Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA-05-089November 13,2006 Terry Defoor GWIInc. 24633 NE 133 rd Street Duvall, WA 98019 SUBJECT: Defoor Short Plat LUA-05-089, SHPL-H Dear Mr. Defoor: CITY OF RENTON Hearing Examiner Fred J. Kaufman This letter is to inform you that the appeal period has ended for the Hearing Examiner's Defoor Short Plat approval. No appeals were filed. This decision is final and you may proceed with the next step of the short plat process. The conditions listed in the City of Renton Hearing Examiner Report & Decision must be satisfied before the short plat can be recorded. If you have any questions regarding the recording process or any other matters for the short plat, as well as for submitting revised plans, you may contact Carrie Olsen at (425) 430-7235. Sincerely, ,"1 ' -11 .;, .. ~/ ,~j},~, }t.~ / ,-JI-/v'..A-l ,~~ iJ \.-,' Nancy Thompson Secretary to Hearing Examiner cc: Jill Ding, Development Services Jennifer Henning, Development Services Debra Eby Ricci, Attorney at Law Jason Walker, Talasea Parties of Record 1055 South Grady Way -Renton, Washington 98055 -(425) 430-6515 RENTON AHEAD OF THE CURVE Kathy Keolker, Mayor November 13,2006 Terry Defoor GWIInc. 24633 NE 133rd Street Duvall, WA 98019 SUBJECT: Defoor Short Plat LUA·05·089, SHPL·H Dear Mr. Defoor: CITY OF RENTON Hearing Examiner Fred J. Kaufman This letter is to inform you that the appeal period has ended for the Hearing Examiner's Madison Place Short Plat approval. No appeals were filed. This decision is final and you may proceed with the next step of the short plat process. The conditions listed in the City of Renton Hearing Examiner Report & Decision must be satisfied before the short plat can be recorded. If you have any questions regarding the recording process or any other matters for the short plat, as well as for submitting revised plans, you may contact Carrie Olsen at (425) 430·7235. Nancy Thompson Secretary to Hearing Examiner cc: Jill Ding, Development Services Jennifer Henning, Development Services Debra Eby Ricci, Attorney at Law Jason Walker, Talasea Parties of Record ----10-S-S-S-ou-t-h-G-ra-dy-W-ay-.-R-e-nt-on-,-W-a-sh-in-gt-o-n-9-g-0-SS-.-(-42-S-) 4-3-0.-6-S-1S----~ AHEAD OF THE CURVE A~pnovr" BY 1 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE C~TV COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORT December 11,2006 Defoor Short Pl~tApPeal Withdrawal " SHP-OS-089 (ReferrooJuly 17, 2006) The Planning and Development Committee reports withdrawal ofthe Defoor Short Plat appeal, which was referred July 17,2006. The Committee, therefore, recommends the referral be closed. Dan Clawson, VIce atr Marcie Palmer, Member cc: Jennifer Henning Jill Ding Zanetta Fontes Fred Kaufman RICCI GRUBE AlTA, PLLC ATTORSEYS AS!) COlTSSELORS AT LAW DEBRA EBY RICCI ATTORNEY AT LAW lOBO HHOADACRl';S Htll}.DING 1001 SI';CONl) AVJ<;NUt: Tt:L (20GI 770·7(iO() CELL (206) 769-B~)2'1- SEATTLt;. WASHINGTON flOIOI l"AX (200) 770-7Ci07 email: driccijd@connectexpress.com T£\L;\S;"\EA C()\ \1 11'.\\1.\ I \C l~c~()li.'.:<:_~'S' I 1\\ 1\ "lll1WIlI,,J 1'1.\\11\1'1" ------------_ .. ~-----.--~~ c],l~Ol\ \\'llb:r. .\,')1.\ .,\nti,>c,q)(' .\I"Chltl'C\ / Emin)IlIlH'l\t<11 PI,\I\l\l'l L10:?O Ik,\1 CrccL I?d .\.r .\\obill' H::!.i) ,.).).)::!!)~ J~nli\il' J\\(\H\l'rUl t(\L\'~';)(1l',\.n)!n \\001"\1\111". \\.\ ~)0(\'1'1' 1"\" it',)) Ol;).,.).)\) 1;\, (-1:2.1.1 i)l;/,;,.!!) .t PUBLIC HEARING City of Renton Department of Planning / Building / Public Works PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER A. SUMMARY AND PURPOSE OF REQUEST: Public Hearing Date: Project Name: Applicant/Owner Address Contact/ Address File Number: Project Description: Project Location: October 3, 2006 Defoor Short Plat Terry Defoor GWC Inc. 24633 NE 133rd Street Duvall, WA 98019 Debra Eby Ricci Ricci Grube Aita, PLLC Attorneys and Counselors at Law 1080 Broadacres Building 1601 Second Avenue Seattle, WA 98101 LUA05-089, SHPL-H, ECF Project Manager: Jill K. Ding, Senior Planner Subdivision of a 140,723 square foot (3.2 acre) lot into 5 lots for single family residences and an Open Space Tract. The subject site is located within the Residential - 8 dwelling unit per acre (R-8) zoning designation. The proposed lot sizes range from 7,137 square feet to 10,198 square feet. Access to the proposed lots would be provided via single family residential driveways onto Renton Avenue S. A Class 3 steam, 3 Class 4 streams, a Category 3 wetland, Steep Slopes, and High Coal Mine Hazard areas are located on the project site. 900 Renton Avenue S (parcel 0007200196) City of Renton PIBIPW Department DEFOOR SHORT PLA T Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner' LUA05-089, SHPL-H, ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE OCTOBER 3, 2006 Page 20'12 B. EXHIBITS: Exhibit 1: Project file ("yellow file") containing the application, reports, staff comments, and other material pertinent to the review of the project. Exhibit 2: Neighborhood Detail Map (dated June 27,2005) Exhibit 3: Preliminary Short Plat Map (dated June 2006) Exhibit 4: Preliminary Landscape Plan (dated April 2005) Exhibit 5: Preliminary Grading and Utility Plan (dated April 2005) Exhibit 6: Tree Cutting / Land Clearing Plan (dated April 2005) Exhibit 7: Slope Analysis (dated April 2005) Exhibit 8: Environmental Review Committee Mitigation Measures (dated 6/27/06) Exhibit 9: City's Determination of the Unmapped Streams/Wetland Classification (dated 11/3/05) Exhibit 10: Reconsideration Request/Appeal of Determination of Unmapped Streams (dated 11/17/05) Exhibit 11: City's Reconsideration of Unmapped Stream Determination (dated 12/7/05) Exhibit 12: Hearing Examiner's Decision (dated June 8,2006) Exhibit 13: Appeal to City Council of Hearing Examiner's Decision (dated June 22,2006) Exhibit 14: Zoning Map Sheet G4 W Y2 (dated 2/16/06) C. GENERAL INFORMATION: 1. Owner of Record: Terry Defoor GWC Inc. 24633 NE 133rd Street Duvall, WA 98019 2. Zoning Designation: Residential - 8 Dwelling Units per Acre (R-8) 3. Comprehensive Plan Residential Single-Family (RSF) Land Use Designation: 4. Existing Site Use: The site is currently undeveloped. 5. Neighborhood Characteristics: North: Single family residential; zoned R-8 East: Single family residential; zoned R-8 South: Puget Sound Energy Right-of-Way; zoned R-8 West: Single family residential; zoned R-8 6. Access: Renton Avenue S 7. Site Area: 140,723 square feet (3.2 acres) Defoor_HEXRPT.doc City of Renton P/B/PW Department DEFOOR SHORT PLA T Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner LUA05-089, SHPL-H, ECF PUBLIC HEARING DA TE OCTOBER 3, 2006 8. Project Data: Existing Building Area: New Building Area: Total Building Area: area N/A N/A N/A D. HISTORICAUBACKGROUND: Action Annexation Comprehensive Plan Zoning Stream Classification Appeal Land Use File No. N/A N/A N/A N/A comments N/A N/A N/A Ordinance No. 1547 5099 5100 N/A E. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE: 1. Chapter 2 Land Use Districts Section 4-2-020: Purpose and Intent of Zoning Districts Section 4-2-070: Zoning Use Table Section 4-2-110: Residential 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 Section 4-4-060: Grading, Excavation and Mining Regulations Section 4-4-080: Parking, Loading and Driveway Regulations Section 4-4-130: Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Regulations 4. Chapter 6 Streets and Utility Standards Section 4-6-060: Street Standards 5. Chapter 7 Subdivision Regulations Page 30f12 Date 6/05/1956 11/01/2004 11/01/2004 10/26/2006 Section 4-7-050: General Outline of Subdivision, Short Plat and Lot Line Adjustment Procedures Section 4-7-070: Detailed Procedures for Short Subdivisions Section 4-7-120: Com patibility with Existing Land Use and Plan-General Requirements and Minimum Standards Section 4-7-150: Streets -General Requirements and Minimum Standards Section 4-7-160: Residential Blocks -General Requirements and Minimum Standards Section 4-7-170: Residential Lots -General Requirements and Minimum Standards Section 4-7-220: Hillside Subdivisions 6. Chapter 9 Procedures and Review Criteria 7. Chapter 11 Definitions F. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: 1. Land Use Element: Residential Single Family, objectives and policies. 2. Community Design Element: 3. Environmental Element: Defoor_HEXRPT.doc City of Renton P/B/PW Department DEFOOR SHORT PtA T PUBLIC HEARING DA TE OCTOBER 3, 2006 G. DEPARTMENT ANAL YSIS: 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner LUA05-089, SHPL-H, ECF Page 40f12 The proposal is to subdivide a parcel totaling 140,723 square feet (3.2 acres) located within the Residential - 8 dwelling units per acre (R-8) zone. The proposal would create 5 lots intended for the development of detached single-family residences. The lots are proposed to range in size from 7,137 square feet to 10,198 square feet. In addition, the applicant has proposed to include 1 open space tract. The subject site slopes from east to west and has an average slope of approximately 26%. The project meets the City's definition of a Hillside Subdivision as the average slopes exceed 20%. The High Landslide Hazard Areas, Erosion Hazard Areas, and Steep Slope areas are located on the western portion of the project site, primarily within the proposed open space tract. The site is currently forested with a mix of deciduous and evergreen trees, shrubs, and emergent vegetation. As proposed approximately 25% of the existing vegetation will be removed during the construction of the proposed plat improvements. Preliminary earthwork quantities are estimated at approximately 7,100 cubic yards. A high coal mine hazard area is located on the western portion of the subject site. The majority of the high coal mine hazard area is proposed to be located within the proposed open space tract. An unmapped wetland and four unmapped streams (streams A, B, C, and drainage 1) are located on the western portion of the subject site within the proposed open space tract. The wetland have been classified as a category 3 wetland, stream A has been classified as a class 4 stream, stream B as been classified as a class 3 stream, stream C has been classified as a class 4 stream, and drainage 1 has been classified as a class 4 stream. A class 3 stream requires a 75- foot buffer and a class 4 stream requires a 35-foot buffer. The City's classification of streams B, C, and drainage 1 is currently under appeal to the City Council. A Wetland Study, Stream Assessment, Habitat Study, Watershed Restoration, and Mitigation Plan prepared by Talasea Consultants, Inc. dated August 28, 2006 was submitted with the project application. The report contests the City's classification of streams B, C, and drainage 1, however it also indicates that the site could be developed with 5 residential lots provided averaging of the stream buffers is permitted. The current proposal would reduce the eastern portion of the stream buffer along streams A and B and would replace the reduced buffer on the parcel to the east. In addition the flow within drainage 1 would be relocated to stream A. Access to the proposed lots would be provided via single family residential driveways onto Renton Avenue S. 2. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and SEPA (RCW 43.21 C, 1971 as amended) on June 27,2006 the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) issued a Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M) for the project. The DNS-M included 3 mitigation measures. A 14-day appeal period commenced on July 3,2006 and ended on July 17, 2006. No appeals of the threshold determination were filed. 3. COMPLIANCE WITH ERC MITIGATION MEASURES Based on an analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) issued the following mitigation measures with the Determination of Non- Significance -Mitigated: 1. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations found in the geotechnical report prepared by Icicle Creek Engineers dated June 10, 2005. 2. 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 Defoor_HEXRPT.doc City of Renton P/BIPW Department DEFOOR SHORT PLA T PUBLIC HEARING DATE OCTOBER 3, 2006 Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner LUA05-089, SHPL-H, ECF Page 50f12 Requirements outlined in Volume II of the Stormwater Management Manual and provide staff with a Construction Mitigation Plan prior to issuance of Construction Permits. This condition shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division. 3. This project shall be subject to the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual for the design of the detention facility, if detention is required per the 1990 King County Surface Water DeSign Manual. 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 PRELIMINARY PLAT CRITERIA: Approval of a preliminary plat is based upon several factors. The following preliminary plat criteria have been established to assist decision makers in the review of the subdivision: (a) Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan Designation. The subject site is deSignated Residential Single Family (RSF) on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The objective established by the RSF designation is to protect and enhance single-family neighborhoods. The proposal is consistent with the RSF deSignation in that it would provide for the future construction of single-family homes. The proposed plat is consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan objectives and policies for Residential Single Family Land Use, Community Design, and Environmental Elements: Land Use Element Objective LU-FF. Encourage re-investment and rehabilitation of existing housing, and development of new residential plats resulting in quality neighborhoods that: 1) Are planned at urban densities and implement Growth Management targets; 2) Promote expansion and use of public transportation; and 3) Make more efficient use of urban services and infrastructure. The project would add 5 residential lots to an existing neighborhood and would result in a net density of 1.67 dwelling units per acre, which is less than the density desired under the Growth Management Act, however the applicant has designed the plat with fewer dwelling units in the effort to preserve sensitive areas. Policy LU-147. Net development densities should fall within a range of 4.0 to B.O dwelling units per net acre in Residential Single Family neighborhoods. The proposal for 5 lots on the subject site would arrive at a net density of 1.67 dwelling units per net acre after the required deductions, which is below the minimum density permitted in the R-8 zone, however the justification for a density below 4.0 dulac is that there are high coal mine hazard areas located on the subject site that are proposed to be preserved within a large open space tract. Policy LU-14B. A minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet should be allowed on in-fill parcels of less than an acre (43,560 sq. ft.) in single-family designations. Allow a reduction in lot size to 4,500 square feet on parcels greater than an acre to create an incentive for aggregation of land. The site is greater than one acre and all lots would be greater than 4,500 sq. ft. Policy LU-149. Lot size should exclude private sidewalks, easements, private road, and driveway easements, except alley easements. A private access easement is proposed to serve Lot 5. The area within the private access tract was not included within the individual lot area. Community Design Element Policy CD-16. During land division, all lots should front on streets or parks. Discourage single- tier lots with rear yards backing onto a street. All lots are proposed to front on a Renton Avenue S, which is a public street. Defoor_HEXRPT.doc City of Renton P/B/PW Department DEFOOR SHORT PLA T PUBLIC HEARING DATE OCTOBER 3, 2006 Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner' LUA05-089, SHPL-H, ECF Page 6 of 12 Objective CD-K: Site plans for new development projects for all uses, including residential subdivisions, should include landscape plans. A conceptual landscape plan was submitted and as part of the preliminary short plat submittal. Two trees are proposed to be located within the front yards of planting strips of each of the lots and a 5-foot landscaped strip is proposed along existing Cedar Avenue S right-of-way. Policy CD-45. Existing mature vegetation and distinctive trees should be retained and protected in developments. The applicant is proposing to remove approximately 25% of all vegetation within the plat. Most of the vegetation retained would be preserved within the proposed open space tract. The proposed open space tracts are also proposed to protect Protected Slope sensitive areas, a High Coal Mine Hazard, a Category 3 wetland and its associated buffer, and three streams and their associated buffers. In addition, two new trees per lot and street frontage landscaping are required to be planted to compensate for the lost vegetation. Policy CD-53. Landscape plans for proposed development projects should include public entryways, street rights-of-way, storm-water detention ponds, and all common areas. A conceptual landscape plan was submitted with the preliminary application and proposes 2 trees in the front yards of each lot as well as a 5-foot landscaped strip along public rights-of-way. Policy CD-55. Maintenance programs should be required for landscaped areas in development projects, including entryways, street rights-of-way, storm-water retention/detention ponds, and common areas. The applicant will be required to maintain all common improvements as part creating a homeowners association or a maintenance agreement. Environmental Element Objective EN-C: Protect and enhance the City's rivers, major and minor creeks and intermittent stream courses. Four streams (streams A, B, C, and drainage 1) flow from east to west across the project site. Streams A, B, and C and their associated buffers are proposed to be located within an open space tract, over which a Native Growth Protection Easement will be required to be recorded. The flow within drainage 1 is proposed to be relocated into stream A. Policy EN-70. Land uses on steep slopes should be designed to prevent property damage and environmental degradation, and to enhance greenbelt and wildlife habitat values by preserving and enhancing existing vegetation to the maximum extent possible. Protected slope areas are located on the western portion of the subject site (within the proposed open space tract). No development is proposed on the protected slope areas. (b) Compliance with the Underlying Zoning Designation. The 3.23-acre site is designated Residential - 8 Dwelling Units per Acre (R-8) on the City of Renton Zoning Map. The proposed development would allow for the future construction of up to 5 new dwelling units and associated plat improvements. Density -The allowed density range in the R-8 zone is a minimum of 4.0 up to a maximum of 8.0 dwelling units per acre (dulac). Net density is calculated after critical areas, public rights-of-way, and private access easements are deducted from the gross acreage of the site. After the deduction of the area within the streams, wetland, protected slopes, and proposed access easements (10,219 square feet) from the 140,723 gross square foot site area (140,723 gross square feet -10,219 total deducted area = 130,504 net square feet = 3.0 net acres), the proposal would arrive at a net density of 1.67 dwelling units per acre (5 units I 3.0 acre = 1.67 dulac), which is below the minimum density allowed range permitted in the R-8 zone. The proposed density is due to the presence of High Coal Mine Hazard areas on the subject site. A geotechnical report prepared by Icicle Creek Engineers dated June 10, 2005 provides an analysis of the High Coal Mine Hazard Area located on the subject site and recommended that no building of single family residences occur over the High Coal Mine Hazard Area. Based on the information provided by the applicant a waiver from the minimum density requirements has been granted by the Development Services Director. Lot Dimensions -The minimum lot size permitted in the R-8 zone is 4,500 square feet for parcels greater than 1 acre in area or 5,000 square feet for parcels less than 1 acre in area. The subject Defoor_HEXRPT.doc City of Renton P/B/PW Department DEFOOR SHORT PLA T PUBLIC HEARING DATE OCTOBER 3, 2006 Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner LUA05-089, SHPL-H, ECF Page 70f12 site totals 3.23 acres in area; therefore a minimum lots size of 4,500 square feet is required. Pipestems of lots are shall not be included in the lot area. A minimum lot width of 50 feet is required for interior lots and 60 feet for corner lots. Lot depth is required to be a minimum of 65 feet. The Hillside Subdivisions requirements indicate that the City may impose larger lot sizes than permitted under the zoning regulations. Staff has reviewed the proposed lot sizes. The applicant has proposed larger lot sizes than the minimum required in the R-8 zoning standards, in addition the lots are proposed to be located on a portion of the site that does not contain steep slopes; therefore the proposed lot sizes appear adequate. Proposed lot widths range from 48 to 76 feet and lot depths range from 139 feet to 161 feet. The proposed lot widths for Lots 1 and 2 would have lot widths of 48 feet, which is less than the minimum lot width required of 50 feet. Lot 3 is a pipestem lot with a lot width that has a lot width of 60 feet, which exceeds the minimum lot width. It appears that the dimensions of Lots 1, 2, and 3 could be adjusted to provide a minimum lot width of 50 feet for each of the propose lots. Staff recommends as a condition of approval that a revised short plat map be submitted to the Development Services Division project manager prior to the approval of the final short plat showing each lot with a minimum lot width of 50 feet. The proposed short plat would create 5 lots with the following lot sizes: Lot Number Lot Size (square feet) 1 7,137 2 7,309 3 7,489 4 10,198 5 9,471 Access Renton Avenue S Renton Avenue S Renton Avenue S Renton Avenue S Renton Avenue S As proposed, all lots appear to be in compliance with the required lot depth and size standards as prescribed in the R-8 zone. In addition, the proposal includes 1 open space tract, which totals 96,919 square feet in area. Staff recommends a condition of approval requIring the establishment of a homeowner's association or maintenance agreement for the development, which would be responsible for any common improvements and the proposed open space tract within the plat prior to final short plat approval. Setbacks -The required setbacks for the R-8 zone are 15 feet in front for the primary structure and 20 feet for the attached garage, 5 feet along interior side yards, 15 feet for the primary structure for side yards along streets (including access easements) and 20 feet for the attached garage for side yards along streets (including access easements), and 20 feet for rear yards. The preliminary plat map indicates the setback lines on each lot. The setbacks will be verified at the time of building permit review, however each of the proposed lots appears to provide adequate area to comply with the required setbacks. Building Standards -The R-8 zone permits one single-family residential structure per lot. Each of the proposed lots would support the construction of one detached unit. Accessory structures are permitted at a maximum number of two per lot at 720 square feet each, or one per lot at 1,000 square feet in size. Building height in the R-8 zone is limited to 2 stories and 30 feet for primary structures and 15 feet for detached accessory structures. Maximum building coverage is limited to 35% of the lot area or 2,500 square feet, whichever is greater, for lots over 5,000 square feet in size. The Defoor_HEXRPT.doc City of Renton PIBIPW Department DEFOOR SHORT PLA T PUBLIC HEARING DATE OCTOBER 3, 2006 Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examine; LUA05-089, SHPL-H, ECF Page 80f12 proposal's compliance with each of these building standards will be verified prior to the issuance of building permits for each individual structure. Parking -Each detached dwelling unit is required to provide two off-street parking stalls per unit. The proposed building pads appear to be adequately sized for the provision of the required parking. However, verification of two off-street parking stalls will be necessary at the time of building permit review. (c) Compliance with Subdivision Regulations. Lot Arrangement: Side lot lines are to be at right angles to street lines, and each lot must have access to a public street or road. Access may be by private access easement street per the requirements of the Street Improvement Ordinance. The side lot lines of the proposed lots are at right angles to the Renton Avenue S. All lots would gain access directly to Renton Avenue S, a public roadway. As proposed, lots comply with arrangement and access requirements of the Subdivision Regulations. Lots: The size, shape and orientation of lots shall meet the minimum area and width requirements of the applicable zoning classification and shall be appropriate for the type of development and use contemplated. Each of the proposed lots satisfies the minimum lot area and depth requirements of the R-8 zone. Lots 1 and 2 are proposed with lots widths that would be less than the minimum lot width required. However, it appears that the dimensions of Lots 1, 2, and 3 could be adjusted such that all of the lots would comply with the minimum lot width requirement. When considering the required setbacks, as well as access points for each lot, the proposed lots appear to have sufficient building area for the development of suitable detached single-family homes. The preliminary plat is classified as a Hillside Subdivision. The Hillside Subdivision Section, RMC 4-7-220, states that lots may be required to be larger than the underlying zoning minimum lot size. All of the lots proposed within the subdivision are proposed to be larger than 4,500 sq. ft. Due to the proposed extensive grading on the site the topography will be substantially altered and the slope of the proposed building pads will be greatly diminished. It appears that the applicant has proposed adequate lot sizes for the subdivision after the consideration of the grading that will occur for the construction of the building pads. Proposed Lots 1 and 2 are rectangular in shape. Lots 3-5 are irregularly shaped lots, however the presence of the streams on the project site and the shape of the original lot prevents these lots from being rectangular shaped. All of the lots are oriented to provide their front yards facing to the east towards Renton Avenue S. Property Corners at Intersections: All lot corners at intersections of dedicated public rights-of-way, except alleys, shall have minimum radius of 15 feet. There are no property corners to be dedicated for right-of-way purposed as part of this plat. (d) Reasonableness of Proposed Boundaries Access and Street Improvements: The subdivision proposes to provide access to the new lots via new residential driveways onto Renton Avenue S. Half street improvements including sidewalks, curb and gutter, paving, storm drainage, street lighting, and street signs are required fronting the site in Renton Avenue S. The proposed short plat is anticipated to generate additional traffic on the City's street system. In order to mitigate transportation impacts, staff recommends a condition of approval be placed on the project requiring a Transportation Mitigation Fee based on $75.00 per net new average daily trip attributed to the project. Each new lot is expected to generate approximately 9.57 new Defoor_HEXRPT.doc City of Renton P/BIPW Department DEFOOR SHORT PLA T PUBLIC HEARING DA TE OCTOBER 3, 2006 Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner LUA05-089, SHPL-H, ECF Page 90f12 average weekday trips. The fee for the proposed short plat is estimated at $3,588.75 ($75.00 x 9.57 trips x 5 lots = $3,588.75) and is payable prior to the recording of the short plat. Topography: The topography of the subject site slopes from east to west and has an average slope of approximately 216% The project is classified as a Hillside Subdivision as the average slopes across the site exceed 20%. High Landslide Hazard Areas, Erosion Hazard Areas, Protected Slopes, and Sensitive Slope areas are located within the proposed open space tract. A geotechnical report prepared by Icicle Creek Engineers dated June 10, 2005 was submitted with the project application. The report provides recommendations for the development of single family residences on the project site. The Hillside Subdivision Section, RMC 4-7-220, requires that additional information regarding the soils, geology, drainage patterns, and vegetation be submitted with the project application. In addition, detailed grading plans and erosion control plans are also required. As previously stated a geotechnical report was submitted with the project application and provided additional information on the soils, geology, drainage patterns, and vegetation located on the subject site. Preliminary earthwork quantities are estimated at 7,100 cubic yards (100 cubic yards of cut and 7,000 cubic yards of fill). The preliminary grading plans indicate that the eastern portion of the site would be regarded such that the slopes on the project site will be reduced creating adequate areas for the construction of building pads. Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (TESCP) and the use of Best Management Practices would serve to mitigate potential erosion and off-site sedimentation impacts. The project application includes a Construction Mitigation Plan, which is subject to final approval prior to the issuance of construction permits for the project. In addition, the project will be subject to the 2001 DOE manual regarding erosion control, as conditioned by the ERC. A high coal mine hazard area is located on the western portion of the subject site. The high coal mine hazard area is proposed to be located within the open space tract. The geotechnical report submitted by the applicant recommended that no single family residential structures be built within the high coal mine hazard area. The City's Environmental Review Committee imposed a mitigation measure requiring that the applicant comply with all of the recommendations found in the geotechnical report. Four unmapped streams and an unmapped wetland are located within the proposed open space tract. As previously stated in the Project Description/Background section of this report the City's determination of the Classification of three of the streams (Stream B, Stream C, and Drainage 1) is under appeal by the applicant. Stream B has been classified as a Class 3 stream with a 75- foot buffer, and Stream C and Drainage 1 have been classified as Class 4 streams with 35-foot buffers. The wetland (Wetland B) has been classified as a Category 3 wetland with a 25-foot associated buffer and Stream A has been classified as a Class 4 stream with a 35-foot associated buffer. In an attempt to move forward with the proposed short plat, the applicant has proposed to relocate the flow within Drainage 1 into the channel of Stream A and average the buffers of Stream A and B. The buffer areas of Streams A and B would be reduced down to a minimum of 25 feet along the eastern portion of Stream A where the stream borders Lots 3 and 4 and 37.5 feet along the eastern portion of Stream B where the stream borders Lot 1. The proposed location of the expanded stream buffer areas is off site on the parcel to the west of the project site which was previously reviewed as a preliminary plat under LUA05-093. The City's critical areas regulations require that mitigation for impacts to critical areas or their buffers be located onsite where possible. It appears that there is adequate room onsite to provide the additional stream buffer required while maintaining the proposed buffer reductions. Therefore, staff recommends as a condition of approval that a revised Wetland Study, Stream Assessment, Habitat Study, Watershed Restoration and Mitigation Plan be submitted to the Development Services Division project manager for review and approval prior to the approval of the final short plat. The revised report shall include an onsite buffer averaging plan for the proposed impacts to the buffers of Streams A and B. Defoor_HEXRPT.doc City of Renton P/BIPW Department DEFOOR SHORT PLAT PUBLIC HEARING DATE OCTOBER 3, 2006 Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examine~ LUA05-089, SHPL-H, ECF Page 100f12 Wetland B and Streams A, B, and C and the majority of their associated buffer areas would be located within the proposed open space tract. A portion of the buffer area for Stream A would be located within the side yard areas of Lots 3 and 4 and a portion of the buffer area for Stream B would be located within the side yard area of Lot 1. The City's critical area regulations require that critical areas (including protected slopes, wetlands, and Class 2-4 streams) be protected under a Native Growth Protection Easement (NGPE). Therefore, the proposed open space tract and the portions of the stream buffers located within the side yard areas of Lots 1, 3 and 4 shall have a NGPE recorded over them. Staff recommends as a condition of approval that the submitted short plat map be revised to show a Native Growth Protection Easement over the proposed open space tract and the side yard areas of Lots 1, 3, and 4 where the stream buffer extends into the side yards. The Native Growth Protection Easement shall be shall be recorded prior to or concurrent with the recording of the final short plat map. In addition, staff further recommends as a condition of approval that the Native Growth Protection Easement be delineated with a split rail fence and identified with signage as approved by the Development Services Division Project Manager. A fencing and signage detail shall be submitted to the Development Services Division project manager at the time of Utility Construction Permit for review and approval and that such fencing and signage shall be installed prior to the recording of the final short plat. Relationship to Existing Uses: The subject site is currently undeveloped. The surrounding area includes single-family residences developed under the R-8 zoning deSignations. The proposed lots are compatible with other existing and newly created lots in this area of the City. The proposal is consistent with the intent of the both the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code and would not be out of character with the existing or recent development in the area. Community Assets~ The entire site is forested with a variety of trees, shrubs, and ground cover. As a result of the development of the proposed short plat, approximately 25 percent of the existing vegetation would be removed along the western portion of the project site. To mitigate for the removal of existing mature vegetation and trees the City's landscaping regulations require the installation of landscaping within the public right-of-way. The minimum amount of landscaping required for sites abutting a non-arterial public street is 5 feet provided that if there is additional undeveloped right-of-way in excess of 5 feet, this shall also be landscaped. A determination has been made that if no additional area is available within the public right-of-way due to required improvements, the 5-foot landscaped strip may be located within private property abutting the public right-of-way. The landscaping proposed shall either consist of drought resistant vegetation or shall be irrigated appropriately. In addition, the applicant will be required to plant two ornamental trees, a minimum caliper of 1-1/2 inches (deciduous) or 6 - 8 feet in height (conifer), within the 15-foot front yard setback area for the proposed lots or within the proposed planting strip. A landscape plan was submitted with the short plat application indicating that 2 trees would be planted within the front yards or planting areas of each lot. However, no information was provided regarding the minimum 5-foot landscape strip required along Renton Avenue S. Staff recommends as a condition of approval that a revised conceptual landscape plan be submitted to the Development Services Division project manager prior to the recording of the final short plat showing a minimum 5-foot wide planting strip along Renton Avenue S. A detailed landscape plan shall be submitted at the time of Building Permit Application detailing the location and species of the proposed vegetation. The landscaping shall be installed prior to building occupancy. (e) Availability and Impact on Public Services (Timeliness) Police and Fire: Police and Fire Prevention staff indicate that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development, subject to the condition that the applicant provide Code required improvements and fees. Staff recommends a condition of approval requiring the applicant to pay a Fire Mitigation Fee based on $488.00 per new single-family lot. The fee is Defoor_HEXRPT.doc City of Renton PIBIPW Department DEFOOR SHORT PLA T Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner LUA05-089, SHPL-H, ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE OCTOBER 3, 2006 Page 11 of 12 estimated at $2,440.00 (5 new lots x $488.00 = $2,440.00) and is payable prior to the recording of the final short plat. Recreation: The proposal does not provide on-site recreation areas for future residents of the proposed plat. There are no existing recreational facilities in the immediate vicinity of the subject property and it is anticipated that the proposed development would generate future demand on existing City Parks and recreational facilities and programs. Therefore, staff recommends as a condition of approval that the applicant be required to pay a Parks Mitigation Fee based on $530.76 per each new single family lot. The fee is estimated at $2,653.80 (5 new lots x $530.76 = $2,653.80) and is payable prior to the recording of the final short plat. Schools: The site is located within the boundaries of the Renton School District No. 403. According to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the City of Renton Land Use Element (January 16, 1992), the City of Renton has a student generation factor of 0.44 students per single-family residential dwelling. Based on the student generation factor, the proposed plat would potentially result in 2 additional students (0.44 x 5 = 2). The schools would include: Tiffany Park Elementary School, Nelsen Middle School, and Renton High School. The school district has indicated that they would be able to handle to additional students coming from the proposed development. Storm Water: The applicant submitted a Drainage Report prepared by Core Design, Inc. dated June 2005. The existing runoff sheet flows west across the subject site and is collected in one of three existing stream channels. The surface water runoff that will be created as a result of the construction of the plat improvements and subsequent single-family residences is proposed to be directed to a series of level spreaders. The report indicates that detention would not be required. Staff from the City's Plan Review Section reviewed the applicant's storm drainage report and noted that it complied with the requirements of the 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual. As a condition imposed by the City's Environmental Review Committee, this project is required to meet a higher standard for flow control if it is determined upon further review that detention is required. If detention is required under the 1990 KCSWDM, this project is required to comply with the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual. All of the roof downspout systems shall be tightlined. Strip drains shall be required at the end of driveways where the slope exceeds 8%. A Surface Water System Development Charge, based on the current rate of $759.00 per new single-family lot, would be required prior to the issuance of construction permits for the plat. Water and Sanitary Sewer Utilities: There is an 8-inch water main in S. 9th Street and a 4-inch water main in Renton Ave South. Available fire flow in Renton Ave is less than 1,000 gpm. The proposed project is located in the 490 Water Pressure Zone and is outside an Aquifer Protection Zone. Static pressure in the area is approximately 80 psi. Pressure reducing valves will be required to be installed on the domestic water meters. The minimum fire flow required for single-family residences is 1,000 gpm. Hydrants are required within 300 feet of all structures. Existing hydrants to be counted as fire protection will be required to be retrofitted with a 5-inch storz quick disconnect fitting. To provide a minimum of 1,000 gpm to proposed Lots 1-5, the proposed short plat will be required to tie into an existing 8-inch water main located generally at the intersection of S. 9th Street and Renton Avenue South and extend an 8-inch main south in Renton Ave to S. 10th Street. A tie in to the 4-inch in S. 10th will be required. This will provide 1,250 gpm. If the proposed residences exceed 3,600 square feet (including garage area), 1,500 gpm is required. Continuing the extension of an 8-inch main in S.1Oth Street to the east and tying into the 12-inch main in Grant Ave will provide 2,000 + gpm. New hydrants will be required to be installed as part of the water main extension in Renton Ave S. All short plats shall provide separate water services to each building lot prior to recording of the short plat. Separate permits and fees for water meters will be required. Defoor_HEXRPT.doc City of Renton PIBIPW Department DEFOOR SHORT PLA T PUBLIC HEARING DATE OCTOBER 3, 2006 Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner LUA05-089, SHPL-H, ECF Page 120f12 A System Development Charge at the current rate of $1,956 per single-family building lot shall be paid at the time of Utility Construction Permit. There is an existing 8-inch sewer main fronting the site in Renton Ave South. All short plats shall provide separate sewer stubs to each building lot prior to recording of the short plat. Separate permits and fees for side sewers will be required. Dual side sewers are not allowed and minimum slope shall be 2%. A System Development Charge at the current rate of $1,017 per new single-family lot shall be paid at the time of Utility Construction Permit. H. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Defoor Preliminary Short Plat, Project File No. LUA-05-089, SHPL-H, ECF subject to the following conditions: 1. The proposed short plat map shall be revised to show each lot with a minimum lot width of 50 feet. The revised short plat map shall be submitted to the Development Services Division project manager prior to the approval of the final short plat. 2. A homeowner's association or maintenance agreement shall be created concurrently with the recording of the plat in order to establish maintenance responsibilities for this development. A draft of the document(s), if necessary, shall be submitted to the City of Renton Development Services Division for review and approval by the City Attorney and Property Services section prior to the recording of the short plat. 3. A Transportation Mitigation Fee based on $75.00 per net new average daily trip attributed to the project shall be paid prior to the recording of the short plat. Each new lot is expected to generate approximately 9.57 new average weekday trips. The fee for the proposed short plat is estimated at $3,588.75 ($75.00 x 9.57 trips x 5 lots = $3,588.75). 4. A revised Wetland Study, Stream Assessment, Habitat Study, Watershed Restoration and Mitigation Plan shall be submitted to the Development Services Division project manager for review and approval prior to the approval of the final short plat. The revised report shall include an onsite buffer averaging plan for the proposed impacts to the buffers of Streams A and B. 5. A revised short plat map showing a Native Growth Protection Easement over the proposed open space tract and the side yard areas of Lots 1, 3, and 4 where the stream buffer extends into the side yards shall be submitted to the Development Services Division project manager prior to the approval of the final short plat. The Native Growth Protection Easement shall be shall be recorded prior to or concurrent with the recording of the final short plat map. 6. The Native Growth Protection Easement shall be delineated with a split rail fence and identified with signage as approved by the Development Services Division Project Manager. A fencing and signage detail shall be submitted to the Development Services Division project manager at the time of Utility Construction Permit for review and approval and that such fencing and signage shall be installed prior to the recording of the final short plat. 7. A revised conceptual landscape plan shall be submitted to the Development Services Division project manager prior to the recording of the final short plat showing a minimum 5-foot wide planting strip along Renton Avenue S. 8. A Fire Mitigation Fee based on $488.00 per new single-family lot shall be paid prior to the recording of the final short plat. The fee is estimated at $2,440.00 (5 new lots x $488.00 = $2,440.00). 9. A Parks Mitigation Fee based on $530.76 per each new single family lot shall be paid prior to the recording of the final short plat. The fee is estimated at $2,653.80 (5 new lots x $530.76 = $2,653.80). EXPIRATION PERIODS: Preliminary Plats (PP): If the final plat is not filed within five (5) years of the dates of approval, the preliminary plat shall be null and void. Defoor_HEXRPT.doc NEIGI-lOORHOOD DETAIL MAP DEFOOR PROPERTY SHORT PLAT RE~ TON. c< .• ;<E DE9lGN INC.. ENGINEER_ • FUl/'l<NG • 8!J1'!\1Er_ CORE NO. 0413.... .AtE 21. 200!> I" .200' \ I I t r I I I I / I I I I / J II. SEC. 20. r-. 23 N.. ROE. 5 E.. w.M. ::Ff'=i~~~20 :"::~CUE--r i i -----J. J+j ... . .. j: iilr-----------711r~J ... '" _.~~~ ~llUOil-_ .. ~ vi I' !!If hitE t 'I' . 'ili:. ii' I II II I I I 1 1./ 2 'I" ,.", .. I I I II." , . " I I II I I Ii':: II It ( L .. _.:,J L_'_J t ___ J L __ '_J -¥ . '~'-. -...... \ .1. \ \. t \ LII \ I I nl It" , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , t; ~, 1 • -.-~ : , I I I I I I \ <72 pi d~ ~ ~ it ~ . ~i ~ ,i '11 1;1 II) f I I , , .1 I~ II, Ii:! , . , ---' i l~~-= 171 -.., •• 1'" ,I ;i ii II -CB!i\R 11'1&+----0 =_J NOT A PART OF TI-IIl> APPLICATION ......... --;-..i-.. lN~rAIt 40s -------. ---- PARC£\.·lI ~'. ........ ~-- ..... '-.... \ \ \ \ " ~~ SCALE: 1· -50' Lio:-' 'j \ ---_....-..." ~ IN ...ur.f"IOIfTIc:No ~ L.aAOaMUI.l." .'MQIrOCIN °oU..-o ........ NIIlNOTno.t.LL.~' ""1XI ... KH ... ~"""'TAtCJ~A.TALL ... WCILD~OiI' IIIQOI'&AU. ... ,.O" ... ,..AI!IQvW......., CWUCrI: ~ hIII«...., L. ....... ....,. ...acPILLTO"N1'TLaC>~~ "\~:. ~o\I.Luur.nu.c;clNT ........ ~ ;" '.\.''/'t Q):tIQDJI •• T .... ~(III2·DIA)(IO'IC>I40 CM&.V'~-X' ,'''': ,.'~ ~m:o~lNu.::t-~~~c::= """j /"\ ,....,'IB:TtI4~tJUI8IrG.........,TO .. q:. __ .. TALJ...ATlCIN~A.TCOf"PI..aTICIN~ .... M\lTNI 'R.lIW' .... ANTN:Iir~,. """cwtAIr"'ll!IQG.,.~ t'I.LC>I H"L.L..r-u..c:M. \/I" .1"". 1oQ,D..::K"""" TfIINC -:-:::. ---~ ~ ...... ~MO~~Ar..-..Looee.AJO ___ • > .... )(IKMLTO ... QfI~0I'~Afr04T11"'«a...u. 00. ... ' "' ... ~£~.r~~~ ~~"TO~V"'TIC»I. NTB4LLQN~ ..... OIItCCII'PM:TID f'ICUCII ...... -.. """'ftCINTO ........ rolD· TREE PLANnNG AND STAKING DIE7iiiit: ~"" ~~ ~a. oq "" • .. u a: Ut;I ~ ~ ~~I ~ II) O~i ~ a: ~~~ ~o ~ ~o ~ffi ~Q ~ PLANTL/ST -~ ------1/ll .oI.CaR......... ~""'""-' ·.,....fIIDrG".·""""""IIL .... ·. tD".a ... CA. ........ f.]~f:]~y ~'.~'.AN) I-Of" ~....,...... 1 ~~ 04J39A I I I I I z 0 .... l> I ~ I ~ // ~ ~ i'1 i! I ~ iii ~ / l> ~ ~ 0 j l> ~~ .... Ii> / 2 ~ ~ '" !"i I .. :¥ ~. I i-.., , ~I a! ~ ! i ! '" -; 'J i 1:111 !J18 t ~!i~I!! '( U! II n ~~ I!' il ~ II I ~ij g ~ I / ._---------,-------' .. _--,,--',---' •. ------------.. ;11' I~~' __ ,. '-J;;;:::::Jc::JamillllEl;;;;;iLiii'i;:--;:"'-:;:-l:~:::':=--=""=-~:;;-k--'-"""''''''''''''::-_-'-___ ~~~ __ -_''--.l-,,',<;i,~'! "*;0 oE-~.r::_=~= .... --------:.:--:~'_ . ==.:;... • / / I /1 '" I§ I f Ulil ~!IJ ;·j~U! lit ,f; d I ~ii I L __ ~~~ _____ _ ,4 I I I I ; 'I' ~t~ , , I , I I , . , I I , I '",I'" S. IOlH S1REET [! ! -! 1 q ......,-,-,I,F~""~T1!:-"-C!!-"-'2fJD!S~~-::.-::.-::.-::.-::..,.,..PREUM.--VNA-R-Y-m-'EE-cum--'NG-&-Cl.£AR.--1NG-PiA-N""'T ~ k.==~ DEFOOR SHORT PLAT ~OfS'GH 1#,'".."..,... ... '01 --- fHG,,.,t,tlHG . 'LANNING· $U,VEYIHG ,-------------------"-_.---~~"---... -... -.~.--.....,..-~----- I I I I I § l> I I "l. I ~ /1 ~ ~ '" :.: i! j<~ ill -f I I~ :t: ~, iji ~ / ~ I 0 ~ !i ~ / 2 '" I > ~ / II ~ , , I· ~ co J I CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA05-089, SHPL-H, ECF APPLICANT: Terry Defoor, GWI, Inc. PROJECT NAME: Defoor Short Plat DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 140,723 square foot (3.2 acre) site zoned Residential - 8 dwelling units per acre (R-8) into 5 lots and an open space tract (Parcel B). The lots are proposed to range in size from 5,500 square feet to 11,574 square feet. The lots are intended for the eventual development of single-family residences. The subject site contains a Class 3 stream, 2 Class 4 streams, a Class 3 wetland, steep slopes, and high coal mine hazard areas. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: LEAD AGENCY: MITIGATION MEASURES: 900 Renton Avenue S The City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section 1. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations found in the geotechnical report prepared by Icicle Creek Engineers dated June 10, 2005. 2. 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 " of the Stormwater Management Manual and provide staff with a Construction Mitigation Plan prior to issuance of Construction Permits. This condition shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division. 3. This project shall be subject to the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual for the design of the detention facility, if detention is required per the 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual. ERe Mitigation Measures Page 1 of 1 ~.~- ~.­ ..a ...... Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor November 3, 2005 Michael Chen Core Design, Inc. 14711 NE 29th Place, Suite 10 1 Bellevue, W A 98007 CITY (~F RENTON PlanninglBuildinglPublic Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E .. Administrator Subject: Administrative Determination of Un-;mapped StreamlWetland Classification for Defoor Properties (parcel Nos. 0007200196, 0007200194, and 2023059085) Dear Mr. Chen: This letter is in response to your request for the classification of 4 un-mapped streams and two unmapped wetlands as identified, in the Wetland Study, Stream Assessment, Habitat Study, Watershed Restoration, and Mitigation Plan prepared by Talasea -Consultants, Inc. dated June 28, 2005 (revised October 3, 2005). BACKGROUND A Wetland Study, Stream Assessment, Habitat Study, Watershed Restoration, and Mitigation Plan prepared by Talasea Consultants, Inc. dated June 28, 2005 was submitted to the City of Renton with the preliminary short plat and preliminary plat applications for the Defoor Preliminary Short Plat and theDefoorPreliminary Plat. The report identified 3 streams, 2 drainages, and 1 wetland on the subjeCt properties. The report recommended that Streams B and C and Drainages land 2 be classified as Class 5 streams', which are exempt from the City' scritical areas regulations per RMC 4-3-050B.l. Stream A was recommended to beClassified asa Class 4 stream,which requires a 35-foot-buffer and Wetland A was recommended to be a Class 3 :wetland with 25-foot required buffers. The Watershed Company (City's environmental consultant) conducted a site visit August 25th, 2005 and reviewed the applicant's report. A comment letter from The Watershed Company dated September 15, 2005 concurred with the applicant's recommended -classification for Wetland A, Stream A, and Stream C, however did not concur with the applicant's recommended classification for Sti"eamB and Drainage 2 and identified a wetland that had not been delineated. The W~tershed Company recommended that StreamB be classified as a Class 3 stream, that Drainage 2 be identified as an extension of Stream A, a Class 4 stream, and ih,at the unmapped wetland be classified as a Class 3 wetland. Arevised Wetland Study, Stream Assessment, Habitat Study, Watershed Restoration, and Mitigation Plan prepared by TruaseaConsuitants, Inc. (revised October 3, 20()5) was submitted to the City OctoberS, 2005. The revised report identified Drainage 2 as an extension of Stream A (a Class 4 stream), delineated the unmapped wetland arid labeledit as Wetland B, and Stream B was labeled as a Class 3 stream with a 75-foot required ~ --:"~---'-'-~--l-OS-S-S-o-uth~G~ra-:-d-y"'-W:-ay---R-e-n-to-n,-W:-a-sh-i-ngt'--o-n-9-:-g-0-SS------R E N TON * This_papercontalns 50% ~ material, 30% post consumer A-HEAD OF THE CURVE buffer. However, Talasea requested a reconsideration of the classification of Stream B as a Class 3 stream and recommended that Stream B be reclassified as' an unregulated Class 5 stream. City staff met with Hugh Mortensen of The Watershed Company to discuss the , classification of the streams and drainage. Particularly the City's classification criteria of streams (RMC 4-3-050L.l.a) was reviewed. Per Section RMC 4-3-OS0L.l.c.iii of the City's critical areas regulations, "Classification of an unmapped stream or lake is effective upon expiration of the fourteen (14) day appeal period following the Adininistrator's determination." The Administrator has reviewed the City's critical areas regulations (RMC 4-3-050), and the Wetland Study, Stream Assessment, Habitat StudY, Watershed Restoration, and Mitigation Plail prepared by Talasea Consultants, Inc and has rendered a decision. FINDINGS/CONCLUSION 1. The applicant has requested the d~~lJIY:nation of the classification of 3' streams, one drainage, and two weU_:' .. , _",-:k>"'<' I,. , 2. The applicant submittea!1i ~tland"Study, Stre," sessment, Habitat Study, Wat~rshed Restora~,~d :Mi~gatiOn.P:lan pte ,~ Talasea Consultants, Inc. (reVised October J; 20(5)1i'. ' . <, ~ .. 3. The City's Admitf' ,tciufud environmental co~t, (the Watershed Company) bav~eVl th~W'," .. ~1; Str~ Assclssment, Habitat Study, Watershed Restora1jon,i an " -,. . .~ ... , epaied by 1lIasea Consultants., Inc. (revisedOctob@r 3<,.0(5).' , ., cal area.lltions found in RMC 4-3-050. ' " DECISION The City concurs that Wetl~'" ana B shalt~c~sifidd ategory 3 wetlands, and 'that·Stream A shall be classitl~ a Cl38$;4 streiun. . lent infonnation has !ill! been provided to the City to show that·~.