: CA -Commercial Arterial CONTACT PERSON PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): CA -Commercial Arterial NAME: Richard Wagner SITE AREA (ifl square feet): 6~, 760 I 245,500 SF , COMPANY (if applicable): BAYLIS ARCHITECTS SQUARE FOOTAGE OF ROADWAYS TO BE DEDICATED FOR SUBDIVISIONS OR PRIVATE STREETS SERVING THREE LOTS OR MORE (it applicable): -00- ADDRESS: 10801 Main Street, Suite 110 PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN UNITS PER NET ACRE (if applicable): N/A CITY: Bellevue ZIP: 98004 NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS (if applicable): N/A TELEPHONE NUMBER AND E-MAIL ADDRESS NUMBER OF NEW DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): -00- 425-454-0566 wagnerr@baylisarchitects.com Q:web/pw/devserv/fonns/planning/masterapp.doc 06/08/04 ... k .,OJECT IN FORMATr--:I:.....=O-=-N::......J(....:..lco.=..:r~I_~.I1::....:.:u:...=.ed.:.::.JI}L-______ --, NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): -00- SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): -00- SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): -00- SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): -00- SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): -00- NET FLOOR AREA OF NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): N/A NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE NEW PROJECT (if applicable): N/A PROJECT VALUE: $80,000 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 sq. ft. IJ GEOLOGIC HAZARD sq. ft. CJ HABITAT CONSERVATION sq. ft. CJ SHORELINE STREAMS AND LAKES sq. ft. IJ WETLANDS (On site) 4,000_ sq. ft. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY (Attach legal description on separate sheet with the following information included) SITUATE IN THE SW QUARTER OF SECTION l, TOWNSHIP 23, RANGE....!.., IN THE CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. TYPE OF APPLICATION & FEES List all land use applications being applied for: 1. Site Plan Approval (Admin): $1,000 3. - 2. SEPA (w/Environs) $'500:, 4. Postage -83x37¢ Staff will calculate applicable fees and postage: $ 30 , 7 1 TOTAL: $1,530,71 AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP I, (Print Name/s) Jack Alhadeff , declare that I am (please check one) II the current owner of the property . olved in this application or __ the authorized representative to act for a corporation (please attach proof of authorization) and that the foregoing st tements and answers herein contained and the information herewith are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that .cJQ:'d:; '1) \ A \ ~dt4 signed this instrument and ackn ledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned i the instrument. JDA Group, LLC 1.0. Kline Corporation (Signature of Owner/RepreseRtati¥e) Notary (Print) My appointment expires: 8"( \ { ~ 7 Q:web/pw/devserv/fonns/planninglrnasterapp.doc 06/08/04 LIST OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300·FEET OF THE SUBJECT SITE City of Renton Development Services Division 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055 Phone: 425-430·7200 Fax: 425-430-7231 PROJECT NAME:_...a.~~....::'N=-=\e..t<.-~;;:::::·=~~;==::=-::. :-"M.~(;.6.X:ill..!:s.p~~·~V~:e.~ ______ _ c:&~ 'F~~ LeT niJr-I'VJlf2 APPLICATION NO: ___________________ bll:::o'-+f--....;.v--'--f..~-___ _ The following is a list of property owners within 300 feet of the subject site. The Development Services Division will notify these individuals of the proposed development. NAME .. . .. DEVELOPMENtPLANNiNG . . CITY OF RENTON : JUL 292004 RECEIVED ADDRESS Q:\WEB\PW\DEVSERV\Fonns\P\anning\owners.doc08/29/03 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER ~eCE'V~O . JUN 22 200+ BAYLIS ARCHITECTS (Attach additional sheets, if necessary) NAME ADDRESS Applicant Certification ASSESSOR'S PARCEL , NUMBER I, _JA~;.;;;C\!.;...::......;At.l\;......;;;;..;:...l.~:;"';:';;=;"';_:.r.:.-..,"-, ____ , hereby certify that the above list(s) of adjacent property (Print Name) owners and their addresses were obtain'ed from: Title Company Records King County Asses ors Records ~ ~"""''''''t ""';~G H '" ~ ... ~~ .•.• : ... .f?I.41.'" Il.." l " .L .: ,,((I .... ~S\ON ~"'"! I,,, Date 0 _" _ vI :&J :~~, '. ,~ ... "f,.~ : :0 ~\OTA$I~.~·; ~ ~ : , .... ' . ,r. 11' • ~ , : 0 _._ (J) : ;;; ~ • • 01". , ~ ~ PU8'l~\(j .; '.' <:' ~ ~~... . . /0 ~ before me, a Nota~P, ~lic, in a for the Sta'1I;'tJjW~>otat.QSf:':( . NOTARY residing at on the _~ __ ~~ay of "~I ~ .:. ... ~ .. ~~: --~So'I~~-=~--r+-t-k II, ......... r. (I A ... /\. ':\. .. ~~~ ... Signed __ ~~~~~;t:::PJJ;"""'.-=:===:---i>< \)' _ V"~ ........ ~\\.. YN ~""t .1-~ .. ~*issio.1;·~a\, : .. ~9 ~'.~~. -For City of Renton Use- CERTIFICATION OF MAILING : : 'J NOr.... ~ ... ~ ~ .-': ..,J9 .... -n'1 I, 6\ocdi /.( JCbev:: ,hereby certify that notices of the proposed ap.:iUflJ:!80n ~.~arreilto"'T1 ~. ~ ';,r • V. G? • , . , (ity Employee) l' ~ ~ \ '8L/C .: ! each listed property owner on <ir 13/04 . '\~ o"~~'!'07 ....... ~ j ~ ~. ~ " '" ........ ",0 •• , Signed~ ~.w Date:/~J'~~""''''''- NOTARY ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn before me, a Notary Pu ic, in and for the State of Washington residing -""'+-¥~~~4--____ o.n the .::u:J1/'-day of ,2~ MARILYN KAMCHEFF MY APPOINTMENT EXPIRFS 6-29-n7 Q:\WEB\PW\DEVSERV\Forms\plannmg\owners.doc 2 L...-JELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION WAIVER OF SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS ~!:~::;!;·!:!.:i!iihf~~~~:tJr~t~~r~g~t~:!!;/~~::i!;!!i~ i:~:i~~~~i? i;ir~g~~~!i: i!;;i;iii::):!)i:;::!~~:~;i:RA¥:~~Nt~~:~!t):i~~~!i~!i:!:!;!:!j;!i Parking. Lot Coverage & Landscaping Analysis 4 ~~~n:~~~~:'{?:M~~)t:~:~:~:::~:i:~;~:f~:~:~:~:::~:~:~:~;~'::;:::~:?::~: :~:~:}~:?:::.~:~<:~:!: :;::·{:)}i{:;:~:~:~: ~:;:~:;:::::::::::~:::::::~'::::~:::::;:: ~:~:::::::~:~:::~:::::::::::}::;::{:::::}::;:; Postage 4 ~~pp!i~tiOD~~~i~9:$~ro~~I:::;:::~:;:~:~:::~:~.::~:::::~.~{: :~:~:~:::::::~:::~}~:;:~;~:~: ::~:~:~{:~:;.~:;:;:;:~:::::;: }::::::::~:::::~:::::::~:}::::~:~:~::{:~.~:::::::~:::::::::~:::::>~:~:~:::::::}~:~ Public WorkS Approvalletter2 ~~~~~!~~1~W~~~::)::::i:i:~:~:~(:~:~:~:~:::;~:~~~;::~::;:}::::;:~:::<:;:::: :~:~:i:::~:::;:;:;:;:~:;:;:~:;: i:;.;:};:;:;::~::::~::::); ~::;:::;;:~:~:~:~:~:~~::::~;::~:~:}}~;~:~:~:::i:;:~:~;;:::~:~:~';;~:::~:~:~::):~;}::: Screening Detail 04 ~!te::~!~6;~: ;.u.~j:~:;:; :;: \;~:::: ~:;:~ :;::;\:~:;:;:;::: :~;~:~:~;; :~:;:::;:;: ~;: ::~ ~~ ::;:; ~:~:~: :~:~:; ::::;~:) ;:::;:~ :;:::~: ~:; <:;:; :~: ;:; < ;. ~:: ;;::: :;:;:;:;~:;:~;:.~;:; :;::~.:;::~. ~ .~:~:~;~; ::~.~: ~::}:;:;:;;;: < :?~::.:::; :.~ ;::: :~:~::;:;: Street Profiles 2 t~i~:~~P'8rt~~~!~~:9~i$.~~~~~:~;~:{}:~)~;(~;::~:~:)~{~:: :t~~:;:~:::;~~~;~:~::;{:: ~:~::;:;:~::~<\::;~:~:~::: :r)f:;r~;~:?~::::;:f~:;/r::~:~~;~~\;?~;?(~{~;:)\\;~: Topography Map 3 ,tf~¢:s~~v'J~:::~::~~::::·::::~;~:~::::::·~;~: ;:~;:~:::;:;~;~:~;:;~;::;;:;:~:~.;.?;:::;;;;;;;P1\l~~:t. ~:;;:;!;:;:~::?;: :;:);:; :::t·r:;:;:;:;:·;;~;;~;:~:~::;:;:;~:~:~;.::;;:::;;;;;:;:;':;:~:;:)::::;::~:~;/?'::: Tree Cutting/Land Clearing Plan 4 . ~~::¢~~~;~19q;~~~~;~~t:~~i1}:;:~:;:;:~~~ ;:;:i!~f~t::;:~ :!.:.!:::::::!:;:!:;:~:;:~:;:~:~ :~:;:~:;};!:::::;:::;:::;:;:;;:::;'~.:.{:::::::;:::::~:~{:>;.;:!:}::~:!;!:~:~::::: Utilities Plan. Generalized 2 w~i~~Mi~~i~~~p.~:f.~;4;:};:;:~:;:;:;:~:;::{:;;;{:;{:: ;:;:::~:;:r::;:::;;~:;:~:;:~ :::;;:::~:~{:::;:;:~:;:~:;:; :;:::~;)i:~{:~:;;;:;:~:?;:::;:};:;:;:~:;:;;~{{:~:;:~.::::;:;:~:::~:~:;::;):: Wetlands Mitigation Plan. Preliminary 04 Wet!~~~:R;#iQr.tip~~~~~~~~<:::::~:;;~:~:~:;:::::;:;:~:~:·:;:::;:;;~:::; ;}:}::::~::{:~:~:~:~:~ :i:::~'::~:::~:~:~:::::~:;:::~:~ :~:::::::~:~:~:::::.: :::;:::~:;:::~:;:;:~:~:::;:::::;:t;:;:i:::}~:~:~:::::::;::::::;;:::;: Wireless: Applicant Agreement Statement 2 AND 3 Inventory of Existing Sites 2ANDS Lease Agreement. Draft 2AND' Map of Existing Site Conditions 2 AND S Map of View Area 2 AND 3 Photosimulations 2AND 3 This requirement may be waived by: 1. Property Services Section 2. Public Works Plan Review Section 3. Building Section 4. Development Planning Section DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON JUL 292004 Ft.f.ce,urn . O;\WEB\PW\Dcv;:)clt~rMUlannlng\Walver.xls PROJECT NAME: -i(2tU.F-=::...i~~"f--t:-"/~tJ±.,,-,-------DATE:_~_5r-!~~_O--,-;_· __ _ 01/0612004 JUL-30-2004 03:08PM FROM-BAYLIS ARCHITECTS ·42h~53-8013 T-237 . P.OO2l003 F-813' DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVIS: WAIVER OF SUBMITTAL REQU~IREMENTS FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS ~~:;~~:~·i:~:~;~:~~1::~I!ciWi::~r~~wmrD1~7:~~~~;j~~::;@ ~~::~~~::;:~:: :~:Wf~~~:g~~ :~~:~:~;:~:~:~~:~:(:j~j;~~l;#9M#~~I#~;~ij;~:\C~:~;:~:;:~~\;: Calculations f .¢.~f9r~~ ~ ~~~ f!lr ~~~~~~: ~:~: ~~ ~: ~ :~: ~:~ :}::::~:::~::: :~::::~::;:~.~::::~:~:~ :~; ~; ~;::::~. ~"{; ~~: ~:;: :t~:: ~::~:::~ ~:~:) ~~ ::; :;:. :::::::: : ~:~:::.:~ ~~: ~~ ~~ . ~ ;~~: ~ :~;~::~ ~:;:~.:::~ {~~: ~:~:': ::.:.:::~:~ \:::. ~ :~: ~: :~ ~~ ;:~:;:~: ::: ~: Construction Mitigation Description 2. AND 4 ·~~~~w.~r~~~:~:~:}:~:~~~:~:~~::::??:~:::~~:~:~:\~~:~:~~{::~}:~)~~ ~;~':;~~::~~::~;~(~.:~:::.:: :;~::?:::::~.~:~~:~{:~:~::: :::~:::~;;>\:;};::'::i:t:}:~::'::::::~~;(:/:i:~;:;::??~i:i::~~~}~~: Drainage Control Plan 2 @i~~9~~~~~t~:~~t~>~~~~~~~~~~:;:~:~~;~~:~:~~~~;{\>~{}\:~t} ;~:{::~~~:~<~;~;:~:~~~;: .. :::~:::\:;:;:(.~:~;{:~: «:~}<:~:/)?::t;~~~:~;~~::~:~>~~~:~:~;~;::}?{::~??:~~~;~ Elevations, Architectural 3 ANO4 ~' :~~~~~~~:~~~~~ij~;~::::::;:::}~:}::~':::;:::::'::::~::.~.~:::::::~:::::: .~:~::::::~~::~;.:.:~:~~~~~~;.,~?:.~~:::::~:~:::~:;:::::::: .. :::~::~<::~::~::~~.:::::}:::~::;::~:::~::.~:~.::::;:~::::::.:::~~::::::~:/:::;:~::;);: Existing Co"enants (Recorded Copy) 4 )~~i~i~g:~A~:~B~~er;t:¢~i&.l:~:::~:~:~:~:;:;:~:~:~:~;~:~:~ :~:}~:>~\.}::~:::~ :~:~:~.::~::~~:~:~:::>::)~: :~:::i:::::i;(;~:::i;~;i;::;:)·~·::::\::~~~.:::::<:~:~:~:~:;:(::~:i:)::~:)::~: Flood Hazard Data 4 . FIQ~f::p:t:a~~:~~~~~~: ::::;::;:~:)::;:;:::::::~:~:~:~:~:::::::::~:::::::::::~:.::;::~:::::~:::: :~~:::~:! ~::::::: :~:~:~:::::::::~:;::.~:~:} ::: :>:/.}~:~::::.~:~.~:::::::!.:::::::.::::::~.~:::::::;:::~:::::;.~:/~:~:::\~::::::: Geotechnical ReporhAND 3 :~~g:~iai:i;~¢¥.C~P.i~~(*::::::::::::::~::::·::~:::;::·:;:;::::~ ~:::}::~:;:: .{:::.:::::~:::~<:~:~::::. ;:::::::;~;~:::::::::;:~:}:::: :;:;:::::)~:::}::~:~:~:~:~:.:~:~;~::::·}t:·:·::::::::;:: .. :~:.:}::~:::::~::.::~::: Grading Plan, Detailed 2 :H~~f~$.;~ct~:::\:::::~:::::~:;:::::;.:~::::~<:::::::;:::~:~:::~:;:;:::~:~:: :;:::~:::::::::.:;:::~:.::::::: :~;::~:::~;~.~~~::~::::::::;:::.: ::::~::::::;:;:~:::::::::::::::~\:::~;~~:<:~:::~:~ :::.::::::~ ::::::::.:::::~:.:~:~:::~;:: King County Assessor's Map Indicating Site 4 :~~~~ei~ij.P.I~Q~:.~~~~~.~!~:;::::~;::::.::\~;.:::::~::;::.::;::::::~:~ ;~;t~;~·~;:~:~::::~:~~~~;~:~ ::::::::>:::~:;:;:::::::::~::: :::::~;::.:;:::::~::;::::::~::;~::~:::~~::~{::::;:::;:;:::<;::::;~;::~;:;:-;:~;\:':::;~~ Legal Description 4 ~~t:~(~~ili~~t9~:;e~~;~~~~~:(~~:\:t~~?t? ~~\>'}~~::::;:r:~:: };:?{~:~:~:~~:~:J:{ ~\{:::<>::~:~;:;:}~?:~:~}::;~/;~:~::~~~~):;~:~:t;}r{t:: Mailing Labels for Property Owners 4 :M~p.~~(~i#~~:~l~~~j~~~~:~~:):~:~:\~::~:~~:~~~.:~:}~~~~J~ ~~:~~~~\(~ :~:~:\~~:~:: ~:~;~:~:::~;~.:::~::::~~::~::::~; ;\::)~:~:~:):::;~:~::~::::~:~.~:::::~ :~~~~::::::::~;~;{::>t~~:~~t??~;~ Master Application Form 4 M~~#.~~t¢ij~~·(~~~#.#::~~~~m~f:it}~:::~:·::::::;::~/{:~: .~:~:~:~<:~:::::~:~.~:>::. ::::(:{~;~:::: :~:~:~:~:::~ ::~:~:::~:~:~:~:~:::::~::i~.:::~:::~~:~:~:·:i.t:;:~:~:~;:::{:~:~{:~:t:{~:::::~::i~~ Neighborhood Detail Map 4 This requirement may be waived by: 1. Property Sel'\'ices Section PROJECT NAME: ......:..~.:....;...:..L;l;{...:::::.:..L...o~~~;,rL...:.: 2. Public Wor1<s Plan Review Section 3. Building Section 4. Development Planning Section DATE: ------'~~+_l~~-- Q:\WEB\PW\DEVSERWonns\Planning\waiver.xls ,01/0612004 NAME DEVElO~MENT PLANNING CIT\-0r." RFfl.IT0N JUl 292004 RECEIVED -(Attach additional sheets , if necessary) ADDRESS Applicant Certification ASSESSOR'S PARCEL -. NUMBER , hereby certify that the above list{s) of adjacent property (Print Name) owners and their addresses were obtained from: Title Company Records King County Asses ors Records NOTARY . Signed __ --..;;;~~~~;t::p:u---====:---.:L>< -For City of Renton Use- CERTIFICATION OF MAILING I, _______ -', hereby certify that notices of the proposed application were mailed to _ (City Employee) each listed property owner on _____ _ Signed ____________ _ Date: ________ _ NOTARY ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn before me, a Notary Public, in and for the State of Washington residing at on the day of ,20 __ - Si ned Q:\WEB\PWlDEVSERWonns\PJanning\owners.doc 2 9,W 07-23-05 KC0021 Scale 1:1200 (1" = 100') . __ PlDtIOd October 04, 200'. A''''.:.=-C n{.,. J._~~I i .. ~./ ~ .;" ! \ ! -.... ·-r'i\!II!\n-"-'t ........... --i , i '~ f .. ~ i , J 1=9-.JJ.L.-1IUIt._o_.-ti ···-\-..-a:WU'r·IQ·\r·~ , . , :f ~ I I QIIOO SF .-S ~.= :.i ~:'''':'Q' 4 ". : -+ tooJe: ,,1.~~! e~o~ ~ 0048 : !56.2!5 I I I I 323.92 VAC. se. 155171 s 88-27-23 t lH.lt5 IS a8-12-0_ El I i -··· .. ~·----s-~~i~~\1I-i;--_l\A!!.:.ti':g!_Cl .... ··-...... f I i \ ; I'! Ii s 1 '-__ .,....!I.I/·I:!~:!'_J •• ____ ln,!3 •• _ •• ____ .,i ~i -----\ .. ----S-Bi:.~:.5i-f----~6-9r---j ~ ~·t ~! 4:'/ 0: r:;'" :1 I IIIICI7 : --------------_ .. ,-----------------: ai ._\---1 I • I I I \ . I . . I I: \ ," 7 24~' ,~ ," 28~f .~ • 2 ,0 ... -----taoa.-- 10 ~=, III ~ 0 II .#~ao. --~:i;~-!' .. -ltO ~ OSlO 12 ~~~a. "'1C'lo0275 ~'!k0aa. 18 '0' 0325 13 ~'C. ... 18~'t:· '.~ .~~ ,ao .... -~---~~--.. -.. ~ 2 .. ~~(') ,. , ~!30 3D ~1 1e Hi! 108 ----__ !2g..:2 ___ ~ t-t~' 0: 15 1f1; ---------;;055--------.. i8!i,e-~l 7330 ~ 3 1240 14 130!5 ,,! 12 I 4 ~ 13! .J..Q<:)"-------e! 8 --~-------W------~-·-~--~~~ 'T-~------------T~---------.--; I \'fI'" ~--------.. --------i.:i ·--.. -.... --.. ----f .. -J~-,~ .. -i ~rJ.'!~ fillD ~~~""1 II • ! b.." ! ! II lIa ! ••. _. --;~----'-c:;--~-~·-----;~---l~;~ f~-;---~~~-~~ij:?~........ • I JO ~r' Jill .......... til --------t--------~----mi :.-.. , _ ....•.. " 8 ! 8 ~j ............. .. -----.. .!.I!CL ____ l.·_§~.:~!_ ...... i':i' ...... A6 .... 1 I Z •• ~ ....... ,., . !~ 20 I!I I 1IIt--t-----------~, E ~ ----joc---" -i---';.-~~~~---l r~--~---t~L-1--------------,. i5, ID , ,r,~ 2 :I~ 19 i! 21 ~, ! 124Q87 ~! ~ : 1e 2.85 AclB: r-----.. -~~----T------ 1 1Z55 I ! a ,,'$r.? ! 1a , 0 r---------------+------ 1 . ! 4 ! 17 , : , ~ r--;-=~---~ I", 4 13 ~ I a ! 1& -.... 1 e _____________ .).~-.---------,: +' I I:;'n.~" 1 8! r ....... --.. ---· ...... -_ -----...... _-.. 30,30 ~ .,~-----------L-!-~-~:.:J ~ L~----------.-L~~ ~-, .. 11i!! ~t: .. Oi II ! 11 Oil • 1 8 .~1' ! 13 ::; -.... -------.... --T .. -~()--.. --.... ---.. -! ~ r--------------t .. _--.. ~ ~7 :~~~,o ! fa :12 ~~ ... ----_._-._-----.. :.:_------------... ~------.--------.j.-----I;y -i 8 232>0 S~j 3a ,a!~ 10 ::a s":~ 11 1lI0II7 --"""":.-...... _...J2l!.-_.l...::..L...::..j.1 -----___ 1l!.D. ____ 1.____ ... if'ii'r,.;.,--""+,.., ..... ~~I.!!;!.BT.!..!.&i'~~;::,2B~~~ V'C. aAD ... aa Ii! "<"""""'WJI>~" .. ;. t"'or.--'T!!ll-'"-t ;iI iii VAC. OAD. 2400 ~ :4B:i37-eo o 30 30 ........ -...... -1'3i:-ii----.. ---.. -.... -"i ,1 : i II '~~I ~J;.O~ egel Hydro D Parcel Boundary ~.J Platted Major Boundary .' VOl.. 18103 ..... --~-------------.. --.... -.. -...... -------.. ----.. ------.. ---.. --------................. _---.. _--------------_ .... __ ...... _-.. ----....... --_ .. _--------...................... _--------_ ..... -........ _ .... _-_ .. _---_ .. _-----_ ...... ----.. _ ... --............. __ ...... - fetroScan / King (WA) Parcel Number Owner Name Site Add~ess VB Owner Phone 1180008273 Columbia Builders Inc *no Site Address* 4202400090 Molina Marco Antonine & Maria *no Site Address* Renton 206-772-3182 4202400120 Molina Marco Antonine & Maria *no Site Address* Renton 206-772-3182 4202401505 Christopherson R Lee 124th Rainier Ave Renton 4204400066 Abbott Albert *no Site Address* Renton 206-772-2301 4204400068 VuHai Van *no Site Address* Renton 4204400071 Louie AngelaIDonna *no Site Address* Renton 9564800005 N eglay Sharon I *no Site Address* Renton 9564800070 Jda Group Llc;+ *no Site Address* Renton 9564800106 Jda Group Llc;+ *no Site Address* Renton 9564800110 Jda Group Llc;+ *no Site Address* Renton 9564800136 Carter Furman GNiolet M *no Site Address* Renton 206-772-4067 4202401210 Jda Group Llc;+ Rainier 123 Ave S Renton 9564800160 Gregg Sue A 207 NW 5th St Renton 98055 1954 9564800165 Dewing Rolland LlDeloris M 210 NW 5th St Renton 98055 1991 9564800145 Otis Shurondia R 211 NW 5th St Renton 98055 1954 9564800125 Mcdonald Ronnie 216 NW 5th St Renton 98055 1954 206-772-4977 9564800105 Sweeney Francine A 205 NW 6th St Renton 98055 1955 206-772-5544 9564800066 Gerisilo Philip G & Deborah C 206 NW 6th St Renton 98055 1955 253-639-0834 9564800096 Swanson Kelly R 209 NW 6th St Renton 98055 1955 425-255-2939 9564800061 Flatten Living Trust 210 NW 6th St Renton 98055 1955 9564800095 Bums Carl P 213 NW 6th St Renton 98055 1955 9564800056 Morel First Family Limited Partnersh 214 NW 6th St Renton 98055 1955 9564800090 Nazzal Andrew WlDeborah J 217 NW 6th St Renton 98055 1955 9564800051 Ellingson Henry L 300 NW 6th St Renton 98055 1961 206-772-4659 9564800087 Erickson Gregory J;Sauls Melody S 301 NW 6th St Renton 98055 1955 9564800046 Ballesteros EduardolMiriam N 304 NW 6th St Renton 98055 1960 206-772-3967 9564800086 Madlock Tommie L 305 NW 6th St Renton 98055 1955 206-772-8155 9564800047 Raine Michelle D 308 NW 6th St Renton 98055 1958 9564800080 Givens Gladys D 309 NW 6th St Renton 98055 1955 9564800075 Franklin Joseph M 311 NW 6th St Renton 98055 1955 4202401145 Sents Theresa M 211 NW 7th St Renton 98055 1953 425-228-5693 420240 1155 Ducay Maria A/Catherine RI Arlene 217 NW 7th St Renton 98055 1940 206-772-9000 9564800012 Harer Properties L L C II 301 NW 7th St Renton 98055 1923 9564800011 Bisconner Kerry L 305 NW 7th St Renton 98055 1938 206-772-1627 9564800009 Tomlinson Am 309 NW 7th St Renton 98055 1956 9564800006 Shingola Amanda C;+ 313 NW 7th St Renton 98055 1956 4202400005 Neglay Sharon I 411 NW 7th St Renton 98055 1948 4202401240 Bauer Eddie 501 Rainier Ave N Renton 98055 1952 4202401305 Christopherson R Lee 503 Rainier Ave N Renton 98055 1933 4202401500 Chang Brothers Inc 505 Rainier Ave N Renton 98055 1958 9564800170 Jda Group Llc;+ 601 Rainier Ave N Renton 98055 1960 9564800170 Jda Group Llc;+ 601 Rainier Ave N Renton 98055 1950 9564800170 Jda Group Llc;+ 601 Rainier Ave N Renton 98055 1960 9564800007 Jda Group Llc;+ 123 Rainier Ave S Renton 98055 9564800175 Jda Group Llc;+ 123 Rainier Ave S Renton 98055 9564800176 Miller Wayne AlDebra J 515 Rainier Ave S Renton 98055 1940 9564800176 Miller Wayne AlDebra J 515 Rainier Ave S Renton 98055 1960 4202400080 Molina Marco Antonio;Urias Maria 556 Stevens Ave NW Renton 98055 1925 206~772-3182 4202400115 Wright Cary R 564 Stevens Ave NW Renton 98055 1946 206-772-3477 420240 Oqj~VE Saffell Lester F Jr 610 Stevens Ave NW Renton 98055 1948 206-772-5153 420240 0045 c~P:M§Ur~th/Angela 616 Stevens Ave NW Renton 98055 1959 425-277-0222 420240 0040 F~c Hi V Pt 620 Stevens Ave NW Renton 98055 1925 420240 0030 JUL 2~~klim 650 Stevens Ave NW Renton 98055 1938 420240 0025 ~rk;Riech Ra 654 Stevens Ave NW Renton 98055 1950 RECEIVED Information compiled/rom various sources. Real Estate Solutions makes no representations or warranties as to the accuracy or completeness o/information contained in this report. Parcel Number 4202400015 4202400011 4202400010 9564800031 9564800020 9564800026 9564800015 9564800025 420240 1175 9564800115 9564800040 4204400030 4204400041 4204400035 4204400048 4204400044 4204400059 4204400056 4204400065 4204400015 4204400040 4204400036 4204400049 4204400046 4204400060 4204400055 4204400070 1180006990 1180008275 1180006980 1180006800 1180006714 1180008290 0723059064 4204400010 4204400020 4204400005 1180006780 '"etroScan / King (WA) Owner Name Site Address YB Green May A Escamilla Miranda G Hertzog Elwood W & Cynthia R Kruzich Boyd Wm! Angela M Martin Rowland & Sally Rainwater Family Trust Mills Kenneth M;Price-mills Anne Chin Sandra Pham Tung Munger-scharff JeffreylElizabeth Anderson Christian J Johnson Ricky D & Kathleen L Stark Myrna L Sours David KlKaren K Zabloudil Christine Harrison Gary L Mendoza Michael/Olga Pfieffer Gerald R & Ann M Abbott A F Gistarb Charles LI Anita D Barbosa Nora C Chambers Ronald/Olga/Susanne Thomas Rachel L Woodward Jerry RlEthel I Monillas Celso D/Teresita;+ Tat Thanh K;Yun Yang X Bryant Jason M Cox Edward Kemp Tso Tom W/Kimberly B Hill Priscilla Geong Robert HoAndrew Nguyen Hung Smith IdaM Curnow Robert P/Chantay M Arnone Alfred J Novak Walter V Walker Joel MlLisa S DEVELOPMENT P CITY OF RENT'1~NING JUL 292004 RECEIVED 660 Stevens Ave NW Renton 98055 666 Stevens Ave NW Renton 98055 670 Stevens Ave NW Renton 98055 658 Taylor Ave NW Renton 98055 661 Taylor Ave NW Renton 98055 664 Taylor Ave NW Renton 98055 665 Taylor Ave NW Renton 98055 670 Taylor Ave NW Renton 98055 676 Taylor Ave NW Renton 98055 516 Taylor PI NW Renton 98055 602JTaylor PI NW Renton 98055 8717 S 121st St Seattle 98178 8721 S 121st St Seattle 98178 8805 S 121st St (No Mail) Seattle 98178 8809 S 121st St Seattle 98178 8817 S 121st St Seattle 98178 8901 S 121st St Seattle 98178 8907 S 121st St Seattle 98178 8925 S 121st St Seattle 98178 8716 S 122nd St Seattle 98178 8722 S 122nd St Seattle 98178 8804 S 122nd St Seattle 98178 8810 S 122nd St Seattle 98178 8816 S 122nd St Seattle 98178 8820 S 122nd St Seattle 98178 8908 S 122nd St Seattle 98178 8918 S 122nd St Seattle 98178 8550 S 123rd PI Seattle 98178 8553 S 123rd PI Seattle 98178 8556 S 123rd PI Seattle 98178 8697 S 123rd St Seattle 98178 8698 S 123rd St Seattle 98178 8554 S 124th St Seattle 98178 8555 S 124th St Seattle 98178 12100 87th Ave S Seattle 98178 12110 87th Ave S Seattle 98178 12116 87th Ave S Seattle 98178 12133 87th Ave S Seattle 98178 Information compiled/rom various sources. Real Estate Solutions makes no representations or warranties as to the accuracy or completeness olin/ormation contained in this report. 1928 1945 1945 1956 1956 1956 1995 1994 1986 1961 1928 1940 1942 1940 1950 1949 1957 1940 1955 1955 1960 1955 1955 1945 1943 1971 1956 1951 1951 1951 1998 1998 1951 1956 1939 1942 1940 1966 Owner Phone 206-772-5660 425-204-8754 206-772-0875 206-772-6745 206-772-5363 206-772-1292 206-772-5900 206-77~-230 1 360-341-1386 206-772-5594 206-772-2809 206-772-2345 206-268-0353 206-367-5632 206-772-7159 253-661-2899 360-729-2511 Rainier Avenue Mixed-Use Renton, Washington July 23, 2004 South Parking Lot For use by Chang's Restaurant JDA Group, Applicant Other Technical Documents: Geotechnical Engineering Report, prepared by The Riley Group, Inc, June 2, 2003 Wetlands Delineation and Mitigation Report, prepared by The Riley Group, June 7, 2004 Wildlife Reconnaissance, prepared by Raedeke Associates, September 4, 2004 Environmental Checklist, prepared by Baylis Architects, June 7, 2004 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION MITIGATION DESCRIPTION This project proposes to build a new paved parking lot to serve the weekly overflow needs of. the immediately adjacent restaurant. Included in the proposal is the removal of noxious weeds, piping of an existing watercourse, filling of an existing depression and wetland, expansion and enhancement of an existing wetland as mitigation for the wetlands fill, sculpting of a surface water quality bioswale and construction of the parking lot complete with fill importation, grading and related retaining wall and rockeries, asphalt base and paving, striping, curbing, landscaping and lighting. No buildings are proposed. No off-site or right-of- way improvements are proposed, except for the addition of a water meter for irrigation. Power for site lighting will be extended from existing services. Construction is scheduled to commence this Summer, immediately upon issuance of the Site Plan Approval and the Construction Permits and is anticipated to be completed in no more than six months. The hours of operation for the construction will be from 7:00 am to 4:30 pm, Monday through Friday. DEVELOPMENT P CITY OF RENT~~NING JUL 292004 RECEIVED Rainier Avenue Mixed Use PROJECT CONSTRUCTION MITIGATION DESCRIPTION Page 2 The unsuitable materials, when disturbed, will be exported from the site and dumped in a legal fill site. Suitable and reusable fill materials will be stockpiled on-site for later, on-site usage. The import of fill materials, as might be required, will be across surface roads from an approved borrow .. Measures to mitigate the impacts of the proposed construction will include installation of the approved Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, installation and maintenance of mud wash-off areas, periodic sweeping of paved access areas and roads adjacent to the site, periodic wetting of dry soils to reduce dust, and periodic maintenance of equipment to reduce emlSSlOns. Construction traffic is expected to be limited to site egress through the restaurant property which connects directly to Rainier Avenue. This four-lane arterial includes a two-way left turn lane. Thus, construction traffic safety can be achieved by obedience of normal traffic regulations and courtesies. If determined.necessary, trained flaggers and traffic controllers will also be employed. 'j ,,\ " "I'" • ~ \ I' "1 -, ~~t:I <:: \.:..