~ Sbou",'_.. sifted as a Class 5 Stream, that StreamC shall be classfied as a Class 5 stream, andthat Drainage 1 shallbec1assfied as a CI~s: 5 stream. The A'<iministrator deternlined that: 1) Drainage 1 shall be classified as aCtass 4 stream; 2) StreamB shall be classified as a Class 3 stream; and 3) Stream C shall be classified as a Class 4 stream. Therefore, the decision has been made not to accept the Wetland Study, Stream Assessment, Habitat Study, Watershed Restoration, and Mitigation Plan prepared by Talasea Consultants, Inc, revised October 3, 2005. RECQNSIDERA TION. Within 14 days of the effective date of the decision, any party , may request that the Administrator reopen a decision. The Adininistratorniay mOdify his decision if material evidence not readily discoverable prior to the original decision is found or if he finds there was misrepresentation of fact. After review of the rec.onsideration request, if the Administrator finds insufijcient evidence to amend the .anginid decision, there will be no further extension of the appeal period. Any person wishing to take further action must file a fOInlal appeal within the following appeal timeframe. 'APPEAL. This administrative d~ision will become final if not appealed in writing to the Hearing Examiner on or before 5:66 PM on November 17, 2ooS. Appeals to the Exariliner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110. Additional infoInlation regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. Appeals must be filed -in writing, together with the required $75.00 application fee, to: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. . If you have any questions, you may cQntactJiIl Ding, Associate Planner at 425-430-7219. Sincerely, tJedJUWr Neil Watts Developmep:t Services Direc~6f cc: ~e;~:nru~.~('"0If;~~;~':J·~ Jill Ding " Terry Defoor/Applicant, . _ ....'1·. Ro~ CS Teng\;L:~~~4eng'1eng, Mei..:lllT~-t>~g, WeI Kang Kho,<\10-Cl'W Tuan/Owners 11('# Parties of Record' ,y,~, ffilffi To~~!r~!E~PMENl S~ .. CITY OF RENTON NOV 18 2005 17 November 2005 RECEIVED Mr. Neil Watts, Development Services Director City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 CITY OF RENTON NOV 1 7 Z005 /:'/() ~ RECEIVED J)t:... CITY CLERK'S OFFICE h Q.\\d-dQ Ii 'i ~r e.cL loy .r Cl.So tt tJo..l. ~ r who s+o.+eci v-e.r'~ly +h.A.:-t· flu; ',S 0.. ((.J~e.s t fi,-(' A7ec.opsidev-a..I-r. ~ 1\ j .• l TAL-931".". . ""If! 7t1 T1I< tt ~""''''' ~3 t;.>CGLm,'t1 e.r. tt9~ e.t·. ti+y A+-I-oftre.r 1-1 ea.r i Y1 j E;qa.m (.,., Q. y- Subject: Reference: Defoor Properties (Parcel Nos. 0007200196, 0007200194, and 2023059085) Request for Reconsideration and Appeal ( L-uA -(J 5 -0 8 e; ) Dear Mr. Watts: We have reviewed your 3 November 2005 letter addressed to Michael Chen of Core Design in regards to the classifications of four un-mapped streams and two un-mapped wetlands on the Defoor properties. Due to the availability of additional information, both enclosed and forthcoming, we request a reconsideration of your determination, and request your examination of the information and historical factors that have effectively created several drainage features on the subject properties. We also request a reconsideration of the decision to allow a Class 5 rating for Stream S, Stream C and Drainage 1 based upon historical evidences suggesting the feature's artificial origin and past precedent set by the City in the previous review and classification of similar features. To preserve our options for a formal appeal, we also request that this notification be filed at this time for this purpose. We understand that there has been some difference of opinion, and subsequent internal discussion and meetings regarding the definition of a Class 5 classification for Stream C and Drainage 1. From communication between Hugh Mortensen (The Watershed Company) and Per Johnson (Talasaea Ecologist) on 25 October 2005, and from your 3 November letter, we understand that the City has declined the guidance of their peer review consultant and is attempting to regulate artificial drainages that have been intentionally created due to the discharge of untreated and undetained stormwater. Furthermore, Jill Ding, of the City of Renton, told us (in a telephone conversation on 25 October 2005) that the City desires to conduct a hearing regarding the Defoor project to clarify the new code for the purpose of defining City policy. If future meetings are scheduled between the City's peer review consultant and staff to discuss the Defoor properties, we would appreciate the opportunity to attend and provide any necessary information or clarification, as this would expedite the coordination and correspondence involved for this project, and associated time and costs for all parties. We wish to continue a dialogue with the City on this issue and avoid a hearing if at all possible, as it is Resource <& Environmental Planning 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast • Woodinville, Washington 98077 • Bus: (425) 861-7550 • Fax: (425) 861-7549 Mr. Neil Watts 17 November 2005 Page 3 ,"-1--} V existence, of Stream B, Stream C and Drainage 1. We request the decision provided in the 3 November 2005 letter is reconsidered and, if necessary, be addressed in an appeal hearing (barring all other available means in which we can discuss and potentially resolve this issue). Please contact Per Johnson or me at (425) 861-7550 if you have any further questions at this time. Thank you for the consideration of the City in this matter. Sincerely, c::;?2(: Jason Walker, RLA, ASLA ------.... Senior Project Manager Attachment cc: Michael Chen, Core Design Terry Defoor, Owner Site Area, 1946 Site Area, 1965 Site Area, 1975 .• ~ ... + ... ... ---. . I<..athy Keolker·Wbeeler, Mayor December 7, 2005 Jason Walker, RLA, ASLA Talasea Consultants, Inc. 15020 Bear Creek Road NE Woodinville, WA 98077 CITY <jF RENTON PlanninglBuildinglPublicWorks DePartment Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator Subject: Reconsideration Request of Administrative Determination of Un-mapped StreamlWetland Classification for Defoor Properties (parcel Nos. 0007200196,0007200194, and 2023059085) Dear Mr. Walker: . This letter is in response to your letter dated November 17, 2005 requesting reconsideration of the classification of 3 un.;.mapped streams (Stream B, Stream C, and Drainage 1) as identified in the Wetland Study, Stream Assessment, Habitat Study, Watershed Rest-oration, and Mitigation Plan llr'Cpared by Talasea Consultarits, Inc. dated. June 28, 2005 (revised October 3, 20(5)~ In yOUT letter you indicate that the creation of the 3 un-mapped streams was·the result of erosion due to point-discharge of st()rmwater and sQould be considered artificial and reJUlatedaSClass 5 streams. RMC 4,.3- 050L.l.a.v defines a Class 5 stream as non~regulated waters that "flow within an artificially constructed channel where no naturally defined channel had previously existed." The point discharge of stormwater onto the subject site does not constitute an . artificially constructed channel that would be clasSified as a Class 5 stream. In your letter you also cite a previous project within the City, Sunnybrook Preliminary Plat (LUA05-127, SA-H, PP, ECF), where the modification of7 drainage channels was pennitted. You indicat~ that the previous approval should serve as a precedent for the streams located on the subject property. Since "the review and approval of the Sunnybrook Preliminary Plat, subsequent critical area regulations have been adopted, which include a new stream definition and stream claSsification system. Therefore, as the current project was submitted under the subsequent regulations, the previous approval of the alteration of 7 drainages would not be a precedent. The previous determination of the classification of the streams dated November 3, 2005 stands. . -------------IO-S-S-S-ou-fu--G-ra-dy--W.-ay-.-R-e-n-ro-n-,W.--as-h-in-gt-o-n-9-80-S~S------------~ (!) This paper contains 50% recycled material, 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE ,Oefoor Reconsideration Oecember 7, 2005 Page 2 of2 ' ........ } \ ' " The reconsideration request letter also requested ~ appeal. The appeal of the determination will continue. You will be notified of the date of the appeal-bearing when' the Office of the Hearing Examiner has scheduled it. Please feel free.to contact Jill Ding at (425) 430-7219 if you h~e any questions. - Sincerely, Neil Watts Development ,Services Director Cc: ProjecfFiIe Jennifer Hehning ',,<_,~_, ,Jill Ding' , '_'i;:'iiij'<"~'jJx'(C~ "y' 'vC"1 Terry DefoorlAppbc~~'~ ,;' " Michael ChenlCont,tL,~ , , ""-.c"<,,,,, ,'''' Ronnie CS Teng-, ng~~~eng, Mei-Yu· te.g' """; ~'liIb -Wei KangKho, -C(l~uaDIOwners -" Parties of Reeo'" if APPELLANT PUBLIC HEARING: OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON Jason Walker Talasea 15020 Bear Creek Road NE Woodinville, WA 98077 Representing: Terry DeFoor, Appellant Debra Eby Ricci 160 1 2nd Avenue. Ste. 1080 Seattle, W A 98 WI Counsel for: Terry DeFoor, Appellant Zanetta Fontes City of Renton, Assistant City Attorney Jill Ding, Development Services Hugh Mortensen, Watershed Company Defoor Short Plat Appeal File No.: LUA 05-089, SHPL-H June 8,2006 After reviewing the Appellant's written requests for a hearing and examining available information on file, the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The foOowing minutes are a summary of the May 2, 2006 hearing. The legal record is recorded on CD. The hearing opened on Tuesday, May 2, 2006, at 9:02 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testifY were affmned by the Examiner. Parties present: Zanetta Fontes, Assistant City Attorney Jill Ding, Development Services Hugh Mortensen, Watershed Company Debra Eby Ricci Attorney at Law 1601 2nd Avenue.Ste. 1080 Seattle, WA 98101 Jason Walker Talasea 15050 Bear Creek Road NE Woodinville, WA 98077 Defoor Appeal File No.: LUA-05-089, SHPL-H June 8, 2006 Page 2 The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No.1: Yellow file containing correspondence asking for the appeal, request to Mr. Watts and his response and the correspondence setting up the appeal hearing. Exhibit No.3: Talasea Letter dated November 17, 2005 Requesting Reconsideration Exhibit No.5: GeoTech Engineers Letter dated May 1,2006 Exhibit No.7: Large Map Showing Topography of Site Exhibit No.9: Copy of Aerial Photograph dated 1936 Exhibit No. 11: Drawing by Maryann Reinhart of a Cross Section of Stream B, West of Big Leaf Maple. Exhibit No.2: Stapled packed dated May 1,2006 Exhibit No.4: Icicle Creek Letter dated March 24, 2006 signed by Brian R. Beaman Exhibit No.6: More Defmed Original Page 5 of Exhibit 2. Exhibit No.8: Renton Coal Mine Map with Underground Features Exhibit No. 10: Actual Aerial Photograph of Exhibit 9 The various parties introduced themselves and the parties they were representing. The Examiner stated that he had received a packet this morning and has not had an opportunity to review the information. A short break was taken so Ms. Ricci could look over the yellow file. Jason Walker briefly described the packet presented this morning and the information contained within. The first 15 items were plans and photographs which will be discussed in detail later, the second stapled item was the reconsideration request that is part of the yellow file, the third and fourth stapleditems were letters from the consultants that will be testifying today. The site is located on the eastern side ofI-405, the northeast corner is located at 9th Street and Renton Avenue S. The site is a short plat adjacent to the preliminary plat of the same name. This site has two identified streams, Stream B to the north and Stream A and Drainage 1 are to the south and in the same corridor but separate channels, Drainage 1 is just south of Stream A. Offsite to the west is another drainage, Stream C and two wetlands to the west, Wetland A is offsite and Wetland B is onsite and associated with Stream B. This request was to address the Renton Municipal Code under the description of Class 5 Stream. They believe that this stream was of man made origin. A Class 5 Stream is defined as a flow within an artificially constructed channel where no naturally defmed channel had previously existed. They requested that Stream B be considered as a Class 5 and not a Class 3 stream as the City had rated this stream. Stream B originates from a 12-inch concrete pipe adjacent to Renton Avenue S. The upper basin of Stream B conveys stoI111 water from Jones Avenue along 9th Street. There appear to be no detention or treatment structures for this runoff given that it was constructed prior to water quality standards. There are also some Defoor Appeal File No.: LUA-05-089, SHPL-H Jtme 8, 2006 Page 3 catch basins along lOth Avenue South and a portion of Renton Avenue drains down towards Stream A. Stream C, off the southern portion of Cedar Avenue is also fed by stormwater fWloff and is conveyed by the drainage channel. A photograph of:a 12-inch concrete pipe adjacent to Renton Avenue and the source point of Stream B hydrology were presented. Stream B is comprised of two channels in this eastern portion of the drainage adjacent to . Renton Avenue S. These channels are incised features that are eroded and form a confluence into a single channel farther west. Vegetation is primarily alder with some black cottonwood and Big Leaf Maple. The northern channel of Stream B is incised to a depth of 6-feet and flows tmder the root mass of a Big Leaf Maple. There is a fair amount of erosion occurring in that drainage channel. At the northern end of Stream B the Big Leaf Maple is at the confluence, the eroded channel is beyond the confluence to the western side as it leaves the site. The remainder of Stream B is incised and eroded tmtil it outfalls in a wetland area, the offsite wetland is the location of a historic mining entrance. All the eroded material is dispersed in this area. Stream B joins with Stream C at this-point, with a similar drainage feature coming off of Cedar Avenue and then leaves the site at the same location. Stream A is in the southern portion of the site and has more natural characteristics. The Examiner stated that he was reluctant to get into Stream A, it may be different or exhibit characteristics that make it more natural, however, this hearing is dealing with Stream B and it's characteristics, it doesn't matter how it contrasts with another stream. He did decide to allow the testimony at this time. Ms. Ricci stated that they had experts present that can speak to the comparative differences between the two streams. Stream B is not a naturally occurring stream, it is the result of high-pressure storm water flowing down from the early development of the City of Renton over the last few years. Stream A is a naturally occurring stream that existed as a process over time. Mr. Walker continued his testimony that Stream B is in a location where a previously naturally occurring channel did not exist prior to the intentional discharge of tmdetained stormwater. The intentional release of stormwater on a highly erodable surface is basically the result of human intervention and that these features are artificially constructed. There were more photographs of the Stream and it's rounded side slopes. Upon cross-examination by Ms. Fontes. Mr. Walker stated that earlier he mentioned an adjacent site, and that site is to the west, under the same ownership and was approved earlier. He did believe that the maple tree was 60-80 years old, the core was rotten and so it was difficult to be sure of the exact age. There are a number of Big Leaf Maple trees on the site, but this is the only one directly in the stream channel. All photographs were taken on Wednesday, April 26, 2006. All measurements for the conceptual drawings were taken at the same time as the photographs. Diagram #4 of Exhibit 2 is a conceptual diagram of the two channels, the drawing is approximately to scale. The land between the channels is relatively flat with some undulation. The two channels are approximately 3- feet in depth and 18-inches to 2-feet wide. He didn't know if there was any grotmd water in thes,e channels. Stream B deposits into Wetland A that is on the adjoining parcel to the west (the Defoor Preliminary Plat) and Stream C skirts the perimeter, it does not enter the wetland. Stream A and the confluence of Stream B and C join another tributary south of the site known as Rolling Hills Creek. Previously in history there has been some activity on the site, there h3s been a lot of earth moved because of the previous coal mine activities, some of that is still in evidence today. As far as ditching the channels, they are characteristic of ditches, but have been formed by erosive flows from stormwater. Defoor Appeal File No.: LUA-05-089, SHPL-H June 8, 2006 Page 4 Upon questioning by Ms. Ricci, Mr. Walker stated that Big Leaf Maples are not known to grow directly within a channel of a stream unless that stream would have changed course. This tree is a very mature tree, his opinion is that the tree pre-dates the existence of those channels. The roots are being undermined by the water. Brian Beaman, Icicle Creek Engineers, 230 NE Juniper Street, Ste., 101, Issaquah, WA 98027 stated that he is a principal engineer and hydrologist and that he was asked to review how this stream was fonned. They excavated test pits across the site and drilled deep borings into to the coalmines. They are aware that the site, including Stream A and Stream B, is underlain by about 5-6 feet of weathered bedrock, below that is the hard bedrock itself. It is important to compare the whole site, not just the Stream B corridor because the rest of the site is an example of what should happen should water flow across the ground surface. Stream A to the south has a more natural layer including smooth slopes that lead down to a channel with good topographic relief, there are other swales across the property with similar features of Stream B, they start out fairly flat and then there is somewhat of a broad swale that occurs but the other swales are dry. It is important to understand that Stream B is being fed from the culvert, that is the uphill side, then down from there towards Wetland A. There is a natural process that creates swales across this slope but it may have been redirected and instead of sheet flowing it created the swales, but with the construction of Renton Avenue, the water has not been redirected. The topography on page 5 of Exhibit 2 is probably aerial, it is therefore quite generalized, there are no other swale like features to the north where Stream B runs. Exhibit 7 shows field topography of the upper portion of Stream B, if the stream contours were removed and the erosion features were taken out and the contours brought straight across, it would be a fairly level from the street for about 125-feet or so. As you go further down the channel it does start to develop that swale-like appearance. Looking at the adjacent property to the west, there are other dry swale features across that site. (On Exhibit 7 the dry swales were highlighted in blue). Once the glaciers retreated from this area, the landscape was more than likely barren, the climate was rainier and wetter and certainly a lot of features fonned during that time before vegetation took place. That is most likely when these swales fonned. They have a water shape feature but are dry. The site has a long history of coal mine development dating to the late 1800's, this portion of the site was not impacted by the mining, the area just to the w¢st of it was. The original main entry to the Renton Coal Mine was located almost where Wetland A is located, and that would have involved roads being built in this area, there was an open mine shaft into the ground at about an 11 degree angle below horizontal. It would not have made much sense to put their mine entry where water surface was going to flow. Some of the historical coal mine maps do show surface topography. The main tributary, Rolling Hills Creek, was shown on the map, there was no stream coming down across the area where Stream B is located today. This map does not show Stream A orB. They also looked at a 1936 aerial photograph of the area. Cedar Avenue and Renton Avenue were identified. The mines closed in the late 20's and this aerial is probably within 5-10 years after the Renton mine closed permanently. He pointed out the Stream A corridor on the photograph, which extends beyond the property to the east. Looking at the Stream B area, there is no topographic or vegetation pattern that would show an additional stream. The watershed for Stream A is visible with a channel like feature that extends off the property. Upon questioning by Ms. Ricci, Mr. Beaman stated that going back during the active mining days, it is likely that the culvert did not exist so there was no water coming down the slope into the area of the main mine operation for the slope. After the mine closed, once water was introduced to the slope area, it found the path of least resistance, created these incised channels and found its way to the old mine entry which was probably Defoor Appeal File No.: LUA-05-089, SHPL-H June 8, 2006 PageS somewhat of a low spot. The grading of the stream transitions from a steep slope to a fairly flat area so a lot of depositions occurred and has filled in that area with eroded sediment and created that wet area. On questioning by Ms. Fontes. Mr. Beaman stated that stonn water versus water hitting impervious surfaces and making their way into a stonn water system would mean that less water would be getting into the ground. On Exhibit 7, he redefined what affect the glacial flows had on the land today. Not all naturally occurring streams have identical characteristics is a fairly general statement, there are certain characteristics which, comparing the Grand Canyon to the Duwamish they are both naturally occurring streams and they both have different characteristics. Miners woulq have been able to redirect Stream B, if it had been there because it was a small stream. Stream B flows to Wetland A today, but there is no way to mow if Stream B was there in 1936 or ifit was ifit outflowed there or somewhere else. The site evaluation and seeing the character of the Stream B corridor and the 1936 aerial photograph show that there most likely was no stream there prior to the installation of the culvert on Renton Avenue South. If a lot of water were pushed down the steep slopes an incised channel vertically sided similar to what is seen in the field today would occur. This would be considered man made because the water is introduced by something that man has done, the water creates the ditch, but the water is directed to that area by man's activities. Maryann Reinhart, GeoEngineers, 8410 I 54th Ave NE, Redmond, WA 98052 stated that she is a fluvial geomorphologist and her expertise is in the area of evaluating land forms, their development and particularly so the characteristics of streams from both small creeks all the way to large river systems. She has additional expertise in the area of sediment transport in fluvial systems, including erosion and deposition. She was asked by Talasea Consultants to look at the two streams of interest on the Defoor property, Stream A and Stream B. She did go the property on April 26, 2006. Landforms in the Puget Sound area are basically developed as a result of glaciation of continental ice masses that receded from this area somewhere between 10,000 and 13,000 years ago. There were drainage patterns that were left by the receding glaciers and in exchange for that there is a good bit of melt water that was coming from the melting ice. The process of the grinding, advance and recession of the glaciers, as well as the runoff of their melt waters developed much of the landforms and topography here in Puget Sound. In this particular area, some of the drainage swales that are glacially derived played a large roll in the development of the area. One of the key characteristics that seems to be missing from the story is the development of drainage basins. Drainage basin is synonymous with the tenn of watershed. Watershed is a little more informative of what happens in a natural drainage basin. Water falling from the sky as precipitation or snow runs off of the surface of a watershed and coalesces in a channel through which it then is conveyed to a receiving body, in Western Washington it is either Lake Washington or Puget Sound. The distinction here is important with respect to the origin of Streams A and B on the property. Stream A receives water from upgradient of Renton Avenue South. The watershed extends upstream of Renton Avenue South, that water historically collected off the ground surface of the watershed and was delivered to the main stem channel and then moves down slope. Watersheds tend to deliver water to the receiving channels, those channels, over a period of time, have an opportunity to adjust to the discharge that ends up in that channel as a result of the surface water runoff. There is a defmite relationship between the dimensions of the channel that receives water from the watershed and the size of the watershed. Several things can alter the shape and size of the channel, the geologic ·materials that produce the soils, the gradient of the channel from upstream to downstream, and the climate. In Puget Sound streams there is a general relationship that is typically used with Defoor Appeal File No.: LUA-05-089, SHPL-H June 8, 2006 Page 6 regard to the dimensions of the stream that has had an opportunity to evolve and adjust to all of the conditions that prevail over the period of that watershed. The channel will range about three times wider than it is deep. The Examiner stated that he would have to decide on the Sub A defmition of flow within an artificially constructed channel where no naturally defmed channel has previously existed. What does artificially constructed actually mean. The fact that it is there does not mean that the channel was artificially constructed, no one was out there ditching it with a shovel or backhoe to create it. It may have formed due to some alteration . of the flow upstream, with or without a culvert, the road may have taken a dip and risen something like a wash. Ms. Reinhart stated that artificially created could mean that you go in with a backhoe and create a channel where formally there was none. It is very difficult to draw a line between a ditch that is cleared out by a backhoe and an incised gully that is created by the discharge of energized water or just water flowing down the slope where previously there was not a natural drainage pattern within the watershed. ill Stream A there is an incised bottom channel showing that probably more water was added recently or more abruptly, maybe caused by urbanization patterns upstream. ill the case of Stream B it is a deeply incised channel, six. feet deep by two feet wide. The sidewalls are very vertical. It is a very unnatural form for a channel in this environment, meaning the soils, gradient, and the climate does not favor development of an incised gully. From a fluvial geomorphic position Stream B is actually a gully. Based on her observations in the field, water does not flow off the sides of the gully and ifleft alone the sidewalls would not lay back to an angle of repose with flowing water. She was surprised at her visit to the site, she was looking to the bottom swale that is defined as a dip in the road, that is Stream A, Stream B is located up on the right limb of the Stream A swale, it is at the top, it is a very unusual place for a stream to develop. The Stream B channel does not angle into the Stream A corridor, it makes its own path directly down stream along the fall line. This is not a typical pattern seen in any drainage basin in this area. The channel is getting its water fed to it by the culvert, it is not receiving surface water runoff from the area on either side of the channel, the only water that stream is conveying is water that is fed to it directly from the culvert. ill terms of a channel that forms naturally in a watershed or small sub-basin, Stream B does not fit with what is typically seen in the Puget Sound area. If the discharge from the culvert was left to run the way it does now, it is possible that continued incision could be seen, there is bedrock that is seen in the base of the channel which is slightly more erosion resistant than the weathered material, that may represent a bed control feature. The erosion may take a little longer. The characteristics of the sidewalls of the channel are either vertical or concave and the channel is still attempting to adjust to the discharge that is being conveyed by the channel. If it is not allowed to incise further it may broaden slightly, but there will continue to be very unstable sidewalls. This type of channel configuration is very consistent with similar channels that have formed in the direct response to stormwater runoff directed to an area that has not previously seen surface water runoff form a channel. Stream B is truly a gully, which is defined as a straight walled deep channel that is much deeper than it is wide and is typically associated with unmitigated runoff. Gullies are natural, but gullies that develop into streams generally will adjust to gradients, soil types, basin sizes which help the channel to become more stable. A gully is very unstable by definition, the sidewalls can cave in, it will incise, it is not predictable in the form that it will take in terms of the depth and the width of the channel. The gully that matures into a well adjusted conveyance channel of natural waters, the sidewalls will typically, in these soils, lay back to near the angle of repose, they will become stabilized with vegetation. Just because a gully is natural, it does not mean that it should be in that particular location. Defoor Appeal File No.: LUA-05-089, SHPL-H June 8,2006 Page 7 An unstable gully will typically have a flat floor and will be wider at the base than it is at the top, which means that from a developmental perspective the water began to coalesce with the inception of the channel and then rapidly, in adjustment to the discharge, it begins to incise and cut down. This channel has probably been developing on the order of decades, as opposed to Stream A that has been developing and adjusting to its conditions for probably thousands of years. The Examiner asked questions regarding how the stream could have started, rivers get their start somewhere and if everyone culverted or filled them there might not be a Columbia River or Cedar River today. Somehow this channel was formed, was it natural or not natural. There was much discussion as to how water courses across this land and how streams are formed and how water has a tendency to flow downstream and what kind of a course might be formed to get the water from point A to point B. The conditions do not seem to be present to generate another channel that have the dimensions and character of Stream B given the watershed area that was discussed. Upon questioning by Ms. Ricci, Ms. Reinhart stated that in a couple of applications, she was familiar with the term hydraulic sluicing and that it is a known form of constructing channels. Hydraulic sluicing is used in a number of different applications, one the direction of discharge from a hose intending to create a depression or channel. If the water source were cut off, there most likely would not be water in that channel and vegetation would eventually take over. Ms. Fontes objected to the question. The Examiner stated that the culvert either could have created the channel or could exacerbate th~ creation of the channel, it would have a sluicing effect. Ms. Reinhart stated that was correct. More discussion continued on sheetflow and natural obstacles on the slope and the affect that would have had on the channel. If the culvert alone did not cause this channel, it might have still been created in this location from any number of reasons. It seems to be doing quite well now that it is there, it does not seem to want to go towards Stream A. Stream B now seems to have a life of its own. If water were merely flowing over the surfaces as surface runoff without the influence of the discharge coming from the culvert, you would have surface water that would make its way down slope by some preferred pathway. It doesn't become a big deal until the discharge is increased over and above what is being generated by the natural surface water runoff from precipitation in that area. The Big Leaf Maple did not grow in the channel, it has been undermined by what is presently the channel. Surface water runoff from the slope from normal precipitation would not have the momentum and energy to cause that type of erosion. A much larger source of discharge with a much higher level of energy would be needed to create that channel. Upon questioning by Ms. Fontes, Ms. Reinhart stated that her opinion regarding the source of the water in the culvert is coming from the urban development and the stormwater runoff from roofs, driveways, and paved areas. A portion of the runoff could be from ground water. She did not know if there were any naturally occurring springs in the area. A drainage channel is either created or happens as a result ofan action, urban runoff that is directed to an existing channel, which is attempting to adjust to the increase in runoff from the urban development. Sometimes water channels will move and take different courses, that is part of the adjustment of channels. It is her opinion that Stream A began because of a glacier. There appears to be 200 feet between Stream A and Stream B. Channels can be formed by the discharge of ground water. Defoor Appeal File No.: LUA-05-089, SHPL-H June 8, 2006 Page 8 Ms. Ricci asked further questions of Ms. Reinhart, who stated that there was no indication on the 1936 aerial photo that Stream B existed, and so it mostly likely is on the order of decades old. That is a very recent time frame. There is some point in time in which it could be said that the stream was created decades ago. With respect to the two streams, it is necessary to look at the information provided by the two streams and the environment and what is known about the natural drainage systems and say that it would be unusual at the very best for a channel with these dimensions, that is being very much deeper than it is wide, to be the same age as Stream A, this is a very youthful stream. If you cut off the water, the stream would go dry. A stream must be able to feed itself with water and this one cannot. It would be very hard to cut off the water to Stream A. it is being served by the watershed. If you cut off the water coming from upslope of Renton Avenue South you could create a small dam and -it would basically change the hydrology of the stream, it will still get some runoff from the sidewalls downstream, it will not be the stream that it is today. Lunch Break: 12:47 pm Reconvened: 2: 15 pm Pat Conger, 1301 South 9th Street, Renton, W A 98055 stated that she lives on the SE corner of 9th Street and Renton Avenue South directly across the street from this parcel. She is directly across the street from the culvert that has been discussed. There is water in the culvert year round, even when there has been no rain. She has lived in this location for the past 12 years. Upon questioning by Ms. Ricci. Ms. Conger stated that the people do water their lawns, wash their cars and other outside things around their homes. Some water is getting into the system all the time throughout the year. She can hear the sound of the water and sometimes there is more water than at other times. Brian Beaman stated that he is a professional engineer with Civil as a specialty. He routinely looks at plats and short plats, single-family residences, and roadcprojects for discharge of storm water from street drainages. They do not assess the piping, but do assess the outfall and what that outfall might do where it crosses natural ground surfaces or on re-entering streams. He routinely is called on to locate culverts under similar conditions to what is on this site. Based on his knowledge of the soil conditions on this site, with a culvert outflow at that location, he would expect that water would sluice out a,ditch following the fall line of the slope. It is not necessary to dig out the trench, the water just creates its own pathway. Hugh Mortensen, Watershed Company, 1410 Market Street, Kirkland, WA 98033 stated that he is an ecologist with over eleven years doing stream and wetland reconnaissance and delineation, he also is an on-call consultant to the City of Renton to review development proposals that come before the planning department. City of Renton, Kirkland, Shoreline, Monroe, Sammamish and Issaquah have called upon him to check classifications of streams. He did the classification of the streams on the Defoor property. On his inspection, he thought that Stream B was a Class 3, he never believed that it was a Class 5 stream. He spoke with Neil Watts regarding the descriptions of various classes of streams in the City of Renton, they further discussed artificially constructed streams and the fact that it had to be where a channel did not previously exist. Regarding Stream C, to the west and appears to start at the comer of the subject property and the adjoining parcel, his initial classification was that it was a Class 5. After talking with Mr. Watts he looked at the definitions more closely and he saw the words "artificially constructed" channel, and after reviewing the elements, he changed his classification to a Class 4. Defoor Appeal File No.: LUA-05-089, SHPL-H June 8,2006 Page 9 He always consKlered Stream B as a Class 3 stream. In his opinion, this is not a Class 5 stream because he has observed it flowing in late August, since August is the month with the least amount of rainfall in this region, the end of August is the most appropriate time to be looking at a stream to see if it is perennial or not. He checked the rainfall record for the preceding month and it showed to have had little to no rainfall for the 25 days prior to his site visit. When people water their lawns the water sometimes goes into both the stormwater pond and the ground water. The flow in the stream seemed to be more than what could be caused by lawn watering and car washing. Looking at the 1936 aerial photo, there was no retention pond or stormwater pond related to this system in. Just not seeing a stream does not mean that it is not there. If the stream is supported by ground water and has a very low flow, the channel could be in the neighborhood of 6-inches wide and it would not be seen on this scale of photograph. Without a detention pond or stormwater pond storage, water collects on impervious surfaces and runs off while it is raining and for a short time following that storm event it continues to run off. In August, the water that was in Stream B, he believed it to be ground water. Looking at Exhibit 7, in the NE comer of the subject site there are dashed buffer lines around Wetland B, there appears to be some evidence of a broader swale formation and to a lesser extent it represents the same swale formation where Stream A runs. Rainfall in the Puget Sound area falls on the ground and in areas where it can infiltrate, natural areas and non- paved areas, it percolates into the ground and becomes an enormous detention pond, it stores water, the ground is porous, it can store large or small amounts, that water is released down gradient and sometimes at great distances from where the water actually fell. Water seepage is characterized by a very steady metered flow over long periods of time. Water channels can move. The likelihood of a channel forming as a result of water discharging at any point along the gradient upstream is highly plausible. The distance between Stream A and Stream B is 200 feet measured at the point where the culvert is shown on the map. Upon questioning by Ms. Ricci. Mr. Mortensen stated that he has a broad background in studying natural resources. He has a degree in Ecology from Evergreen State College, but no degree in Geology or Civil Engineering. He has been a consultant to the City of Renton for approximately 2 years. He works with geomorphologists at his firm as well as stream biologists and engineers and has been involved in various aspects with designing streams and stream channels. Ms. Ricci asked and received confIrmation to his previous testimony today. He did not take any readings from the culvert or as to the water flow from the culvert. He confirmed that his classifIcation of this stream was based on his one visit to the site in August 2005. Although there was ground water naturally occurring in this area, it is not causing the majority of water flow through the culvert. Stormwater is the majority of the water flowing through that culvert, stormwater that is collected up stream of the culvert. He was certain that stormwater has affected this channel. Referencing Exhibit 7, he stated that on this map he sees a smaller swale formation compared to Stream A. He does not necessarily believe that the stream cut that, but that that is an area where the stream channel would ordinarily flow. He did not see any evidence of ground water interceptions in the channel of Stream B and that the channel did not seem to be picking up ground water further down the hill. The ground water situation is that Defoor Appeal File No.: LUA-05-089, SHPL-H June 8, 2006 Page 10 the stonnwater system is picking up ground water above the culvert and then shooting it down the hill. The ground water at one point in time did create a small channel subsequent to that and this erosive force of the stonnwater has deepened the existing channel and down cut it. Neil Watts, Development Services Director, City of Renton stated that he often is asked to interpret the language of the code and in particular as this case relates to stream classifications. An artificially constructed channel is a channel that has been created as a ditch, typically that would be something like a roadside ditch. It is something that is entirely manmade. Sluicing could be interpreted as a process of artificially creating a ditch. Mr. Watts stated that he is a licensed Civil Engineer, with a degree from Seattle University. He has been involved in land use aspects and land use reviews with Seattle and Renton for over 20 years. He has reviewed this project and has visited the site half a dozen times summer of 2005. Regarding the storm system located on Renton Avenue South and the culvert at that location, the water going through that system, at some point created the stream that it now resides in. There has been a watercourse coming down the hill for a very long time, it has been altered by different influences by man, building yards, ditches, culverts, and storm systems. It is not an entirely natural system any longer. It appears that Stream A and B are far enough apart and that they are defmed enough channels that this has been going on to some degree before the roads were built. The underground storm system on 9th Street is pure speculation as to where and how that water ran prior to being constructed. Upon questioning by Ms. Ricci. Mr. Watts stated that he had not reviewed the extent of the area of the collection system on 9th Street nor did he have any sense of the volume that comes through that culvert onto the Defoor property. If the culvert were closed off, it could be expected that there would be some flooding on the other side of the street. The source of the stream is actually the headwaters that are much further upstream. If the drainage course were closed off, the water would cease to flow. Stream B would cease to exist unless it was being fed by ground water sources below that point of closure. All the water that flows through the pipe dumps onto the Defoor property and created the stream channel. They have been unable to find any records or civil engineering records of what was there when the culvert was built. He does not know if there has always been a drainage channel in this exact specific location. He also had no information of a previously existing channel in that exact location. The hill has not gone away and there has always been water running down the hill in some fashion and at some point the water has been directed into a man made system. The water now moves through a man made system. He is charged with determining the language of the code that consultants to the City draft. He is familiar with the term ''hydraulic sluicing" which is an attempt to make a ditch or channel by using water from a stream or a fire hose. If a culvert was installed and water was diverted through it, you would get a very steep banked erosive channel for a period of time, as the decades go by it would start to become a more naturally appearing slope, the slopes would start to become less steep, vegetation would set in and after a period of time it would look and function as a natural stream channel. With steep slopes the initial beginning would be to incise the channel. Ruth Larson, 714 High Avenue S, Renton, WA 98055 stated that on Exhibit 5, page 2 she owns the 3rd house down from South 7th Street on High A venue South and has lived there since 1963. She did not know when the stormwater system and culvert were installed. They have tom up High Avenue South three times since she has lived there, but she doesn't--know what they were doing. Defoor Appeal File No.: LUA-OS-089, SHPL-H June 8, 2006 Page 11 Uphill from the Renton Avenue South location there are two springs that she has seen, one is located on the SE comer of High Avenue South and South 9th Street and the second one is located on the comer of South 9th Street' and Grant Avenue South. Along High Avenue South her house is the fIrst one that has a basement, none of the other homes were allowed to have a basement when they were built because of the water table. She has never seen the people living south of her property ever water their lawns, except for when the lawn was fIrst planted. Brian Beaman stated that he has gone to the site approximately IS times to do test pits, drilling and general reconnaissance, some of that for coal mine research. They have issued reports to Defoor and those most likely have been submitted to the City. He has done detail studies of the site. The road enwankment is creating the contours across the site and because Renton Avenue requires fIll on the downhill side, there has been a modifIcation of the contour and likely the house development added fIll as well. The culvert didn't extend out far enough so they had to pull the embankment back in to meet the culvert so that it would not get covered. The channel like contouring feature has been created in his opinion. The springs that Ms. Larson spoke of would most likely feed into Stream A as seen in the 1936 aerial photo. Wetland B is 196 square feet and the dotted line around the wetland is the buffer. Ms. Ricci gave her closing statement wherein she recapped the testimony heard today and stated that it is their fIrm belief that a Class 5 classifIcation is much more consistent with the nature of conditions of this particular set of water features. Ms. Fontes gave her closing statement wherein she recapped their testimony and stated that their expert when Jieviewing the site saw flowing water and classified Stream B as a Class 3 stream. Stream B is the main focus of today, that is the area where they want to build and has the most impact for them. The water that comes out of the culvert has certainly affected this stream, however, that is not the issue. The issue is whether the streambed was artificially constructed by sluicing, digging or whatever method. Ms. Ricci stated that they did establish that there was no pre-existing channel until the City introduced stormwater, collected and dispersed it onto the Defoor property. 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 4:08 pm. FINDINGS. CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The appellant, Jason Walker, hereinafter appellant, fIled an appeal of an administrative decision affecting property in the City of Renton. The decisions involved the classifIcation of water courses that cross the subject property. 2. At the same time, the appellant sought reconsideration of the original decision by the Development Services Director. The original decision was issued on November 17, 2005'. The decision denying the reconsideration was issued on December 7,2005. At that time the appeal became active and a hearing was scheduled. The appellant sought a couple of continuances, which were granted. Defoor Appeal File No.: LUA-05-089, SHPL-H June 8, 2006 Page 12 3. For purposes of semantics and attempting to use tenns that do not foreclose the appellant's appeal or immediately define the subjects of this appeal or prejudge the questions, this office will refer to the three water channels that cross portions of the subject site at issue as "water courses" rather than creeks, gullies, streams or ditches. Those other tenns may be used in this decision when describing how other parties other than the Hearing Examiner referred to those features. 4. The subject site is located on the west side of Renton Avenue North. The site is located generally south of South 9th Street if that street were extended west of Renton Avenue. South 10th Street would intersect the southeast comer of the site if that street were extended west of Renton Avenue. The subject site is a trapezoidal shaped parcel where the western property line is shorter than the eastern property line. 5. A number of water courses cross the subject site. They generally flow east to west across the parcel, which slopes down to the west They are identified on Page 2 of Exhibit 2 and the descriptive names are taken from that page: Drainage I enters the site west of the intersection of Renton Avenue and S. lOth Street. It runs in a northwest direction and joins Stream "A." Stream "A" enters the site from approximately halfway along the eastern boundary of the subject site and runs generally in a southwest direction. Stream "A" continues off-site. It joins an "unnamed tributary to Rolling Hills Creek." Stream "B" runs from what would be the southwest corner of the intersection of Renton Avenue S and S 9th Street. Stream B emerges from a culvert under Renton Avenue S. Not far from where it emerges from the culvert Stream "B" splits into two channels and then merges back into one channel. It generally runs west across the site and enters the north side of Wetland A. Stream "B" according to the map ends at the wetland and then merges with Stream "C". Stream "c" enters at the extreme northwest comer of the subject site and runs south. It turns west and leaves the site continuing to flow along the western edge of Wetland A. Wetland A is located off-site. Wetland A was described as being the location or near the location of a former coal mine entrance. Wetland B is located at the eastern end of Stream B. 6. The appellant challenged the City's stream classifications of three water courses, Streams B and C and Drainage 1. The allegation in each case is that these are not natural streams but that each is an "artificially constructed channel." 7. The appellant was proposing the side-by-side development of a Preliminary Plat and a Short Plat. The Preliminary Plat has been approved and its design would not be affected by this decision. The Short Plat review has been placed on ho~d, as its design would be affected by this decision. These water courses flow across one or the other or both sites. In preparation for the City's review of those plans the applicant submitted a series of reports. The appellants reports recommended that Streams B and C and Drainage 1 (the only water courses at issue for the pending appeal) "be classified as Class 5 streams exempt from the City's critical areas regulations per RMC 4-3-050B.l." (Letter from Development Services Administrator to Michael Chen, November 3, 2005). The City's consultant determined that Defoor Appeal File No.: LUA-05-089, SHPL-H June 8, 2006 Page 13 Stream B should be classified as a Class 3 stream and Drainage 1 be identified as an extension of Stream A. a Class 4 stream. Appellant sought reconsideration of Stream B's classification asking that it be classified as an unregulated Class 5 stream. 8. On November 3, 2005 the Administrator found that "sufficient infonnation was not (underlined in original) provided to show that Stream B should be a Class 5 Stream, that Stream C be classified as a Class 5 stream, and that Drainage I shall be classified as a Class 5 stream." 9. "The Administrator detennined that: 1) Drainage 1 shall be classified as a Class 4 stream; 2) Stream B shall be olassified as a Class 3 stream; and 3) Stream C shall be classified as a Class 4 Stream." This effectively rejected the reports, to wit: "Therefore, the decision has been made not to accept the Wetland Study, Stream Assessment, Habitat Study, Watershed restoration, and Mitigation Plan prepared by Talasea €onsultants, Inc, revised October 3,2005." 1 O. The appellant alleges that these streams "are the direct result of intentional man-made activities (i.e. erosion .due to point-discharge of stonnwater) and should therefore be considered artificial by provisions of the RMC." They based this claim on historic aerial photographs, which they say do not show them as distinguishable in 1936 and 1946. They say that they do show as defined after 1965. They attribute this to point-rlischarge of unrestrained stonnwater onto a highly erodable soil surface. At the hearing the appellant produced additional evidence they claim shows that these water courses are not natural (see below). 1 1. The appellant states: "We believe Stream B, Stream C, and Drainage 1 were created as a result of the implementation of roadway and drainage improvements after 1946 ... These features exhibit 'flow within an artificially constructed channel where no naturally defined channel had previously existed' (RMC 4.3.050. (L).l.a.v), and should therefore be considered artificial, meeting the definition of Class 5 Water." 12. The appellant in its appeal and reconsideration letter went on to note that similar drainage channels created by erosion were previously determined as artificial and unregulated. The Director found this line of argument unpersuasive noting that the code provisions had been specifically changed and therefore, prior decisions were not applicable. 13. The appellant then goes on to describe a mitigation and restoration plan to stabilize these water courses. These matters are not pertinent to this review since the only issue at this time is the legal classification of the water courses. The classification will determine what protections they are entitled to and what modifications, if any, are pennitted. 14. The appeal was filed in a timely manner. 15. The appellant provided information to contrast the cross section profiles of Stream A and Stream B. The parties agree Stream A is a naturally occurring creek and show its geomorphology, that is, its historic origins and character. Stream A appears to follow or be located in a swale area that originates upstream or above Renton Avenue South. They suggest that it fonned over several thousand years (page 2, GeoEngineers, Report of May 1,2006). They note its stable side-slopes and angle of repose adjusting over the course of its long-tenn location. It was noted that Stream A is incised at its base probably due to additional water flow resulting from upstream urbanization. Stream B, which the appellant claims is an artificially constructed water course, is deeply incised, the purported absence of a natural swale or depression upstream (east of Renton Avenue) that would have directed the channel in Defoor Appeal File No.: LUA-05-089, SHPL-H June 8, 2006 Page 14 this location and the stream's location at what is termed a "topographic high point." Streams A and B are approximately 200 feet apart. 16. Stream B enters the site and not far downstream of the culvert, splits into two channels. The two channels are approximately 18 inches to 2 feet wide and 3 feet deep. The two channels rejoin (the confluence) approximately 125 to 150 feet down the slope from the culvert. At that point the single channel is approximately 2 to 3 feet wide and 5 to 6 feet deep. 17. Stream B may be fed by a paved and developed area on the east side of Renton Avenue although neighbors report that there is a spring and wet area upslope. These neighbors also report that a storm drain or catch basin located on the opposite side of Renton Avenue, at Renton and 9th, that presumably feeds the culvert always has a strong flow of water in it including during the dry months. The appellant's expert agreed it was a perennial stream but was not sure if ground water contributed to the flow. The appellant's witnesses all agreed that Stream B was formed by erosive flow or hydraulic sluicing generated by stormwater. 18. The two experts noted that the location, on a high topographic aspect, and features of Stream B (deeply incised) do not generally coincide with features of a naturally occurring creek and the erosion signs, soil type, location on slope all support the conclusion it is not a natural stream. ··19. There are other swales like Stream B located along the slope but they are dry and still others are more gently curved. The general topography of the area was formed about 10,000 years ago. 20. It was pointed out that some trees including Big Leaf Maples located near Stream B are not generally associated with wet areas. The Maple is approximately 60 to 80 years old according to a tree ring review. Since the tree is damaged, an accurate count of its rings was not possible. The soil under it is eroded and it is approximately 4 feet above grade. This purports to show that such a tree would not have grown straddling a creek. 21. There are no "as-built" engineering drawings or plans dating back to the 1950's near when the culvert feeding Stream B was constructed. The culvert is 12 inches in diameter. 22. Stream B enters Wetland A off site where it deposits materials and joins with Stream C. 23. The historic aerial photograph from 1936 does not appear to show Stream B but does show Stream A's course. It shows that the road system has not changed much. 24. A general history of stream formation was presented by the appellant to show how natural versus artificial streams are formed. A stream over time is affected by geologic composition, gradient, and climate. Stream A is approximately 3 times wider than deep, whereas Stream B is "gully-like" and deeply eroded which is not generally natural. Stream B does not appear to follow a natural stream location or evolution. The appellant presented testimony that it is in an unusual place and not a typical pattern. Stream B shows signs of being fairly "youthful" in its steep-walled profile, meaning it is decades old but not anywhere near as old as Stream A appears to be. The appellant alleges Stream B appears to be the result of hydraulic sluicing which was intended to create a depression or channel. The witness agreed that "gully" is not exclusive to a created channel and they do occur naturally. The proximity of Streams A and B make it appear, at least, unusual to be the same age. This office finds there is no evidence that there was an intent to create a channel as opposed to just releasing water from a culvert on the downslope side of the roadway. Defoor Appeal File No.: LUA-05-089, SHPL-H June 8, 2006 Page 15 25. The appellant indicated that the old coal mine maps showing surface features do not show either Stream A or Stream B but do show the more major Rolling Hills Creek. 26. The City's expert is familiar with the streams and definitions and helped draft the City's stream regulations. He found no evidence of "construction" such as spoils or ditching in any of the water courses. He had changed opinion on Stream C to Class 4 from initially believing it was a Class 5 based on this lack of pwposeful ditching evidence. The expert also noted that the stream was perennial and was flowing in late August. He noted it was a normal August as far as rainfall. That is it was relatively dry with only one event, an approximately 0.05 inch rain on August 18, 2005. He did not believe that lawn watering or car washing or similar human water generating uses would have generated sufficient water to keep Stream B flowing in August, that is, lawn watering, etc would not create runoff that lasted a significant length of time. He noted that there were no detention or retention systems for stormwater or other runoff in the vicinity and that such facilities were generally not required until the 1970's or 1980's. As for the absence of a definitive stream course in the 1936 aerial photos, he noted that a six- inch (6") creek or one with a very low flow would not be very visible on a photo of this scale when the photo was taken. He also noted that water channels can and do move and change location over time. The City emphasized that with water flowing in Stream B all year, it probably has its source in natural ground water from the hillside above the culvert. Stream B, they allege, would appear to be fed by water that does not originate from only storm events and therefore, drains natural, perennial water. The City's expert did not believe that either stream was constructed. 27. The location of the two natural springs noted by neighbors are in the vicinity and southeast of High Avenue and 9th and at 9th and Grant Avenue. It was noted by the appellant that these could be feeding Stream A, the natural stream. 28. The Administrator who made the decision noted that Stream A and B are far enough apart to support two naturaIdrainage courses. He acknowledges that human intervention has altered the flow and possibly the character of Stream B. The appellant's expert noted the same urbanization probably affected Stream A. There are no records that document the situation before the culvert was constructed. He did speculate that directing water through a culvert, even into a natural shallow swale, could create a steep banked erosive channel that eventually, over additional time, would attain a more natural slope and appearance, but that with steep slopes that occur on this hillside, an incised channel would probably be fonned initially. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The appellant has the burden of demonstrating that the decision of the City Official was either in error, or was otherwise contrary to law or constitutional provisions, or was arbitrary and capricious (Section 4- 8-110(E)(7)(b). The appellant has demonstrated that the action of the City should be modified or reversed. The decision regarding the classification of the streams is affmned. 2. Arbitrary and capricious action have been defined as willful and unreasoning action in disregard of the facts and circumstances. A decision, when exercised honestly and upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances, is not arbitrary or capricious (Northern Pacific Transport Co. v Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, 69 Wn. 2d 472,478 (1966). 3. An action is likewise clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing body, on the entire evidence, is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. (Ancheta v Daly, 77 Wn. 2d 255, 259 (1969). An appellant body should not necessarily substitute its judgment for the underlying agency with expertise in a matter unless appropriate. Defoor Appeal File No.: LUA-05-089, SHPL-H June 8,2006 Page 16 4. Section 4-8-110(E)(7)(a) requires that the decision of the City official be given substantial weight: "Substantial Weight: The procedural detennination by the Environmental Review Committee or City staffshall carry substantial weight in any appeal proceeding. (Ord. 3891, 2-25-1985) The Hearing Examiner shall give substantial weight to any discretionary decision of the City rendered pursuant to this Chapter/fitle. (Ord. 4346,3-9-1992)." In other words the appellant must show clear and convincing evidence of mistake. First, in the matter of Stream C and Drainage I the appellant provided little if any testimony directed to those two water courses. The appellant certainly did not provide any compelling evidence that the Director was incorrect in classifying these two water courses. 5. The City summed up the issues quite accurately -here we have a disagreement between experts. There would appear to be reasonable grounds to accept the view of either set of experts. But code requires that the decision below be given substantial weight. So while it may be unlikely that a natural stream might have originated in the immediate vicinity of the culvert, it was not shown that it would be very unlikely. A number of factors can allow this office to detennine that a natural stream, albeit, possibly a narrow and shallow stream existed in this location. Somewhere upslope sufficient water accumulates over the course of a year to create a permanent, some might say, perennial stream, Stream B. This water is not generated by single storm events since it flows even in August, a relatively dry month. Neighbors report it flows through a catch basinjust east of the culvert all year. 6. A number of issues that were not explored also could lead one to believe some stream or storm flow crossed the subject site in this general location. The property in question was undoubtedly private property when the road and culvert were put in. Yet there is no record that was produced showing any objections from the then property owner about the effect this culvert and steam flow would have on their private property. In other words, it would appear that for some reason the past owner or owners permitted the City to instigate harm using erosive forces to create the water course on the subject site. Or, another alternative might be that the culvert merely formalized a natural drainage course that was located in this general location. As the record demonstrates, the storm drain or catchment on the opposite side of the road appears to always have a flow of water. These may at one time all been surface flows, small creeks, perhaps, that were captured and piped and conveyed to the culvert under Renton Avenue. Again, while the record does not contain any explicit evidence, you would surmise that if private property was being harmed by the culvert and sluicing action of the stormwater, the owner of the property would have raised some objection. Of course, it is possible that it was an absent owner but nonetheless, their interests were being harmed unless water always flowed onto and across the property in this location. 7. The old surface maps fail to show Stream A, the larger and natural stream but do show the more major Rolling Hills Creek. If Stream A was present when these old maps were drawn then it would appear that even this more natural larger stream was considered too small to document. Stream B might have been even smaller still and it might not show up on old aerial photos. Relying on historic maps certainly does notreliably help decide if Stream B existed. The resolution of aerial photographs from the 1930's probably left out smaller detail. Interpreting what details we see in older photographs using our 21st Century mindset could lead to misinterpretations. As we know, current aerial photographs now show incredible detail but that could lead one to believe good detail would be found in 60 and 70 year old photos. The photo evidence is not in itself compelling. 8. Then we have the code wherein it classifies streams with certain characteristics. Class 5 waters: Defoor Appeal File No.: LUA-05-089, SHPL-H June 8, 2006 Page 17 "(a) Flow within an artificially constructed channel where no naturally defmed channel had previously existed ... " The Code does not specifically define "artificially" or "constructed." "Artificially" constructed would seem to mean that there was an intent to "construct" the water course as opposed to just releasing the water from an outfall onto a slope where nature took its course. Webster's Third New International Dictionary (unabridged) defines "artificially" as "in an artificial manner." It defines "artificial" as "contrived through human art or effort and not by natural causes detached from human agency: relating to human direction or effect in contrast to nature." The same source defines "construct" as "to form, make, or create by combining parts or elements : Build, Fabricate (in constructing a new freeway). 9. As noted in the findings, there was no evidence that someone dug a ditch. There were no spoils or piles of material along Stream B. The Director admitted that over time, the culvert could have sluiced the soils and added to Stream B's downward cutting (erosion) or might have created it. But erosion was probably not intended. It does not appear that anyone intentionally planned for erosion to create or deepen Stream B. There is no evidence that anyone purposefully "artificially constructed" Stream B. Stream B might have always been there. Focused by a culvert and unaccompanied by some form of dissipater as would now be installed (if piping to the bottom of the hillside were not required) Stream B could certainly be the gully-like formation we now see. It was also noted that Stream A showed signs of incising although not at the scale of Stream B. Could Stream B have been a very gentle, shallow swale with stream flow, and then been deeply incised after the culvert was installed? There is no answer. 10. Also, while the experts testified that this location would be an unusual location for Stream B to develop, we have the unusual situation where Stream B actually naturally split into two separate channels for a distance of some 120 feet before rejoining in what has been called a confluence. That is something, some impediment whether rock, soil type, log or fit of nature caused a stream that was only one channel to suddenly branch out and create a second parallel channel. Since this was described as an area where no natural channel would naturally form we now have two side-by-side channels. So whatever force of nature created a second channel on this section of sidehill might have been the precursor to a similar event years ago that first created Stream B as opposed to having it been created solely by the installation of the culvert. 11. The appellants have speculated, based on normal geological history, that Stream B was not natural but speculation does not meet the appellant's burden. This office, too, can speculate: Water has probably always flowed down this hillside in various shallow rills. Historically it was channeled or captured into a storm or piped system and culverted and conveyed under Renton Avenue and, in what now would be considered a primitive manner, released unimpeded on the west side of Renton Avenue. This release point might possibly be where it originally crossed the road or hillside. The appellant has the burden of demonstrating that the decision was erroneous and speculation does not meet that burden. 12. The decision below is entitled to substantial weight and will not be overturned unless there is clear and convincing evidence that an error has occurred. If reasonable minds could reach differing conclusions, an error is not substantiated. The decision below must be affmned. ,. Defoor Appeal File No.: LUA-05-089, SHPL-H June 8, 2006 Page 18 DECISION: The decision of the Director is affirmed. ORDERED THIS 8th day of June 2006. TRANSMITTED TIllS 8th day of June 2006 to the parties of record: Zanetta Fontes Assistant City Attorney Renton, W A 98055 Pat Conger 1301 S 9th Street Renton, W A 98055 Brian Beaman Icicle Creek Ettmeers 230 NE Juniper Street, Ste., 101 Issaquah, W A 98027 Neil Watts Director, Development Services City of Renton William Collins 420 Cedar Ave S Renton, W A 98055 Ronnie CS Teng, Leng-Sheng Teng, Mei-Yu Teng Dang, Wei Kang Kho, Chiu-Chu Tuan 835 Elm Avenue San Gabriel, CA 91107 lason Walker Talasea 15020 Bear Creek Road NE Woodinville, W A 98077 Debra Eby Ricci Attorney at Law 16012nd Avenue, Ste. 1080 Seattle, W A 9810 1 Maryann Reinhart GeoEngineers 8410 154th Ave NE Redmond, W A 98052 Ruth Larson 714 High Avenue South Renton, W A 98055 Tim Burkhardt 4927 197th Ave E Bonney Lake, W A 98390 TenyDeFoor SWI, Inc 24633 NE B3M Street Duvall, W A 98019 Jill Ding Development Services City of Renton Renton, W A 98055 Hugh Mortensen Watershed Company 1410 Market Street Kirkland, W A 98033 Eric & Karen Bernard PO Box 58306 Tukwila, WA 98138 Michael Chen Core Design, Inc. 14711 NE 29th Place, Ste. 101 Bellevue, WA 98007 Defoor Appeal File No.: LUA-05-089, SHPL-H June 8,2006 Page 19 TRANSMITTED THIS 8th day of June 2006 to the following: Mayor Kathy Keolker Jay Covington,Chief Administrative Officer Julia Medzegian,Council Liaison Lany Warren, City Attorney Gregg Zimmennan, PBPW Administrator Alex Pietsch, Economic Development Jennifer Henning, Development Services Stacy Tucker, Development Services Stan Engler, Fire Marshal Larry Meckling, Building Official Planning Commission Transpiration Division Utilities Division Neil Watts, Development Services Janet Conklin, Development Services King County Journal Pursuant to Title ,IV, Chapter 8, Section 10OGofthe City's Code, request for reconsideration must be fIled in writing on or bJfore 5:00 p.m., June 22.2006. 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 (l4) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title N, Chapter 8, Section 110, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee ofS75.00 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 •• June 22. 2006. U the Examiner'S Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants, !I!£ executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or final processing ofthe1ile. 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. RICCI GRUBE AlTA, PLLC ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW 10RO BROADACR.I'S J3UILDING CITY OF RENTON . 1601 SECOND AVENUE JUN 2-2 2006 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 TEL. (206) 770-7606 FAX (206) 770·7607 CITY~WsE8mCE /+ffro,!. Z.p.fh. A.(AJ FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET TO: Renton City Clerk COMPANY: "AX NUMBER: 4254306516 PHONE NUMBER: F'ROM; Karen Orehoski DATE!: 6/2212006 TOTAL NO. OF PII.GF.S INCLUDING COVER: 11 RE: Defoor Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision LVA 05-089, SHPL-H o URGENT 0 FOR YOUR FILE 0 FOR YOUR REVIEW 0 pl.eA.SE RBPL Y 0 PLEASE RECYCLE NOTES/COMMENTS: Dear Clerk: Following this page you will find my client's Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision, File No. LUA 05-089, SHPL-H. I am sending the originals via U.S. Mail today. I am also faxing a receipt indicating that we paid the required $75.00 to your office on June 16, 2006. If there are any questions or if you do not receive all the pages, please contact me .immediately. You can reach me at (206) 838-8650 Best regards, Karen Orehoski THE DOCUMENTS ACCOMPANYING TJIIS FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION CONTArN INFORMATION THAT )S OR MAY BF; CONFIDENTIAL AND/OR PROTECTED BY TUt AT1'ORNEY-CLJF.NT PRIVILEGE. TJlE INFORMATION IS INTENDED FOR THE SOLE USE OF THE INDJVrDt'AL NAMED ON THIS TRANSMISSION SHEET ONLY. JJI YOU ARE NOT TlJE lNTr.ND~D RECIPrENT, OR AN AGENT OR EMPLOYEE OF TJlE REClPUNT, PLEASE BE AWARE THAT ANY DISCLOSURE, COPYING, DISTRIBUTION, OR un OF TJUS INFORMATION IS PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED TlJIS FACSIMILE TRANSMrSSION IN ItRROR. PLEASl NOTIFY US BY COLLECT n:r.EPIION:t CALL IMMED.tATILY, AND WE WILL ARRANGE FOR THE RETRIEVAI~ OF' TUE DOCUMENTS. THANK YOU. et: dltr. Marney Veil tUaHs Fftd 1{t:/ld'tnQI1 ,- .. 06/22/2006 13:39 2067707607 RICCI GRUBE AITA PLA PAGE 02/11 APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISIONIRECOM1dENDATIOlQITYOF RENTON L I ~ L1 TO RENTON CITY COUNCIL JUN 1 ! 2006 Fll..ENO. vrn ()S"-oeq /5HPL-J-j , APPLICATION NAME Door ghl?rt Plat-Cl1Y(~L~~EfsE8FACE . ffDt ~ e·"", MJ/ The undemgned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the decision or recommendation of the Land Use Hearing Examiner, dated . J lit YI -< ~ , 20Q,Yz. 1. IDENTIFICATION OF PARTY APPELLANT: Name: T~ r I1L. j)~ h-crr REP~ENTATIVE (IF ANY): Name:j(I{~· 6rwbe thTq, pl"I-Cc. Address: 2l//,? 3/ NG /PZr?i S:/. j DvfV~/1; wA 1?"tJ 1'7 2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Attach additiona1 sheets,ifneccssary) Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is based: FlNDING OF FACI': ~lease designate number as denoted in the Examiner's Report) No. _ Error: :P 1-111 r../ S"..t'( PI--ti71 c.. h ~ cI /Yl.{ m #7' ///7 d t/l tn IJlldrl»)/IZ1. 41/ -trltlrT l/V7'rn b"n4//l'jf' Correction: tJ f-f7r c.. j-. CONCLUSIONS: No. _ Error: P /1 PI f..( S"...(.f A t/?I c h ./ q' fJ.11 m p 1'7/ n d (/l /1/) tfI~/dr/ss/n1 a/I -('!'orS WITn (JlfnC!IA£IDn)'. Correction: _________________________ _ OTHER: No. Ettor. _______ ~ _______ ._... __________________ ~-- Comoction: __________________________________________ __ 3. SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED The City Council is requested to grant the following relief: (Attach explanation, if desired) X Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relief:S (" -c"'" " tfi;Jvn ~q" Modify the decision or recommendation as follows: /}1./ m tTYt?/ j/) t?! 11//h Remand to the Examiner for funher consideration as follows: Other APpell~entatiVeignatUre J)at~ l NOTE: Please refer to TilialV, Chapter 8, of the Renton Municipal Code, and Section 4-8-110F, for specific appeal procedures. "~\r.'TY (;r .F.R K\A pp~ T .\A PPF.A ,_ tn C".nuncil.doc ATTACHMENT TO APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISIONIRECOMMENDATION TO RENTON CITY COUNCIL FILE NO. LUA 05-089, SHPL-H APPEAL OF JUNE 8, 2006 REARING EXAMIN£R'S DECISION SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS: FINDINGS OF FACT: No. 17 Error: The Hearing Examiner states in ~ 17 of his Findings ofFaet that neighbors of the Defoor property testified that there is a spring and wet area slope feeding Stream B. The Hearing Examiner improperly assigns this information as a Finding of Fact because the neighbors did not testify as experts and there was no evidence presented that Stream B is fed by a spring. Correction: ~ 17 should read. that there was no evidence supporting the neighbors' testimony and that the neighbors are not experts. The only evidence presented to support that a wet area slope and/or a spring is feeding Stream B was non-expert testimony by neighbors of the property. Further, the existence of ground water is irrelevant to the ultimate decision which is whether or not this watercourse was artificially created. No. 23 Error: The Hearing Examiner states in ~ 23 of his Findings of Fact that the 1936 aerial photograph does not appear to show Stream B (emphasis added). Correction: This Finding of Fact should read that the 1936 aerial photograph does not show Stream B. No. 24 Error: In the last sentence of~ 24, the Hearing Examiner states, "This office :finds there is no evidence that there was an intent to create a channel as opposed to just releasing water from a culvert on the downslope side of the roadway." It should be noted that no evidence was presented at all regarding the intent of the City when the culvert system and roadway were constructed. Further, intent is ilTelevant to determine the matter at hand as Renton Municipal Code (RMC) does not address intent. Correction: This sentence should be stricken because (1) no evidence was presented to support the Hearing Examiner's conclusion on intent and (2) intent is irrelevant in constnting the relevant RMC provisions. No. 26 Error: The Hearing Examiner'S summary of the City expert, Hugh Mortensen's, testimony fails to note that the Mr. Mortensen's conclusion that the stream was perennial because it was flowing in late August was based on one site visit. Mr. Mortensen presented no field notes or other evidence to support his testimony. Mr. Mortensen based his conclusion that Stream B should be classified as a Class 3 stream on one site visit and does not have the field notes to support that finding. Mr. Mortensen states that a possible reason Stream B is not seen in the 1936 aerial photograph is because a six inch stream would not be visible on a photograph of this scale. The Hearing Examiner fails to note in his findings that this is speCUlation on Mr. Mortensen's behaJf and there was no evidence FILE NO. 05-089, SHPL-H APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION OF JUNE 8, 2006 06/22/2006 13:39 2067707607 RICCI GRUBE AlTA PLA PAGE El4/11 supporting a finding that Stream B was in existence at aU in 1936 and certainly no evidence supporting a finding that it was six inches in width at that time. Further. the Hearing Examiner fails to note that no evidence was presented supporting Mr. Mortensen's conclusion that water other than storm water is feeding Stream B. Correction: 11 26 should note that Mr. Mortensen's conclusions are based upon one site visit and no other evidence was presented supporting his speculation that Stream B was in existence at aU in 1936. The paragraph should also reflect that there was no evidence presented that water other than stonn water is feeding Stream B. CONCLUSIONS: No.5 Error: In 11 5 of the Conclusion section, the Hearing Examiner states that he believes this matter has come down to a disagreement betwcen experts. The Hearing Examiner then goes on to state that the decision below must be given substantial weight. While this is true, it goes against reason to assign substantial weight to the decision of the Development Services Director when that decision was based upon one site visit by the City's expert, Hugh Mortensen, and when Mr. Mortensen is unable to support his findings by field notes or any other data. The Appellant presented several geomorphologic experts, all of whom agreed that Stream B is an artificiaIly constructed watercourse and all of whom presented scientific data based upon scveral visits to the site in question. The Hearing Examiner does not appear to give any wejght at all to this testimony and evidence. While City Ordinance 4346 does require the Hearing Examiner to give substantial weight to the decision below, it does not mean that evidence presented to the contrary should not be assigned the proper weight. The Hearing Examiner concludes that because there may be water, other than storm water that runs in Stream B it is perennial and therefore qualities as a Class 3 stream. This conclusion ignores the evidence that Stream B was fozmed by actions taken by the City of Renton and not through natural means. The Hearing Examiner bases his conclusion that Stream B is a Class ~ stream on testimony that it has a perennial flow. However, according to RMC, the perennial nature of a watercourse does not bar that watercourse from being a Class 5 stream: Class 5: Class 5 waters are non-regulated non-salmonid-bearing waters which meet one or more of the following criteria: (a) Flow within an artificially constructed channel where no naturally defined channel had previously existed; and/or (b) Are a surficially isolated water body less than one-haIf(0.5) acre (e.g., pond) not meeting the criteria for a wetland as defined in subsection M of this Section. RMC 4-3-050(L)(a)(v). The Hearing Examiner's conclusion in ~ 5 is based on a flawed reading ofRMC. Whether or not the watercourse has a perennial flow is irrelevant to whether it was artificially constructed. The drafters ofRMC did not address the nature of the flow of an FILE NO. 05-089, SHPL-H APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION OF JUNE 8, 2006 ~t:Jbllt:J/bt:J1 artificially constructed watercourse and the Hearing Examiner cannot now base his decision on an element that is not addressed in RMC. Further, the Hearing Examiner does not assign the proper weight to the testimony and evidence presented by the Appellant's experts. The Hearing Examiner fails to note that the City presented no evidence, other than speculation. that Stream B is a naturally occurring stream while the Appellant's experts testified and pre~ented evidence that it is an artificially constructed watercourse. Co.rr.ection: Because the Hearing Examiner did not take into consideration all the testimony and evidence presented during the hearing, the Hearing Examiner'S decision should be reversed based on the evidence and testimony presented by the Appellant's experts. According to RMC, the perennjal nature of Stream B does not preclude it from qualifying as a Class 5 stream and inasmuch as the Hearing Examiner's decision is based on the possible perennial nature of Stream B, the decision should be reversed. No.6 Error: In" 6, the Hearing Examiner concludes that because there were no objections from the previous property owner when the road and culvert were installed, that tllere must have been a pre-existing stream. There was no evidence presented to support this conclusion of the Hearing Examiner. The decisions of a prior property owner are irrelevant to these proceedings. It is improper for the Heaiing Examiner to surmise what a past owner would do and certainly when no evidence was presented that the past owner did not object to the City. Correction: This should be stricken from the Hearing Examiner's decision and the decision should be reversed in that it was partly based on irrelevant information that was not supported by testimony or evidence. No.7 Error: The Hearing Examiner addresses the photographic evidence presented by the Appellant and concludes that Stream B not appearing in the aerial photographs is not compelling evidence that Stream B did not exist prior to The City's construction of the roadway and culvert. This conclusion by the Hearing Examiner fails to recognize that there was also testimony from the Appellant's experts that Stream B is likely only decades old. This testimony is based on geomorphologic data. The Hearing Examiner failed to consider the photographic evidence and the testimony presented by the Appellant's expert in conjunction wjth each other. The City failed to present any evjdence or testimony to support that Stream B was ill existence before the road and culvert were constructed. Correction: The Hearing Examiner's decision should be reversed because the Hearing Examiner failed to consider all the evidence and testimony presented during the hearing. No.8 Error: The Hearing Examiner addresses the definitions of "artificially" and "constructed" as used in RMC 4-3-050(L)(a)(v) to define a Class 5 stream. RMC does not define "artificially" or "constructed". It is widely recognized in the law that when a statute fails to define a tenn, that term will be construed in accordance with its general dictionary definition. City of Yakima v. Johnson. 16 Wn.App. 143, 146,553 P.2d 1104, 1105-1106 (J 976). As the Hearing Examiner notes, Webster's Third New International Dictionary defines "artificial" as "contrived through human art or effort and not by natural causes detached from human agency: relating to human direction or effect in FILE NO. 05-089, SI-IPL-H APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION OF JUNE 8, 2006 06/22/2006 13:39 2067707607 RICCI GRUBE AlTA PLA contrast to nature." "Construct" is defined as "to form, malee, or create by combining parts or elements: Build, Fabricate." WhlIe the Hearing Examiner recognizes that ordinary meaning must be assigned to these words, he states in ~ 8 that artificially constructed seems to mean there was intent to construct the water course. The Hearing Examiner extends the definitions provided by Webster's Third New International Dictionary by adding the element ofiotent. The definitions do not speak to intent nor does the RMC. Correction: The Hearing Examiner's decision should be reversed because the ordinary meaning of "artificially" and "construct" do not contain an element of intent and RMC does not require that the City intentionally construct an artificial channel in order for a watercourse to be a Class 5 stream. The drafters of RMC did not include an element of intent in their definition and the Hearing Examiner cannot now base his decision on lack of intent. PAGE 06/11 No.9 Error: The Hearing Examiner's conclusions in ~ 9 are based upon his finding that the City did not ;ntentionally construct a watercourse. As noted above, this is in error because neither the ordinary meaning of "artificially" and "constructed" nor RMC require that there be intent Reading the definition of a Class 5 stream as a whole, it is clear that Stream B is a Class 5 stream: "Flow within an artificially constructed channel where no naturally defined channel had previously existed." The City offered no evidence that Stream B existed prior to the construction of the road and culvert system. On the other hand, the AppeJlant's experts presented ample evidence that this watercourse was not in existence prior to the constru.ction of the road and eulvert system. Correction: The Hearing Examiner's decision should be reversed because he mistakenly bases his decision on lack of intent by the City where intent is not an clement in the RMC or the ordinary definitions of "artificially" or "constructed". No. 10 Error: The conclusions reached by the Hearing Examiner in ~ 10 are not supported by any evidence presented by the City. These conc1usions are not supported by any Finding of Fact in the record. Correction: The Hearing Examiner's decision should be reversed because his conclusions are not based on evidence of record. No. 11 Error: The Hearing Examiner states the Appellant has speculated that Stream B is artificial and that speculation does not meet the Appellant's burden. The record reflects that the Appellant's case is based on much more than speCUlation. The Appellant's case is based on geomorphologic science and this qualifies as more than speculation. However, the City's case appears to be based on a conclusion reached by one person who made one visit to the site at issue. The expert testimony and evidence presented by the Appellant qualifies as more than speculation and should be given more weight than the Hearing Examiner is willing to assign to it. Even while giving substantial weight to the decision below, the ample evidence presented by thc Appellant met the Appellant's burden in this matter, demonstrating that the decision below was in error by a showing of clear and convincing evidence. Correction: The Hearing Exarnjner'~ decision should be reversed because he fails to base his decision on evidence of record. FILE NO. 05-089, SHPL-H APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION OF JUNE 8, 2006 ~t:lbllt:l/bt:ll ~!~~! ~~U~C AliA ~LA 1\ \. . J No. 12Error: As stated above, the Appel1ant met the burden of demonstrating that the decision below was in error and did so with clear and convincing evidence. The record itself clearly demonstrates that Stream B was artificially constructed by the City's construction of the roadway and oulvert system. The Hearing Examiner fails to assign the prQpcr weight to testimony and evidence presented by the Appellant. Correction: The Hearing Examiner's decision should be reversed because the Appellant did meet his burden of demonstrating error with the decision below and did so by presenting clear and convincing evidence to the Hearing Examiner. SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED: The Appellant respectfully requests that the Renton City Council reverse the June 8.2006, decision of the Hearing Examiner and grant the following relief: Classify Stream B as a Class 5 stream based upon the evidence in the record demonstrating that Stream B was artificially constructed when the City of Renton constructed the roadway and culvert system. FILE NO. 05-089, SHPL-H APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION OF JUNE 8, 2006 :If::lb I 1f::l/oEll RICCI GRUBE AlTA PLA PAGE 09/1::' REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL TO ACCEPT NEW EVIDENCE FILE NO. LUA 05-089, SHPL-H RE: APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION OF JUNE 8, 2006 The Appellant, T eny Defoor, respectfully requests that the City Council accept new evidence in this matter attached to this Request as Exhibit A. This affidavit was not avaiJable to the Appellant at the time of the hearing before the Hearing Examiner as the author of the affidavit. Larry Fisher of the Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife, did not make a site visit until after the hearing took place. In accordance with RMC 4-8- 110F(5), this evjdence was not available to the Appellant at the time of the hearing before the Hearing Examiner. FILE NO. 05-089, SHPL-ll REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL TO ACCEPT NEW EVIDENCE rl-\I'::II::' ltJl II ~uu"u,ou, EXHIBIT A Defoor Appeal of June 8~ 2006 Hearing Examiner's Decision LUA 05~089, SHPL-H EXHmIT A -Declaration of Larry Fisher 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Lt:lbllt:l/bt:ll ~lCCl ~~UH~ ALIA ~LA APPEAL OF .TUNE 8~ 2006 lIEAiUNG EXAMINER'S DECISIONIRECOMMENUA nON TO .RENTON erTY COUNCIL ~AGE 11111 RE: DEFOOR APPEAL FILE NO. LUA 05-089, SHPL-H DECLAR4. nON OF T..ARR Y FISHER I, Larry Fisher~ certify and declare a:; follows; 1. I am an Area. Habitat Biologist with the Washi"-Q;ton Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2. I have rcviewed rhe fea.tures on the Defoor propElJ'ty located in the City of Renton 14 referred to as Stream B and Drainage ]. ]5 3. My review of Stream Band DrZlinage 1 took: place: on Friday May 30, 2006, at the ) 6 propeny site at issue. 1 was accompanied by WHtiam Shiels. Principal of Talasaea ]7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Consultant3. 4. BlI.Sed on the goomorphologic charact-cristics of Stream B aJld Drainage 1~ it is my opinion tha.t Stream B and Orainage ] atc 'he r~ult of erosion due to the discharge of ~ormwztcr aJong Renton A'\'enue South. and are therefore artificial wa.tercourses. DATED at 'E?<. Jl~yv!" , Washington t]lis Z2. ~day of ~oJ"'" (, .2006. ~ O-;:~-f)~ - Lan:y Fisher Area Habitat Biologist Washington J)epartri:lt~nl ofFish and Wildlife DECLARA nON OF LARRY flSHBR RB: D8P'OOR . APPEAL TO RENTON CITY COl.1NCn. -P"CC I of 1 c "'-__ Jf \....~V',o City of Renton Municipal Code; Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110 -Appeals 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) 4-8-11OF: Appeals to City Council -Procedures 1. Time for Appeal: Unless a specific section or State law providing for review of decision of the Examiner requires review thereof by the Superior Court or any other body, any interested party aggrieved by the Examiner's written decision or recommendation may submit a notice of appeal to the City Council, upon a fonn 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 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 detennines 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 bearing 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: H, 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 applica~on. 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, modlfying 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) F4 • 17 T23N R5E W 112 ge PI. RM=E ............ . S 18th RM-F 21st SL " '" ·············-----R1V1=f"'-" ; , R1-B-- ·T;··r···:-··-·!···.···_-_ .... , .... _ !~-H-i R-8 R-8 RM-F" H4 .. 29 T23N R5E W 112 ZONING ----Renton Oiv Umlt,I G4 PIBIPW TJlCHNlCAL SBllVlClS 02Il6I06 20 T23N R5E W 1/2 5320 COMMENCING AT 9:00 AM, CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING October 3, 2006 AGENDA COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7TH FLOOR, RENTON CITY HALL The application(s) listed are in order of application number only and not necessarily the order in which they will be heard. Items will be called for hearing at the discretion of the Hearing Examiner. PROJECT NAME: Defoor Short Plat PROJECT NUMBER: LUA05-089, SHPL-H PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Subdivision of a 140,723 square foot (3.2 acre) lot into 5 lots for single family residences and an Open Space Tract. The subject site is located within the Residential - 8 dwelling unit per acre (R-8) zoning designation. The proposed lot sizes range from 7,137 square feet to 10,198 square feet. Access to the proposed lots would be provided via single family residential driveways onto Renton Avenue S. A Class 3 steam, 3 Class 4 streams, a Category 3 wetland, Steep Slopes, and High Coal Mine Hazard areas are located on the project site. PROJECT NAME: Monterey Place II Preliminary Plat PROJECT NUMBER: LUA06-104, PP PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Preliminary Plat approval for the subdivision of an existing 11,459 square foot parcel into two lots located within the Residential - 8 dwelling unit per acre (R-8) zoning designation for the future construction of two new single family residences. The subject property was previously subdivided as a short plat under LUAOO-113 within the past 5 years, therefore the current subdivision request is reviewed as a Preliminary Plat. Proposed Lot 1 would be 5,269 square feet in area and proposed Lot 2 would be 6,143 square feet in area. Access to the proposed lots would be provided directly off of NE 16th Street. No sensitive areas have been identified on the project site. HEX Agenda 10-3-06 ,. October 17, 2006 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON Minutes APPLICANT/OWNER: CONTACT: LOCATION: SUMMARY OF REQUEST: SUMMARY OF ACTION: DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT: PUBLIC HEARING: Terry Defoor GWCInc. 24633 NE 133rd Street Duvall, W A 98019 Debra Eby Ricci Ricci Grube Aita, PLLC Attorneys and Counselors at Law 1601 Second Ave., Ste. 1080 Seattle, W A 98101 Defoor Short Plat LUA 05-089, SHPL-H 900 Renton Avenue South Hearing Examiner Short Plat approval for the subdivision of 3.2 acres into five lots for the future development of single- family residences. Development Services Recommendation: Approve subject to conditions The Development Services Report was received by the Examiner on September 26, 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 The following minutes are a summary of the October 3, 2006 hearing. The legal record is recorded on CD. The hearing opened on Tuesday, October 3, 2006, at 9:25 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No.1: Yellow file containing the original Exhibit No.2: Neighborhood Detail Map application, proof of posting, proof of publication and other documentation pertinent to this request. Exhibit No.3: Preliminary Short Plat Map Exhibit No.4: Preliminary Landscape Plan Defoor Short Plat File No.: LUA-05-089, SHPL-H October 17, 2006 Page 2 Exhibit No.5: PreliminalY Grading and Utility Plan Exhibit No.7: Slope Analysis Exhibit No.9: City's Determination of the Unmapped StreamslWetIand Classification Exhibit No. 11: City's Reconsideration of Unmapped Stream Determination Exhibit No. 13: Appeal to City Council of hearing Examiner's Decision Exhibit No. 15: Sheet W1.1 Exhibit No.6: Tree CuttinglLand Clearing Plan Exhibit No.8: Environmental Review Committee Mitigation Measures Exhibit No. 10: Reconsideration Request/Appeal of Determination of Unmapped Streams Exhibit No. 12: Hearing Examiner's Decision Exhibit No. 14: Zoning Map The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by Jill Ding. Senior Planner, Development Services, City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98055. The site is located to the west of Renton Avenue S, east ofI-405, and north ofa Puget Sound Energy right-of-way. It is located in the R-8 zoning designation and within the Residential Single-Family Comprehensive Plan designation. The property is approximately 3.2 acres in area. The proposal is to subdivide the site into 5 lots and one open space tract west of the proposed lots. The site slopes from east to west with an approximate slope of 26%. The proposal does qualify as a Hillside Subdivision. There are High Landslide Hazard Areas, Erosion Hazard Areas, Steep Slope areas and High Coal Mine Hazard areas located on the site. The majority of these areas are located within the open space tract. The site is currently forested, approximately 25% of the vegetation would be removed for the development of this short plat. There also are four unmapped streams and an unmapped wetland on the site located within the open space tract. The streams flow east to west on the northern and southern portions of the site. The wetland was classified as a Category 3 Wetland, which requires a 25-foot buffer. It is located at the northeast comer of the project site. Stream A has been classified as a Class 4 stream, and is not under appeal. Drainage 1, Stream B and Stream C are under appeal. Drainage 1 is a Class 4 stream, Stream B a Class 3 stream and Stream C also a Class 4 stream. Access to the proposed lots would be via single-family residential driveways onto Renton Avenue S. The Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated with 3 mitigation measures. No appeals were filed. The plan is consistent with the Residential Single Family Land Use, Community Design and Environmental Elements. The net density for the site would be 1.67 dulac, which complies with the density requirement for the R-8 zone. The applicant has proposed larger lot sizes than required in the R-8 zoning standards, the lots are proposed to be located on a portion of the site that does not contain steep slopes and they appear to be adequate. Lots 1,2 and 3 ., Defoor Short Plat File No.: LUA-05-089, SHPL-H October 17, 2006 Page 3 should be adjusted to provide a minimum lot width of 50-feet for each of the proposed lots. Staff requested a revised short plat map be submitted prior to approval of the final short plat. A Homeowner's Association or Maintenance Agreements should be created to establish responsibility for any common improvements and the proposed open space tract. The preliminary plat map indicates the setback lines on each lot. The setbacks will be verified at the time of building permit review, each lot appears to provide adequate area to comply with the required setbacks. The building height and lot coverage appear to be in compliance with the R-8 zone, these building standards will be verified prior to the issuance of building permits for each individual structure. Access to all lots would be via single-family residential driveways off of Renton Avenue S. Half street improvements including sidewalks, curb and gutter, paving, storm drainage, street lighting and street signs are required fronting the site on Renton Avenue S. Traffic, Parks and Fire mitigation fees have been recommended for this project. The subject site slopes from east to west and has an average slope of approximately 26%. A Geotechnical Report and Grading Plan has been submitted. The eastern portion of the site has been deemed suitable for development. There are no steep slopes on that portion of the site. The City's Critical Area Regulations permit averaging of stream buffers, Class 4 streams to a minimum of a 25- foot buffer and a Class 3 stream to a minimum of 37.5-foot buffer. Nothing below those minimums has been proposed for this site. A Native Growth Protection Easement must be established over critical areas and their associated buffers. The majority of the critical areas and their buffers are located within the open space tract. There are a few areas where the buffer areas will be extended into the setback areas of the individual lots, which is permissible. Approximately 25% of the vegetation would be removed from the plat. This project came in prior to the rule of saving 25% of the trees, therefore, they do not have to meet that requirement. However, they are retaining a significant amount of trees. A landscape plan was submitted indicating 2 trees for each front yard or planting areas of each lot. A minimum 5-foot landscape strip is required along Renton Avenue S and that was not on the landscape plan. It was determined that if no additional area is available within the public right-of-way due to required improvements, the 5-foot landscaped strip may be located within private property abutting the public right-of-way. A revised landscape plan must be submitted prior to recording the final short plat. The site is located within the Renton School District, they have indicated that they can handle the proposed 2 additional students. The existing storm water runoff sheet flows to the west across the site and eventually is collected in one of the existing stream channels. The surface water runoff that will be created as a result of the construction will be directed to a series oflevel spreaders, detention would not be required on this site. The project is located within the City of Renton water and sewer service areas. There is an 8-inch water main in South 9th Street and a 4-inch water main in Renton Avenue S. There is an existing 8-inch sewer main fronting the site in Renton Avenue S. Separate sewer stubs will be provided to each building lot prior to recording of the short plat. Defoor Short Plat File No.: LUA-05-089, SHPL-H October 17, 2006 Page 4 Debra Ricci, 1601 Second Avenue, Ste. 1080, Seattle, W A 98101 stated the engineers at Pace felt that they could modify the width of the lots to conform with the 50-foot provision, they just need a little extra time to make those adjustments. Jason Walker, Talasaea Consultants, 15020 Bear Creek Road NE, Woodinville, WA 98077 stated that he is a landscape architect and environmental planner with Talasaea. Regarding buffer averaging, there is a little over 10,150 square feet of buffer reduction that has been proposed to reduce the buffers to their minimum allowable dimension under the Code. There is 30,000 square feet available in the open space tract to accommodate the buffer replacement. Drainage 1 is proposed to be relocated into Stream A, which has a very rounded channel, it is not incised and has more flow capacity to handle increase in flow rates. Drainage 1 is an eroded channel and they are proposing to reconvey that channel to a pre-existing structure at the mouth of Stream A which also receives storm water runoff from that stream. That will help to stabilize and stop the erosion of that drainage. Stream A would also be enhanced with a number of native plants that have soil binding properties. Stream B, also proposed to be enhanced, is experiencing erosion from stormwater flows. Stream B is more significantly disturbed as far as erosion and is highly incised. The proposal is to provide approximately 20 pieces of large woody debris within that channel to provide energy dissipation for the stormwater. Stream C is in a remote comer of the site and will not be affected by any of these proposals. The proposed grading plan shows that they will be leveling the frontages of the lots to bring vehicular entry up to Renton Avenue S. It appears to be exceeding 12 yards of fill. The plan appears to be stair stepped so that they will have a daylight basement house with a garage entry located at street level. Bill Collins, 420 Cedar Avenue S, Renton, W A 98055 stated that they were concerned with during and after construction and how any introduced fill would be prevented from introducing itself into the buffer setbacks, Stream A and B setbacks. The sides are very steep and a retaining wall will have to be built up to the edge of the stream buffers. Jason Walker stated that there would be wall systems available that could be placed with minimal impact to the streams. It appears from the drawings that there would be six to seven feet of fill. Without the final design, he could not be positive how it would actually be handled. Kayren Kittrick, Development Services stated that Renton Avenue is wide enough there is no need for any addition to it. It will have to be verified that there is 20-feet of pavement to the north for access. The water line and fire flow requirements have been reviewed both by Staff and the Fire Department and is well taken care of. The stream buffers are the first thing to be marked when construction starts, double fencing is put up so that it is impossible to go beyond it, they try to minimize the errors. Without building plans it is difficult to say what is really going to happen with the walls and fill. With 12-feet offill, there will have to be an engineered wall or rockery. A condition could be that the engineered wall must be in place before the final recording. Cedar Avenue stops at that location, it was never intended to go through. She did not believe that there was a dedicated right-of-way there. Defoor Short Plat File No.: LUA-05-089, SHPL-H October 17, 2006 PageS Jill Ding stated that she did some calculations on the lots and the lot line between Lots 2 and 3 could be adjusted to meet the required lot width. 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 10:25 a.m. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The applicant, Terry Defoor, filed a request for a short plat. 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 subject site is located at 900 Renton Avenue South. The subject site is located on the southwest comer of the intersection of Renton Avenue and South 9th Street. The parcel is located on Renton Hill, east and upslope ofI-405. 6. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as suitable for the development of single-family uses, but does not mandate such development without consideration of other policies of the Plan. 7. The subject site is currently zoned R-8 (Single Family - 8 dwelling units/acre). 8. The subject site was annexed to the City with the adoption of Ordinance 1547 enacted in June 1956. 