-NO r , Dn N ~ e' 718~~ 61 9 f>l ;Z ~Ir'-+I DEVELOPME pt:AN CITY OF RENTON , JUL 292004 RECEIVED NE-J6HftJt!J/<.H09D DE7AJL MAP f2A1N15R. Ave. /f.1/l(S.O· V~E ~".,. PAf2¥./J.J6 U!:JT PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.21 C 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 ~ust 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 questions do 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, suc~ 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 non project proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). For non project 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. DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON JUL 292004 -RECEIVED environmental Checklist A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Rainier Avenue Mixed Use -Commercial South Parking Lot 2. Name of Owner: JDA Group, LLC Name of Applicant:: Richard L. Wagner , Baylis Architects 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Baylis Architects 10801 Main Street, Suite 110 Bellevue, W A., 98004 425-454-0566 4. Date checklist prepared: December 13, 2002 April 4, 2003 Updated July 23,2004, Updated 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Renton, Development Services Division 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Begin construction in Summer 2004 Construction complete in Spring of 2005 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. 'No. All construction will occur at one time. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. The site has been delineated for wetlands and for steep slopes, and a determination of steep slope stability has been prepared by The Riley Group. Additionally, there has been a Wildlife Reconnaissance conducted by Raedeke Associates. , 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. There will be an application for a Lot Line Adjustment to parcel off the existing CA zoning of the work area of this application and there is a current application for an 8 lot Short Plat for the upland portion of the existing parcel. " " ' There are no other pending approvals or proposals for this parceL, " ; " ": ,\ , 2 , . Envlronmental Checklist 10. . List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. The proposed wetland fill may require a permit from the ·Corp of Engineers. 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. This rroject 'proposes to construct a surface parking lot for approximately 26 cars; to fi1 a portion of an existing Class 3 wetland; and to expand and enhance an existing Class 2 wetland. . .. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description,· site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The site is located along the north side of N.W. 5th St. (vacated), about 120 ft. west of Rainier-Ave. N. The legal description and vicimty map are enclosed. The total site area is approximately 19,600 SF. . As a part of the implementation of this project, there is also a wetland mitigation project proposed in a small portion of a much larger site approximately 450 ft Immediately north and adjacent this site. _ B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. EARTH a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other _____ _ The site is generally level in the center with steep slopes to the south and north. .. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximately percent slope)? Steepest slopes on the site are approximately 45%. -. 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. r, Soils are generally loam and clay variety. See Geotechnical Report d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. No. Quite the opposite, the site has a history of being excavated in the 1950's for fill materials for the Renton Airport and construction of Interstate 405. The resulting hillsides -with manmade steep slopes -have been found to be geologically stable. See Geotechnical Report. . 3 Environmental Checklist e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximately quanti~ies of any fill or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. The source of fill material will be an approved borrow site. Excavated Materials: Approximately 50 CYDS. Suitable materials will be stockpiled on-site; unsuitable materials will be removed to an approved site. Import Fill Materials: Approximately 3,000 CYDS. f. Could' erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe 'It is possible that some erosion could occur as a result of clearing and· gradmg. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Final impervious area will be approximately 55% of total site area. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: 2. AIR Reduction and control of erosion will be implemented by using erosion- prevention practices as recommended by the project soils engineer and approved by the City of Renton. Construction work IS proposed along the toes of the slopes, including landscaping, but no work is propose3 on the steep slopes. a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (Le., dust, automobile, odors, and industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. During construction, emissions to the air would include occasional dust raised auring the clearing and construction process, plus some diesel exhaust fumes from operating earth-moving vehicles and trucks. After the project is completed and in use, emissions to the air would be those associated with general parking uses: exhaust from automobiles entering and leaving the site. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. I No. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any. Periodic maintenance of all construction equipment and restriction of long- term idling of engine. . 3. WATER a. Surface Water: 4 " environmental Checklist 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. There exists a small seasonal watercourse on the site surrounded by Class 3 wetlands. The total wetland area extends beyond the subject site and is approximately 16,600 SF. The on-site wetland area is approximately 3,100 SF. 2} Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Yes; the proposal is to actually fill approximately 2,025 SF arid ,cpaper fill" approximately 1,575 SF to create a "paper buffer" at the southern wetland ano to place 120 linear feet of the southern watercourse in a pipe. Much of the existing on-site wetland area has been damaged and fully invaded by noxious weeds. To mitigate for the impacts of this on-site wetland fill, an equal or ~reater area of Class 2 wetland will be created on adjacent property approximately 450 feet north, which is in the same drainage basin and is owned by the same property owner. . 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. 4) See Item 1.e for quantities. Ap.yroximately 50 cyds of material will be excavated. Suitable material wtl be stockpiled on-site for later use; unsuitable materail will be removed; arid approximately 3,000 cyds of fill material will be imported. Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No. 5} Does the proposal lie within a 1 DO-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. No. 6} Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No. b. Ground Water: 1} Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description,purpose, and approximate quantities if known. 2} No. 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. 5 Environmental Checklist No. 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? With this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. Storm water runoff will be collected from the impervious areas and passed through a surface water bioswale as required by City standards, then released into the City storm water sewer system. No detention of the surface water is proposed. 2) . Cciuld waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. Not likely. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if an~ . ~ All exposed open land resulting from grading and construction will·be landscaped with approrriate ground cover planting to hold the soil and mitigate the impacts 0 surface runoff. . 4 PLANTS a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: .J.... deciduous tree: alder. maple, aspen, other cottonwood, willow _x _ evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other .J.... shrubs . .J.... grass pasture crop or grain water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other .J.... other types of vegetation Noxious Weeds including Japanese knotweed and Himalayan blackberry b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? . Alder, cottonwood and willow trees, general lower canopy woodland plants and noxious weeds will be removed for construction and paving. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. There have been sightings of blue heron, but a habitat study shows that they are temporary and are not forming a rookery.· . . See the Wildlife Reconnaissance. . . d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Landscaping around vehicle areas will be J?lanted with native vegetation to both provide suitable ground cover and Visually blend into the . surrounding forest. . The mitigation proposal has four'components as follows: 6 environmental Checklist • Creation of 3,600 SF of wetland adjacent to the North Wetland involving . removal of fill material followed by dense planting of wetland plants. . • Creation of 1,800 SF of wetland buffer· east of the North Wetland, involving removal of fill material and backfill with appropriate planting soils followed by dense planting of upland vegetation. • Removal of invasive species in the area west of the proposed parking lot within the wetland and buffer adjacent to the South Wetland as required by the City of Renton. • Removal of invasive plants in the buffer of the South Wetland followed by interplanting of native species to meet the City's landscaping . . requirements. 5. ANIMALS a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other songbirds and blue herons Mammals: deer, ·bear, elk, beaver, other small fauna Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other ~n~o~n~e _____ _ b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. See Wildlife Reconnaissance. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. No. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enl:lance wildlife, if any: Of the non-impervious areas, emphasis will be placed on reintroducing native plants ~ grass lawn areas will be minimized. . 6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. ( Electricity will provide site lighting. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: 7 Environmental Checklist The project will be constructed to meet the current standards of the Washington State Energy Code, as well as working with any energy conservation programs established by the City of Renton. 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 anticipated. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: There are no environmental health hazards foreseen coming from this project. b. Noise: 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, aircraft, other)? . The noise generated by airplane/jet takeoffs and landings at Renton Airport affect this site as does the truck and auto traffic on Rainier Avenue. 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. Short-term noises will be generated from construction equiement and materials delivery trucks. These noises would occur primardy Monday through Friday, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. On a long-term basts, noise would be generated by vehicles entering and leaving the site. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: During construction, this project will comply with all noise standards established by the City of Renton. - 8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The entire site is currently zoned CA (Commercial Arterial) and contains no buildings. Commercial properties (CA) with commercial buildings occur to the east, southeast, and northeast. There are residential properties to the north (R-S) and west (R-S). b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No. 8 . Environmental Checklist c. Describe any structures on the site. None. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so: what? None. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? The eritire site is currently zoned CA, Commercial Arterial f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Employment Area ~ Commercial. g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Does not apply . . h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. . Degradated wetlands and steel? slopes occur on the site. As described in 3.a above, the wetland impacts wtll be fully mitigated. As described in Item ld above, the s~opes are geologically stabl~. i. . Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? None. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None. k. Proposed, measures to avoid or red,uce displacement impacts, if any: None. I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: See Project Narrative portion of the Site Plan Approval application. 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: 9 environmental Checklist None. Does not apply. 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? Rockeries and retaining walls no greater than 8 ft are proposed .. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? . None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any. None. 11. LIGHT AND GLARE a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? During hours of operation, the project will produce light associated with commercial buildings and parking lots, and lights from vehicles entering and leaving the site. No glare is anticipated as a result of constructing the parking lot. . b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No. c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: All lighting will have fixtures selected to control glare. 12. RECREATION a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Walking and biking on residential streets. 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. 10 Environmental Checklist 13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. None. Does not apply. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None. Does not apply. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: None. Does not apply. I 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 will be accessed via the commercial property (Chang's Restaurant) directly southeast from this site across a proposed accessed easement. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Two blocks. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? The completed project will provide 25 to 28 parking spaces for patrons of the adjacent re~taurant to the south. There are no current parKing spaces provided on this site. . d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to \existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so" generally describe (indicate whether public or private). No. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. The project anticipates only minimal vehicular trips eer day since the sout. h lot is a parking expansion only, and no additional bUildings are proposed. Peak volumes would occur during the weekdays from 11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. and from 6·10 p.m. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: None. 11, environmental Checklist 15. PUBLIC SERVICES a. Would the project result in an increased need for public serVices (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. No. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. None. 16. UTILITIES a. Circle utilities current available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary 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. Electricity: Puget Sound Energy ( During construction, there will be a need for temporary electrical service. 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' ue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willf la k of full disclosure on my part. Applicant: Proponent: Name Printed: Contact: Date: ENVCHLST.DOC REVISED 6/98 Jack Alhade!" General Manager Richard Wagner Vice President Baylis Architects June 7, 2004 " :D m o m :< m c o ~ THE RILEY GROUP, INC. Or.~ ............................................ . ~!;III 03: "m ~~ z-o ~I APPENDIX 2: WETLAND BOUNDARY MAP 0~7-----------~------------~-------------------------z~ Z G> r=~=----, Wetland Delineation & Mitigation Report 20 June B, 2004 South Parkin Lot Pro "eet -Rainier Avenue North, Renton, WA Pro "eet #2002-061e q:="~ ======Ri~~===(========== September 4, 2003 Mr. Jack Alhadeff IDA Group LLC 95 Tobin Street, Suite 201 Renton, WA 98055 Re: Wildlife reconnaissance of AlhadeffUplands, Renton Washington Raedeke Project 2003-029-001 Dear Mr. Alhadeff: ReCEIVED SEP 082003 8AYLIS ARCHITECTS As you requested, I conducted a wildlife reconnaissance of the AlhadeffUplands project site located in the City of Renton, Washington. The project site consists of approximately 6 acres located west of Rainier Ave. South, south ofNW 7th Street, east of Stevens Avenue, and north ofNW 5th St. if extended to Rainier Ave. So. as per the IDA Group Townhome 2003 CPA Rezone figures provided by Baylis Architects. The specific objective of the survey was to respond to the,August 26,2003 letter from Mr. Gil Cerise of the City of Renton, Item 1 regarding the presence of herons and bald eagle habitat or nests on the subject site. My reconnaissance was conducted on the morning of September 3, 2003. At the time, the weather was clear and warm, with only a mild breeze, thus offering excelfent conditions for observation of wildlife on site. The reconnaissance was conducted by scanning the site from Rainier Ave. South, NW 5th, 6th, and 7th Streets with binoculars, and traverses across the site down the ridge slopes, and up the two draws. My observations are summarized below by species of concern. Bald Eagles No bald. eagles or bald eagle sign was observed on the project site or on the surrounding lands. No bald eagle habitat has been mapped f9r the area by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife in the Priority Habitats and Species program inventory. The closest bald eagle habitat is the nest and associated territory on the south end of Mercer Island. DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON JUL 292004 RECEIVED 5711 Northeast 63rd St. RAEDEKE ASSOCIATES, INC Seattle, ~ 98115 (206) 525-8122 ( Mr. Jack Alhadeff September 4, 2003 Page 2 ( , Given the lack of conifer trees of sufficient size or configuration for nesting or roosting, the high degree or urbanization and disturbance in the area, and the lack of foraging areas in the vicinity, the area does not provide any habitat for bald eagles. The few larger conifers that are found on the site are generally rooted in the lower areas of the site, and do not provide the type of access that eagles prefer. Also, the immature tops do not provide adequate branches to support a nest structure. An occasional transient bald eagle may be seen in the area, such as is common for IIlost of the region, but this site would not provide any of the life requisites for eagles. Great Blue Herons No great blue herons, heron sign, or nesting sites were observed on the site. Again, the Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife in the Priority Habitats and Species program does not map any great blue heron nesting habitat on the site. The wetlands on the site likely do not provide substantial foraging areas for great blue herons; as they do not contain the hydrologic conditions conducive to supporting amphibians and other prey for herons. In addition, the wetlands are overgrown with. exotic vines and shrubs that would make foraging by herons very difficult. Four great blue herons were observed to the south of the site, 75 to 100 feet northeast of the east end of the NW 5th Street (see attached figure). At least one of the herons was an adult. The herons were observed sitting and flying into a western h.emlock tree within sight of the eastern most house on the north side ofNW 5"11i Street. The tree is located about halfway up the slope. The tree in which the herons were observed is approximately 250 feet from the nearest edge of the proposed townhomes, and likely wO!lld be out of site of the development. It is approximately 50 to 75 feet from the closest house on NW 5th Street, and would be in clear view in the spring when the trees do not have their leaves. No nests were observed, ~wever it is likely~t one or two nests are 1?J~s~nt in the ~ as local residents reported seeing nesting herons in this location. If nesting occurs at this location, this is likely a ~mporary satellite nesting~or herons that are periodically forced to abandon the Black River colony when the bald eagles attack. Similar temporary colonies have been found in other areas to the south, and they are eventually abandoned and the birds return to the main colony at the Black River site. The·cUrrent . "":' ' . .• ' .' 'j .", I:. '; ; " \ ( Mr. Jack Alhadeff September 4, 2003 Page 3 ( site is very marginal great blue heron nesting habitat due to the extensive disturbance in the area and the lack of substantial foraging areas nearby. If you have any questions about the results of this reconnaissance, please feel free to call me at 206-525-8122 at your convenience. Sincerely, th J. Raedeke, Ph.D. ife Biologist c \ \ \ \ '\ \ \ \ I ~'-:;'~~-+--T---+-Heron Tree 'W&--~ ... ~ ] .~ *~~~~-L~~L-__ ~-L __ ~CJ~~-L~~~=L __ ~ __ -L __ ~ ____________ ~~ o 300 600 'JOA Group Townhome 2003 CPA & Rezone .. J03-M-11 (LUA 02-143) -Erosion Hazzard Map ~~::::m::':""":::1 --Corporate Boundary Study Area -Erosion Hazzard Boundary 1 : 3600 Rainier Avenue Mixed-Use Renton, Washington July 23, 2004 South Parking Lot For use by Chang's Restaurant JDA Group, Applicant Other Technical Documents: PRINCIPALS Brian Brand, AlA Richard L. Wagner, AlA Thomas Frye,.Jr., AlA Luchsinger, AlA Michael D. Chaplin, AlA Geotechnical Engineering Report, prepared by The Riley Group, Inc, June 2, 2003 Conceptual Wetland Delineation & Mitigation Report, prepared by The Riley Group, June 7, 2004 Wildlife Reconnaissance, prepared by Raedeke Associates, September 4, 2004 Environmental Checklist, prepared by Baylis Architects, June 7, 2004 PROJECT NARRATIVE Project Summary The proposed project has two parts. T~e first part is the construction of a parking lot on a southern parcel. The second part is the enlargement and enhancement of the existing wetland on a northern parcel. Both parcels are contiguous, are in the same drainage basin, and under the single ownership of the applicant. . . The south parcel project is composed of the southern portion of land located along the north side of vacated N.W. 5th Street, about 120 feet west of Rainier Avenue North. The property is vegetated by third growth trees and undercover and contains no improvements, other than a small encroachment of the neighbor at the northwest corner. The property is designated as Employment Area-Commercial in the Comprehensive Plan and is zoned as CA-Commercial Arterial on the Land Use Map. The south parcel project proposes to build a new paved parking lot to serve the weekly overflow needs of the immediately adjacent restaurant. Included in the proposal is the removal of noxious weeds, piping of an existing watercourse, filling of an existing depression and wetland, sculpting of a surface water quality bioswale and construction of the parking lot DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON JUL 292004 RECEIVED 10801 Main Street Bellevue, WA 98004 T 425 454 0566 . F 425 453.8013 vvww. bayl isarchitects.com Rainier Avenue Mixed-Use PROJECT NARRATIVE Page 2 complete with grading and fill, a retaining wall, asphalt base and paving, striping, curbing, landscaping, and lighting. No buildings are proposed. No off-site or right-of-way improvements are proposed, except for the addition of a water meter for irrigation. Power for site lighting will be extended from existing services. The construction cost is estimated to be $80,000. The north parcel project proposes only to enlarge and enhance an existing wetland as environmental mitigation for the wetland fill on the south parcel. Included in the north parcel is the removal of some portions of a previously placed uncontrolled fill, sculpting of new wetland areas, new wetland vegetation, and new buffer vegetation. Approximately 50 cyds of unsuitable soils will be removed and stockpiled on-site for later use and approximately 3,000 cyds of fill material will be imported.' Site Data • South Parcel Total Parcel W6rk Area .................................................................... . Impervious Area: Existing ....................................................................... . Proposed .................................................................... . 0/0 of Total Site .............. ; ....................................... . Landscape Area .............................................................. . 0/0 of Total Site .................................... ' .................. . Existing and Proposed Structures ................................... . Total Existing Wetland ... ; .............................................. . Wetland Fill: Actual Fill ................................................................... . Paper Fill ..................................................................... . Total Fill ..................................................................... . Tree Count: Existing ......................................................................... . To be removed .............................................................. . • North Parcel Total Parcel Work Area .................................................................... . 67,486 SF 13,200 SF 00 SF 9,850 SF 15% 57,600 SF 85% None 16,600 SF 2,017 SF 1,574 SF 3,591 SF >25 1 246,731 SF 9,200 SF • J ;.. it Rainier Avenue Mixed-Use PROJECT NARRATIVE Impervious Area: Existing ............................................................. : ........ . Proposed ..................................................................... . 0/0 of Total Site ...................................................... . Landscape Area .............................................................. . 0/0 of Total Site ...................................................... .. Existing and Proposed Structures ... ; .............................. .. Total Existing Wetland ................................................. .. Proposed Wetland Enlargement ....................................... . Proposed Wetland Buffer Reduction (East Edge) .......... . Proposed Wetland Buffer Increase (North & South Edges) Tree Count: Existing ......................................................................... . To be removed ....•...................................... .-................... . Project Site Existing Conditions 00 SF 00 SF 0% 246,731 SF 100% None 21,700 SF 3,591 SF 5,028 SF 5,028 SF >50 4 Page 3 The South Lot parcel and the North Wetland parcel are at the bottom of a small ravines. Both the north and south edges of each site are bound by steep slopes that surface drain to a small watercourse on the valley floor. The existing vegetation includes third growth maple, alder, cottonwood, a few fir and hemlock, and an under-story of shrubbery and blackberry. Tree cover exists on both parcels, especially on the steep slopes, and is typically sparse in the valley floors, including the work areas. In the south lot, one tree will be removed. In the north wetland area four trees will be removed. The slopes are geologi~ally stable hillsides as confirmed in the geotechnical report. The watercourse through the South Lot parcel is bound by a Class 3 wetland that extends west, off the subject property, as delineated by the biological assessment. It is the eastern portion of this wetland that is proposed to be filled. The North Wetland is approximately 450 feet north of the South Lot. Here, the on-site portion of this north wetland has been delineated and the wetland has been classified as a Class 2. It is at the eastern edge of this wetland that mitigation for the fill of the Class 3 wetland at the South Lot is proposed. Rainier Avenue Mixed-Use PROJECT NARRATIVE Project Statement of Need -Parking Modification Page 4 The existing restaurant building on the site immediately adjacent the south lots includes approximately 5,000 GSF, of which approximately 3,500 NSF provides seating for approximately 140 patrons. The City requires parking for restaurants to be provided at a ratio of 1 stall per 100 NSF. This facility requires 35 stalls. The restaurant site currently provides 43 parking stalls, including 2 barrier free stalls. The existing parking count provides a ratio of approximately 1.23 stalls per 100 NSF. This proposal will add 27 stalls for a total of 79 stalls, and a proposed ratio of 2.0 stalls per 100 NSF. City regulations further define that the scheduled parking count is both the minimum and the maximum car count permitted unless an Administrative Modification is approved. This modification is hereby requested and justification follows. In 2001, Chang's Restaurant took over ownership of an existing under-performing and un- maintained restaurant facility. They invested heavily to renovate the facility into a modern family specialty restaurant and included new dining, kitchen and pantry areas, as well as expansion of the parking areas and parking landscaping. The renovated building with its new menu and theme has been exceptionally well received by the community and has proven to be an economlC success. Because of the quick service, the existing seating count has proven to be quite sufficient, even at the busiest of times. However, the owners have identified that, during the evening hours of Friday and Saturday, an ongoing stream of potential patrons enter the driveway only to exit minutes later when they cannot find an available parking space. Thus, the parking now provided has become the dejacto cap on the growth of the business and is forcing patrons to dine elsewhere. In an attempt to alleviate thiscap on their growth, the restaurant has been looking for nearby locations to expand their parking. Because no on-street parking is allowed and other sites are not available, the JDA Group property, immediately abutting the restaurant was identified as the best and the only alternative. The JDA Group site owner has agreed to accommodate this need if permits for the construction can be obtained. Parking Count Modification Justification {Procedure 4·9-0250D.2 Design Crteria} Whenever there are practical difficulties involved in carrying out the provisions of this '\ I Rainier Avenue Mixed-Use PROJECT NARRATIVE Page 5 Title, 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, and that the modification is in conformity with the intent and purpose of this Code, and that such modification: " a. Will meet the objer:tives and safety, function, appearance, environmental protection and maintainability intended by the Code requirements, based upon sound engineering judgment; and As described above, the existing restaurant parking falls short of the need due to the restaurants format and popularity. Continuing the limit on the parking count only limits the potential economic development of the restaurant. h. Will not be injurious to other property(s} in the vicinity; and The proposed parking is located on similarly zoned commercial property and is topographically isolated from other less intensively zoned properties nearby. Thus, no properties in the vicinity will be injured. c. Conform to the intent and purpose of the Code; and Providing sufficient parking for users is the intent of the City codes, keeps businesses viable, and provides parking management for the entire neighborhood. The provision of the proposed additional parking for this restaurant he1 ps it conform to the intent and purpose of the Code. d. Can be shown to be justified and required for the use and situation intended; and The observations of the existing traffic and parking patterns confirms the need for the additional parking spaces. e. Will not create adverse impact~ to other property(ies} in the vicinity. The site for the proposed parking lot is isolated by topography and vegetation on the south, west and north, and abuts an existing used car sales lot on the east. Thus, no adverse impacts will occur to other properties in the vicinity. Project Environmentally Sensitive Areas Although the South Lot is the only available site that meets the needs of the restaurant for additional parking, development of portions of the site will be affected by the Sensitive Areas Ordinance of the city, notably the sections governing steep slopes and wetlands. Rainier Avenue Mixed-Use PROJECT NARRATIVE Steep Slopes Page 6 Portions of the southern and northern edges of both the south and the north parcels contain non-exempt slopes with gradients greater than 40%. These slopes continue beyond the subject property onto other parcel, both north and south. General construction has intentionally been kept clear of these slopes. The proposed construction does meet the toe of these slopes with minor grading. No excavation is proposed at these toes. Impacts of such construction are acceptable to the geotechnical engineer as documented in their report. This project does propose cleaning the underbrush on the toes of these slopes and adding landscaping, which is recommended by the Geotechnical Engineer, the Wetlands Biologist, and required by the City to meet landscaping requirements. 'Wetlands and Wetland Buffers In the center of the 67,486 SF South Lot is an existing Class 3 wetland damaged by uncontrolled fills on the north, east and south edges and infested with classified noxious weeds at the east edge; The portion of wetland on the south parcel totals approximately 4,500 SF and the wetland extends off-site to the west for a total size of approximately 16,600 SF. This application includes the actual fill of approximately 2,017 SF, plus a "paper "fill of approximately 1,574 SF for a total of approximately 3,591 SF ... approximately 22% of the total wetland area. To mitigate this unavoidable environmental impact, this application includes the expansion and enhancement of the north wetland. This north wetland is an existing Class 2 wetland damaged by uncontrolled fills at the eastern edge. The north wetland, which is fully contained within property owned by the applicant, totals approximately 21,700 SF. This application includes the expansion of this Class 2 wetland by approximately 3,591 SF, the enhancement of approximately 1,800 SF of the existing wetland, and the complete reconstruction of the filled and overgrown eastern buffer of the wetland. The expansion and enhancement of the north wetland will be executed concurrent with the construction of the South Lot. However, RMC 4-3-050 M.8 and 9 require that the compensatory wetland be established for 12 months prior to the filling a wetland. Therefore, an Administrative Modification is likely required, and if so, is herein requested. For the " , / Rainier Avenue Mixed-Use PROJECT NARRATIVE Page 7 supportive justification and mitigation of this request, see the attached Conceptual Wetland Delineation & Mitigation Report, prepared by The Riley Group The expanded and enhanced North Wetland, as a Class 2, requires a 50 ft buffer. This buffer can be reduced by buffer averaging, but only to a minimum of 25 feet. Because a commercial development project is proposed on the portion of this site fronting on Rainier A venue, buffer averaging will be necessary on this site. The proposed buffer along the east side of the wetland is 25 feet from the existing wetland edge and the compensatory buffer equal to the area of reduced buffer, will be located along the south edge of this same wetland. The proposed buffer reduction on the east edge totals 5~028 SF. The proposed buffer expansion of the south edge totals 5,028 SF. However, the wetland buffer averaging requires an Administrative Modification, which is therefore and herein requested. For the supportive justification and mitigation of this request, see the attached Conceptual Wetland Delineation & Mitigation Report, prepared by The Riley Group. It should be noted that, beyond the area calculations, this proposal will yield a superior wetland and a superior buffer environment than has existed for decades. ' .. ' CJ~ CJE4th st.IO b, CJl15th SL]O DO ~'\ c=iJ G5th pdO lj b;::::=:~. CJ 116th StJO Do ~ c=iJ j17th stlO CJ :> ; c=iJ [17th PI]O 0,'"--. ......... -1 r..=:::::::~~ CJJ1Sth Sao 0 C==;]~D r--f---L-.,--....\ t c=J ~20th stlO I--...;....::;CJ~D -UZ.2n G 122~~ St, S 123rd St I; 123r~J S S 123rd PI G 123r~ 'PI. ~ Q) S 124 th St [S 124 thl ,--S_t_, __ u.l--.J t:f) Q) :> < "0 ....c:: s..... ~ C":l "<::f'< a:> a:> ZONING - - - -Renton dity LImlt/l PIBIPW TJ!CHNICAL SEllVICBS 1lI0+/03 IMCP) IMCP) y 200 "yo E3 114800 7 T23N R5E W 1/2 5307 ~ONING MAP BCJK RESIDENTJAL ~ Resource Conservation S ReBldenUal dulac ~ ReBldential dulac S Residential dulac ~ Residential Manufactured Home. ~ . ResldenUal 10 dulac ! R-14! Residential 14 dulac ! RM-I! Residential Multi-Family Infill MIXED USE CENTER [§] Center Neighborhood- [§:] Center Suburban- §c-N11 Urban Center -North ~ Urban Center -North 2 [E§] Center Downtown- ~ Center Otfice ResidenUal COMMERCIAL ~ Comme~cial Arlerial- I RH-N I Residential Multi-Family Neighborhood Center [§] Commercial Office- IRM-C I Residential Multi-Family Suburban Cenler [£U Convenience Commercial Il!Illllmw. ~ Industrial -Heavy 0 Industrial -Medium 0 Industrial Ught (P) Publioly owned _____ Renton City Umlls ___ Adjacent City Umils _ Book Pages Boundary KROLL PAGE IRH-T I Residential Multi-Family Traditional IRM-U I Residential Multi-Family Urban Cenler- • May include Overlay Districts. See Appendix maps. For additional regulations in Overlay Districts. please see RMC 4-3. PAGE# INDEX SECTfTOWNJRANGE , I; ... , ., ". :.; I ,'. t ,. <.: .J WOODY GLEN ADDll\Ot-\· SEC'T\OM '-T'e.~t\-R5W.M. SHEE1'·2. Qr 2. . ~ ': , .. ~ \' ~ ; .. \ ..... .'':" '~'.~r:;.'!"","" "':.'.:: '. ~ ENHANCED WETLAND AREA Parcel No. 9564800007 EXISTING . \\ \\\\ ~ " c. \ \ ~ \ , , \ \ Parcel No. 4202401500 RAINIER MIXED USE SOUTH PARKING LOT PARCEL MAP 4715/04 DATE: TO: FROM: k/·· 1~.iY . Ile_U'" co~~truciion Services, Fire prejition, Plan Review, EDNSP, Project Planner "",' '. Neil Watts, Development Services Division Director SUBJECT: Ne..:. Preliminary APplication~ C)Y1'j~ 12.es.~ ~:JU\-~*CJ W(''7EHi!r'-''- LOCATION: e.:o ~(n~ Ave--J4 ' PREAPP NO. ~ .. Okq ",.. •• nn with the applicant has been scheduled for Z~CX/ PH , Thursday, ~~-*,-____ " 'in ·one of the 6111 floor conference rooms (new City Hall). eeting is scheduled at 10:00 AM, the MEETING MUST BE CONCLUDED PRIOR TO 11 :00 AM to allow time to prepare for the 11 :00 AM meeting. Please review the attached project plans prior to the scheduled meeting with the applicant. You will not need to do a thorough "permit lever review at this time. Note only major Issues that must be resolved prior to fonnalland use and/or building permit application submittal. ' Plan Reviewer assig~ed is -.JLrfI~.\~~111J,l~=.,-_____ _ days before the meeting. Thank you. (/) .' H:\Division.s\Develop.ser\Dev & Plan.ing\Template\Preapp2 Revised 9/00 ' DATE: TO: FROM: QEVS.OPMENT SERVICES CITY OF RENTON APR 23 2004 MEMORANDUM RECEIVED Construction Services, Fire Prevention, Plan Review, EDNSP, Project Planner Neil Watts, Development Services Division Director ", , ~t , SUBJECT: New. Preliminary APPlication~ CJXt':ji; 12.es.~ao1 ~~(j fIfx(''7S~ LOCATION: ElO~(n~ Ave-'" PREAPP NO. PBec?=1: -()kq A ieant has been scheduled for Z:CXJ PH , Thursday, ~~~ ____ , in 'one ofthe 6111 floor conference rooms (new City Hall). is scheduled at 10:00 AM, the MEETING MUST BE CONCLUDED PRIOR TO 11 :00 AM to allow time to prepare for the 11 :00 AM meeting. Please review the attached project plans prior to the scheduled meeting with the applicant. You will not need to do a thorough "permit level" review at this time. Note only major Issues that must be resolved priorto fonnalland use and/or building permit application submittal. ' Plan Reviewer aSSigned is ---l!rI\~, \~'c1lU\MR!=l""'. _____ _ Please submit your written comments to /;?Vt 7 ~ least two (2) days before the meeting. Thank you. !1~ 't~(c;'f H:\Division.s\Develol'.serIDev & Plan.ing\Template\Preapp2 Revised 9/00 . (Planner) at -"\. .> :( I -----'\ .. To: From: Date: Subject: CITY OF RENTON MEMO PUBLIC WORKS Susan Fiala _ .J rit~ Mike Dotson/ffj;o/v- May 5, 2004 PreApplication Review.Comments PREAPP No. 04-049 Chang's Restaurant Parking Expansion NOTE ON PRELIMINARY REVIEW COMMENTS CONTAINED IN THTS MEMO: The following comments on development and permitting issues are based on the pre-application submittals made to the City of Renton by the applicant. 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, Boards of Adjustment, Board of Public Works and City Council). Review comments may also need to be revised based on site planning and other design changes required by the City or made by the applicant. The following comments concern various utility and transportation issues that are associated with development of the subject site. WATER: 1. This project site is located in the 270 Water Pressure Zone. 2. The static water pressure at the street level is approximately 65psi. 3. There is an existing 12" watennain located in Rainier Ave N. 4. A Water System Development Charges of $0.213 per square foot of property is required if not previously paid. The Development Charges are collected as part of the construction pennit. ~~-b ~,.-~ ... w-"'''';j'o.e Q...1~ SANITARY SEWER: .~ ~ ~ 1. There is an existing 8-inch sewer main in NW 5th Place. (portions of which have been vacated). 2. A Sewer System Development Charges of $0.126 per square foot of property is required if not previously paid. The Development Charges are collected as part of the construction pennit. ,,~~ ~.£ ... _~~~ STREET IMPROVENiENTS: . 1. Fully improved roadways with curb, gutter, sidewalk and street lighting already surround the site. Existing site ingress and egress is adequate. site. This fee is due at time of permit. ~O ~ ~~ ~~~. • 2. A traffic mitigation fee of $75 per additional (if any) trip generated/day is r.:~~~? for~he 3. All new electrical, phone a~d cable services and lines must be undergrOUnd~ e construction of these franchise utilities must be inspected and approved by a City of Renton public works inspector prior to occupancy. Page 2 05/05/2004 r~~~·~.t=~~/>~ . STORM DRAINAGE: ~~loG-a X 'J2. sn.J,Ldt 1. This site is located in the West Hill drat?a-~~tBJ' ~ ~ ~~ 2. There is a drainage course located on this property. Any changes or connections to this ~~. system must be analyzed for conveyance and downstream capacity. 3. A conceptual drainage plan and report is required to be submitted with the formal application for the project. The drainage plan is to be designed per the 1990 King County Surface Water Drainage Manual. ~~ ~i..o~ .~ 4. A detention and/or water quality vault will require a separate structural permit. Please coordinate permitting of this item with the Building Department; Jan Conklin at 425-430- 7276. 5. Public storm drainage facilities are located within Rainier Ave N. 6. The Surface Water System Development Charge (SDC) are $0.249 per square foot of new ~ impervious area. These fees are collected at the time a construction permit is issued. ~ fh~~?, Q..-U \ ~~~. 'M" GENERAL COMMENTS 1. Retaining walls greater than 4 feet in height are reviewed under a separate Building permit. A licensed engineer with geo-technical expertise must stamp design plans for retaining walls or rockeries greater than four feet in height. The engineer must monitor rockery construction and verify in writing that the rockery was constructed in accordance ARC standards. Written verification by the engineer must be provided to the City of Renton public works inspector prior to approval of an occupancy permit. Locations of water and sewer mains will be considered in relation to the retaining walls. It may require special protection or relocation of the lines under or near the retaining wall construction. 2. Submittal of conceptual utility plans showing all existing and proposed utilities; including water mains, sewer mains, manholes, valves, hydrants, drainage facilities, drainage mains and catch basins is required for permit review. All existing utility easements on the site must also be shown on the site plan. A complete conceptual drainage plan with a Level 1 (1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual) downstream analysis and calculations for sizing any required detention and water-quality treatment facilities may be required with the formal application of this project. If you have questions please call Mike Dotson, Plan Reviewer, at 425-430-7304. 3. Permit application must include an itemized cost of construction estimate for the utility and roadway improvements. The fee for review and inspection of these improvements is 5% of the first $100,000 of the estimated cost; 4% of the neXt $100,000; and 3% of any additional _ cost. One-half of the fee is due upon permit application. 4. The owner is responsible for securing any necessary private utility easements. C:\Plan Review\Changs Restaurant Parking lot pre-app.doc _J I ~:: i ; ····:::::_L-.·L .. Storm System PIBIPW TECHNICAL SERVICES 11I13/0Z. F3 .. 18 T23N R5E W 1/2 t!1 unlclPQl Alrpor 11,[8-4 \) ~ y 200 4yO 1:4800 E3 7 T23N R5E W 1/2 .. 5307 - -----.----.~--~-"-----' '----1. I ---. L S 121st St 118 "1-11' '" NO .Ii,,, _''"'''~_~ S ~?2nd St • sl .... u • ~l~ ~O~lt r==-l S 123 rm.-d!lc ff'l----... S 8~4th St '" OJ > <r "C L. M co " OJ > <r oS: +' N .... 048 S 124th Pl , ~-----, .. 12 1500 I" --~ It_-- .. --- F3 .. 18 T23N RSE W 112 UTILITIES DIVISION PIBIPW TBCBNlCAL 8IllVICES 05110/00 ----Renton Cit". Ltmlts 11 s ~ (1,l-:s .+ ~ ., Renton Municipal Airport 1 :: C'l N273 • 196 y 200 "fO E3 1:"-800 7 T23N R5E W 1/2 ~ ,...-.,.-_ .... --+----------------------11 SANITARY SEWERS PIBIPW TBCHNICAL SERVICES 031lZl04 F3 .. 18 -T23N R5E W 1/2 .::: -0 \ Renton Munldpo.l Airport ~ y 200 4yO 1:4800 AIRPORT FT STATION 25 E3 ~ S 7 T23N R5E W ,1/2 -5307 CITY OF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works MEMORANDUM DATE: May 6, 2004 TO: Pre-Application File No. 04-049 FROM: Susan Fiala, Senior Planner, x7382 SUBJECT: Chang's Restaurant Parking 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, Board of Adjustment, Board of Public Works, 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 $55.00, plus tax, from the Finance Division on the first floor of City Hall. Project Proposal: The subject site is addressed as 505 Rainier Avenue North. The applicant's proposal is to construct a new 28 stall surface parking lot in proximity to the existing Chang's restaurant located at 505 Rainier Ave. North. The proposal also involves addressing the removal of noxious weeds arid wetlands. Zoning: The subject site is deSignated Commercial Arterial (CA) on the City's Zoning Map. A variety of retail uses, including eating and drinking establishments, are permitted in the zone. The proposal would be considered an accessory use to the existing restaurant use. Development Standards: The proposal would be required to comply with the development standards of· the zone. The proposal's compliance with the CA zone development standards is addressed below: Lot Coverage -Not Applicable as no structure is proposed. Setbacks/Landscaping-The CA zone requires a minimum landscaped setback of 10 feet from all street frontages. No other landscaped setbacks are required in the zone, unless located adjacent to property deSignated as a residential zone in which case a minimum landscaped setback of 15 feet is required. The subject property abuts residential zoned property on the north (R-8) and west (R-1) sides. Please note, the landscaping provided within the rear and side yards where abutting residentially zoned property must be landscaped in a manner that would accomplish a sight-obscuring visual barrier. Chang's Restaurant Parking Expa"sion Pre-Application Meeting Page 2 of4 A detailed landscape plan indicating the location, sizes, and types of the proposed plantings will be required for review. All landscape areas. are to include an underground sprinkling system. Pedestrian Connection -All development in the CA zone is required to provide a direct and clear pedestrian connection from sidewalks to building entrances. The proposed parking lot is located some distance from the front of the building entrance. A pedestrian connection from the new parking lot to the front entry is highly recommended to be incorporated as part of the proposal. Staff will likely recommend this as a condition of approval. Parking, Circulation and Loading: The parking regulations require that a specific number of off-street parking stalls based on the amount of square footage dedicated to certain uses be provided within the boundaries of the property. For the proposed parking lot for use by the existing restaurant, the following ratio would be applicable: . • Eating and Drinking Establishments: One (1) space per 100 square feet of net floor area. Please take note that net floor area is the total of all floor area of a building, excluding stairwells, elevator shafts, mechanical rooms, interior vehicular parking or loading and all floor below the ground floor, except when used for human habitation or service to the public. As related to these proposed uses, the areas to be deducted from the overall floor area may also include refrigeration rooms, lobbies, corridors/hallways and restrooms and those accessory areas that are used by the occupant(s). As the proposal appears to provide more parking than required by code, a request for a parking modification would need to be applied for review and approval. This request should be submitted by the applicant as part of the land use application with clear written demonstration The request is to include detailed data on the square footage of the restaurant and parking requirements. The parking regulations specify standard stall dimensions of 9. feet x 20 feet, compact dimensions of 8~ feet x 16 feet, and parallel stall dimensions of 9 feet x 23 feet. An aisle width of 24 feet is required for 90 degree parking stalls and a width of 18 feet is required for parallel stalls. 