9. The subject site is approximately 140,723 square feet or 3.2 acres in size. The subject site is trapezoidal in shape with the south property line slanting from the southeast toward the northwest. The parcel is approximately 329 feet wide (east to west) by approximately 491 feet deep. 10. The subject site has complex topography. The site slopes downward to the west from Renton Avenue at an average grade of 26%. The site also contains landslide hazard areas, erosion hazard areas, both protected and sensitive slopes and coal mine hazard areas. Since the average slopes exceed 20% the subject site is classified as a "Hillside Subdivision." The "Hillside Subdivision" categorization required submission of additional geotechnical information, detailed grading information and larger lots, if appropriate. The applicant proposes importing approximately 7,000 cubic yards offill material and grading approximately 7,100 cubic yards including approximately 100 cubic yards of cut. 11. Four unmapped streams and an unmapped wetland are located on the subject site. The applicant has appealed the classification of three of those streams and that appeal is pending before the City Council. Three of the streams cross the site at its eastern property line (Drainage 1, and Streams A and B), while Defoor Short Plat File No.: LUA-05-089, SHPL-H October 17, 2006 Page 6 the fourth, Stream C, runs across the northwest comer of the site for a short distance. The streams and their CITY CLASSIFICATIONS and buffers from south to north are: Drainage 1: Class 4; 35-foot buffer Stream A: Class 4; 35-foot buffer Stream B: Class 3; 75-foot buffer Stream C: Class 4; 35-foot buffer In addition, Wetland B is located in the northeast comer of the site. It is approximately 196 square feet and generally centered on Stream B. It is designated as follows: Wetland B: Category 3; 25-foot buffer 12. Since the appeal of the stream classifications are still pending, the applicant submitted a short plat based on the City's classifications. The plat would work around and with the streams by using buffer averaging, rerouting Drainage 1 and creating five, somewhat irregularly shaped lots that all front along Renton Avenue. Buffer averaging would allow a reduction in the buffers to 25 feet for Class 4 streams, Stream A, and 37.5 feet for Class 3 streams, Stream B. The location of Stream C, in the northwest comer of the parcel, would not be affected by the proposed platting. Wetland B, a Category 3 wetland, would be unaffected as it is located entirely within the buffer proposed for Stream B. In addition, the majority of the subject site would be left undisturbed in protected areas containing the steeper slopes, coal mine areas, and enlarged stream buffer areas. No development on the subject site is proposed north of Stream B and there would be no reason to reduce its buffer between the stream and the north property line. 13. Staff noted that approximately 25 percent of existing vegetation along the eastern portion of the subject site where the five lots would be developed would be cleared of vegetation. Some areas of the five private lots would contain required buffer areas and staff recommended that those be protected along with other undeveloped portions of the site into a Native Growth Protection Easement. Code also requires two trees be planted in each front yard and that there be landscaping in the street right-of-way. 14. Proposed Lots 1,2 and 3 (north to south) would be located south of Stream B and its narrowed 37.5 foot buffer and north of Stream A and its narrowed 25 foot buffer. Proposed Lots 4 and 5 would be located south of Stream A. Proposed Lot 4 would be located in the area where Drainage 1 would be relocated into Stream A. 15. In keeping with the hillside subdivision requirements, all of the proposed lots exceed the R-8 zone's required 4,500 square feet with lots ranging in size between 7,137 square feet to 10,198 square feet. As staff noted, the Proposed Lots 1 and 2 appear to be narrower than the required 50-foot average for width but that Proposed Lot 3 appears to have sufficient width to allow an appropriate adjustment to the other two lots. This adjustment would modestly alter the lot area calculations but all of the lots already exceed 4,500 square feet. The open space tract would be 96,919 square feet. 16. Access to all the lots would be via Renton Avenue. Grading will be done to create appropriate driveway grades and reasonable building pads. The applicant proposes constructing retaining structures adjacent to the stream buffer areas. This would create trench-like, unnatural slopes adjacent to the creeks. 17. The density for the plat would be 1.67 dwelling units per acre after subtracting sensitive areas such as the steep slopes, coal mine and wetland areas. This falls below the generally accepted range of 4 to 8 Defoor Short Plat File No.: LUA-05-089, SHPL-H October 17, 2006 Page 7 units per acre but is the result of the constraints found on the site including the creeks, their buffers, the other sloping areas and access issues. 18. The subject site is located within the Renton School District. The project is expected to generate approximately 2 school age children. These students would be spread across the grades and would be assigned on a space available basis. 19. The development will increase traffic approximately 10 trips per unit or approximately 50 trips for the 5 single-family homes. Approximately ten percent of the trips, or approximately 5 additional peak hour trips will be generated in the morning and evening. 20. Stormwater currently sheet flows to the west in general. Some would enter the various drainages that flow east to west across the site. The ERC imposed drainage requirements if detention were determined to be required. Level spreaders would collect and disperse runoff resulting from the proposed construction on the site. Downspouts would be tightlined. 21. Sewer and water service will be provided by the City. The applicant will have to meet fire flow requirements for single-family homes and such requirements depend on home size and other factors that will be determined when building plans are submitted. 22. The City has adopted mitigation fees for transportation improvements, fire services and parks and recreational needs based on an analysis of the needs and costs of those services. These fees are applied to new development to help offset the impacts new homes and residents have on the existing community and the additional demand for services. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The proposed plat appears to generally serve the public use and interest. The applicant has attempted to design a plat that works around a number of site constraints and severe site constraints. Currently, three water features affect the more level, developable area of the subject site. The wetland has minimal impact since it is wholly contained within a proposed narrowed stream buffer. Similarly, Stream C is located out of the proposed development envelope and does not affect the site. The coal mine and protected slopes will be confined to a Native Growth Protection Easement. This leaves the eastern one- third of the site for development. The proposed buffer averaging allows the applicant to make use of the site in an almost reasonable fashion, although staff noted, some lots will have to be reconfigured to provide appropriate width. 2. The construction of improvements to retain and define the slopes and narrowed buffers along the streams should be more natural and blended or terraced even if this means the homes have to be designed to take advantage of the more natural or stepped slopes or are constrained by creating more gradual slope changes. The streams should be treated as natural, or, at least, aesthetic features of the subject site rather then be hemmed by either vertical rockeries or concrete walls. The required buffer on the north side of Stream B shall not be reduced as a result of constructing this plat. 3. The reduced density on this clearly compromised parcel appears appropriate. As noted, there are coal mine hazards, steep slopes, wetland and creeks all affecting the subject site. Creating five lots may even be taxing the site given its constraints but the applicant is entitled to some reasonable use of its approximately three-acre parcel. Given the constraints the reduced density appears as an acceptable tradeoff. Defoor Short Plat File No.: LUA-05-089, SHPL-H October 17, 2006 Page 8 4. The development will create infill development in an area where urban services are available. The development will increase the tax base to help offset some of the impacts that the development will create on the City but those taxes will not completely reduce the impacts of new homes and their residents. 5. The development will increase the demands on the City's parks, roads and emergency services. The applicant shall therefore help offset those impacts by providing mitigation that matches the fees established by the City. 6. The applicant will have to provide appropriate onsite landscaping and street frontage landscaping per code requirements. 7. All required buffers shall be clearly delineated and incorporated into a Native Growth Protection easement even if they fall within any of the proposed five lots. 8. In conclusion, the proposed plat appears to provide a reasonable development scenario for this compromised parcel subject to the conditions enumerated below. DECISION: The proposed Short Plat is approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with the conditions imposed by the ERC. 2. The proposed short plat map shall be revised to show each lot with a minimum width of 50-feet. The revised short plat map shall be submitted to the Development Services division project manager prior to the approval of the final short plat. 3. A homeowner's association or maintenance agreement shall be created concurrently with the recording of the plat in order to establish maintenance responsibilities for this development. A draft of the document(s), if necessary, shall be submitted to the City of Renton Development Services Division for review and approval by the City Attorney and Property Services section prior to the recording of the short plat. 4. A Transportation Mitigation Fee based on $75.00 per net new average daily trip attributed to the project shall be paid prior to the recording of the short plat. Each new lot is expected to generate approximately 9.57 new average weekday trips. The fee for the proposed short plat is estimated at $3,588.75 ($75.00 x 9.57 trips x 5 lots = $3,588.75). 5. A revised Wetland Study, Stream Assessment, Habitat Study, Watershed Restoration and Mitigation Plan shall be submitted to the Development Services Division project manager for review and approval prior to the approval of the final short plat. The revised report shall include an onsite buffer averaging plan for the proposed impacts to the buffers of Streams A and B. 6. A revised short plat map showing a Native Growth Protection Easement over the proposed open space tract and the side yard areas of Lots 1,3, and 4 where the stream buffer extends into the side yards shall be submitted to the Development Services Division project manager prior to the approval of the final short plat. The Native Growth Protection Easement shall be recorded prior to or concurrent with the recording of the finals short plat map. Defoor Short Plat File No.: LUA-05-089, SHPL-H October 17, 2006 Page 9 7. The Native Growth Protection Easement shall be delineated with a split rail fence and identified with signage as approved by the Development Services Division Project Manager. A fencing and signage detail shall be submitted to the Development Services Division project manager at the time of Utility Construction Permit for review and approval and that such fencing and signage shall be installed prior to the recording of the final short plat. 8. A revised conceptual landscape plan shall be submitted to the Development Services Division project manager prior to the recording of the final short plat showing a minimum 5-foot wide planting strip along Renton Avenue S. 9. A Fire Mitigation Fee based on $488.00 per new single-family lot shall be paid prior to the recording of the final short plat. The fee is estimated at $2,440.00 (5 new lots x $488.00 = $2,440.00). 10. A Parks Mitigation Fee based on $530.76 per each new single-family lot shall be paid prior to the recording of the final short plat. The fee is estimated at $2,653.80 (5 new lots x $530.76 = $2,653.80). 11. The construction of improvements to retain and define the slopes and narrowed buffers along the streams shall be more natural and blended or terraced even if this means the homes have to be designed to take advantage of the more natural slopes or are constrained by creating more natural slope changes. The streams shall be treated as natural, or, at least, aesthetic features of the subject site rather then be hemmed by either vertical rockeries or concrete walls. ORDERED THIS 17th day of October 2006 TRANSMITTED THIS 17th day of October 2006 to the parties of record: Jill Ding 1055 S Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 Bill Collins 420 Cedar Avenue S Renton, WA 98055 Eric & Karen Bernard PO Box 59306 Tukwila, WA 98138 Debra Eby Ricci Attorney at Law 1601 Second Avenue, Ste. 1080 Seattle, W A 98101 Pat Conger 1301 S 9th Street Renton, W A 98055 Tim Burkhardt 4927 197th Avenue E Bonney Lake, W A 98390 Jason Walker Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 15020 Bear Creek Road NE Woodinville, W A 98077 Ruth Larson 714 High Avenue S Renton, W A 98055 Brian Beaman Icicle Creek Engineers 230 NE Juniper Street Issaquah, W A 98027 Defoor Short Plat File No.: LUA-05-089, SHPL-H October 17, 2006 Page 10 Michael Chen Core Designs, Inc. Maryann Reinhart GeoEngineers Hugh Mortensen Watershed Company 1410 Market Street Kirkland, W A 98033 14711 NE 29th Place, Ste. 101 Bellevue, W A 98007 8410 154th Avenue NE Redmond, W A 98052 TRANSMITIED THIS 17th day of October 2006 to the following: Mayor Kathy Keolker Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator Alex Pietsch, Economic Development Jennifer Henning, Development Services Stacy Tucker, Development Services King County Journal Stan Engler, Fire Larry Meckling, Building Official Planning Commission Transportation Division Utilities Division 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., October 31, 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 E~aminer within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of$75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. An appeal must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., October 31, 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. -------------------~----~-------~-~ -~~------- Project Location: 900 Renton Avenue S (parcel 0007200196) ge PI. . ____ . ..i ... : __ .. __ ~ ----j-~-~J ... ~ ___ .. _ .... _ ... L ._.~ ... _. __ ... 1 ! ··fk··-e R-8 21 st f3t-:-. R-8 F4 -17 T23N RSE W 112 , i \ d ---_ .. ,--- ~ \".,' Q) ,-----, :> /" _ .... _ _', _" _, _ _,'" . _,,:S¢-__ ", ~ RM_=r .. ------------w.~ ~ 18th RM-F .. "" '''.'' r-------R1V1=1f ""'," i ~M-F R-8 RM-F H4" 29 T23N RSB W 112 ~ ZONING ----.... to.. ClV ~ G4 PIBIPW TJraINICAL 8BIlVICIS 02IJ6I06 20 T23N R5E W 1/2 5310 ..j " ~ Ii Ii 1 II 5 .. i t "II ~ j I;~ : ~1I! ~i ' " I~ I llii I" I ~ i!i r: I~ r I I I J I / " I I d , J I I , / ~ , l' , \ ~ , ., I .. , I I , : i . I I ,----------------~--.. --"'-~-. '-' ,--_._--- /1 i:! i;t { i / / I "'-- .. • I I • C •• I I I z 0 ... ... l ~ \l ... J: (ji , 0 ~ 2 S.7lH I , I , I I , I ~ ~ t~ I!i r. ~ i; ~ .' f.."" ~ . . CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA05-089, SHPL-H, ECF APPLICANT: Terry Defoor, GWI, Inc. PROJECT NAME: Defoor Short Plat DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 140,723 square foot (3.2 acre) site zoned Residential - 8 dwelling units per acre (R-8) into 5 lots and an open space tract (Parcel B). The lots are proposed to range in size from 5,500 square feet to 11,574 square feet. The lots are intended for the eventual development of single-family residences. The subject site contains a Class 3 stream, 2 Class 4 streams, a Class 3 wetland, steep slopes, and high coal mine hazard areas. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: LEAD AGENCY: MITIGATION MEASURES: 900 Renton Avenue S The City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section 1. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations found in the geotechnical report prepared by Icicle Creek Engineers dated June 10, 2005. 2. 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 Stormwater Management Manual and provide staff with a Construction Mitigation Plan prior to issuance of Construction Permits. This condition shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division. 3. This project shall be subject to the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual for the deSign of the detention facility, if detention is required per the 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual. ERe Mitigation Measures Page 1 of 1 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 17th day of October 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: SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this Mday of Application, Petition or Case No.: N ary Public in ana for the State of Washington siding at Un ~ , therein. i Defoor Short Plat LUA 05-089, SHPL-H, ECF The Decision or Recommendation contains a complete list of the Parties of Record. HEARING EXAMINER'S REPORT October 17, 2006 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON Minutes APPLICANT/OWNER: CONTACT: LOCATION: SUMMARY OF REQUEST: SUMMARY OF ACTION: DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT: PUBLIC HEARING: Terry Defoor GWCInc. 24633 NE 133rd Street Duvall, WA 98019 Debra Eby Ricci Ricci Grube Aita, PLLC Attorneys and Counselors at Law 1601 Second Ave., Ste. 1080 Seattle, W A 98101 Defoor Short Plat LUA 05-089, SHPL-H 900 Renton Avenue South Hearing Examiner Short Plat approval for the subdivision of 3.2 acres into five lots for the future development of sing1e- family residences. Development Services Recommendation: Approve subject to conditions The Development Services Report was received by the Examiner on September 26, 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 The following minutes are a summary of the October 3, 2006 hearing. The legal record is recorded on CD. The hearing opened on Tuesday, October 3, 2006, at 9:25 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No.1: Yellow file containing the original Exhibit No.2: Neighborhood Detail Map application, proof of posting, proof of publication and other documentation pertinent to this request. Exhibit No.3: Preliminary Short Plat Map Exhibit No.4: Preliminary Landscape Plan Defoor Short Plat File No.: LUA-05-089, SHPL-H October 17, 2006 Page 2 Exhibit No.5: Preliminary Grading and Utility Plan Exhibit No.7: Slope Analysis Exhibit No.9: City's Determination of the Unmapped StreamslW etland Classification Exhibit No. 11: City's Reconsideration of Unmapped Stream Determination Exhibit No. 13: Appeal to City Council of hearing Examiner's Decision Exhibit No. 15: Sheet WI. 1 Exhibit No.6: Tree Cutting/Land Clearing Plan Exhibit No.8: Environmental Review Committee Mitigation Measures Exhibit No. 10: Reconsideration Request/Appeal of Determination of Unmapped Streams Exhibit No. 12: Hearing Examiner's Decision Exhibit No. 14: Zoning Map The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by Jill Ding, Senior Planner, Development Services, City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98055. The site is located to the west of Renton Avenue S, east ofI-405, and north ofa Puget Sound Energy right-of-way. It is located in the R-8 zoning designation and within the Residential Single-Family Comprehensive Plan designation. The property is approximately 3.2 acres in area. The proposal is to subdivide the site into 5 lots and one open space tract west of the proposed lots. The site slopes from east to west with an approximate slope of 26%. The proposal does qualify as a Hillside Subdivision. There are High Landslide Hazard Areas, Erosion Hazard Areas, Steep Slope areas and High Coal Mine Hazard areas located on the site. The majority of these areas are located within the open space tract. The site is currently forested, approximately 25% of the vegetation would be removed for the development of this short plat. There also are four unmapped streams and an unmapped wetland on the site located within the open space tract. The streams flow east to west on the northern and southern portions of the site. The wetland was classified as a Category 3 Wetland, which requires a 25-foot buffer. It is located at the northeast corner of the project site. Stream A has been classified as a Class 4 stream, and is not under appeal. Drainage 1, Stream B and Stream C are under appeal. Drainage 1 is a Class 4 stream, Stream B a Class 3 stream and Stream C also a Class 4 stream. Access to the proposed lots would be via single-family residential driveways onto Renton Avenue S. The Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated with 3 mitigation measures. No appeals were filed. The plan is consistent with the Residential Single Family Land Use, Community Design and Environmental Elements. The net density for the site would be 1.67 dulac, which complies with the density requirement for the R-8 zone. The applicant has proposed larger lot sizes than required in the R-8 zoning standards, the lots are proposed to be located on a portion of the site that does not contain steep slopes and they appear to be adequate. Lots 1, 2 and 3 Defoor Short Plat File No.: LUA-05-089, SHPL-H October 17, 2006 Page 3 should be adjusted to provide a minimum lot width of 50-feet for each of the proposed lots. Staff requested a revised short plat map be submitted prior to approval of the final short plat. A Homeowner's Association or Maintenance Agreements should be created to establish responsibility for any common improvements and the proposed open space tract. The preliminary plat map indicates the setback lines on each lot. The setbacks will be verified at the time of building permit review, each lot appears to provide adequate area to comply with the required setbacks. The building height and lot coverage appear to be in compliance with the R-8 zone, these building standards will be verified prior to the issuance of building permits for each individual structure. Access to all lots would be via single-family residential driveways off of Renton Avenue S. Half street improvements including sidewalks, curb and gutter, paving, storm drainage, street lighting and street signs are required fronting the site on Renton Avenue S. Traffic, Parks and Fire mitigation fees have been recommended for this project. The subject site slopes from east to west and has an average slope of approximately 26%. A Geotechnical Report and Grading Plan has been submitted. The eastern portion ofthe site has been deemed suitable for development. There are no steep slopes on that portion of the site. The City's Critical Area Regulations permit averaging of stream buffers, Class 4 streams to a minimum of a 25- foot buffer and a Class 3 stream to a minimum of 37.5-foot buffer. Nothing below those minimums has been proposed for this site. A Native Growth Protection Easement must be established over critical areas and their associated buffers. The majority of the critical areas and their buffers are located within the open space tract. There are a few areas where the buffer areas will be extended into the setback areas of the individual lots, which is permissible. Approximately 25% of the vegetation would be removed from the plat. This project came in prior to the rule of saving 25% of the trees, therefore, they do not have to meet that requirement. However, they are retaining a significant amount of trees. A landscape plan was submitted indicating 2 trees for each front yard or planting areas of each lot. A minimum 5-foot landscape strip is required along Renton Avenue S and that was not on the landscape plan. It was determined that if no additional area is available within the public right-of-way due to required improvements, the 5-foot landscaped strip may be located within private property abutting the public right-of-way. A revised landscape plan must be submitted prior to recording the final short plat. The site is located within the Renton School District, they have indicated that they can handle the proposed 2 additional students. The existing storm water runoff sheet flows to the west across the site and eventually is collected in one of the existing stream channels. The surface water runoff that will be created as a result of the construction will be directed to a series oflevel spreaders, detention would not be required on this site. The project is located within the City of Renton water and sewer service areas. There is an 8-inch water main in South 9th Street and a 4-inch water main in Renton Avenue S. There is an existing 8-inch sewer main fronting the site in Renton Avenue S. Separate sewer stubs will be provided to each building lot prior to recording ofthe short plat. Defoor Short Plat File No.: LUA-05-089, SHPL-H October 17, 2006 Page 4 Debra Ricci, 1601 Second Avenue, Ste. 1080, Seattle, W A 98101 stated the engineers at Pace felt that they could modify the width of the lots to conform with the 50-foot provision, they just need a little extra time to make those adjustments. Jason Walker, Talasaea Consultants, 15020 Bear Creek Road NE, Woodinville, WA 98077 stated that he is a landscape architect and environmental planner with Talasaea. Regarding buffer averaging, there is a little over 10,150 square feet of buffer reduction that has been proposed to reduce the buffers to their minimum allowable dimension under the Code. There is 30,000 square feet available in the open space tract to accommodate the buffer replacement. Drainage 1 is proposed to be relocated into Stream A, which has a very rounded channel, it is not incised and has more flow capacity to handle increase in flow rates. Drainage 1 is an eroded channel and they are proposing to reconvey that channel to a pre-existing structure at the mouth of Stream A which also receives storm water runoff from that stream. That will help to stabilize and stop the erosion of that drainage. Stream A would also be enhanced with a number of native plants that have soil binding properties. Stream B, also proposed to be enhanced, is experiencing erosion from stormwater flows. Stream B is more significantly disturbed as far as erosion and is highly incised. The proposal is to provide approximately 20 pieces oflarge woody debris within that channel to provide energy dissipation for the stormwater. Stream C is in a remote comer of the site and will not be affected by any of these proposals. The proposed grading plan shows that they will be leveling the frontages of the lots to bring vehicular entry up to Renton Avenue S. It appears to be exceeding 12 yards offill. The plan appears to be stair stepped so that they will have a daylight basement house with a garage entry located at street level. Bill Collins, 420 Cedar Avenue S, Renton, W A 98055 stated that they were concerned with during and after construction and how any introduced fill would be prevented from introducing itself into the buffer setbacks, Stream A and B setbacks. The sides are very steep and a retaining wall will have to be built up to the edge of the stream buffers. Jason Walker stated that there would be wall systems available that could be placed with minimal impact to the streams. It appears from the drawings that there would be six to seven feet of fill. Without the final design, he could not be positive how it would actually be handled. Kayren Kittrick, Development Services stated that Renton A venue is wide enough there is no need for any addition to it. It will have to be verified that there is 20-feet of pavement to the north for access. The water line and fire flow requirements have been reviewed both by Staff and the Fire Department and is well taken care of. The stream buffers are the first thing to be marked when construction starts, double fencing is put up so that it is impossible to go beyond it, they try to minimize the errors. Without building plans it is difficult to say what is really going to happen with the walls and fill. With 12-feet offill, there will have to be an engineered wall or rockery. A condition could be that the engineered wall must be in place before the final recording. Cedar Avenue stops at that location, it was never intended to go through. She did not believe that there was a dedicated right-of-way there. Defoor Short Plat File No.: LUA-05-089, SHPL-H October 17, 2006 Page 5 Jill Ding stated that she did some calculations on the lots and the lot line between Lots 2 and 3 could be adjusted to meet the required lot width. 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 10:25 a.m. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The applicant, Terry Defoor, filed a request for a short plat. 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 subject site is located at 900 Renton Avenue South. The subject site is located on the southwest corner of the intersection of Renton Avenue and South 9th Street. The parcel is located on Renton Hill, east and upslope ofI-405. 6. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as suitable for the development of single-family uses, but does not mandate such development without consideration of other policies of the Plan. 7. The subject site is currently zoned R-8 (Single Family - 8 dwelling units/acre). 8. The subject site was annexed to the City with the adoption of Ordinance 1547 enacted in June 1956. 9. The subject site is approximately 140,723 square feet or 3.2 acres in size. The subject site is trapezoidal in shape with the south property line slanting from the southeast toward the northwest. The parcel is approximately 329 feet wide (east to west) by approximately 491 feet deep. 10. The subject site has complex topography. The site slopes downward to the west from Renton Avenue at an average grade of 26%. The site also contains landslide hazard areas, erosion hazard areas, both protected and sensitive slopes and coal mine hazard areas. Since the average slopes exceed 20% the subject site is classified as a "Hillside Subdivision." The "Hillside Subdivision" categorization required submission of additional geotechnical information, detailed grading information and larger lots, if appropriate. The applicant proposes importing approximately 7,000 cubic yards of fill material and grading approximately 7,100 cubic yards including approximately 100 cubic yards of cut. 11. Four unmapped streams and an unmapped wetland are located on the subject site. The applicant has appealed the classification of three of those streams and that appeal is pending before the City Council. Three of the streams cross the site at its eastern property line (Drainage 1, and Streams A and B), while Defoor Short Plat File No.: LUA-05-089, SHPL-H October 17, 2006 Page 6 the fourth, Stream C, runs across the northwest comer of the site for a short distance. The streams and their CITY CLASSIFICATIONS and buffers from south to north are: Drainage 1: Class 4; 35-foot buffer Stream A: Class 4; 35-foot buffer Stream B: Class 3; 75-foot buffer Stream C: Class 4; 35-foot buffer In addition, Wetland B is located in the northeast comer of the site. It is approximately 196 square feet and generally centered on Stream B. It is designated as follows: Wetland B: Category 3; 25-foot buffer 12. Since the appeal of the stream classifications are still pending, the applicant submitted a short plat based on the City's classifications. The plat would work around and with the streams by using buffer averaging, rerouting Drainage 1 and creating five, somewhat irregularly shaped lots that all front along Renton A venue. Buffer averaging would allow a reduction in the buffers to 25 feet for Class 4 streams, Stream A, and 37.5 feet for Class 3 streams, Stream B. The location of Stream C, in the northwest comer of the parcel, would not be affected by the proposed platting. Wetland B, a Category 3 wetland, would be unaffected as it is located entirely within the buffer proposed for Stream B. In addition, the majority of the subject site would be left undisturbed in protected areas containing the steeper slopes, coal mine areas, and enlarged stream buffer areas. No development on the subject site is proposed north of Stream B and there would be no reason to reduce its buffer between the stream and the north property line. 13. Staff noted that approximately 25 percent of existing vegetation along the eastern portion ofthe subject site where the five lots would be developed would be cleared of vegetation. Some areas of the five private lots would contain required buffer areas and staff recommended that those be protected along with other undeveloped portions of the site into a Native Growth Protection Easement. Code also requires two trees be planted in each front yard and that there be landscaping in the street right-of-way. 14. Proposed Lots 1,2 and 3 (north to south) would be located south of Stream B and its narrowed 37.5 foot buffer and north of Stream A and its narrowed 25 foot buffer. Proposed Lots 4 and 5 would be located south of Stream A. Proposed Lot 4 would be located in the area where Drainage 1 would be relocated into Stream A. 15. In keeping with the hillside subdivision requirements, all of the proposed lots exceed the R-8 zone's required 4,500 square feet with lots ranging in size between 7,137 square feet to 10,198 square feet. As staff noted, the Proposed Lots 1 and 2 appear to be narrower than the required 50-foot average for width but that Proposed Lot 3 appears to have sufficient width to allow an appropriate adjustment to the other two lots. This adjustment would modestly alter the lot area calculations but all of the lots already exceed 4,500 square feet. The open space tract would be 96,919 square feet. 16. Access to all the lots would be via Renton Avenue. Grading will be done to create appropriate driveway grades and reasonable building pads. The applicant proposes constructing retaining structures adjacent to the stream buffer areas. This would create trench-like, unnatural slopes adjacent to the creeks. 17. The density for the plat would be 1.67 dwelling units per acre after subtracting sensitive areas such as the steep slopes, coal mine and wetland areas. This falls below the generally accepted range of 4 to 8 Defoor Short Plat File No.: LUA-05-089, SHPL-H October 17, 2006 Page 7 units per acre but is the result of the constraints found on the site including the creeks, their buffers, the other sloping areas and access issues. 18. The subject site is located within the Renton School District. The project is expected to generate approximately 2 school age children. These students would be spread across the grades and would be assigned on a space available basis. 19. The development will increase traffic approximately 10 trips per unit or approximately 50 trips for the 5 single-family homes. Approximately ten percent of the trips, or approximately 5 additional peak hour trips will be generated in the morning and evening. 20. Stormwater currently sheet flows to the west in general. Some would enter the various drainages that flow east to west across the site. The ERC imposed drainage requirements if detention were determined to be required. Level spreaders would collect and disperse runoff resulting from the proposed construction on the site. Downspouts would be tightlined. 21. Sewer and water service will be provided by the City. The applicant will have to meet fire flow requirements for single-family homes and such requirements depend on home size and other factors that will be determined when building plans are submitted. 22. The City has adopted mitigation fees for transportation improvements, fire services and parks and recreational needs based on an analysis of the needs and costs of those services. These fees are applied to new development to help offset the impacts new homes and residents have on the existing community and the additional demand for services. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The proposed plat appears to generally serve the public use and interest. The applicant has attempted to design a plat that works around a number of site constraints and severe site constraints. Currently, three water features affect the more level, developable area of the subject site. The wetland has minimal impact since it is wholly contained within a proposed narrowed stream buffer. Similarly, Stream C is located out of the proposed development envelope and does not affect the site. The coal mine and protected slopes will be confined to a Native Growth Protection Easement. This leaves the eastern one- third of the site for development. The proposed buffer averaging allows the applicant to make use of the site in an almost reasonable fashion, although staff noted, some lots will have to be reconfigured to provide appropriate width. 2. The construction of improvements to retain and define the slopes and narrowed buffers along the streams should be more natural and blended or terraced even if this means the homes have to be designed to take advantage of the more natural or stepped slopes or are constrained by creating more gradual slope changes. The streams should be treated as natural, or, at least, aesthetic features of the subject site rather then be hemmed by either vertical rockeries or concrete walls. The required buffer on the north side of Stream B shall not be reduced as a result of constructing this plat. 3. The reduced density on this clearly compromised parcel appears appropriate. As noted, there are coal mine hazards, steep slopes, wetland and creeks all affecting the subject site. Creating five lots may even be taxing the site given its constraints but the applicant is entitled to some reasonable use of its approximately three-acre parcel. Given the constraints the reduced density appears as an acceptable tradeoff. Defoor Short Plat File No,: LUA-05-089, SHPL-H October 17, 2006 Page 8 4. The development will create infill development in an area where urban services are available. The development will increase the tax base to help offset some of the impacts that the development will create on the City but those taxes will not completely reduce the impacts of new homes and their residents. 5. The development will increase the demands on the City's parks, roads and emergency services. The applicant shall therefore help offset those impacts by providing mitigation that matches the fees established by the City. 6. The applicant will have to provide appropriate onsite landscaping and street frontage landscaping per code requirements. 7. All required buffers shall be clearly delineated and incorporated into a Native Growth Protection easement even if they fall within any of the proposed five lots. 8. In conclusion, the proposed plat appears to provide a reasonable development scenario for this compromised parcel subject to the conditions enumerated below. DECISION: The proposed Short Plat is approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with the conditions imposed by the ERC. 2. The proposed short plat map shall be revised to show each lot with a minimum width of 50-feet. The revised short plat map shall be submitted to the Development Services division project manager prior to the approval of the final short plat. 3. A homeowner's association or maintenance agreement shall be created concurrently with the recording of the plat in order to establish maintenance responsibilities for this development. A draft of the document(s), if necessary, shall be submitted to the City of Renton Development Services Division for review and approval by the City Attorney and Property Services section prior to the recording of the short plat. 4. A Transportation Mitigation Fee based on $75.00 per net new average daily trip attributed to the project shall be paid prior to the recording of the short plat. Each new lot is expected to generate approximately 9.57 new average weekday trips. The fee for the proposed short plat is estimated at $3,588.75 ($75.00 x 9.57 trips x 5 lots = $3,588.75). 5. A revised Wetland Study, Stream Assessment, Habitat Study, Watershed Restoration and Mitigation Plan shall be submitted to the Development Services Division project manager for review and approval prior to the approval of the final short plat. The revised report shall include an onsite buffer averaging plan for the proposed impacts to the buffers of Streams A and B. 6. A revised short plat map showing a Native Growth Protection Easement over the proposed open space tract and the side yard areas of Lots 1,3, and 4 where the stream buffer extends into the side yards shall be submitted to the Development Services Division project manager prior to the approval of the final short plat. The Native Growth Protection Easement shall be recorded prior to or concurrent with the recording of the finals short plat map. · , Defoor Short Plat File No.: LUA-05-089, SHPL-H October 17, 2006 Page 9 7. The Native Growth Protection Easement shall be delineated with a split rail fence and identified with signage as approved by the Development Services Division Project Manager. A fencing and signage detail shall be submitted to the Development Services Division project manager at the time of Utility Construction Permit for review and approval and that such fencing and signage shall be installed prior to the recording of the final short plat. 8. A revised conceptual landscape plan shall be submitted to the Development Services Division project manager prior to the recording of the final short plat showing a minimum 5-foot wide planting strip along Renton Avenue S. 9. A Fire Mitigation Fee based on $488.00 per new single-family lot shall be paid prior to the recording of the final short plat. The fee is estimated at $2,440.00 (5 new lots x $488.00 = $2,440.00). 10. A Parks Mitigation Fee based on $530.76 per each new single-family lot shall be paid prior to the recording of the final short plat. The fee is estimated at $2,653.80 (5 new lots x $530.76 = $2,653.80). 11. The construction of improvements to retain and define the slopes and narrowed buffers along the streams shall be more natural and blended or terraced even if this means the homes have to be designed to take advantage of the more natural slopes or are constrained by creating more natural slope changes. The streams shall be treated as natural, or, at least, aesthetic features of the subject site rather then be hemmed by either vertical rockeries or concrete walls. ORDERED THIS 17th day of October 2006 TRANSMITTED THIS 17th day of October 2006 to the parties of record: Jill Ding 1055 S Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 Bill Collins 420 Cedar Avenue S Renton, W A 98055 Eric & Karen Bernard PO Box 59306 Tukwila, WA 98138 Debra Eby Ricci Attorney at Law 1601 Second Avenue, Ste. 1080 Seattle, WA 98101 Pat Conger l301 S 9th Street Renton, W A 98055 Tim Burkhardt 4927 197th Avenue E Bonney Lake, W A 98390 Jason Walker Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 15020 Bear Creek Road NE Woodinville, W A 98077 Ruth Larson 714 High Avenue S Renton, W A 98055 Brian Beaman Icicle Creek Engineers 230 NE Juniper Street Issaquah, W A 98027 Defoor Short Plat File No.: LUA-05-089, SHPL-H October 17, 2006 Page 10 Michael Chen Core Designs, Inc. Maryann Reinhart GeoEngineers Hugh Mortensen Watershed Company 1410 Market Street Kirkland, W A 98033 14711 NE 29th Place, Ste. 101 Bellevue, W A 98007 8410 154th Avenue NE Redmond, W A 98052 TRANSMITTED THIS 17th day of October 2006 to the following: Mayor Kathy Keolker Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator Alex Pietsch, Economic Development Jennifer Henning, Development Services Stacy Tucker, Development Services King County Journal Stan Engler, Fire Larry Meckling, Building Official Planning Commission Transportation Division Utilities Division 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., October 31,2006. 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 of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review ofthe 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., October 31, 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. Project Location: 900 Renton Avenue S (parcel 0007200196) ge PI. .... ---.... --,.-... ~.~ -... -.. _.L~ __ J __ .......... 1. ..... : .--._ ....... L.J .......... __ . -~-e ... 1. .. _____ ..1 21st St-;-· ~ R-8 F4 .. 17 T23N RSE W 112 , -+-> ---+mvt=r-~ "". , \ ',,-\ -..... ---........ -- 18th'- RM-F /-------------RM=f\ ""."" i~M-F R-8 "" RM-F H4 .. 29 T23N RSE W 112 .... -..... '--'- .... .-.. -_ ... ZONING ----Beaten. CIt.T I.IIaIt.I G4 PIBIPW TJIaINICAL 8BIlV1CB8 02/16,W 20 T23N R5E W 112 5320 I ~11 ~ \ -o r 0 • 0 "I 0 I~ r J , fir " I J t I I r I : I , J : I I l , ) -t- < I ----f- I I I I I I I , \ ~y • T I I I \ I I I , , / , / , , ..j ~ ~ ;i ,i ~ II Ii. ~ i "JK jlii : ~II! , • In llii I! I .. i!i ~= I~ Ij I , ii! / <S!~ II~ i t I I f t i . I / ,----------------.--~--',~--.. ---. -' ------ / / ! I i /1 '" ' I .. . I I . I •• I r I I I I I ~ I .... ~ I l I ~ !it i! iii , C .... 2 ~ .~ t~ ~ tt ~ ~ :;, ., ~ · . CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA05-089, SHPL-H, ECF APPLICANT: Terry Defoor, GWI, Inc. PROJECT NAME: Defoor Short Plat DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 140,723 square foot (3.2 acre) site zoned Residential - 8 dwelling units per acre (R-8) into 5 lots and an open space tract (Parcel B). The lots are proposed to range in size from 5,500 square feet to 11,574 square feet. The lots are intended for the eventual development of single-family residences. The subject site contains a Class 3 stream, 2 Class 4 streams, a Class 3 wetland, steep slopes, and high coal mine hazard areas. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: LEAD AGENCY: MITIGATION MEASURES:, 900 Renton Avenue S The City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section 1. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations found in the geotechnical report prepared by Icicle Creek Engineers dated June 10, 2005. 2. 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 Stormwater Management Manual and provide staff with a Construction Mitigation Plan prior to issuance of Construction Permits. This condition shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division. 3. This project shall be subject to the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual for the design of the detention facility, if detention is required per the 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual. ERe Mitigation Measures Page 1 of 1 March 24, 2006 Terry DeFoor GWC, Inc. 95 Anchor Court Marco Island, Florida 34145 ICICLE CREEK ENGINEERS Geotechnical, Geologic and Environmental Services INTRODUCTION Report Hydrogeological Consultation Stream B Corridor Renton Hill Property Renton, Washington File No. 0584-001 This report presents the results of Icicle Creek Engineers (ICE's) hydrogeologic evaluation of the "Stream B" corridor at the DeFoor property (referred to in this report as the "Renton Hill Property") in Renton, Washington. ICE previously completed a preliminary geotechnical evaluation and coal mine hazard assessment of the Renton Hill Property; the results were presented in ICE's report dated June 10, 2005. ICE also completed an evaluation of Protected and Sensitive Slope areas; the results were presented in ICE's report dated September 30,2005. We understand that a question has been raised by Jason Walker of Talasaea Consultants, LLC (the wetland and stream consultant for the project) as to whether or not Stream B is a naturally-formed stream. ICE has been requested by Terry DeFoor the project owner, to assist in this evaluation of Stream B from a geomorphological (landform genesis) and hydrogeological perspective. The morphology of this stream is important in identifying its proper sensitive area classification and buffer requirements. To accomplish this evaluation, ICE reviewed historic mine maps dating back to 1911 and historic aerial photographs dated 1936, and completed a detailed surface reconnaissance of the Stream B corridor. STREAM B OVERVIEW We understand that Stream B was identified by Talasaea. Stream B is located in the south portion of the Renton Hill Property, and flows from east to west through an undeveloped forested area. A second stream, referred to as "Stream A" exists to the south of Stream B. Stream B is bordered by Renton A venue South and residential development to the east, residential development to the north, and undeveloped forested land to the south and west. The Stream B corridor and surrounding area have a relatively long history of site use, including residential development (Renton Hill is one of the oldest residential neighborhoods in the City of Renton) and underground coal mining. The site is located at the historical location of the Renton Mine that was active from about 1874 through 1933. HISTORICAL MINE MAP REVIEW We reviewed historic mine maps of the Renton Mine dated 1911, 1918, 1919 and 1932. These historic maps show the underground mine workings and, to a limited extent, surface features such as 230 NE Juniper Street, Suite 101 • Issaquah, WA 98027-2519 • www.iclclecreekengineers.com • (425) 427-8187 phone • (425) 427-6629 fax EX t.f-- Terry DeFoor GWC, Inc. March 24, 2006 Page 2 mining-related buildings, ground surface topography (in local areas), primary roads and streams. No stream is indicated on the historic mine maps at the Stream B location. The mine maps indicate that main entries for the Renton Mine are located in the area currently designated as Wetland A. Stream B flows into Wetland A. Based on our previous coal mine hazard assessment of this area, it appeared that the mine entries, including the main mine entry, were covered and regraded which, in our opinion, created the depression where Wetland A is located. HISTORICAL AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH REVIEW We reviewed historic 1936 stereo image (three-dimensional) aerial photographs of the Stream B area. When viewing these photographs in stereo pairs, the vertical dimension is greatly exaggerated, making it easier to observe and identify valleys, swales or ravines. The current development in the surrounding area, including Renton A venue South and the existing residential development, is consistent with the developed area in the 1936 aerial photographs. In the 1936 aerial photograph, the upland area east of Wetland A is forested and ground surface appears to be relatively planar (no defined swale). For the purpose of this report, a "swale" is defined as a low-relief topographic feature where water may concentrate along the longitudinal axis of the flow path. The area currently occupied by Wetland B is partially cleared with scattered trees. No definitive stream path is visible on the aerial photographs through the Wetland B area. However, we observed a subtle indication of a relatively broad swale taking shape about 50 feet east of the south end of Cedar A venue South in the Stream B area. Stream A is visible within a defined swale in the 1936 aerial photographs. SURFACE RECONNAISSANCE Brian Beaman of ICE completed a surface reconnaissance of the Stream B corridor on March 17, 2006. Stream B "originates" at a 12-inch diameter concrete pipe that is buried under Renton A venue South. The area upgradient (east) of this location is fully developed with residential housing and roads. No swale feature was observed upgradient (east) of this stormwater pipe outfall. At the time of our reconnaissance, water was flowing from this pipe at a rate of about two to three gallons per minute. The ground surface downgradient of the 12-inch diameter pipe outfall is nearly level and covered with dense brush and blackberry vines for a distance of about 150 feet to the west. A network of eroded gullies, some containing water and some not (the dry gullies are referred to as "orphaned gullies"), cross this area in a braided manner. The gullies are consistently 1-to 3-feet deep (near-vertically sided) and I- to 2-feet across. Bedrock (sandstone) is exposed in the walls and base ofthese gullies. At a distance of about 150 feet downgradient (west) of the 12-inch diameter pipe outfall, the ground surface steepens and the network of braided gullies join to form a single gully for a distance of about 100 feet. The single gully crosses a smooth-surfaced area, with a slight definition of a swale beginning to form, much like several other subtle swale features across the Renton Hill Property. The gully through this area averages about 6-to 8-feet deep (near vertically sided) and 3-to 5-feet across. Bedrock (sandstone) is exposed in the walls and base ofthis gully. The ground surface continues to steepen until it reaches a wide swale feature (at least 100-feet wide). A gully, 2-to 6-feet deep and is 3-to 5-feet wide is incised within the swale feature. This wide swale appears to be the same feature noted on the 1936 aerial photographs. The base of this wide swale is roughly coincident with the south end of Cedar Avenue South. At this location, Stream B flow across a gently sloping to nearly level area and bends slightly to the Icicle Creek Engineers 0584001/032406 Terry DeFoor GWC, Inc. March 24, 2006 Page 3 southwest where it enters the Wetland A area. Stream B is deeply incised into this gently sloping area in a gully that is 4-to 6-feet deep and 2-to 4-feet wide. A second deeply incised gully, referred to as Stream C, with similar physical characteristics, flows toward Stream B from the northeast, but does not connect with Stream B. Stream C originates from a 12-inch diameter stormwater pipe outfall at the south end of Cedar Avenue South. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on our information review and site reconnaissance, it is our opinion that Stream B is not a naturally-occurring stream. The geomorphological and hydrogeological characteristics of Stream B indicate that the "stream" was created by stormwater discharge from the 12-inch diameter pipe that flows from the downhill (west) side of Renton Avenue South. Our opinion is based on the following observations: • No evidence of an existing stream channel was observed on the historic mine maps. • It is unlikely that the mine operators would have maintained a mine entry area in-line with a stream discharge. • No evidence of a defined swale or stream channel was observed in the 1936 aerial photographs. • No visible "watershed" (a natural topographic basin of water flow) exists in the area upgradient (east) of the 12-inch diameter pipe discharge point at Renton Avenue South. • The braided gullies in the area below the discharge point are more consistent with unmanaged stormwater runoff being released from the 12-inch diameter stormwater pipe in Renton Avenue South. • The depth of incisement of the Stream B gullies throughout its reach indicates unmanaged storm water runoff; again originating at the 12-inch diameter storm water pipe in Renton Avenue South. The physical characteristics of Stream B more resemble an adversely eroding "ditch" rather than a stream. As noted above, the best physical description is "gully" rather than using a more common term for streams such as channel. During our reconnaissance, we observed a broad swale-like feature in the lower portion of the Stream B corridor. This feature is less pronounced than other depression or swale-like features across the Renton Hill Property that are fully vegetated with no stream incisement, and do not receive storm water discharge. In our opinion, the Stream B corridor would be forested with no defined stream channel if the 12- inch diameter stormwater pipe discharge originating at Renton Avenue South was not present. In our opinion, the gullying of Stream B has created a safety hazard. The City of Renton should be notified of these safety hazard conditions along with appropriate corrective measures to reduce this hazard. USE OF THIS REPORT We have prepared this report for use by GWC, Inc. and their associates and engineers for their use in planning development of the Renton Hill Property. The data and report should be provided to permitting agencies for their information, but our report conclusions and interpretations should not be construed as a warranty of the subsurface conditions. Icicle Creek Engineers 0584001/032406 Terry DeFoor GWC, Inc. March 24. 2006 Page 4 Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with generally accepted practices in this area at the time the report was prepared. No warranty or other conditions, express or implied, should be understood. ******************** We trust this infonnation meets your present needs. If you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance, please call. Document ID: 058400 l.Report4 Three copies submitted cc: Jason Walker (one copy) / Talasaea Consultants. LLC 15020 Bear Creek Road NE Woodinville. Washington 98072 Rob Stevens (one copy) Core Design 14711 NE 29th Place. Suite 10] Belluvue. Washington 98007 Ricci Grube AlTA, PLLC (two copies) 1080 Broadacres Building 160 I Second Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101 Icicle Creek Engineers Yours very truly, Icicle Creek Engineers, Inc. Brian R. Beaman, P.E., L.H.G. Principal EngineeriHydrogeologist 0584001/032406 -- (;;;r~);:JJ :--l:~:-'i~_J~:-' October 17, 2006 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON Minutes APPLICANT/OWNER: CONTACT: LOCATION: SUMMARY OF REQUEST: SUMMARY OF ACTION: DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT: PUBLIC HEARING: Terry Defoor GWCInc. 24633 NE 133rd Street Duvall, WA 98019 Debra Eby Ricci Ricci Grube Aita, PLLC Attorneys and Counselors at Law 1601 Second Ave., Ste. 1080 Seattle, W A 98101 Defoor Short Plat LUA 05-089, SHPL-H 900 Renton Avenue South Hearing Examiner Short Plat approval for the subdivision of 3.2 acres into five lots for the future development of single- family residences. Development Services Recommendation: Approve subject to conditions The Development Services Report was received by the Examiner on September 26, 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 October 3,2006 hearing. The legal record is recorded on CD. The hearing opened on Tuesday, October 3,2006, at 9:25 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No.1: Yellow file containing the original Exhibit No.2: Neighborhood Detail Map application, proof of posting, proof of publication and other documentation pertinent to this request. Exhibit No.3: Preliminary Short Plat Map Exhibit No.4: Preliminary Landscape Plan Defoor Short Plat File No.: LUA-05-089, SHPL-H October I 7, 2006 Page 2 Exhibit No.5: Preliminary Grading and Utility Plan Exhibit No.7: Slope Analysis Exhibit No.9: City's Determination of the Unmapped StreamslW etland Classification Exhibit No. 11: City's Reconsideration of Unmapped Stream Determination Exhibit No. 13: Appeal to City Council of hearing Examiner's Decision Exhibit No. 15: Sheet WI.I Exhibit No.6: Tree Cutting/Land Clearing Plan Exhibit No.8: Environmental Review Committee Mitigation Measures Exhibit No. 10: Reconsideration Request/Appeal of Determination of Unmapped Streams Exhibit No. 12: Hearing Examiner's Decision Exhibit No. 14: Zoning Map The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by Jill Ding, Senior Planner, Development Services, City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98055. The site is located to the west of Renton Avenue S, east of 1-405, and north of a Puget Sound Energy right-of-way. It is located in the R-8 zoning designation and within the Residential Single-Family Comprehensive Plan designation. The property is approximately 3.2 acres in area. The proposal is to subdivide the site into 5 lots and one open space tract west of the proposed lots. The site slopes from east to west with an approximate slope of 26%. The proposal does qualify as a Hillside Subdivision. There are High Landslide Hazard Areas, Erosion Hazard Areas, Steep Slope areas and High Coal Mine Hazard areas located on the site. The majority of these areas are located within the open space tract. The site is currently forested, approximately 25% of the vegetation would be removed for the development of this short plat. There also are four unmapped streams and an unmapped wetland on the site located within the open space tract. The streams flow east to west on the northern and southern portions of the site. The wetland was classified as a Category 3 Wetland, which requires a 25-foot buffer. It is located at the northeast comer of the project site. Stream A has been classified as a Class 4 stream, and is not under appeal. Drainage 1, Stream B and Stream C are under appeal. Drainage 1 is a Class 4 stream, Stream B a Class 3 stream and Stream C also a Class 4 stream. Access to the proposed lots would be via single-family residential driveways onto Renton Avenue S. The Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated with 3 mitigation measures. No appeals were filed. The plan is consistent with the Residential Single Family Land Use, Community Design and Environmental Elements. The net density for the site would be 1.67 dulac, which complies with the density requirement for the R-8 zone. The applicant has proposed larger lot sizes than required in the R-8 zoning standards, the lots are proposed to be located on a portion of the site that does not contain steep slopes and they appear to be adequate. Lots 1,2 and 3 Defoor Short Plat File No.: LUA-05-089, SHPL-H October 17, 2006 Page 3 should be adjusted to provide a minimum lot width of 50-feet for each of the proposed lots. Staff requested a revised short plat map be submitted prior to approval of the final short plat. A Homeowner's Association or Maintenance Agreements should be created to establish responsibility for any common improvements and the proposed open space tract. The preliminary plat map indicates the setback lines on each lot. The setbacks will be verified at the time of building permit review, each lot appears to provide adequate area to comply with the required setbacks. The building height and lot coverage appear to be in compliance with the R-8 zone, these building standards will be verified prior to the issuance of building permits for each individual structure. Access to all lots would be via single-family residential driveways off of Renton Avenue S. Halfstreet improvements including sidewalks, curb and gutter, paving, storm drainage, street lighting and street signs are required fronting the site on Renton Avenue S. Traffic, Parks and Fire mitigation fees have been recommended for this project. The subject site slopes from east to west and has an average slope of approximately 26%. A Geotechnical Report and Grading Plan has been submitted. The eastern portion of the site has been deemed suitable for development. There are no steep slopes on that portion of the site. The City's Critical Area Regulations permit averaging of stream buffers, Class 4 streams to a minimum of a 25- foot buffer and a Class 3 stream to a minimum of 37.5-foot buffer. Nothing below those minimums has been proposed for this site. A Native Growth Protection Easement must be established over critical areas and their associated buffers. The majority of the critical areas and their buffers are located within the open space tract. There are a few areas where the buffer areas will be extended into the setback areas of the individual lots, which is permissible. Approximately 25% of the vegetation would be removed from the plat. This project came in prior to the rule of saving 25% of the trees, therefore, they do not have to meet that requirement. However, they are retaining a significant amount of trees. A landscape plan was submitted indicating 2 trees for each front yard or planting areas of each lot. A minimum 5-foot landscape strip is required along Renton Avenue S and that was not on the landscape plan. It was determined that if no additional area is available within the public right-of-way due to required improvements, the 5-foot landscaped strip may be located within private property abutting the public right-of-way. A revised landscape plan must be submitted prior to recording the final short plat. The site is located within the Renton School District, they have indicated that they can handle the proposed 2 additional students. The existing storm water runoff sheet flows to the west across the site and eventually is collected in one of the existing stream channels. The surface water runoff that will be created as a result of the construction will be directed to a series of level spreaders, detention would not be required on this site. The project is located within the City of Renton water and sewer service areas. There is an 8-inch water main in South 9th Street and a 4-inch water main in Renton Avenue S. There is an existing 8-inch sewer main fronting the site in Renton Avenue S. Separate sewer stubs will be provided to each building lot prior to recording of the short plat. Defoor Short Plat File No.: LUA-05-089, SHPL-H October 17,2006 Page 4 Debra Ricci, 1601 Second Avenue, Ste. 1080, Seattle, W A 98101 stated the engineers at Pace felt that they could modify the width of the lots to conform with the 50-foot provision, they just need a little extra time to make those adjustments. Jason Walker, Talasaea Consultants, 15020 Bear Creek Road NE, Woodinville, WA 98077 stated that he is a landscape architect and environmental planner with Talasaea. Regarding buffer averaging, there is a little over 10,150 square feet of buffer reduction that has been proposed to reduce the buffers to their minimum allowable dimension under the Code. There is 30,000 square feet available in the open space tract to accommodate the buffer replacement. Drainage 1 is proposed to be relocated into Stream A, which has a very rounded channel, it is not incised and has more flow capacity to handle increase in flow rates. Drainage 1 is an eroded channel and they are proposing to reconvey that channel to a pre-existing structure at the mouth of Stream A which also receives storm water runoff from that stream. That will help to stabilize and stop the erosion of that drainage. Stream A would also be enhanced with a number of native plants that have soil binding properties. Stream B, also proposed to be enhanced, is experiencing erosion from stormwater flows. Stream B is more significantly disturbed as far as erosion and is highly incised. The proposal is to provide approximately 20 pieces oflarge woody debris within that channel to provide energy dissipation for the stormwater. Stream C is in a remote comer of the site and will not be affected by any of these proposals. The proposed grading plan shows that they will be leveling the frontages of the lots to bring vehicular entry up to Renton Avenue S. It appears to be exceeding 12 yards offill. The plan appears to be stair stepped so that they will have a daylight basement house with a garage entry located at street level. Bill Collins, 420 Cedar Avenue S, Renton, W A 98055 stated that they were concerned with during and after construction and how any introduced fill would be prevented from introducing itself into the buffer setbacks, Stream A and B setbacks. The sides are very steep and a retaining wall will have to be built up to the edge of the stream buffers. Jason Walker stated that there would be wall systems available that could be placed with minimal impact to the streams. It appears from the drawings that there would be six to seven feet of fill. Without the final design, he could not be positive how it would actually be handled. Kayren Kittrick, Development Services stated that Renton Avenue is wide enough there is no need for any addition to it. It will have to be verified that there is 20-feet of pavement to the north for access. The water line and fire flow requirements have been reviewed both by Staff and the Fire Department and is well taken care of. The stream buffers are the first thing to be marked when construction starts, double fencing is put up so that it is impossible to go beyond it, they try to minimize the errors. Without building plans it is difficult to say what is really going to happen with the walls and fill. With 12-feet offill, there will have to be an engineered wall or rockery. A condition could be that the engineered wall must be in place before the final recording. Cedar Avenue stops at that location, it was never intended to go through. She did not believe that there was a dedicated right-of-way there. Defoor Short Plat File No.: LUA-05-089, SHPL-H October 17, 2006 Page 5 Jill Ding stated that she did some calculations on the lots and the lot line between Lots 2 and 3 could be adjusted to meet the required lot width. 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 10:25 a.m. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The applicant, Terry Defoor, filed a request for a short plat. 2. The yellow file containing the staff report, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) documentation and other pertinent materials was entered into the record as Exhibit #1. 3. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC), the City's responsible official issued a Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M). 4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter. 5. The subject site is located at 900 Renton Avenue South. The subject site is located on the southwest comer of the intersection of Renton Avenue and South 9th Street. The parcel is located on Renton Hill, east and upslope ofI-405. 6. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as suitable for the development of single-family uses, but does not mandate such development without consideration of other policies of the Plan. 7. The subject site is currently zoned R-8 (Single Family - 8 dwelling units/acre). 8. The subject site was annexed to the City with the adoption of Ordinance 1547 enacted in June 1956. 9. The subject site is approximately 140,723 square feet or 3.2 acres in size. The subject site is trapezoidal in shape with the south property line slanting from the southeast toward the northwest. The parcel is approximately 329 feet wide (east to west) by approximately 491 feet deep. 10. The subject site has complex topography. The site slopes downward to the west from Renton Avenue at an average grade of 26%. The site also contains landslide hazard areas, erosion hazard areas, both protected and sensitive slopes and coal mine hazard areas. Since the average slopes exceed 20% the subject site is classified as a "Hillside Subdivision." The "Hillside Subdivision" categorization required submission of additional geotechnical information, detailed grading information and larger lots, if appropriate. The applicant proposes importing approximately 7,000 cubic yards of fill material and grading approximately 7,100 cubic yards including approximately 100 cubic yards of cut. 11. Four unmapped streams and an unmapped wetland are located on the subject site. The applicant has appealed the classification of three of those streams and that appeal is pending before the City Council. Three of the streams cross the site at its eastern property line (Drainage 1, and Streams A and B), while Defoor Short Plat File No.: LUA-05-089, SHPL-H October 17, 2006 Page 6 the fourth, Stream C, runs across the northwest comer of the site for a short distance. The streams and their CITY CLASSIFICATIONS and buffers from south to north are: Drainage 1: Class 4; 35-foot buffer Stream A: Class 4; 35-foot buffer Stream B: Class 3; 75-foot buffer Stream C: Class 4; 35-foot buffer In addition, Wetland B is located in the northeast comer of the site. It is approximately 196 square feet and generally centered on Stream B. It is designated as follows: Wetland B: Category 3; 25-foot buffer 12. Since the appeal of the stream classifications are still pending, the applicant submitted a short plat based on the City's classifications. The plat would work around and with the streams by using buffer averaging, rerouting Drainage 1 and creating five, somewhat irregularly shaped lots that all front along Renton Avenue. Buffer averaging would allow a reduction in the buffers to 25 feet for Class 4 streams, Stream A, and 37.5 feet for Class 3 streams, Stream B. The location of Stream C, in the northwest comer of the parcel, would not be affected by the proposed platting. Wetland B, a Category 3 wetland, would be unaffected as it is located entirely within the buffer proposed for Stream B. In addition, the majority of the subject site would be left undisturbed in protected areas containing the steeper slopes, coal mine areas, and enlarged stream buffer areas. No development on the subject site is proposed north of Stream B and there would be no reason to reduce its buffer between the stream and the north property line. 13. Staff noted that approximately 25 percent of existing vegetation along the eastern portion of the subject site where the five lots would be developed would be cleared of vegetation. Some areas of the five private lots would contain required buffer areas and staff recommended that those be protected along with other undeveloped portions of the site into a Native Growth Protection Easement. Code also requires two trees be planted in each front yard and that there be landscaping in the street right-of-way. 14. Proposed Lots 1, 2 and 3 (north to south) would be located south of Stream B and its narrowed 37.5 foot buffer and north of Stream A and its narrowed 25 foot buffer. Proposed Lots 4 and 5 would be located south of Stream A. Proposed Lot 4 would be located in the area where Drainage 1 would be relocated into Stream A. 15. In keeping with the hillside subdivision requirements, all of the proposed lots exceed the R-8 zone's required 4,500 square feet with lots ranging in size between 7,137 square feet to 10,198 square feet. As staff noted, the Proposed Lots 1 and 2 appear to be narrower than the required 50-foot average for width but that Proposed Lot 3 appears to have sufficient width to allow an appropriate adjustment to the other two lots. This adjustment would modestly alter the lot area calculations but all of the lots already exceed 4,500 square feet. The open space tract would be 96,919 square feet. 16. Access to all the lots would be via Renton Avenue. Grading will be done to create appropriate driveway grades and reasonable building pads. The applicant proposes constructing retaining structures adjacent to the stream buffer areas. This would create trench-like, unnatural slopes adjacent to the creeks. 17. The density for the plat would be 1.67 dwelling units per acre after subtracting sensitive areas such as the steep slopes, coal mine and wetland areas. This falls below the generally accepted range of 4 to 8 Defoor Short Plat File No.: LUA-05-089, SHPL-H October 17,2006 Page 7 units per acre but is the result of the constraints found on the site including the creeks, their buffers, the other sloping areas and access issues. 18. The subject site is located within the Renton School District. The project is expected to generate approximately 2 school age children. These students would be spread across the grades and would be assigned on a space available basis. 19. The development will increase traffic approximately 10 trips per unit or approximately 50 trips for the 5 single-family homes. Approximately ten percent of the trips, or approximately 5 additional peak hour trips will be generated in the morning and evening. 20. Stormwater currently sheet flows to the west in general. Some would enter the various drainages that flow east to west across the site. The ERC imposed drainage requirements if detention were determined to be required. Level spreaders would collect and disperse runoff resulting from the proposed construction on the site. Downspouts would be tightlined. 21. Sewer and water service will be provided by the City. The applicant will have to meet fire flow requirements for single-family homes and such requirements depend on home size and other factors that will be determined when building plans are submitted. 22. The City has adopted mitigation fees for transportation improvements, fire services and parks and recreational needs based on an analysis of the needs and costs of those services. These fees are applied to new development to help offset the impacts new homes and residents have on the existing community and the additional demand for services. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The proposed plat appears to generally serve the public use and interest. The applicant has attempted to design a plat that works around a number of site constraints and severe site constraints. Currently, three water features affect the more level, developable area of the subject site. The wetland has minimal impact since it is wholly contained within a proposed narrowed stream buffer. Similarly, Stream C is located out of the proposed development envelope and does not affect the site. The coal mine and protected slopes will be confined to a Native Growth Protection Easement. This leaves the eastern one- third of the site for development. The proposed buffer averaging allows the applicant to make use of the site in an almost reasonable fashion, although staff noted, some lots will have to be reconfigured to provide appropriate width. 2. The construction of improvements to retain and define the slopes and narrowed buffers along the streams should be more natural and blended or terraced even if this means the homes have to be designed to take advantage of the more natural or stepped slopes or are constrained by creating more gradual slope changes. The streams should be treated as natural, or, at least, aesthetic features of the subject site rather then be hemmed by either vertical rockeries or concrete walls. The required buffer on the north side of Stream B shall not be reduced as a result of constructing this plat. 3. The reduced density on this clearly compromised parcel appears appropriate. As noted, there are coal mine hazards, steep slopes, wetland and creeks all affecting the subject site. Creating five lots may even be taxing the site given its constraints but the applicant is entitled to some reasonable use of its approximately three-acre parcel. Given the constraints the reduced density appears as an acceptable tradeoff. Defoor Short Plat File No.: LUA-05-089, SHPL-H October 17, 2006 Page 8 4. The development will create infill development in an area where urban services are available. The development will increase the tax base to help offset some of the impacts that the development will create on the City but those taxes will not completely reduce the impacts of new homes and their residents. 5. The development will increase the demands on the City's parks, roads and emergency services. The applicant shall therefore help offset those impacts by providing mitigation that matches the fees established by the City. 6. The applicant will have to provide appropriate onsite landscaping and street frontage landscaping per code requirements. 7. All required buffers shall be clearly delineated and incorporated into a Native Growth Protection easement even if they fall within any of the proposed five lots. 8. In conclusion, the proposed plat appears to provide a reasonable development scenario for this compromised parcel subject to the conditions enumerated below. DECISION: The proposed Short Plat is approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with the conditions imposed by the ERe. 2. The proposed short plat map shall be revised to show each lot with a minimum width of 50-feet. The revised short plat map shall be submitted to the Development Services division project manager prior to the approval of the final short plat. 3. A homeowner's association or maintenance agreement shall be created concurrently with the recording of the plat in order to establish maintenance responsibilities for this development. A draft of the document(s), if necessary, shall be submitted to the City of Renton Development Services Division for review and approval by the City Attorney and Property Services section prior to the recording of the short plat. 4. A Transportation Mitigation Fee based on $75.00 per net new average daily trip attributed to the project shall be paid prior to the recording of the short plat. Each new lot is expected to generate approximately 9.57 new average weekday trips. The fee for the proposed short plat is estimated at $3,588.75 ($75.00 x 9.57 trips x 5 lots = $3,588.75). 5. A revised Wetland Study, Stream Assessment, Habitat Study, Watershed Restoration and Mitigation Plan shall be submitted to the Development Services Division project manager for review and approval prior to the approval of the final short plat. The revised report shall include an onsite buffer averaging plan for the proposed impacts to the buffers of Streams A and B. 6. A revised short plat map showing a Native Growth Protection Easement over the proposed open space tract and the side yard areas of Lots 1,3, and 4 where the stream buffer extends into the side yards shall be submitted to the Development Services Division project manager prior to the approval of the final short plat. The Native Growth Protection Easement shall be recorded prior to or concurrent with the recording of the finals short plat map. Defoor Short Plat File No.: LUA-05-089, SHPL-H October 17, 2006 Page 9 7. The Native Growth Protection Easement shall be delineated with a split rail fence and identified with signage as approved by the Development Services Division Project Manager. A fencing and signage detail shall be submitted to the Development Services Division project manager at the time of Utility Construction Permit for review and approval and that such fencing and signage shall be installed prior to the recording of the final short plat. 8. A revised conceptual landscape plan shall be submitted to the Development Services Division project manager prior to the recording of the final short plat showing a minimum 5-foot wide planting strip along Renton Avenue S. 9. A Fire Mitigation Fee based on $488.00 per new single-family lot shall be paid prior to the recording of the final short plat. The fee is estimated at $2,440.00 (5 new lots x $488.00 = $2,440.00). 10. A Parks Mitigation Fee based on $530.76 per each new single-family lot shall be paid prior to the recording of the final short plat. The fee is estimated at $2,653.80 (5 new lots x $530.76 = $2,653.80). 11. The construction of improvements to retain and define the slopes and narrowed buffers along the streams shall be more natural and blended or terraced even if this means the homes have to be designed to take advantage of the more natural slopes or are constrained by creating more natural slope changes. The streams shall be treated as natural, or, at least, aesthetic features of the subject site rather then be hemmed by either vertical rockeries or concrete walls. ORDERED THIS 17th day of October 2006 TRANSMITTED THIS 17th day of October 2006 to the parties of record: Jill Ding 1055 S Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 Bill Collins 420 Cedar Avenue S Renton, W A 98055 Eric & Karen Bernard PO Box 59306 Tukwila, WA 98138 Debra Eby Ricci Attorney at Law 1601 Second Avenue, Ste. 1080 Seattle, W A 98101 Pat Conger 1301 S 9th Street Renton, W A 98055 Tim Burkhardt 4927 197th Avenue E Bonney Lake, W A 98390 Jason Walker Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 15020 Bear Creek Road NE Woodinville, W A 98077 Ruth Larson 714 High Avenue S Renton, W A 98055 Brian Beaman Icicle Creek Engineers 230 NE Juniper Street Issaquah, W A 98027 Defoor Short Plat File No.: LUA-05-089, SHPL-H October 17, 2006 Page 10 Michael Chen Core Designs, Inc. Maryann Reinhart GeoEngineers Hugh Mortensen Watershed Company 1410 Market Street Kirkland, W A 98033 14711 NE 29th Place, Ste. 101 Bellevue, W A 98007 8410 154th Avenue NE Redmond, WA 98052 TRANSMITTED THIS 17th day of October 2006 to the following: Mayor Kathy Keolker Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator Alex Pietsch, Economic Development Jennifer Henning, Development Services Stacy Tucker, Development Services King County Journal Stan Engler, Fire Larry Meckling, Building Official Planning Commission Transportation Division Utilities Division 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., October 31, 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 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., October 31, 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. Project Location: 900 Renton Avenue S (parcel 0007200196) ge PI. ~ "00- ~-·1"··· ~ ~ ~t---.--,.........,...-; R-8 F4 .. 17 T23N RSE W 112 '- /CI) / ! V ~:.---.,----;--->-.rr-.--... --~"'_ ~ ~ ro ~ o "" 1 uJ ~ Q) 1.1. a> ... .1 . ..... ~ .... ~ . ..... {Z} ... ~ ...... ~ .~ .... ~ > -s¢ ... S 18th RM-F "'-'" --,----- ·····-·R1V1=~"" .", R-8 RM-F H4 .. 29 T23N R5E W 112 ZONING ----Beaton 0It,y UmJt,I P/BIPW TBCIINICAL 8JIJlV1CB8 02l16I06 ~M-F R-8 'L..... 1100 W 114800 G4 20 T23N RSE W 1/2 5310 I j t I =; I / d; I I l!l!~ \ I I~ , J \ , , , , 1 "' \ , I I , > ! / r----------------~---.-.. /i ~ i'f I ~ / / , / i • r r • I •• r I C ~ -f J>. ~ ~ ~ ~ (ji ~ 0 !t 2 ------.~--. -._---------- I I I I I I I ~ ~ :>; '" So VlH SlR£.eT t_ '"' r:-: CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA05-089, SHPL-H, ECF APPLICANT: Terry Defoor, GWI, Inc. PROJECT NAME: Defoor Short Plat DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 140,723 square foot (3.2 acre) site zoned Residential - 8 dwelling units per acre (R-8) into 5 lots and an open space tract (Parcel B). The lots are proposed to range in size from 5,500 square feet to 11,574 square feet. The lots are intended for the eventual development of single-family residences. The subject site contains a Class 3 stream, 2 Class 4 streams, a Class 3 wetland, steep slopes, and high coal mine hazard areas. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: LEAD AGENCY: MITIGATION MEASURES:, 900 Renton Avenue S The City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section 1. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations found in the geotechnical report prepared by Icicle Creek Engineers dated June 10, 2005. 2. 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 " of the Stormwater Management Manual and provide staff with a Construction Mitigation Plan prior to issuance of Construction Permits. This condition shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division. 3. This project shall be subject to the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual for the design of the detention facility, if detention is required per the 1990 King County Surface Water DeSign Manual. ERC Mitigation Measures Page 1 of 1 57 Sr ~ . llJ:llJ ~11O ICc: SOURCE: IDTALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. Resource & Environmenlal Planning 15020 Bear Creek Road Northe'ast Woodinville. Washington 98077 Bus (425)861-7550 -Fax (425)861-7549 .. 41H JM hRK ('~,p ~ 5 6iIi 51 ~ ~\, V1 ~1TIiCT 5 7T1l. S1 ~st ." ~ ~ >5 V1 S£SrnPlZ" 1(M(T aLivrr TR 5 ... o· ~ '" 'i-BTH~ I :;:~ ~~ St ~';9fl+-:*:-~/IL-~~ -_ .. __ -lffiI __ _ ; :r ~VdRNOW ~,., f < \\ 'ilq. pl l1l.:! PIJI/( '~, '0' .... = c,"-, GATf C<"b : '4R, R/e I'" .. f I -'" ;;~ r;:-~ 4'", 4.,. 1; ., PROJECT AREA EXHIBIT _ FIGURE I VICINITY MAP DEFOOR PROPERTY RENTON, ~A DESIGN SCALE DATE 5/1/06 REVISED NORTH © Copyright -Talasaea Consultants, INC. r~( '7.- / / \ ~ ~ ;! ,8 /~ .,' . ,!,1'1<[""::'1 ',. "C ""1\'" ",1'("',1 III ' ""!'? ... . >,':1:1';):\';;,1 ., , ;"~~r-I!tC>~ , . . ,I.f· '1'\':. ,II' .u.l.j" i! \ ,0: ", i,ll .. I, " ,r"w."",T· . 1 . ".1 L ::). ~ J': " ,i ,,:,' ' ,,' I ,. 'I"~ ': :\"::"t' :<:1,'1 , I • _,'. " --I, '.' 1)'1 . . ·t ~.' I' " 'j ,,1\, . '. . , 1 (1"1 .,:.' "~!:',,~(I ,,'. "", ,,\ ~' .'I:~II IW _ !:t' i . ',:: ;1;'J':i,' '/; . ,~:\\j,X ~;,rt~,(, 'ii'::, Iii, EXISTIN6 , . , <, ~;,::!:tb;:r/',;:f:1 '. """ " "i,l'\I'i,'.sft;ie~,C,*j' ""'IH'I, ' ! .' .. ' ;.,.,'. .,: '. \II " ", ."' l' t} . I I ~'. .l' I I \\~\ ~ .:~/ / ROH TYP. ---< I STREAM '6'-,1 I-ETLA. ND 'A' ~115' BlFFER) :1,314 SF / ~ (25' EU'FERJ ">:-.. . ~ I ...... ~' " :"'->t":-,,~ ~ ~' C--,;:;d. '-:' . " . < -......:. • -~..., .... i: ::~: >:. >,>:::: ::~>. /"'" \ '~"""'"W'3''' . '. .:.'..,.., ~ ,-' .. /. . , .... "" ...... , .. ~. I 2....· '~"; :.a.~ :~:.;' :'.>"" eW-4 I I & .. ~. Hl.~ ". ";'. EZ3X ST. IN$, '. ........ 1'-· STRlJCTURE "~S~~M'G' , ;J ,~, "h' 6-4 s-.:z \ ...... -;~TYLllE ~,,', ~ ~ ' ........ ~TLAND 'A'eNL.AIliteeMeNT _M 1M. ii~ >_ 1 i pc L>EM ,----' ~ .. -----~ ': L ,11 ,!,I,. i' :r':' .:\l I~. f/*Tlt" std' ',:'" ". TlN4:lB , , i I . .:,.;;r' ,,', (., ,'~'\!:;::~~:" I PL~N L.1:c9I:Nt::' I I ~" ... ' I SHOIlitTP. .... L;.::.A~.:'''· • .';· ~ I --,,~ '" . I I ,.'i",,'I'\·· I .. ' _. ..'n .. ~ ". I TIIit!~~.'.".i."'I.;'.1 '/':.:;-.>, ~ I I c:: I·.....:..:::J EXiSTIN6 ~TlN<ID ,"""'"'' .'<' ' I ,~,~-- EXISnN6 STRlJCTURE ,Jj L V.·,~ '};'~"' ... ':::,4< ,Ii: ! III I ..... SmEH-! I f\lISTORIC"L FIIN HOUSE) . --t---'. it""" i'. ,,:'" .~' "il .• :' J' I ew-e ~ FLM . • J. '''''",,'' ,,,,,,, -~'"' ..... • ,~.. ' .'.' ' .. "p.". . -~ 0= --" r:::;-"--..,:~ . '" ..........·.:r.:::::.' •. :.:'''',:·· +---="'"""~~-~'''"'''" '. ""_ ro ",.."re " ~ ,.", ,,, ..• " •. ' ","",,~re "'-" ""'"~ """" /' ...~ , .. " ., ., " .. "" ~ NOTES \. ..--. ~;"\IIf"'~I.,,;l.CL" .. "; •. ,~.n~'~' '>" /"",,,: \"';:-'1," ~VI~ r'LAN /,~l~i SITE P\.JIN PROVIDED BY CORE DESI,,", 14111 IE 2<lTll PL. SUITE 101, Ba.LEWE, I1A '10001 (425}!le5-1em. 2. ~E 1JRAI.iN61r1AS MODIFIED BY T"LASAEA CON5UL. TIINTS FOR V15UAl. ENlANCEt1:NT. ED TALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. Resource & Environmental Planning 15020 Eear Creek Road Northeast Woodinville, Washington 98077 Eus (425)861-7550 -Fax (425)861-7549 EXHIBIT _ FI6URE 2 DESIGN EXISTING CONDITIONS FOR SCALE OVERALL SITE a V'-IETLAND ENLARGEMENT AS NOTED DEFOOR PROPERTY DATE RENTON, V'-IA 5/1/06 REVISED PROJECT CJ31 © Copyright -Talasaea Consultants, INC. - - -~ .... 1_ --- -~ - _ ~ ___ , __ ,,6"--_ ------------------~;x:r~lff~~-­ BUILDING or:: ," -----5 T-f'i.-AM ~ -B----- I .. ----------------------------------------------~ET~L~D --'Sr ---- "" .. ,S:IG-LEAF MAf?tE IN CHANNEL' '~ I, j ... -[, • ... \ \ \ '\ \ I \ / <J T' --' ,'. r I d. "1,"' , <J .d L\ \ \ -\-,-, \ - \ , \ \ if' \ ' \ \ \ FI6UR ~" '. __ .-~,,_-;-_,":-~_'~ 'I' ----...... -~-\ ~ ----... ",-" "--;'~J ' . --' --~~ -. -. . ...... '" ' . -_' ' " I FIGURE I ..... , ..... ,"'. ~ o ! . ,I ..j /' , -,~~--___ ' __ ---"Ii I,," _'-,. ______ --Ex' 012" DI'A • ..t'· • tfII> "" ' ,..:..,...-,\ It ,---~ --;-~ tN FI:URE 14' " \ ../ • • \' -. 5TJ11t!AM/VtETLANl:' lei ENJ..AfIte!MENT GRAPHIC. SCALE ®NORTli (IN FEeT) , ...1 I b ~ 2~ NOT5 SITE PLAN PROVIDID BY CORE DESleN. 14111 IE 2'ITli PL. SUITE 101. 6aLEWE. HA '0001 (425)~5-1t'>11. 2. SCURC.E DRAHI'I6 HAS MODIAED er TALA5AEA CON!:U.. TANTS FOR VISUAL ENHAN(;EMENT. $TALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. Resource & Environmental Planning 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast Woodinville. Washington 98077 BUB (425)86J-7550 -Fax (425)86J-7549 :'~ , 6 1 G~LVERl' EXHIBIT -FIGURE 3 STREAM B DEFOOR PROPERTY RENTON, HA DESIGN SCALE AS NOTED DATE 5/1/06 REVISED PROJECT «131 © Copyright -TaIasaea Consultants, INC. ~ ~ ,! ' -( I ( ;' i / . ' I 'C " '- { \. r I, \ ~' \ PLE~ " I . / '--..,-~ ./ / ( I /1' Ifi /' .\ \. \. ~, I ~ { //t\ "i -~' .' /--- .t I " Ij /.;> \ STREAM e 6RAF'HIC. 5C.ALE ® (IN FEET}-I ; I I HIMALAYAN BLACKBERRY UNDERSTORY E9TALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. Resource & Environmental Planning 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast Woodinville. Washington 9aO;; Bus (425)861-7550 -Fax (425)86J-7549 EXHIBIT _ FIGURE 4 STREAM B SECTION DEFOOR PROPERTY RENTON, HA )\:!; \ \~' \\l~~ \ INCISED CHANNELS HITH VERTICAL SIDE-SLOPES DESIGN SCALE AS NOTED DATE 5/1/06 REVISED / I ~/ ~/ / " ( 6' PROJECT ct31 © Copyright -Talasaea Consultants, INC. (ED TALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. Resource & Environmental Planning 15020 Ilear Creek Road Northeast Woodinville. Washington 98077 Ilus (425)861-7550 -Fax (425)861-7549 ", "- I \. \ © Copyright -Talasaee Consultants, INC. /!II: STREAM,IAI 1'Ii'I .. o!II! ,I. . ... .~ .. ---- ... .. STReAM A NOTES 4' ~ .. '" " '. -.\------, 51n: PLAN PROVIDe:> 51' CORE DE5leN, 14111 IE 2'lTll PL 9JITE 101, ElELLEVUE, II'IA QtlOO1 (4:25}e/}5-1em. 2. ~E DRAI-IIN51oo1A5 MCOIFIED BY TALA5AEA CON9JLTANTS FOR VISUAL ENlANCeeIT. , i , ! • • "'" :/ %' ii'\' : \,.\) ".' ,'I' 1 , '\' , .. I ~ / .. /~ ,,~I "'" ,fill -----~ -----I ~' "-.. ~, ~ FIGURE 15 (!) TALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. Reeource & Environment.al Planning 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast Woodinville, Washington 9a077 BUB (425)861-7550 -Fax (425)861-7549 .. / ,. /",' ~ EX. 12" DIA C;UL\VERT i ·'1 .. . ,~ Ii fill • I PR@PERTY' ,: . i / .' I I LIN,,'.E/,,~,,:! , " RON.' 'i ' ,,-, , , ' , I ~ '\ , .'1 • \ ~ir ~: DRAINAGE 'I ,~ . .. \ -\, .. , / 1/ EXHIBIT _ FIGURE 6 STREAM A DEFOOR PROPERTY RENTON, HA ,. 11't :. r, ) .. ' .. :d I , , I , ., " " DESIGN SCALE AS NOTED DATE 5/1/06 REVISED 'z C) I~ z w .~ PROJECT Cj31 © Copyright -Talasaea Consultants, INC. " / (, / ,I J II L\\ , I' '\' r:'~\' ''-_''\ I \ ' " " \~ . t'1l" ' \"--' j;) iF3:~ ;",1 ,T j~u'L. ,I., If ""'-"4-!JI,Jl\-f A STIlt!AM A {9TALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. Reeource & Environmental Planning 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast Woodinville. Washington 98077 Bus (425)861-7550 -Fax (425)861-7549 EXHIBIT _ FIGURE 1 STREAM A SEG TION DEFOOR PROPERTY RENTON, HA " I \ ~ I ' I \ Ii )r / ,., \ "'~~ r\.-i;¢'" W'If __ . AI NATIVE FOREST UNDERSTORY SCALE AS NOTED DATE 5/1/06 REVISED PROJECT '131 © Copyright -Talasaea Consultants, INC. '\ . , - \ \ '. ~ / U"" ,. / ,.-' .. ' '" ~'-' •• ' ..•.•.. ....................... '/ /. / ( / /'/ . I \ '/' . ', ..... ' " " . "12]\1 I -. ..-'-. ,'-' : L~ _____ \ ....--.-... 1/· '~"I' , ,I I ' I , ',--1 1 ~ 1 ----1 /1 I \ \ \ \ }. ,\ \ "t!. '. \ \ " '., \ L ~,_ \' \~" ~._ \. _.}:-~''-:.',:,\~_.~ .~'~ i="'''·,HABITAT·I.06,,\; --- STREAM B~ '" " .•.. " ' . : \>"7i~: ' PROVIDE HlLLOW FAsc.i~' i AT STREAM BANKs. (SEE DETAIL :l AND :lA ON SHEEt 2J) , LIMIT OF GLEARI~'-\ (Af'PROXIMATl: EDISE OF ' EXISTlN5 VEffTATION TO REMAIN) : ii .. ' " ' ", '> \ ' .'-', .... . ' ................. 1 ~~ .......... ~~~~ Y :<,~"0~', , '--~ ... ~ l . "~u-./'<A~I: ...... ~ , . . . ,....-, ""v.' / .......... ".1 ~ / ~~ .......... -~ ----.... EXHIBIT _ FIGURE 8 --- PLANT I NcS PLAN NORTH GRAPHIC SCALE ~ ( IN FEET) \Jl) ~--~-~L e TALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. Resource & Environmental Planning 15020 Bear rreek Road Nort.ht?8st Woodirl\-ille, Washington 98077 Ru, (125)861-7550 -fax P25)861-7549 PLANTING PLAN DEFOOR PROPERTY RENTON, HA DATE 5/1/06 REVISED . I -t L .1 © Copyright -Talas,,,,,, Consultants, INC. , \.. PL.ANT SCHEDUL.E TREES SYMBOL SCIENTIFIC NAME /ilfi\ ®-ACER CIRCINAT1A'1 @ \S:J ~ FRAXIIiJ5 LATiFOLIA o..:::!{) RHAM1V5 f'IA'5-IlANA ~. ----PICEA SITCH:N5IS ~ ~~ PIIiJ5 c.oNTORTA • -------ntJJA PLICATA @}--ntJJA PLICATA SHRUBS SYMBOL SCIENTIFIC NAME 0-------.---CORIiJ5 SERICEA ®----HAHONIA AGlJIFOLIUH (!) SALIX LASIANDRA SALIX 5COJL.ERIANA SYMPHORICARPOS ALIlU5 c.ot1MON NAME VINE MAPLE 0RE<50N ASH CAScARA SITKA 5PRUCE SHORE PINE I-ESTERN RED CEDAR i'IE5 TERN RED CEDAR c.ot1MON NAME RED-D5IER D06rIOOD 0RE<50N 6RAPE PACIFIC HILLOH 5COULER HILLOH c.ot1MON 5NCWlERRY "'-STAl1J5 SPACINe Gin'. FAC-AS SHOWN 4 FACH ASSHOHN FAC AS SHOHN FAC ASSHOHN 10 FAC AS SHOWN 4 FAC AS SHOHN 2 FAC AS SHOWN q "'-STAl1J5 SPACINe Gin'. FACH 3'0.C. I~ NL 3' o.c. 135 FACH 3/5YMBOL 4 FAC 3/5YMBOL 364 FAc.U 3'0.C. 140 EROSION CONTROL SEED MIX (P~IDE AT AU. EXPOSED SOIL AREAS) SCIENTIFIC NAME c.ot1HON NAME "'-STAl1J5 SPACINe SIZE (MIN) NOTES 3' HT. H.JLTI-STEM (3 MIN) 5-6' HT. SIN6LE Tl<!H<, HELL flRANCl£D 4' HT. 646, RJLL I flU5HY 2-3' HT. 6' 6, RJLL • flU5HY 4-5' HT. 616, RJLL • 6U5HY 4-5' HT. 646, RJLL • flU5HY 2-3' HT. 6' 6, RJLL • flU5HY SIZE (MIN) NOTES IE>" HT. H.JL TI-CANE (3 MIN) IE>" HT. RJLL I aJ5HY 4' aJTTINe aJTTlN65 OBTAINED FROH ON-5ITE CLEARINe ACTIVITIES 4' aJTTINe HALF INCH DIAMETER, 6ARK INTACT IE>" HT. H.JL TI-CANE (3 MIN) FE5 TlJCA RlJ6RA A6R05 TIS TEtfJIS RED FE5aJE FAC+ 50Ili APPLICATION RATE PER ACRE, COLONIAL 6ENT6RA55 FAC 50Ili 40" SEED MIX 120" HILBlR ELLIS FERTILIZER, 5-10-10 50Ili 16RJ, OR EGUIV. , STALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC" Resource & Environmental Planning 15020 Bear" Creek Road Northeast Uoodin\'ille, Washington 98077 Blls (42~)B61-7550 -Fax (·125)861-7549 EXHIBIT FIGURE q PLANT LEGEND DEFOOR PROPERTY RENTON, HA DESIGN 1DRAWN CL SCALE AS NOTED DATE 5/1/06 REVISED "" 1 PROJECT q31 .-J © Copyright -Talasaea Consultants, INC'. eTALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. Reeource & Environmental Planning 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast Woodinville. Washington 98077 Bus (425)861-7550 -Fax (425)861-7549 EXHIBIT _ FIGURE 10 PHOTO #10, STREAM B CORRIDOR DEFOOR PROPERTY RENTON, WA SCALE N.T5. DATE 5/1/06 REVISED © Copyright -Talasaea Consultants. INC. E[)TALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. Resource & Environmental Planning 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast Woodinville. Washington 98077 Bus (425)861-7550 -Fax (425)861-7549 EXHIBIT _ FIGURE II PHOTO #11, INCISED STREAM B CHANNEL DEFOOR PROPERTY RENTON, riA SCALE N.T.5. DATE 5/1/06 REVISED © Copyright -Talasaea Consultants, INC. eTALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. Rel!lource & Environmental Planning 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast Woodinville. Washington 98077 Bus (425)861-7550 -Fax (425)861-7549 EXHIBIT _ FIGURE 12 PHOTO :J:I:I2, MAPLE TREE IN STREAM B DEFOOR PROPERTY RENTON, NA SCALE N.T.5. DATE 5/1/06 REVISED © Copyright -TaIasaea Consultants. INC. (BlTALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. Resource & Environmental Planning 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast Woodinville. Washington 98077 Bus (425)861-7550 -Fax (425)861-7549 EXHIBIT -FIGURE 13 PHOTO ttl3, GULVERT AT RENTON AVE S. DEFOOR PROPERTY RENTON, \iliA SCALE N.T's. DATE 5/1/06 REVISED © Copyright -Talasaea Consultants, INC. eTALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. Resource & Environmental Planning J 5020 Bear Creek Road Northeast Woodinville, Washington 98077 Bus (425)861-7550 -Fax (425)861-7549 EXHIBIT _ FIGURE 13 PHoro tfl3, CULVERT AT RENTON AVE S. DEfOOR PROPERTY RENTON, WA SCALE N.r5. DATE 5/1/06 REVISED © Copyright -TaIasaea Consultants, INC, EDTALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. Rel!ource & Environmental Planning 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast Woodinville, Washington 98077 Bus (425)861-7550 -Fax (425)861-7549 EXHIBIT _ FIGURE 13 PHOTO **14, STREAM B CHANNEL DEFOOR PROPERTY RENTON, ~A SCALE N.T's, DATE 5/1106 REVISED © Copyright -Talasaea Consultants, INC, E9TALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. Resource & Environmental Planning 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast Woodinville, Washington 98077 Bus (425)861-7550 -Fax (425)861-7549 EXHIBIT _ fiGURE 15 PHOTO #15, STREAM A CORRIDOR DEfOOR PROPERTY RENTON, HA SCALE N.T.S, DATE 5/1/00 REVISED © Copyright -Talasaea Consultants, INC, -'. May 1,2006 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 15020 fkar Creek Road NW Woodinville, Washington 98077 Attention: Jason Walker Subject: Defoor Property Geomorphic Assessment Renton, Washington file No. 13495-001-00 GEoENG!NEER~ INTRODUCTION GeoEngineers, Inc is pleased to provide this letter report summarizing the results of a geomorphic assessment regarding drainage channels located on the Defoor Property, in Renton, Washington. This report was requested by Jason Walker of Talasaca Consultants on April 26, 2006. The purpose of the reqw;steo services is to qualitatively assess the geomorphic character and origin for two streams, Stream B and Stream A, on the Property. The project work scope consists of reviewing reports and maps provided by Talasaea Consultants, and visiting the Defoor Property to obst:rvc the streams. 'Ibe Reports reviewed by GeoEngineers include: Hydrogeological Consultation; Stream B Corridor, dated March 24, 2006 and prepared by Icicle Creek Engineers (ICE); Coal Mine Hazard Assessment and Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation, Renton Hill Property, datcd June 10, 2005, prepared by ICE; and a section of a report entitled Defoor Property··· \Vetland Study, Stream Assessment, Habitat Study, Watershed Restoration and Mitigation Plan, dated October 3,2005, prepan.:d by Talasaea Consultants. GeoEnginecrs also reviewed the Wetland and Stream Basin Restoration Plan, Existing Conditions and Overview Plan, dated 28 June., 2005, prepan::d by Talasaea Consultants. OBSERVED CHANNEL CONDITIONS The site visit \vas conducted on April 28, 2005. The reconnaissance included walking the length of Streams A and B from Renton Ave So to the base of the slope just east of wetland B. Stream A originates up-gradient of Renton Ave S, passes through a culvert beneath the road and flows downstream in a well defined swale with side slopes inclined from 20 to 50 percent. The swale is reflected as a dip in Renton A ve So. The Stream A cross section display au-shaped nOOT with side walls inclined to the angle of repose of the soils. Stream B conditions are well described in the ICE March 24 2006 report. The "stream" originates at a cuI vert outfall at Renton Ave S. No observab1e expression of a drainage appears to extend upslope from Renton Ave So. The culvert is situated on a topo!,'Taphic high point on tht: right limb of the Stream A swaJe. Immediately down gradient of the culvert outfall, the stream consists of two or three deeply incised channels with nearly vertical side walls. The channels do not reside in a topographic swale. Talasaea Consultants. Inc. May 1,2006 Page 2 Roughly 125 to 150 feet dO\\'l1 !,rradient from the culvert the channels merge to form a single channel. The dimension of the single channel is uncharacteristically narrow and deep, \vith entire sections measuring 2 to 3 wide (top of channel) by 5 or 6 feet deep. The side walls of the single channel are generally vertical to overhanging, giving the channel cross section a tear drop shape, narrow at the top and wide at the base. CONCLUSIONS STREAM A The morphologic character of Stream A channel and swale features indicates that it has evolved over several thousand years. The cross sectional form of this swale is consistent with the long term adjustment of other Puget Sound drainage systems to climate, discharge, regional gradient, hillslope soils. The long term development of the drainage is particularly apparent from the stability and mclination of the swale sidewalls. These slopes are inclined back to the apparent angle of repose and well stabilized by the growth of moderately dense deciduous trees and understory vegetation. STREAM B In contrast, the morphologic character of Stream B indicatcs that it is not a naturally formed stream. We ai,rrec with the conclusion of the Mary 241h ICE report that Stream B is an erosional gully formed in direct response to stonn water runoff (from residential development upslope of Renton Ave So) discharging fi'om the culvert over the period of several decades. The morphologic character of the gully is consistent with numerous other gullies and ditches in the Puget Sound area that have formed similar gullies in similar soils and urbanized settings. The location of the gully is not consistent with the long term development of natural drainage channels, which otherwise form swales. In addition, the configuration of multiple gullies extending downstream from the culvert is typical of the dispersion of unmitigated stonn water dispersing from the culvert. The depth of the single stem gully and cross sectional shape is a direct result of the high volumes of unmitigated (undetained) storm water runoff generated by urban development. The gully walls appear to be highly unstable and subject to failure. The faces of the walls are near vertical to overhanging and bear no vegetation. This characteristic indicates that the floor of the gully may still be undergoing incision, and the channel is still adjusting to storm discharge from the point source. We a) so agree with ICE that the gully represents a public health and safety risk. The gully is obscured by the local topography, in that there is no observable swale, and by ground cover vegetation, both of which make it difficult to sec and easy to fall into. In our opinion, the physical condition of this !,rully should be modified to minimize or eliminate the risk of public injury. LIMITATIONS GeoEngineers has developed this report to support the geomorphic evaluation in general accordance with the scope and limitations of our proposal. Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been exccuted in accordance with the gcnentlly accepted practices for slope stability evaluations in this area at the time this report was prepared. FUr No, 13495-001-00 GEoENGINEER~ Talasaca Consultants. Inc. May 1.2006 Page 3 This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Talasaea Consultant. Inc and their authorized agcnts. No other party may rely on the product of our services unless we agree in advance to such reliance in writing. The information contained herein should not be applied for any purpose or project except the onc originally contemplated. Any alteration, deletion or editing of this document without explicit ""TItten permIssIon from GeoEngineers is strictly prohibited. Any other unauthorized use of this document is prohibited. This document is intended to be used in its entirety. If an excerpt is quoted or paraphrased, it must be properly referenced. Any electronic fonn. facsimile or hard copy of the original document (email, text, table, andlor figure), if provided, and any attachments are only a copy of the original document. 'Ibc original document is stored by GeoEngineers and will serve as the official document of record. Sincerely, Mary An~ Reinhart. LG, LHG Associate MAR:ja Redm:\OO\Finais\1349500 IOOLR.doc rile No. /3495-00/ -(}{) GEoENGINEER~ r['··\L \ 5~· \ E~ \ .' " / • -f. " < ,--~ -, :.... --; :.- . .J.. -,' J. ,.;_ ~ ... ~ .J..... . .. '~ 17 November 2005 Mr. Neil Watts. Develooment Services Director City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 TAL-931 Subject: Reference: Defoor Properties (Parcel Nos. 0007200196, 0007200194, and 2023059085) Request for Reconsideration and Appeal Dear Mr. Watts: We have reviewed your 3 November 2005 letter addressed to Michael Chen of Core Design in regards to the classifications of four un-mapped streams and two un-mapped wetlands on the Defoor properties. Due to the availability of additional information, both enclosed and forthcoming, we request a reconsideration of your determination, and request your examination of the information and historical factors that have effectively created several drainage features on the subject properties. We also request a reconsideration of the decision to allow a Class 5 rating for Stream B, Stream C and Drainage 1 based upon historical evidences suggesting the feature's artificial origin and past precedent set by the City in the previous review and classification of similar features. To preserve our options for a formal appeal, we also request that this notification be filed at this time for this purpose. We understand that there has been some difference of opinion, and subsequent internal discussion and meetings regarding the definition of a Class 5 classification for Stream C and Drainage 1. From communication between Hugh Mortensen (The Watershed Company) and Per Johnson (Talasaea Ecologist) on 25 October 2005, and from your 3 November letter, we understand that the City has declined the guidance of their peer review consultant and is attempting to regulate artificial drainages that have been intentionally created due to the discharge of untreated and undetained stormwater. Furthermore, Jill Ding, of the City of Renton, told us (in a telephone conversation on 25 October 2005) that the City desires to conduct a hearing regarding the Defoor project to clarify the new code for the purpose of defining City policy. If future meetings are scheduled between the City's peer review consultant and staff to discuss the Defoor properties, we would appreciate the opportunity to attend and provide any necessary information or clarification, as this would expedite the coordination and correspondence involved for this project, and associated time and costs for all parties. We wish to continue a dialogue with the City on this issue and avoid a hearing if at all possible, as it is Mr. Neil Watts 17 November 2005 Page 2 unprecedented in our experience to obtain a clarification of this kind, and unduly prohibitive in cost for a project of this scale. In regards to the stream classifications, we believe Stream B, Stream C, and Drainage 1 are the direct result of intentional man-made activities (i.e., erosion due to point-discharge of stormwater) and should therefore be considered artificial by the provisions of the RMC. We base our conclusions on documented historical factors, including aerial photographs and correspondence with Raymond van der Roest of the City of Renton's Surface Water Utility (Talasaea 2005). Attached are aerial photographs from 1936,1946,1965, and 1974 (submitted herein as additional information for your review and consideration). The enlargements of the site were created from stereo pair photographs in which topographic information is visible. We ('::In nrr",irlA ::I ('nn\l nf thA c:tArAn n::lirc: tn thA r.ih, if it IMnl drl ::lc:c:ic:t in rA\liAW nf thA fA::ltllrAC: ThA --" '-'-"-----r-J -.... ---_._-r-~"-"-.... --'''J _,.w •• __ • ____ ._ ...... _0._ .. _ ..... - . __ .. _. __ .... - aerial photos indicate that Streams Band C, and Drainage 1 were created and defined after pavement and storm drainage improvements were provided at Cedar Avenue South and Renton Avenue South. These drainage features (Streams Band C, and Drainage 1) are not distinguishable in 1936 and 1946. After 1965 stream features are defined, and apparently attributable to the point-discharge of undetained stormwater onto a highly erodible soil surface. We believe Stream B, Stream C, and Drainage 1 were created as a result of the implementation of roadway and drainage improvements sometime after 1946. These features exhibit "flow within an artificially constructed channel where no naturally defined channel had previously existed" (RMC 4.3.050.