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. Compact spaces are allowed up to 30% of the total required parking. Please refer to the handout outlining parking requirements. Loading -In the requirements for Loading Space Standards, RMC 4-4-080J, all new buildings shall provide off-street loading space if the activity carried in the building requires deliveries to it of people or merchandise. Loading space is in addition to required off-street parking. Sensitive Areas: Based on the City's Critical Areas Maps, the site is located within critical areas, including erosion and landslide hazards and steep slopes. The site appears to contain wetlands based on the submitted drawings of the subject parcels. The drawings also note a stream to be located on the south parcel. The applicant will be required to determine if this stream is regulated and provide documentation. Wetlands -The project narrative indicates that the parcel where the parkihg lot would be constructed contains a Category 3 wetland which would be filled. This site has recently undergone noxious weed removal process. As outlined in correspondence dated 049_ ChangsPKG.doc Chang's Restaurant Parll. .. ,g Expansion Pre-Application Meeting Page 3 of 4 November 17, 2003 concerning the Japanese Knotweed abatement, the fourth step of the abatement remains to be completed ["4) Return to the site in mid-summer 2004 and apply additional Aquamaster to treat regrowth"]. As part of the land use application submittal, the applicant is required to provide a wetland delineation and report addressing the quality and size of the wetlands. In addition, the report would need to include a discussion regarding. impacts to the wetland, if any, from the proposed development. The required buffers will need to be shown. Any proposed modifications to the requirements must be clearly identified and justified (Le. buffer averaging, etc.). The wetland report will need to be prepared by a qualified wetlands biologist and submitted with the formal land use application. For wetlands present, the applicable buffer widths based on the category of the wetland are required (Category 1 -100 ft.; Category 2 -50 ft.; and Category 3 -25 ft.). Due to the size of the wetlands, the Army Corps of Engineers should be contacted to verify that they will not take jurisdiction over the wetland. Please refer to RMC 4-3-050. M. for additional regulations on wetlands. From the submitted drawing, it appears that only a portion of the wetland has been delineated. The entire wetland areas are to be delineated and flagged. It was noted in the pre-application narrative that the impacted Category 3 wetland would be replaced abutting the Category 2 wetland located on a separate parcel to the north . . According to RMC 4-3-050.M.14. Off-Site Compensation, the applicant must clearly demonstrate through written justification and/or drawings that the creation/enhancement meets the criteria of items. L through v. Additionally, the timing of compensatory projects is crucial in order to reduce impacts to existing wildlife and flora. Staff further notes that the pre-application drawing shows a ecology block wall along the "created" portion of the Category 2 wetland. Please provide information as to this proposal and how it functions. Also, the wetland and buffer to be recreated and enhanced must be clearly delineated with a detailed landscape plan. As outlined in the development regulations, a mitigation plan, five year monitoring, surety devices, etc. would be required. Geologic Hazards -Sensitive slopes have grades from 25% to 40%. Specific standards also apply for development located within sensitive slopes, landslide and erosion hazard areas. Protected slopes are defined as topographical features that slope in excess of 40% and have a vertical rise of 15 feet or more.' As required by the City's Critical Areas Regulations, a Geotechnical Report that addresses the potential erosion and landslide hazards, soils and slope issues will be necessary. Site Plan Review: The intent of site plan review is to review site layout, building orientation, pedestrian and vehicular access, landscaping, parking and other elements. Site planning is the horizontal and vertical arrangement of these elements so as to be compatible with the physical characteristics of a site and with the surrounding area. Permit Requirements: The proposal would require Administrative Site Plan Review and Environmental (SEPA) Review. Development in the CA Zone is subject to Level I Site Plan Review. In review of the criteria to determine if a public hearing is required, the proposal is does not meet the SEPA thresholds of: 1) 25,000 sq. ft. of nonresidential uses outside of the EA-V; 2) less than 300 parking stalls; 3) less than 10 acres; and 4) less than 60 feet in height; therefore, the site plan would be reviewed administratively. 049_ ChangsPKG.doc Chang's Restaurant Parking Expal,<>,on Pre-Application Meeting Page 4 of 4 All permits would be reviewed in an estimated timeframe of 8 to 10 weeks. The application fee for joint land use applications is full price for the most expensive permit (Site Plan at $1,000) and half off any subsequent permits: and Y2 of· full fee for SEPA Review (Environmental Checklist) which is dependent on project value: less than $100,000 is $200 (1/2 of $400 full fee) and project value over $100,000 is a $500 fee ( 1/2 of $1,000 full fee). In addition, first class postage per mailing label would be required for notification to surrounding property owners located within 300 feet of the site. Detailed information regarding the land use application submittal is provided in the attached handouts. A parking modification would also be required to be submitted with written justification and supporting data. In addition, the applicant would be required to apply for all applicable building, electrical, plumbing permits and other relevant permits as required by the City of Renton's Construction Services Division and Fire Prevention. Additional Comments: In advance of submitting the full application package, applicants are strongly encouraged to bring in one copy of each application material for a pre- screening to the customer service counter to help ensure that the application is complete prior to making all copies. . cc: Jennifer Henning 049_ ChangsPKG.doc CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRA TEGIC PLANNING MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: STAFF CONTACT: SUBJECT: May 3, 2004 Susan Fiala (Jdv. Rebd~tmd Don Erickson Chang's Restaurant Parking Expansion, 505 Rainier Avenue N; PRE 04-049 The applicant is proposing to construct a new parking lot to serve their existing restaurant at 505 Rainier A venue North. The new lot would provide 28 additional parking spaces for the restaurant bringing its total up to 67 spaces. The applicant believes that the proposal would result in a number of stalls exceeding the maximum allowed for this use. It would also include filling in a portion of an existing Class 3 wetland with compensatory enhancement of an existing Class 2 wetland, and averaging a wetland buffer. The site is designated Employment Area -Commercial and zoned CA (Commercial Arterial). Relevant Comprehensive Plan land use and environmental policies are attached. Analysis: In terms of off-street parking the proposed use falls into the use category of "eating and drinking establishment." The use requires a minimum of one space per each 100 square feet of gross floor area and there is no maximum limitation in Section 4-4-080F. The applicant has not provided legible drawings of a sufficient scale to determine where the new parking is proposed in relation to the existing restaurant, where the existing parking is, how the two lots relate to one another, and whether there are opportunities for shared access, signage, and what, if any, landscaping is being proposed. As a result it is not possible to determine whether Policies LU-70,.LU-74 or LU-75 are being complied with. It also is not possible to tell whether Policy LU-317 is complied with since the applicant's drawings do not show pedestrian walkways, for example, between the parking areas and the restaurant. In fact, the restaurant does not show up on any of the drawings submitted. In terms of wetlands protection the applicant is proposing to fill an apparent Class 3 wetland to make way for the proposed 28-space parking lot on their "south" lot. This 3,112 square foot would then be replaced by adding to an existing Class II wetland on the north of NW 6th Street. It is unclear whether this wetland is under the same ownership or whether restrictive covenants would be filed to protect it. The applicant needs to clarify this. Recommendation: Support the concept of an additional parking lot in the south lot but do not support this specific proposal. Additional information from the applicant pursuant to the above comments is required. Attachment cc: Don Erickson H:\EDNSP\Jnterdepartmental\Developrnent Review\Preapps\Cornrnents\EA-C\Chang's Restaurant Parking Expansion.doc\cor . -. EMPLOYMENT AREA -COMMERCIAL LAND USE DESIGNATION· Relevant Policies: Policy LU-170. Individual development projects should be encouraged to: a. minimize·curb cuts and share access points, b. provide for internal circulation among adjacent parcels, c. share parking facilities, d. centralize signing, e. create a unified style of development, and f provide landscaping and streetscaping to soften visual impacts. Policy LU-l74. Parking areas should be landscaped (including street trees, buffers, berms), especially along the roadways, to reduce the visual impacts. Policy LU-175. Landscape buffers, additional setbacks, reduced height, and other screening devices should be employed to reduce the impacts (e.g. visual, noise, odor, light) on adjacent, less intensive uses. Policy LU-317. Criteria should be developed to locate pedestrian and bicycle connections in the . City. Criteria should consider: a) linking residential areas with employment and commercial areas; b) providing access along arterials; c) providing access within residential areas; d) filling gaps in the existing sidewalk system where appropriate; and e) providing access through open spaces and building entries to shorten walking distances. Environmental Element Policies-Wetlands Policy EN-8. Achieve no overall net loss of the City's remaining wetlands base. Policy EN-9. In no case should development activities decrease net acreage of existing wetlands. Policy EN-I0. Establish and protect buffers along wetlands to facilitate infiltration and maintain stable water temperatures, provide for the biological regime, reduce amount and vidocity of run- off, and provide for wildlife habitat. . Policy EN-14. Provide a ranking system for wetlands based on their acreage and quality. High quality wetlands should have more protection under this system. H:\EDNSP\Interdepartmental\Development Review\Preapps\Comments\EA-C\Chang's Restaurant Parking Expansion.doc\cor Rich Wagner From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: ChangAlhadefC Wa gner_LTR.doc ( ... Rich: Susan Fiala [Sfiala@ci.renton.wa.us] Thursday, May 27,20042:43 PM Rich Wagner Jennifer Henning; Neil Watts Reply: Changs Parking Lot and Alhadeff Uplands I Per your emails and faxes, we offer the following response. See attachment. This has also been faxed to you. Susan Fiala Senior Planner Development Services Division Development Planning (425) 430-7382 This message has been scanned by the City of Renton's filtering gateway. 1 .... RE: Pre-04-049 -Chang's Parking Lot Wetland Delineation -The entire south wetland does not have to be surveyed, however, disclosure of the classification and size of the entire wetland is to be provided as part of the wetland evaluation and report. Creation, enhancement and restoration are required as noted in the pre-application comments to m·eet wetland regulations. Stream Definition -The site survey provided with the pre-application materials indicates the presence of a "stream". It is the applicant's responsibility to evaluate and determine if this element is classified as a stream/watercourse or ditch per the City of Renton's definition for a stream by your wetlands/fisheries consultant. The evaluation is provided to the City by the applicant for review as part of the proposal. As you may recall, as noted in the Advisory Notes for the JDA Group rezone (LUA02- 142, ECF, R, CPA), a stream and wetland delineation report must be provided to determine whether or not a stream is present. Biological Evaluation -The term Biological Evaluation typically refers to the study of the presence of salmon. If there is a stream present on site, your evaluation should include appropriate discussion. However, a Habitat Data Report is required. As you may recall, as noted in the Advisory Notes for the JDA Group rezone (LUA02-142, ECF, R, CPA), a habitat data report must be prepared for the subject site, which this parcel is, to identify heron habitat and nesting sites. Multiple letters concerning the presence of heron were submitted from the surrounding neighbors. Pedestrian Access -A pedestrian connection is needed. It must be demonstrated that the widest a vailable width 0 f pavement would be provided at this" bump-out". With a clear demonstration of the width of the land available and how the retaining wall is designed as part of the submittal, staff will likely recommend as a condition of approval that the pavement type in this area be different than the remaining asphalt/concrete surface or other approved method. However, painting a line would not suffice. The width of the paved surface provided here must be at its widest width, but no less than 18 feet for vehicles and 4 feet for pedestrians for a total of 22 feet. Additionally, at the point where this bump-out ends and the larger land a rea starts, t he pedestrian connection must continue at 4 feet in width (varied pavement type) and the paved driving surface must be 20 feet for a total of 24 feet in width. Property Boundaries -Staff notes·that a street vacation was completed in 2002 (see Recording #20020402002350 and/or Ordinance #4955) of which the right-of-way vacation exhibit does not appear to match the south property line as shown on the pre- app drawing. Please verify the property boundaries on the south which on the pre-application drawings shows a "bump-out" however, the street vacation appears to be a different configuration. RE: Alhadeff Residential Uplands In reference to the fax sent on May 18, 2004, we offer the following response: Private and Public Streets -A request for a modification to the street standards would be required. Please see RMC 4-9-250.D. for criteria which must be clearly demonstrated through written justification. In order for eight lots to utilize the same road, you will need to evaluate which of the following approaches you wish to follow: 1) You may request a modification to the street standards for a private street to allow additional lots on the private street. This may likely involve increasing the widths from the required 26 foot wide easement with 20 feet of pavement. OR if you chose: 2) You may request a modification to the street standards for a residential street which requires a right-of-way of 50 feet with 32 ft. of pavement to a ROW of 42 ft. with 28 ft. of pavement per RMC 4-6-060.R. 3. My initial take is there would be a compromise between the two requirements for right- of-way and pavement width. Also, if you go the public street approach, setbacks would likely become an issue. One project which has a private streets is the Orchards development in the City of Renton, you may wish to check the project files in the City Clerk's office. Subdivision Guarantee The County of . • within which sai!llMbivision is located in a sum not exceeding $1000.00 No. 200490137 Fee. $200.00 Subdivision Map of Tract No. Consisting of Sheet and any City That, according to those public records which. under the recording laws. impart constructive notice of matters affecting the title to the land included within the exterior boundary shown on the map of the above referenced subdivision. the only parties having any record title interest in said land whose signatures are necessary. under the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act, on the certificates consenting to the recordation of said map and offering for dedication any streets, roads, avenues and other ease- ments offered for dedication by said map are:. The map hereinbefore referred to is a subdivision of: Refer to schedule "A" herein DEV~7TYOPMENT PLANNING OF RENTON JUL 292004 RECEIVED Signed und0r seal for the Company, but this Guarantee is to be valid only when it bears an authorized countersignature. ,stewart® '-··titla guaranty company .. Subdivision S"G 1S"1!i'J Guarantee IS, " SUBDIVISION GUARANTEE CLTA NO. 14 (Rev.4-10'75) .~: " . SUBDIVISION GUARANTEE: Guarantee No.: SG-1572-10575 Order Number: 200490137 Subdivision Guarantee: Sales Tax: Effective Date: June 7, 2004 at 12:00 AM Total: $200.00 $17.60 $ 217.60 OWNERS: JDA GROUP LLC, AS TO AN UNDIVIDED 70% INTEREST, AND I.D. KLINE CORPORATION, AN OREGON CORPORATION, AS TO AN UNDIVIDED 30% INTEREST, AS TENANTS IN COMMON, AND NOT AS PARTNERS IN A PARTNERSHIP LEGAL DESCRIPTION: THAT PORTION OF LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 1 , LYING SOUTHERLY AND EASTERLY OF THE CENTER LINE OF VACATED SOUTH 123RD STREET; EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF LYING NORTHERLY OF A LINE WHICH IS 110 FEET SOUTHERLY FROM AND PARALLEL TO THE SOUTHERLY MARGIN OF SOUTH 122ND STREET; TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF LOT 3, BLOCK 1 , LYING WESTERLY OF THE CENTER LINE OF VACATED SOUTH 123RD STREET; AND TOGETHER WITH LOTS 4 AND 7, BLOCK 1; EXCEPT THAT PORTION LYING NORTHERLY AND EASTERLY OF VACATED SOUTH 123RD STREET; AND TOGETHER WITH THE NORTH 150 FEET OF LOT 2, BLOCK 2: THE WEST 61.72 FEET OF THE NORTH 150 FEET OF LOT 3, BLOCK 2; THE NORTH 125 FEET OF THE EAST 28.28 FEET OF LOT 3, BLOCK 2; THE NORTH 125 FEET OF LOTS 4 AND 5, BLOCK 2; . " THE NORTH 125 FEET OF THE WEST 14.99 FEET OF LOT 6, BLOCK 2; THE NORTH 140 FEET OF LOT 6, EXCEPT THE WEST 14.99 FEET THERE'OF, OF BLOCK 2; AND ALL OF LOT 7, BLOCK 2 ",~ AND TOGETHER WITH THE SOUTHERLY 100 FEET OF LOT 7, AND ALL OF LOT 8, BLOCK 3; . ALL OF BLOCK 5; BLOCK 6; EXCEPT THE SOUTH 192 FEET THEREOF; ALL IN WOODY GLEN ADDITION, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 47 OF PLATS, PAGES 91 AND 92, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF BLOCKS 13 AND 22, LATIMER'S LAKE PARK ADDITION, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED INVOLUME 18 OF PLATS, PAGE 63, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, WHICH LIES EAST OF SAID WOODY GLEN ADDITION AND WEST OF A LINE DRAWN PARALLEL WITH AND 50 FEET WESTERLY WHEN MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES ANDIOR RADIALLY FROM Guarantee No: SG-1572-10575 _JBDIVISION GUARANTEE THE CENTER LINE OF PRIMARY STATE HIGHWAY NO.2 (RAINIER AVENUE), AND EXTENDING FROM HIGHWAY ENGINEER'S STATION 80+30 SOUTHERLY TO ' HIGHWAY ENGINEER'S STATION 88+75; EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF LYING EAST OF THE SOUTH 192 FEET OF BLOCK 6' OF THE PLAT OF WOODY GLEN AND TOGETHER WITH LOTS 1 THROUGH 6, INCLUSIVE, BLOCK 17, LATIMER'S LAKE PARK ADDITION, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 18 OF PLATS, PAGE 63, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; EXCEPT PORTION CONVEYED TO KING COUNTY FOR ROAD PURPOSES BY DEEDS RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBERS 956173 AND 2032137; TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF VACATED NORTHWEST 7TH STREET AS VACATED PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE NO. 3455, RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 8011030532, WHICH, UPON VACATION, ATTACHED TO SAID PROPERTY BY OPERATION OF LAW; AND TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF VACATED SOUTH 123RD STREET AS VACATED PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE NUMBER 4357, RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 9206181901, WHICH, UPON VACATION, ATTACHED TO SAID PROPERTY BY OPERATION OF LAW; . AND TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF VACATED SOUTH 126TH STREET AS VACATED PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE NUMBER 4955, RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 20020402002350, WHICH, UPON VACATION, ATTACHED TO SAID PROPERTY BY OPERATION OF LAW. SUBJECT TO: 1. EASEMENT RIGHTS AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS, IF ANY, FOR UTILITIES WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN RESERVED IN VACATED STREETS AND ALLEYS. 2. PERMIT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: BETWEEN: RAY N. LATIMER AND: STATE OF WASHINGTON RECORDED: MAY 29, 1940 RECORDING NUMBER: 3103931 PURPOSE: RIGHT, PRIVILEGE AND PERMIT TO REMOVE AND/OR PLACE AND DEPOSIT EARTH MATERIAL IN THE EXTENSION OF SLOPES OF EXCAVATION AND/OR EMBANKMENT Guarantee No: SG·1572·10575 . SUBDIVISION GUARANTEE 3. RESERVATION OF PERPETUAL RIGHT, PERMIT, LICENSE AND EASEMENT TO USE AND OCCUpy THE PROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTING AND MAINTAINING HIGHWAY SLOPES IN EXCAVATION ANDIOR EMBANKMENT, CONTAINED IN DEED FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON. RECORDED: SEPTEMBER 27, 1956 RECORDING NO.: 4733794 AFFECTS: PORTION ABUTTING PRIMARY STATE HIGHWAY NUMBER 2 4. EASEMENT, INCLUDING TERMS AND PROVISIONS CONTAINED THEREIN: RECORDED: APRIL 9, 1984 RECORDING NO.: 8404090614 IN FAVOR OF: CITY OF RENTON, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION FOR: CONSTRUCTING, MAINTAINING, REPAIRING, ALTERING OR RECONSTRUCTING UTILITIES AFFECTS: THE SOUTH 10 FEET OF THE SOUTHWESTERLY 100 FEET OF LOT 7 IN BLOCK 2 AND THE SOUTH 10 FEET OF BLOCK 5, WOODY GLENN ADDITION AND THE SOUTH 10 FEET OF LOT 19 IN BLOCK 22 OF LATIMER'S LAKE PARK ADDITION 5. EASEMENT, INCLUDING TERMS AND PROVISIONS CONTAINED THEREIN: RECORDED: RECORDING NO.: IN FAVOR OF: FOR: AFFECTS: NOVEMBER 14,1991 9111140883 CITY OF RENTON, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION PUBLIC UTILITIES A 15 FOOT WIDE STRIP OF LAND LYING PARALLEL AND CONTIGUOUS TO THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF LOT 4 IN BLOCK 17 OF LATIMER'S LAKE PARK ADDITION; TOGETHER WITH A TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT OVER LOTS 1, 2, 3 AND 4 OF BLOCK 17 OF LATIMER'S LAKE PARK ADDITION 6. EASEMENT AND CONDITIONS CONTAINED THEREIN AS RESERVED BY: ORDINANCE NO.: 3455 APPROVED ON: JULY 28, 1980 RECORDING NO.: 8011030532 IN FAVOR OF: CITY OF RENTON FOR: . UTILITY AFFECTS: PORTION ON VACATED NORTHWEST 7TH STREET Guarantee No: SG-1572-10575 tiUBDIVISION GUARANTEE· 7. EASEMENT AND CONDITIONS CONTAINED THEREIN AS RESERVED BY: . ORDINANCE NO.: 4357 APPROVED ON: JUNE 15,1992 RECORDING NO.: 9206181901 IN FAVOR OF: CITY OF RENTON FOR: UTILITY AFFECTS: AS DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT B OF SAID INSTRUMENT 8. EASEMENT AND CONDITIONS CONTAINED THEREIN AS RESERVED BY: ORDINANCE NO.: 4955 APPROVED ON: FEBRUARY 25, 2002 RECORDING NO.: 20020402002350 IN FAVOR OF: . CITY OF RENTON FOR: UTILITY AFFECTS: AS DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A OF SAID INSTRUMENT 9. RESTRICTIONS, CONDITIONS, DEDICATIONS, NOTES, EASEMENTS AND PROVISIONS DELINEATED AND/OR DESCRIBED ON THE PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 47 OF PLATS AT PAGE(S) 91 AND 92 IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. (AFFECTS PORTION IN WOODY GLEN ADDITION) 10. TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SURVEY RECORDED MARCH 23, .1989 UNDER RECORDING NO. 8903239001. 11. TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SURVEY RECORDED APRIL 1, 2003 UNDER RECORDING NO. 20030401900004. 12. GENERAL TAXES. THE FIRST HALF BECOMES DELINQUENT AFTER APRIL 30TH• THE SECOND HALF BECOMES DELINQUENT AFTER OCTOBER 31 ST• YEAR: 2004 AMOUNT BILLED: $9,230.20 AMOUNT PAID: $4,615.10 AMOUNT DUE: $4,615.10, PLUS INTEREST AND PENALTY, LEVY CODE: TAX ACCOUNT NO.: ASSESSED VALUATION: LAND: IMPROVEMENTS: IF DELINQUENT 2100 956480-0170-06 $801,000.00 $ 1,000.00 NOTE: KING COUNTY TREASURER, 500 4TH AVENUE, 6TH FLOOR ADMIN. BLDG., SEATTLE, WA 98104 (206) 296-7300 WEB ADDRESS: http://webapp.rnetrokc.gov/KCTaxinfo/. Guarantee No: SG-1572-10575 . SUBDIVISION GUARANTEE 13. GENERAL TAXES. THE FIRST HALF BECOMES DELINQUENT AFTER APRIL 30TH• . THE SECOND HALF BECOMES DELINQUENT AFTER OCTOBER 31 sT .. YEAR: 2004 AMOUNT BILLED: $593.12 AMOUNT PAID: $296.56 AMOUNT DUE: $296.56, PLUS INTEREST AND PENALTY, LEVY CODE: TAX ACCOUNT NO.: ASSESSED VALUATION: LAND: IMPROVEMENTS: IF DELINQUENT 2100 420240-1210-04 $51,000.00 $0.00 NOTE: KING COUNTY TREASURER, 500 4TH AVENUE, 6TH FLOOR ADMIN. BLDG., SEATTLE, WA 98104 (206) 296-7300 WEB ADDRESS: http://webapp.metrokc.gov/KCTaxinfol. 14. GENERAL TAXES. THE FIRST HALF BECOMES DELINQUENT AFTER APRIL 30TH• THE SECOND HALF BECOMES DELINQUENT AFTER OCTOBER 31 sT. YEAR: AMOUNT BILLED: AMOUNT PAID: AMOUNT DUE: LEVY CODE: TAX ACCOUNT NO.: ASSESSED VALUATION: LAND: IMPROVEMENTS: 2004 ' $2,490.64 $1,245.32 $1,245.32, PLUS INTEREST AND PENAL TV, IF DELINQUENT 2100 956480-0175-01 $215,000.00 $ 1,000.00 NOTE: KING COUNTY TREASURER, 500 4TH AVENUE, 6TH FLOOR ADMIN. BLDG., SEATTLE, WA 98104 (206) 296-7300 WEB ADDRESS: http://webapp.metrokc.gov/KCTaxinfol. Guarantee No: SG-1572-10575 i "-oJ BDIVISION GUARANTEE 15. GENERAL TAXES. THE FIRST HALF BECOMES DELINQUENT AFTER APRIL 30TH. THE SECOND HALF BECOMES DELINQUENT AFTER OCTOBER 31 sT. YEAR: 2004 AMOUNT BILLED: $2,364.67 AMOUNT PAID: $1,182.34 AMOUNT DUE: $1,182.33, PLUS INTEREST AND PENALTY, . LEVY CODE: TAX ACCOUNT NO.: ASSESSED VALUATION: LAND: IMPROVEMENTS: IF DELINQUENT 2100 956480-0007 -05 $205,000.00 $ 0.00 NOTE: KING COUNTY TREASURER, 500 4TH AVENUE, 6TH FLOOR ADMIN. BLDG., SEATTLE, WA 98104· (206) 296-7300 . WEB ADDRESS: http://webapp.metrokc.gov/KCTaxinfol. 16. GENERAL TAXES. THE FIRST HALF BECOMES DELINQUENT AFTER APRIL 30TH• THE SECOND HALF BECOMES DELINQUENT AFTER OCTOBER 31 sT. YEAR: 2004 AMOUNT BILLED: $593.03 AMOUNT PAID: $296.52 AMOUNT DUE: $296.51, PLUS INTEREST AND PENALTY, LEVY CODE: TAX ACCOUNT NO.: ASSESSED VALUATION: LAND: IMPROVEMENTS: IF DELINQUENT 2100 956480-0070-07 $51,000.00 $ 0.00 NOTE: KING COUNTY TREASURER, 500 4TH AVENUE, 6TH FLOOR ADMIN. BLDG., SEATTLE; WA 98104 (206)'296-7300 WEB ADDRESS: http://webapp.metrokc.gov/KCTaxinfol. Guarantee No: SG·1572·10575 SUBDIVISION GUARANTEE 17. GENERAL TAXES. THE FIRST HALF BECOMES DELINQUENT AFTER APRIL 30TH. THE SECOND HALF BECOMES DELINQUENT AFTER OCTOBER 31 sT. YEAR: 2004 AMOUNT BILLED: $662.22 AMOUNT PAID: $331.11 AMOUNT DUE: $331.11, PLUS INTEREST AND PENALTY, LEVY CODE: TAX ACCOUNT NO.: ASSESSED VALUATION: LAND: IMPROVEMENTS: IF DELINQUENT 2100 956480-0110-09 $57;000.00 $ 0.00 NOTE: KING COUNTY TREASURER, 500 4TH AVENUE,6TH FLOOR ADMIN. BLDG., SEATILE, WA 98104 (206) 296-7300 WEB ADDRESS: http://webapp.metrokc.gov/KCTaxinfol. 18. GENERAL TAXES. THE FIRST HALF BECOMES DELINQUENT AFTER APRIL 30TH. THE SECOND HALF BECOMES DELINQUENT AFTER OCTOBER 31 sT. YEAR: 2004 AMOUNT BILLED: $512.53 AMOUNT PAID: $ 0.00 AMOUNT DUE: $512.53, PLUS INTEREST AND PENALTY, . LEVY CODE: TAX ACCOUNT NO.: ASSESSED VALUATION: LAND: IMPROVEMENTS: IF DELINQUENT 2100 956480-0106-05 $44,000.00 $ 0.00 NOTE: KING COUNTY TREASURER, 500 4TH AVENUE, 6TH FLOOR ADMIN. BLDG., SEATTLE, WA 98104 (206) 296-7300 WEB ADDRESS: http://webapp.metrokc.gov/KCTaxinfol. 