(L).1.a.v.), and should therefore be considered artificial, meeting the definition of a Class 5 Water. The origin and characterization of these features are described in detail in the Wetland Study, Stream Assessment, Habitat Study, Watershed Restoration and Mitigation Plan, revised 3 October 2005. At the request of Talasaea, a remote sensing specialist is presently conducting further review of the historical aerial photographs and forthcoming results will be provided to the City for further review and consideration. Similar drainage channels, created from erosive forces of intentionally released stormwater, were previously determined as artificial and unregulated by the City of Renton. In 2002 an MONS was issued for the Sunnybrook project (MONS #LUA-01-127, EGF, SA-H), in which an approved mitigation plan (prepared by Talasaea Consultants) allowed modification of seven incised and eroded drainage channels. The City accepted that these drainages were created through the erosive point-discharge (intentional release) of stormwaterfrom several conveyance structures adjacent to a public road and accepted the characteristics of these features to be artificial. Per the RMC at that time, the City did not apply the definition of "Stream", "River" or "Watercourse" to ditches, canals, stormwater runoff devices or other entirely artificial watercourses. This previous definition is very similar to the Class 5 Water under the present RMC in that "artificial" watercourses continue to be exempt. Due to this past decision, we believe this precedent serves to clarify the interpretation of the features found on the Defoor properties, which have been artificially created by identical circumstances. The Wetland Study, Stream Assessment, Habitat Study, Watershed Restoration and Mitigation Plan, revised 3 October, includes a detailed mitigation approach that will effectively stabilize and improve these unstable and eroding features. The plan will provide a net improvement in stream functions while providing increased site stability and provision of improved water quality for the untreated stormwater entering the site. We believe that the Class 5 stream rating (under the RMC) allows for regulatory relief and flexibility to improve these features due to the intentional creation, and lack of historical Mr. Neil Watts 17 November 2005 Page 3 existence, of Stream B, Stream C and Drainage 1. We request the decision provided in the 3 November 2005 letter is reconsidered and, if necessary, be addressed in an appeal hearing (barring all other available means in which we can discuss and potentially resolve this issue). Please contact Per Johnson or me at (425) 861-7550 if you have any further questions at this time. Thank you for the consideration of the City in this matter. Sincerely, TALAS_AEA_ CONSULTANTS, !NC /-4 _7 7 -.:::::: '--. ---~ Jason Walker, RLA. ASLA Senior Project Manager Attachment cc: Michael Chen, Core Design Terry Defoor, Owner Site Area, 1936- -~ S ite Ar~a,-1946 - '-~.~·.~.~~.\~;;ji"1.'i.~,; ..... ~ .:0.', Site Area;~1.965······ . -.-~ .-- i I . r , ----___ ~.-'~~--'~ r-__ , rr'\ L-1'\ S··--'\ E~ \ _. '. " --. I :.i : 'J.-~\._ ·i~lt.' ·f. 17 November 2005 Mr. Neil Watts. Development Services Director City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 TAL-931 Subject: Reference: Defoor Properties (Parcel Nos. 0007200196, 0007200194, and 2023059085) Request for Reconsideration and Appeal Dear Mr. Watts: We have reviewed your 3 November 2005 letter addressed to Michael Chen of Core Design in regards to the classifications of four un-mapped streams and two un-mapped wetlands on the Defoor properties. Due to the availability of additional information, both enclosed and forthcoming, we request a reconsideration of your determination, and request your examination of the information and historical factors that have effectively created several drainage features on the subject properties. We also request a reconsideration of the decision to allow a Class 5 rating for Stream B, Stream C and Drainage 1 based upon historical evidences suggesting the feature's artificial origin and past precedent set by the City in the previous review and classification of similar features. To preserve our options for a formal appeal, we also request that this notification be filed at this time for this purpose. We understand that there has been some difference of opinion, and subsequent internal discussion and meetings regarding the definition of a Class 5 classification for Stream C and Drainage 1. From communication between Hugh Mortensen (The Watershed Company) and Per Johnson (Talasaea Ecologist) on 25 October 2005, and from your 3 November letter, we understand that the City has declined the guidance of their peer review consultant and is attempting to regulate artificial drainages that have been intentionally created due to the discharge of untreated and undetained stormwater. Furthermore, Jill Ding, of the City of Renton, told us (in a telephone conversation on 25 October 2005) that the City desires to conduct a hearing regarding the Defoor project to clarify the new code for the purpose of defining City policy. If future meetings are scheduled between the City's peer review consultant and staff to discuss the Defoor properties, we would appreciate the opportunity to attend and provide any necessary information or clarification, as this would expedite the coordination and correspondence involved for this project, and associated time and costs for all parties. We wish to continue a dialogue with the City on this issue and avoid a hearing if at all possible, as it is Mr. Neil Watts 17 November 2005 Page 2 unprecedented in our experience to obtain a clarification of this kind, and unduly prohibitive in cost for a project of this scale. In regards to the stream classifications, we believe Stream S, Stream C, and Drainage 1 are the direct result of intentional man-made activities (i.e., erosion due to point-discharge of stormwater) and should therefore be considered artificial by the provisions of the RMC. We base our conclusions on documented historical factors, including aerial photographs and correspondence with Raymond van der Roest of the City of Renton's Surface Water Utility (Talasaea 2005). Attached are aerial photographs from 1936, 1946, 1965, and 1974 (submitted herein as additional information for your review and consideration). The enlargements of the site were created from stereo pair photographs in which topographic information is visible. We ('::In IIrr",irl<> ::I (,f"lII" f"lf thl'l c:tl'lr<>f"I lI::Iire: tf"l thl'l r.it\f if it IAlf"lIlirl ::Ie:c:ic:t in r<>"il'llA/ f"lf thl'l fl'l::ltllrl'le: Thl'l -_ .. 1'-"-----r-J _ ..... - _ .. _._-..... -.. ---..... -_ ... J ..... "--'----'-" •... _ •. _ •• _. _ .. -.----.--.. ,.- aerial photos indicate that Streams Sand C, and Drainage 1 were created and defined after pavement and storm drainage improvements were provided at Cedar Avenue South and Renton Avenue South. These drainage features (Streams Sand C, and Drainage 1) are not distinguishable in 1936 and 1946. After 1965 stream features are defined, and apparently attributable to the point-discharge of undetained stormwater onto a highly erodible soil surface. We believe Stream S, Stream C, and Drainage 1 were created as a result of the implementation of roadway and drainage improvements sometime after 1946. These features exhibit "flow within an artificially constructed channel where no naturally defined channel had previously existed" (RMC 4.3.050.(L).1.a.v.), and should therefore be considered artificial, meeting the definition of a Class 5 Water. The origin and characterization of these features are described in detail in the Wetland Study, Stream Assessment, Habitat Study, Watershed Restoration and Mitigation Plan, revised 3 October 2005. At the request of Talasaea, a remote sensing specialist is presently conducting further review of the historical aerial photographs and forthcoming results will be provided to the City for further review and consideration. Similar drainage channels, created from erosive forces of intentionally released stormwater, were previously determined as artificial and unregulated by the City of Renton. In 2002 an MDNS was issued for the Sunnybrook project (MDNS #LUA-01-127, EGF, SA-H), in which an approved mitigation plan (prepared by Talasaea Consultants) allowed modification of seven incised and eroded drainage channels. The City accepted that these drainages were created through the erosive point-discharge (intentional release) of stormwater from several conveyance structures adjacent to a public road and accepted the characteristics of these features to be artificial. Per the RMC at that time, the City did not apply the definition of "Stream", "River" or "Watercourse" to ditches, canals, stormwater runoff devices or other entirely artificial watercourses. This previous definition is very similar to the Class 5 Water under the present RMC in that "artificial" watercourses continue to be exempt. Due to this past decision, we believe this precedent serves to clarify the interpretation of the features found on the Defoor properties, which have been artificially created by identical circumstances. The Wetland Study, Stream Assessment, Habitat Study, Watershed Restoration and Mitigation Plan, revised 3 October, includes a detailed mitigation approach that will effectively stabilize and improve these unstable and eroding features. The plan will provide a net improvement in stream functions while providing increased site stability and provision of improved water quality for the untreated stormwater entering the site. We believe that the Class 5 stream rating (under the RMC) allows for regulatory relief and flexibility to improve these features due to the intentional creation, and lack of historical Mr. Neil Watts 17 November 2005 Page 3 existence, of Stream B, Stream C and Drainage 1. We request the decision provided in the 3 November 2005 letter is reconsidered and, if necessary, be addressed in an appeal hearing (barring all other available means in which we can discuss and potentially resolve this issue). Please contact Per Johnson or me at (425) 861-7550 if you have any further questions at this time. Thank you for the consideration of the City in this matter. Sincerely, TAl A~AFA r.nN~11I TANTS !NC -<~: ------------7---, C ~~ ·7 7e:=~C------~ Jason Walker, RLA. ASLA Senior Project Manager Attachment cc: Michael Chen, Core Design Terry Defoor, Owner Site Area, 1936- Site Ar~a~9~6 - Site Area;~1.965 .. ~.~ _~N·rz.-rM -.. ------- -._.-----------------------------._-----------_ .. -----."------. -----." -._.------------,,---------------_.--------- .. May 1,2006 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 15020 Rear Cn:ek Road NW Woodinville, Washington 98077 Attention: Jason Walker Subject: Defoor Property Geomorphic Assessment Renton, Washington file No. 13495-001-00 GEoENGfNEER~ INTRODUCTION GeoEngineers, Tnc is pleased to provide this letter report summarizing the results of a geomorphic assessment regarding drainage channels located on the Defoor Property, in Renton. Washington. This report was requested by Jason Walker of Talasaea Consultants on April 26, 2006. The purpose of the requested services is to qualitatively assess the geomorphic character and origin for two streams, Stream B and Stream A, on the Property. The project work scope consists of reviewing reports and maps provided by Talasaea C()nsultants, and visiting the Defoor Property to observe the stream.... The Reports reviewed by GeoEngineers include: Hydrogeological Consultation; Stream B Corridor, dated March 24, 2006 and prepared by Icicle Creck Engineers (ICE); Coal Mine Hazard Assessment and l)rcliminary Geotechnical Evaluation, Renton Hill Property, dated June 10, 2005, prepared by ICE; and a section of a report entitled Defoor Property --- Wetland Study, Stream Assessment, Habitat Study, Watershed Restoration and Mitigation Plan, dated October 3, 2005, prepared by Talasaea Consultants. GcoEngineers also reviewed the Wetland and Stream Basin Restoration Plan, Existing Conditions and Overview Plan, dated 28 June .. 2005, prepared by Talasaea Consultants_ OBSERVED CHANNEL CONDITIONS The site visit was conducted on April 28, 2005. The reconnaissance included walking the length of Streams A and B from Renton A ve So to the base of the slope just east of wetland B. Stream A originates up-!,'Tuciient of Renton Ave S, passes through a culvert beneath the road and flows downstream in a well defined swale with side slopes inclined from 20 to 50 percent. The swale is reflected as a dip in Renton Ave So. The Stream A cross section dispJay au-shaped Hoor with side walls inclined to the angle of repose of the soils. Stream B conditions are well described in the ICE March 24 2006 report. The "stream" originates at a culvert outfall at Renton Ave S. No observable expression of a drainage appears to extend upslope from Renton Ave So. Thc culvert is situated on a topoh'Taphic high point on the right limb of the Stream A swale. Immediately do\vn gradient of the culvert outfall, the stream consists of two or three deeply incised channels with nearly vertical side walls. The channels do not reside in a topographic swale. TaLasaca Consultants. lnc. May 1,2006 Page 2 Roughly 125 to 150 feet down gradient from the culvert the channels merge to form a singlc channel. The dimension of the single channcl is uncharacteristically narrow and deep, with entire sections measuring 2 to 3 wide (top of channel) by 5 or 6 feet deep. The side walls of the single channel are generally vertical to overhanging, giving the channel cross section a tear drop shape, narrow at the top and wide at the basco CONCLUSIONS STREAM A The morphologic character of Stream A channel and swale features indicates that it has evolved over several thousand years. The cross sectional form of this swale is consistent with the long term adjustment of other Puget Sound drainage systems to climate, discharge, regional gradient, hillslope soils. The long term development of the drainage is panicularly apparent from the stability and inclination of the swale sidewalls. These slopes are inclined back to the apparent angle of repose and well stabilized by the growth ofmoderatcly dense deciduous trees and understory vegetation. STREAM B In contrast, the morphologic character of Stream B indicates that it is not a naturally fomled stream. We abrree with the conclusion of the Mary 24th ICE report that Stream B is an erosional gully formed in direct response to stonn water runoff (from residential development upslope of Renton Ave So) discharging from the culvert over the period of several decades. The morphologic character of the gully is consistent with numerous other gullies and ditches in the Puget Sound area that have formed similar gullies in similar soils and urbanized settings. The location of the gully is not consistent with the long term development of natural drainage channels, which otherwise form swales. in addition, the configuration of mUltiple gullies extending downstream from the culvert is typical of the dispersion of unmitig'dted storm water dispersing from the culvert. The depth of the single stem gully and cross sectional shape is a direct result of the high volumes of unmitigated (undetained) storm water runoff generated by urban development. The gully walls appear to be highly unstable and subject to failure. The faces of the walls are near vertical to overhanging and bear no vegetation. This characteristic indicates that the floor of the gully may still be undergoing incision, and the channel is still adjusting to storm discharge from the point source. We also agree with ICE that the gully represents a public health and safety risk. The gully is obscured by the local topography, in that there is no observable swale, and by ground cover vegetation, both of which make it difficult to see and easy to fall into. In our opinion, the physical condition of this gully should be modified to minimize or eliminate the risk of public injury. LIMITATIONS GeoEngineers has developed this report to support the geomorphic evaluation in general accordance with the scope and limitations of our proposal. Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with the generally accepted practices [or slope stability evaluations in this area at the time this report was prepared. Filr No, 13495·00}·00 GeoENGINeeR~ • ,TaJ.asaea Consultant.s. Inc. May 1,2006 Page 3 This report has been prepared for the exclusive usc of Talasaea Consultant, Inc and their authorized agents. No other party may rely on the product of our services unless we agree in advance to such reliance in writing. The information contained herein should not be applied for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated. Any alteration, deletion or editing of this document without explicit ""Titten pennlSSlOn from GeoEngineers is strictly prohibited. Any other unauthorized use of this document is prohibited. This document is intended to be: used in its entirety. If an excerpt is quotcd or paraphrased, it must be properly referenced. Any electronic fonn. facsimile or hard copy of the original document (email, text, table. andlor figure), if provided, and any attachments are only a copy of the original document. 'lbe original document is stored by GeoEngineers and will serve as the official document of record. Sincerely, GeoEngineers, Inc. .? A:.~ /1.; ./ Mary Ann Reinhart, LG, LHG Associate MAR:ja Redm:\(}O\Finai,\ 1349500 lOOLR.doc rile ,Vo. 13495-001-(}{) ! i / I ~ SOURCE: :;C( lI.J;lI.J ~It..o 10:: (J9TALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. Resource Be Environmental Plannin, 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast Woodinville. Washington 98077 Bus (425)661-7550 -Fax (425)861-7549 -- EXHIBIT -FIGURE I VICINITY MAP DEFOOR PROPERTY RENTON, WA C'<'21~ "-5 6Th 51 '" ..r .':>'~TH C1 _ PARI( 1'CIM OLiVrr rR 71: 51 "st .. ,. ~ ~ g VI' Sf aru Pl,.; I ..... ~ 0..0 S£. ..... > ./' Yen; Sf ., . -BTII __ _ ~""'IIHP.-~~I-\j't-pl ",' i!fARIrllW <t,C . 'b'\\1 "'C !:: z PAlIK q,. S~ GATf ~4R R/ = ~§ i.f:a. I -'" ~<! r=~ s(' 4.,. 1; DESIGN SCALE DATE 5/1/06 REVISED J '-. \' ~j ~ ( .. "II \ <-y, J NORTH ~ \ © Copyright -Talasaea Consultants. INC. / / \ ~ ~ ;! ,B /~ { i!::J:':<},' 'I'/~~· .. ,', <",I",,: I. ',,;, j "1',1, ., :!',' ',:r',,:;":',; 1'::".,-1,':". t :1,"'\" ,,' ..• "'" '0> .'" ,,' .1 ''"1' .'" J.; .'('" "I (1 \' I 11 ,:",r: A'" :": ..... ,.; ::.";,,1"!"~·' '\ ",,')1 ','.' Ii" l1li ",',;,;. .. #Wo' " '.' ." ' 't');' 'f7'i' ~~.c'" : ..... ' . " .. ,Il""ix~ ,0 ";'1;1 I' :~~' . t;-~~ i ,:,:"; ,.,:,'1 " 1 .. tf4' I .' c' ,1,,' ;:, \);~ I }.:,~\:.i I " I'l" " '., ,,1 I / . ,)/ ::':Ii""":':~" '., .• :,'J ,'; " 'il'! '.' , ,. . ,:,. ,I . ,I' ,-. . ".' " -q2")'i I ," .: .:; '," I ':'"; ••• /: I ,: I' ~' .' pi" ," Y i I • ~ :' :,,' ,;-,i' ::, ,:' ,. ,1,1 "II :, " I. I / fl. I j, ":.). ~ , • -10,11 I ~ I ' t t !I • .:>~AM.'G' jll >.ilk I • \ .' \' I~~. • ;' '-1 EXISTIN5 HOU5E ROIi TYP. -'/ I I ':1'" '~' ,.,~ 1*,,1 • ,,' ,01;' I ",-I ". / --....... ,i'i:l,-Ij~" ~ _____ ~ ,------' I ~ ~-,.~." '''' I L"""~~ I. ' jr 1 I 1" ""hi.(:~" I .... } ~ ",.""' .: "" TL D A , e. ......... ' ' ,: '". ' , \' .. , "'1,~Al~ '* . --~ ,,",," .' .". """!:. '" ',' ~." .~' .,"; ,e.: .' :;., ~ ~':" .... ' I SHOIIIlT .• j"".:tli;., .. ·,;·t' ... ..,;., .. '.' I p ... ~I·:,··' ; 't' ... . . I I ',/", H '.' ,. , '., .' Jj LTR!AM,,~~·t .. EXISTIN5 ... ... ' " ,~> ;'::,: ' (HISTORIGAL STRIJC;11JRE '~' .. '" ,,,,:t;' '\1' FANHOU&E) ~ -t---,,;"'" e.lon<e~ I i ",31451' / ~ 125' mER.! STREAM'6'~ YeTLAND 'A' ~(15' BlFFERJ I .... ~:~~,~ ~~ ~' C----;;;:d.'~ ~ " . ; ---.....:.. -~...., j:}~:::::::::::::::~>./A-5 \ ....•. ' .•...... ,tF:'-'3 .. , .. ,'. , . ..... ................. .;;. I ... ,.... ," ._ .... '," /. , ""t.; -.:.t ... ~ : ..:.. y' .: . .,,;.'" ~ II ... ,.. •• ~. ~,' .---.. ............ ' .. " ". EOXSfItol6 •. ....... ~., 5TR1JC;11JRE ...... ~,STREAM 'c' ,1 , ...... ' ' .. " . 'j';;" ' ... ol. ' 7It?"..:....' ---~TYLINE ~~ ................ "----~ .......... WeTLAND 'A'eNLA~eMeNT ;LA x""'" Ii".. >_ 1.. ki>EM PLAN L!c5!NC' --- ---I'ROf'ERTY LIrE EX1STIN6 GONTOJR c: ; , ... :' ::::J EX1STIN6 ~TLAND STREAM I ~AND Blf'FeR ..... SffiEAM II-ETLNID FLA6 _w-e TE5T PIT FLA6 = :t= = = AF'PROXIMAre OHl+f OF SmEAM +--AF'PROXIMAre GENreR LINE OF STREAM eW-4 '-Iffi 5ffiEAM 'A' ... '-AMEO STREAM GONTIIU3 • "~I "" .. -'0 Ofl'-Ore ~ ----'" \. ROLLIN5 GREEK) . / ... . ,.' .'. .;)' '> ~,'''' OVl:~'1IE:"" ~AN ,o'./ ~;'~ NOT!:5 sire PLAN PROVIDB:1 6'1' GORE DE51eN, 14111 NE 2<lTll PL. suire 101, 6ELLEWE. I!VI Q!lOO1 (425)005-1&11. 2. 5G\JRGE DRAHN5 IAAS MroIFIB:1 BY T ALASAEA CON5UI..TANT5 FOR VISUAL EI+lANG&lENT. eTALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. Rellource & Environmental Planning 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeasl Woodinville, Washington 98077 Bus (425)861-7550 -Fax (425)861-7549 EXHIBIT _ FI6URE 2 DESIGN EXISTIN6 CONDITIONS FOR SCALE OVERALL SITE a WETLAND ENLAR6EMENT AS NOTED DEFOOR PROPERTY DATE RENTON, WA 5/1/06 REVISED PROJECT <131 © Copyright -Talasaea Consultants, INC. ---------------~--E:~r~lff~~---- 8UILDING -----ST-REAM'~~8-'---- .. ........................................... ····~El·C,A.Nt5··'Br···· ;t> .,. ,8IG-LEAF MAE?tE IN c;,HANNEL' ,. .. .. 4'\ FI$URE 1I~12 'B ' \~) . I ~'l. ..;.--~ \ __ ~. __ . _, I' ----....... ,,_._,. -='~J\ ~ ____ ..', ' ""," , ,7 ..... __ --~~. __ ....... " " " ,~;~r/"" --' ' ~ FIGURE 10 ' ' ....... ..j" • I I ,/" I _ ~c---__ ___~ I _ "":'-' ~ ~ __ ----EX. ,12" DIA ~ .. , 6' C8LVERll \. 1ft '. .". -~ ~ ~-__ ~ I \' ~ FIGURE 14 . \ J <111\ <It '" .. S~AM/~T~A~ 'e'!~AReeMeNT NOTES 511'1: PLAA PROVID8:) BY CORE DESlc;N. 141" IE 2'111-1 PL. SUITE 101, BELLEWE, IAA <15001 (4:25}MS-1&11. 2. ~E DRAHNtSlAA5 MODIFl8:) BY TALA5AEA c:.otat. T,AIoIT5 FOR Vl5UAL EI+lAIte1ENT. @TALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. Rellource & Environmental Planning 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast Woodinville. Washington 98077 Bus (425)881-7550 -Fax (425)881-7549 EXHIBIT _ FIGURE 3 STREAM B DEFOOR PROPERTY RENTON, WA DESIGN SCALE AS NOTED DATE 5/1/06 REVISED PROJECT <131 © Copyright -Talasaea Consultants, INC. ,. r lil \~ I) \'V" /' ii ., I f ~' l' ~,'~ ~ . \ STReAM e \ \... -( I i / I '(. , , ~ ( '-\~I \ \ \ PLE~ I' I ,. / If: r' , \ , \' \. ", ", yJ \ .. /,/ h--- /' / HIMALAYAN BLACKBERRY UNDERSTORY (]) TALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. Resource & Environmental Planning 15020 Ilear Creek Road Northeast Woodinville, Washington 98077 Ilus (425)861-7550 -Fax (425)861-7549 EXHIBIT _ FIGURE 4 STREAM B SECTION DEFOOR PROPERTY RENTON, WA \ ;// 'y, l-/ I ' ( \1 ~--1'" \ ' , .~' ~,;,~ INCISED CHANNELS WITH VERTiCAL SIDE-SLOPES DESIGN SCALE AS NOTED DATE 5/1/06 REVISED 6 1 PROJECT Cl31 © CopyrIght -TaIasaea Consultants, INC, / . . , (9TALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. Reeource & Environmental Planning 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast Woodinville. Washington 98077 Bus (425)861-7550 -Fax (425)861-7549 ( <, I': t:c:,t.t:-~,~, f/') CVo-"- />. /.-" // ....... \ ) Vl OJ: c: o -") © Copyright -Talasaea Consultants. INC. 'i1!I>, '~ .. -- .. "" !'II) ,iIft • "" , I \ ,i\ '. ~ \ lIIl> STPU!AM-AcNL.A~eM~T NOTes SIT<: PLAN PROVIDED 61' CORE DE5I~, 141" IE 2<lTli PL, !lIJ1T<: 101, 6ELLE\'\E, ~ QI}OO1 (425)005-len. 2. 5OJRC.E DRAHN6 "'-'S MODIFIED 6Y TAl-ASAE" c.oN9JL TANTS FOR VI~ EKl/>.NC.8"IENT. STR.EAM' 'A' \ .. .. .. '/ %'" :, : ,', ',\' . " " ,',." , , \ . ' .. / , .'-/~ I ~, ~ -------~. ------- " '----.. . ~ ~ FI6URE 15 IDTALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. Re!!ource & Environmenlal Planning 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast Woodinville, Washington 98077 BUB (425)861-7550 -Fax (425)861-7549 - .. I~ " / / .... / EX. 12" DIA C;ULVERT ·',r' "'" .. ',~ I fllfi PR@iP~R;Y, L,IN, E,I ~,'"/, .... ,, 'I , I RON i ',;'/ ",-, , 1, .. ~:/: ~ .. DRAINAGE ,I ~. '" ;,. \ 4lt,,\' .. EXHIBIT _ FIGURE 6 STREAM A DEFOOR PROPERTY RENTON, rlA ,. " , .,' '., I .. • I I I I , I DESIGN SCALE AS NOTED DATE 5/1/06 REVISED "z () I~ Z ill ,~ PROJECT ct31 © Copyright -Talasaea Consultants, INC, '" t. / / " I \ t"' "~' 10-'1 l-~ ( \,,_.t"" :;;.) .~r"~W'f. .~\ ~ /-' ~ '\(,'I\JlYf/ \." '-------~-~'-' .' " .. A 5T~AM A_ <5RAPHIC. SCALE CD (IN FEET1-, , , ,-I tl I :1 4 o eTALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. Rel!ource & Environmental Planning 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast Woodinville. Washington 98077 Bus (425)861-7550 -Fax (425)861-7549 EXHIBIT _ FIGURE 1 STREAM A SECTION DEFOOR PROPERTY RENTON, HA ~~)" q: '\\ \ \~\ \\ \ \ \ ) ri "'"(.../l I, ~;r:d!!::'-; AI NATIVE FOREST UNDERSTORY SCALE AS NOTED DATE 5/1/06 REVISED PROJECT '131 © Copyright -Talasaea Consultants, INC. \ . . \ \ ~ - U' , , / / ~ <' •• ...... / ', ......• /. ( / :/ . ./ / 7' \ '. " . ----------,/ , ," \ J I . .' .\\>~~: -. \ 1 \ '/' • ~ l/i~ '--lif\c-~c I I I --------I I I I ~ I 1 I I I ~ '-- "'-...., I .................. I ...................... I ____ ........ -...L....... J--'~ "-<J ~ ~ / '-...." PL.ANTINS PL.AN rn GRAPHIC SCALE GDNOR ( IN FEET) I I t I o 15 30 60 ~ / .............. -~ e TALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. Resource & Environmental Planning 15020 Bear" rreek Road Northeast Woodirn-ille, Washiugton 98077 Bus (.125)861-7550 -Fax (425)861-7519 STREAMB ---- PROVIDE HILlOW FA5c.itEs~' AT STREAM BANKS, (SEE DETAIL B AND BA ON 5I£Et 1.1) • LIMIT OF GLEARIN5'-.2., (APPROXIMATE ED6E OF' ' EXI5TIN6 VEGETATION TO REMAIN) '! \, ':.. \ [~.~.;:~.'" ; .~' ::' :~ ,',.' EXHIBIT FIGURE 8 PLANTING PLAN DEFOOR PROPERTY RENTON, HA "(~' \., ....... ' " '. ' . '. SCALE AS NOTED DATE 5/1/06 REVISED -t ./ / , © Copyright -Talasaea ConslIlt.anls, INC. , \. PI-ANT SCHE:DUI-E: TREES SYMBOL SCIENnFIC NAME 1il2\.":'" V ~ A(;ER CIRCINAn.t1 @~ FRAXlttIS LAn FOLIA ~--RHAHHJ5 AJRSHIANA ~ .. --PICEA SITCHENSIS a. ~. --PlttIS CONTORTA V" -----THUJA PlICATA ®----THUJAPlICATA SHRUBS SYMBOL SCIENTIFIC NAME 0-CORIV5 SERICEA ®---MAHONIA AGlJIFOLIUM COMMON NAME VINE MAPlE OREeoNASH CAScARA SITKA 5PR1JC.E SHORE PINE HESTERN RED CEDAR HESTERN RED CEDAR COMMON NAME RED-05IER D06HOOD 0REe0N 6RAPE H.. STAI1J5 SPA(;IN6 Glrr. SIZE (MINJ NOTES FA(;-AS StIC>Yf.I 4 3' HT. t-U.TI-STEM (3 MINJ FA(;H AS SHOHN 5 5-6' HT. SIN6LE ~ HELL tlRANCHED FA(; AS SHOHN 5 4' HT. B4B, RJLL I BUSHY FA(; AS SHOHN 10 2-3' HT. B. B, RJLL • BUSHY FA(; AS SHOI+I 4 4-5' HT. B. B, RJLL • ElUSHY FA(; AS SHOHN 2 4-5' HT. B4 B, RJLL • BUSHY FA(; AS SHOHN q 2-3' HT. BI B, RJLL • BUSHY H.. STAT1J5 SPA(;IN5 Glrr. SIZE (MIN) NOTES FA(;H 3' O.C. Isq I~· HT. t-U. TI-GANE (3 MINJ NL 3'0.C. 135 I~· HT. R.U. • ElUSHY @--.. SALIX LASIANDRA PA(;IFIC HILLOH FACH 3/sYMBOL 4 4' ClITTIN6 ~r;';~E5OBTAINED FROM ON-5ITE CLEARIN5 0------. SALIX SCOULERIANA SCOULER HILLOH FA(; 3/SYMBOL 3M 4' ClITTIN6 HALF INCH DIAMETER, BARK INTACT SYHPHORICARPOS ALaJ5 COMMON 5NOIoeERRY FAOJ 3'0.C. 140 I~· HT. I'tJLTI-GANE (3 MINJ EROSION CONTROL SEED MIX (PROVIDE AT ALL EXPOSED SOIL. A1>J:AS) SCIENnFIC NAME COMMON NAME H.. STAT1J5 SPACIN6 FE5 T1JCA RlJBRA A6R0Sns TEltJIS RED FESCUE FA(;. SOlI> APPLICATION RATE PER ACRE, COLONIAL BENT6RASS FA(; SOlI> 400 SEED MIX 1201 HILBUR aLis FERTILIZER, 5-10-10 50.\1 IBRI, OR EGlUIV. r STALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. Resource & Environmental Planning 15020 neal" Creek Road Northeast Woodin\'ille, Washington 98077 BIIS 1·125)8GI-7G50 -Fax 1·125)B61-75~9 EXHIBIT FIGURE <1 PLANT LEGEND DEFOOR PROPERTY RENTON, WA DESIGN J DRAWN CL SCALE AS NOTED DATE 5/1/06 REVISED "" J PROJECT <131 ~ © Copyright -Talasaea Consult ants, INC'. eTALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. Rel!ource & Environmental Planning 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast Woodinvllle, Washington 98077 Bus (425)861-7550 -Fax (425)861-7549 EXHIBIT _ FIGURE 10 PHOTO #10, STREAM B CORRIDOR DEFOOR PROPERTY RENTON, WA SCALE N.T,S, DATE 5/1/06 REVISED © Copyright -TaIasaea Consultants, INC. mTALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. Resource & Environmental Planning 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast Woodinville, Washington 98077 Bus (425)861-7550 -Fax (425)861-7549 EXHIBIT _ FIGURE II PHOTO #11, INCISED STREAM B CHANNEL DEFOOR PROPERTY RENTON, riA SCALE N.T,S, DATE 5/1/06 REVISED © Copyright -Talasaea Consultants. INC, IDTALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. Resource & Environmental Planning 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast Woodinville, Washington 98077 BUB (425)661-7550 -Fax (425)861-7549 EXHIBIT _ FI6URE 13 PHOTO #13, CULVERT AT RENTON AVE S. DEFOOR PROPERTY RENTON, iI'IA SCALE N.T.s. DATE 5/1/06 REVISED © Copyright -Talasaea Consultants, INC. {j9TALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. Resource Be Environmental Planning 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast Woodinville, Washington 98077 Bus (425)861-7550 -Fax (425)861-7549 EXHIBIT _ FIGURE 13 PHOTO ltl4, STREAM B CHANNEL DEFOOR PROPERTY RENTON, /AlA SCALE N.T's, DATE 5/1/06 REVISED © Copyright -TaIasaea Consultants, INC, eTALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. Resource & Environmental Planning 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast Woodinville, Washington 98077 BUB (425)861-7550 -Fax (425)861-7549 EXHIBIT _ FIGURE 15 PHOTO #15, STREAM A CORRIDOR DEFOOR PROPERTY RENTON, WA SCALE N.T's. DATE 5/1/06 REVISED © Copyright -Talasaea Consultants. INC'. , " . I lLJ:lLJ ~'1O ,Ct: SOURCE: eTALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. Resource Be Environmental Planning 15020 Bear Creek Road Northe'ast Woodinville, Washington 96077 Bus (425)661-7550 -Fax (425)661-71>49 .. q -f .... -.-.. e<8IBIT -FIGURE I VICINITY MAP DEFOOR PROPERTY RENTON, WA PARt ... 10M ~ OLim <s-CEJ!fTERY SE ~n,o" PL ~l~~-{~;' t ::< C 1~~.L ~ j <E" ,r' ~ I Sr S!" I' II> #' 1TH CT - TR ..... >5 V1 S£8TliPl a :i .. " > -" J; ,1< 'i-A S' S 7T1f, Sl ~st ... ~ I f§' ~..-'('en;ST ~ V..p I;. :-:!Hl+-:*-.AIHHP--~~ --__ -BnI_ ._ '" ",'ARJI()W ~,.. I." ~'i-Pl '" l!i PAJ/I( '4,. '0,,, , :: ., c,<'" G4T["'C'~b _c:> c:;~ C3 ~R. R1e ; '" -, I I J'..-~ 'l; PROJECT AREA A 11.. ~ : ~'.... ~:" 1 _ ... i' !:, ':'-'rf-1...1';1 .;: SE ?!~ 5r ~ .. JE:2 j~,?Wl "{~ i~" ...a.... .. __ _ ". ~ .' ~ DESIGN SCALE DATE 5/1/06 REVISED NORTH © Copyright -Talasaea Consultants, INC. l-:,s"~l:t~fF:: I .···: .• M'~' / ~···~:~:·';'(f::;·.t·;,\ / , ... ~.'. './ I , • " ',:' .': ..... ;-----' ! ~fi j.A, "'~"""""~':"'\""'" I '''\-.i.:', / / ...... / ,....J----""'. \ """ ... -.::, ~ , "<, ' "',-...,~ '''''''''''" ~ c.oNTlHJE5 " • lH'IAMED STIlEAM OFF-5ITE / .. , ((TRIBUTARY TO '-" ROU..IN5 GREEK) / '\. / " Ovr:RVII!:~ PL.AN @TALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. Resource & Environmental Planning 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast Woodinville, Washington 98077 Bus (425)861-7550 -Fax (425)861-7549 I'iOH T'I'P, ! -/---- I EXHIBIT _ FIGURE 2 STREAM '6'---.J Io'ETLAND 'A' ~115' eu=FER) ;1,3104 SF / _ (2S'BUFF~ k ~:. .. ..... ' .•.. ~,~ I. '" ; , ;'---.:.._ ~ -T'*<»><4 r \ .... :::::::::::-.. ~~-~:::::-... .. , --.......... _ ...... :;;./ / __ ......... '.' • ;/.... ...... erP-04 ..... ' .... ~.~ .. ',; .'f.' .. ...:;.. wl EXZjTIN&' ....... . . S~T\JRE ....... ~::-" "',, 7L '.~ ...... ----~T'I'LINE..J ~ ................ ~ ... , ~TL.AN~ 'A'I!:NL.ARSeMeNT >AXAlii~ %,.,. 11 pc N>ETG fl'L.AN L.ec5eNl:' - - --PROPERT'I' LINE EXISTIN6 c.oNTOJR C .... , . :J EXlSTIN6 I'ETLA/o() STIlEAM 11'ETLAN:? BUFFER ..... STIlEAM II'ETLAND FLAe erP-. TEST PIT FLA6 = = ~ = = AF'I'ROXIMATE OHI+I OF S~AM +--AF'I'ROXIMATE GEIiTER LINE OF STIlEAM NOTeS SITE PLAN PROVIDED BY ~ DE5leN, 14111 IE 2'mI PL. SUITE 101, B8..LEWE, i'\A 'lllOO1 (0425)&&5-1&11. 2. ~E DRAHN5 i'\AS MODIFIED BY TALASAEA c.oN5ULTANTS FOR VISUAL ENH~EMENT. DESIGN PROJECT Cl31 EXISTING CONDITIONS FOR SCALE OVERALL SITE ~ WETLAND ENLARGEMENT AS NOTED DEFOOR PROPERTY DATE RENTON, WA 5/1/00 REVISED © Copyright -Talasaea Consultants, INC. ------...... _--------- ------------------ExfsTINCS-- BGYLDlN6 -"""---- -----~T-REAM'~~a'---- -------..... -,. , • ,', ' . '., ----___ ".c..'-_ BI6r-LEAF MA~E~' ~EiLAND--'8r---- IN CHANNEl/ . • \ \ \ \ \ / L1_"~~', T . \' 'L1 . ~ \ \ --~\-_J \ I :~~ ~ • • \ ~ Ft<WR,F,.,1141:2. B --" --~--:--";-~~';-~\' ~1' • --...... ~-'--' j , '.: .. ,__ ."'.......~. '¥ "'.f , • , ~ __ • ...... <V " I ;.;.:--.. ~--. .. '~.. ". ___ ' ....... ·...)/1 FIGURE 10 " .;.. -~-,J. . '. • - - - _ _ ' . ----EX. 12" DIA •• : ---.,. --.--' . , ~ ,-.-~/.,:' _.-.--", -~ I. -. -\' ~ FI:URE 14 i' .' \../ • • • • 5~AM~~A~ 'e'!~ARSeM!NT NOTe 51TE PLAN ~DED BY GORE De5l6N, 14111 IE 2'mI PL SUITE 101, BaLEWE, i'4A CUlOO1 (4:25)e0e5-1&TI, ;2, ~ DRAHN6 i'4A5 MODIFIEP 6Y TALA5AEA GOaILTANT5 FOR VISUAL B+lANc:&ENT. (9TALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. Rellource & Environmental Planning 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast Woodinville, Washington 98077 BUB (425)861-7550 -Fax (425)861-7549 8 1 CULVERT EXHIBIT _ FIGURE 3 STREAM B DEFOOR PROPERTY RENTON, VolA DESIGN SCALE AS NOTED DATE 5/1/06 REVISED PROJECT <131 © Copyright -TaIa8aea Consultants. INC. 1\ t_ v I ~ , \ ,'\ \ " , "\ 'l 5TR!AM e ,/ / ! '-,,/ 'C ( '- i' , t I \ t \1 "/ HI MALAY AN BLACKBERRY UNDERSTORY @TALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. Rel!ource & Environmental Planning 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast Woodinville, Washington 98077 BUB (425)861-7550 -Fax (425)661-7549 EXHIBIT _ FI6URE 4 STREAM B SECTION DEFOOR PROPERTY RENTON, WA ,I \-" ll.. \ ~ , {I ( ~, \~ ~ \\1' II // \ IV" \,··'V \~ ;\'1 ~ '\ INCISED CHANNELS WITH VERTICAL SIDE-SLOPES DESIGN SCALE AS NOTED DATE 5/1/06 REVISED I, ;! I ' ( I " PROJECT <131 © Copyright -Talasaea ConSUltants, INC. . + I . 1 ~I 1,1 I I\! ' ~I~T:-II \ \ ,~. ,,' , \ \ \ \ ¥f': ".' . \ \ \ I OJ ,'1 I II , > r" \ \ \ \ 'C; /,' ,i I I \ \ I , 22,ca-e" \ \ \ \ , l1.. ; , \ i I ) . t :x: I I I , \ \ '., , . ..... I ',c3-2 I ',--.I' I' \., ,~, ~" I )( c 1\ I .I., . , I I Ia. '\ \ \ \ \ d ' / :;' , ;' I I ~ , i\ "I ' I ~ " \ 22.£3-6 af;3-I.?fij?-,<; : I ,1 \ <VI, ~3,l ,\ 2IWjh~, / 'I, i , ..... ' II ,I JJ:t,.s \ \ ( , ;-- , , I ' t" ('\',..A' I"':~"'I ' .6-' "Ii '.'/ " .......... '''\ .... _.\. \. , I \ ~~ .. ~ 'M". ", ... 22722, I \'.. l .) ) , \ 1;&0, '\ A " .; ; , "', ,-<, / , ',.-" , !e_ ,'(.,;, \ I 1 '-r-"',..'-' ',''-, I " . \ '. \ I ! \:.: ~l" \ \' \, OJI 'Jo l'.,,\,;" \ \ .; ,\ \ , ' a,.: \ \ ) eu>11 ~ , \' ~ ~ I , , \ \ I! +' \ ' ", (<tJ (..I? a".-'- //~ ( ~ , c: \ 0 i / --, " ' '/ eu~3\ ~J:3-1 '\{ C/.) /,-jL3~ , ex: I . /~ "1"~. \ I: I) I I \ '\ lei ' ? \' , I I \,. \ / 1 \ ~ , ~' . I . "" r . <,', • \ . \ "'. ~ I I I \ \ ~---,-v" , . ~ I .cO) \" , \ ,,~ . I .....: I' \ '\. ". -I' " "".,.., I . . " \" \' I " ... ' , , I- I , \/ "\ \ I I I \ I I, , "~ 10 h St \ \ ~~ 0 ;' / :~,.~;\, \ \!, \ '" I ;' / / I !, ,1 I . ) ( f .I I /.-" "\,~,,,. I' I ! , I / I i (( (, I 1 '/, ". l \ / I I ' \ , \. ,':\' \ I \ '\' I I I I I ! \ \ ./ ) !'~ V'I ) §(\ { I.. ' ... ' \ \ \ I, I' I \ ,\ , , I .... '~', ,,1. ... -",~/ "I I I 't...! \. 11th'S'" .J' "-. '4 \ I I \ (I \ \ \ \ -.. ". 'I I IS ~ 17 \ ' .. ,,", I I ' '\ \ \ \ \., ",' L' I \ • \ "J ) \ \. \~\, \ \ , \ '-'\ ..... -...... \ \. ~\ / : \ \ \ " '" '-) ,\., \ \ I I " "-'~ '\ ',~ \ \ ! \ ; \ I J "" ~\" / \ \ • " \ \ I '\Y OF\ENrION STORM SYSTEM, 3/22/05, SOURCE: CIT '\ \ I I I EJ) TALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. Rellource & Environmenlal Planning 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast Woodinville. Washington 98077 Bus (425)861-7550 -Fax (425)861-7M9 \ p'. "-I I I \ ! ( \ " \' I \ " EXHIBIT -FIGURE 5 RENTON STORM~ATER SYSTEM MAP DEFOOR PROPERTY RENTON, ~A \ I --,~J / / \ / SCALE i I \ ) AS NOTED DATE 5/1/06 REVISED ./ ./ PROJECT <131 © Copyright -Talasaea Consultants. INC. • \, • • ,;",5Tf<EAM' IAI ·1 ,.,1 \,,. , (" \"'" .. '\< ."" • i. I '. ~\ ' • l NT 6FC.AF'HIC SCALE mNORllI (IN FEET) b 1 Ii ~ NOT!:S SITE PLAN PROVIDB:> BY GORE DE5leN. 14111 IE 2<l1lI PL SUITE 101, BB..lE'I\E. """ qeocn (4J5)~-1em. 2. 50JRCE DRAHN6 """5 MCt1tRB:1 61' T Al.A5AEA GOIEU. TANT5 FOR Vl5UAL EItW'IC&ENT. .'. . '-. • / -;;:: .. , ...•. 'i\ .• i:, ' ' \ \ \ ' ,: ... ' .:,/ •..•••. I /\~ " itt.' • :/ /'" i. .~ ~ ~ • ~ ~ ,~ 'I, "J, 'A' §;;. FiGURE 15 E!}TALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. Rellource & Environmental Planning 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast Woodinville, Washington 98077 Bus (425)861-7550 -Fax (425)861-7549 • .. / / ~ ~ EX. J211 DIA c;UlVERT • PR@PERrr.E1NE/.~· I ROIN .':: I' ~, I.' \(, ~.r: .' • DRAINAGE'I -iii .'Z · ,~ • \!.\ .'\ . , " EXHIBIT _ fiGURE 6 STREAM A DEfOOR PROPERTY RENTON, WA • li • I , . , . I . , I DESIGN SCALE AS NOTED DATE 5/1/06 REVISED z () I~ Z ,ill ,~ PROJECT <131 © Copyright -Talasaea Consultants, INC. / v " l. / / I ./ r .f"~ ..., ~""-" ~ ~wk' A p~,~~~ / ,I '-\ ... :-I /" l -~ il I '-\ I \ Ii' 'i 1// IJ ,£ --I,~ ,/ ,1/ ~ I " , ~ ! /,J>1A JURE PECjDUOU5 G~NOPY WITH SOME-CE~A~ . . II 1\ ill ,~,,, -/ --' , , \ . . '\1 ~.\\ , /' -' . 'j " \\f~' ,f1, \ -.~\~'.\ . :, ,,~. \ \ '-I \ . . ~ \ \: I • / ~ \, NATIVE FOREST UNDERSTORY eTALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. Rellource & Environmental Planning 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast Woodinville, Washington 98077 BUB (425)861-7550 -Fax (425)661-7549 "'--SLl6HTL Y INCISED BOTTOM CHANNEL EXHIBIT _ FI6URE 1 STREAM A SECTION DEFOOR PROPERTY RENTON, WA SCALE AS NOTED DATE 5/I/Ob REVISED PROJECT 'l31 @ Copyright -Talasaea Consultants. INC, \ ' , /' - \ \ ~ \ . / / ;.> ( / \ '@" , .'. /J""'" ", • / / / " " "-/ / -"'-...: ...::" .... .... '" ';;< ., /' , ,/' /!/ //< ; "\ ~ ~ II'I\'~' \/1· .... ' \\' , .' ,'" ',,' ,)21\\\"'~'::': ;:;;-, \ , / ~,,---\ I ,\,: .~::\::"-\... 1/ .... / .. ' ...... .--;-) . '. , .. I 1 1 - 1 J/ ---......... '- .................. 1 ............... 1 ~~ ''-...,,~ y ~ ........ ~I ~ PJ..ANTINe PJ..AN eRAFHIC 5CALE cvNORTH (IN FEET) 1 !5 L L ~ e / .... l "' .... / .... '" TALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. Resource & Environmental Planning 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast Woodinville, Washington 98077 Bus (,125)861-7550 -Fax (425)861-7549 \ \ \ \ r· \ \ """, \ \ " \ \ '--..'., -.. -\ --' ~-\-_ i_ ,_',--'->., -'.:~,~, ' ~;u~ClI-iA~;1 ----, PROVIDE Y>lILLOH FAsdNEs AT STREAM BANKS, (SEE DETAIL:3 AND:3A ON 5I£ET ::ui LIMIT OF GLEARING '- (APPROXIMATE EDISE OF" . EXISTIN6 VE6ETATION TO REMAIN) ij ii Ii " ..... \ .... :~~ , .... < <"x;: <' [~~':' '>' ': -,',' :~"" / EXHIBIT FIGURE 8 PLANTING PLAN DEFOOR PROPERTY RENTON, /AlA SCALE AS NOTED DATE 5/1/06 REVISED , 't ,t :1 © Copyright -Talasaea Consultants, INC. r \.. PLANT SCHE:PULE: TREES SYHIlOL SGIENTIFIG NAME c.oMMON NAME i'L STATU5 SPAGINe GIT'f. SIZE tHIN.) NOTES ~. . ~ ~ AGER GIRC.INATIk1 VINE MAPLE FAG-AS 5HOI-IN -4 3' 1fT. I'1JL TI-STEM (3 MIN) ~ FRAXII'«J5 LATIFOLIA ~ ASH FAa-I AS 5HO~ 5 5-6' HT. SINeLE TI<1AfC, I-ELL flRAN05J ~ . RHAM1'«J5 Pl.R5HIANA GASGAAA FAG AS 5HOI-IN 5 -4' HT. B4B, RILL 4 !lU5HY .--PIGEA SITGHENSIS SITKA 5PR1.'C-E FAG AS 5HOI-IN 10 2-3' HT. B4 B, RILL 4 !lU5HY ~ PlI'«J5 GONTORTA SHORE PINE FAG AS ~ -4 4-5' HT. B4B, RILL 4 BUSH"!' • lHJJA PLIGATA I-ESTERN RED GEDAR FAG AS ~ 2 4-5' HT. B4B, RJLL 4 !lU5HY ~ lHJJA PLIGATA I-ESTERN RED GEDAR FAG AS 5HOI+I q 2-3' HT. B4B, RJLL 4 !lU5HY SHRUBS SlMlOl. SGIENT1FIG NAME c.oMMON NAME i'L STATU5 SPAGINe QT"!'. SIZE tHIN.) NOTES () GORI'«J5 SERIGEA RED-05IER D06HOOD FAa-I 3' O.G. Isq I~· 1fT. I'1JL TI-c.ANE (3 MIN) --MAHONIA AGlJIFOLIUM ~ 6RAPE NL 3' O.G. 135 I~· HT. RJLL 4 !lU5HY @ SALIX LASIANDRA PAGIFIG I-iILLOH FAa-I 315lMlOl. 4 -4' WTTINe ~~E506TAINED FROM ON-5ITE GLEARINe @-----SALIX 5C.OULERIANA 5C.OULER I'IILLOI-i FAG 315lMlOl. ~ -4' WTTINe HALF INGH DIAMETER, BARK INTAGT Sl'MPHORlGARPOS ALflU5 c.oMMON SNOHlERR"!' FAaJ 3' O.G. 1-40 I~· HT. I'1JL TI-c.ANE (3 MIN) EROSION C.ONTROL SEED MIX (PROVIDE AT ALL EXPOSED SOIL AREAS) SGIENTIFIG NAME FE511K-A RUBRA A8R05T1S lBtJlS c.oMMON NAME i'L STATU5 SPAGINe RED FESaJE FAC.+ ~ APPIXATION RATE PER AGRE, GOLONIAL BENT6RA55 FAG ~ 400 SEED MIX 120'1 I-iILEU< ELLIS FERTILIZER, 5-10-10 ~ IBPIJ, OR EGUIY. r STALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. Resource & Environmental Planning 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast Woodinville, Washington 98077 Bus (425)861-7550 -Fax (425)861-7549 EXHIBIT FIGURE Cj PLANT LEGEND DEFOOR PROPERTY RENTON, WA DESIGN 'DRAWN CL SCALE AS NOTED DATE 5/1/06 REVISED "" -I· PROJECT Cj31 © Copyright -Talasaea Consultants, INC. (OTALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. Resource & Environmental Planning 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast Woodinville, Washington 98077 Bus (425)861-7550 -Fax (425)861-7549 EXHIBIT _ FIGURE 10 PHOTO #10, STREAM B CORRIDOR DEFOOR PROPERTY RENTON, WA SCALE N.T.5. DATE 5/1/06 REVISED © Copyright -Talasaea Consultants, INC. eTALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. Resource Be Environmental Planning 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast Woodinville, Washington 98077 Bus (425)861-7550 -Fax (425)861-7549 EXHIBIT _ FI6URE II PHOTO #11, INCISED STREAM B CHANNEL DEFOOR PROPERTY RENTON, WA SCALE N.T.5. DATE 5/1/06 REVISED © Copyright -Talasaea Consultants, INC. (J) TALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. Resource & Environmental Plannin, 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast Woodinville. Washington 98077 Bus (425)861-7550 -Fax (425)861-7549 EXHIBIT _ FIGURE 12 PHOTO #12, MAPLE TREE IN STREAM B DEFOOR PROPERTY RENTON, WA SCALE N.T5. DATE 5/1/06 REVISED © Copyright -Talasaea Consultants, INC. eTALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. Resource & Environmental Planning 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast Woodinville, Washington 98077 Bus (425)861-7550 -Fax (425)861-7549 EXHIBIT _ FI6URE 13 PHOTO #13, CULVERT AT RENTON AVE S. DEFOOR PROPERTY RENTON, WA SCALE N.T.s. DATE 5/1/06 REVISED © Copyright -Talasaea Consultants, INC. eTALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. Resource & Environmental Planning 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast Woodinville. Washington 98077 Bus (425)861-7550 -Fax (425)861-7549 EXHIBIT _ FISURE 15 PHOTO #15, STREAM A GORRIDOR C'EFOOR PROPERTY RENTON, ViA SCALE N.T.5. DATE 5/1/06 REVISED © Copyright -Talasaea Consultants, INC. , Li.J:Li.J ~It..o let: , t SOURCE: THE ~II sw Z3~ ~T El)TALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. Rel!ource & Environmental Planning 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast Woodinville, Washington 98011 BUB (425)861-1550 -Fax (425)861-75(9 , .~ EXHIBIT _ FIGURE I VICINITY MAP DEFOOR PROPERTY RENTON, WA 4IH" ~ ST !-f,' !lG~ .-, ..... -_.j! '"'. f. , 'wmw %~T-i~ 3RO ~ ... ~ Sr1't.' ('~~1' ~ 5 61Ii 51 ,J' ,-- V> ~1THCT S TIl'. SI :st ." ~ PARK 1CUfl GUVrr rR ~ >,$vt S£STJfPL: ffj < ~ J' VBTHST I ,:/ li;> st -... "rlf-''3-I--p'"HP--~--'''''I-__ ....JffiI. -. , ",' ~fA!!'rIlLD <t;.,..~ ~ <II '\J~ p\. !::! z PAlIK '4, '!>, .... ::: SS <,<'" GA T[ C'l'£/ 'IR R/t; _c> -;;~ r:::=s "-' s'" ~ 'i; PROJECT AREA DESIGN SCALE DATE 5/1/06 REVISED NORTH © Copyright -Talasaea Consultants, INC, ~ ~ / / \ ~ ~ ;! ,B /~ . . J . .••... ,,';~7.:·; r~';':,;:~ .~vl ~ ~:: :~: . I, : ~, ",;,'!,!,)': .,.Yi. >;'. ",...",. /.. I ':i:):;~ \!; '(.',. ':~,' ;;: ;~' :[;.: I •. , .,.""~p",,. *'.....' ,f· . l' '" '" I 1 l'il )~,.,' \ I:' '\t' .' ¥,.Ii: ~ ,,".,o\'lj" , , ·,\.;'pl:.:A1-\' .' ',"" . ,,\':tif';:;2f':i!" . :i,: " ;~:I' , I r<,::;::,;tS\~y,d : "'(,' 1"t~, ',:'1. 11 ",.,;":',,,,~.'X... ' ,"",;, .t~,. "1 H • >.\ 1 t>:t1 ,,".' .~ II!r: ~~ " '1 "(,,:, I "") ~ I'~I /(1\ 1\ ,"'';' ,h'lq I . ";"""""""1 I ',' "'''' I' ,."11' 1<'" \1 I ,t pl / ".i":"l"',(" ,I' ~~,t) .lldJ.'· . . ,.," ,I,tt;~( .q," " .. ',\)".1,,' . " ',:'-2', ",.1, I •• ' ~ • !I I I .... ,oF ,lIl: J l ( II :" {~ ! ;" .: r I' • I ,F I'f I ~ ," ";.,' .!~I':\ ' . 1,' ' I, I EXI5TINIS HOUSE "' ", ' .:,.",', _,,' :,' ",1 i 'r,.\,,-~~'6' l,I.,',?,'. \ ,:,"" ,~",*", I I,' J:":/ <;~ ~ " .;>: . / I I '_,1-/ . ~ ----...-----,...--' , dr II I~, TL,., " /1.".,;, i I ',';',,'l'\;'" ~ .. ' . ".' SHO-T-.:"i:!··" .~ " " I, "" "~~ll'" , .... ,.' I, A A,i;' Pi>,' .' TR!-"M" ~:~ ~.,l .... "~,I .i ,/f'o .~rll' _ ... , ' . .i'''' ,. ". < """""" __ I I L ' ,...,' ",. ..' ! '.,. ANHOUSE) ~~ +-";>.,.~,.;~,:;";",,,,,!,! Ill: ,-" ''''''''''' ' "" .. "~ I 1/ ROH TYP. I --1 I ","14 SF / STREAM '6'--! ~. TLAND 'A' \(15' eu=FER) k~' (2~ERJ .. .... ,.',,',~,,~ 'c· , .. ;''''''--.:.'-~ ~ ~~-:.!:-:.:-:<.~: ... \ . I. ... , .,1. , ' .. ' , ./ .....l. , , .. , . 'tP'3' •• ..... "'. ' ••••••• ' ••• '. '-. ':;;. '/' I .. ,.... ," ',-a., , •....• , / . ""t.; -,., ... ~' : .... y. .. ~".;."" , eTP-4 ~ Mr .. ~., ~J ... ~.. . ' . .' EXZ315TIN6' "'II:t. '" ......... 1'-· STRfC,lURE ........ ~S*EA,M 'c.' '. / ,~... . , ,..~. ' ... 'f'.. ... --~rrLlH:.-I ~ ................... ~ ~ ............ ~TLA~ 'A'ENlAReeMeNT ~AXglil' 2: ..... XI r; NPSfU SCALE,I"·eo' flPLAN LEeEND --- ---~Rrr LIIE EXlSTlN6 GONTaJR C : '-:-, " ;::::] EXlSTlN6I-ETLAND smeAM II-ETLA/>tl _FER ....... SmEI\M II-ETLA/>tl FLAe eTP-I TEST PIT FLA6 = = =t= = =~XIHAn:OIH1OFSme"'M +--~XIHAn: GENn:R LlIE OF SmeAM NOT~S " -,~ """"" .. , .... .. r ~_'" """'" " '-.... t.;;" ,"j' " ... """,'/ '-'" ' '> /' ~'''.'.;:'!.'' ~., ... '"~,~, CM:RVI!:II'I Pv.N ,/ ~>;"~ SIn: PLAN PflOVIDB:> BY c.oRE DESleN, 14111 IE ;2qTll PL. 5U1n: 101, BELLE\I\JE, HA q&o<n (425JM5-1e.'11, 2. SCtIRGE DRAHNIS IooIAS MotlIAB:> BY TAL,.,SAEA CON5ULTANTS FOR VISUAL ~AN(;EMENT. {l9TALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. Rellource /lc Environmental Planning 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeasl Woodinville, Washington 98077 Bus (425)881-7550 -Fax (425)861-7549 EXHIBIT -FIGURE 2 DESIGN EXISTING C.ONDITIONS fOR SCALE OVERALL SITE 4 v-tETLAND ENLARGEMENT AS NOTED DEFOOR PROPERTY DATE RENTON, v-tA 5/1/06 REVISED PROJECT Cl31 © Copyright -Talasaea Consultants, INC, ---~_l ·---------------~--E:~r~lFf~c:7 ---------~T_REAM·~~8-'---- }~Q~L:r:?-I-~~-ci'-------~ETtAf,ft5-------------- • • • .. " '\ :5IEi-LEAF MAE?lE • IN CHANNEL' " ' -.. .. !IiII ~ .... \111> ___ ~ ~ 1---~-: '\ (flJ FIGURE 14' '\ ../ .. 'l e . .- Snu:AM/~TL.AND Ie' !NL.AM!M!NT NOTES srn: PLNI PROV1DBJ BY GORE De5leN, 14111 ME 2'lTI1 PL. SUITE 101, BaLEVUE, HA q&ocn (425)~5-1em. 2. ~E tlRAHN15 HAS MGOtAED BY TALASAEA WN!il. TIINTS FOR V15UAL EItIANCa1ENT. eTALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. Rel!ource & Environmental Planning 15020 Ilear Creek Road Northeast Woodinville, Washington 98077 Ilus (425)881-7550 -Fax (425)861-7549 51 EXHIBIT _ FIGURE 3 STREAM B DEFOOR PROPERTY RENTON, WA / "T __ <1 d. 4j .d··: ~ " Ll /&< \1 ~' 1\ ~ . , I1:.I DESIGN SCALE AS NOTED DATE 5/1/06 REVISED I~ =:J () U) PROJECT q31 © Copyright -Talasaea Consultants, INC. H\ s r ( \ J ~, ~I \ \ / :,V, / I c ~. I y ~. \ I i . 1 ~ i. :2/' STReAM e c5RAPHIC. 5C.ALE (IN FEEr/ / I .' CD I : , I l i / / /, \J 1\ 't I , \ i: .-- J. . \ I '- , ( / ( '( , . / I -DffCI~UOVS CANOPY <t' 'q7ER AND BL M PLE~ , I / , \\\ If \ \ 1\1 n ,l i/ II "J. ~,f ~ I \ \' \'1 \ \\ it 'I \~ " ( '- \. f / (;/ (/ "l /' \ .. " \. 1~( '''-, '\ t :'1\\ It I \/ ~ /' /~-;--~i HI MALAY AN BLACKBERRY UNDERSTORY eTALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. Rel!lource & Environmental Planning 15020 !lear Creek Road Northeast Woodinville, Washington 98077 !lus (425)861-7550 -Fax (425)881-7549 EXHIBIT _ FIGURE 4 STREAM B SECTION DEFOOR PROPERTY RENTON, WA \1 \\ \ "., .'6 I~ ~"'<"" , \'] h\\ INCISED CHANNELS WITH VERTICAL SIDE-SLOPES DESIGN SCALE AS NOTED DATE 5/1/06 REVISED 6 1 PROJECT 031 © Copyright -Talasaea Consultants, INC. 1:1:.u:-~ ~. ......, r \ , \ "-\' ! \ © Copyright -Talasaea Consultants, INC, '$ ~ NOTes '" "" ... .. "'" fill) lP> "~ ., , Sill, PLAN PROVlD8J BY GORE DE5teN, 14111 IE 2ClTll PL. SUITE 101. BEllE'A.E. 1M qeocn (425}etl5-1em. 2. saJRGE DRAWN5IAAS M<X>IFlID 6Y TAlASAEA GClI>aL TANTS FOR VISUAL EltiANC&IENT. STREAM: IAI • '/ .. .. -. %""'" ,i ~, .', ," "t" , I , , !Ill)! I " !iii' • '/ /'" , 1 ~, ------.. """ ------.. ~ ~ . 'A 1 ~ FI6l!RE 15 (9TALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. Resource & Environmental Planning 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast Woodinville. Washinglon 98077 Bus (425)861-7550 -Fax (425)861-7549 ... '" i~ / / .i,) .. / '. EX. 12" DIA C;ULVERT,' $ I ~' • PR~PERTY,UNE/,.~ 1 I • RO!AJ.' ,,' ",-, 1 ' , , I \i ~, , , /!' DRAINAGE I 't ; "Z : ~! .. I. \" .'\; , EXHIBIT _ FIGURE b STREAM A DEFOOR PROPERTY RENTON, iAlA I· .. " • 1 , , ·1 :. ,,, "1 " DESIGN SCALE AS NOTED DATE 5/1/06 REVISED I J-- =:) () \S) z () If-- Z ill ,,~ PROJECT Cf31 © Copyright -Talasaea Consultants, INC. / ./ / ." ." \->-.1 ' .:r;l , (.-:): ., , '.-~ I' ~ '~ ~ rf~r ~Att~"., "" A STReAM A _ .. _ ... ---_ .. /1!! / -/: / eTALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. Resource & Environmental Planning 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast Woodinville. Washington 98077 Bus (425)861-7550 -Fax (425)861-7549 :\ ~\ " \\ ," EXHIBIT _ FIGURE 1 STREAM A SECTION DEFOOR PROPERTY RENTON, riA )' r/ ,_l . ./ .'~ '~/l f." t~~;¢.., ~--. • AI NATIVE FOREST UNDERSTORY SCALE AS NOTED DATE 5/1/06 REVISED PROJECT '131 © Copyright -Talasaea Consultants, INC. \ ' , - \ \ 1 • . , , ~ / / / 'u' ',/ " <~ ......... .. ......................... /' / / / ------------ 11'1" ~,I/ 'I I \ II ~ '21' I'\,"""'~' >;;;;- N... f"'" ... -'-- "'" I ~ 1 '- 1 ---- .... ~ I \ ' \ \ ~ .. ,\ ,.~ '. \ \ " \. , \ \, \ '; \ ' ' -,-,:-"\ -, -,-\-~ ~,-,--'-"" -<-',-"An~H~liAT\_~ ---- PROVIDE HILLOH FA5c.IrE5 AT 5TREAM BANKS, (5EE DETAIL 3 AND 3A ON 5i-£ET ;;uj LIMIT OF GLEMING (APPROXIMATE EDGE OF EXISTING VE6ETATION TO REMAIN) • if, , ' " ,.' . ,,'-,." ;,!/ ! : ; r \ .. ;:: " '-' ~.... -..l I ................. Y ........ l ~ --/ . " .,. '" ", , ~ , "'--" " ' '~V:;:t' J" / -, , , """'-,,111, ............. , \ , ~ ........ ' ............. ~ / -EXHIBIT _ FI6URE 8 --[+A,','~"~ .,~:' .~" ',' ~ P1.ANTI NcS P1.AN GRAPHIC SCALE mNORTH (IN FEET) 1 I t I o 15 30 60 e TALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. Resource & Environmental Planning 15020 Bear Creek Road Nort.heast Woodinville, Washing tun 98077 Rus P25)B61-7550 -Fax (~25)B61-75~9 PLANTING PLAN DEFOOR PROPERTY RENTON, HA DATE 5/1/06 REVISED , I -[ L " J :1 © Copyright -TRlasR"a Consultants, INC'. r \.. PL.ANT SCHEDULE TREES SYH:lOL 5c.IENTIFIG NAME (;OMMQN NAME I-L STA T\I5 SPAGIN15 GIn'. SIZE (MINJ NOTES VINE MAPLE FAG-AS SHOI-'IN 4 3' fIT. HJL TI-S TEM (3 MINJ ORE\SON ASH FAOi AS SHOHN 5 5-6' HT. SIN6LE Tl<LtlK, HELL BRANOfiJ GA5c.AAA FAG AS SHOI-'IN 5 "I' fIT. B4 B, RiLL e BUSHY SITKA 5PROCE FAG ASSHOI-'IN 10 2-3' HT. B4 B, RiLL e BUSHY SHORE PINE FAG AS SHOI-'IN 4 4-5' HT. B4 B, RILL e BUSHY HESTERN RED GEDAR FAG ASSHOHN 2 4-5' HT. B4B, RILL e BUSHY HESTERN RED GEDAR FAG AS 5HOHN q 2-3' HT. Be B, RILL e BUSHY , .. ,. ~ AGER GIRGINATt.t1 ~-~-FRAXIHJ5 LATIFOLIA 00-\5Y .. lI!i. --~~----RHAMHJ5 PURSHIANA ., 't~ PIGEA SITO£N5IS @--~-PlHJ5 c.oNTORTA ._~ ____ ._ TltJ.JA PLiGATA ~~--TltJ.JA PLIGATA SHRUBS SYMBOL 5c.IENTIFIG NAME (;OMMQN NAME I-L STAT\15 spAGIN15 GIn'. SIZE (MINJ NOTES 0----~--.---c.oR»J5 SERIGEA RED-05IER D06HOOD FAOi 3'O.G. 15<l II>" HT. HJL TI-<;ANE (3 MINJ ®--. MAHONIA AGVIFOLIUM ORE\SON 6RAPE NL 3'O~. 135 II>" HT. RILL e BUSHY @.~-----SALIX LASIANDRA PAGIFIG HILLOH FAOi 3/5YH:lOL 4 4' WTTIN15 WTTIN65 OBTAINED FROM ON-5ITE GLEARIN15 AGnVITIES SALIX SGOULERIANA 5c.OULER HILLOH FAG 3/5YH:lOL 31>4 4' WTTIN15 HALF INGH DIAMETER, BARK INTAGT SYMPHORIGARPOS ALro5 (;OMMQN 5NOYIBERRY FAaJ "'O.G. 140 II>" HT. HJL TI-<;ANE (3 MINJ EROSION C.ONTROL SEED MIX (pRoVIDE AT ALL EXPOSED SOIL AfOJ:AS) 5c.IENTIFIG NAME COMMoN NAME I-L STAT\15 SPAGIN15 FESTIJ(;A RUBRA A6R05ns Tel!IS RED FESaJE FAG+ 50lII APPLIGATION RATE PER AGRE. GOLONIAL BENT6RA55 FAG 50lII 400 SEED MIX 1200 HILEllJI. ELLIS FERTILIZER. 5-10-10 50lII IElPU, OR EGlUIV. r STALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC" Resource & Environmental Planning 15020 Bear Croek Road Northeast Woodin\-ille, Washington 98077 B1Is (425)801-7550 -fax (·125)861-7549 EXHIBIT FIGURE CJ PLANT LEGEND DEFOOR PROPERTY RENTON, HA DESIGN I DRAWN CL SCALE AS NOTED DATE 5/1/06 REVISED "" I PROJECT CJ31 © Cop.Hight -T,,]asaea Cons1Iltants, INC. Ei)TALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. Rel!lource & Environmental Planning 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast Woodinville, Washington 98077 Bus (425)861-7550 -Fax (4215)861-7549 '., ")-'t 'k~~: ',!'" , l' \ ~"\ EXHIBIT _ fiGURE 10 PHOTO #10, STREAM B C.ORRIDOR DEfOOR PROPERTY RENTON, WA SCALE N.T's. DATE 5/I/Ob REVISED © Copyright -Talasaea Consultants, INC. E!)TALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. Resource &c Environmental Planning 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast Woodinville, Washington 98077 Bus (425)861-7550 -Fax (425)861-7549 EXHIBIT _ fiGURE II PHOTO #11, INCISED STREAM B CHANNEL DEfOOR PROPERTY RENTON, v-lA DESIGN SCALE N.T's. DATE 5/1/06 REVISED PROJECT C131 © Copyright -Talasaea Consultants. INC, EDTALASAEA CONSULTANTS! INC. Resource & Environmental Planning 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast Woodinville. Washington 98077 Bus (425)861-7550 -Fax (425)861-7549 EXHIBIT _ FIGURE 12 PHOTO #12, MAPLE TREE IN STREAM B DEFOOR PROPERTY RENTON, HA SCALE N.T's. DATE 5/1/00 REVISED © Copyright -TaIasaea Consultants. INC. S)TALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. Resource & Environmental Planning 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast Woodinville, Washington 98077 Bus (425)861-7550 -Fax (425)861-7549 EXHIBIT _ FIGURE 13 PHOTO #:13, CULVERT AT RENTON AVE S, DEFOOR PROPERTY RENTON, HA SCALE N.T.5. DATE 5/1/06 REVISED © Copyright -TaIasaea Consultants, INC. (DTALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. Resource I!c Environmental Planning 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast Woodinville, Washington 98077 Bus (425)861-7550 -Fax (425)861-7549 EXHIBIT _ FIGURE 13 PHOTO #14, STREAM B CHANNEL DEFOOR PROPERTY RENTON, HA SCALE N.T's. DATE 5/1/06 REVISED © Copyright -Talasaea Consultants. INC. {BlTALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. Resource & Environmental Planning 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast Woodinville. Washington 98077 Bus (425)861-7550 -Fax (425)861-7549 EXHIBIT _ fiGURE 15 PHOTO #15, STREAM A CORRIDOR DEfOOR PROPERTY RENTON, WA SCALE N.TS. DATE 5/1/06 REVISED © Copyright -Talasaea Consultants, INC. ~ ~~., .. ..a ..... CITY <. F RENTON PlanningIBuilding/Public Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator Kathy Kooiker-Wheeler, Mayor November 3, 2005 Michael Chen Core Design, Inc. 14711 NE 29th Place, Suite 101 Bellevue, W A 98007 Subject: Administrative Determination of Un-mapped StreamlWetland Classification for Defoor Properties (parcel Nos. 0007200196, 0007200194, and 2023(59085) Dear Mr. Chen: This letter is in response to your request for the classification of 4 un-mapped streams and two unmapped wetlands as identified in the Wetland Study, Stream Assessment, Habitat Study, Watershed Restoration, and Mitigation Plan prepared byTalasea . Consultants, Inc. dated June 28, 2005 (revised October 3, 2(05). . BACKGROUND A Wetland Study, Stream Assessment, Habitat Study, Watershed Restoration, and Mitigation Plan prepared by Talasea Consultants, Inc. dated June 28, 2005 was submitted to the City of Renton with the preliminary short plat and preliminary plat applications for the Defoor Preliminary Short Plat and the Defoor Preliminary Plat. The report identified 3 streams, 2 drainages, and 1 wetland on the subjeCt properties. The report recommended that Streams B and C and Drainages land 2 be classified as Class 5 streamS, which are exempt from the City' scritical areas regulations per RMC 4-3-050B.1. Stream A was recommended to be classified aSa Class 4 stream, which requires a 35-foot buffer and Wetland A was recommended to be a Class 3 ~etland with 25-foot required buffers·. The Watershed Company (City's environmental consultant) conducted a site visit August 25th, 2005 and reviewed the applicant's report. A comment letter from The Watershed Company dated September 15, 2005 concurred with the applicant's recommended classification for Wetland A, Stream A, and Stream C, however did not concur with the applicant's recommended classification for Stream B and Dfainage 2 and identified a wetland that had not been delineated. The W~tershed Company recommended that Stream B be classified as a Class 3 stream, that Drainage 2 be identified as an extension of Stream A, a Class 4 stream, and that the unmapped wetland be classified as a Class 3 wetland. Arevised Wetland Study, Stream Assessment, Habitat Study, Watershed Restoration, and Mitigation Plan prepared by Talas.ea Consultants, Inc. (revised October 3,2(05) was submitted to the City October 5,2005. The revised report identified Drainage 2 as an extension of Stream A (a Class 4 stream), delineated the unmapped wetland and labeledit as Wetland B, and Stream B was labeled as a Class 3 stream with a 75-foot required ~--------~----~ 1055 SouthGradyWay-Renton, Washington 98055 R E N TON ® This paper contains 50% recycled material, 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE buffer. However, Talasea requested a reconsideration of the classification of Stream Bas' a Class 3 stream and recommended that Stream B be reclassified as an unregulated Class 5 stream. City staff met with Hugh Mortensen of The Watershed Company to discuss the ., classification ofthe streams and drainage. Particularly the City's classification criteria of streams (RMC 4-3-050L.1.a) was reviewed. Per Section RMC 4-'3-050L.l.c.iii of the City's critical areas regulations, "Classification of an unmapped stream or lake is effective upon expiration of the fourteen (14) day appeal period following the Administrator's determination." The Administrator has reviewed the City's critical areas regulations (RMC 4-3-050), and the Wetland Study, Stream Assessment, Habitat Study, Watershed Restoration, and Mitigation Plan prepared by Talasea Consultants, Inc and has rendered a decision. FINDINGS/CONCLUSION 1. The applicant has requested the determination of the classification of 3' streams, one drainage, and two we~!