19. DEED OF TRUST AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: GRANTOR: JDA GROUP, L.L.C, AS TO AN UNDIVIDED 70% INTEREST, AND I.D. KLINE CORPORATION, AN OREGON CORPORATION, AS TO AN UNDIVIDED 30% INTEREST TRUSTEE: PACIFIC NORTHWEST TITLE COMPANY BENEFICIARY: EVERGREEN BANK AMOUNT: $1,900,000.00 DATED: AUGUST 7,2003. RECORDED: AUGUST 21, 2003 RECORDING NO.: 20030821001939 (AFFECTS A PORTION OF PROPERTY HEREIN DESCRIBED) Guarantee No: SG-1572-10575 " , I .. ..IUBDIVISION GUARANTEE. The Company's liability for this report is limited to the compensation received. This report is based on the Company's property records, and no liability is assumed for items misindexed or not indexed in the public records, or for matters which would be disclosed by an inquiry of parties in possession or by an accurate surveyor inspection of the premises. This report and the legal description given herein are based upon information supplied by the applicant as to the location and identification of the premises in question, and no liability is assumed for any discrepancies resulting therefrom. This report does not represent either a commitment to insure title, an examination of or opinion as to the sufficiency or effect of the matters shown, or an opinion as to the marketability of title to the subject premises. I certify this is a true accurate reflection of those documents on file at the King County Court House, Seattle, Washington as of the date and time referenced above. Sunny Johnson :ts Guarantee No: SG·1572·10575 ORDER NO:. 200490137 N This sketch is provided without charge for information. It is not intended to show all matters related to the property including, but not limited to area, dimensions, encroachments or locations of boundaries. It's not a part of, nor does it modifY, the commitment or policy to which it is attached. The company assumes NO LIABILITY for any matter related to this sketch. Reference should be made to an accurate survey for further information. Printed: 07-29-2004 DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON tlTY OF RENTON 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Land Use Actions RECEIPT JUL 292004 Permit#: LUA04-093 Payment Ma~~CEIV~9/2004 05:39 PM Receipt Number: Total Payment: 1,530.71 Payee: JDA GROUP Curr~nt 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 5955 000.05.519.90.42.1 Postage Payments made for this receipt Amount 500.00 1,000.00 30.71 Trans Method Description Amount Payment Check 1207 1,530.71 Account Balances Trans Account Code Description Balance Due --------------------------------------------------------------------- 3021 303.000.00.345.85 Park Mitigation Fee .00 5006 000.345.81.00.0002 Annexation Fees .00 5007 000.345.81.00.0003 Appeals/Waivers .00 5008 000.345.81.00.0004 Binding Site/Short Plat .00 5009 000.345.81.00.0006 Conditional Use Fees .00 5010 000.345.81.00.0007 Environmental Review .00 5011 000.345.81.00.0008 Prelim/Tentative Plat .00 5012 000.345.81.00.0009 Final Plat .00 5013 000.345.81.00.0010 PUD .00 5014 000.345.81.00.0011 Grading & Filling Fees .00 5015 000.345.81.00.0012 Lot Line Adjustment .00 5016 000.345.81.00.0013 Mobile Horne Parks .00 5017 000.345.81.00.0014 Rezone .00 5018 000.345.81.00.0015 Routine Vegetation Mgmt .00 5019 000.345.81.00.0016 Shoreline Subst Dev .00 5020 000.345.81.00.0017 Site Plan Approval .00 5021 000.345.81.00.0018 Temp Use or Fence Review .00 5022 000.345.81.00.0019 Variance Fees .00 5023 0 .00 5024 000.345.81.00.0024 Conditional Approval Fee .00 5036 000.345.81.00.0005 Comprehensive Plan Amend .00 5909 000.341.60.00.0024 Booklets/EIS/Copies .00 5941 000.341.50.00.0000 Maps (Taxable) .00 5954 604.237.00.00.0000 Special Deposits .00 5955 000.05.519.90.42.1 Postage .00 5998 000.231.70.00.0pOO Tax .00 R0404134 DATA SOUTH PARCEL TOTAL PARCEL V'lORK AREA IMPERVIOUS AREA EXISTIN6 PROPOSED FND. 1/2" REBAR/CAP LS #15661 0.12' W. X 0,09 S. 61,486 SF 13,200 .///A / WfJJ.l¥ I I I ·' EDGE OF ACTUAL (Ii'lETLAND TO RFI"iA IN, \ \ \ -- CI' / / --~ (ClUstER) 'f.\\ .... ' " iO). , J \ ~-EX!STING IMIT OF PARKING AREA 1,'1'14 S.F. ~"~,(J PARKING FIRE LANE" , Ii'lIDE CO'lCRETE PEDE5TRIAN Ii'lAY FLUSH Ii'l/ AC PAVING CONCRETE RETAINING Ii'lALL 8' MAX. HT . .$ 48" HIGH CHAIN LINK FENCE r-f~t-10\"E EXISTING CURB ,-EXISTING PIWEMENT EDGE 't:XISTING UTILITY POLE .$ GUY Ii'lIRE I v7 I 8' \ ~1EY'! ENLARSED PLANTER -REMOVE EXISTING AC PAVING AND BASE UNABLE TO~ VERIFY END OF PIPE 10.1~ rl:::><IS'-ING PLANTER n;:,XISlrlNG LIGHT POLE TO REMAIN r-:ii~S'rlN6 FENCE 1,-f'ROPO~~ED RECIPROCAL ACCESS AGREEMENT , " " " , '"0' \ " \ i % OF TOTAL SITE LANDSCAPED AREA 00 SF '1,850 SF 15% 51,600 SF 85% TYPE V LIGHT FIXTURE ON--' 12' H LIGHT POLE ua:i. ... ·~~I~REA SUBJECT % OF TOTAL SITE EXISTIN6 AND PROPOSED STRUCTURES TOTAL EXISTIN6 V'lETLAND V'lETLAND FILL: ACTUAL FILL PAPER FILL TOTAL FILL TREE COUNT: EXISTIN6 TO BE REMOVED NONE 16,600 SF 2,011 SF 1,514 SF 3,5'11 SF >25 I 36"'H X 24" DIA. CONCRETE BASE (2PLACE5) Ii'lATER QUALITY SYSTEM -----' SEE CIVIL • SET MAG NAIL I ASPHALT PARKING LOT - :20 1 CS~O~UITH~L~O~T~A~N~D~S~O~UTUHLD~kET~L~A~N~D~F~L~L __________ -========== 0-== PUBUC UllUTY se.~)EI~IENT PER ROAD ORDINANCE,,: D~N~~O'o~i?~i)23!50 REC. NO. 21 -------------------- EXIS=:=ING RESTAURANT SITE ECF PRELIMINARY· NOT fOR CONSTRUC770N COPYRIGHT © 2003 BAYLIS ARCHITECTS INCORPORATED ALL RIGHTS RESERVED T'HIS DDCUM(NT. AND THE IDEAS AND DESIGNS INC:ORPORATED HEREIN IS THI" PROPERTY OF BAYliS ARCHITECTS INC.. AND MAY NOT lIE' R£US~O. IN WHOLE ORIN PAR-T, WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CON5[NT Of BAYLIS ARCHITECTS INCORPORATED w :J ZW Wv> ~~ c:::w w~ -L Z -~ -+Itt'5jECT NUMBER; PROJECT MANAGER: DRAWN BY: PLOT DATE: July 23, 2004 z o r l? Z I V) ~ z o r z w 0::: M2·U~69 RW DW 1080 I Main Street Bellevue, WA 98004 T 4540566 r: 125 453 8013 vvww .bayl isarch itect!:.. com SITE PLAN APPROVAL APPLICATION A002 -----------'~-----------~--.--------.~ --~--~-,--------. ;; E o z '" c .~ o -----/" -,/ ,/ --./ NEVi EW BLOCK Y'IA~l. ___ • 4' HEI6HT M%S~:::8::: ~~ ENHANCED i'lETLAND BUFFER SEE BUFFER f---------~§e~2~1!(""j~ ENHANCEMENT = 5,5"11 IIEc.llJAL5 AREA OF IY'lETI_AND FILL ISHOII'<N ON AO02) i'lETLAND AREA = I~OO SF sEE i'lETLAND ENHANCEMENT ViETLAND (CLAss 2) AREA OF REDUCED ~~c--l~~~~~ BUFFER = SP2B sF f----------;~_t_-----j ""REA OF INCREASED ~UFFER = SP2B SF f----=---. I>EE BUFFER ENHANCEMENT PLANT ~HEDULE \ \ NORTH ~ETLAND PLANTIN6 PLAN \ \ \ I • YoEn \"0 BUFFfR /.\'"'' Boi;N'bAAY SlGN~ ~ \ ~/' \ lflArrf~~[SI~LiT~( :~:~ E LACED A 55 I (SEE IIPAIL f1vErOPMEN1\-.J \ MIXEDWSE Ut' \ ~ \ LS 115661 0.24' W. X 0.25 S. I I I I \ I I \ \ \ _"'"' I I \ OF I I ../FU I Ul<J:: BLOIS. \ sc;.ALE. I' • so' \ I I \ / ) \\ \ I I I' ~ii.Mi~~=~·,L-~Iii.../ I ------~ . I \ TOTAL I'IETt.AHD FlU.' e);'lleF -- '~.< . ) \(~ \ \ \ \ - I'IAlSt GVALllY 5Y9T&1 ----------- SEE C;ML SOUTH ~ETLAND PLANTING PLAN sc;.ALE. I' • 60' NORTH BUFFER ENHANCEMENT PLANT SCHEDULE RHAMNUS PURSHIAN SHRUBS SYMPHORICARPOS ALBUS UPLAND HERBS POL YSTICHUM MUNITUM TELLIMA GRANDIFLORA SWORD FERN WETLAND CREATION/ENHANCEMENT AREAS PLANT SCHEDULE SYMBOL SyMl--QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SHRUBS 1 SIZE REMARKS @ CORNUS SERICEA REDSTEM DOGWOOD 2 GAL 5' O.C. o LONICERA INVOLUCRATA BLACK TWlNBERRY 2 GAL 3' O.C. ::::::::::::::}--_--+~SA:ToLl"X -iT.LA~SI"'AN=c<;D"'RA:i--;----+-,-;P;ruA Cwl FiTIC>'rWl:-iiLiT.oL0TrW-...---___ +*ST:;::.A~KE~S _",,5 -7-°;-:,::' C;'-' ---1 :::::::::=:: -SALIX HOOKERIANA HOOKER S WILLOW STAKES 5 O.C. WETLAND HERBS ::::::::: -CAREX OBNUPTA SLOUGH SEDGE BAREROOT 2' O.C. ..... ·:I---~~:::-:-:.:~~c:__----I_=c c-;;--;-:--:-:-;;-;-:-::::-:-::::-----t--;,-;==.__f_.:;r-;o-_;;__-_j :::::: -GLYCERIA STRIATA FOWL MANNAGRASS BAREROOT 2 O.C. ~:::(U'~=-==~:L Y::SI~CH~IT::ON~;:;;AM~E:::RIC:A=NU:M==:==;:"SK=U=NK'--=CA-"'B=BA=G=--E ___ ---f-"'B"-'!AR""'E'-'-'RO'-"O-'-T -F2=-;--' --"'O . .:::.:C._---l · . . . . . -SCIRPUS MICROCARPUS SMALL FRUITED BULRUSH BAREROOT 2' O.C. · ..... I------h,~_.:_._=_:~~""''.'-----I--i=;;==r;o;;;--------'--'----t_;,.~~.__f_.::;_::__;;__-_j ::::::.I---_---t-:==TE""'LL':::IM=-:-A--:'G-:::-RA:-:::N:'::DIF:::=L:'---OR_A __ -t--=-:FR-::-;IN::--;GE-::C::-:-UP-::-:-:--c::-:-:--:c=-__ --t~B_AR=E--'RO'--'-O_T -+,2,,;---' --,,-O,=C''-----I TOLMIEA MENZIESII PIGGY-BACK PLANT BAREROOT 2' O.C. · . ~ --. .::::.-.--:.,,: - ** QUANTITIES TO BE DETERMINED IN FINAL MITIGATION PLAN INTERPLANTING NOTES GENERAL NOTES: 1. IT IS PREFERABLE THAT THE DESIGN OF THIS PLANTING PLAN SEEK TO REPLICATE NATURAL PLANT COMMUNITIES IN SPECIES COMPOSITION AND ARRANGEMENT. EVEN SPACING AND STRAIGHT-ROW PLANTING ARE NOT DESIRED. 2. A TEMPORARY IRRIGATION SYSTEM SHALL BE INSTALLED WITHIN THE ENHANCED WETLAND BUFFER AREAS. 3. ADD TWO PIECES OF LARGE WOODY DEBRIS (LWD) FOR EACH 1,000 SQ. FT. LWD IS 1 STUMP OR 1 LOG (GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 6" DIAMETER) AND 8-12' LONG. 4. BAREROOT PLANT STOCK MAY BE USED WHERE SEASONALLY AVAILABLE AND GENERALLY MUST BE INSTALLED DURING THE DORMANT SEASON (APPROXIMATELY OCTOBER 31ST THROUGH FEB 1ST). BAREROOT PLANT STOCK SHALL BE EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN THAT OF THE SPECIFIED CONTAINER SIZE. 5. MULCH SHALL BE INSTALLED AROUND ALL TREES AND SHRUBS TO ASSIST PLANT SURVIVAL THE MULCH SHALL BE MEDIUM GRADE WOOD CHIPS OR BETTER. NATIVE TREES, SHRUBS AND HERBS BASED ON MASTER PLANT SCHEDULE. SPECIES AND QUANTITIES SHALL BE DETERMINED BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OR WETLAND BIOLOGIST POST NON-NATIVE VEGETATION REMOVAL. ALL NON-NATIVE VEGETATION SHALL BE REMOVED WITHIN THE WETLAND BUFFER. THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OR WETLAND BIOLOGIST SHALL FLAG AREAS PRIOR TO REMOVAL. AREAS WHERE PLANTS HAVE BEEN REMOVED SHALL BE REPLANTED WITH THE WETLAND BUFFER NATIVE SEED MIX NA TlVE PLANTS LISTED IN THE MASTER PLANT LEGEND. THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OR WETLAND BIOLOGIST SHALL FIELD LOCATE PLANTS WITHIN THESE AREAS. SEED MIX A: UPPER BUFFER --SEED DISTURBED SOIL WITHIN THE ENHANCED BUFFER. HYDROSEED MIX APPLICATION RA TES PER ACRE: REGREEN STERILE SEED MIX SEED MIXTURE 30LB/ACRE EVERGREEN OR NOTE: 2000 LB ERO-FIBER WOODFIBER MULCH LB SEED MIX AS NOTED 200 L8 25-0-10 40 LB T ACKIFIER TO PREVENT RIPPLING AlL POSTS, CAPS, RAILS AND flTTlNGS TO BE ELEC'lROSTA TIC PAINTED-COLOR TO MATCH FENCE COATING AS APPROVED BY OI'MERS REPRESENTATIVE MAINTENANCE ACCESS: DOUBLE GATE -10' OPENING 6' 'I1NYL COATED -CLASS 2A (BLACK) 3" OF MULCH -""' fiNISHED GRADE DECIDUOUS 'lREE OR SHRUB PLACE PLANT CROI'M NEAR fiNISHED SURFACE UNE POST AND BRACE POSTS 2" 1.0., END, CORNER AND PULL POSTS 2 1/2" 1.0. WETLAND BUFFEa BOUNDARY UGHlL Y COMPACTED SOIL MIX WATERED THOROUGHLY t!QIE;.. 1. REfER TO SPECS FOR ADD'L INfORMATION. fORM CONTINUOUS 2" HIGH WATERING BASIN BERM r----ADD 10-0-10 SLOW RELEASE FERTlUZER AS PER MFR RECOMMENDED RATE FOR SIZE '----BACKfiLL WITH SOIL MIX WATER IN f1'\1-----=-.CO=N-"-!.T=AI=NE""",R,---"P--=LAo=N",--,--T=-"INc=..G -=D=-:ET,-,-,A=IL __ ~ NOT TO SCALE TOP & BOTIOM RAIL 1 1/4" 1.0. TTl" fOOTING o CHAIN LINK FENCE DETAIL NOT TO SCALE fiNISH GRADE ONE SIGN EVERY 25 TO 50 fEET, PLACED WITHIN THE FENCED AREA, ATIACHED TO A METAL OR WOOD fENCE POST, 4 fEET TO 6 fEET ABOVE GRADE ON THE WElLAND BUFFER SIDE Of THE FENCE. f3\ BUFFER BOUNDARY SIGNAGE "-V NOT TO SCALE PRELIMINARY -NOT FOR CONSTRUC770N oL-________________________________________________________________ ~ ______________________________________ ~--------------------------------------------____________________________________________________________ ~ W ~ Zw W(f) >:J «0 w ~X W:Z Z « ~ Civil Engineers Structural Engineers Landscape Architects Community Planners Land Surveyors Neighbors . , mmm TACOMA· SEATTLE 2215 North 30th S1ree1, Su~e 300, Tacoma. WA 98403 253,383.2422 TEL 316 Occiden1a1 Avenue South. Su~e 320, Seatl1e. WA 98104 206.267.2425 TEL 204177.40 RW AME Jul 23. 2004 -9: 23am JULY 23, 2004 11 DB01 Mal" Street ~lB.II~~ •• , WA 98004 454 0566 425 453 8013 CONCEPTUAL PLANTING PLAN W1 , • & , • ! E , CITY OF RENTON LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT LUA-06-045-LLA LND-30-0309 CERTIFICA TION KNOW BY ALL PEOPLE !HESE PRESENTS THAT WE THE UNDERSIGNED OWNERS OF INTEREST ON !HE LAND HEREIN DESCRIBED, DO HEREBY MAKE A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT THEREFORE PURSUANT TO RCW 58.17.040 AND DECl,I,RE THIS ADJUSTMENT TO BE THE GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION OF !HE SAME AND !HAT SAID ADJUSTMENT IS MADE ~!H THE FREE CONSENT AND IN ACCORDANCE ~TH THE DESIRE OF THE OWNERS. IN ~TNESS WHEREOF WE SET OUR HANDS AND SEALS. r; < J.(;aJ.h':Y-~ __ 7it r ty NAME 1=,---_____ _ NAME NAME STATE OF (J2As!ftf.)~TVv--) COUNTY OF --"l_~ ____ l SS I CERTIFY !HAT I KNOW ORjAVE SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE THAT :TA<!J.-V. f:t11-hH>EF£ SIGNED THIS DEDICA TIO~i AND ACKNOWLEDGED IT TO BE (HIS/HER) FREE AND VOLUNTARY ACT F<JR THE USES AND PURPOSES MENTIONED IN THE INSTRUMENT. DATED ~~~ SIGNA TIURE OF NOTARY PUBLIC ~ (", PRINTED NAME OF~. NOTARY PUBLIC :SHfR , ~u.f ' TIm M~ MY APPOINTMENT EXPIRES .6(l9 {Pi< STATE OF ____________ ) ) SS COUNTY OF ) I CERTIFY THAT I KNOW OR HAVE SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE THAT SIGNED THIS DEDICATION AND ON OATH STATED !HAT (HE/SHE) WAS AUTHORIZED TO EXECUTE THE INSTRUMENT AND ACKNOWLEDGED IT AS THE TO BE THE FREE AND VOLUNTA~~ -ACTOFS"'U7CH:-:-:P~A-=R=TYc--.::F""'OR~TH=E·.,.U""S::::ES=-cAND PURPOSES MENTIONED !N THE INSTRUMENT. NOTARY SEAL DATED -,--,-,-__________ _ SIGNA TIURE OF NOTARY PUBLIC =-________ _ PRINTED NAME OF NOTARY PUBLIC TIm _______________ _ MY APPOINTMENT EXPIRES ______ _ RECORDER'S CERTIFICATE .................. .. FILED FOR RECORD THIS ....... DAY OF ........... , 20 ...... . AT ....... M IN 1300K .......... OF ........ AT PAGE ......... AT THE REQUEST OF "SUR,\iE'YOR"S"'~iAME'" MANAGER SUPT. OF RECORDS APPROVALS: CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING/ BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS ORIGINAL LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS PER PLAT CERTIFICATE PREPARED BY PACIFIC NORTHWEST TITLE COMPANY, ORDER NO. 609986, DATED MARCH 16, 2006 PARCEL A: LOTS 1 !HROUGH 6, INCLUSIVE, BLOCK 17, LA TIMER'S LAKE PARK ADDITION, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 18 OF PLATS, PAGE 63, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; EXCEPT PORTION CONVEYED TO TO KING COUNTY FOR ROAD PURPOSES BY DEEDS RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBERS 956173 AND 2032137. TOGETHER ~ TH THAT PORTION OF VACATED NORTHWEST 7TH STREET AS VACATED PURSUANT TO CITY OF RENTON ORDINANCE NUMBER 3455, RECORDED UNDER RECDRDING NUMBER 8011030532, WHICH UPON VACA TION, ATTACHED TO SAID PROPERTY BY OPERATION OF LAW; AND TOGETHER ~TH THAT PORTION OF VACATED OHIO PLACE AND VACATED SOU!H 123RD AS VACATED PURSUANT TO CITY OF RENTON ORDINANCE NUMBER 4357, RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 9206181901, WHICH UPON VACATION ATTACHED TO SAID PROPERTY BY OPERATION OF LAW. PARCEL B: ALL OF BLOCK 5; AND ALL OF BLOCK 6, EXCEPT !HE SOUTH 192 FEET THEREOF; ALL IN THE PLAT OF WOODY GLEN ADDITION, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 47 OF PLATS, PAGES 91 AND 92, IN KING COUNTY WASHINGTON. PARCEL C: THAT PORTION OF BLOCKS 13 AND 22, LA TIMER'S LAKE PARK ADDITION, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 18 PLA TS, PAGE 63, IN KING COUNTY. WASHINGTON, WHICH LIES EAST OF SAID WOODY GLEN ADDITION AND WEST OF A LINE DRAWN PARALLEL ~TH AND 50 FEET WESTERLY OF WHEN MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES AND OR RADIALLY FROM THE CENTERLINE OF PRIMARY STATE HIGHWAY NO.2 (RAINIER AVENUE), AND EXTENDING FROM HIGHWAY ENGINEER'S STATION 80+30 SOUTHERLY TO HIGHWAY ENGINEER'S STATION NO. 88+75; EXCEPT THAT PORTION !HEREOF LYING EASTERLY OF THE SOU!H 192 FEET OF BLOCK 6 OF !HE PLAT OF WOODY GLEN. PARCEL 0: THAT PORTION OF LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 1, LYING SOUTHERLY AND EASTERLY OF THE CENTERLINE OF VACATED SOUTH 123RD STREET; EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF LYING NORTHERLY OF A LINE WHICH IS 110 FEET SOUTHERLY FROM AND PARALLEL TO !HE SOUTHERLY MARGIN OF SOU TH 122ND STREET; TOGE!HER ~!H THAT PORTION OF LOT 3, BLOCK 1, LYING WESTERLY OF THE CENTERLINE OF SOUTH 123RD STREET; AND TOGETHER ~TH LOTS 4 AND 7, BLOCK 1; EXCEPT THAT PORTION LYING NORTHERLY AND EASTERLY OF VACATED SOUTH 123RD STREET; AND TOGETHER ~TH THE NOR!H 150 FEET OF LOT 2, BLOCK 2; !HE WEST 61.72 FEET OF THE NORTH 150 FEET OF LOT 3, BLOCK 2; THE NORTH 125 FEET OF THE EAST 28.28 FEET OF LOT 3, BLOCK 2; THE NORTH 125 FEET OF LOTS 4 AND 5, BLOCK 2; THE NORTH 125 FEET OF THE WEST 14.99 FEET OF LOT 6, BLOCK 2; THE NORTH 140 FEET OF LOT 6; EXCEPT THE WEST 14.99 FEET THEREOF, OF BLOCK 2; AND LOT 7; EXCEPT THE SOUTHERLY 100 FEET THEREOF, BLOCK 2, ALL IN WOODY GLEN ADDITION, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 47 OF PLATS, PAGES 91 AND 92, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. LAND SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE THIS LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT CORRECTLY REPRESENTS A SURVEY MADE BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE APPROPRIATE STATE AND COUNTY STATUTE AND ORDINANCE IN..,.).I,).~.:r .... , 2ollt... .-+--A~ .... W.Q .. ) ..... --e'I'~TIFICATE NO. .\.~(,.10 .. ---------------------_. RECORDING NO. VOL./PAGE DEPARTMENT OF ASSESSMENTS EXAMINED AND APPROVED THIS ___ DAY OF ___ 20 __ PORTION OF ASSESSOR _Sl_1/4 of _SW_l/4, S._07 _ T._23_N., R . .Q5_E.,W.M. DEPUTY ASSESSOR ACCOUNT NUNBER __ PARCEL AREAS ORIGIN AL PARCELS: PARCEL A-26,697 S.F. PARCEL B-87,179 S.F. PARCEL C= 11,483 S.F. PARCEL D-246,777 S.F. WALKWAY-1,634 S.F. REVISED PARCELS: LOT A-39,822 S.F. LOT B-56,968 S.F. LOT C-48,234 S.F. LOT D= 228,777 S.F. EQUIPMENT AND PROCEDURE 3" TOTAL STATION UTILIZING STANDARD FIELD TRAVERSE METHODS FOR CONTROL AND STAKING. SCHEDULE B ORDER 609986 PER PLAT CERTIFICATE PREPARED BY PACIFIC NORTH\\£ST TITLE COMPANY, ORDER NO. 609986, DATED MARCH 16, 2006 1. EASEMENT A.F.N. 8011030532 -PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT. PLOTTED 2. EASEMENT A.F.N. 8404090614 -PUBLIC UTILlTIY EASEMENT. PLOTTED (TO BE RELINQUISHED UNDER SHORT PLAT APPLICATION) 3. EASEMENT A.F.N. 9111140883 -PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT. PLOTTED 4 EASEMENT A.F.N. 9206181901 -PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT. PLOTTED 5. RESTRICTIONS CONTAINED ON !HE FACE OF THE PLAT FOR WOODY GLEN ADDITION, VOLUMER 47, PAGES 91 AND 92. 6. AGREEMENT A.F.N. 3103931. SLOPE AGREEMENT 7. AGREEMENT A.F.N. 4733794. SLOPE EASEMENT 8. RIGHT OF THE PUBLIC FOR SLOPES 9. MATTERS DISCLOSED ON SURVEY A.F.N. 8903239001. 10. MATTER DISCLOSED ON SURVEY 20030401900004 DECLARATION OF COVENANT THE OWNERS OF THE LAND EMBRACED ~THIN THIS LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, IN RETIURN FOR !HE BENEFIT TO ACCRUE FROM THIS LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, BY SIGNING HEREON COVENANT AND AGREE TO CONVEY THE BENEFICIAL INTEREST IN THE NEW EASEMENT SHOWN ON !HIS LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT TO ANY FUTIURE PURCHASERS OF THE LOTS, OR OF ANY SLBDIVISION THEREOF. THIS COVENANT SHALL RUN ~TH THE LAND AS SHOWN ON THIS LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT. EASEMENT FOR INGRESS, RENTON ?J MUNICIPAL ~ AIRPORT ~ VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE NEW PRIVATE EGRESS & UTILITIES MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT NEW PRIVATE EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT FOR INGRESS, EGRESS AND UTILITIES IS TO BE CREATED UPON THE SALE OF LOTS SHOWN ON !HIS LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT. !HE OWNERS OF LOTS "CO AND "D" SHALL HAVE AN EQUAL AND UNDIVIDED INTEREST IN THE OWNERSHIP AND RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENT APPURTENANCES. THESE APPURTENANCES AND MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITIES INCLUDE REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE OF THE PRIVATE ACCESS ROAD, DRAINAGE PIPES, AND STORM WATER QUALITY AND/OR DETENTION FACILITIES ~!HIN !HIS EASEMENT, PRIVATE SIGNAGE, AND OTHER INFRASTRUCTIURE NOT OWNED BY THE CITY OF RENTON OR OTHER UTILITY PROVIDERS. MAINTENANCE COSTS SHALL BE SHARED EQUALLY. PARKING ON !HE PAVING IN THE ACCESS EASEMENT IS PROHIBITED, UNLESS PAVEMENT ~DTH IS GREATER THAN 20 FEET. TACOMA SEATTLE 2215 North 30th Street, Suite 300, Tacoma, WA 98403 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 1620, Seattle, WA 98101 Civil Engineers Structural Engineers Landscape Architects Community Planners Land SutYeyors Neighbors 253.383.2422 TEL 206.267.2425 TEL RAINIER STATION LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT OWN. BY DATE JOB NO. D.C.F. 7/12/06 203615.50 CHKD. BY SCALE SHEET J.W.B. 1"=60' 1 OF 2 CITY OF RENTON STATION LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT RAINIER ~ -S87"14'13"E 'Z. 57.40' ",0 o~ . ... EASEMENT AFN --~. '" 8011030532 ,,'"'OJ 0, ~~5 ... CURVE TABLE LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT LUA-06-045-LLA LND-30-0309 (CITY OF RENTON 157) FND 1/2" BRASS PLUG W/PUNCH IN CONC MON IN CASE DO'MN 0.5' 8/12/02 I '" 0-09: CURVE LENGTH RADIUS DELTA BASIS OF BEARINGS CITY OF RENTON SURVEY CONTROL NETWORK HORIZONTAL DATUM=NORTH AMERICAN DATUM 1983/1991 METERS (NAD 83/91). CONVERTED TO US FEET CITY OF RENTON SURVEY CONTROL POINT 1899 2 INCH BRASS DISC IN 4 IN X 4 IN CONCRETE POST WITH PUNCH MARK. IN MONUMENT CASE AT THE INTERSECTION OF LIND AVE NW AND TAYLOR PL NW N=55495.849M 956480 0006 956480 0009 LOT A. SP 26-76 956480 0011 S8714'13"E S81'J5~ LOT B. SP 26-76 956480 0012 212.59' ~n LOT 2. BLOCK 15 LATIMER'S LAKE PARK \", '" -",,,, ~ .... PLOT 3. BLOCK 1 ", ..... g WOODY GLEN ADDITION '" . "'. LOT 5. BLOCK 1 WOODY GLEN ADDITION "' 0> ..,: ;;; "',. ,..",-50' I ,. (') -J '" -or I ~~ =,0 R=2915.00· ;=l~ I ",0 '·~'n \ !. 6=5"57'00" r::: ° I I 0 ... E=395359.447M 956480 0005 [ (RADIUS) R=100.00· L=75,97' LOT 6. BLOCK 1 WOODY GLEN ADDITION EASEMENT AFN 9111140883 CITY OF RENTON SURVEY CONTROL POINT 1896 FOUND 1 INCH REBAR WITH CAP DO'MN 1,7' IN A 10 INCH MONUMENT CASE AT THE INTERSECTION OF TAYLOR AVE NW. TAYLOR PL NW AND NW 4TH STREET. N=55212.103M E=395512.663M A LINE BETWEEN THE TWO BEARS NORTH 28'22'05" WEST, EXTERIOR BOUNDARY SHOW HEREON IS PER RECORD OF SURVEY RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NU3ER 20030401900004, LEGEND til. FOUND CITY OF I~ENTON MONUMENT V AS NOTED TRIAD ASSOCIATES REBAR .Ie CAP o LS 15661 PER RIOCORD OF SURVEY A.F.N. 200030401900004 @ 5/8" REBAR .Ie GAP. LS 13670 SET FOR THIS SIJRVEY LOT 1. BLOCK WOODY GLEN ADDITION R=100,00' L-156.12· 6=89"27'01" -43"31'40" R=100.00· L=212,93' 6=122'00'00" LOT 2. BLOCK WOODY GLEN ADDITION SURVEYOR'S NOTE: ALIL EXTERIOR CORNERS SHO'MN SHO'MN WITH "0" HEREON DENOTES 1/2" REBAR AND CAP LS #15661 PER TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY PROVIDED BY TRIAD ASSOCIATES. LOT 2. BLOCK 1 WOODY GLEN ADDITION CL VACATED 123RD ST, PER RECORD OF SURVEY A.F.N. 20030401900004 LOT D 956480 0020 228.777 sq, ft, 5.25 acres 651 RAINIER AVENUE NORTH EASEMENT AFN 9206181901 LOT 7. BLOCK 1 WOODY GLEN ADDITION 956480 0031 R=70,00' L=60.92· 6=49"51'45" ~ l11 LOT 7. BLOCK 1 WOODY GLEN ADDITION TAX PARCEL 956480-0007-05 \ PARCEL 0 PER TITLE 9564801105 N87'25'Z1"E (RADIUS) 'Z. \~10~O'OOC' ~~~----~----I-~--r-----~~~~~\~ \~ '" "'. ~ I GRAPHIC SCALE ~ 0 ~ ~ 1W I .-." ~ 11IiiiiiiIIII~1 ~ _ LOT 2. BLOCK 2 ,q '& WOODY GLEN ADDITION ",. ..... ~ '" . .... ~ LOT 3, BLOCK 2 LOT 4, BLOCK 2 WOODY GLEN ADDITION WOODY GLEN ADDITION LOT 5, BLOCK 2 WOODY GLEN ADDITION LOT 6. BLOCK 2 WOODY GLEN ADDITION \'2, '0 \'6. -- LOT C 48.234 sq. It. 1.11 acres 625 RAINIER A VENUE NORTH BLOCK 5 WOODY GLEN ADDITiON LOT B 56.968 sq, It, 1.31 acres 601 RAINIER AVENUE NORTH Cl C2 C3 C4 \ \ IN FEET ) 1 inch = 60 fl LOT 1. BLOCK 2 WOODY GLEN ADDI TlON Civil Engineers r----t-.... --~~2~233.~3~5·~1_------........ ----~_, ,..., S87"33'55"E ~ ...... --........ ~~1~7~5~.4~5~·~~ ........ ____ -:J~ \\£,~ \,:~£, TAX PARCEL 956~80-0175-06 90.0 "~ PARCEL B PER TITLE S87"3355 E Structural Engineers 9554800040 Landscape Architects Community Planners Land Surveyors ~ .... __ .... ~~1~3~7~.4~5~·~ ______ ~ -S87"33'55"E '-·-'SI,!>"'!>i'l.\ l SET NEW CORNER, SEE (CITY OF RENTON 158) FND 1/2" BRASS PLUG W/pUNCH IN r ____ ...,...UE.!...G~EIND (TYP.) 171,32' N78~5~3~9'W¥-~~ ........ ~ 49,60 320.00 8"52'54" 45.82 100.00 2615',," 87.80 290.00 17"20'46" 22.06 70.00 18"03'21" LINE TABUE LINE UENGTH BEARING L1 21.50' N70"29'51"E L2 28.96' Nl3"40'20"W L3 31,19' N20'04' 38"W L4 20.08' N70'29'51"E L5 32.50' N14 '07' 44"E L6 15.00' N01'04'37"E L7 25.01' SOl "04'37"W L8 33,34' 58714'13"E L9 30.07' N01"04'35"E L10 41.07' N46"49'19"E Lll 33.79' N8?"52' 43"E L12 SO.OO· N16"27'39"W L13 32.30' SOl "04'3S"W NEW 30' PRIVATE EASEMENT FOR INGRESS. EGRESS AND UTILITIES, \ \ \ \ Neighbors I CONC MON I N CASE DO'MN 1.25' 5/26/04 TBM "C"-TOP OF MON ELEV=10S.73· ---I LOT 7. BLOCK 2 WOODY GLEN ADDITION 575 RAINIER ORIGINAL PARCEL C PER TITLE TACOMA SEATTLE 2215 North 30th Street. o,uite 300. Tacoma, WA 98403 1200 Sixth Avenue. Suite 1020, Seattle. WA 98101 OWN. BY D.C,F. CHKD. BY J. W.B. DATE 7/12/06 SCALE 1"=60' JOB NO. 203615.50 SHEET 2 OF 2 RECORDING NO, VOL./PAGE PORTION OF _SE __ 1 4 of SW 1 l!J NW 6TH -STREET on N86"54'3S"W 265.92' (M) ----~ '" N88'36'04"W 265.94' (P) ---'-- 10' PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT A.F,N. 8404090614. TO BE RELINQUISHED UNDER SEPARATE APPLICATION CITY OF RENTON 273) FND 1/2" BRASS PLUG W/pUNCH IN 10' IIt----'.'J WALkWA Y AODtnON PE:R PtA T CONC MON IN CASE DO'MN 0,7' 5/26/04 LOT 6. BLOCK 3 LOT 7. BLOCK 3 WOODY GLEN ADDITION WOODY GLEN ADDITION \ \ \ TO BE: \( OF' WOOO ACA TE'D ( Y GLf~N \ VAC ,-05_002) LOT 8. BLOCK 3 WOODY GLEN ADDITION A VENUE NORTH LOT A 39.822 sq. It. 0.91 acres NOTE: WALKWAY TO BE VACATED UNDER - SEPARA TE APPLICATION \'ORIG. \, \PA:~~~9~.00 "DDITION L=44.00· 6=218'00" \51.57.' (>I.11"'l.i'l.'"