~. .' ........, . . 2. The applicant submitt~'fW~~andStudy, Stre~"~sessment, Habitat Study, Watershed Restora?()~,~d Mitigation Plan pfep<u:ea~y Talasea Consultants, Inc. (revised October ll-20(5):+ .' . . ./. "'\ 3. The City's A~s_tratdr and environmental cOIl$U1f9,nt elne Watershed Company) have:,tevi"eWe,d the~e~<S~:f1; Stream Ass.sment, Habitat Study, Watershed Res~oration,;an~f'Mi~ -. ()n<l?IaI)~.epated by 1\Iasea Consultants, Inc. (revised October Jj~W05).-a.;' . ~a':~;t;'tlcal area,t@gu,tions found in RMC 4-3-050. '" ' , DECISION . . . The City concurs that wetiia1is A and B shalt be cl~sifi~ ategory 3 wetlands, and 'that Stream A shall be classiff~, a Class 4 stream .• S'u •• , lent information has not been provided to the City to show that 'Stream. B' ShouK~J,}~,ti:f~sified as a Class 5 Stre;;: that Stream C shall be classfied as a Class 5 streain, and that Drainage·l shallbeclassfied as a Class 5 stream. The Administrator detenriined that: 1) Drainage 1 shall be classified as a Class 4 stream; 2) StteamB shall be classified as a Class 3 stream; and 3) Stream C shall be classified as a Class 4 stream. Therefore, the decision has been made not to acCept the Wetland Study, Stream Assessment, Habitat Study, Watershed Restoration, and Mitigation Plan prepared by Talasea Consultants, Inc. revised October 3,2005. REtONSIDERA TION. Within 14 days of the effective date of the decision, any party' may request that the Administrator reopen a decision. The AdministratorIriay modify his decision if material evidence not readily discoverable prior to the original decision is found or if he finds there was misrepresentation of fact. After review of the reconsideration request, if the Administrator finds insufficient evidence t6 amend the ,origioru decision, there will be no further extension of the appeal period. Any person wishing to take further action must file a fonnal appeal within the following appeal timeframe. . . APPEAL. This administrative d~ision will become final if not appealed in writing to the Hearing Examiner on or before 5:00 PM on November 17,2005. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110. Additional information regarding the appeal process maybe obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. Appeals must be filedjn writing, together with the required $75.00 application fee, to: HearingExaminer, City of Renton , 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. . If you have any questions, you may contact Jill Ding, Associate Planner at 425-430-7219. Sincerely, . . lJ1:,[/lud1tr Neil Watts Development Services DirecFor cc: . Project File . Jennifer Henni~g ;':~!~t~: i~~~~{~'~~'··' Jill Ding . ..... f Terry Defoor/Applicant ... : <~>i ;.: i. Ronnie CS Ten~\Len~qertg'Tefig, Mei":YllTeti 08Jlg, Wei Kang Kho, Cb.i6~CJW·l'uan/Owners i'".~'\fi"" Parties of Record' ." .. :, , March 24, 2006 Terry DeFoor GWC, Inc. 95 Anchor Court Marco Island, Florida 34145 ICICLE CREEK ENGINEERS Geotechnical, Geologic and Environmental Services INTRODUCTION ~4L-q?1 CtJ/L(lE*? P. Report Hydrogeological Consultation Stream B Corridor Renton Hill Property Renton, Washington File No. 0584-001 This report presents the results of Icicle Creek Engineers (ICE's) hydrogeologic evaluation of the "Stream B" corridor at the DeFoor property (referred to in this report as the "Renton Hill Property") in Renton, Washington. ICE previously completed a preliminary geotechnical evaluation and coal mine hazard assessment of the Renton Hill Property; the results were presented in ICE's report dated June 10, 2005. ICE also completed an evaluation of Protected and Sensitive Slope areas; the results were presented in ICE's report dated September 30,2005. We understand that a question has been raised by Jason Walker of Talasaea Consultants, LLC (the wetland and stream consultant for the project) as to whether or not Stream B is a naturally-formed stream. ICE has been requested by Terry DeFoor the project owner, to assist in this evaluation of Stream B from a geomorphological (landform genesis) and hydrogeological perspective. The morphology ofthis stream is important in identifying its proper sensitive area classification and buffer requirements. To accomplish this evaluation, ICE reviewed historic mine maps dating back to 1911 and historic aerial photographs dated 1936, and completed a detailed surface reconnaissance ofthe Stream B corridor. STREAM B OVERVIEW We understand that Stream B was identified by Talasaea. Stream B is located in the south portion of the Renton Hill Property, and flows from east to west through an undeveloped forested area. A second stream, referred to as "Stream A" exists to the south of Stream B. Stream B is bordered by Renton A venue South and residential development to the east, residential development to the north, and undeveloped forested land to the south and west. The Stream B corridor and surrounding area have a relatively long history of site use, including residential development (Renton Hill is one of the oldest residential neighborhoods in the City of Renton) and underground coal mining. The site is located at the historical location of the Renton Mine that was active from about 1874 through 1933. HISTORICAL MINE MAP REVIEW We reviewed historic mine maps of the Renton Mine dated 1911, 1918, 1919 and 1932. These historic maps show the underground mine workings and, to a limited extent, surface features such as 230 NE Juniper Street, Suite 101 • Issaquah, WA 98027-2519 • www.iClClecreekengineers.com • (425) 427-8187 phone· (425) 427-6629 fax Terry DeFoor GWC, Inc. March 24, 2006 Page 2 mining-related buildings, ground surface topography (in local areas), primary roads and streams. No stream is indicated on the historic mine maps at the Stream B location. The mine maps indicate that main entries for the Renton Mine are located in the area currently designated as Wetland A. Stream B flows into Wetland A. Based on our previous coal mine hazard assessment of this area, it appeared that the mine entries, including the main mine entry, were covered and regraded which, in our opinion, created the depression where Wetland A is located. HISTORICAL AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH REVIEW We reviewed historic 1936 stereo image (three-dimensional) aerial photographs of the Stream B area. When viewing these photographs in stereo pairs, the vertical dimension is greatly exaggerated, making it easier to observe and identify valleys, swales or ravines. The current development in the surrounding area, including Renton Avenue South and the existing residential development, is consistent with the developed area in the 1936 aerial photographs. In the 1936 aerial photograph, the upland area east of Wetland A is forested and ground surface appears to be relatively planar (no defined swale). For the purpose of this report, a "swale" is defined as a low-relief topographic feature where water may concentrate along the longitudinal axis of the flow path. The area currently occupied by Wetland B is partially cleared with scattered trees. No definitive stream path is visible on the aerial photographs through the Wetland B area. However, we observed a subtle indication of a relatively broad swale taking shape about 50 feet east of the south end of Cedar Avenue South in the Stream B area. Stream A is visible within a defined swale in the 1936 aerial photographs. SURFACE RECONNAISSANCE Brian Beaman of ICE completed a surface reconnaissance of the Stream B corridor on March 17, 2006. Stream B "originates" at a 12-inch diameter concrete pipe that is buried under Renton Avenue South. The area upgradient (east) of this location is fully developed with residential housing and roads. No swale feature was observed upgradient (east) of this storm water pipe outfall. At the time of our reconnaissance, water was flowing from this pipe at a rate of about two to three gallons per minute. The ground surface down gradient of the 12-inch diameter pipe outfall is nearly level and covered with dense brush and blackberry vines for a distance of about 150 feet to the west. A network of eroded gullies, some containing water and some not (the dry gullies are referred to as "orphaned gullies"), cross this area in a braided manner. The gullies are consistently 1-to 3-feet deep (near-vertically sided) and I- to 2-feet across. Bedrock (sandstone) is exposed in the walls and base of these gUllies. At a distance of about ISO feet downgradient (west) of the 12-inch diameter pipe outfall, the ground surface steepens and the network of braided gullies join to form a single gully for a distance of about 100 feet. The single gully crosses a smooth-surfaced area, with a slight definition of a swale beginning to form, much like several other subtle swale features across the Renton Hill Property. The gully through this area averages about 6-to 8-feet deep (near vertically sided) and 3-to 5-feet across. Bedrock (sandstone) is exposed in the walls and base ofthis gully. The ground surface continues to steepen until it reaches a wide swale feature (at least 100-feet wide). A gully, 2-to 6-feet deep and is 3-to 5-feet wide is incised within the swale feature. This wide swale appears to be the same feature noted on the 1936 aerial photographs. The base of this wide swale is roughly coincident with the south end of Cedar A venue South. At this location, Stream B flow across a gently sloping to nearly level area and bends slightly to the Icicle Creek Engineers 05840011032406 Terry DeFoor GWC, Inc. March 24, 2006 Page 3 southwest where it enters the Wetland A area. Stream B is deeply incised into this gently sloping area in a gully that is 4-to 6-feet deep and 2-to 4-feet wide. A second deeply incised gully, referred to as Stream C, with similar physical characteristics, flows toward Stream B from the northeast, but does not connect with Stream B. Stream C originates from a 12-inch diameter stormwater pipe outfall at the south end of Cedar Avenue South. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on our information review and site reconnaissance, it is our opinion that Stream B is not a naturally-occurring stream. The geomorphological and hydrogeological characteristics of Stream B indicate that the "stream" was created by stormwater discharge from the 12-inch diameter pipe that flows from the downhill (west) side of Renton Avenue South. Our opinion is based on the following observations: • No evidence of an existing stream channel was observed on the historic mine maps. • It is unlikely that the mine operators would have maintained a mine entry area in-line with a stream discharge. • No evidence of a defined swale or stream channel was observed in the 1936 aerial photographs. • No visible "watershed" (a natural topographic basin of water flow) exists in the area upgradient (east) of the 12-inch diameter pipe discharge point at Renton Avenue South. • The braided gullies in the area below the discharge point are more consistent with unmanaged stormwater runoff being released from the 12-inch diameter storm water pipe in Renton Avenue South. • The depth of incisement of the Stream B gullies throughout its reach indicates unmanaged stormwater runoff; again originating at the 12-inch diameter stormwater pipe in Renton Avenue South. The physical characteristics of Stream B more resemble an adversely eroding "ditch" rather than a stream. As noted above, the best physical description is "gully" rather than using a more common term for streams such as channel. During our reconnaissance, we observed a broad swale-like feature in the lower portion of the Stream B corridor. This feature is less pronounced than other depression or swale-like features across the Renton Hill Property that are fully vegetated with no stream incisement, and do not receive stormwater discharge. In our opinion, the Stream B corridor would be forested with no defined stream channel if the 12- inch diameter stormwater pipe discharge originating at Renton Avenue South was not present. In our opinion, the gullying of Stream B has created a safety hazard. The City of Renton should be notified of these safety hazard conditions along with appropriate corrective measures to reduce this hazard. USE OF THIS REPORT We have prepared this report for use by GWC, Inc. and their associates and engineers for their use in planning development of the Renton Hill Property. The data and report should be provided to permitting agencies for their information, but our report conclusions and interpretations should not be construed as a warranty of the subsurface conditions. Icicle Creek Engineers 0584001/032406 Terry DeFoor GWC, Inc. March 24, 2006 Page 4 Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with generally accepted practices in this area at the time the report was prepared. No warranty or other conditions, express or implied, should be understood. ******************** We trust this infonnation meets your present needs. If you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance, please call. Document ID: 0584001.Report4 Three copies submitted cc: Jason Walker (one copy) / Talasaea Consultants. LLC 15020 Bear Creek Road NE Woodinville. Washington 98072 Rob Stevens (one copy) Core Design 14711 NE 29th Place. Suite 101 Belluvue. Washington 98007 Ricci Grube AlTA PLLC (two copies) 1080 Broadacres Building 160 I Second Avenue Seattle. Washington 98101 Icicle Creek Engineers Yours very truly, Icicle Creek Engineers, Inc. Brian R. Beaman, P.E., L.H.G. Principal EngineeriHydrogeologist 0584001/032406 I Nancy Thompson -POR_05-089.doC ----- --- Michael Chen Core Design, Inc. 14711 NE 29th Place ste: #101 Bellevue, WA 98007 tel: 425-885-7877 eml: mc@coredesigninc.com ( contact) Pat Conger 1301 S 9th Street Renton, WA 98055 (party of record) Ruth Larson 714 High Avenue S Renton, WA 98055 tel: 425-255-0290 (party of record) Updated: 12/01/05 Parties of Record DEFOOR SHORT PLAT LUA05-089, SHPL-H Terry Defoor GWI Inc. 24633 NE 133rd Street Duvall, WA 98019 tel: 206-999-8874 (applicant) William Collins 420 Cedar Avenue S Renton, WA 98055 (party of record) Eric & Karen Bernard PO Box 58306 Tukwila, WA 98138 tel: 206-200-4001 (party of record) Ronnie CS Teng, Leng-Sheng Teng, Mei-Yu Teng Dang, Wei Kang Kho, Chiu-Chu Tuan 835 Elm Avenue San Gabriel, CA 91107 ( owner) Mayor Kathy Keolker-Wheeler City Hall 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 (party of record) (Page 1 of 1) Page 1 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: CITY OF RENTON ADMINISTRA TIVE/JUDICIAL/LEGAL SERVICES MEMORANDUM March 28, 2006 File NanCYThomPIT v( '---I \~ Prior to the March 28 hearing date this office received a call from Ms. Ricci's office stating that her son was very ill and in the hospital, they requested that the hearing be moved. After conferring with the City Attorney's office, the hearing date was rescheduled for May 2, 2006. RILel GRUBE AlTA, PLLC ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LA W DEBRA EBY RICCI WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL: (206) 624-5842 E-MAIL: DRICCIJD@CONNECTEXPRESS.COM Fred J. Kaufman Office of the Hearing Examiner 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 January 30,2006 Re: Confirming Hearing Date change: Defoor Dear Mr. Kaufman: TELEPHONE: (206) 770-7606 FACSIMILE: (206) 770-7607 I am writing to confirm that the hearing date for the matter regarding Defoor Properties (Parcel Nos. 0007200196,0007200194, and 2023059085) has been changed from January 31, 2006 to March 28, 2006 due to the unavailability of our expert witness. If an earlier date becomes available, please inform us immediately. If you have any questions, you can reach me at (206) 624-5842. Very truly yours, . ,/I I ! (! j/ / ( .. J \ f ! <.- Debfa~ RICCI GRUBE-AIT A, PLLC 1080 BROAD ACRES BUILDING • 1601 SECOND AVENUE SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3526 01/30/2006 11:45 2067707'""(";07 RICCI GRUBE AI~' PLA RICCI GRUBE AlTAI PLLC ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW DEBRA Esy RICCI WRt7l:R'S DIRECT DIAL: (206) 624-05842 E-MAIL: DRICCIJO@CONNECTEXPRESS.COM Fred J. Kaufman Office of the Hearing Examiner 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 January 30, 2006 Re: Confirming Hearing Date change: Defoor Dear Mr. Kaufman: PAGE 02/02 Tlil.liPMONIi: (206) 770-7606 FACSIMILE: (206) 770.7607 I am writing to confirm that the hearing date for the matter regarding Defoor Properties (Parcel Nos. 0007200196, 0007200194, and 2023059085) has been changed from January 31, 2006 to March 28, 2006 due to the unavailability of OUT expert witness. If an earlier date becomes available, please inform us immediately. If you have any questions, you can reach me at (206) 624~5842. \, 1080 BROADACRES BUILDING • 1601 SECOND AVENUF; SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3526 01/30/2006 11:45 RICCI GRUBE A~~· PLA RICCI GRUBE AlTA, PLLC ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW TO: Fred J. Kaufinan COMPANY: FAX NUMBER: 4254306523 PHONE NUMBER: 4254306515 1080 BROADACRUS BUI'-OlNG 1601 SECOND AVENUE SEATTI_E, WASHINGTON 98101 TEL. (206) 770·7606 FAX (206) 770-7607 FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET FROM: Debra Ricci DATE: 1/30/2006 TOT AL NO. OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER: 2 RB: DeFoor -hearing date change PAGE 01/02 o URGENT 0 FOR YOUR FILE 0' FO~ YOUR kJ::VI£W 0 PL£ASB REPLY o PLEASE R~CYCLE NOTES/COMMENTS: Mr. Kauftnan: Please see attached letter. You can contact me at (206) 624-5842. Best regards, Debra Ricci TllE DOCUMENTS ACCOMPi\NYING TnIS FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS OR MAY BE CONFIDENTIAL AND/OR PROTItCTED BY THE ATTORNItY·CLIEN1' PRIVILEGE. THE INFORMATION IS INTEND.ED I'OR THE SOLE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL NAMED ON THIS TRANSMISSION SIf11.r;1' ONLY. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPU;NT. OR AN AGENT OR EMPLOVEE OF THE IUJ:ClrIENT, PLEASE UE AWARE THAT ANY DISCLOSURE, COPYING, nJSTRJUUTION, OR LISE OF THIS INFOR.MATION IS PROHIBITI?D. IF YOU HAVE RECRIVIr.D THIS FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION IN F.R~OR, PLEASE NOTIFV tiS BY COLLECT TELEPHONE CAJ.,L IMMEDIATEI.Y, ANI) WE WILL ARRANGE FOR TJ.lIt RE1'RJEVAL OF THE DOClJM1';N'TS. THANK YOU. STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF KING} AFFIDAVIT 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 January 20,2006. The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of $77.40. \\\\\\\1111'"11/ ~ ,>"'" p.NN 8 "'0 ~~ •••••••• "1~ -= $' "'Y •••• ·;,,'" 4· ... ~«'~ /' ..:::-0 .' ~<S' ib~ '. A\ ;;:::. ..::::-: c:;:, c.o",~~ ~ J rton ~ Q.. f <..> ~ 0 1 A R Y \ ~ Legal Advertising Representative, King County J®mal _e-: ;Z == ~Qd and sworn to me this 20th day ofJan"~,,,fJlJ&'p6.PUB\"\~ ... /.0 § ~~ • 0 ~v. "":::-~";-• •••• ct. " '/.~ .... 0 ~ ~ ~ ............ ~,~ ~ ///111 O~ W,..S \,,~"" u 1/11111111\1\\\\\\ Notary pu~or the State of Washington, Residing in Bellevue, Washington PO Number: NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING RENTON HEARING EXAMINER RENTON, WASHINGTON A Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, Washington, on January 31, 2006 at 9:00 AM to consider the following petitions: Defoor Short Plat Appeal LUA05-089, SHPL-H, ECF Location: 900 Renton Avenue S. Description: The applicant is requesting an appeal of the administrative determination to classify three un-mapped streams as follows: Drainage 1 as a Class 4 stream, Stream B as a Class 3 stream and Stream C as a Class 4 stream and the decision to not accept the Wetland Study, Stream Assessment, Habitat Study, Water- shed Restoration, and Mitigation Plan prepared by Talasea Con- sultants, Inc. revised October 3, 2005. All interested persons are invited to be present at the Public Hearing to express their opinions. Questions should be directed to the Hearing Examiner at 425-430-6515. Publication Date: January 20, 2006 Published in the King County Journal January 20, 2006. #848482 -, ~ ,~ ",': ~i 'i r-7'~- ", : " ,'~ r; .\ ~ 650.55 REF. 2 'if) )"E 650.51 CALCU1.A'I$O : 'i,,~ t q (::, ~~l-IJt!=~. 0 ~ 'I' :BENTON "AVE .. _S _ , ____ ~<:~ '~i;';'~+;:;tt'r~t 0-' }i -:-~: , '_ :,_, "--, ~' "", --< '~L, ',,,,, i ' '.\ 'N01~~·E +91.'9-..u:$til."PE~P110N NIS ' , ,\~O,,:,,---~--so---r-~ ,~~,c;,_;:~~.~-,-~ -~\-----, ---'7'.' .~.. " 121 • r , I' ~! • ~ "',' l' J I _ \ ,~ ._ ..... \~\ --:::" "-,' "';. ..... ..~ H" ':" .......... , ... .,. ."" "'H_ ••• ,_ • ,". • ..... ",':~~~, ;P'--:I.' :~ '1'1" 'fi.'~~ ~ 1 r.--'--\T :~l r --:-~ 1 '" '\ .. \\-~. -.:' \' ", " "'::'r~~ ...;.~~ -,:-~ ~-~I /1 1 '-vl ·.....JI '" }' ':2S~ UJE' .\', \',~ I ,~ , ",\.' -,' I ./. , '-" ~J / . "I " I 'II ~~' t U::;:;:C' , -, • '" \ • "\ ., " .-..... , ,':. 1 'J \ ", '1,,',6"1" -~~ 1 '" ',"\ ,-I ',. "'~'I "\'\ >-. "'-.. --~ ," :"-ot "-J, .~ / L' j' ' , , -' '" ,~ I' '\ \ , ., , ,.., 'S <:::::> --" ". l ~ 11\ \ , I 2 __ ' .' I"J' '" ~, 1.), 1 4, b ':' :,:\ \ . . , .. d ' ---. ___'. '6-, t, !' '" 1,s.s2.6\~F. I',)"~OO &1'::. f'-"~I' S.s~QJ S,f. t= I S,soq €IF. ~ \. ' "" \,\"\ "'" \' • .';' =y;, 1I~;'J4 &:. -~ L t'" \..k ' ~' ,,', ....... , --,," ,I • . • ,r I"",' , " \, I. , • I !...: \" ,'-'".-~ / I 0" i --r\\<-',(tr:&'::'~· ,~: I I,I~" . II -:. I' '\' ''-\'\\:'' ":*:.'i:.! ' . I " -' / -'"--'-e':::'1 ~(,)--,)\~\t,'fj~~3;"':;'>::"~'_"":1,;,,:S""" . ::.,.~.":j.".": ':, ''-:"'<~I,:~:,:~~.,, .,:",R<\, "1 • ,~~. /1 "~ . j :"". L' , :\~~*J' i' .... , •.. ~. .. J, ,L'"'-::':' 'r-) J L . J .. ':.~' t\ " '.e), ,\~"< ,.,' ~ . L -. " ..... ,.. I , '",:,1', ,_ -:-.' I ,'~, ,-....,. ',----:-:>',..--,~" ...... ,:"~ ,.~ ,,1:., ~',-l.! "·t ':':';;;"1 \ ' -...... ~_~,-----..1-.----t--l 1-" " . ' .\ II·,,:', ". "_'",c •. '---\" _, ", .. ':.1 i·~'" \:\, %1 ',-. '. '~ ', ........ , '/1; , I,' l I.", .\" , ..., -.y-;t " '\: I ,',fJl", , " " , ., . • '0 L.U G: U L.U e; 1 .. ". so I~~;,/ 1.";',,-5.0 ,:;-~Q'_ '.' ,''SO ".. , \;-/ .: ,t ' ''\ \) ,':. \,' "-\ . '-'i " '" 8~' , . J-': t~;::'"':' , ~'M~J~J.: --~. ' ... --~ -~'K,'~ ::::I~:J''!' ,.' ;, .• ",!~,,»,\ .. ,.,,~:,~, ';f,;';':'--_' ' .,..-'". '. ,:Cfr~:~-=i.-'" .,~~ ,"~NARY.-~I~ " ~<~/ ' </..i . , ;~:'<\::;'~\"'\ " . " ~l W~lERt:::IA~".' .,'>.-\. " .,' ~ " ) ;'," <~ ~ , 7r7:~:,,' \ " "~',~,.'., ~f~ I l'~<I~11 % i~ : \ ~ \ ' I l I ;\;~ r J \ PARCEL B Iii \\ I' l '. \. 140723± SF \ . d: I / I I. I~ 3.2306±'ACRES . \" ::, ~ 7S' ,J L \' \ \ ,',\,' ,:/" '.~~4M~ ,'-\ ' , , '. ../.. . ! I ,,' , ~ ." .... \. ..J I I .' \ I ,.' '" ~~-l-I .... 1,. - --J t '\'~' ./' ..' ,,' ,.' :' .' ,I",'.~ __ , y, . "\ 'N01'2S~si·E ~1.84 .... ".,"'\ ," / ' . QQ108D /, qryplataddress 11/17/2005 Page 1 Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor December 8, 2005 Jason Walker, RLA, ASLA Talasea Consultants, Inc. 15020 Bear Creek Road NE Woodinville, WA 98077 CIT~ )FRENTON Hearing Examiner Fred J. Kaufman Re: Appeal of Defoor Properties, Parcel Nos. 0007200196,0007200194, and 2023059085 Dear Mr. Walker: We are in receipt of Mr. Watts Reconsideration of Administrative Determination letter and therefore, have scheduled the appeal hearing in this matter for Tuesday, January 31, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. The hearing will take place in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. The address is 1055 S Grady Way in Renton. Ifthis office can provide any further assistance, please address those comments in writing. F red Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton FK/nt cc: Larry Warren, City Attorney Neil Watts, Development Services Jennifer Henning, Development Services Jill Ding, Development Services Michael Chen, Core Design, Inc. Terry Defoor, Applicant Ronnie CS Teng, Leng-Sheng Teng, Mei-Yu Teng Dang, Wei Kang Kho, Chiu-Chu Tuan, Owners Parties of Record ----10-S-S-s-ou-th-G-ra-dy-W,-ay--R-e-n-to-n-, W-as-h-in-gt-o-n-9-8-0S-S---(4-2-S-) 4-3-0--6-S-1-S ----~ * This paper contains 50% recycled material. 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE " 1 ... TALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. 17 November 2005 Mr. Neil Watts, Development Services Director City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 CITY OF RENTON NOV 1 7 2005 / :'10 ~ RECEIVED J)t;.,. CITY CLERK'S OFFICE hQ.\'\,d-dQI i"~r e..J 10'1 .TClSOtt tJca.ttar who 5·J-o.4-ed v-e.r-WLy 4--b.+-t1u 1 ',S 0.. f2-Jt.A.€.S f-fi,'(' A7e.c.opsid.ev-a.i-,. 'Y j. d. TAL-931.r . A-ff!-TO me tt e.CAr. Wt-,3 E;)Ca..m,' t1 ex. ot9~ e.t·. C,i+y A +-1-0 (' f1 rey 1-1 ea. ... i r1 j E)qo...m .. " Q. or Subject: Reference: Defoor Properties (Parcel Nos. 0007200196, 0007200194, and 2023059085) Request for Reconsideration and Appeal (L.UA -D 5 -(') 8 t:j) Dear Mr. Watts: We have reviewed your 3 November 2005 letter addressed to Michael Chen of Core Design in regards to the classifications of four un-mapped streams and two un-mapped wetlands on the Defoor properties_ Due to the availability of additional information, both enclosed and forthcoming, we request a reconsideration of your determination, and request your examination of the information and historical factors that have effectively created several drainage features on the subject properties. We also request a reconsideration of the decision to allow a Class 5 rating for Stream S, Stream C and Drainage 1 based upon historical evidences suggesting the feature's artificial origin and past precedent set by the City in the previous review and classification of similar features. To preserve our options for a formal appeal, we also request that this notification be filed at this time for this purpose. We understand that there has been some difference of opinion, and subsequent internal discussion and meetings regarding the definition of a Class 5 classification for Stream C and Drainage 1. From communication between Hugh Mortensen (The Watershed Company) and Per Johnson (Talasaea Ecologist) on 25 October 2005, and from your 3 November letter, we understand that the City has declined the guidance of their peer review consultant and is attempting to regulate artificial drainages that have been intentionally created due to the discharge of untreated and undetained stormwater. Furthermore, Jill Ding, of the City of Renton, told us (in a telephone conversation on 25 October 2005) that the City desires to conduct a hearing regarding the Defoor project to clarify the new code for the purpose of defining City policy. If future meetings are scheduled between the City's peer review consultant and staff to discuss the Defoor properties, we would appreciate the opportunity to attend and provide any necessary information or clarification, as this would expedite the coordination and correspondence involved for this project, and associated time and costs for all parties. We wish to continue a dialogue with the City on this issue and avoid a hearing if at all possible, as it is Resource «D Environmental Planning 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast • Woodinville, Washington 98077 • Bus: (425) 861-7550 • Fax: (425) 861-7549 Mr. Neil Watts 17 November 2005 Page 2 unprecedented in our experience to obtain a clarification of this kind, and unduly prohibitive in cost for a project of this scale. In regards to the stream classifications, we believe Stream B, Stream C, and Drainage 1 are the direct result of intentional man-made activities (Le., erosion due to point-discharge of stormwater) and should therefore be considered artificial by the provisions of the RMC. We base our conclusions on documented historical factors, including aerial photographs and correspondence with Raymond van der Roest of the City of Renton's Surface Water Utility (Talasaea 2005). Attached are aerial photographs from 1936, 1946, 1965, and 1974 (submitted herein as additional information for your review and consideration). The enlargements of the site were created from stereo pair photographs in which topographic information is visible. We can provide a copy of the stereo pairs to the City if it would assist in review of the features. The aerial photos indicate that Streams Band C, and Drainage 1 were created and defined after pavement and storm drainage improvements were provided at Cedar Avenue South and Renton Avenue South. These drainage features (Streams Band C, and Drainage 1) are not distinguishable in 1936 and 1946. After 1965 stream features are defined, and apparently attributable to the point-discharge of undetained stormwater onto a highly erodible soil surface. We believe Stream B, Stream C, and Drainage 1 were created as a result of the implementation of roadway and drainage improvements sometime after 1946. These features exhibit "flow within an artificially constructed channel where no naturally defined channel had previously existed" (RMC 4.3.050.(L).1.a.v.), and should therefore be considered artificial, meeting the definition of a Class 5 Water. The origin and characterization of these features are described in detail in the Wetland Study, Stream Assessment, Habitat Study, Watershed Restoration and Mitigation Plan, revised 3 October 2005. At the request of Talasaea, a remote sensing specialist is presently conducting further review of the historical aerial photographs and forthcoming results will be provided to the City for further review and consideration. Similar drainage channels, created from erosive forces of intentionally released stormwater, were previously determined as artificial and unregulated by the City of Renton. In 2002 an MDNS was issued for the Sunnybrook project (MDNS #LUA-01-127, EGF, SA-H), in which an approved mitigation plan (prepared by Talasaea Consultants) allowed modification of seven incised and eroded drainage channels. The City accepted that these drainages were created through the erosive point-discharge (intentional release) of stormwater from several conveyance structures adjacent to a public road and accepted the characteristics of these features to be artificial. Per the RMC at that time, the City did not apply the definition of "Stream", "River" or "Watercourse" to ditches, canals, stormwater runoff devices or other entirely artificial watercourses. This previous definition is very similar to the Class 5 Water under the present RMC in that "artificial" watercourses continue to be exempt. Due to this past decision, we believe this precedent serves to clarify the interpretation of the features found on the Defoor properties, which have been artifiCially created by identical circumstances. The Wetland Study, Stream Assessment, Habitat Study, Watershed Restoration and Mitigation Plan, revised 3 October, includes a detailed mitigation approach that will effectively stabilize and improve these unstable and eroding features. The plan will provide a net improvement in stream functions while providing increased site stability and provision of improved water quality for the untreated stormwater entering the site. We believe that the Class 5 stream rating (under the RMC) allows for regulatory relief and flexibility to improve these features due to the intentional creation, and lack of historical Mr. Neil Watts 17 November 2005 Page 3 existence, of Stream B, Stream C and Drainage 1. We request the decision provided in the 3 November 2005 letter is reconsidered and, if necessary, be addressed in an appeal hearing (barring all other available means in which we can discuss and potentially resolve this issue). Please contact Per Johnson or me at (425) 861-7550 if you have any further questions at this time. Thank you for the consideration of the City in this matter. Sincerely, ~~S'IN:-C Jason Walker, RLA, ASLA - Senior Project Manager Attachment cc: Michael Chen, Core Design Terry Defoor, Owner ) .. '. Site Area, 1936 -.. > Site Area, 1946 .' .. '" ' .. Site Area, 1965 Site Area, 1975 . . CITY OF RENTON CiJy Clerk Division tf)J'S South Grady Way R~Dton, WA 98OS5 42$.430-6510 p219tsh l' .? ... a, t:l: ~heck NO; __ -...:=f!..._L----...;.2.. __ Addrpss CitylZip o Copy Pee ~ppealFee Receipt N ~ 448 o Notary Service O~~~_~ ___ _ City Staf/Sicnature' }- ....... :~~.·;~,j~~~~;ia.~~ji.i~~:.~~.t:':':l· .. 'kC<':~£~~f.;·<s·-~:::}:~~~£d~Ji;i:~~;i~~~~t:..~;:;i:t<~t.~~·'t~~~~j;iijj~~~~i~.~~.ii~(~:~l:~~-i:~,~~;'~~·~i,~,.ji:~~}~~L~L~~i~·~~;~;~.~.-..... ~ Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor December 7, 2005 Jason Walker, RLA, ASLA Talasea Consultants, Inc. 15020 Bear Creek Road NE Woodinville, WA 98077 CITY 'F RENTON PlanninglBuildinglPublic Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator Subject: Reconsideration Request of Administrative Determination of Un-mapped StreamlWetland Classification for Defoor Properties (Parcel Nos. 0007200196,0007200194, and 2023059085) Dear Mr. Walker: This letter is in response to your letter dated November 17, 2005 requesting reconsideration of the classification of 3 un-mapped streams (Stream B, Stream C, and Drainage 1) as identified in the Wetland Study, Stream Assessment, Habitat Study, Watershed Restoration, and Mitigation Plan prepared by Talasea Consultants, Inc. dated June 28, 2005 (revised October 3, 2005). In your letter you indicate that the creation of the 3 un-mapped streams was the result of erosion due to point-discharge of stormwater and should be considered artificial and regulated as Class 5 streams. RMC 4-3- 050L.1.a. v defines a Class 5 stream as non-regulated waters that "flow within an artificially constructed channel where no naturally defined channel had previously existed." The point discharge of stormwater onto the subject site does not constitute an artificially constructed channel that would be classified as a Class 5 stream. In your letter you also cite a previous project within the City, Sunnybrook Preliminary Plat (LUA05-127, SA-H, PP, ECF), where the modification of 7 drainage channels was permitted. You indicate that the previous approval should serve as a precedent for the streams located on the subject property. Since the review and approval of the Sunnybrook Preliminary Plat, subsequent critical area regulations have been adopted, which include a new stream definition and stream classification system. Therefore, as the current project was submitted under the subsequent regulations, the previous approval of the alteration of 7 drainages would not be a precedent. The previous determination of the classification of the streams dated November 3,2005 stands. -------------IO-5-5-S-o-ut-h-a-ra-d-y-W-a-y---R-en-t-on-,-W-a-Sh-in-g-to-n--98-0-5-5------------·~ * This paper contains 50% recycled material, 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE Defoor Reconsideration December 7, 2005 Page 2 of2 The reconsideration request letter also requested an appeal. The appeal of the detennination will continue. You will be notified of the date of the appeal hearing when the Office of the Hearing Examiner has scheduled it. Please feel free to contact Jill Ding at (425) 430-7219 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Neil Watts Development Services Director Cc: Project File Jennifer Henning Jill Ding Terry Defoor/Applicant Michael Chen/Contact Ronnie CS Teng, Leng-Sheng Teng, Mei-Yu Teng Dang, Wei Kang Kho, Chiu-Chu Tuan/Owners Parties of Record 17 November 2005 Mr. Neil Watts, Development Services Director City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 CITY OF RENTON NOV 1 7 2005 /:1/0 f1"" RECEIVED jJt;., CITY CLERK'S OFFICE h Q.~d-.d Q Iii ~ r e..J Ia'f .r o.so tt tJo.t ta ( who st-oA-ecl v-e.r"bo..tly +~+ flu 1 ',S ~ r<-J\A.f!.S -I-fi,'(' i?ec.opsic:ler"a.i-, tit( 1\ L ,I. TAL-931" 4A • n-f~ IV t1I.. tt 'L .... r. ~~ EXO-tt'll'rte.y, t&~ e.t·. ti+y A+-I-OI I1e.r 1-1 ea.t' ,. Y/ j E;qo..m .. " Q. v- Subject: Reference: Defoor Properties (Parcel Nos. 0007200196, 0007200194, and 2023059085) Request for Reconsideration and Appeal ( L..UA -D 5 -0 8 t:j ) Dear Mr. Watts: We have reviewed your 3 November 2005 letter addressed to Michael Chen of Core Design in regards to the classifications of four un-mapped streams and two un-mapped wetlands on the Defoor properties. Due to the availability of additional information, both enclosed and forthcoming, we request a reconsideration of your determination, and request your examination of the information and historical factors that have effectively created several drainage features on the subject properties. We also request a reconsideration of the decision to allow a Class 5 rating for Stream B, Stream C and Drainage 1 based upon historical evidences suggesting the feature's artificial origin and past precedent set by the City in the previous review and classification of similar features. To preserve our options for a formal appeal, we also request that this notification be filed at this time for this purpose. We understand that there has been some difference of opinion, and subsequent internal discussion and meetings regarding the definition of a Class 5 classification for Stream C and Drainage 1. From communication between Hugh Mortensen (The Watershed Company) and Per Johnson (Talasaea Ecologist) on 25 October 2005, and from your 3 November letter, we understand that the City has declined the guidance of their peer review consultant and is attempting to regulate artificial drainages that have been intentionally created due to the discharge of untreated and undetained stormwater. Furthermore, Jill Ding, of the City of Renton, told us (in a telephone conversation on 25 October 2005) that the City desires to conduct a hearing regarding the Defoor project to clarify the new code for the purpose of defining City policy. If future meetings are scheduled between the City's peer review consultant and staff to discuss the Defoor properties, we would appreciate the opportunity to attend and provide any necessary information or clarification, as this would expedite the coordination and correspondence involved for this project, and associated time and costs for all parties. We wish to continue a dialogue with the City on this issue and avoid a hearing if at all possible, as it is Resource"& Environmental Planning 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast· Woodinville, Washington 98077 • Bus: (425) 861-7550 • Fax: (425) 861-7549 Mr. Neil Watts 17 November 2005 Page 2 unprecedented in our experience to obtain a clarification of this kind, and unduly prohibitive in cost for a project of this scale. In regards to the stream classifications, we believe Stream B, Stream C, and Drainage 1 are the direct result of intentional man-made activities (i.e., erosion due to point-discharge of stormwater) and should therefore be considered artificial by the provisions of the RMC. We base our conclusions on documented historical factors, including aerial photographs and correspondence with Raymond van der Roest of the City of Renton's Surface Water Utility (Talasaea 2005). Attached are aerial photographs from 1936,1946,1965, and 1974 (submitted herein as additional information for your review and consideration). The enlargements of the site were created from stereo pair photographs in which topographic information is visible. We can provide a copy of the stereo pairs to the City if it would assist in review of the features. The aerial photos indicate that Streams Band C, and Drainage 1 were created and defined after pavement and storm drainage improvements were provided at Cedar Avenue South and Renton Avenue South. These drainage features (Streams Band C, and Drainage 1) are not distinguishable in 1936 and 1946. After 1965 stream features are defined, and apparently attributable to the point-discharge of undetained stormwater onto a highly erodible soil surface. We believe Stream B, Stream C, and Drainage 1 were created as a result of the implementation of roadway and drainage improvements sometime after 1946. These features exhibit "flow within an artifiCially constructed channel where no naturally defined channel had previously existed" (RMC 4.3.050.(L).1.a.v.), and should therefore be considered artificial, meeting the definition of a Class 5 Water. The origin and characterization of these features are described in detail in the Wetland Study, Stream Assessment, Habitat Study, Watershed Restoration and Mitigation Plan, revised 3 October 2005. At the request of Talasaea, a remote sensing specialist is presently conducting further review of the historical aerial photographs and forthcoming results will be provided to the City for further review and consideration. Similar drainage channels, created from erosive forces of intentionally released stormwater, were previously determined as artificial and unregulated by the City of Renton. In 2002 an MONS was issued for the Sunnybrook project (MONS #LUA-01-127, EGF, SA-H), in which an approved mitigation plan (prepared by Talasaea Consultants) allowed modification of seven incised and eroded drainage channels. The City accepted that these drainages were created through the erosive point-discharge (intentional release) of stormwater from several conveyance structures adjacent to a public road and accepted the characteristics of these features to be artificial. Per the RMC at that time, the City did not apply the definition of "Stream", "River" or "Watercourse" to ditches, canals, stormwater runoff devices or other entirely artificial watercourses. This previous definition is very similar to the Class 5 Water under the present RMC in that "artificial" watercourses continue to be exempt. Due to this past decision, we believe this precedent serves to clarify the interpretation of the features found on the Defoor properties, which have been artificially created by identical circumstances. The Wetland Study, Stream Assessment, Habitat Study, Watershed Restoration and Mitigation Plan, revised 3 October, includes a detailed mitigation approach that will effectively stabilize and improve these unstable and eroding features. The plan will provide a net improvement in stream functions while providing increased site stability and provision of improved water quality for the untreated stormwater entering the site. We believe that the Class 5 stream rating (under the RMC) allows for regulatory relief and flexibility to improve these features due to the intentional creation, and lack of historical Mr. Neil Watts 17 November 2005 Page 3 existence, of Stream S, Stream C and Drainage 1. We request the decision provided in the 3 November 2005 letter is reconsidered and, if necessary, be addressed in an appeal hearing (barring all other available means in which we can discuss and potentially resolve this issue). Please contact Per Johnson or me at (425) 861-7550 if you have any further questions at this time. Thank you for the consideration of the City in this matter. Sincerely, ~S'I~C Jason Walker, RLA, ASLA --. Senior Project Manager Attachment cc: Michael Chen, Core Design Terry Defoor, Owner , . , . ' \. , . .. -,".:', Site Area, 1965 17 November 2005 Mr. Neil Watts, Development Services Director City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 CITY OF RENTON NOV 1 7 2005 / :,/0 ~ RECEIVED ~ CITY CLERK'S OFFICE h Q.\'\d-d Q Iii ~r e..cL 10'1 .r a.so t( tJeLt ~ r who s.J-a.+<cl v-e.Y'Wly +kA.+-fJul ',S 0.. ((.J\A.e.sf fi,y-J(e.eopsic:LeY'a.i-r 'Jt.j 1\ L It TAL-931 .. .I>"'-• tTf~ IV me tt ~ .... r I w-3 Exa...m,'r1e.r, t&~ e.t·. Ci+y A+-I-oflloer I-Iea..,.;~ .:r E)(id.m t'" ~ y- Subject: Reference: Defoor Properties (Parcel Nos. 0007200196, 0007200194, and 2023059085) Request for Reconsideration and Appeal (L.UA -0 5 -() 8 t:j ) Dear Mr. Watts: We have reviewed your 3 November 2005 letter addressed to Michael Chen of Core Design in regards to the classifications of four un-mapped streams and two un-mapped wetlands on the Defoor properties. Due to the availability of additional information, both enclosed and forthcoming, we request a reconsideration of your determination, and request your examination of the information and historical factors that have effectively created several drainage features on the subject properties. We also request a reconsideration of the decision to allow a Class 5 rating for Stream B, Stream C and Drainage 1 based upon historical evidences suggesting the feature's artificial origin and past precedent set by the City in the previous review and classification of similar features. To preserve our options for a formal appeal, we also request that this notification be filed at this time for this purpose. We understand that there has been some difference of opinion, and subsequent internal discussion and meetings regarding the definition of a Class 5 classification for Stream C and Drainage 1. From communication between Hugh Mortensen (The Watershed Company) and Per Johnson (Talasaea Ecologist) on 25 October 2005, and from your 3 November letter, we understand that the City has declined the guidance of their peer review consultant and is attempting to regulate artificial drainages that have been intentionally created due to the discharge of untreated and undetained stormwater. Furthermore, Jill Ding, of the City of Renton, told us (in a telephone conversation on 25 October 2005) that the City desires to conduct a hearing regarding the Defoor project to clarify the new code for the purpose of defining City policy. If future meetings are scheduled between the City's peer review consultant and staff to discuss the Defoor properties, we would appreciate the opportunity to attend and provide any necessary information or clarification, as this would expedite the coordination and correspondence involved for this project, and associated time and costs for all parties. We wish to continue a dialogue with the City on this issue and avoid a hearing if at all possible, as it is Resource 'd? Environmental Planning 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast • Woodinville. Washington 98077 • Bus: (425) 861-7550 • Fax: (425) 861-7549 Mr. Neil Watts 17 November 2005 Page 2 unprecedented in our experience to obtain a clarification of this kind, and unduly prohibitive in cost for a project of this scale. In regards to the stream classifications, we believe Stream B, Stream C, and Drainage 1 are the direct result of intentional man-made activities (i.e., erosion due to point-discharge of stormwater) and should therefore be considered artificial by the provisions of the RMC. We base our conclusions on documented historical factors, including aerial photographs and correspondence with Raymond van der Roest of the City of Renton's Surface Water Utility (Talasaea 2005). Attached are aerial photographs from 1936, 1946, 1965, and 1974 (submitted herein as additional information for your review and consideration). The enlargements of the site were created from stereo pair photographs in which topographic information is visible. We can provide a copy of the stereo pairs to the City if it would assist in review of the features. The aerial photos indicate that Streams Band C, and Drainage 1 were created and defined after pavement and storm drainage improvements were provided at Cedar Avenue South and Renton Avenue South. These drainage features (Streams Band C, and Drainage 1) are not distinguishable in 1936 and 1946. After 1965 stream features are defined, and apparently attributable to the point-discharge of undetained stormwater onto a highly erodible soil surface. We believe Stream B, Stream C, and Drainage 1 were created as a result of the implementation of roadway and drainage improvements sometime after 1946. These features exhibit "flow within an artificially constructed channel where no naturally defined channel had previously existed" (RMC 4.3.050.(l).1.a.v.), and should therefore be considered artificial, meeting the definition of a Class 5 Water. The origin and characterization of these features are described in detail in the Wetland Study, Stream Assessment, Habitat Study, Watershed Restoration and Mitigation Plan, revised 3 October 2005. At the request of Talasaea, a remote sensing specialist is presently conducting further review of the historical aerial photographs and forthcoming results will be provided to the City for further review and consideration. Similar drainage channels, created from erosive forces of intentionally released stormwater, were previously determined as artificial and unregulated by the City of Renton. In 2002 an MDNS was issued for the Sunnybrook project (MDNS #lUA-01-127, EGF, SA-H), in which an approved mitigation plan (prepared by Talasaea Consultants) allowed modification of seven incised and eroded drainage channels. The City accepted that these drainages were created through the erosive point-discharge (intentional release) of stormwater from several conveyance structures adjacent to a public road and accepted the characteristics of these features to be artificial. Per the RMC at that time, the City did not apply the definition of "Stream", "River" or "Watercourse" to ditches, canals, stormwater runoff devices or other entirely artificial watercourses. This previous definition is very similar to the Class 5 Water under the present RMC in that "artificial" watercourses continue to be exempt. Due to this past decision, we believe this precedent serves to clarify the interpretation of the features found on the Defoor properties, which have been artificially created by identical circumstances. The Wetland Study, Stream Assessment, Habitat Study, Watershed Restoration and Mitigation Plan, revised 3 October, includes a detailed mitigation approach that will effectively stabilize and improve these unstable and eroding features. The plan will provide a net improvement in stream functions while providing increased site stability and provision of improved water quality for the untreated stormwater entering the site. We believe that the Class 5 stream rating (under the RMC) allows for regulatory relief and flexibility to improve these features due to the intentional creation, and lack of historical Mr. Neil Watts 17 November 2005 Page 3 existence, of Stream B, Stream C and Drainage 1. We request the decision provided in the 3 November 2005 letter is reconsidered and, if necessary, be addressed in an appeal hearing (barring all other available means in which we can discuss and potentially resolve this issue). Please contact Per Johnson or me at (425) 861-7550 if you have any further questions at this time. Thank you for the consideration of the City in this matter. Sincerely, ~~c Jason Walker, RLA, ASLA -- Senior Project Manager Attachment cc: Michael Chen, Core Design Terry Defoor, Owner Site Area, 1936 , ' Site Area, 1965 )t;:) t' " ) .... r '~ ..... ~ .\ t' r-.---,- ,. .,/ ~ CORE ~DEsIGN Core Design, 'nc. 14711 N.E. 29th Place, Suite 101 Bellevue, Washington 98007 425.885.7877 Fax425.885.7963 www.coredesigninc.com PRELIMINARY STORM DRAINAGE REPORT FOR DEFOOR PROPERTY SHORT PLAT Prepared by: Reviewed by: Date: Core No.: RENTON, WASHINGTON Philip D. Sarandos, E.!. T. Rob H. Stevens, P.E. June 2005 04139A I EXPIRES 12-04-0 fa DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON JUL 2 6 2005 RECEIVED ENGINEERING· PLANNING· SURVEYING DEFOOR PROPERTY TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Project Overview II. Existing Conditions Summary III. Off-site Analysis A. Upstream Tributary Area B. Bypass Area C. Downstream Analysis IV. Developed Conditions Summary A. Hydrologic Analysis Core Design, J nco Page 2 I. PROJECT OVERVIEW The Defoor Property Short Plat is located at S 9th Street and Renton Avenue S in Renton, Washington (see the attached vicinity map). This site consists of second growth forest and drains to the west with slopes averaging 10-50% . The proposed project includes subdividing the existing property into 5 single family lots and constructing 5 single-family homes with associated utilities. The existing Renton Ave. S. frontage will remain as existing and will serve the proposed lots. Portions of Renton Ave. S. and S. 10th St. that discharge onto the site will bypass the developed portion of the site and discharge to their natural discharge locations downstream of the proposed development. The storm runoff from lots will be directed to a series of level spreaders. Detention will not be provided per KCSWDM Section 5.2.2 -BMPs for Reducing Facility Size, which states that on single family lots greater than or equal to 22,000 square feet, and the vegetated flow path of the roof runoff is 50 feet or longer, the roof area may be modeled as grassed surface rather than impervious surface when sizing the required flow control facility. Since the roof area will be modeled as grass, the proposed development will generate less than a O.lcfs increase in the existing site conditions 100-year peak flow rate. Therefore, the project falls under exemption #3 in KCSWDM Section 1.2.3 from Core Requirement #3 and does not require detention. Core Design, Inc. Page 3 II. EXISTING CONDITIONS SUMMARY The existing 3.41 ac site (3.23 ac Project area and 0.18 ac right-of-way) is covered by native, second growth forest and has a history of coal mining activity. The site soils are identified as Arents, Everett Material, An (Outwash) and Beausties, BeD (Till) (see the attached Site Soils Map). Runoffnaturally sheet flows west across the site into one of three existing stream channels. Core Design, Inc. Page 4 3.2.2 KCRTSIRUNOFF FILES METIIOD -GENERATING TIME SERIES .. ' ':' ..... :.. '.. . .. . ..... :'.: .. -:. '. .... TABLE3.2.2.B. EqUIV AL~NC~BE'fWJl:~N SCSSOIL TYPES AND:I{CRTS SOIL TYPES .' SCS Soil Type SCS KCRTS Soil Notes Hydrologic Group Soil Group Alderwood (AgB, AgC, AgD) C Till Arents, Alderwood Material (AmB, ArnC) C Till ~~--'---'-----r---+---+--------l *} Arents, Everett Material (An) B Outwash 1 Beausite (BeC, BeD, BeF) C Till 2 Bellingham (Bh) D Till 3 Briscot (Br) D Till 3 Buckley (Bu) D Till 4 Earlmont (Ea) D Till 3 Edgewick (Ed) C Till 3 Everett (EvB, EvC, EvD, EwC) AlB Outwash 1 Indianola (InC, InA, InD) A Outwash 1 Kitsap (KpB, KpC, KpD) C Till Klaus (KsC) C Outwash 1 Neilton (NeG) A Outwash 1 Newberg (Ng) B Till 3 Nooksack (Nk) C Till 3 Norma (No) D Till 3 Orcas (Or) D Wetland Oridia (Os) D Till 3 Ovall (OvC, Ovo, OvF) C Till 2 Pilchuck (Pc) C Till 3 Puget (Pu) D Till 3 PuyalluD (Py) B Till 3 I--~----'--""<':'-----------.. --+------+-----'"-"""-r-... "., ....... __ .. _. Ragnar (RaC, RaD, RaC, RaE) B Outwash 1 Renton (Re) D Till 3 Salal (Sa) C Till 3 Sammamish (Sh) D Till 3 Seattle (Sk) D Wetland Shalcar (Sm) D Till 3 Si (Sn) C Till 3 Snohomish (So, Sr) D Till 3 Sultan (Su) C Till 3 Tukwila (Tu) D Till 3 Woodinville (Wo) D Till 3 Notes: 1. Where outwash soils are saturated or underlain at shallow depth «5 feet) by glacial till, they should be treated as till soils. 