£' NORTH LINE. SOUTH 192.00 FEET OF BLOCK 6 A~'D SOUTH LINE OF ORIGINAL PARCEL B \ \ \ \ \ \ i -p o f :g '" g ~ - NORTH ~ETLAND A-OOS ---_.--- \ " ---------- /' ,/ ./ ..---------...-------:-N-------------------- ----------- ~--.",- ___ -0<-- SOUTH LOT A=002.----\ ---------- 'x'!f..~ .. ::-__ ~~ ~~~:-. --~:::> ° ,.. \ //,/ / ./ /" ./ ./ 'j" / /' /' " ./ ' ,/ ,/ ,,.. I '1~{! I T'rI"E V U6If'r FIX'TIRO \2' II UI$HT pou;: ;36" PI X 2+' OIA. """"" ..... """"" \ \ / \ \ \ / / / rfI'In::R QbIUl'I" fl(STi)4 ---~ !e!: GIVlL. i / \ \ \ I \ \ 1o i 'n, I ' I J ---, -, ---~ Ii: Oi ~ 5C-ALE, I" = 50' SITE PLA~N~ _________________ _==~ z 1" .~ ---------------------Q~----------- NORTH " ell C'. '" n>1' , (¢tl< S"""""") T<f'<U, ," "'" os: ,'-'3 (~r_1') ~"."" PNiJ\Jt16 Nl!A ;,If'M~F. PAAKI~ r-1Re l.)IIE' I ._.~"~ "-""'" I """, .. to U5tll f"Ol..E' TO ~M #I~:::"""::''''''''. "'""'"--- EXISTING RESTAURANT SI ---x-----\---'---~'1U -------\----Iff'ii ·SEE ~01ES ANO LEGEND ON SliEfT 2. Cf' ~ ·SEE LEG"l DESCRIPTION AND SURI,EY DATA INFORtdAllON ON SHm 1 OF J (ruT_I:) I ;I ,i I I I 'I}I I'll /1 : : I I I "l DC. '" "'" I (c,," Sl1I<:IIJRQ ~~ . • .. ,. .. ..,111 <OO'-S) , I I : ~.l,··i Ii I I I III -I I,I o I II io-----. , b2004 Ma,"u •• t.oom "0 NORTH DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON JUL 29 2004 RECEIVED PRELIMINARY-NOT fOR CONSTRUC770N COPYRIGHT@ 2003 BAYliS ARCHITECTS INCORPORATED ALL RIGHTS RESERVED THIS DOCUMENT. AND THE IDEAS AND DESIGNS INCORPORATED H~REIN, IS THE PROPERTY OF BAYUS ARCHI TIo-C[S INC. AND MAY NOT BE REUSED, IN \lliHOl~ OR IN PART, "WTTHOUT THE WRITTEN CONS~NT OF BAYLIS ARCHITECTS INCORPOAATHJ UJ :J Zw UJ Vl ~~ o:::W UJ~ L -Z -~ PROJECT NUMBER' P~OJECT MANAGER: DRAWN BY; z o l- t:) Z -I V') ~ z o I- Z w " M2-0589 CH OW PLOT DATE' Ju126. 2004 -IO:31am July I 5, 2004 Z :5 c.. >-UJ ~ 1080' Main Street BdlevlK, WA 98004 T 425 4540566 r 12.':>4')38013 SITE PLAN APPROVAL APPLICATION AOOI DATA NORTH PARCEL TOTAL PARCEL 1Al0RK AREA IMPERVIOUS AREA: EXISTING PROPOSED % OF TOTAL SITE LANDSCAPED AREA % OF TOTAL SITE EXISTING AND PROPOSED STRUCTURES TOTAL EXISTING IAlETLAND IAlETLAND FILL: ACTUAL FILL PAPER FILL TOTAL FILL TREE COUNT: EXISTING TO BE REMOVED LIMIT OF- FUTURE BLDG. CONSTRUCTION FINISH 4 FINAL GRAD>F----. 2 FT. CLEA~~ TOPSOIL EXCAVATIO'N-----. EXISTINr---~ UNCONTROLLED FILL I EXISTING""---~ IAlETLAND EDGE : EL. 38'± EXISTIN~ IAlETLAND 25'-0" 246,'31 SF '1,200 SF 00 SF 00 SF 15% 5',600 SF 0% NONE 21,'00 SF 3,5'11 SF 5,028 SF 5,028 SF >50 4 EL. 46'±:-----.. I I I I I I II I II I I I I I l ~------------- IAlETLAND BUFFER BUFFER DETAIL N.T.S. ------.. ---.-....... -.-.-... --,/ ,/ / NEY-i ECO BLOCK Y'iALL 4' HEIGHT AREA OF REDUCED BUFFER = 5,028 SF /" -.- FND. 1/2" REBAR/CAP LS #15661 0.00' W X 0.16' S. z 4' HIGH CHAINLINK FENCE NOR1~H ~ETLAND ENLARGMENT AND ENHANGMENT II :20 1 = \ \ \ EXISTlNG BUILDING \ _________ 'SO '-.---------/ \ '-~S~\~ // OO"~ ~ / -----\~ '-sO,,-I \ \ \ \ \ \ \ I I I I I I / / \ \ \ ut(w LINt. \ , , \ FND. 1/2" REBAR/CAP LS #15661 ? / / U OIL TANK / X TC 6" 12 24 NC OIL 1 DRIP LINE DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON JUL 29 2004 RECEIVED PRELIMINARY· NOT fOR CONSTRUC770N COPYRIGHT © 2003 BAYLIS ARCHITECTS INCORPORATED ALL RIGHTS RESERVED THIS DOCUM~NT. AND THE IDEAS AND DESIGNS 'NCOF'POAATED III'REIN, 15 THE PROPERTY OF BAYLIS ARCHITECTS INC. AND MAY NOT BE REUSED, IN WHOLEc 011, IN PART, WITHOUT THE WRITTEN <:ONSf'NT OF BAYUSAR.CHTTECTS INCORPORAlIoD_ W :J ZUJ W Vl ~~ a::UJ W~ -I: Z -~ PROJECT NUMBER; PROJECT MANAGER DAAWNBY: PLOT DATE: z o I- (j Z I (/) ~ z o I- Z w a:: M2-0589 RW DW I 080 I Main Street Bellevue, WA 98004 T 425 4540566 F 12.:. 453 8UI3 v.rww bayllsarch"E'cts.(Um SITE PLAN APPROVAL APPLICATION A003 DATA SOUTH PARCEL TOTAL PARCEL V'iORK AREA IMPERVIOUS AREA: EXISTING PROPOSED % OF TOTAL SITE LANDSCAPED AREA % OF TOTAL SITE EXISTING AND PROPOSED STRUCTURES TOTAL EXISTING V'iETLAND V'iETLAND FILL: ACTUAL FILL PAPER FILL TOTAL FILL TREE COUNT: EXISTING TO BE REMOVED FND. 1/2" REBAR/CAP LS #15661 0.12' W. X 0.09 S. 61,486 SF 13/200 00 SF '1,850 SF 15% 51/600 SF 85% NONE 16,600 SF 2,011 SF 1,514 SF 3,5'11 SF >25 I \ _50 TYPE V LIGHT FIXTURE ON-~ 121 H LIGHT POLE 96" H X 24" DIA. CONCRETE BASE (2PLACES) () I \r l ___ , V'lATER QUALITY SYSTEM ____ ...J SEE CIVIL 1//11/1"'" I \ \ BUILDING SET MAG NAIL IN ASPHALT PARKING LOT II .201 cS~O~U~TH~L~O~T~A~N~DL2S~O~UTuH~~~E~T~L~A~N~D~F~L~L--------========-~=== 0-= XISTING IMIT OF PARKING AREA 1,'1'14 S.F. "NO PARKING FIRE LANE" , V'lIDE CONCRETE PEDESTRIAN V'lAY FLUSH V'I/ AC PAVING , , r "" '" I v) / " CONCRETE RETAINING V'lALL 8' MAX. HT. 4 48" HIGH CHAIN LINK FENCE rl'tEMOVE EXISTING CURB XISTING PAVEMENT EDGE r-i':t;LOCATE EXISTING UrlLiTY POLE 4 GUY V'lIRE 'l'u...V'I ENLARGED PLANTER -REMOVE EXISTING AG PAVING AND BASE HALT XISrlNG PLANTER XISTING LIGHT POLE TO REMAIN rliil~STING FENCE UNABLE TO~ VERIFY END OF PIPE 10.~ l' ROPOSED RECIPROCAL ACCESS AGREEMENT ----------------------- AREA SUBJECT 0 PUBUC UTIUTY SEMENT PER ROAD VACA ON ORDINANCE NO. 4 55, REC. NO. 20020 002350 ---------- EXISTING RESTAURANT SITE ------------- DEVELOPMENT PI~~NING CITY OF RENTO JUL 292004 RECEIVED PRELIMINARY· NOT fOR CONSTRUC770N COPYRIGHT © 2003 BAYLIS ARCHITECTS INCORPORATED ALL RIGHTS RESERVED THIS DOCUMENT, AND THE IDIoAS AND DESIGNS INCORPOflAr~D HEREIN. IS THe F'ROPE~TY Of BAYUSARCHITECTS INC, AND MAY NO! SE Ra::US!:D, IN WHOlE ORIN PART. WITHOUT THE WRlll ioN CONseNT OF BAYll~AACHITECTS INCORPOAATEO UJ :J ZW UJV) ~~ ~w UJ~ -L Z -~ z o f- l? Z -I (/) ~ z o f- Z w ~ PROJECT NUMBER: M2-0589 PROJECT MANAGER RW DRAWN BY, PLOT DATE; July 23, 2004 ..... _---- 1080 I Main Street Bellevue_ WA 98004 T 4540566 F 125 453 8013 DW wvvw _ baylisarch Itects, com SITE PLAN APPROVAL APPLICATION A002 '" • -0 N C o 'ij c V > I 3' I .... .... ;;: o N /' .... " ;;: o ;:> .. o o N /' J '" • E c z 4--------- ......----- /" -/' ,/ --/ SUFFER SEE ElUFFER f-------------"'i'~~~~~~"'" ENHANC,Et-1ENT Ji'lETLAND IAREA = 3,5'11 ~"'v,,~::> AREA OF FILL ISHOI-'lN ON AO02) I \ Ji'lETLAND (C,LASS 2) AREA OF REDUC,ED t~~==---~~t-.~r~~~:?~~~~ ElUFFER = 5P28 SF ~~ REA OF INC.REASED / UFFER = 5P2b SF f-------:/-'-to EE ElUFFER HANC,Et-1ENT PLANT HEDULE (-- FND. 1/2" REBAR/CAP LS ,15(>1;11 0.00' W)( 0.11;1' S. ...... / ~ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ~AAY SILT FENCE~ LACEO BY v.t: 0 A S EXCLUSION FEN (SEE II.ETAlL2) fDLlO\\lN~ MlXED-\USE 'OEIlELDPMENT. \ ~ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ -..... \ \ \ \ SCALE, I' • 50' LS 115661 \ ,,\ 1. 0.24' W. )( O.2ti S. J ) \\ AREAS FOR / \ REQ!JJREMEIIlS , ' / \ / ~~~~BO@FFE~RL~:l_--1 .---/ . .,. / \ \ TOTAL I'e'!1.AND FILL-5.5'11 SF --.. \ \ ------ \ - 1'IA1ER GlIALIT'( 5'fSlEM -----'" !lEE C;ML -- SOUTH v-iETLAND PLANTING PLAN IS . / / "",NQ ' 5GA1..E. II • SOl ... BUFFER ENHANCEMENT PLANT SCHEDULE NAME ATUM ANA SHRUBS SAMBUCUS SYMPHORICARPOS ALBU UPLAND HERBS POL YSTICHUM MUNITUM GRANDIFLORA SWORD FERN 1 GAL BAREROOT GENERAL NOTES: 1. IT IS PREFERABLE THAT THE DESIGN OF THIS PLANTING PLAN SEEK TO REPLICATE NATURAL PLANT COMMUNITIES IN SPECIES COMPOSITION AND ARRANGEMENT. EVEN SPACING AND STRAIGHT-ROW PLANTING ARE NOT DESIRED. 2. A TEMPORARY IRRIGATION SYSTEM SHALL BE INSTALLED WITHIN THE ENHANCED WETLAND BUFFER AREAS. 3. ADD TWO PIECES OF LARGE WOODY DEBRIS (LWD) FOR EACH 1,000 SQ. FT. LWD IS 1 STUMP OR 1 LOG (GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 6" DIAMETER) AND 8-12' LONG. WETLAND CREATION/ENHANCEMENT AREAS PLANT SCHEDULE 4. BAREROOT PLANT STOCK MAY BE USED WHERE SEASONALLY AVAILABLE AND GENERALLY MUST BE INSTALLED DURING THE DORMANT SEASON (APPROXIMATELY OCTOBER 31ST THROUGH FEB 1ST). BAREROOT PLANT STOCK SHALL BE EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN THAT OF THE SPECIFIED CONTAINER SIZE. SYMBOL SYM •• OTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME 1 SIZE REMARKS SHRUBS @ CORNUS SERICEA REDSTEM DOGWOOD 2 GAL 5' O.C. 5. MULCH SHALL BE INSTALLED AROUND ALL TREES AND SHRUBS TO ASSIST PLANT SURVIVAL. THE MULCH SHALL BE MEDIUM GRADE WOOD CHIPS OR BETTER. o LONICERA INVOLUCRATA BLACK TWiNBERRY 2 GAL 3' O.C. ~~~~~~~~-__ +.S~A~LlX~LA~SI~AN~D~RA~----~hP~A~CI~FIC~WI~LL~OW~------_+~ST~AsKE~S--~5·~0~.C~.--~ ::-:-: -SALIX HOOKERIANA HOOKER S WILLOW STAKES 5 O.C. WETLAND HERBS '"-~~ --.~:.::.::.::.: · . ' , .. -CAREX OBNUPTA SLOUGH SEDGE BAREROOT 2' O.C. · ..... -----GL YCERIA STRIATA FOWL MANNAGRASS BAREROOT 2' O.C. ,-.' o· , •• -. -· .... - 0"'0"-'-' LYSICHITON AMERICANUM SKUNK -CABBAGE BAREROOT 2' O.C. .".' 0°,'.'. -· . ' , .. .-.-... " ,'. SCIRPUS MICROCARPUS SMALL FRUITED BULRUSH BAREROOT 2' O.C. ':: . .::: -,:--. -· ..... •• L·." L".·. TELLIMA GRANDIFLORA FRINGECUP · . ---. -• L • , _ 0 .LOL_, TOLMIEA MENZIESII PIGGY-BACK PLANT .--::'«<.: - ** QUANTITIES TO BE DETERMINED IN FINAL MITIGATION PLAN INTERPLANTING NOTES NATIVE TREES, SHRUBS AND HERBS BASED ON MASTER PLANT SCHEDULE. SPECIES AND QUANTITIES SHALL BE DETERMINED BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OR WETLAND BIOLOGIST POST NON-NATIVE VEGETATION REMOVAl. WETLAND BUFFER NATIVE SEED MIX BAREROOT 2' O.C. BAREROOT 2' O.C. ALL NON-NATIVE VEGETATION SHALL BE REMOVED WITHIN THE WETLAND BUFFER. THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OR WETLAND BIOLOGIST SHALL FLAG AREAS PRIOR TO REMOVAL. AREAS WHERE PLANTS HAVE BEEN REMOVED SHALL BE REPLANTED WITH THE NATIVE PLANTS LISTED IN THE MASTER PLANT LEGEND. THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OR WETLAND BIOLOGIST SHALL FIELD LOCATE PLANTS WITHIN THESE AREAS. SEED MIX A: UPPER BUFFER --SEED DISTURBED SOIL WITHIN THE ENHANCED BUFFER. HYDROSEED MIX APPLICATION RA TES PER ACRE: REGREEN STERILE SEED MIX SEED MIXTURE 30LB/ACRE EVERGREEN OR NOTE: 2000 LB ERO-FIBER WOODFIBER MULCH LB SEED MIX AS NOTED 200 LB 25-0-10 40 LB TACKIFIER TO PREVENT RIPPLING ALL POSTS, CAPS, RAILS AND FITTINGS TO BE ELECTROSTATIC PAINTED-COLOR TO MATCH FENCE COATING AS APPROVED BY OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE MAINTEN ANCE ACCESS: DOUBLE GATE -10' OPENING 6' 'I1N'I'L COATED -CLASS 2A (BLACK) 3" OF MULCH -'" FINISHED GRADE DEaDUOUS TREE OR SHRUB PLACE PLANT CROWN NEAR FINISHED SURFACE LINE POST AND BRACE POSTS 2" 1.0., END, CORNER AND PUll POSTS 2 1/2' 1.0. WETLAND BUFFER BOUNDARY • <0 LIGHTlY COMPACTED SOIL MIX WA TERED THOROUGHLY llilIE;. 1. REFER TO SPECS FOR ADD'L INFORMATION. FORM CONTINUOUS 2" HIGH WATERING BASIN BERM ------ADD 10-0-10 SLOW RELEASE FERTILIZER AS PER MFR RECOMMENDED RATE FOR SIZE '----BACKFill 'tilTH SOIL MIX WATER IN f7\~~CO~N~T~AI=NE~R~P~LA~N~TI~NG~DE~T~A=IL---V NOT TO SCALE TOP '" BonOM I''''' RAIL 1 1/4" 1.0. Tl1' FOOTING o CHAIN LINK FENCE DETAIL NOT TO SCAlE l l .. .. FINISH GRADE ONE SIGN EVERY 25 TO 50 FEET, PLACED'MTHIN THE FENCED AREA, ATIACHED TO A METAL OR WOOD FENCE POST, 4 FEET TO 6 FEET AIDVE GRADE ON THE WETlAND BUFFER SIDE OF THE FENCE. f3\ BUFFER BOUNDARY' SIGNAGE \V NOT TO SCAlE DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON JUL 2 9 2004 RECEIVED !L-______ ----------------------------------~----------------------------m-&-'~-~-R-Y~M-O-Tfi_m_c~~~s~m~~~oo~w w ~ Z WW >~ <to W 0::: x W:2 - Z <t 0::: Civil Engineers Structural Engineers Landscape Architects Community Planners Land Surveyors Neighbors mmm TACOMA· SEATTLE 2215 North 30th Street, Su~e 300, Tacoma, WA 98403 253.383.2422 m 316 Occidental Avenue Soulh, Suite 320. Seattle. WA 98104 206.267.2425 TEL 204177.40 RW AME Jul 2.3, 2004 -9: 23am JULY 23, 2004 "nAn, Main Street IBelh.vue, WA 98004 T 454 0566 425 453 B013 CONCEPTUAL PLANTING PLAN W1 • I • l- I-l-I-I (I) (I) • A. A. A. '" u o I " ~ '" F 0 ~ ~ I ,;: W ~ X Z 0 (f) Z « lL X W C) Z Z« oC ::.:::!: .... a:: A. « lLZ (!J W~ Z (f)Z -> ::JW oC a:: 0 A. W x ~ a:: W Z « a:: 0; m o-w' .0 -~ O-~~ ,;,j. tj;;;! ;:;;'i "0 ~" • 0 " l: l: <.> g g ::I '" 0 S Q ~ , il ~ e • • 0 " ~ " u a:: CL CL « w ~ 0 >-rn -- RAINIER MIXED USE PARKING EXPANSION THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, WILLAMETIE MERIDIAN CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON \ 2' ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT CLASS B, WSDOT 5-04 4' MIN. CRUSHED SURFACING TOP COURSE. WSDOT 9-03.9(3) "---C(IMPACTED SUBGRADE, 95% MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY NOTE: N 182079.78 E 1297739.71 \ \ DEPTHS ARE COMPACTED THICKNESS \ PROVIDE 4" pAVEMENT .' Sl' " . STRIPE. TI1'. GRAPHIC SCALE ASPHALTIC CONCRETE PAVEMENT STRUCTURE NOT TO SCALE \ \ :-'c 0'· '. .:, . -,:i . '., . . C? ... ~ASPHALTCONCRETE f1\ ' .... '. '. . 0... . \ R=3' TI1'. . 22.00' . ' . . PAVEMENT STRUClURE~~ .. , '. 00 .' . y--..... /.~R=10 1 .M. I_I~I I~~~I \ \ \ N 182022.36 E 1297790.91 \ \ 6.00' DO EC 90.00' .. L--------------- PAVING PLAN LEGEND SW SIDEWALK @ EC EXTRUDED CURB @ DO CURB DRAINAGE OPENING @ VC VERTICAL CURB @ (R) CHANGE CURB TI1'E/END CURB "'-'--'-""1 ASPHALT CONCRElE PAVEMENT @ r--l/4' EDGED CROOVE .......... . ........ - 4' CEMENT CONCRETE SIDEWALK 0.02 FT/FT SITE PLAN SCALE: 1'=20' COMPACTED SUBGRADE L--_ 2' CRUSHED SURFACING TOP COURSE 4' NOTES: 1. CEMENT CONCRETE SHALL BE CLASS B. 2. COMPACTION fOR CONCRETE WALKS TO BE 95% MAXIMUM DENSITY. 3. EXPANSION JOINTS CONSISTING OF 3/8' BY 4' PREMOLDED JOINT MATERIAL SHALL BE PLACED AT 15 FOOT INTERVALS, OR AS DIRECTED BY THE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS. 1/4' EDGE GROOVE SHALL BE PROVIDED AT JOINT EDGES. 8f----=-'CE:...:......M_E_NT_C~O_N_'_CR_E_T_E -SI-DE-W-A-LK-NO-TTO-SCA-LE O. FOUND 5/8" REBAR ~" ' . W/4" CAP. TRIAD. . ' NUMEROUS LS #'S - ---iii.. ----- N 181980.95 E 1297936.03 i "J, . I 5 1 2' CONCRElE RETAINING WALL W/ 4' CHAIN LINK FENCE. SEE STRUClURAL PLANS FOR DESIGN. SEE SHEET C2.0 I1i FOR DESIGN ELEVATIONS. ~. "-~\.11i L ________ . ___ .. , ___ .•. __ . _,_ ••. .. -.. , .. -... ,. c~")··-\ :,\ ,\ ~,::>, ' " " il 'I " """'1 :y. ;1 x SAWCUT EXST. ASPHALT TO MAKE CLEAN STRAIGHT MATCH LINE. HOT TAR SEAL JOINT. I EXST. BUILDING , I i -., .. : , , • I ! •• \ • : i , .! ' ~ , ' .... -,' '.,,-'. ' , , '. " :. i. I., ~ • i ' : '. '. ' , , . : , '-.. ' -2' ~ PVC @ 40' INTERVALS AND AT ALL LOW POINTS TO PRO'vlDE ADEQUATE DRAINAGE THROUGH CURBS OR LANDSCAPE PLANTER ISLANDS. PIPE TO BE BEVEUUED TO MATCH FACE OF CURB j : , .' I' R ~~7i~i!!1ii'i!llliii:mFl~NmIS~H mGRO~U[iijN;;::...;O GRADE , =m m TTF=T SIDEWALK • <D .' ;1 . ·T. .' ". , '. m-1lm~ t!.QIE CONSTRUCTION SHALL CONFORM TO WSDOT SPEC. 8-04.3 VERTICAL CEMENT CONCRETE CURB NOT TO SCALE IltFDTI t _. 20ft. , i BOTTOII OF ----, CUT/SAWED .IOINT 7 11' INTERVAL 2.1' II' , ". 8 .. -CEBT COIICREIE CURB, W800T SPEc. 8-eM BEE LAllllCAPE PUll FOR FU IIEIIIID CUIIII8 '---2' PVC ? 40' INTERVALS AT LAlllSCAPE LOCATION AND LOW SPOTS FOR DllAltAGE o EXTRUDED CEMENT CONCRETE ~~~ .. c. NOm. t LOCAlE CURl DllAltAGI! OPIJ.las PER PUll. 2. PROVIIE ROCK AiIIIORII8 FROII CURl DllUtAGE OPB .. a TO BOTTOII OF IIHRTRATION SWAU! o CURB DRAINAGE OPENINGS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL lOTTO SCALI! R£\ISE OF DOCUMENTS mrs DI.lOJ4Hr HAS lIEN SOlED ElEcntaIlCNiy 1M A(.W!!]o\H!E .m WAC 18f-2J-0l'G »«I DW'1UI It.J+ Rt'l \)1I!AI/IIKJmD H.mulDl U" ,Illy rF '11-£ lIfQINAlUI (II lHIS llOCIJIID{f -.t tI~AU).l1[ 1WE OOCWlI'lT. WI' <tR1J1CAlICW NOD $1QlA11JE THE lEAS »IJ IOQfS ~16l HElllM. AS: ~ INS1RlIIMT or ~H. SEIM(I, IS 1HE PRCftRTY or Nfl. NCO IS HOT 10 tIE USED, .. 1tf(l£ (II III PNtf, Fa! ANY (l1l£R PRO..ECT IIIHOOT IlE BT1(H NJlI!!lW.1laI (J' NIL CITY OF By ____ _ CHECKED FOR COMPLIANCE TO CITY STANDARDS DEPARTMENT OF By ____ _ --------__ DATE __ _ BY ---------_DATE __ _ PAVING PLAN DATE DESIGNED, DATE'6/07/04 NO. REVISION BY APPR. DATE APPROVED, ~ Z Q)C ::::JO 5irn ~~ ... gJ .~ 3: C "iii c 0:0 -It)C 2£ z o ~ g ...J .. W ~ z or( ... Q. CJ Z -> or( Q. AUG 03 2004 RENTON PUBLIC WORKS z o (jj z ~ w o z 52 a: ~ ~ Cl ~ ~ a: w Z ~ C3.0 FILE NAME, 2038111-<:30 SHEET, 6 OF, 7 d z In o J ...J In I « 1 • • • , I--I--I--I-- I (/) (/) I z a.. 0 a..(!) a..Z I---;~ GS " u '-' Z« ~:s: « . £LZ W~ (!)Z ::::JW a::: o W X ::E a::: W Z « a::: z: ::s 0... W ~ « z: ~ o o ~ I I w ~ o z o (/) G'i a::: '"~" BENCHMARK . --, RAINIER MIXED USE PARKING EXPANSION CITY OF RENTON SURVEY CONTROL NETWORK THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN VERTICAl. DATUM=NORlH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM 1988 METERS (NAVD 88), CONVERTED TO US FEET CITY OF RENTON SURVEY CONTROL POINT 2189 .. -.. ', ", .. r~I~~~I~El DITCH AS . . TO MATCH . - _ EXST. biTCH ~ CULVERT ""--"" --"'-_ ..... .. ... -.. .. -,.-"'" -,-' .... CITY. OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON ........ //. \ ", ..' GRAPHIC SCALE // ./ //l{;;Fm1f! ;" 7!/:~": 2~O .' -"~ 01 '1° '1° 401 )1 /,. _ • I ' , ~ '. ' r:, "I "lfT,"" "\ VI", '--" . ..,\.','.:.',' 1//1 eo I ., .. ~/ ---., ( IN FEET ) ._. __ ",:1'.,:\' 1//1 >;-~~~~'-r-~'~~;t:-:'t-::¥==r=-~-r~A~aiTtrj~t-~~~V!' ., ... ,"I' f/I/'/\ i .... IlL 'ILUU ! f'~EXST. BUILDING \. . TO REMAIN ----""';\'-.--\ ---~ 1 inch = 20 ft.' N:182075.57 E:1297781.45 \ IE=45.50 (24"SE) PROVIDE ACCESS BARRIER AND ROCK INLET ARMORING 4 5 C2.1 C2.1 " -"', _ ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT, CLASS B, 2" MIN. COMPACTED DEPTH / " " .. \ ' \ ' W PROVIDE ROCK PROTECTION ~'-. \gVAT CURB DRAINAGE OP,ENING (rIP. 4 LOCATIONS) "" ....... , .... , .. .. '_, N88'48'49~"C ......;;.""-_.~~.~""~_.j;;'_ .. --'-+~ .. .:... -' -----.......,,~ ~,-:-J~9.J5' .. : - " .. ,. ' -~'-. --'-,,- EXTRUDED CURB WITH 0 3 CEMENT CONCRETE ~ CURB DRAINAGE OPENINGS C3. C3.0 5' EXST. SITE PLAN SCALE: 1"=20' ~I efl !-..·I TO <11 I / I I I . ---, , I \ i I ~OVERLAY EXST. ASPHALT AS NEEDED TO PROVIDE POSITIVE DRAINAGE AWAY FROM PROPOSED WAll SEE STRUCTURAL PLANS FOR CONCRETE RETAINING WAlL DESIGN II !' F '1 AI! V" EX. SOMH TYPE" CTR STUCTURE TOP 46.34 8" CONC IE 42.2 ± (IN-E) 8" CONC IE 41.53 (IN-S) 22" CONC IE 27.66 (IN-W) 6" IE 43.12 (IN-N) 12" CONC IE 39.29 (IN-N) 18" CONC IE 27.56 (OUT-E) EXST. 24" CB I 2, TYPE 2-54' SCALE: 1"=4' '."'1 8' \ lZJit '« " "> .. \(~ L £~ '\,\ 1 'J~\ \ ~ " \ .,' '<I:il . I II I N. I· SMH • ',I ",' , () I ' U I I 1· : I I . ~ >: ., ij: "j ~ ~ I It';' 3!! .. ·1 \ , \' I \ \ \ \ FOUND J" BRASS DISC STAMPED "KC-J-2 1993" 0.1 EAST OF V!£ST EDGE OF CONCRETE SIDEWALK ON lHE \ 1 v.£ST SIDE OF RAINIER AVENUE SOUlH. LOCATED IN FRONT OF U-HAUL RENTAL CENTER AT 453 RAINIER iIJ \ AVENUE NORlH. , mVATION = 54.032' \ TBM I CHISELED SQUARE IN NORTHv.£ST CORNER OF CONCRETE PAD OF POv.£R VAULT LOCATED IN SIDEWALK IN . FRONT OF BUILDING AT ADDRESS NO. 515 ON THE v.£ST SIDE OF RAINIER AVENUE. , mVATION = 46.12' \ 8 \ \ 60~-----r------'------'------r------,--~ \ • \ \ 32·-----... . -... EXfSTIG-' ... 'POPOSED''''-.._-. ., .. ". ...-.. DATUM ELEV '-"--"---.. -"'mIlA Off"" "E' . ATlOW"--"--.-..-.-........ .. 30.00 1+00 1+5tl STORM PROFILE 11 VERTICAL: 1"=5' HORIZONTAL: 1"=20' 2+00 CB#2, TYPE 2-54" ~ 54·· .... ,··"",, .. ·· ...... -' .. --..... . ............ ,., ...... ,,-_._ ...... ,,-... "."'.--.... -·N:l.82041.93E:29/886.18 . ..... ... ""-,."', .. ", .... -,, ... '... . , .. , ... ,' ..... -.. , ..... ,--........ -." "' .. ,--, .. --.. _ .. -filM=4It4T .... -..... "-,, ...... -, .. NATIVE SUBC:RADE:-1 COMPACTED TO 95% MOO ~<;i\;.5'~ ..-..-.---- '-v,<u,nw SURFACING t\Jet',r ;"~illiulI~,""","~N~~~.::..l~ COURSE, 4' MIN. COMPACTED OEPTH BID-INFIL TRA TlON SOIL .-- MIX, SEE NOTE 1 .--~ .-- .--..- .--.--'--.-- 4" PERFORATEO CPEP @ O.OO%, CONNECT TO CB#1 ~Z~~r 3/4" -1 1/2" WASHED ROCK, WIlAPPED WITH FILTER FABRIC WllH 6" MIN. OVERLAP ON TOP NATIVE SUBGRAOE, DO NOT COMPACT NATIVE MATERIAL UNDER BIO-RETENTION SWAlES. NOTES: 1. BIO-INFIL TRA TlON SOIL SHAlL BE 50% CONSTRUCTION SAND, 20-30% TOPSOIL WITH LESS THAN 5% MAXIMUM CLAY CONTENT, AND 20-30% ORGANIC LEAF COMPOST. PH SHAll BE BETv.rEN 5.5 AND 6.5. 0-GRADING SECTION 'A' 2. PLANTING SHAll CONSIST OF NATIVE SPECIES ABLE TO TOLERATE VARIABLE SOIL MOISTURE CONDITIONS, PONDING WATER flUCTUATIONS, ANO VARIABLE SOIL MOISTURE CONTENT. MULCH SHAll BE APPLIED TO THE SWALE BOTTOM 3" MIN. THICK. ALTERNATIVELY lHE BIO-INFlLTRATION SWALE MAY BE HYDROSEED WITH A MOISTURE TOlERANT SEED MIX. IF A SEED MIX IS UTILIZED PROVISIONS SHAll BE MADE TO PROVIDE IRRIGATION OF SWALE. NOT TO SCALE 20' W CEMENT CONCREllE, ASPHALT CONCRETE ~ SIDEWALK W CEMENT CONCRETE,"""", ~EXTRUDED -.......... PAVEMENT, ClASS B, 2" MIN. COMPACTED DEPlH S'RUCTURAL FIll CGNPACTED TO 95% MOD L CI~USHED SURFACING TOP COURSE, 4" MIN. COMPACTED DEPTH 4' CEMENT CONCRETE RETAINING WAll WllH 48" CHAIN LINK FENCE, SEE STRUCTURAL PLAN FOR WAlL DESIGN. OVERLAY EXST. PAVEMENT 52 . '''-''', .. , ... --, .... --........... ..,'---.... , .. -.. -"'-tiC .. · .... --, .. -IE=3950-(12"-S}·---....·····.. . ""-, -. ,----... ...... . ""-'-- 50 ...... -.... _.-, .. -, .... '--' .. ----.. ·--r~~%~~D., .. ~~:~;~.!~~;i!:~~; ....... -.... ....... ..."../ .,.,. ,..... '" 1'R0'l1DLSOLlO.~OCKINGUD, ----t----+ .. -.. -.. --i, -,-. -"".". --------~<. -'-.-.-. ,~ ..•.. --,.--.-- 44 . . """'" 42 . 1+00 1+50 STORM PROFILE 12 2+00 RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL 2+50 REUS!: Of OOCUMENlS nos DOOJIIOH HAS smt 9CHD ElECllIOICAU.Y ~ ACCOI)IIH(t .ttI WAC 1!lli-2l-01(J Nm Q/N'1ER 19.34 ReI. VNN.IIHtWZED oIL1W.llCft fS NiY (E 1I£ If'CAIl~ Of TWS IlOO.IIEHT Il.L ~1IN.mo'IE lIE 0DIlJI«lrI1. MY t;tR~1KtI oW) SK*l1\.OC lltE w.s NtJ ct9<m tj~lOIl1EREl!t AS AN II5lIUlNT Cf Pft<:msnllN.. saMet IS ~ PR<I'Eli:IY ~ ifill. NI) IS HOT 10 1£ 115m. 1M W:l«£ OR II PNll; roil Nfl' (lJ\lR PROLCT wmoor 11£ 'RmH AUIlKIIIZAllCII (I' Nil.. CITY OF € o Z Q)C :::JO C-G>O) >.6 «.c '-.:i .~~ 'iI c a:o -LOC OQ) LOa: Z o I-« () 9 ct w z ~ AUG 03 2004 RENTON r AS NEEDED TO PROVIDE POSITIVE DRAINAGE AWAY FROM RETAINING WAlL VERTICAL: 1"=5' HORIZONTAL: 1·=20' BY _____ _ CHECKED FOR COMPLIANCE TO CITY STANDARDS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS -.. -------___ DATE ___ _ By _____ _ ------------ BY ----------__ DATE __ __ GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN C2.0 CALL 48 HOURS OATE DATE'6!07!04 FILE NAME, 20361 " USED FOR CONSTRUCTION UNLESS BEFORE YOU DIG ~~~~~bb~~~ __ ~~~ ________________________________________________________________ ~N=OT~TO~S=CA=LE~ __ ~~~~~~~~~A~G~EN~C~y~~1;-8~O~O~-424-5555 GRADING SECTION '8' GCH SMC SCALE, 1" = 20' NO. REVISION BY APPR. DATE APPROVED, SHEET, 4 OF, 7 o z m o "") --l m I « a u <0 z t:;J w ::r.: (/) 0:: W e:; U .'I. I r c; _ 1no'23.-. ~ .;, ]" \ \ \ ~--i -,'::::_-., ,-::-;: s~~> RAINIER MIXED USE PARKING EXPANSION ...... ~;, --, " , '," I,. , ; ,-"'l" ~~ THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECllON 7, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN , " CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON ,'. , , ';, " , --,; -" -" ... ' ~\~\'~ \\'.t.X \yci,\··~' " ";1~s \ ~: . '-,'.' _-----·rc0 \ \" . .. . ij!J{d..-- - -' ... , , '\ _ ' __ ~7.~1: .. \ .\.\ " " , ' GRAPHIC SCALE ( IN FEET ) I Inch -40 ft BENCHMARK CITY OF RENTON SURVEY CONTROL NETWORK VERTICAL DATUM=NORTH AMERICAN 'v1ERllCAL DATUM 1988 METERS (NAVO 88), CONVERTED TO US FEET OWNER JDA GROUP LLC 95 SOUTH TOBIN STREET, SUITE 201 RENTON, WA 98055 I ) S 11111H ST .. S 1111\1 ST m o " , ' , \ \ ; ., ., , , CITY OF RENTON SURVEY CONTROl POINT 2189 CONTAC~ JACK ALHAOEFF H I~ I O! 0:: CL CL ~ z o Vi [5 0:: ----..... . --..... -- / """" 00"", fl.-, ·r ~~~p~,..rl::.'''''_-'_' '-...._, _~' I?~P~~~~~~:Y~. \ , "" TO REMAIN \t,. '1.\.:, : :~P.:~ "';_~~~~ .. r,,--' -. -'I ,I &"""" " STIU\"\ , \ ~ 1,;,,-. _~~>-,_ ~ ~ ~"t,c":,:\~' ~"",~.--J~L:1 P~_K_ING_:ANSION ,"--$~-,"--'"4~.~I'-L,.- ~ ~y 'L.-. ----lr, ,_V,; 'h~ ;. ' It\ '. '_ 1_, \ --' ~:~~ ~'::.~: "<y 1\ i -,' , L-_.;;; ~ •• ,'_, _ "''''F , ___ :r.:~: ~;'i .. ' ~.'"./j ... , -Il .~'. . i : I '''' , •. ~~-\, ¢. N 181951.55 ,. , ..•• • : ' .. : , . ':L'l, E 1297963.92 .... I SITE PLAN SCAlE: 1"=40' TRENCH NOTE IF WORKERS ENTER ANY TRENCH OR OTHER EXCAVATION FOUR 00 ~OOE FEET .. DEPTH THAT DOES NOT MEET THE OPEN PIT REQUIREMENTS OF WSOOT SECTION 2-09.3(3)8 IT SHAll BE SHOOED AND CRIBBED. THE CONTRACToo ALONE SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE Foo WORKER SAFETY IND AlB.. ASS\JIIES NO RESPONSIBILITY. ALL TRENCH SAFETY SYSTEMS SHAll UEET THE REQUIREMENTS (F THE WASIINGT<JI INDUSTRIAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ACT, CHAPTER 49.17 RCW. UTILITY NOTE THE lOCAllONS OF EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILIllES ARE APPROXl.tATE MY A/III HAVE NOT BEEN INDEPENDENTLY VERIFIED BY THE OIINER 00 ITS REPRESIENTAlI\£. THE CIJITRACRR SHAll DETERMINE THE EXACT LOCA 110N OF ALL EXISllNG UllL111ES BEFooE COMMEN~ mK All) AGREES TO BE FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY AND All DAMAGES THAT HAPPEN DUE TO llE CONTRACTm'S FAILURE TO LOCATE EXACTLY AND PRESERVE ANY AND ALL UNDERGROUND UllL111ES. AllBL ASSUIIES NO LIABILITY FOR THE LOCA 110N OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. FILL SPECIFICATION FILL MATERIAL SHAll NOT CONTAIN PETROUEUM PROOUCTS, OR SUBSTANCES IHOl ARE HAZARDOUS, DANGEROUS, TOXIC, OR WHICH OTHERVtlSE VlCl.ATE ANY STATE, FEDERAl, OR LOCAL LAW, ORDINANCE, CODE, REGULATION, RULE, ORDER, OR STANDARD. TOPOGRAPHIC NOTE THE EXISTING CULTURAL AND TOPOGRAPHIC DATA SHOWN ON THESE DRAWINGS HAS BEEN PREPARED, IN PART, BASED UPON INFORMATION FURNISHED BY OTHERS. WHILE THIS INFORMATION IS BEUEVED TO BE REUABLE, AHBL CANNOT ENSURE ACCURACY AND THUS IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACCLIRACY OF THAT INFORMATION OR FOR ANY ERRORS OR OMISSIONS WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED INTO THESE DRAWINGS AS A RESULT. AS-BUILT REQUIREMENTS THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAiNTAIN RECORD DRAWING(S) OF ALL UTlUTIES SHOWN ON THE PLANS AND EXISTING UTIUTIES ENCOUNTERED AS CONSTRUCTION PROGRESSES. THESE DRAWINGS SHALL INDICATE DEVIATIONS FROM THE DESIGN PLAN. REFERENCE DISTANCES BETWEEN THE RELATIVE LOCATION OF THE NEWLY CONSTRUCTED IMPROVEMENTS AND A PERMANENT MARKER SHALL BE OBTAINED. THE LOCATION OF STRUCTURES, VALVES, BENDS, ,",'" • ~ ., ':" EXlSllNG CHANG'S ,t ' ' .. , 'i ! RESTAURANT BUILDING • I CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE 1. SURVEY AND FLAG CLEARING LIMITS. • I ~. , " '. ' f" J1'( : I~i 2. SCHEDULE AND ATTEND PRECONSTRUCTION MEETING VtlTH CITY OF RENTON. 3. COORDINATE VtlTH PURVEYOR FOR RELOCATION OF EXISTING UTILTIY POLE. i ' j , i I !, i i , , i : , I : , ; i : ) , 4. PRO'v1DE MISC. DEMOLITION AND CLEAR AND GRUB AREA VtlTHIN CLEARING LIMITS REQUIRED Foo INSTALLATION OF TlEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL FACILITIES. ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL FACILITIES SHOM-! ON THE EROSION CONTROL PLAN SHALL BE INSTALLED PRloo TO, 00 AS A FIRST STAGE OF SITE PREPARATION. 5. PROVIDE CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE, FILTER FABRIC FENCE AND TEMPooARY INTERCEPTOR SWALE AS SHOM-! ON SHEET C1.0. THE 24" CULVERT EXTENSION SHALL BE PROVIDED DURING THE INITIAL STAGES OF CONTRUCTION TO LIMIT OFFSITE FLOWS ONTO THE SITE DURING CONSTRUCTION. 6. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSPECT EROSION CONTROL MEASURES IIffKLY AND PROVIDE REPAIRS AS NEEDED. 7. CLEAR AND GRUB THE REMAINDER OF THE SITE VtlTHIN CLEARING LIMITS AND ROUGH GRADE. PRO'v1DE FILTER FABRIC FENCE AROUND PROPOSED BIO-INFILTRATION SWALES. BIO-INFILTRATION SWALE SOIL SHALL NOT BE PRO'v1DED UNTIL THE REST OF THE SITE HAS BEEN PERMANENTLY STABILIZED. 8. PRO'v1DE COVER MEASURES TO INCLUDE ARMORING, MULCHING AND HYOROSEEDING TO STABILIZE DENUDED AREAS AND PREVENT THE TRANSPORT OF SEDIMENT-LADEN STORMWATER OFF-SITE. 9. PRO'v1DE STORM SYSTlEM. MAINTAIN 6" 'v1ERTICAL AND 3' HORIZONTAL CLEARANCE (OUTSIDE SURFACES) BETVtUN STORU DRAIN LINES AND OTHER EXST. UTILITY PIPES AND CONDUITS. 10. TEST STORM DRAINAGE CONVEYANCE SYSTlEM FOR LEAKS AS WORK PROGRESSES. 11. PROVIDE CATCH BASIN SEDIMENT PROTECTION ON All CATCH BASINS PER DETAIL 4 ON SHEET C1.1. 12. FINE GRADE SITE AND PAVE, COORDINATE VtlTH THE OTY FOR REQUIRED INSPECTIONS. 13. REMOVE SEDIMENT FROM STORM PIPES AND CATCH BASIN SUMPS. 14. STABILIZE ALL REMAINING DISTURBED AREAS. PROVIDE BIO-INFILTRATION Sell MIX IN BlO-INFILTRATION SWALES AND PLANT PER LANDSCAPE PLANS. 15. COORDINATE VtlTH THE OTY OF RENTON FOR FINAL INSPECTION. 16. REMOVE REMAINING TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROl DEVICES WHEN AREA HAS BEEN PERMANENTLY t-+-I -+-+--+------1 TEES, AND RELATED APPURTENANCES SHALL BE INCLUDED. THESE RECORDS SHALL BE ~ AVAIlABLE FOR REVIEW BY THE ENGINEER AT ANY TIME DlRlNG CONSTRUCTION. THE FOUND 3" BRASS DISC STAMPED "KC-J-2 1993" 0.7' EAST OF Yl£ST EDGE OF CONCRETE SIDEWALK ON THE Yl£ST SIDE OF RAINIER AVENUE SOUTH. LOCATED IN FRONT OF U-HAUL RENTAL CENTER AT 453 RAINIER AVENUE NooTH. ELEVATION = 54.032' 118M CHISELED SQUARE IN NORTHYI£ST CORNER OF CONCRETE PAD OF POWER VAULT LOCATED IN SIDEWALK IN FRONT OF BUILDING AT ADDRESS NO. 515 ON THE WEST SIDE OF RAINIER AVENUE. ELEVATION = 46.12' HORIZONTAL DATUM=NORTH AMERICAN DATUM 1983/1991 METERS (NAD 83/91), CONVERTED TO US FEET CITY OF RENTON SURVEY CONTROL PelNT 1899 2 INCH BRASS DISC IN 4 IN X 4 IN CONCRETE POST 'MTH PUNCH MARK, IN MONUMENT CASE AT THE INTERSECTION OF LIND AVE NW AND TAYLOR AVE NW N=55495.849U E=395359,447t.1 OTY OF RENTON SURVEY CONTROL PClNT 1896 FOUND 1 INCH REBAR VtlTH CAP DOM-! 1.7' IN A 10 INCH MONUMENT CASE AT THE INTERSECTION OF TAYLOR AVE NW AND NW 4TH STREET. N=55212.1 03M E=395512.663t.t BASIS OF BEARING NAD 83/91 BASED ON THE BEARING OF N0016'5O"W BETVtUN CITY OF RENTON SURVEY CONTROL MONUMENTS Nos. 158 AND 157. LEGAL DESCRIPTION THAT PORTION OF LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK " LYING SOUTHERLY AND EASTERLY OF THE CENTER UNE Of VACATED SOUTH 123RD STREET; EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF LYING NORTHERLY OF A LINE YtHICH IS 110 FEET SOUTHERLY FROIA AND PARALLEL TO THE SOUTHERLY MARGIN OF SOUTH 122ND STREET; TOGETHER 'MTH THAT PORTION OF LOT 3, BLOCK " LYING WESTERLY OF THE CENTER LINE OF VACATED SOUTH 123RD STREET; AND TOGETHER 'MTH LOTS 4-AND 7, BLOCK 1; -EXCEPT THAT PORTION LYING NORTHERLY AND EASTERLY OF VACATED SOUTH 123RD STREET; AND TOGETHER WITH THE NORTH 150 FEET OF LOT 2. BLOCK 2; THE WEST 61. 72 FEET OF THE NORTH 150 FEET OF LOT 3, BLOCK 2; THE NORTH 125 FEET OF THE EAST 28.28 FEET OF LOT 3, BLOCK 2; THE NORTH 125 FEET OF LOTS 4 AND 5, BLOCK 2; THE NORTH 125 FEET OF THE WEST 14.99 FEET OF LOT 6, BLOCK 2; THE NORTH 140 FEET OF LOT 6, EXCEPT THE WEST 14.99 FEET THEREOF. OF BLOCK 2; AND ALL OF LOT 7, BLOCK 2 AND TOGETHER 'MTH THE SOUTHERLY 100 FEET OF LOT 7, AND ALL OF LOT 8, BLOCK 3; ALL OF BLOCK 5; BLOCK 6; EXCEPT THE SOUTH 192 FEET THEREOF; ALL IN WOOllY GLEN ADDmON, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 47 Of PLATS, PAGES 91 AND 92, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. TOGETHER 'MTH THAT PORTION OF BLOCKS 13 AND 22, LATIMER'S LAKE PARK ADDmON, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 18 OF PLATS, PAGE 63, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, YtHICH LIES EAST OF SAID WOOllY GLEN ADDmON AND WEST OF A UNE DRAWN PARALLEL 'MTH AND 50 FEET WESTERLY YtHEN MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES AND/OR RADIALLY FROM THE CENTER LINE OF PRIMARY STATE HIGHWAY NO.2 (RAINIER AVENUE), AND EXTENDING FROM HIGHWAY ENGINEER'S STATION 80+30 SOUTHERLY TO HIGHWAY ENGINEER'S STATION 88+75; EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF LYING EAST OF THE SOUTH 192 FEET OF BLOCK 6 OF THE PLAT OF WOODY GLEN; AND TOGETHER 'MTH LOTS 1 THROUGH 6, INCLUSIVE, BLOCK 17, LAl1MER'S LAKE PARK ADDmON, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 18 OF PLATS, PAGE 63, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; EXCEPT PORTION CONV£YED TO KING COUNTY FOR ROAD PURPOSES BY DEEDS RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBERS 956173 AND 2032137; TOGETHER 'MTH THAT POR110N OF VACATED NORTHWEST 7TH STREET AS VACATED PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE NO. 3455, RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 8011030532, WHICH, UPON VACATION. ATTACHED TO SAID PROPERTY BY OPERATION OF LAW; AND TOGETHER 'MTH THAT PORTION OF VACATED SOUTH 123RD STREET AS VACATED PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE NUMBER 4357. RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 9206181901, YtHICH, UPON VACATION, ATTACHED TO SAID PROPERTY BY OPERATION OF LAW. ARCHITECT BAYUS ARCHITECTS 10801 MAIN STREET BELLE'vIJE, WA 98004 PH. (425) 454-0566 FAX (425) 453-8013 CONTACT: RICH WAGNER, /lJA CIVIL ENGINEER AHBL ENGINEERS, PLANNERS, & SURVEYORS 2215 NORTH 30TH STREET, SUITE 300 TACONA, WA 98403 PH. (253) 383-2422 FAX (253) 383-2572 CONTACT: MATI 'It£8ER, PE.. ~"". SURVEYOR TRIAD ASSOCIATES 11814 115TH AVENUE NE KIRKLAND, WA 98034-6923 PH. (425) 821-8448 FAX (425) 821-3481 CONTACT: MICK MATHES~, PE SUPPLEt.lENT AL SURVEY PROVIDED BY AHBL. INC. IN JJNE 2004. SITE ADDRESS 505 RAINIER AVENUE NORTH RENTON, WA 98055 PARCEL NUMBERS VICINITY MAP 1" = 1/4 MILES LEGEND EXISTING (~~ DESGRIPTION MONUMENT LIGHT POWER/118U[ POLE GUYIIlRE TELEPHONEMH TELEPHONE RISER CATCH BASIN DRAIN MH CLEANOUT SANITARY MH SIGN HYDRANT FIRE DEP'T CONNECllON WATER VALVE WATER METER TRAfFIC SIGNAL BOX SIGNAL POLE I'1RE FENCE CHAIN LINK FENCE WOOD FENCE CONTOURS PROPOSED • @ • -0-0-0-0- ---£LE\/-' -- 95648001100 ON-SITE CLEARING LIMITS _!,'1! PERMIT QUANTITIES - - -0 - - -STORt.I DRAIN LINE --, -w-- -WATER LINE EARTHWOOK = 1500 CUBIC YAROS (FILL) (QUANllllES ARE FOR PERMIT PURPOSES ONLY, CONTRACTOR SHALL CALCULATE EARTHWORK QUANllllES fOR CONSTRUCllON.) -- -s -- -SANITARY SEWER LINE ROOF DRAIN LINE PROPOSED PAVING FECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL CIVIL SHEET INDEX SHEET DESCRIPliON r-:::CO:,:;;.I--t-:::COVER SHEET CtO DE"OUll~ & T.E.S.C. PLAN C1.1 U.S.C. NOTES & DETAILS f-C:C"02.,O~-=,GR""AOI:c:tIG & DRAINAGE PlAN C2.1 DRAINAGE NOTES & DETAILS C3.0 PA'v1NG PLAN -C~~4-;;.0-t-cN;;'0~R~Tli Yl£TLAND GRADING PLAN ~ NOTTOBE USED FOa CONSTRUCTION UNLESS SIGNED B~ THE,= AGENCY .. --0-- --w- -s-- -RO- I ,,',.' 'I .>:::-' . .':;-, ;,'.,-,:'" : -.: . CITY OF BY _____ _ CHECKEll FOR COMPLIANCE . TO CITY STANDARDS DEPARTMENT OF BY_--'-___ _ ----_______ DATE __ _ BY ---------__ DATE __ _ DATE COVER SHEET GCH GCH SMC DATE, 6/ui/0. SCALE, 1 " STABILIZED VtlTH VEGETATION AND REMOVAL IS APPROVED BY THE CITY. ~ ~ CONTRACTOR SHALL GIVE THESE RECORD DRAWINGS TO TI£ ENGINEER IMMEDIATELY UPON ~~~bd~~~~~ __ ~CO~M~PL~IT~IO~N~OF~~~LJU~TI~UTY~I~NST~A~L~LA~n~ON~. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ~ .................. IIIII NO CALL 48 HOURS BEFORE YOU DIG 1-800-424-5555 REVISION BY APPR, DATE APPROVED, IF "' .. Ie -.-. . .c 1:: o Z 4>1:: ::JO 1::- 4>2' >.- ::j .~~ I:: '(ij c 0:0 -LOI:: 04> LOa: z o ~ g ..J W ..J l-F tu w :::c CI) a: ~ a: w ~ o RENTON PUBLIC WORKS z o ~ X W " Z ~ ~ w CI) ::::> Q w X ~ a: w Z ~ =======1 CO.1 FILE NAME, 203615 COl 40' FIELD BOOI(, PAGe, SHEET, 1 OF, 7 o z [l) o "') ..J [l) I « I--I--I-- I-- I (/) (/) I z a.. 0 a..U1 a..Z « 1------10.. Q o u rn o ~ -- '" w rr x '-' Z« ~~ « -o..Z W~ U1Z ~W 0::: o W X ::2 0::: w Z ~ a C'I II • z: ::J 0... • U · (f) · W I- ~ z: o I-:::i o ~ w o () ~ I "" 11.. 11.. « w ';:;: o >-m z o iii GS "" ci z RAINIER MIXED USE PARKING EXPANSION THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN FNiY, 1/2" REBAR/CAP./' LS#15661 0.24' W. X 0.25 S. . '; , CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON ..... \ .. ', . . :e '" .", , , ': " " : " " . \\ : \ i " \ \ ;;~~' \ \ C\, \, \, \ P. \ \ 1 ~,~~, ' , , . , -- '~-1 ~ ~ ~ ~S-2 PRO'l1DE TEMPORARY INTEIRCEP'TOR'--;; SWALE TO PRE'I1ENT Off SITE· RUNOff . ..' FROM ENTERING SITE. GRADE SWALE TOWARDS PROPOSEO CB, PRO'l1DE INlET PROTECTION FOR CB. TEMPORARY SOIL STOCKPILE AREA. SEE STOCKPILE NOTES ON SHEET C1.1 . r" , " ; r EXSf. BUILDING. 2<l , V TO REt.lAIN I ", ," • .' J GRAPHIC SCALE ( IN FEE'!' ) , \ \ . i \ , EXST CANOPY, TO BE REMO'IED BY OI'lNER . 1 Inch -20 It. FLAGGED AS \ "CL DITCH" TO EAST (STREAM CaNT W'LY) \ WETLAND TO BE FILLED ~----k...... ~-'-SS-5 --SS-3 , ss- --= II R R CULVERT EXTENSION DURING [ INITlAL CONSTlRUCllON TO UMIT ' . OFf SITE FLOWS ONTO SITE DURING CONSTlRUCTlON. SEE SHEET C2.0 FOR STORM DESIGN :;5-1 CONSTRUCTION TRAAlC R 48 , R --------~·==~~~~~~2~~ i':,® ,-----L _________ _ \ .. Fotrl'lO g!!i'~3A", .. ,±J \W/4" .CAP, TRIAD,' \ '. ' . NUMEROUSLS #'s' L--__ -'-________ -:-_ 2'8~~~~;~7"E _____ .--.... --.:...f:~~ ---, T .E.S.C. NOTES. t SEE CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE ON SHEET CO. t 2. AT A MINIMUM, ALL T.E-S,C, FEATURES SHALL BE INSPECTED AND IIAiNTAINED PER THE SGHEDULE PRO'l1DED ON THIS SHEET, SITE PLAN SCALE: 1"=20' POWER POLE w/ . LUMINAIRE AND UNDFRGROUND RI T.E.S.C. LEGEND TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ENTlRANCE @ STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION @ FILTER FABRIC FENCE @ SAWCUT EXST ASPHALT AT PROPERTY LINE AND DEMOLISH EXST. ASPHALT ON SITE, . , '! . DEMOLISH EXSl CHAIN UNK FENCE SET MAG NAIL I ASPHALT PARKING,.l:O'r RELOCATE EXSl UllUTY POLE. COORDINATE RELOCA llON IIHH PURVEYOR DEMOLISH EXST CURB r PROTECT EXST. / ~AINLINK FENCE 'f ~ PROTECT EXST, '/ UGHT STANDARD. x:x SAWCUT AND DEMOLISH EXST. ASPHALT ON SITE. / EXSf. BUILDING 3. IF A WELL IS ENCDUNTER£D DURING CONSTRUCTION. THE CONTlRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE CITY OF RENTON PRIOR TO ABANDONING PER DEPARllMENT OF ECOLOCY STANDARDS. 4, THE CONTlRACTOR SHALL BE FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE LOCATION AND PROTECllON OF ALL EXlST1NG UTILITIES. THE CONTlRACTOIR SHALL VERIFY ALL UTIUTY LOCA llONS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION BY CALLING THE UNDERGROLND LOCATE UNE AT 1-800-424-5555 A MINIMUM OF 48 HOURS PRIOR TO ANY EXCAVATION, @ ® ® ® ® CLEAR PLASTIC CO'l1ERING, SEE PLASTIC COVERING NOTES ON SHEET CLf TEMPOIRARY SEEDING. SEE HYDROSEEDING NOllES ON SHEET CLf. SEEDING ON THE B10-INFIL TlRA TlON AREAS SHALL BE PER THE BIO-INFIL TlRA TlON SWALE SEED MIX ON S. ALL DEMOUSHED MATERIAL SHALL BE DISPOSED OFf SITE IN AN APPRO'IED LOCATION. 6. COORDINATE IIlTH PURVEYOR FOR RELOCATION OF EXlSllNG UTIUTY POLE. INSPECTION SCHEDULE FOR ESC FACILITIES EROSION CONTlROL AND SEDIMENT CONTlROL (ESC) FAOUllES SHALL NOT BE ALLOMD TO FALL INTO DISREPAIR. ALL ESC FACIUTIES SHALL BE INSPECTED AS A MINIMUM. ACCORDING TO THE FOLLOIllNG SCHEDULE: DRY SEASON (MAY 1 -SEPTEMBER 30): ONCE A WEEK WET SEASON (OCTOBER 1 -APRIL 30): DAILY. AND AFTER EVERY RAINFALL E'I1ENT PRODUCING RUNOFf. NEEDED REPAIRS SHALL BE MADE IIlTHIN 24 HOURS OR IMMEDIATELY IF POSSIBLE. SHEET cn @ CLEARING UMITS ® TEMPOIRARY INTERCEPTOR SWALE @ ~ ASPHALT DEMOLITION EX. SOtvlH TYPE II eTR STUCTURE TOP 46.34 8" CONC IE 42,2 ± (IN-E) 8" CONC IE 41.53 (IN-5) 22" CONC IE 27,66 (IN-W) 6" IE 43.12 (IN-N) 12" CONC IE 39.29 (IN-N) 18" CONe IE 27,56 (OUT-E) \ , AECOUMENDED FOR APPROVAL BY _____ _ BY _____ _ BY CALL 48 HOURS BEFORE YOU DIG 1-800-424-5555 NO. \ \ EX. TOf 8" BENCHMARK CITY OF RENTON SURVEY CONTlROL NETWORK VERTICAL DATUM=NORTH AMERICAN 'I1ERTICAL DATUM 1988 METERS (NA\u 88), CONVERTED TO US FEET CITY OF RENTON SURVEY CONTlROL PONT 2189 FOUND 3" BRASS DISC STAMPED "KC-J-2 1993" 0.7' EAST OF WEST EDGE OF CONCRETE SIDEWALK ON THE WEST SIDE OF RAINIER A VENUE SOUTH. LOCATED IN FlRONT OF U-HAUL RENTAL CENTER AT 453 RAINIER A'I1ENUE NORTH. ELEVATION = 54.032' llBM CHISELED SQUARE IN NORTHWEST CORNER OF CONCRETE PAD OF POWER VAULT LOCATED IN SIDEWALK IN FlRONT OF BUILDING AT ADDRESS NO. 515 ON THE WEST SIDE OF RAINIER A \£NUE- ELEVATION = 46.12' EROSION CONTROL NOTES. t BEFORE ANY CONSTlRUCTlON OR DE'I1ELOPMENT ACTI'IITY OCCURS, A PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING MUST BE HELD WITH THE CITY OF RENTON DEPARllMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, DESIGN ENGINEER. 2. ALL UMITS OF CLEARING AND AREAS OF VEGETATION PRESERVATION AS PRESCRIBED ON THE PLAN SHALL BE CLEARLY FLAGGED IN THE FIELD AND OBSER'IED DURING CONSTlRUCTlON. 3. ALL REQUIRED SEOIMENTATlON/EROSlON CONTlROL fACIUTlES MUST BE CONSTRUCTED AND IN OPERATION PRIOR TO LAND CLEARING AND/OR OTHER CONST1RUCTION TO INSURE THAT SEDIMENT LADEN WATER DOES NOT ENTER THE NATURAL ORAiNAGE SYSTEM. ALL EROSION AND SEOIMENT FAOUTIES SHALL BE MAINTAIN£D IN A SATISFACTORY CONDlllON UNTIL SUCH TIME THAT CLEARING AND/OR CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETED AND POTENTIAL FOR ON-SITE EROSION HAS PASSEO, THE IMPLEMENTATION, MAINTENANCE, REPLACEMENT AND AOOITlONS TO EROSION/SEDIMENTATION CONTlROL SYSTEMS SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBIUTY OF THE PERMITTEE- 4, THE EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTlROL SYSTEMS DEPICTED ON THIS DRAIIlNG ARE INTENDED TO BE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS TO MEET ANTIOPATED SITE CONDITlONS. AS CONSTlRUCllON PROGRESSES AND UNEXPECTED OR SEASONAL CONDITlONS DICTATE. THE PERMITTEE SHALL ANTICIPATE THAT MORE EROSION AND SEOIMENTATION CONTROL FAOUllES 'MLL BE NECESSARY TO INSURE COMPLETE SILTATION CONTlROL ON THE PROPOSEO SITE. DURING THE COLRSE OF CONSTRUCTION. IT SHALL BE THE OBUGA TlON AND RESPONSIBIUTY OF THE PERMITTEE TO ADDRESS ANY NEW CONDITIONS THAT MAY BE CREATED BY HIS ACTI'IITIES AND TO PRO'llDE ADDITlONAL f AOUTlES, OVER AND ABOVE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS, AS MAY BE NEEDED TO PROTECT ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND WATER QUALITY OF THE REC8'11NG DRAINAGE SYSTEM. 5. APPROVAL OF THIS PLAN IS FOR EROSION/SEDIMENTATION CONTlROL ONLY. IT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN APPROVAL OF STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN. SIZE NOIR LOCATION OF PIPES, RESTlRICTORS, CHANNELS, OR RETENTION FACiliTIES. 6. DlillNG THE TIME PERIOD OF NOVEMBER 1 THROUGH MARCH 31. ALL PRO.ECT DISnlRBED SOIL AREAS GREATER THAN 5.0OD SQUARE FEET, THAT ARE TO BE LEFT UNWORKED fOR MORE THAN TWELVE (12) HOURS, SHALL BE COVERED BY MULCH. SODDiNG, OR PLASTIC CO'l1ERING, 7. IN ANY AREA MilCH HAS BEEN STlRIPPED OF VEGETATION AND IWiERE NO FURTHER WORK IS ANTICIPATED FOR A PERIOD OF 30 DAYS OR MORE. ALL DISTURBED AREAS MUST BE IMMEDIATELY ST AIlIUZED 'MTH MULCHING, GRASS PLANTING OR OTHER APPRO'IED EROSION CONTlROL llREAllMENT APPUCABLE TO THE TIME OF YEAR IN QUESnON. GRASS SEEDING ALONE IIlLL BE ACCEPTABLE ONLY DURING THE MONTHS OF APRIL THROUGH SEPTEMBER INCLUSIVE. SEEDING MAY PROCEED, HOWE'I1ER, MiENE'I1ER IT IS tI THE INTEREST OF THE PERMITTEE, BUT MUST BE AUGMENTED 'MTH MULCHING, NETllNG. OR OTHER T1REAllMENT APPROVED BY THE CITY OF RENTON. OUTSIDE THE SPECIFIED TIME PERIOD. 8. FOR ALL EROSION/SEDIMENTATION CONTlROL PONDS MiERE THE DEAD STORAGE DEPTH EXCEEDS 6 INCHES, A FENCE, A MINIMUM OF 3 FEET HIGH IS REQUIRED, 'MTH 3: 1 SlOE SLOPES. 9. A TEMPORARY GRA'I1EL CONSTlRUCTlON ENTlRANCE, 24' X 50' X 8" OF 4-TO 6- INCH QUARRY SPALLS SHALL BE LOCATED AT ALL POINTS OF VEHICULAR INGRESS AND EGRESS TO THE CONSTRUCTION SITE. REUSE ~ I)IJ(UIENlS lIS IIOCIIDT KAS IIEJt 9IHII na:1IKIICotlV IN IICQIIINI[( .1H lAC 1.2J-CJ70 Nt) CHIIP1ER 'I.:W ReI. IIIM11H111lED ,.._lICIIlI" MY (f H 1FtIII.Io1llll ()t 'IllS IJOIlINOO aL NWUlA'I: II OOClIOIt lilY CER1fICAQ NIl _"ME. II: IDS MIl DESOtS tteCII'OtAlEO I£IDt. AS AN ICSlIUfJIT a ~It. U\1C[, IS IE f'IIIIffAlT (f NIl MID IS MOT 10 !If USED, II IItIl.E (II " PMT, FIll Nfr OIlER I'IIO£T lIIHOOT 11£ Wlro AUIlQlIAlDI (F IHL CITY OF ..t:. 15 z G>C ;:,0 C-G>g> <1: UJ L.a:I .G> 3: C 'iii c a:.s LOC f6£ .. Z o ~ o o -I j D.. o cd ill ...,: o z « ~ E -I o ::! ~ ct w z ~ <II VI 0:: W Z z 4: ...l C. RENTON z o ~ w o z ~ ~ o w ~ ::! a: w z ~ CHECKBJ FOR COMPLIANCE TO CITY STANDARDS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS -----______ DATE __ _ ----------DATE __ _ DEMOLITION & T.E.S.C. PLAN C1.0 DAllE DATE, 6/07/04 FILE NAME, 203615-C1 SCALE, , •• = 20' FIEI.O BOOKI PAGEl REVISION BY APPR. DATE APPROVED, SHEET, 2 OF, 7 o z m o ""') -I m I « l- I- l-I- I (/) (/) I z a.. 0 a..(f) a..Z « 1---10.. X W D u D z w ~ " D ~ 0 ~ Q ({ i Ii! ~ w rr x o Z« ~~ « -Q..Z W~ (f)Z ::>w ~ o w X ::2 ~ W Z « ~ " w , ~ 0 0 ~ 0 ~:::.. ?'~ e c "'Q 'z ~~ :"z G'2 " 0 L ~ :c III g z • ~ 0 (/) --.J E§ o ~ (/) W I-o :z · C> · (f) · W · I- g 0 ::I II) " ~ " Q Q < '" 0.- 0.-« w !;( 0 >-In z o (I] [;j '" o z I HYDROSEEDING NOTES. 1. HYDROSEEDING SHAll BE APPLIED IN ACCORDANCE 'MTIl TIlE "EROSION CONlROL NOTES' ON TIllS SHEET. 2. HYDROSEEDING TO BE TIlE FOLLO'MNG MIXTIJRE: (EXCEPT MITIGATED I'I[TLAND BUFFER AND I'I[TPOND SHOULD FOllOW TIlE MIXTIJRES LISTED BELOW). WE OF PROPORllONS PERCENT PERCENT MIXTIJRE BY I't[lGHT PURITY GERMINA 1l0N REDTOP (Agostis alba) 10% 92% 90% ANNUAL RYE (Lolium multiforum) 40% 9B% 90% CHEI'.ING FESCUE (Festuca rubra commutata) 40% 97% BO% (Jamestown, Bonner, Shadow, or Koket) WHITE DUTCH CLOVER (Trifolium repens) 10% 96% 90% 3. APPLICAllON TO BE 100 LBS/ACRE. 4. 500 LBS/ACRE 10-20-20 FERllLlZER, 2000 LBS/ACRE WOOD FIBER CELlULOSE AND 40 LBS/ACRE SOIL BINDER OR TACKING AGENT TO BE APPLIED WlTIl SEED MIXlURE. 5. SEED BEDS PLANTED BETI't[EN MAY 1 AND OCTOBER 31 v.lLl REQUIRE IRRIGAllON AND OTIlER MAINTENANCE AS NECESSARY TO FOSTER AND PROTECT TIlE ROOT SlRUClURE. 6. FOR SEED BEDS PLANTED BETI't[EN OCTOBER 31 AND APRIL 30, ARMORING OF TIlE SEED BED WIll BE NECESSARY. (E.G., GEOTEXllLES, JJTE MAT, CUEAR PLASllC COVERING.) 7. BEFORE SEEDING, INSTAll NEEDED SURFACE RUNOFF CONlROL MEASURES SUCH AS GRADIENT TERRACES, INTERCEPTOR DIKES, SWAUES, UEVEL SPREADERS AND SEDIMENT BASINS. B. TIlE SEEDBED SHALl BE FIRM 'MTIl A FAIRLY FINE SURFACE, FOLLOWING SURFACE ROUGHENING. PERFORM All OPERAllONS ACROSS OR AT RIGHT ANGUES TO TIlE SLOPE. 9. FERllLlZERS ARE TO BE USED ACCORDING TO SUPPLIERS RECONMENDAllONS. AMOUNTS USED SHOULD BE MINIMIZED, ESPECIAllY ADJACENT TO WATER BODIES AND I'I[TLANDS. 10. SEED SHAll NOT BE USED IN AREAS SUBJECT TO WEAR BY CONSlRUCllON TRAmC. BIO-INFIL TRATION SWALE SEED MIXTURE WE OF MIXlURE PROPORllON BY W8GHT TAll FESCUE (ALTA, BOYAGER, ORFAWN) 70% ANNUAL RYE (LOLIUM t.lUL llFORUM) 20::' WHITE CLOVER (lRIFOLIUM REPENS) 10% MULCHING NOTES. 1. MULCH MATERIALS USED SHAll BE HAY OR SlRAW, AND SHAll BE APPLIED AT THE RATE OF 2 TONS/ACRE. (MIN. 2" TIlICK) 2. MULCHES SHALl BE APPLIED IN All ARLAS 'MTH EXPOSED SLOPES GREATER THAN 2:1. 3. MULCHING SHAll BE USED IMMEDIATELY AFTER SEEDING OR IN AREAS WHICH CANNOT BE SEEDED BECAUSE OF THE SEASON. 4. All AREAS NEEDING MULCH SHAll BE COVERED BY NOVEMBER 1. SOIL STOCKPILE NOTES. 1. STOCKPIUES SHAll BE STABILIZED (I'.ITH PLASllC COVERING OR OTHER APPROVED DEI1CE) DAILY BETI't[[N NOVEMBER 1 AND MARCH 31. 2. IN ANY SEASON, SEDIMENT UEACHING FROM STOCK PIUES MUST BE PREVENTED. 3. TOPSOIL SHALl NOT BE PLACED WHlUE IN A FROZEN OR MUDDY CONDIllON, WHEN THE SUBGRADE IS EXCESSIVELY I'I[T, OR I'IHEN CONDIllONS EXIST THAT MAY OTHER'MSE BE DETRIMENTAL TO PROPER GRNlING OR PROPOSED SOODING OR SEEDING. 4. PREIJlOUSL Y ESTABLISHED GRADES ON THE AREAS TO B£ TOPSOIUEO SHAll BE MAINTAINED ACCORDING TO THE APPROVED PLAN. PLASTIC COVERING NOTES. 1. PLASllC SHEEllNG SHALL HAVE A MINIIMI THICKNESS (f 6 MILS AND SHALl MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE STATE STANDARD SPEaFICAllONS SECllON 9-14.5. 2. COVERING SHAll BE INSTALlED AND MAINTAINED llGHTLY IN PlACE BY USING SANDBAGS OR llRES ON ROPES 'MTH A MAXlUUM 10-FOOT GRID SPACING IN All DIRECllONS. ALl SEAMS SHALl BE TAPED OR I't[lGHTED DOWN FUll LENGTH AND THERE SHALl BE AT UEAST A 12 INCH OvmLAP OF ALl SEAMS. 3. CLEAR PLASllC COVERING SHAll BE INSTALlED IMMEDIATELY ON AREAS SEEDED BETI't[EN NOVEMBER 1 AND MARCH 31 AND REMAIN UNllL VEGETAllON IS FIRMLY ESTABLISHED. 4. WHEN THE COVERING IS USED ON UN-SEEDED SLOPES, iT SHAll BE KEPT IN PLACE UNllL THE NEXT SEEDING PERIOD. 5. PLASllC COVERING SHEET SHAll BE BURIED TWO FEET AT THE TOP OF SLOPES IN ORDER TO PREVENT SURFACE WATER FLOW I£NEATH SHEETS. 6. PROPER MAINTENANCE INCLUDES REGULAR CHECKS FOR RIPS AND DISLODGED ENDS. RAINIER MIXED USE PARKING EXPANSION THE SOUTHWEST QUAR I ER OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, WILLAME I I E MERIDIAN CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON .c:. '0 ,,; FILTER FABRIC MATERIAL-----~ MIRAFI 100 NS OR EQUIVAUENT PROP. LINE OR I'I[TLAND BUFFER LINE 2' X 2' BY 14 GA. 'MRE FABRIC OR EQUIVALENT, AmX TO POST (LOGA TED ON DOWNHill SIDE OF FILTER FABRIC) PROI1DE 3/4' - 1 1/2' WASHED GRAVEL BACKFIll IN TRENCH AND ON BOTIl SIDES OF FILTER FENCE FABRIC ON TIlE SURFACE 2.0' MIN." --+----.I'---.f' '0 ,,; 2' X 4' WOOD POST :-----------l~~ OR STEEL FENCE POST FILTER FABRIC MATERIAL 60' 'MDE,---, CONllNOUS, ROLLS -USE RINGS TO ATTACH TO I'.IRE FABRIC '0 N EXISllNG GRADE 8' SIDE VIEW 'MRE FABRIC OR EQUIVALENT BURY BOTTOM OF FILTER MATERIAL IN 8'X12' TRENCH 6' MAX. ____ .,I-------::....:::.~--------+ -----2' X 4' Y«JOD POSTS, STANDARD OR BETTER, FRONT VIEW OR STEEL FENCE POST FIL TER FABRIC FENCE DETAIL NOT TO SCAUE .-----EDGE OF EXISllNG PAVEMENT FIL TER FABRIC FENCE NOTES. 1. FILTER FABRIC FENCE SHALl BE PURCHASED IN A CONllNUOS ROLl AND CUT TO TIlE UENGTH OF THE BARRIER TO AVOID USE OF JOINTS. I'IHEN JOINTS ARE NECESSARY, FILTER CLOTH SHAll BE SPLICED TOGETHER ONLY AT A SUPPORT POST, 'MTH A MINIMUM 6-INCH OVERLAP, AND SECURELY FASTENED AT BOTH ENOS TO POST. 2. POSTS SHALl BE SPACED A UAXlMUM OF 6 FEET APART AND DRIVEN SECURELY INTO THE GROUND (MINIUUM OF 3D INCHES). 3. A TRENCH SHALl BE EXCAVATED APPROXIMATELY 8 INCHES 'MOE AND 12 INCHES DEEP ALONG THE LINE OF POSTS AND UPSLOPE FRON THE BARRIER. THIS lRENCH SHALL BE BACKFILlED VtlTH WASHED GRAVEL. 4. YflEN STANDARD STRENGTH FILTER FABRIC IS USED, A VtlRE UESH SUPPORT FENCE SHAll BE FASTENED SECURELY TO THE UPSLOPE SIDE OF THE POSTS USING HEAVY-DUTY 'MRE STAPUES AT UEAST 1 INCH LONG, llE WIRES OR HOG RINGS. THE 'MRE SHAll EXTEND INTO THE TRENCH A MINIMUM OF 4 INCHES AND SHAll NOT EXTEND MORE THAN 24 INCHES ABOVE THE ORIGINAL GROUND SURFACE. 5. THE STANDARD SlRENGTH FILTER FABRIC SHALl BE STABUEO OR WIRED TO FENCE, AND 20 INCHES OF THE FABRIC SHALl BE EXTENDED INTO THE TRENCH. THE FABRIC SHAll NOT EXTEND MORE THAN 24 INCHES ABOVE THE ORIGINAL GROUND SURFACE. FILTER FABRIC SHAll NOT BE STAPUED TO EXlSllNG TREES. 6. WHEN EXlRA-STRENGTH FILTER FABRIC AND CLOSER POST SPACING IS USED, THE I'.IRE MESH SUPPORT FENCE MAY BE ELIMINATED. IN SUCH A CASE, THE FILTER FABRIC IS STAPUED OR 'MRED DIRECTLY TO THE POSTS 'MTH ALl OTHER PROI1S1ONS OF ABOVE NOTES APPLYING. 7. FILTER FABRIC FENCES SHAll NOT BE REMOVED BEFORE THE UPSLOPE AREA HAS BEEN PERMANENTLY STAB1L1ZED. 8. FILTER FABRIC FENCES SHAll BE INSPECTED IMMEDIATELY AFTER EACH RAINFALl AND AT UEAST DAILY DURING PROLONGED RAINFALl. ANY REQUIRED REPAIRS SHALl BE MADE IMUEDIATELY. 9. SILT FENCES VtlLL BE INSTALUED PARALlEL TO SLOPE CONTOURS. 10. CONTRIBUllNG UENGTH TO FENCE WIll NOT BE GREATER THAN 100 FEET. 11. DO NOT INSTALl BELOW AN OUTLET PIPE OR WEIR. 12. INSTAll DOWNSLOPE OF EXPOSED AREAS. 13. DO NOT DRIVE OVER OR FIll OVER SILT FENCES. GEOTEXllUE --jb'Sl __ FABRIC CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE NOTES. 1. MATERIAL SHAll BE 4 INCH TO 8 INCH QUARRY SPALlS AND MAY BE TOP-DRESSED 'MTIl 1 INCH TO 3 INCH ROCK. (STATE STANDARD RElRIEVAL STRAP (TO BYPASS PEAK STORM VOLUMES) "--I--CATCH BASIN 1: o z Cl)e :::70 e-Cl)0l >.!;;; "2j .!l3= e '(ij c 0:0 -tOe g~ Z o ~ () g w z o Cli ~ >< W " Z ~ ~ ~ ::::> o w >< ::E 0: W -Z ~ SPEClFlCA 1l0NS, SECTION 8-15.) 13003 SEDIMENT ONLY ACCUMULAllON ~ R = PER PLA,N----I 12' MIN. 4'-8' QUARRY SPALlS ____ ...J UEVEL BOTTOU _-,,,"7'7,/~, ,,7>., ~, MIN. r"':-I-L.2-, M-IN.--:'I GRASS OR ROCK 1 r7:':\ /,,-,,", ",,,,«(,\(, -// 2. THE ROCK PAD SHALl BE AT UEAST 12 INCHES THICK AND 50 FEET LONG. VtlDTH SHALl BE THE FUll 'MDTH OF THE VEHlCUE INGRESS AND EGRESS AREA. 3. ADDITIONAL ROCK SHALl BE ADDED PERIODICAllY TO MAINTAIN PROPER FUNCllON OF THE PAD. 4. IF THE PAD DOES NOT ADEQUATELY REMOVE THE MUD FRON THE VEHlCUE WHEELS, THE I'IHEELS SHAll BE HOSED OFF BEFORE THE VEHlCUE ENTERS A PAVED STREET. THE WASHING SHAll BE DONE ON A AREA COVERED 'MTH CRUSHED ROCK AND WASH WATER SHALl DRAIN TO A SEDIMENT RETENllON FACILITY OR THROUGH A SILT FENCE. TEMPORARY INTERCEPTOR SWALE NOTES. 1. SEED AND MULCH SHALl BE APPLIED 'MTHIN 5 DAYS OF SWAUE CONSTRUCllON. (SEE HYDROSEEOING NOTES) 2. NO EROSION SHAll OCCUR IN THE SWALE. PROIJIDE ENERGY DISSIPAllON MEASURES AS NECESSARY WHICH MAY INCLUDE ROCK ARMORING OF SIDE SLOPES. TEMPORARY INTERCEPTOR SWALE NOT TO SCAUE PROIJIDE CATCH BASIN SEDIMENT PROTECllON 'MTH STREAt.tGUARD BASIN INSERT #3003, FRON FOSS ENI1RONMENTAL 7440 W. t.tARQNAL WAY S. SEATTUE, WA ~81OB-4141 PHONE: 1-800-909-3677 INLET SEDIMENT PROTECTION NOT TO SCALE RECOt..U:NDED FOR APPROVAL By _____ _ By _____ _ By _____ _ NO, USED FOR CONSTRUCTION UM.ESS SIGNED BY AGENCY CHECKED FOR COMPLIANCE TO CITY STANDARDS ___________ DATE __ _ ----------_ DATE __ _ DATE REVISION BY APPR. DATE REUSE C1' DOCUMENTS 1115 DDDMMT HIlS BEEN SIftlI OfCIItCIICN.1Y II ACIXIIWta: WIH WAC 111-2J..lI7O ,.. QW>18t 'lt34-ReI. l.IIAlJlItCRZEO AlL1ERA1DI1F MY (J" H NtRI/,,1QI til 'IllS IIOCIMNI M.1 IffllIMlE 11£ DOCIIIDIT, III' ClII1lf1CAlItIt AND SDt,lr,1IJIE. 1HE IDS .. Il!JQft ffI:CJI'(ItA1EII1DEIf, AS AN IN51IIII(IIT (F ~ SIR\1(£ IS 1IIE I'II(I'OIIY (F IHl ,.., IS NOT TO • I.r.lD, .. HIE at 1M PMr, RR NfY ODEll I'ROI:CT .'lfClJr Jl£ .l1m AlJ1IIIJIV.1KIM (J' N8... CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS T.E.S.C. NOTES & DETAILS C1.1 DATE, 6/07/04 FILE NAME, 203615-C11 SCALE, AS SHOWN APPROVED, SHEET, 3 OF, 7 d z CD o "'") ...J CD I « t-2; 0 r--t-" . t-8 I I N t-:;'-0 I en en I z 0...0 o...(f) o...~ f----lo.. o o X W <.9 z« ~3: « -o..z w~ (f)z :::>w 0:: o W X :?: 0:: W Z « 0:: :z ::s 0.... w ~ :z « n::: Cl o ~ I I II! a:: [L [L « w !;( o z a (I) ~ a:: a z RAINIER MIXED USE PARKING EXPANSION THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN BENCHMARK CITY Of RENTON SUR'In C(}ITROL NETWORK ~RTlCAL DATUM=NORTH AMERICAN ~TlCAL DATUM 1988 MElERS (NAW 88), C(}I~TlED TO US FEET CITY Of RENTON SUR~Y C(}ITROL POINT 2189 . CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON \ GRAPHIC SCALE \', FOUND 3" BRASS DISC STAMPED "KC-J-2 1993" 0.1 EAST Of I't£ST EDGE Of CONCRElE SIDEWALK ON THE I\£ST SIDE Of RAINIER A~NUE SOUTH. LOCATED IN FR(}IT Of U-HAUL RENTAL CENTlER AT 453 RAINIER A~NUE NORTH. .t::. 'E U) \:~i r ~_ r=ii~'I~~i __ ~~~~~~i j 0'\ z - _ EXST. DITCH ~ ---"'-"';'.....--- --~ \ N:182075.57 E:1297781.45 \ IE=45.50 (24"SE) PROVlDE ACCESS BARRIER AND ROCK INLET ARMORtNG r RI,GRADE DITCH AS NEEDED TO MATCH NEW CUL~T ~-..:------.--~ -- . ·1 -~ " . \ \ ~EXST. BUILDING TO REMAIN ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = 20 tt. ~ ~ ~""~==---'-c~;SD~.,2.-I--~ EXISTlNG STORM , SD--\-1\\-----so------=~·;O------SD .. -----so-.. ·---so ------so / ~O~RLAY EXST. ASPHALT AS 1-)'\--.J<:.~ NEEDED TO PROVlDE POSITl~ ~-;;:?" DRAINAGE AWAY FROM PROPOSED -WALL \ \ \ \ W PROVIbE ROCK PROTECTl(}l L'-. .~.' AT CURB DRAINAGE OPENING (TYP. 4 LOCA TlONS) . , ' ,. ~-,--. -----""--. N88'4B' 49"E ~~~ -------159.15' FOUNO 5/8" REBAR W/4"CAP. TRIAO, NUMEROUS LS #,S ..... \''' ... .. . '. ,-,tt STRUCTURAL PLANS FOR CONCRETE RETAINING WALL DESIGN SITE PLAN '-U ,!Trw EXST. ASPHALT CONCRETE roNrnE~ ~ EXTRUDED CURB ~TH 2 CURB DRAINAGE OPENINGS C3.0 C3.0 SCALE: 1"=20' / / I PA ~MENT, CLASS B, 2' MIN. COMPACTED DEPTH 5' TO i/ f-". / 8/ / / NATlVE SUBIGRAI1E--' COMPACTED TO 95% MOO EXST. CRUSHED SURFACINGTo)(~ ""';>Jl""""~Wl!.~y.-..~~~~..:!&il'L COURSE, 4" MIN. COMPACTlED DEPTH 4' PERFORATlED CPEP 0 O.Oor., CONNECT TO CBll E:2h~;;;:;iL 3/4' -1 1/2" WASHED ROCK, YtRAPPED ~TH FlLTlER FABRIC \\1TH 6' UIN. OVERLAP ON TOP NATl~ SUBGRADE, DO NOT COMPACT NAll~ MATERIAL UNDER BIO-RETENTlON SWALES. NOTES: 1. BIO-INFILTRATlON S~L SHALL BE 50% CONSTRUCTlON SAND, 20-30% TOPSOIL ~TH LESS THAN 5% MAXIMUM CLAY CONTENT, AND 20-30% ORGANIC LEAF COMPOST. PH SHALL BE BEMEN 5.5 AND 6.5. 2. PLANTlNG SHALL CONSIST OF NA Tl~ SPECIES ABLE TO TOLERATE VARIABLE SOIL MOISTURE CONDITlONS, PONDING WATER FLUCTUA TlONS, AND VARIABLE SOIL MOISTURE C(}ITENT. MULCH SHALL BE APPLIED TO THE SWALE BOITOM 3" UIN. THICK. ALTERNATl~LY THE BIO-INFILTRATlON SWALE MAY BE HYDROSEED II1TH A MOISTURE TOLERANT SEED MIX. IF A SEED MIX IS UTlLlZED PROVlSl(}lS SHALL BE MADE TO PROVlDE IRRIGA Tl(}l Of SWALE. 0-GRADING SECTION 'A' NOT TO SCALE 20' W CEMENT CONI::RElE, ~ ASPHALT CONCRETE ~ SIDEWALK PA~MENT, CLASS B, 2" MIN. COMPACTED DEPTH W CEMENT COOCRETE-......... ~EXTRUDED ~ ~~~~ 4' I I CEMENT CONCRETE RETAINING WALL II1TH 48" CHAIN LINK FENCE, SEE STRUCTURAL PLAN FOR WALL DESIGN. . /XST. BUILDING r--- 46f--- 42 40 38 32 DATUM ELEV 30.00 I . 1+00 .... , ;, ',., -It " EX. SOMH TYPE II (CTR STLL~~ ~:i0:\'~i. lOP 46.34 ~ ,I; l! j« l' 8" CONC IE 42.2 ± (IN-E) i. Fil 8" CONe IE 41.53 (IN-S) r· '11 22" CONG IE 27.66 (IN-W) i' I 6" IE 43.12 (IN-N) : ;: 'I 12" CONG IE 39.29 (IN-N) 1·>,51 18" CONe IE 27.56 (OUT-E) r:;, 1 ~ '-:-'.-'H j' i ~~ : \ !.J : \ i , , , t. '. , , I ' -1-" i :, ""I TYPE 2 -54' CB . ,I, , -'",,;! ~, .. I ,. ,-" ~ ::::r: EXST. 24" CB-2, TYPE 2-54' SCALE: 1'=4' 'r'~ ':; : CB#2. TYPE 2->4" • ........ ... .... ... . ............ . 1+50 2+00 STRUCTURAL FILL COMPACTlED TO 95% MOD CRUSHED SURFAONG TOP COURSE, 4" MIN. COMPACTED DEPTH r O~LAY EXST. PAVEMENT AS NEEDED TO PROVIDE POS1Tl~ DRAINAGE AWAY FROM RETAINING WALL STORM PROFILE -2 AECOYoAENDED FOR APPROVAL '" -----------___ EXST. GRADE ________ -' --------------------- GRADING SECTION 'B' NOT TO SCALE ~RTlCAL: 1"=5' HORIZONTAL: 1"=20' BY _____ _ USED FOR CONSTRUCnON UNLESS AGENCY BY _____ _ BY CALL 48 HOURS BEFORE YOU DIG 1-800-424-5555 NO. \ ELEVA Tl(}l = 54.032' • \ TBM Cl)c :::JO c~ (I) OJ' '. CHISELED SQUARE IN NORTHWEST CORNER Of C(}ICRETE PAD Of POIIER VAULT LOCATlED IN SIDEWALK IN , FR(}IT Of BUILDING AT AOORESS NO. 515 ON THE I't£ST SIDE OF RAINIER A~NUE. ELEVATlON = 46.12' 60,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,--, 581·· ..... . ............... + ... , .. ,·· .. 1··· ... " 32, .•.. -......... _ ... _-....... '_ ............. _-_ ..... , ~.·:-........... _.~I~IIU;\ ... ,-:1 . -.. . DATUM ELEV ,\ L fLVAIiUN .. .... --_ ....... . ~OO ~ ;~ ~~ 1+00 1+50 2+00 STORM PROFILE -1 2+50 ~RTlCAl: 1"=5' HORIZONTAL: 1"=20' REUSE ~ DOCIJIIENTS lIS DOClIeIT HAS amc 9IHD ELECIRQICItlY II IiCaRIMI:E lI1H w: '9B-2.HJ70 MD CIIAP1fR lUI IICI. IIIItIIDIOAI2lt M.DAlIIJt fllIf'f (F ll£ IFlIIIUolllJt ON 1'IIS OIJQ.IOT -.c. IIY.UlAlE K IXIIlMJIT, IIY mnFlCA1QI .¥II DAI\IIE 11[ IDS MID DeIIJIS IIt:tfIP(IIAlEO 1tEIIIN, AS • IIS1IUENl fI l'IICf'E2IQIoIC. SERW:t. IS H' PIIIJ'fRrf or MIl. NIl IS MDT 1tI lIE U!E), IN 'Hl.E (II II PMr, fill Iff( 01I£R PRO.ECT 'OIOOT 11£ IIIT1EII MlHIIZA1I(Jt (F ,... >"~ «.t::. ~~ "~~ c "iii c 0:0 -IOC 0(1) 100: Z o ~ g W ...J ~ z ~ ~ Z ~ o o z « o z ~ CITY OF RENTON CHECKED FOR COMPLIANCE TO CITY STANDARDS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS -----______ DATE __ _ --------___ DATE __ _ GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN C2.0 DATE DESIGNED, DATE, 6/07/04 FILE NAME, 20361 SCALE, 1" = 20' REVISION BY APPR. DATE APPROVED, SHEET, 4 OF, 7 d z m o ""') ...J m I « I--4" f) I--, ,-I I I-0 .. I-I~ :0-I ~ (I) (I) I z a.. a.. 0 a.. (/) z « 0.. X W g <..:) z« 0 v ~3: 0:: « A o..z w~ 0 d (/)z ~ ::>W 0:: 0 0 Z w m X 0 " :2 0:: W -z « 0:: ~ m ~ W ~ ~ m ~ w " < " -- 1 " " W ~.~ ~ < 0 ~ ~; 0 ~ " ~ , ,< , 2 " 0 " Z ~ a I Ul !Q g < g g Iii ~ z ~ ot; , " 0 I <. .. ~ w ~ x r- ot; I , , !l-II! w f--, < z '" ~ ~ ..-.... " s 'i~ I/) I~ (/) -.l ~ 0 ~ (/) w I-0 :z W C) <: :z <: n:::: 0 ~ -, "0 ~u~ " ;:S?:15 0 "W. " ,0 w ::]08 z 0,< 0 "0 .-z~ " " -~ g U :::E on , " ~ 0 • • • • n:: (L (L « w !;;: 0 >-m z o (f) :> w n:: a Z I RAINIER MIXED USE PARKING EXPANSION NOTES: THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, WILLAME I I E MERIDIAN CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON 1. All SlEEL PARTS MUST BE GALVANIZED AND ASPHALT COAlED (lREATt.tENT 1 OR BETlER) 2. CPEP St.tOOTH INTERIOR PIPE REQUIRES BQ TS TO SECURE BARRIER TO PIPE. \\£U) ENOS TO FRAME r 1/2' GALV. BOLTS OR ..t:. t: SURFACE NOTES & WATER DRAINAGE SPECIFICATIONS 1. BEFORE ANY CONSTRUCTION OR DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY OCCURS, A PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING MUST BE HELD WITH THE CITY OF RENTON PLAN REVIEWER. 2. ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE "1994 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR ROAD. BRIDGE AND MUNICIPAL CONSTRUCTION" PREPARED BY W.S.D.OJ .• AND THE AMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS ASSOCIATION (APWA). AS AMENDED BY THE CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS. 3. THE SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE SYSTEM SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED ACCORDING TO THE APPROVED PLANS WHICH ARE ON FILE IN THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS. ANY DEVIATION FROM THE APPROVED PLANS WILL REQUIRE WRITTEN APPROVAL FROM THE CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS OR SURFACE WATER UTILITY. 4. A COPY OF THESE APPROVED PLANS MUST BE ON THE JOB SITE WHENEVER CONSTRUCTION IS IN PROGRESS. 5. DATUM SHALL BE NAVD 88. UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS. REFERENCE BENCHMARK AND ELEVATION ARE NOTED ON THE PLANS. 6. ALL SEDIMENTATION/EROSION FACILITIES MUST BE IN OPERATION PRIOR TO CLEARING AND BUILDING CONSTRUCTION, AND THEY MUST BE SATISFACTORILY MAINTAINED UNTIL CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETED AND THE POTENTIAL FOR ON-SITE EROSION HAS PASSED. 7. ALL RETENTION/DETENTION FACILITIES MUST BE INSTALLED AND IN OPERATION PRIOR TO OR IN CONJUNCTION WITH ALL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, SURFACE WATER UTILITY. 8. GRASS SEED MAY BE APPLIED BY HYDROSEEDING. THE GRASS SEED MIXTURE, OTHER THAN CITY OF RENTON APPROVED STANDARD MIXES, SHALL BE SUBMITTED BY A LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AND APPROVED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, SURFACE WATER UTILITY. 9. AUL PIPE AND APPURTENANCES SHALL BE LAID ON A PROPERLY PREPARED FOUNDATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 7-02.3(1) OF THE CURRENT STATE OF WASHINGTON STANDARD SPECIFICATION FOR ROAD AND BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION. THIS SHALL INCLUDE NECESSARY LEVELING OF THE TRENCH BOTTOM OR THE TOP OF THE FOUNDATION MATERIAL AS WELL AS PLACEMENT AND COMPACTION OF REQUIRED BEDDING MATERIAL TO UNIFORM GRADE SO THAT THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF THE PIPE WILL BE SUPPORTED ON A UNIFORMLY DENSE UNYIELDING BASE. ALL PIPE BEDDING SHALL BE APWA CLASS "e", WITH THE EXCEPTION OF PVC PIPE. ALL TRENCH BACKFILL SHALL BE COMPACTED TO MINIMUM 95 % FOR PAVEMENT AND STRUCTURAL FILL AND 90% OTHERWISE PER ASTM D-1557-70. PEA GRAVEL BEDDING SHALL BE 6" OVER AND UNDER P.V.C. PIPE. 10. GALVANIZED STEEL PIPE AND ALUMINIZED STEEL PIPE FOR ALL DRAINAGE FACILITIES SHALL HAVE ASPHALT TREATMENT #1 OR BETTER INSIDE AND OUTSIDE. , 11. STRUCTURES SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED WITHIN 10 FEET OF THE SPRING LINE OF ANY STORM DRAINAGE PIPE, OR 15 FEET FROM THE TOP OF ANY CHANNEL BANK. 12. ALL CATCH BASIN GRATES SHALL BE DEPRESSED 0.10 FEET BELOW PAVEMENT LEVEL. 13. OPEN CUT ROAD CROSSINGS THROUGH EXISTING PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY WILL NOT BE ALLOWED UNLESS SPECIFICALLY APPROVED BY THE CITY OF RENTON ADMINISTRATOR, DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS. 14. ROCK FOR EROSION PROTECTION OF ROADSIDE DITCHES, WHERE REQUIRED, SHALL BE OF SOUND QUARRY ROCK PLACED TO A DEPTH OF 1 FOOT AND MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING SPECIFICATIONS: 4"-8"/40 %-70% PASSING; 2"-4" ROCK/30%-40% PASSING; AND -2" ROCK/l0%-20% PASSING. 15. ALL BUILDING DOWNSPOUTS AND FOOTING DRAINS SHALL BE CONNECTED TO THE STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM, UNLESS APPROVED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, PLAN REVIEWER lOR SURFACE WATER UTILITY. AN ACCURATELY DIMENSIONED CERTIFIED AS-BUILT DRAWING OF THIS DRAlNAG~i SYSTEM WILL BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY OF RENTON UPON COMPLETION. Ii 16. ISSUANCE OF THE BUILDING OR CONSTRUCTION PERMIT BY THE CITY OF RENTON DOES NOT RELIEVE THE OWNER OF THE CONTINUING LEGAL OBLIGATION AND/OR LIABILITY CONNECTED WITH STORM SURFACE WATER DISPOSITION. FURTHER, THE CITY OF RENTON DOES NOT ACCEPT ANY OBLIGATION FOR THE PROPER FUNCTIONING AND MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM PROVIDED DURING CONSTRUCTION. 17. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING ADEQUATE SAFEGUARD, SAFETY DEVICES, PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT, FLAGGERS, AND ANY OTHER NEEDED ACTIONS TO PROTECT THE LIFT, HEALTH, AND SAFETY OF THE PUBLIC, AND TO PROTECT PROPERTY IN CONNECTION WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF WORK COVERED BY THE CONTRACT. ANY WORK WITHIN THE TRAVELED RIGHT OF WAY THAT MAY INTERRUPT NORMAL TRAFFIC FLOW SHAUL REQUIRE AN APPROVED TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN BY THE TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DIVISION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS. ALL SECTIONS OF THE W.S.D.O.T. STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS 1-07-23, TRAFFIC CONTROL, SHALL APPLY. 18. SPECIAL DRAINAGE MEASURES WILL BE REQUIRED IF THE PROJECT LOCATION IS WITHIN THE AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA (APA). ~~ DDDu )~ 20' x 24' A I~I ~~ltITrttHHritftE~~1 A 10' x 12' L 1 1 J I L ,I I I hi ~ :- 1" £111 I~ -L ~ d ~ nv Jb< F-~~I ~~18~' X'.!::::!.!'22""'~' :'.."='-S/8'::::!!o, -i~r-!f' ALL BARS 5/8'-1 / . I ALL SLOTS l'...J 01 AN NOlES: J:..!.QU. SECTION A-A 1) USE 'MTH STANDARD PLAN B-20 FRAME. 2) MAlERIAL TO CONFORM TO WSDOT STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS 9-05.15(2). (0 !~~~E GRATE SECTION ~~R~N~~:~~~LEP~R~O~T~EC~T~IO~N~ ____________ _ NOTES: 1) TRENCH WIDTH SHALL BE AS SPECIFIED IN SECTION 2-09.4 OF THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS. 2) PIPE ZONE BACKFILL SHALL BE AS SPEaFIED IN SECllON 7.08.3(3) OF THE STANDARD SPEaFlCA TIONS. 3) TRENCH BACKFILL SHALL BE PER WSOOT STANDARD SPEClFlCAllON, 7.08.3(3). 4) THE MINIMUM COVER FOR CPEP SHALL BE 2' IN PAVED AREAS SUB.ECT TO VEHICULAR TRAFFlC AND l' IN LANDSCAPE AREAS. TOP OF SUBGRAOE ~ I W (SEE NOlE 1) I TOP OF--.-" SUBGRADE """-~~7TI~~~~~~~~~~ 2:0<~ '. O.~ Q... D'<. D. :<~~ , ;-;,. 00 Gk . 00' O. ~ , k"«'<// .. 0° 00' 00 () :<';(/):(,; « .. .. ---,- '" r'\ .~, r'\ cJ GRAVEL __ '" v L.-{Jol v t:,~ BACKFILL """ I.r1 FOR PIPE I~ ZONE BEDDING WSDOT 9-03.12(3) Q THERMOPLASTIC PIPE " " , " v.:::') .. O· .. 0" . 0·, p,,," ",(" "-%' ,-:, CL.:. Q .:...9 ~ 0 ';",."-,-PIPE ZONE .;(. 00 00 00 0-:-' BACKFILL . '0' . , '0 .. '0' .. ,'( t:, ~ 00.0.0 ~8 . 0 0"'" .".' . GRAVEL ) .. 'OY '\'0 ~.( S. ~N ~ BACKfILL . O. . , . O. 0 ~ FOR PIPE ~oOr 000 -+V-/ '" ZONE BEDDING 0 0 0 ; .,/:> t> 0 t> ~ ;;:: WSDOT 9-03.12(3) 0000 0 0 v 0 v 0 v 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 FOUNDAllON--.,..., 000000000000 ( t:, LEVEL __ , 0 o~o~o~o~o __ ~ __ ~ DUCTILE IRON PIPE 3 BEDDING & BACKFILL PIPE IN TRENCHES NOT TO SCALE RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL 4' D.C. MAX. BAR SPAONC--------- 3/4' DIA. BAR-FRAME-"- "....... NON-CORROSIVE BQTS ~1\ AND NUTS - 1\ I ~..::::::::::::::::-~ "'-3/4' DIA. St.tOOTH BARS 'MTH ENOS FRONT VIEW VtflDm TO BAR-FRAME 3/4' DIA. SMOOTH BARS WITH --, ENOS I'1ELDED TO BAR-FRAME ,-----2'xS' ANCHOR STRIPS WELDED TO 3/4' DlA. BAR-FRAME. 4 PLCS. SPACED UNIFORMLY FASlEN 'MTH 1/2' GALV. OR NON-CORROSIVE BOLTS I< NUTS. PIPE COUPUNG II BEVELm PIPE END SECTION 3'-5' FOR 18' DIA. 5'-8' FOR 24' DIA.] 7'-9' FOR 30' DIA. SIDE VIEW ACCESS BARRIER DETAIL NOT TO SCALE I *8' * UNLESS OTHERWISE NOrm ON PLANS :z J ::II ~o EXISTING AND/OR \ -~dwt A PROPOSED GROUND r:. ~ /'0 _ ....Y j/ -<0 -I 4~--'O~O~07~otd>' -~""-.J • 12' MIN. DEPTH (12'_ PIPE) 4 t.flN. FAa: 18' MIN. DEPTH (lS' -18', PIPE) QUARRY ROCK 24' MIN. ( 24'-36', PIPE) SECTION INLET /OUTFALL ROCK PROTECTION NOT TO SCALE o Z G>C :::JO 5i"5 >.f; <(.fij L..a:I . G> ;:: C "iii c 0:0 ..... II)C OG> 11)0: . " Z o ~ o o ..J w ~ I- Cf) ..J ~ 0 0 Z <{ Cf) 5 z w 0 <{ Z « 0: 0 z 0 -Cf) Z <{ a.. X w 0 Z -~ 0: <{ a.. w Cf) :::> 0 W X ~ 0: W -z « 0: By _____ _ DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS By _______ _ -_________ DATE __ _ By ______ _ -------___ DATE __ _ DATE NO. REVISION BY APPR. DATE DRAINAGE NOTES & DETAILS o C2.1 z ~CH GCH SMC APPROVED, DATE'6/07/04 SCALE, AS SHOWN III o FILE NAME, 2036'5 C2' "') FELD BOOK. PAGe, SHEET, 5 OF, 7 ..J III I « o v " z m o " -- " ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ I Z 0 (f) Z « 0- X W 0 Z« ~3; n::: « " O-Z W~ (l)Z ::>w n::: 0 w x :::E n::: w -Z « n::: ;,; • ~!::.. ",~ " 5~ -):.1 ';i'" ::;2 >-" 0 I Z C .... A. CJ Z -> C A. z o if) G:i 0::: o z RAINIER MIXED USE PARKING EXPANSION THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, WILLAME I I E MERIDIAN CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON 2' ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT CLASS B. WSOOT 5-04 ~ t: \ \ !, . I PROPOSED BOUNDARY _ _ I ~ ADJJSTt.tENT :E ----....,.--________ --- --1--135.96r' -- \ N 182078.24 E 1297925.70 -- • "wAHBL' EC \ ~ EXST. BUILDING '-' \ N 182079.78 E 1297739.71 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ N 182022.36 E 1297790.91 R~3' TYP. 22.00' 6.00' ... -'. . ~PRO~DE 4" PA~MENT , '. R~5' ~ . . STRIPE, TYP: &··~ASP. HALf CONCRETEW~ .' .•.. . PAI9.tENT STRUCTURE~ . . ...." . . . 00 EC 90.00' \ FOUND 5/8" REBAR ~ W/4" CAP. TRIAD, \ NUMEROUS I,S #'S .'----------------------- PAVING PLAN LEGEND SW SIDEWALK @ EC EXTRUDED CURB @ 00 CURB DRAINAGE OPENING @ VC ~RllCAL CURB @ CR) CHANGE CURB TYPE/END CURB r---'I ASPHALT CONCRETE PA~MENT @ r--1/4" EDGED GROO~ CEMENT CONCRETE SIDEWALK 0.02 FT/FT SITE PLAN SCALE: 1'~20' COMPACTED SUBGRADE '----2' CRUSHED SURFACING TOP COURSE NOTES: 1. CEMENT CONCRETE SHALL BE CLASS 8. 2. COMPACllON FOR CONCRETE WALKS TO BE 95% MAl<lMUM DENSITY. 3. EXPANSION JOINTS CONSISllNG OF 3/8' BY 4" PREMOLOED JOINT MATERIAL SHALL BE PLACED AT 15 FOOT INTERVALS, OR AS DIRECTED BY THE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS. 1/4' EDGE GROO~ SHALL BE PROVIDED AT JOINT EDGES. N 181980.95 E 1297936.03 I I 1d 5 1 2' I' R SIDEWALK '\ ~ • " .. q ". TO REMAIN • PL i--~ \.~ CONCRETE RETAINING WALL wi 4' CHAIN UNK FENCE, SEE STRUCTURAL PLANS FOR DESIGN, SEE SHEET C2.0 FOR DESIGN ELEVA 110NS. X x i . ~ SAWCUT EXST. ASPHALT TO MAKE OLEAN STRAIGHT MATCH UN£. HOT TAR SEAL JOINT. / EXST. BUILDING 2' • PVC (I 40' INTERVALS AND AT ALL LOW POINTS TO PRO~DE ADEQUATE DRAINAGE THROUGH CURBS OR LANDSCAPE PLANTER ISlANDS. PIPE TO BE BE~LLED TO MATCH FACE Of CURB NQ1E CONSTRUCllON SHALL CONFORM TO WSDOT SPEC. 8-04.3 GRAPHIC SCALE . .. I I ....... TI , _. 10ft. , i i ." MIN. CRUSHED SURFACING TOP COURSE. WSOOT 9-03.9(3) '---COIAPAC'IED SUBGRADE. 95% MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY tiOlE; DEPTHS ARE COMPACTED THICKNESS ASPHAL TIC CONCRETE PAVEMENT STRUCTURE NOT TO SCALE IOnOll OF ---, CUTIIAWED .IOIIT , 111' III1III¥AL 10' • g& .. _ u.scAPI! PLAII FOR FU ... CURII '---r PVC , 4f11111111¥AL8 AT LAIIIICMII! LOCA1IOII AIID LOW 8POTI FOR DIIAIIA. o EXTRUDED CEMENT CONCRETE ~~~ IIOlD t. LOCAlI CURl DIIAIIA. OPII.I. PIR lUlL I. PIIOVIDI! ROCK ~"I FROII CURl DIIAIIA. orl!l.11 TO BOnOll OF 1IHI'L11IA1IOII.WAI.! o CURB DRAINAGE OPENINGS !lOT TO SCAl.! REUSE Of OOCUIIENlS 'IllS 000JIIIUfl HAS EIEEM 9QIBI ~., II ~ .1M 1II\C .... lJ-01O MIl OW'TBI 19.;)I.1lCI. UMNJIHIIIZDI IIllERAlDI fK .IHY (I' 111: 1filliA1QI QI DIS OIXUIENT aL IlYALOAE 1£ IIOCI.IIOt ..... IIR1IFICAlQI Nt) DAlIIIE. lIE lEAS 0\11) lIDIQIS 16(X111(RA1EII1EIBN, AS lIN ICS1IUEIfT If' I'lKftSSl(Wrlfi SENI. IS '&£ I'IlCFERTY (I' If&. NIl IS f«lT TO II: !nED, .. IHClE <1111 PMI, RJI MY OTI£R PIIO.ICT ntIlIT 11£ am AU'IIICRlA1IIJI1J' Na.. o Z (l)C ::JO C-(I)~ >.-~j .~ 3: C '(ij c 0:0 -IOC ~~ Z o ~ o g w F I- z III( .... Q. CJ Z -> III( Q. RECOUMENDED FOR APPROVAL CHECKED FOR COMPLIANCE TO CITY STANDARDS CITY OF RENTON By ____ _ DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS By ____ _ ---_______ DATE __ _ z o (j'j z « a.. X w " z ~ ~ £) ~ ~ 0: W Z ~ BY ----------OATE __ _ PAVING PLAN o C3.0 z 8 CEMENT CONCRETE SIDEWALK 4 ~-'--'----­ NOT TO SCALE VERTICAL CEMENT CONCRETE CURB NOT TO SCALE CALL 48 HOURS BEFORE YOU DIG 1-800-424-5555 DATE NO. REVISION BY APPR. OATE, 6/07/04 SCALE, 1" • 20' DATE APPROVEO, FILE NAME, 2031,8-C30 PEl[) BOOKI_ SHEET, 6 OF, III o "") ..J III :::c « l-I-l-I- I (f) (f) I z c...o c...(j) c...~ f-----1[L >< W o u ci z m o ~ (? z« ~3e « -[LZ w~ (j)z :JW n:: o W >< ::2: ~ II • w !;;: o >-rn z o iii ~ 0:: o z GRAPHIC SCALE 40 I ,. I .. I i ( IN FEET ) 1 Inch = 20 It. PARCEL # '1564800001 w .. I NE~ ECO BLOCK ~ALL 4' HEIG>HT EXPANDED ~ETLAND AREA = ;3 ,5'11 (EQUALS AREA OF ~ETLAND FILL SHO~N ON A002) BENCHMARK RAINIER MIXED USE PARKING EXPANSION OTY OF RENToo SURVEY CONTROL NETlll)RK VERTICAl DATUM=NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAl DATUM 1988 METERS (NAW 88). CONVERTED TO US FEET OTY OF RENTOO SURVEY CONTROL POINT 2189 THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON FOUND J" BRASS DISC STAMPED "KC-J-2 1993" 0.7' EAST OF WEST EDGE OF CooCRETE SIDEWALK 00 THE WEST SIDE OF RAINIER AVENUE SOUTH. LOCATED IN FRONT OF U-HAUL RENTAl CENTER AT 453 RAINIER ... " ..... . ; r . "- ~/iJ~ •• 5). ·~~l··.··.·. J?I£. .' .. ' .. 9< . ........ ' If:.,.. .. -.--~ . --.... --.. :--:-. --'"'- \ ... ~ --- 1 IL... . . ~ ----,' l' " I~ . "-"' . . ." --------'J"'~ . ~ . '.' . .. . ." '.J \ .' .. . S·· ." ..... \ . '. . ! . ••• , , , •• <." • , ~ '~,!,,-< ., i "l ' A VENUE NORTH. . , ElEVATION = 54.032' I . , . I :TeM \ \ " ¢HISElED SQUARE IN NORTHWEST CORNER ,or\6~ FRooT OF BUIlDING AT ADDRESS NO. 515.ON . /ElEVATION = 46.12" ) .: .' "\:~~~r 'vAULT LOCATED IN SIDEWALK IN '. RAINIER AVENUE. a.... \ .. \ .. . .,. ..::-53-. ..' .. .. ' ~:~,~ .... . ..... ~..... ..\; "~~.' \ ........ \ ~ETLAND (CLASS 2) i ·i . . '. OTE: REGRADED SLOPE AND WETLAND .' EA SHAlL BE SEEDEO/PLANTED AS D~ECTED BY WETLAND BIOLOGIST . .,," "\ ' .. ...... . . . . . . . -'1 \\1' NOTE: EXISTI~G STRUCTURE SHAlL BE SQ~ '\ PROTECTED AND REMAIN IN PLACE. RIM --------\ AND INVERT ElEVATIONS SHAUL REMAIN \'2..--------\ THE SAME AS EXISTING. HOWEVER. ________ \ EXISTING STRUCTURE MAY BE REQUIRED ________ \ TO BE RELOCATED UPSLOPE If D~EMED SO \ NECESSARY BY ENGINEER. " . -~-., "', \ EX. CB TYPE II (CTR TOP 48.74 6" PVC IE 46.35 (IN~S) 12" CMP IE 43.51 (IN/OUT w) 24" CONC IE 24.93 (OUT w) NOTE: W. END 24" NOT FND, • • >. ENHANCED ~ETLAND ~---~,.:,;.:.-~. ',-:.,.' :..;.' ',-:.,.' :..;.' '.,:...' ~~~~-------tl;t\-e AREA = 1,800 SF AREA OF REDUCED E3UFFER = 5,028 SF ...... L-____ =--~--.I.-_ .... '.' .th.' .. ' . -----... Y ,/ ~" ... '. 1.>""- REA OF INCREASED f----+----.. UFFER = 5,028 SF . . . . . " . / .. <.p >0° . / .. ~ .. I r (. '-.,. ... '. "0:' " -. .. "5 .. .So······ . () ." .... 'ss' <1S!!tr"~ Ii}, '§<' ' .. ". '. . :,; ;':.'" . . . : ',:-' .' ' . . " ... ~. :.p . . .. . ..... "...... . . • • _ • L . " . "~W .. . '\. : ,". n ......... ,....... . ..... . -. ·"r· ..... ., .. ! .... ' ..• , . .... iJl' .. ' . • ............ . . .......... . . ,,>" . • • . • . • ., "( . . . . . .........• " .. ", .. . . E. CB TYPE '11' (CTI\ STUCTURE) '. .. o~ 4765' (:±oj' .AaiNe GROUND) . "\CMPIE 46.15 (OliT E) ' .. OJE~W: .K.NOGKQU,T, ~REENED} \ . .\ .\ .. , , \ \, .. ..\ . , . . , >\ .. ·.·'\-IMIT OF ' \ . »</~UTURE BLDG>. \ . . . <lONS TRUC TI ON" 'v' \ .' .. I \ I \\ ..... . . •. '.\1, .......... j . . . . . J . , \ . "'\' " I',~.;" - . / .' , , i '. , \ { \ '. \ \ \ L: t: o Z G>C :::JO co;:;. G> ..... >.§;;; «ij L..a:I .~~ c 'iii c: a:: 0 .... LOC oG> LOa:: Z o ~ g -I z :) a... w ~ 4: a:: o o ~ " Z ~ o z ~ ~ Z ----------- ----------,..,. w , 0 <Do t') • <Oil) p- ".. . ... , ...... , ........ . , ...... .". .<» / \ , .... ~ " ......." ,,~~>~~-~ •.........• --., o~---___ ""-_ __....;N~87"31·56·W z - -137.45·----... - -....;;,.----J , ) '. SITE PLAN SCALE: 1"=20' I I i?/. , - "'"--..-..,..;.---:> . .. ~." E/ N. , It r·_·····_···· _ .... _50-=_"'_'. . 55·' -~~-. / ':"u·:: --. -,. \" "c" -", ,,' . .:" .'\ ! ,,-,,', . , '-, \' \ ' \ ... , \ . \ '-, \ \ ' FIECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL \ BY _____ _ BY _____ _ BY CALL 48 HOURS BEFORE YOU DIG 1-800-424-5555 NO. ) '~" . ':, , , , / / '\ , "'-'" CHECKED FOR COMPLIANCE TO CITY STANDARDS ___________ DATE __ _ -__________ DATE __ _ DATE REVISION BY APPR. DATE REUSE ~ DOCUMBflS 1115 OOWIIOO HM lIEN SI!lD ElfClROICMJ.y It IIIXXIIlNIa: l11li _ 1II-ZJ-01II ...., 0W1IR It~ IIC'I. lIOOJIICIIIZED /lIUlAIQI IF .... Y (J' 1£ tRlRNAlIDN (If IIfi DOaIIEJIT ti NWUlAlE lIfE IXJlIIEHT. 11'1' CIR1IFICAlKIt NIl _Ir.1IJE 111: lOS NIl [t!JQtS ItCQIP(RllED HEIIlN. AS AN IMS1IUOT (J' f'll(F[S9(JlAI, $EINIX. 15 III: PIKI'(IfIY IF NtIIl Nt) IS NOT 10 !IE' usm. IN Ml£ (II It PMT, RR Nf'( OII(R PROLCT QIOOT 11( 1111101 MlMIIlAIICM (F IHL CITY OF DEPARTMENT OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN C4.0 DESIGNED, GCH GCH CHECKED, SMC APPROVED, DATE, 6/07/04 SCALE, ," = 20' PUOUC FILE NAME, 20361 FIELD 800K,_ SHEET, 7 OF, 7 d z CD o ""') -I CD I «