2. These are bedrock soils, but calibration of HSPF by King County DNR shows bedrock soils to have similar hydrologic response to till soils. 3. These are alluvial soils, some of which are underlain by glacial till or have a seasonally high water table. In the absence of detailed study, these soils should be treated as till soils. 4. Buckley soils are formed on the low-permeability Osceola mudflow. Hydrologic response is assumed to be similar to that of till soils. 1998 Surface Water Design Manual 3-25 9/1/98 III. OFF-SITE ANALYSIS A. UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY AREA There is approximately 0.04 acres of existing Renton Ave. S. roadway to the north end of the site that will be bypassed via a series of catch basins and storm drain and will discharge into an existing stream channel. In addition, there is approximately 0.24 acres of S. 10lh St. that currently discharges onto the site at the southernmost lot and will be bypassed via a catch basin and storm drain and will connect to an existing catch basin that will discharges into an existing stream channel. B. BYPASS AREA The storm runoff from lots will be directed to a series of level spreaders. Detention will not be provided. C. DOWNSTREAM ANALYSIS Drainage from the site naturally sheet flows to the west and is collected in one of three existing stream channels, the north channel, the central channel and the south channel. The majority of the flow is collected in the central channel. The channel flows southwesterly at an average slope of 30% for approximately 650ft where it joins with another existing stream channel and flows northwesterly at an average slope of 10% for approximately 350 ft. The flow then enters a 36" concrete culvert and continues northwesterly for approximately 400 ft. as it passes under Interstate 405. The flow then enters an open channel for approx 20 ft. and enters another 36" concrete culvert and continues southwesterly for approximately 90 ft. as it passes under Benson Rd. S. The flow is then discharged into an open, flat bottom channel which carries it southwesterly for approximately 900 ft. and discharges into an existing wetland. Core Design. Inc. Page 5 C. DOWNSTREAM ANALYSIS -CONT. The north channel flows southwesterly at an average slope of 50 % for approximately 350 ft., then southerly at an average slope of 30 % for approximately150 ft., then southwesterly at an average slope of20 % for approximately 200 ft., where it joins with the existing stream channel referred to above running northwesterly before crossing under Interstate 405. The south channel runs westerly at an average slope of 40% for approximately 300 ft. where it joins with the Central channel. There are no visible signs of downstream flooding or erosion. Core Design. lnc. Page 6 SEGnON 3.2 RUNOFF COMPUTATION AND ANALYSIS MEIHODS FIGURE 3.2.2.A RAINFALL REGIONS AND REGIONAL SCALE FACTORS ST 1.1 ST 1.1 ST 1.0 Rainfall Regions and Regional Scale Factors V'"7i Incorporated Area --c:::l River/Lake -MajorRoad . 9/1/98 1998 Surface Water Design Manual 3·22 IV. DEVELOPED CONDITIONS SUMMARY A. HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS The hydrologic analysis was conducted using the King County Runoff Time Series software (KCRTS) methodology. The site soils are identified as Arents, Everett Material, An (Outwash) and Beausties, BeD (Till). The Seatac rainfall region was used, with a regional scale factor of 1.0. Using the predeveloped pervious area shown in the table below, a predeveloped time series was generated. Upon completion of the final improvements, the developed time series was manufactured in much the same way. The developed site's impervious area, 5,000sfper lot, 0.57ac total for 5 lots, was modeled as till grass per the 1998 King County Surface Water Drainage Manual (KCSWDM), Section 5.2.2. -BMPs for Reducing Facility Size. Pre-Developed Area Developed Area (Acres) (Acres) Till Forest 2.85 2.23 Outwash Forest 0.56 0.30 Till Grass -0.70 Outwash Grass -0.18 Total 3.41 3.41 Core Design, llll'. Page 7 A. HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS -CONT. Since the roof area will be modeled as grass, the proposed development will generate less than a O.lcfs increase in the existing site conditions 100-year peak flow rate. Therefore, the project falls under exemption #3 from Core Requirement #3 as stated below and will not require detention. Flow Frequency Analysis Pre-developed time series ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--------Flow Frequency Analysis------- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak - -Peaks - -Rank Return Prob (CFS) (CFS) Period 0.180 2 2/09/01 18:00 0.230 1 100.00 0.990 0.049 7 1/06/02 3 :00 0.180 2 25.00 0.960 0.133 4 2128/03 3:00 0.138 3 10.00 0.900 0.004 8 3124/04 20:00 0.133 4 5.00 0.800 0.079 6 1/05/05 8:00 0.116 5 3.00 0.667 0.138 3 1/18/0621:00 0.079 6 2.00 0.500 0.116 5 11124/06 4:00 0.049 7 1.30 0.231 0.230 1 1/09/08 9:00 0.004 8 1.10 0.091 Computed Peaks 0.213 50.00 0.980 Flow Frequency Analysis Developed time series ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--------Flow Frequency Analysis------- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak - -Peaks - -Rank Return Prob (CFS) (CFS) Period 0.199 2 2/09/01 18:00 0.321 1 100.00 0.990 0.068 7 1/05/02 16:00 0.199 2 25.00 0.960 0.183 3 2128/03 3:00 0.183 3 10.00 0.900 0.016 8 3124/04 19:00 0.164 4 5.00 0.800 0.097 6 1/05/05 8:00 0.147 5 3.00 0.667 0.164 4 1/18/06 16:00 0.097 6 2.00 0.500 0.147 5 11124/06 4:00 0.068 7 1.30 0.231 0.321 1 1/09/08 6:00 0.016 8 1.10 0.091 Computed Peaks 0.280 50.00 0.980 Core Design, Tnc. Page 8 ~ -?- <:::> n 650.55 REF. 2 N01·26'50"E 650.51 CALCULATED I I I RENTON AVE. S "0 n ,~~' o n b lEI! CD u: w ~ IX) I"-m N I') 3= : I') to I') in IX) z 50 ·PA0295 ... 2 PAO 285 NOl"2S'S2"E S.F. ··PAO 280 PARCEL B 140723± SF 3.2306± ACRES I"J PAO 275 J N01·25'52"E 361.64 I {5 ... > 973.04 LEGAL DESCRIPTION /QQ.. I!! '" ::f (j ::::! ~------~--2H-------- f:J ~ i:! [:! Q (j !j Q 11,574S.F. PAl) .274 ~~~ SCALE: 1" = 40' o 20 40 80 I I I j DEFOOR PROPERTY SITE PLAN JUNE 2005 CORE JOB NO. 04139A I OF AGRICULTURE 'ION SERVICE Scale 1 :24 000 All\. t 13e. 0 "/4 16 v.. 0 1 2 Miies H s=t1 ttE: ,E"""'"'3,:----4 I =--= , I ~~~~ .----~~~ -~~~ ~ ~~~~ 10000 Feet \ P \ ~u \ \) '-' N .~\ N T I J I _~I; •••••• , =.:1,----.,~r--, I I I , I ~ II ~.!I= ________ I " ell II --------1 , , I I , I , , I ~ SHEET NO.1l KING COUNTY AREA, WAS: (RENTON QUADRAN( 4 1;" /., ."~ '" . " II -II, ---II an 180000 _--~:~jl~~----o_~_BM -127'30" ---o--:-~i:;~=;~;~~:. __ .:,.... DEFOOR PROPERTY SOILS MAP 1;f i;~ JUNE 2005 CORE JOB NO. 04139A ~~· ... 'HUUUf I 3~7.\/V R~NTON W9/a20 _'1!-It ~ 1629 __ ~ ___ .. ,."_. I r Yl\~/ f 4wJ '\ ~J.--' ~'-"-1 (_~)< ~,\..' '--G~/\ ~/I ; ,,..----. ,; , I I I \!) '" '" '<: "" <>.' ~ '" \ 1.16 Ac T. L. 6 ----.-----_. p, s, P. & L co I 1---;-~------I , , i lOti / '\ ' E~T:I._.L_ .. ~LJ:-~~~.-s_I._1 .--I-IH.~~-.-, SL~I;. __ =?~l ,·:1 1:.:1 f ~ . [:' . du ~ ,:;Sf{)'! ,45,)5 ',' ;,) I. d~"S, k, ".~, : rnJ6~ I! ~j' ~,J 51'04 {/T'i"lli];;;u,:", ::,.,~,2:t',: <-____ vt l t I .' :l'; '. ,J7~ ,., I L2J , 0 I >, :IS ,'--'. .,.. , " OV _ 0 ",!Q -~:R , 701.,.! f .-----~~ I -;::,: ;: -, -i 11@~ ", {;!!2' ',-i" 6 7.0 Acres 11.4z1 1-----I-jl~ 8 ~~:, .1~_r;J~&~_r:,~ 2q :~I(A rf!l I.2JJI~' --34'-8-"': V) ~-35-7':'-48---~J~JJ ,~\~ .I -,,·tt :'-1108') 'i r" 1 0 ~~ " v J ! I 7 c' "'i ~'r6 . R'il : ~-i:\ 'i v J ,~ 108 ':~ • Ii! i<1 ; ~ I " ... \ il'5'/~ J j~ tJ :f:' ~,1 ~mD-li --Otl ~Fl-!--r;J!C I ' . ?' .... " I'" "'J-1~ ,~ \ \' </,-f(. "'~,,­\~o ~ i'" g 21j7 ll1<ii)!·il I'----!O-~I 19 "'I /----2211--33 .. -1 Lj. , ,.., I!J-.--Q -; "" r:::1..... I",n , i, 7' <~r-: Gb 'il 6~1 I" !I lEilj~ .. r-----IlI:------1 tr:s---11---- \';; 1802 I r ~ @TI~! ~804 ir B ~lllaj I~~" _ .. _~' IiJI ~~i l~Etr :------3-+--6-------i~l~~·/V. '~ii'-~8----~ 231-32---'kjl----37-~ i EP~i,---UJII g,L~l ~n 1,-!;t! i , ~! ~ !~~ :!~ _ ~: ~ J,gJ~ __ ~.c~1 ~ ,~ !._ IifQJ i 18iil: ~ .~ I I ~ A~I ~ ~ I mID ! ~ 1&'8"i"O : \~ I' v.., , r::: i ~) '~ I ..5_, ___ ~ !-' ---12~::-17--~ [~-24J~~~l-'Fi~ ;~38 '145 ., ~~ ~': ~!ej ArB;---~ .'lel~l I;~ --\-'-;~~~~1~ ~:...'. 1.-. • _'-~ c.. IE. __ )' c ~ ____ , _I LI L . __ ~ S ~ 9TH I--"·I)o.;is;::tff fi7.OS, 61,5()! ; ~-I r-f'tl ,~ 1 ~ ! ;;;it:? I L:-JI ,~, ""I' : I 13' " '61 " , , I I , ...... --~--I-t I ' <:1. IV-----:;;i .. i~ '( I@:;jl Idl.> > '), 2tI C r-----~F '"1 1:j h... ~ ~ 'Iro r;J 1 r.;;;:;,' ....... :-----M--jJ 15 " <: i~L:l' ::,--'~-:i ~ -.lJ ;v; 1 I '" ... Q: ftc: --, ... rt 1l::~, ;} @J ~I, .... ,,:' L~ ,I. :.3' J '-' I '-' I ~ __ -I c.HA~IJE.L " .f 'Ii ,:,; .) 7l) tJ., S1. .-;; C. CAROW' I. 07 Ac. O.C· T.[.19' "'. 11'/ ;Y, r ~\\. '" ", " \ I "', " .-------- , " ~ T L 717 't-~, " " I i:j . " " . , . TL 192 ". " ,1---6(11, t\'I13·9Y:.... ',',:'1-"; ,':. >"" ~ i429.S6'" SOUTH LINE OF. H.H. TOBIN DONATION CI..AIM N~ 31 __ ..-:.--(I \\* u.~ .......... ~---~-------,.,.--. :1 -' ~ 1 , ~~,.~~ , ',J' , , . <~ I I 1\.1 ~I ~I ;1 i::1 '{ 21 ~ IIlI ~I' ~ A r I ~I I· ~I ~, I , ,-----~---- I ~ " ---trJ· \ \ r:l8~ " :1-,----::.::---=-:...-::---------_.. \\; .! .... '-, ..... (~ --' .-'-'-~:. ---J~7~--. .:::-:=::.::::::-G t---U.t_2 v-r ",'" '" _~-_--~:ov_1 bIT 3 . ! ~ f"----, 60 (J) ,I ! I' I. ~ \ :f --:::"~ A~... h--____ ...:. ",_ -' _________ -----.-.---:4.3 ~C Acres .., . ·~e~\\ -.1..__ A. "" .;J .0 .:~i' /-3:::/ --0__ ' \:.. --1 ' , " ---1" '::'10.25--..1'-') --~___ '" __ ~ ------"I . ,\' r -y-' --. ----~ -------" , --'. \ f Y'" --~ TR4/11S'----_.-..... ,', _~--- \ ,'I V --'190--_ . LINE R/IN -----~, I ,\ 1 ,70 ----__ ~ .. --"", I ", \1; -7ZC:.: "'-.. ~ ~ i \ 1\ "', TRAiNSAMERICA DE~EL():PMENT co. -.. \. !:. '-\ ! '-.\ TRANS O[VELt ~,l \ \\L DEFOOR PROPERTY ~l( ~ ~ f \. i \\ ~ ~ II, I DOWNSTREAM I '\. [':j \\ I ,']...00 ~/". -DRAINAGE MAP ."" ~!: : i ~-JUNE 2005 I \ i Ii ~;\~~ I _~~ /> CORE JOB NO. 04139A' 7.7o'·Ac. II \1 ~ ~ .-----;>---./' I 'I,' tJ!.: , -. -> - I I ,-~41>._ -/ , .' " ---t T L 112 ' 1 -," ~' ___ .. -------,'c,'· .. -" " \ II ';,v I I 9.45Ac.. \ 1 T. L. 1/3 --- ,--. -, RENTON AVE. S. ,,;:. [. --=--"-...,-~-~-~:.;.,. - ' ----' ."-'-'-" ----=-. § ~ . ._. ~-" L"~ ':'~~"~ ~-'-.• c_~'~ TRIBUTARY ---m~:-~:~r:--"-'cc: -~==c:=-:;;;T--~~=~~~~ -f,---,,-_ / 10 -1~; ,~ -'i-• 5.~2d~sS,F~ --::-~ -.:;--~:.-. . .. @;l-: .. ·-~-.._~~,, __ --_I""-,c"_ ~.x~;r r~-' ;;--J r· ... .,; ~ .. :~~ J"~ .~-' -;f-. ,:::::::::~"'-;;!--.... ..,.:,:;;:.- .. -_.-- ~:;$5-:tt--i ~~ 'J , .__ __-T~-. --l±, 8 W 11:5 (J:) (/)"CO 1< '" Wo I>-~ /1-LC) ::J-a j;::: LC)_ => .. r;.,. - 'IW c:i -'~1'~~"-'OW -(:~ ;~.:;·.:·L:_-:·-··· h::' -- ,.-", l7'-~ \ _------,,~BENJGN---ltYE. S f'"" if .', • .J~. ~"'/-J ,'----_;JJ_ ,8 ". (~; ~-. . ..,. ... -.. ~--. .~- ... ,-., ......... -.... "" ... i- PARCEL B 140723± SF 3.2306± ACRES 8 • • 8 L~" t~ -- ' ...• • -. ..''' .... ,--.. ~ EXISTING BASIN 3.41 Ac • ._', -~_cti _=.eJ . -; ~f' ~-. ---....:-P'.~ _.___ ~'i-: _'c, ~c~:--,, __ > ,,...."' ..... ,,~;""' G;~~~~dti:cc NO!d~~~:3a 31e!;b!~L J, -'-. -..... -: .. 8 w In:::~ S~ 10TH ST. 'TRIBUTARY 0.24 Ac : ...... , -----:=7'''".-................. -'-.... -=---.-~~ ,~. ".::i.j '\,. ---"''''' .... -.. / ~- ( =z:e;;;l~c ~ SCALE: 1" 40' o 20 40 80 ! 1 I ) DEFOOR PROPERTY EXISTING BASIN MAP JUNE 2005 CORE JOB NO. 04139A I k .. , II~t· I RENTON AVE. S 'gt -RENTON AVE. S. TRIBUTARY BYPASS ~.04_A~__ ~~~_~~ __ ~_~~J~~_~?ED~ •.. ~~ __ ~ __ ~ __ ~ __ ~ __ ~ ___ o .......... .< ,. ............. . L . n . . ,----......... ,..... 6 J ... f"J "0 "t ~ h ..- (!) t'1 :(() <Xl • Z 1 PAD 290 50 PAD 295 .. N01'2S'S2"E m/ 2l rf 3 °r0 4 M 5,:)00. S.F.. ···5,50? S.F, := .. 5,500 S.F. III PAD 285 . . PAD 280 .... . PAD 275 HJ ", .. PROPOSED BASIN 3.41 Ac PARCEL B 140723± SF 3.2306± ACRES 973.04 LEGAL DESCRIPTION ~ "" \. S.10TH ST. TRIBUTARY BYPASS 0.24 Ac 274 J 11,574 S.F. PAD 214 -, <z:z:i~~ SCALE: 1" = 40' o 20 40 80 I I \ \ DEFOOR PROPERTY PROPOSED BASIN MAP . JUNE 2005 CORE JOB NO. 04139A 0 Il) Il) ~ 0 3: " w 0 z ~ :::> ~ ~ .., ~ c •• OJ z m " I ~"" c if z ~ ~ ~ t-r) >-(j) l-n:::: w (l . 0 0 z n:::: --(l 0 s CO) rv L...I..- 0 0 LL W 0 .'" +'0 Q.+' ,,0 o-!:; ~Z '" m·e 00 ..:.: .-... E 0-0 >-~ 3:.0:: u _ ~Z nW "0.: -~ 0.. U~ '-e 0>0 .<::: E -0 ... ==cv ~ "E ~E 0>'-eN Co> Co> 0" 5:0 . iii ~-~;:, ~~ :::;: Q-~~ :::> I~ !;( Cl 1<1 ~ 0 z -r 0 ~ 0 d~~ ~ II z ~8 • ;:; ::I '1l ~ z ~5 o z~ '<!.!" ~ _L.. ([ --' <> ?i c3 ,. f/) ..., '" ..., '" ~ Ei I ~ ~ z ~ !d ~ ~ ~ <5 ~ W Q a::: U) 0.. 0.. OJ .0:: Cl w Ii: !;( w f/) Cl re ,. >-m ..., z 0 (f) GJ a::: ~ z w '" '" 0 g 0 -z ! \ STREAM 'C' CONTINUES OFF-SITE SEE HETLAND 'A' ENLAR6t:McNT (THIS SHEET) I I ~, r UNNAMED SkAM ,,(1RIBUTARYfTO / : . , EXISTINe HOUSE . • . ROLLING Cf<IEEK) . S1RI:AM 'A' . '" : ./ ~:~~ \i\\:\\·.:r'('.·~::.l~it . " "--7'---------------------------" OVERVIEY'l F1..AN GRAPHIC SCALE (DNORTH (IN FEET) I $ t 1 o 50 100 200 SCALE,I"=IOO' I I " 1\', -I ' , I :' ! I .J' I , , · . . VI Ii,' " I . I I , • " f. __ , L •• I ijif' '(II" , J ' I 'I I Jt .' t II . . I \, ~ " " '1' .... ; I.. " 'I '. \ · . I, ) /:> , \' / ,:' IL~~'~ I ROH TiP. SEE STREAMIWETLAND 'B' ENLARGEMENT (THIS SHEET) S. GfTH STREET ;T~------____________ _ WETLAND "6" 1'16 SF 1 SEE STREAM 'k ,./ .;- ENLAReEMENv (THIS SHEET) DRAINAGE I (CLASS 5 STREAM) -I I I ....J STFe.EAM/Y'lET1..AN~ 16 1 EN1..AFe.eEMENT GRAPHIC SCALE (DNORTH ( IN FEET) I $ t I o 15 30 60 scALE, 1"=30' GRAPHIC SCALE (IN FEET) .01-$ t---I 15 30 60 SCALE,I"=30' 1..EeA1.. ~ESCFe.IFTION PARCEL AI THAT PORTION OF THE H.H. TOBIN DONATION LAND CLAIM NO. 31, LYING SOUTHERLY AND HESTERL Y OF THE PLAT OF HIGHLAND ADDITION TO THE TOWN OF RENTON, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 11 OF PLATS, PAGE 32, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, AND THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHHEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHHEST QUARTER OF SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, H.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINeTON, LYING NORTHERLY OF PUGET SOUND POHER AND LIGHT COMPANY'S TRANSMISSION RIGHT-oF-WAY AND EAST OF PRIMARY STATE HIGHWAY NO. I, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOHS, BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 20, HITH THf: HEST LINE OF SAID PLAT, WHICH POINT IS NORTH 8'1°5'1'21" HEST 1,386.85 FEET FROM THE NORTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE SOUTH 01°2'1'35" HEST ALONe THE HEST LINE OF SAID PLAT AND SAID LINE PRODUCED SOUTHERLY '113.04 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF PUGET SOUND POHER AND LIGHT COMPANY'S TRANSMISSION RIGHT-OF-WAY, THENCE NORTH 61°03'41" HEST 411.66 FEET TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF PRIMARY STATE HIGHWAY NO. I; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONe SAID HIGHWAY TO THE HORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION, THENCE SOUTH 8'1°5'1'21" EAST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE 316.54 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL B: THAT PORTION OF THE H.H. TOBIN DONATION LAND CLAIM NO. 31, LYIN6 SOUTHERLY OF THE PLAT OF HIGHLAND ADDITION TO THE TOWN OF RENTON, ACCORDIN6 TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 11 OF PLATS, PAGE 32, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOHS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF SECTION 20, TOHNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, H.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHIN6TON, HHICH IS NORTH 8<1°5'1'7!" HEST 1,386.85 FEET FROM THE NORTH QUARTER CORNER THEREOf', THENCE SOUTH 01°2'1'35" HEST ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF CEDAR S1REET 611.82 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID PLAT, AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, THENCE SOUTH 88°33'25" EAST 310.14 FEET TO THE HEST LINE OF RENTON STREET, THENCE SOUTH 01°24'21" HEST 4<11.<18 FEET ALONe SAID HEST LINE AND HEST LINE PRODUCED SOUTHERLY TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF PUGET SOUND POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY'S RIGHT-OF-WAY, THENCE NORTH 61°03'41" HEST ALONG SAID RIGHT-oF-WAY 35551 FEET, THENCE NORTH 01°2<1'35' EAST 361.12 FEET TO A POINT COINCIDENT HITH THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID PLAT AND THE HEST LINE OF CEDAR S1REET, THENCE SOUTH 88°33'35" EAST 20.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING . -_. _. --.----EXISTIN6 CONTOUR --. -G7":: ~ . ~ ~ .:. ~ EXISTINe WETLAND ---- - -STREAM I HETLAND BUFFER eTP-# STREAM I HETLAND FLAG TEST PIT FLAG = == *= = = APPROXIMATE OHWM OF STREAM -+-. -APPROXIMATE CENTER LINE OF STREAM EXISTIN6 TREES -, I I I \ I \ ! STFe.EA,M IAI EN1..AFe.6EMENT GR.APHIC. SCALE (DNORTH ( IN FEr:T ) 0•1 -$ .. I 15 30 60 SCALE, 1"=30' \ I \ I \1 I, Ii II I . II UJ' >1 «I I -z Q) t;--z UJ ;It VICINITY' MAP SCALE, NTS SOURCE, THE THOI-fAS 6IJIDE 2005; ME1ROPOLITAN PUGET SOUND CONTACTS AppLICANT /OWNER: GHC, INC. 24633 NE 133RD ST, DUVALL, WA '1001'1 CONTACT PERSON: TRAVIS DEFOOR ENGINEER; CORE DESI6N 14111 NE 2'1TH PL SVITE 101 BELLEVUE, WA '10001 (425)885-1811 CONTACT t::'ERSOl'lc MICH~L CHEN, P.E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT TALASAEA CONSVLTANTS, INC. 15020 BEAR CREEK RD. NE HOODINVILLE, WA '10011 PHONE, (425) 861-1.550 CONTACT PERSON, JASON HALKER, ASSOCIATE NUMBER SHEET TITLE: lAIl.o EXISTING CONDITIONS .$ OVERVIElAI PLAN lAII.1 PROPOSED SITE PLAN IMPACTS .$ MITIGATION lAI2.0 ENHANCEME:NT PLANTING PLAN lAI2.1 PLANTING e)ET AILS .$ NOTES lAI2.2 PLANTING :>PEC.IFIC.ATIONS NOTES I. SITE PLAN PROVIDED BY CORE DESIGN, 14111 NE 2<1TH PL SVITE 101, BELLEVUE, WA '18001 (425)885-1811. 2. SOURCE DRAHINe HAS MODIFIED BY TALASAEA CONSULTANTS FOR VISUAL ENHANCEMENT. 3. THIS PLAN IS AN ATTACHMENT TO THE HETLAND MITIGATION REPORT PREPARED BY TALASAEA CONSVLTANTS IN JUNE OF 2005. 4. THIS PLAN IS CONCEPTUAL ONLY AND SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR CONS1RUCTION. 5. DELINEATION OF HETLAND 'B' AND OHHM OF STREAM 'A' 4 'B' ARE FROM FIELD OBSERVATION (SEPTEMBER 15,2005). LOCATIONS ARE DEPICTED APPROXIMATE. r , 3:;1 I 1 I I ~ ~ II I I I Q) II) .... ~ ., ~ III \l) dJ N ~ ~ III X ;:: () 0 I.) .", ., ~ '1> Q) ~ I.) Date 2J?,!lINEQ5 Scale A5 l:lQTED Designed ,IW P_I Drawn KG"I Checked .I~ Approved 55 Project # 9~1 Sheet # ~I.O \. ~ FOUND NORTH QUARTER CORNER CITYOF'RtNTO~ CONTROL POINT NO. 415 ________ 1 1/2" BRASS DISK 17 20 IN 4" CONCRETE MONUMENT DOWN 0.7' IN CASE ~ w oc u z o u 40' I I I I I 10' , • , -. , I • • , 27.31 17\ ,20 , 18 19 IS FOUND SECTION CORNER 3" BRASS DISK IN 3" CONe. MONUMENT DOWN 0.7' IN CASE 55 611.B2 REF.l SCALE: 1" 50' o 25 50 1.)0 !-I~I--I NW TWP.23 , ss ss-- RG£5 I-W W ~ Vl ~ 0> NOT A PART OF T1-416 APPL ICATION 405 W.M ;1_ " " PARCEL B 140723± SF 3.2306± ACRES N01"25"52"E 361.64 973.04 LEGAL DESCRIPTION I' \ \ I I '1· I I \ \ \ \ \." .. .\ . :.\ ) ( I \ \ \ " \ \ " .. \ "\ . . ' .. J . I I / I I I \ \ I-W W ~ Vl ~:C ~I-o ~ / / ~ \ \ NOTES DATUM: NAVD 198B BASIS OF BEARINGS NB9"59'25"W ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SEC1l0N 20 BETWEEN THE FOUND NORTH QUARTER CORNER AND THE FOUND SEC1l0N CORNER PER RECORD OF SURVEY RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 20001 01 012900001. BENCHMARK CITY OF RENTON BENCHMARK NUMBER 418 BRASS PIN IN CONCRETE MONUMENT LOCATED AT THE INTERSEC1l0N OF SOUTH 7TH STREET AND RENTON AVENUE SOUTH. ELEVA1l0N 305.80 (93.210M) REFERENCES 1. RECORD OF SURVEY RECORDED IN BOOK 47 OF SURVEYS" PAGE 89 UNDER KING COUNTY RECORDING NO. 8511129001. 2. RECORD OF SURVEY RECORDED IN BOOK 97 OF SURVEYS, PAGE(S) 79-79A UNDER KING COUNTY RECORDING NO. 9403039004. 3. RECORD OF SURVEY RECORDED IN BOOK 140 OF SURVEYS, PAGE 254 UNDER KING COUNTY RECORDING NO. 200010012900001. 4. THE PLAT OF HIGHLAND ADDITION TO THE TOWN OF RENTON, VOLUME 17 OF PLATS, PAGE 32, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. 5. WASHINGTON STATE DEPAR1lMENT OF TRANSPORTAION SR 405, JCT. S.S.H. NO.2-M TO JCT. P.S.H. NO.2 IN RENTON, KING COUNTY, SHEETS 4 AND 5, DATED SEPT. 10, 1957. 6. SHORT PLAT RECORDED IN BOOK 138, PAGE 67" UNDER KING COUNTY RECORDING NO. 20000605900013. RESTRICTIONS 1. THIS SITE IS SUBJECT TO THE TERMS AND CONDI1l0NS OF AN EASEMENT TO CITY OF RENTON FOR SEWER LINE AFFECllNG THE NORTHERLY PORTION OF PARCEL B RECORDED JANUARY 10, 1967 AS DISCLOSED BY INSTRUMENT UNDER RECORDING NO. 6126689. 2. THIS SITE IS SUBJECT TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN EASEMENT TO CITY OF RENTON FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES AFFECTING THE NORTHERLY PORTION OF PARCEL B RECORDED MAY 21, 1975 AS DISCLOSED BY INSTRUMENT UNDER RECORDING NO. 7505210389. 4. THIS SITE IS SUBJECT TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT REGARDING A COMMON EASEMENT FOR INGRESS, EGRESS AND UTILITIES BY TRANSAMERICA llnLE INSURANCE COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, AND GENE O. FARRELL AND NANCY LEE FARRELL AFFECTING THE NORTHERLY PORllON OF PARCEL A RECORDED OCTOBER 23, 1979 AS DISCLOSED BY INSTRUMENT UNDER RECORDING NO. 7910230907. LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL A: THAT PORllON OF THE H.H. TOBIN DONA1l0N LAND CLAIM NO. 37, LYING SOUTHERLY AND WESTERLY OF THE PLAT OF HIGHLAND ADDI1l0N TO THE TOWN OF RENTON, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 17 OF PLATS, PAGE 32, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; AND THAT PORllON OF llHE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M .. IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, LYING NORTHERLY OF PUGET SOUND POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY'S TRANSMISSION RIGHT-OF-WAY AND EAST OF PRIMARY STATE HIGHWAY NO.1, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECllON 20, WlTH THE WEST LINE OF SAID PLAT, WHICH POINT IS NORTH 89'59'27" WEST 1,386.85 FEET FROM THE NORTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION: THENCE SOUTH 01"29'35" WEST ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID PLAT AND SAID LINE PRODUCED SOUTHERLY 973.04 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF PUGET SOUND POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY'S TRANSMISSION RIGHT-OF-WAY; THENCE NORllH 67"03'41" WEST 471.66 FEET TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF PRIMARY STATE HIGHWAY NO.1; THENCE NORllHERLY ALONG SAID HIGHWAY TO THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SEC1l0N: llHENCE SOUTH 89"59'27" EAST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE 316.54 FEET TO THE POINT OF 8EGINNING. PARCEL B: THAT PORTION OF THE H.H. TOBIN DONA1l0N LAND CLAIM NO. 37, LYING SOUTHERLY OF THE PLAT OF HIGHLAND ADDITION TO THE TOWN OF RENTON, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 17 OF PLATS, PAGE 32, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 23 NORllH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, WHICH IS NORTH 89'59'27" WEST 1,366.85 FEET FROM THE NORTH QUARTER CORNER THEREOF; THENCE SOUllH 01'29'35" WEST ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF CEDAR STREET 611.82 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID PLAT, AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 88'33'25" EAST 310.14 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF RENTON STREET; THENCE SOUTH 01"24'21" WEST 491.98 FEET ALONG SAID WEST LINE AND WEST LINE PRODUCED SOUTHERLY TO THE NORnHERLY LINE OF PUGET SOUND POWER AND LIGHT COMPANy'S RIGHT-OF-WAY; THENCE NORTH 67"03"41" WEST ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY 355.51 FEET; THENCE NORTH 01"29'35" EAST 361.72 FEET TO A POINT COINCIDENT WlTH THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID PLAT AND THE WEST LINE OF CEDAR STREET; THENCE SOUTH 88'33'35" EAST 20.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. 1. ALL llnLE INFORMATION SHOWN ON THIS MAP HAS BEEN EXTRACTED FROM PACIFIC NORTHWEST TITLE COMPANY OF WASHINGTON llnLE ORDER NO. 578234, DATEO JUNE 17, 2005. IN PREPARING THIS MAP, CORE DESIGN, INC. HAS CONDUCTED NO INDEPENDENT TITLE SEARCH NOR IS CORE DESIGN, INC. AWARE OF ANY TlnLE ISSUES AFFECTING THE SURVEYIED PROPERTY OTHER THAN THOSE SHOWN ON THE MAP. 2. THIS SURVEY REPRESENTS VlSIBLE PHYSICAL IMPROVEMENT CONDITIONS EXISllNG ON APRIL 8, 2005. ALL SURVEY CONTROL INDICA TED AS "FOUND" WAS RECOVERED FOR THIS PROJECT IN APRIL, 2005. 3. PROPERTY AREA ~ 441,872± SQUARE FEET (10.1440± ACRES). 4. ALL DISTANCES ARE IN FEET. 5. THIS IS A FIELD TRAVERSE SURVEY. A SOKKIA FIVE SECOND COMBINED ELECTRONIC TOTAL STAll ON WAS USED TO MEASURE THE ANGULAR AND DISTANCE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE CONTROLLING MONUMENTAnON AS SHOWN. CLOSURE RAllOS OF THE TRAVERSE MET OR EXCEEDED llHOSE SPECIFIED IN WAC 332-130-090. ALL DISTANCE MEASURING INSTRUMENTS AND EQUIPMENT HAS BEEN MAINTAINED IN ADJUSTMENT ACCORDING TO llHE MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICA1l0NS WITHIN ONE YlEAR OF THE DATE OF THIS SURVEY. 6. UTILITIES OllHER THAN THOSE SHOWN MAY EXIST ON llHlS SITE. ONLY THOSE UTILIllES WlTH EVIDENCE OF THEIR INSTALLATION VlSIBLE AT GROUND SURFACE ARE SHOWN HEREON. UNDERGROUND UllLlTY LOCAllONS SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE ONLY. UNDERGROUND CONNECTIONS ARE SHOWN AS STRAIGHT LINES BETWEEN SURFACE UllLlTY LOCATIONS BUT MAY CONTAIN BENDS OR CURVES NOT SHOWN. SOME UNDERGROUND LOCAllONS SHOWN HEREON MAY HAVE BEEN TAKEN FROM PUBLIC RECORDS. CORE DESIGN ASSUMES NO LIABILITY FOR llHE ACCURACY OF PUBLIC RECORDS. LEGEND a: tE 1><1 ~ E3 lSI B FIRE HYDRANT WATER METER WATER VALVE TELEPHONE RISER JUNCTION BOX TELEVlSION RISER DATA POINT / TEST PIT 1IiIBl, MAIL BOX • 0-STREET LIGHT r1'J'\ CJ TYPE 2 CATCH BASIN 15? • M C P A CW DEC SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE SEWER CLIEANOUT TREE TYPE MAPLE CEDAR PINE ALDER COnONWOOD DECIDOUS DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTO'J JUl 2 6 2005 W f-<t o ~ o -..J W Z Z () S (f) <t w Ct' o 0 o w > o Ct' [L [L <t SHEET OF 1 1 PROJECT NUMBER 04139A ------------------ FOUND NORTH QUARTER CORNER CiTy OF RENTON C<JNTROL POINT NO. 415 1 1 /2" BRASS DISK IN 4" CONCRETE MONUMENT D()WN 0.7' IN CASE + 40' I I I . ) I' I ; I: I I I I J I L 17 20 I : , , , 17\ ,20 , 18 19 . i FOUND SECTION CORNER ]" BRASS DISK IN 3" CONC. MONUMENT DOWN 0.7' IN CASE J1O.12 I NW 1 4, NW 1 4, SEC, 20, TWP. 23 N., RG£o 5 £O, WM 30' o r-J 651).55 REF. 2~,p _______ N01·2S'SO·E 650.51 CALCUL' o n NOT A PA~T OF Tl-IIS APPLICATION 405 R=2D90.00 6=12'43'52" L-464.-40 I-W w ~ V) FE: Ol vi 30' • , '" . 'e;:'. ~ \ ~c;. . .. , • 7-,-• PARCEL B 140723± SF 3.2306± ACRES RENTON AVE. S LIMITS OF AF<EA5--- TO ee cLeAF<ED CLASS 4 5Tf<EAM -- N01'2S'S2-E 361.64 . LEGAL I \ \ \ o "' ~ ro , , , ~ l-w w ~ til F= 0 ~ til 30' '" ~ , . ~ , •• \>11--'8 , .~ , 'I,; . " ~ ' . ! :' , \ '. \ SCALE: 1" 50' 0 25 50 100 ! I , ! I OWNE~/APPLICANT GWC, INC. 241033 NE. 133RD ST. DUvALL, WASf-IlNGTON <:ISOl6 (2010) <:1<:1<:1-6614 PLANNE~/ENGINEE~/SU~vE'YO~ cOF<E DeSIGN INC. 14111 NE. 2<:1Tf-I FLAce, SUITe 101 eeLLevue, WASf-IlNGTON <:IS001 (425) 665-1611 CONTACT, MICf-IAeL Cf-IeN-FLANNe;;: ;;:013 STeveNs, FE. -eNGINee;;: ;;:0, eA;;:L MO~ISS, F .L.5. -Su;;:ve,o;;: DATUM NAVD l<:Iee BASIS OF BEA~INGS N6<:1'5<:1'25"W ALONG Tf-Ie NO;;:Tf-I LINe OF Tf-Ie NO;;:Tf-IWeST QUA;;:Te;;: OF seCTION 20 eeTUJeeN Tf-Ie FOUND NO;;:Tf-I QUA;;:Te;;: cOFCNe;;: AND Tf-Ie FOUND seCTION COFCNe;;: Fe;;: F<ECO;;:D OF SU;;:Ve, F<ECORDeD UNDe;;: F<ECORD ING NUMee;;: 2000101012<:100001. BENCl-IMARK CITY OF f<ENTON BENCl-lMAI<K NUM6E~ 415 1'3~ FIN N CONCf<ETE MONUMENT LOCATED AT TI-4C INTE~CTION OF SOUTI-I1TI-I STf<EET AND ~TON AVENUE SOUTI-I. ELEVATION 305.50 (~3.2IOM) DEVELOPMENT PlANNINl ' CITY OF RENTON JUL 2 € 2005 RECEIVED w f-« 0 (J) Z 0 iii :> W '" ci z ig ~ C\J ~ 2: "" w f- <[ 0 0 • ,,, , V) • u 0 0: '" '" '" "' z "-.... \..l ~ 0 w z () VJ W 0 '" '" '" "-~ '<i 0 CD CD g: ~ 0 " 2 , 0> 0 ,!; u. ] ~ $ ~ QJ' l.l) , CD > CD ::& ~ . '" ., " \..l ~ ~ 0 -.J w > z 0 5: 0: « 0. 0: 0. 0 <[ SHEET 1 ~ :z >-u.. :> '" ::J '" ~ :z z :z '« .... Q.. ~ :z -'" u.. u.. :z -~ :z u.. OF 1 PROJECT NUMBER 04139A l' / FOUND NORTH QUARTER CORNER CITY OF RENT~~~~~ CONTROL POINT NO~ 415 ------ I 1/2' BRASS DIS" 17 20 IN 4" CONCRETE MONUMEId DOWN O~7' IN CASE 40' ,. END---~~ 61DEWALK H=lo.O Fr H=24.5 FT .. ' ", ... ~.+; ..... o W ". "':::> .Vl "-< ww 0-'" m ~ ~ C'i N 0 '" <0 I '" '" '" ~ "'''' , , , 17\ " 20 18 1 9 , . . , A CORNER SECTION 20 AND TO THE \\£ST QUARTER CORNER OF SECTION 20. FOUND SECTION CORNER j" BRASS DISK-- IN J" CONC. MoNUMEN r DOWN 0.7' IN CASE R/W 5.0' 16' THICK CEMENT CONCRETE SIDEWALK 42' t; B 16' CEMENT CONCRETE VER77CAL CURB & ON-SITE 42' R/W SECTION NO SCALE '.. 11 ••• y ./ ., / >; ~~~; <" ',,0 ··,c / I ,-,-< 5.0' NW R/W TWP.23 W.M . . , . .' ," I'y o.~, F D E ~~~~!;~;;~~~~i!~~~~~~~~~~~~~~!t~;],l;:~~~~ . .~' 6EWE'R' / ,"" c" •• -,'2. /"' , / I 6ANtT A"~Y / / . ~~', ·SEWER .~ ,'/ / TOE 161.0 H=I4.0 Ff / H=IJ.O FT , \ L IFT6} AJ~Oi'l~~ .' f:Ab =)10.Q ' . . .' / ., ; , / 1'1' '. · ...... <r ,/ .. ,? ~"'"/ __ "~~~p"v'~ / \ t.-.-- !-~. DEtENTioN / UJETvALfLT ..... . ! GRADE~116i:Q .. , ',.. . -,TOP·OF VAUL T'.I1S.o MAXiMUM WA'TE~SU~ACE = ):+;'.0 !30TTOM LI'IE 5TORAGE";Is.e.Q., .. !30TTOH DEAe' 6TORAGE= IS.3.Q '. H=31.0 FT ; !30TTOM 6EDI1y1ENT(5.:rOR~~=r~2.o ,/ 1" t 1.5' THICKENED EDGE ~~ H=9.5 FT E 6=12"43'52" L=464.40 26' ESMT. 20' PRIVATE ACCESS ROAD F NOTE: SEE SECTIONS, SHEET 2 OF 2 f PRIVATE ACCESS ROAD NO SCALE f I • \ ! . " '. ,),' ~ " / / .\ \ I ; Vi ,\ VICINITY MAP 111 = 1200'± SCALE: 1" -50' o 25 50 100 ! ..... I~I_~I OWNER/APPLICANT G.UJC, INC. 24b33 NE. 133RD ST. DUvALL, WASI-IING.TON <;18016 (20b) <;1<;1<;1-6614 PLANNER/ENGINEER/SURVEYOR CORE DESIG.N INC. 14111 NE. 2<;1TI-I FLACE, SUITE 101 ElELLEVUE, WASI-IING.TON <;16001 (425) 665-1611 CONTACT, HICI-IAEL CI-IEN-FLANNER ROEl STEVENS, FE ... ENG.INEER ROY EARL MORRISS, FLS ... SURVEYOR LEGEND ~284- 2:,'1 FROFOSED CONTOUR EXISTING. CONTOUR TOPOGRAPl-IY NOTE DASI-IED CONTOUI'i5 SHOUJN WEI'<E DERIVED FROM LIDAR DATA PROVIDED 6"1' Ti-IE R.lGET SOUND LIDAR CONSORTIUM AND/OI'< KINCio COUNTY GIS DEPARTl'1ENT. IT IS A I'<EPI'<E&eNTATION OF T",E GROUND '" l1J l1J :z: -() :z: l1J TOFCGRAF",Y ONLY AND S",ALL ONLY 6E USED FOR I PURFOSE5. COI'<E DESIGN, INC. DOES NOT WARRANT T",E I ~~~Ig;f~;~~\flr,(~'i'~~MINI1---=cS,-Hc::E~E,-,T~t---.::O,::F:-_"1 AND I'<ECOMMEND5 FIELD TOPOGRAP",Y 6E COLLECTED FOI'< D in PURFOSES. :1. 3 AUG -92005 PROJECT NUMBER 04:1.39 , / 40 o 10 00 80 lO 60 50 40 130 n I!i ........................ ~ III <[ +-<f) >---l --l <[:J o~ ~ If!= OOC W<[ rw .... LOT 2 · ..................• SEcnONA-A TRACT~e6 . . . • • . • • • • ~ il:I ~ il:I I ~ L· . l ___ L// • 24·0·· .. -' . ' ... 230· 220 210 200 I~O 180 ilO 160 150 140 130 NW TWP.23 HORtZ. SCAL£: 1"= 40' VERT. SCALE: 1"= 10' 5 w.M. . . . . • 3 il:I ........•......•........ ~ .. IJ.I ·11,+········· . ./ · ...... "/ ---:-~ · / . ....................•••...•..•.. L I · . ·r I . . LOT 1'3 . • •• I •. I I V 260 · .. ·21:::.0 .... J .......•...•.. 24Q. 230 220 21 200 I~O 180 ilO ... ·1/-0 · ... "fG1" + ........ I·················· ........ ~- 3 .~. LOT 1 SECT/ONC-C· • . -/ / .. AUG c <.:> ... z ~ 0 l:> 0,; >- ~ 0 QO LI.J [\ .1: QO ~ QO > 'I; V) c-o,; ~ " <>: v ~ " .2 " ::) "-'" 0 \I) .5 "' £ ii ~ " ~ ~ ~ ~' 0,; <.:> -~ QO Z "-~ QO '" '" 0,; ~ " z '" " z -« .... 0... <.:> f' z <>: LI.J LI.J Z -<.:> z LI.J rs fr' w Cl is ~ z ~ I L;j ::; I ~ f-It u w U -, ~ 0 fr' Il ~ c:::. t\J ~ f..... lr) ~ ~ &! a:: (,:) 0 ~ 0 -..J W "" W > Z Z 0 w 0 So (I' I-(f) <1: Il <1: w (I' Il 0 0 0 <1: SHEET OF 2 3 PROJECT NUMBER 04139 NW 1/4, NW 1/4, SEC. 20, TWP. 23 N., RGE 5 E, w.M. FOUND NORlli QUARIlR CORNm CITY OF RENTOff ~ CONTROL pOlm ~!O. 415 ---------------....... 1 1/2" BRASS DISK 17 20 IN 4~ CONCRETE MONUMENT DOWff O. t Iff CASE 40' I-W W $-----. --.----------.. ----------_._- 30' U1 .30' ·0 I-W W ~ (f) :r: I-o (f) I....-----:......;..-__ ------:-----.------J ~ 30' .. ' to) 650.55 REf. 2 _________ N01'2_6_'S~~E 650.51 CALCULA~_D_, _________ '_ ~ r----------------------------~g~~~~~~~ (f) 16.34' ~ o ~; / /~ ~ ~. ~ ~"2 ~~. ,~L(E~E;~~~D~'R~IP::!!.:.a1.!:!.N!lN/~SS-:-----:--:--Tn--J~..--,.,~rtf1~~:r----t .RENTON AVE. S (f) ~ -" i '-£i '-!:. .' 1" IJ7' '1" "}..LV" . ,-____ k-.'k1 ~ __' . I I I I" II I; I I '~. --7 ! I I I I I I I I I / I I I I I 2 I I' 3 I I 4 I I / I I • I I I I I I I I? .. ! I I '. I I I I I I II / I I I I .. ' I II I I _-: / C; _-+_11 L~_. __ J L ___ J L ___ I L .~-__ J' / ~-, \ . . / ~ b C' -. /. L ____ _ i7l z ) -_-1 "" I \ W mo I fS~3' I ~ \ .\ ~~~ .\ ~~ ~o ~! I \ ~:~ E ; r i I' )! Zi~~Bi ~! I I ,,§ ~ : lC;u:~R J I' ''''0 I I ~W~ I .: ~:Q Ln ~~r I I I I ~ ~Io I I e;1? I I 0)8 I n:'" : CLAS& 4 STREAM -I I I I: III PARCEL B \ \ \ 140723± SF \ I I P 3.2306± ACRES \ ~~ 16.49 I I '\ '" --_~_ \ !l -------··--+~ll~::-~~--r·-------------~··-~------~~~cEW:fr,~A~R:A~~m.:s:~-~. ___ -~~~-___ -_~~ .. __ .~ ____________ ~~. --=-==·~J[~~~~J--____ ~------~~~~o._------~\\~--l--~t'~';~ I : " II NO'"2S'52-E 611.82 REF.' ~ N01'25'S2-E 361.64 : ": 973.04 LEGAL OESCRIP]ON \ Ii' ······-i~c~ SCALE: 1" = 50' : : \ if :l'~r~:§ ------------.-.. --.--'~'i~-~~"-i" '--~-,t:ii:;]~~I;:!: --I 10' . ffi ~ E; I \ ',:,' .0 .. _ 25 --.-,§O -, __ -_ ... 100 t dj I, I I _lLl<r:r'- • .W ·1 , w 0 F I t3~Z:1 '" I ~;;;;;iUI i I 0_ ~ IJl :;; ~ :f _ "- b I ~ L ~ I '-1'~-_..J "'0 ~~ ~~ :;:~ z'l <l NOT A PART OF TI-I15 APPLICATION 10' , ---~r!27~"'---;~~~------J~ • .JJl 00 NDJ"S9"OS'"r a . 1 ',;<' !"! .S? SPIRAL CHO . -~, RD = NOS"30'.3Z"E ~ o 310.12 w ~ ~~ u:~ ww ~" ~ ~ j:() c-l c.J ~ "'''' "'''' NN ~-+---,--1\ ------_.1. "' ~ i5 ~ '" ~ V? I I -. -- IN1"r-fc.RSTAT[ ------------..... ~------ 405 -~ R=2<l90.00 .6.=12"43'52" L=464.40 t·. - , \ PRUNE DAMAGED TWIGS AFTER PLANTING --, PLAC" IN VERT. POSITION, DOUBLE LEADERS WILL BE REJECTED NOTE, ST AKING ON "AS NEEDED BASIS" PER NOTES; ALL GUYS TO BE FLEXIBLE KEEP ROOTBALL MOIST AND PROTECTED AT ALL f-lOLD CRbwN OF ROOTBALL AT OR JUST ABOVE FINI~~:~ BA~~~;C~ ~6~:;~;~~~ ~~~GL~~~:~~~ ~N:U~~ '\i~:>" MECf-lANICAL COMPACTION /! \ \1 / '1>\ REMOVE ALL WRAF, TIES ~ CONTAINERS, REGARDLESS OF ,ii', I.\'i.!" 1."- MATERIAL "'\ y \ ".;' I 'II (2) 2x2 DF STAKES, FLUMB (11/2" DIA X 10' SCf-l 40 GALV. FIPE \ / \\ / V\ AT STREET'l) WITf-l ELASTIC Cf-lAIN-LOCK TYFE OR RUBBER ~~, \ I J, GUYS TIED IN FIGURE EIGf-lT; REMOVE AFTER ONE GROWING ---'.. I, V) " \ / " SEASON " /' ~<1:/ ~ PROTECTivE WRAPPING DURING Sf-lIFMENT TO SITE 4 INSTALLATION REMOVE AT COMFLETION OF FLANTING TURF PLANTING; FROVIDE 3' "NO GRASS" TREE RING. 3" DEEP MULCf-l IN WELL. MULCf-l, 112" -I" SIZE f-lOLD BACK FROM TRUNK -~ ~ _ '----,---~+=rZl. ~ --------I: ~ '---. iIi '" -;s, ~ " "' FINISf-lED GRADE ~ 1:1 vi FREFARE F:..ANTING BED FER SFEC'S; AT MIN" LOOSEN AND ----:-r:d~-? _~ r;;; .. ~ MIX SOIL TO 18" OR DEFTf-l OF ROOTBALL AND 4 TIMES B6~i. .9 ~ ~-~,,,. REMOVE ALL WRAF, TIES~ AND CONTAINERS SCORE ROOTBALL ~ / AND WORK NURSERY SOIL AWAY FROM FERIMETER ROOTS, SFREAD ROOTS INTO EXCAVATION, SET BALL ON UNDISTURBED BASE OR COMFACTED MOUND UNDER BALL FENETRATION TO SUBBASE (.) 12" TREE PLANTING AND STAKING SCALE NONE PLANT LIST , FOUND SECTION CORNER 3" BRASS DISK SYMBOL '~ SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME SPECIFIC VARIETIES SIZE W f-- -.( o Vl Z o UJ 5' w Q: +-+-1--1-1---+---1-1 o z - IL (St5 ::to: C,jZ 0: ~ r:;j= ~ '0 1§B ::;:;; C,j--, '" ~ ~~ 8:: 0 -.J 8 lL "W > Z Z 0 w (') 5 0:: f----0l « !l « wO::o.. , ' 17\ ,20 IN J" COffe MONOMEffT DOWN 0.7' IN CASE ACER RUBRUM SCARLET MAFLE "ARMSTRONG", "AUTUMN BLAZE". "!30Wf-lALL", "KARFICK", AND "SCARLET SENTINEL" o 0 0 « 2.0" -25' CALI FER B~B 1-....... -'---"-,...-1---1 dr-.J 18 19 SHEET OF 1 1 PROJECT NUMBER 04139A <:0,(. :L.lIJ ~" ~ ~ " " l P-ii~-y g ~':5" Ct) n l,f;l£L I,,,' I ~.-j " Ih)~ s b /0 l ,tr'" f's ~ 201 E ,:.i~ I , p~~~1~63 l~ ~~~~ 214 '1 11 k '" f-,--,'iJ l317 ' • 5 '6 ~ _ ~ ~fA~'~II'~" ,'c:: .... ' . .., .... 6 1 if:: .:.B", 't: 7 14. (j1..25; r9j~1~~o~;H:rnri-~ 2NO " I' 1"""'\. s ~ ~j{I~"! " ,t .0 , lOb 2 I ,1 . , , ,210 '1 18 . m 4' 17 , 216'1 5 16 , 210 6 ~ I, liS I'S /I';. F4{zo 17 14 IlOze '226 , Pork ~ /"<!"<"'4~ ~ \ v "-'-,,-v«"-9 O~/ '" ('4- all -..... ..... J: / rrlv~1? ~ ~ "--., \' , ,8 13. ' 229 • l30 ~J f ~"230V2 8 I, 131 r~ s. PL'f> . 39f}3 ~ ~ .". ~ "'~ A.J~!! __ I_I- Gov't.lot 16 40.22 Acres Ie. r , 1 ~,I.! \e,;.. '2. 9.0 Ac. r.UtS J ,.!l[] 8 I' 1i!J9 11 , Ilill 10 I o::@!J IiiD 'i'i'i7:ii7 "HU! ;-f--__ -.I I', <il ~, ,* ,~ ~ ;::: ~" '"~ ,I.J::O 4' ~ 2' !3 I .w *.-'i :; 'w 7 , iUA W,3 ·13121'8. 13 ~ ffi§] 9-: c.EHJ.l'J.Ut! ~ , ""'''"i:l. .1320 I 111'" 212 . 3Z4·CH. .,0 !-" J'tJ, ,1330 J" .~!: ,." Q Iml 13 '~"7 S Ilb ~ 14 brt"' c~ ~,oIS m'~, J> V) I~ --'Utw" . '1 W r !l2 Ilt), 60 m , ' 9' I, l'l' i :2 "'". " :m: 23l{At."°s 11 I f:.35 ~Z-~4 ~ , -IO~ ~!! ~~ 0 0 , -------r~ C' ----.lRI"I---~'-J/j-=---v_ &4 .. ~. anD L Ii. JiO i-i ,~b tt, J.a C:"1 -;Jg 10 (.-~! I~~ 18 ~z ,!ill] 31 18 (l@' • I&:--,IDll 4 17 IllB • '" 5ISrW!LtJAMSI 16 Iml) ~ r~VE q I.:t.!.I ' A I;<;IIC."12';-2 u;; .1ll1l 61 15 [@], IillJ 7 ,fill} 8 " 9 I?O ,ft3~-,'/rlLl{l~(S 14 Gill 13[&1. ~a~~o J , , ~ 10 "0 vI/Oil Y & «0 i [Jig , '@ 3 18 r-, 'i! ~r-- , 141o~1 ~~ . , ",~K~: t/>?oW • " ) , ~7 ~. 14-, 'f ~~8 jj , I . I • ~~9 12 . ~ ,'20 10 1/ /20 ; 10/ AC, .U.187 L--J:II:::I 1" ~~ I iN tONATiO,yW.il$ip~ ~. ~ ~ ~ 'I,-(::;;,0 : INTERPACE CORP ;;;I~ .,' O~ "- 'iiI :.,,1 ~I "'I ~I ~I I I .1 P,S,P.& L.CO, b-___ _ °0 m 39 Or. 'J PT. rus ----- 7:t..Ie: 7.{).c. T.L, I J 6C I:';-'-/j!;; % ~ "!r .---~. 7.[.46 [)5' >' , ,.:::_:.:=\.-_'_._$;_._._._.TTH.-.-.-.-.-S-,:-.-.-.-'I...-.-. .,J:I!..-:;;;..~-=.,-!f!i:J:,,*-G ,0 .•• · .. T 2M.10 /66,(1 1.,.;';·<.1 "" v" [:J I ~U'-' ~ 1 "-,'I . .., .... r' -" ~ -J A"{ -____ ~ I ~ ~1f2.r--1i l.m [, ~1 ~ ~l lID! @£D~ "00 1.,21 j-'S4-~ I % -, n~I' /, .-=" -" " , r~" / I ~ ,,~ " 1.l.39 en \, 0.46 AG. I f--~ <0'" [l.Z4-/ o ~~ '" ~ 1_..... ,-------.-........ ;.' / "" *'\ 18~ ~ (2) ~~ t..: ,-, 12';87(1) ~ " (I) ~ 11 1S2. fo-,,---!o-,!""!-t~~"~;.-J If 07069 l,g 2Q ~. l-n-"lI'V)I"~. ' S,P, 99-0140 r..:. ------II®". I f"': I (2) IH.86 .-, 'V) ~ 011)S 1!2. I -J i1 .. _ ! j".,-J '"~ ) ,50 ~, >, I~ L,3J '1 ~ ,,-RENrOtl ..... ~SA()l)}.f/ MlTO /~'I;Hr , ~ I -~ 'TL42 2 ..... ' 11 I \ ~ f-ci,-, ~ ~ CASTAGN~ BROS.i <.J, ~ « \ ~ 1.19Ac. ~ " l.06IAc. o '" ~ 12 N ",,;)4 ;.1..2 I".\G\'I'I 0.;;1 "T,L.25 '1\ "", O~ ? o c' 0' u r,!. 3. " ~~"~ elJRU \'\ \O~ \,\01'.'1\'1 e.1'~ \~c GRADY "0_ ?~'< IJIJP- -'-N j). '1 ,0, s' , , I , I , '0 I , ,- " <J\~or s " , I j \ u: L _____ -' if> I I , , , , , , , , , , , PYGET SOUND POWER ~ ?'v"'~ '-'- \ -~F-j '-...." -rON (trIP CIN .... \ ACCESS ~llllt'JII .. ".' . .:. ".':'" Ile ll " c ~ , , , I , , , ' , l , , , , I f 1,-,,' 3 "Q Jl.\if. 15.l3At. T.L,43 4 5 6 ~I--> I.... C -i!1------~ ~. 14 19 1411 ~ 1ii""1 '"II':' 11 \ I ~ (/) is 18 '--,<;' -~,...., " ;". _n ' \ I 20 . ...., \ \<:! '5...1 \ 2{)C) \ 60 '.I S~ ,) \. ~ «) '5 '1' 0 . ~ m;;l4Z,, __ __ (8) i (C)~' (D;LJ"j ~Z:~.L.~~'LUA:r:03~~=_-~ CM? I ~1'J1-19 S7.37 ~ (2' I LIGHT co. x (I) s.P, 009' 87 7 ( 2) NEI6t-1130Rt-IOOD DETAIL MAP (3) ~ " ~ ~ ~ ~ 1.16 Ac, T, l.., 6 o u -1 uJ > w I t:; I I ~ W" s ~ 119'78( ::t; :s:: ~ (2) I ~ 'q ~ I 1<:1 I~ ~ .:......s"~""---33-- ~ 22 6], i($ :6 .. __ ~J &. 23 _32 ___ , 1'\G,;b ~sD~ p, S. p, & L, CO. '" Ie I~ ~ ~i0 mID , < --------- ! ,:~ I . 5 Vi ---}--- .J • OIl 3/i /---/ i . "8 A u.SI <t " a: w :;:; t!~ ~ ,*"'-- ~ 61Z ~ :8f . , ..... --, ~'I ~ ~~~~"'..,.lilIiii..::.l e "S I . 41 C, CARO\FVI I o(/~<'" ~ ____ 1.01 Ac -.............. V,C. /-";t '-~~~ 00 , 7,!..13) ~ -----I ~!.~ --_._----.'-'- , ( ~ t , ~ 70,~ ' ....... --'9-£ ' ,,~, I '\ ~ '-"---. . •.•.• "~ " ....... T.1..f9? ~ 77 r:l.87~ \ ~ /(\,/J,93=18,:,,;, J~ ~ I~ SOil,H LINe or: H,N, TO/3rN DONATION CLAIM N~ 37 . ,. '. -.--.~ ,// ----\\, \ ~-. ~ ---~-~ -----------~ .. \\ . ----'::,.S] ~. ~~, ___ . ____ -GG\A-brl-~. /;/~ /V; 0.918 Ac. reF --.'l... ........ :::--.. " ----.--38.80 Acres --.,:-,--~---------------,......-..; "'_____...... r: -------..-..... ~, 'T---R4#8 L I'Y " ~--V 1j"'J:Jo----_· lIVE R ~ _______ -------~-.::-' co. -------rt1Ji I "::. "-':.-..... " " ~ ,/"/' ',-' " " \ \ \ \ \ \ 4.1SAc, \ '. 7.L.80 \ ~'" ~ ~ ...---- ~~ c '6 is ---;:::;:; ~/­--U ~ :" 1 0 /)(fo.45~C' \:.::\ \_ ~zs __. V T.L.43 ~ ~ __ <)~ ',d\. :::.:.::::: . .::::::._~-::.--:::.-}!!!!::~.~-:;.-::"-::--.J.\ CITY ~;-"';,-:"",~£ II 'J.~MISSioN I: LINE R-W ,~/ -/ ""'''''-..-r'''/ ,/ ..... ;--"'-" .... ~.- ".cr,./' / -----w ~~ //~-~ ________ I \ .-" --..-/ \ \ ./ // /.... ./'" I \ ~/;:.-",/ 1 ___ ~ '<?,I ............ -'" ~ 0\ ...... :;" .......... jl ...... /_.... / 5.55Ac 7:L.III EASEMENT (7-:L.../23 ~ ;:24'12' \ _________ 6C{}.2r----,,-7 ~ @ jell _d'i7A21 '" \ I I I REtHON LODGE I~ I 09 .0. :.,---~ / / ( ) \ /c .... / ~ " / ..... ~---- I . __ , __ -~---.::-:-=-====~ '\\/ ___ j ___ l ' .... ____ . ___ -: ______ ---"--' ,-----c I :-'0_ ---------..:=:..:=-~ -------------\\ ---.------\ \\ ! ~ \ ',I \ ',i \ 4 'I!Ac \ il .> . II ~ T.LM \ II ---4 II V" .__-' \ 'I P,S,P.& L.CO. . ~~,j '/': ' I .,--I ( \ I \ -./.1 I r----'/ , 3.68 Ac. L.BS . ~ ~;l, \ ...----~~. \ __ . _____ ~ _ ~.;g:c;:- ~ '~ '4c'Hl --~ " // ~ ____ ~ _____ __-------------: ~~r-- ------.--,/ ...... --::--=--=-:::::-:= ... -::" -:.-:...-:.-:..--=-- -_.---",! , " , " o? / / ,-. ~ ~ ~ c::J ,~o H I U. pr T. L. /3 l.Il.~G. 7:/..52 I I , DEFOOR PROPERTY SHORT PLAT / RENTON, WASt-llN6TON CORE DESIGN INC., ENGINEERING ' CORE NO. 0413'2lA FLANNING ' SURVEilNG JUNE 2l, 200!? DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON JUL 2 6 2005 ·'-·~!VED ,'..., ~ ':"", . • ~"_ ~..J':;'" ~~ 111 "i,",~l ~'" I _, , " 1\ 1,\ \ , \ \' \ \ \ , \ \ \ \) \ ,~ \ \ '-' \\ \\?1 , , . , I "I , I \\\ ' \I " \ \ -,,--,\ L-----'.;\ .. \1... \ ~ \ , \ 71... f3 , \ __ I ;:~<'""..--:-_____ i..c"",:;:3'-":' rot"'ll) ! --."j _C":~_1 "" o~ " "'" , f?' v' .f} " 0, , " , , ,,~ '1" '" L " ' ".,Ir-V 4-' J..._-.-I L, ._-' ,,----' ~ ~.()J7 ! 18TH ST. ~ 60 ~ ____ --dt.j1 -i LJ ,[1IJJQ:Jr"0 25 UNITS G ~1 ;::. . UV leT O-R I A. (~~ fo\6'~ r~, ' ~1 <:( A CONDOMINIUM., V V l2J I ,2501 J ~ IlG ~~~\P i'~'"~-IG:~-N' c y ~ ;j W 11J"i W I 0 I i I IE I ~I A CONPo--_~l .e''>I='/ Ut? !.UN.L.,T,~_._ 1 \ --:u-".~" """'," i =--' 1-\ ~ ,--, -_ .. _--,---,r ._,,-tr --:: l . ~;......j J l...,i '"' '--' '"' '" ( f f>ARr(iN~~ j I 2t.... '" ~ -...."" -I~ r-I <:( Lc:',;-----JL---'r ... ~·,~--'--n'ln-.J) 'i i ~~ I r' I [lr;tJ) : : ?J i iJGil) I : i , ~ / i ~ , j f I LEGAL DE5CRiPL-' ..!...;TI~O:..l.-N!.-...... ______ , FARCEL A, THAT FORTION OF THE HH. TOBIN DONATION LAND CLAIM NO. 31, LYINC, SOUTHERLY AND WESTERLY OF THE FLAT OF HIC,HLAND ADDITION TO THE TCWN OF RENTON, ACCORDINC, TO THE FLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 11 OF FLATS, FAC,E 32, IN KINC, COUNTY, WASHINC,TON, AND THAT FORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH. RANC,E 5 EAST, WM .. IN KINC, COUNTY, WASHINC,TON, L YINC, NORTHERLY OF FU6ET SOUND POWER AND LlC,HT COMPANY'S TRANSMISSION RIC,HT-OF-WAY AND EAST OF FRIMARY STATE HIC,HWAY NO.1, DESCRIi3ED AS FOLLOWS, BEC,INNINC, AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 20, WiTH THE WEST LINE OF SAID FLAT, WHICH FOINT IS NORTH 8'3"5'3'21" WEST 1,380E5 FEET FROM THE NORTH QUARTSR CORNER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE SOUTH 01"2,:)'3B" WEST ALOt-.lC, THE WEST LINE OF SAID FLAT AND SAID LINE PRODUCED SOUTHERL Y 913.04 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF FU6ET SOUND FOWER AND LlC,HT COMFANY'S TRANSMISSION RIC,HT-OF-WAY; THENCE NORTH 01"03'41" WEST 411.00 FEET TO Ti-IE EASTER!-Y LINE OF FRIMARY STATE HIC,i-IlUAY NO. I; THENCE NORTHER!-Y ALONC, SAID HIC,HWAY TO THE NORTH liNE OF SAID SECTION; THENCE SOUTH 139"5':0'21" EAST ALONC, SAID NORTi-l LINE 311054 FEET TO THE POiNT OF BEC,INNINC,. FARCEL B, THAT FORTION OF THE i-IH TOBIN DONATION LAND CLAIM NO. 31, L'rlNG SOUTHERL Y OF THE FLAT OF HIGHLAND ADDITION TO THE TOWN OF RENTON, ACCORDINC, TO THE FLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 11 OF FLATS, FA6E 32, IN KINC, COUNTY, WASHINC,TON, DESCRIi3ED AS FOLLOWS, i3EC,INNINC, AT A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF SECTION 20, TOWNSHIF 23 NORTH, RANGE BEAST, WM., IN KiNC, COUNTY, WASHINGTON, WHICH IS NORTi-I 8'3·59'21" WE::'T 1,380.8;; FEET FROl1 THE NORTH QUARTER CORNER THEREOF, THENCE SOUTH 01·29'3;;'; lUE6T ALONC, THE CENTERLINE OF CEDAR STREET 611.82 FEET TO Ti-lE: SOUTH LINE OF 6AID FLAT, AND THE TRUE FOINT OF BEC,INNING, THENCE soum 88·33'2;;" EAST 310.14 FEET TO THE WEST LINE: OF RENTON STREET; THENCE SOUTH 01·24'21" WEST 4"01."08 FEET ALONC, SAID WEST LINE AND WEST LINE: FRODUCED SOUTHERLY TO THE NORTHER!-Y LINE OF FU6ET SOUNe) FOWER AND LIC,HT COMFANY'::, RIC,HT-OF-UJAY, THENCE NORTl-l 0,.03'41" WEST ALONC, SAID RIC,HT-OF-WAY 3;;:;.51 FEET, THENCE NORTH 01·2"0'35" EAST 301.1;; FEET TO A FolNT COINCIDENT WITH THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID FLAT AND THE WEST LINE OF CEDAR STREET; THENCE SOUTH 88"33'3;;" EAST 20.00 FEET TO Tl-lE TRUE FOINT OF i3EGINNINC,. 5 "T1-I ST 5T I viCINITY MAP 1" :: 1200'± NW TWP.23 RGE5 FOR GWC, INC. SITE STATISTICS TOTAL SITE AREA, FROFOSED USE, NO. OF LOTS, AVERA6E LOT SIZE, EXISTlNC, ZONINC" FERMITTED DENSITY, FROFOSED DENSITY, PUBLIC R-O-W SETBACKS, 140,123' SF. (323 ACRES) DETACHED-SINC,LE FAMILY 5 0,119± SF. R-8 8 D.uJAC. 1.00 DUlAC. N/A FRONT -15' REAR -20' SIDE -B', IB' adjacent to 5lreel DENSITY CALCULATIONS C,ROSS AREA OF FROFERTY, -FLlBLIC R-O-W -CRITICAL AREA -PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENTS NET SITE AREA, NO. OF LOTS, NET DENSITY, 140,123' SF (323 ACRES) Ot SF 10,019± SF o± SF 130,104± SF (3.00 ACRES) 5 1.00 DU/ACRE ffi _N-=E=-' G=-:..t-I_B=-=-O-,-R-,,--~.:..=~,--,O=--:D=--::D::.....:E=-T-,-,-A--,,'=L----,M-.-:.:A----,F~ OWNER/APPLICANT GWC, INC. 24033 NE. 133RD ST. C)UVALL, WASHINC,TON '38018 (200) '3'3'3-8814 PLANNER/ENGINEER/SURVEYOR CORE DESIC,N INC. 14111 NE. 29TH PLACE, SUITE 101 E,ELLEVUE, WASi-IINC,TON 98001 (425) 885-1811 CONTACT, MICHAEL Ci-IEN-PLANNER ROB STEVENS, FE. -ENGINEER ROY EAR!-MqRRISS, FL.S. -SURVEYOR [)ATUM NAVD 1988 BASIS OF BEARINGS N89"59'25"W ALONC, THE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST :,'; JAi'<:TER 01". SECTION 20 6ETWEEN T8E FOUND NQR1l:L C;lUARTER CORNER AND THE FOUND SECTION CORNER f?ER RECORD OF SURVEY RECORDED UNDER RECORD!NC, NUMBER 2000101012"000001. f3ENCl-IMARK CITY OF RENTON i3ENCHMARK NUMi3ER 418 BRASS FIN IN CONCRETE MONUMENT L.OCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF 50UTH 1TH STREET ,lIND RENTON AVENUE SOUTH. ELEVATION 305EO ('33210M) , .$l-IEET INDEX TITLE SHEET 11 FRELIMINARY PLAT NT pLANNING OEVELgt'MOEF RENTON ell! . JUL '2 6 2005 F\ECErvEt~ t" c::) c:, <\1 '-J ,\:;: " Q '<: LJJ c-<t r .. , I I I I I I I I ' I I <> :+i: , ill U !2 Q~ '" <>-'" ~ -"-" I ! I I I 1 c, 0 0 '" '" C c ~ 0> •• .c ~ ~ ~ w '" ~ '" Ill:) I~ C" ~I zl L. I ~I '-s . , qi L,' I n~ 1 U 0 1 , ':lHE[T ,,11 • iL f;) 'Q 0· f ..... ,~ "" '" !..-) 0, " , 0 ,~ !"" '" co "-«i OJ '" «i " ..- 2: l'> --V) lU a \.J ". -.::: 0 l.L1 -'" C) ct: CL D. '1 , 0' .",' 1 I I (j 2: ilj ». '" ;" "" :::l v;; (j Z -Z Z « .... "-;, (j " Z ~ "" '" lW Z -(j -, '. '.!.J :< ()Ie 2 . ' . I- W w $----"---------, NW ----- TWP.23 D n ND1'26'SO"E RG£5 w.M. , . ""'10' I (.f) 30' o n I- W W ~ (f) :r: I-a 30' ~I ~ (f)F!: !16,l4'1--------------------------____________ ~~_~lj~'T/tF/~\~~5c;-:-T~~~r~~T~T~-"'\----~g~!L--__:=_---_. N01"25'52-E 49179 -LEGAL DESCRIPnON N/S /5~\ . 50 'I 50 I./'I \' I " . \ 50 15 \ , r 1-L,'" 1\ 12l (f) Y /-I: '\:\',Jj-----I i-Ie" -Cl [----:--CJ1 ' ' ' \\ '7- i I I I I' - I I I I L 16,49' 16.67' ~~~--------------------------------------------------------_J/ ,0 , '" , -----,-CmAR -AVE S N01'25'S2HE 611.82 REF.1 'I -----1 I \ \ I ..J -----~I \ \ I NOT A FART OF Tl-IIS APPLICATION I-W W g: en 10' 3'59'05-£ ,<0 g -r'31 r---;~~-J~r-------------I ', ~,Q SPIRAL CHOR ---, D "'= NOS'30'32"E !'! ~~ CI 310.12 ""'-w '" ~=> .....:~ ww "''' ~ ~ i<i c-.i c-J ci "" ~ "" "" ,. :0 N ~ ill Z I ) , ---I'; r------- w ~ " ~ FOUND SEC liON CORNER -,---- .]" BRAS'::) DISK II~ 3" cmjc. ~WNUMENT DO'hN 0.7' h'~ CA,5[-, ! / -------I ---1. ----~ -~-405 R=2090.00 6=12.'43'52" L;:;4fi4AO , I I 'IV' \\ f ",25' UJETL'" , ,\ I \' I 'r·· \ ., I \ \ \ I \ ~\ i BUffER I I '\ \ I " I" , , \ I I, 'I ' , \ \, '~ It,' il',! 2' b' 3 I b I 4 b \ \\ I I~~:(J.~'; /1 I:' I S,~OO SF. r I 5500, SF. r I 5,500 SF. = \ \\ \ <j '\' 1 ,I I I I I :' \\ 1 I '" I' I ' , \" ' \i I I, I, ' I ,I '\, I 1\.\" I 'I J J L .' \ \ I ~---~(\ II --_'_J l __ . __ ~_ j I_~ __ '_J \ \\ . I 50 Ii! so 5) , so \ \ /\\/' \ )', /1 / \ ' 1\ / J :,f,/ , /~, '\' ORDINAR1' I-IIGI-I ~ " \1 W.ATERMAR< \ . l ' ; iTYP) , , \ " ' \ ~-35J I BUFFER', I ~ I I~ ,t- d) '" }~ u -----_ 75' / ---STREA'-r J 8UA=~~ , ---~-_____ J \ I / PARCEL B 140723± SF 3,2306± ACRES 'N01·25'52~E 361.64 I ~. d), \ \ \ \ il _J. u' \ \ I I I 'I \ \ I I 1 \ / \ \ 97,.0+ LEGAL DESCRIPTION \ \ \ \ \ \ \ , \. \ \ \ , \ \ , \ \ fig?> ,ON"" I "''''8'' , ~ ~ / II lin "'<!~ / ------ \ \ \ ; 11,5"14 SF. &3 \ \ SCALE: 1" 50' o 2.5 'scr -lOO . ~, .'-1 __ ' OWNER/ AFPL I CANT GWC, INC. 24033 N.E. 1;J3RP ST. DUvALL, WASHINGTON S8018 (200) SSS-8814 FLANNERIENGINEER/SURVEYOR CORE DESIGN INC. 14111 N.E. 2STH PLACE, 5UITE 101 BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON S8001 (42;) 88;-1811 CONTACT, MICHAEL CHEN-PLANNER ROB STEVENS, P.E. -ENGINEER STEPHEN J. SCHREI, PL.S. -SURVEYOR DATUM NAVD IS88 BASIS OF BEARINGS N8S";S'2;"W ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 20 BETWEEN THE FOUND NORTH QUARTER CORNER AND THE FOUND 5ECTION CORNER PER RECORD OF SURVEY RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 2000101012S0000L BENCl-IMARK CITY OF RENTON ",E'NCI-IMARK NUM6E'R 418 ",RAS5 PIN IN CONCF<E'TE MONUMENT LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF 50UTH lTH 5TREE'T AND RENTON AvENUE' 5OUTH. E'LEVATION 305.80 ('03210M) TOFOGRAFl-IY NOtE DASHED CONTOUi'<5 SHOllN WERE DE'RIVED FROM LIDAR DATA FROVIDE'D ",1' THE AJ6E'T SOUND LlDAR CONSORTIUM AND/OR KING COUNTY GI5 DE'PARTME'NT, IT IS A REPRESE'NTATION OF THE GROUND TOPOGRAPHY ONLY AND 6l-IALL ONLY 6E' USED FOR PLANNING PURPOSES. CORE DE'SIGN, INC. DOE'S NOT WARRANT THE INFOF<MATIGN AND RE'COMMEND5 FIELD TOPCIGRAPHY 6E' COLLE'CTED FOR DE'5IGN PURPOSE'5. i I I W f-IJ) « « w cr:: o 0 0 SHEET 2 OF 2 - - -'" IJ.J IJ.J Z -~ Z IJ.J PROJECT NUMBER 04139A I I I 'I CCIITROL POIIH 110. <IS 1 )/2" 8RA~S DISK 1I\j .;.'-conCRETE MONtj~\EJiT I)OW~J 0.7' lJ CASF L 17 20 I I ___ .J 1 , , " w ~ "'=> u..:~ ww "''' mm ;;; ",en c-.i~ a ~~ :" ~~ ~~ I: , , , 17\\1/20 [::0.] 18 r 19 f-"OUI-j8 SECTlmJ COR:\JE:;> 3" BRASS OI'3K I~i ,j" (CtIC. MmlJt.jr:~n D()'\\IN 0.7' li\1 CASE SPIRAL WORD _ -N05'JO'32~E 310.12 ----------- NW ---CED-AR -AVE;----S-'- TWP.23 _-\-N01' 'SO"E o n o ---"'- RG£5 \ JO' -\ \ \ '\ , f-w W 0::: f- Ul I f- 01 Ul , w.M. 30' NOT A FART OF TI-1IS AFFLICATION \ I I -------_L ~--~-- ..... ---405 R=2090.00 8;:12"43'52"" L=464.4{} I 3~ 15.5003". I . I I J I I I I 4 i:J I ",500 SF. je I I I I I L-__ , _ ----' .,:,' ,,~ -.-i· ~ ',. , '. 25' W~'ND 6UFF~~\. o n f- W W g: Ul ~ o ~ 30' 5 11,9-14 SF SCALE: 1" 50' 25 ~)O 100 ~'~~-! OWNER/AFFLICANT c:.WC, INC. 24.033 NE. 133RD ST. DUvALL, WASHINGTON ':18018 (20b) ':1':1':1-81014 PLANNER/ENGINEER/SURVEYOR CORE DESIGN INC. 14111 NE. 2':1TH PLACE, SUITE 101 BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON ':110001 (425) 8105-11011 CONTACT, MICHAEL CHEN-PLANNER ROB STEVENS, P.E. -ENGINEER STEFHEN J. SCHREI, PLS. -SURVEYOR DATUM NAVD 1':11010 BASIS OF BEARINGS N8':1"5':1'25"W ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 20 BETWEEN THE FOUND NORTH QUARTER CORNER AND THE FOUND SECTION CORNER FER RECORD OF SURVEY RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 2000101012':100001. I3ENCI-1MARK CITY OF ;<ENTON 6ENCHMAf'l<. NUM6ER 418 6RASS FIN IN CONCRETE MONUMENT LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF SOUTH lTH STREET AND RENTON AVENUE SOUTH. ELEvATION 30",.80 i93210M! TOPOGRAFI-1Y NOTE DA5HED CONTOURS SHOWN WERE DERIVED FROM I..IDAR DATA PROVIDED 6'1' THE FUGET SOUND LIDAR CONSORTIUM AND/OR KING COUNTY GIS DEFARTMENT. IT 15 A REPRESENTATION OF THE GROUND TOFOGRAFHY ONl.. '1' AND SHALL ONLY 6E USED FOR FLANNING FURPOSES. CORE DESIGN, INC. DOES NOT WARRANT THE INFORMATION AND RECOMMENDS FIELD TOFOGRAFHY 6E COLLECTED FOR DESIGN FURPOSE". (;) '" Z -0 0- "-"->-a 0 '<i 0 co u.. -co 'it co '<i :> '" ~' " '" u 0 " 0 .2 , ::J 0: '" of V) .., ." "' '" • I::: " 0 ~ ~ ~ (;) Qj" I.() -~ co Z "-• co " === l.t) --· " Z '" " Z 'ot: -' "- (;) Z -'" u.. u.. Z -t' Z IJ.J ~ C) <'.j \J ::::J &! ~ 2:: 0 0 ---J W '>; lei > Z Z 0 W C5 3: CL e-If) ~ (L ~ w CL D_ O 0 Cl « SHEET OF 2 2 04139A I CONTROL POINT NO. 415 1 1/1" BRASS DISK IN 4" CONCRETE MONUMENT DOWN 0.7' IN CASE ('); -',: .. : . , '" . ~. :-.. ' ~" <' .....~ .. .' ... "" ~, / / / '\. 40' 1 : 17 I- W W ~ if) F!= r--. if) " ._; .. I· ....•..•• 1 ~'.' "1 1 1 20 ·it. ;;.; r; .. ") , , \ : 17\ ,,20 , 18 19 'j ;. :j "~ '~ .' ;"" "" / \" ~.' "!-, ,. ,.,., A. <'0 ' rOUND SECTION CORNER 3" BRASS DISK IN 3" CONC. MONUMENT DOWN 0.7' IN CASE .... '. ', ... -. c: >. v' .. ; I ", , NW , . . :<;;':' TWP.23 , ,./ " .. i ,c! " 5; /..: " , " o eo , ~ . . RGE5 I-W W ~ if) ;:t 'H >OJ W.M ." ".~ ,~ 3D' ·030' '~< ;;", NOT A FART OF THIS AFFLICATION ;/" , ~ ~; '; ...--r ••• ' .. , 405 R=2<l9D.OO 6=12.·43'52' L=-464.40 ',. c' 0, ".c;. ( , , .;~ ,";": x ',. <~. ",.,," c" .. , . "; \ .... ,' .. ---- PARCEL B 140723± SF 3,2306± ACRES N01 '25'52"E LEGAL ; ': .. ", .... :.',. ;; .' . :'{.~ t. ;:::/ \ \ / I \ \ \ \ I \ \ \ ~ .... • • / / ! I \ I \ \ / , ! , i ..0 • .... -1. J:., \ , I '-' ~ SCALE: 1" 50' o 25 50 100 ~l~'I~ I------,-,==-.c..-j OWNER/ AFFL ICANT GlUC, INC. 24633 N.E. 133F<D ST. DUvALL, lUASl-llNGTON "'0018 (206) "'''''''-8814 FLANNER/ENGINEER/SURVEYOR COF<E DESIGN INC. 14111 N.E. 2"'TI-l FLACE, 5UITE 101 6ELLEVUE, lUASl-llNGTON "'8001 (42&) 88&-1811 CONTACT, MICI-lAEL CI-lEN-FLANNEF< F<06 STEVENS, F.E. -ENGINEEF< ROY EAF<L MOF<F<ISS, F .L.5, -SUF<VEYOF< LEGEND -284- ····· .... ·/f.c' j .... FROFOSED CONTOUF< EXISTING CONTOUF< NT PLANNING OEV~~~~~ RENTON jUL 2 G 2\)05 RECEIVED W I-« o ~ ~ o -..J W Z Z CJ S If) « w DC o 0 o w > o DC 0.- Q. « SHEET OF 1 1 -:z :z « .... Q.. "" llJ llJ :z -~ :z llJ PROJECT NUMBER 04139A ~OUND ~JOR fH I I CONTROL pmn HO 415 1 l/t" BRASS DiSK COR~lER iN ,f' CONCRETE f\lONUMD~ I DOWr~ 0.7' IN CASE ---ss --- ~ ulti ~'" a cC: z: T , .. ~. co L')~. 17 20 I- W W g: (/) :r: l- I'- tri 10" I . , i - 5"' :0 . 0"--'w <'" u'" I roW . <Do. '''; ;;; m :;j ~ ffi u. m ~ Z i _,.J 31 -. C' If) Ld ~LL-~ ,;-0---1 rr o (j) t- llJ lLJ er:.. ~3=::e f':S~8 Vl '~'-J a... FQUrm sc:c ntJr'j CORNER 'I I /3' BHASS LlI~K I I I r~ 3" CONe Mm,jljMENT 17\WSO DOWN 0] IN CASE 1~1T9 NW TWP.23 RG£5 I- W W ~ (/) NOT A FART OF T1-416 AFFLiCATION ---- 405 W.M 3 ~~l~~~i;;j;~ic" ::= -' -------~ .-~ .-' .---- ! , ! i . ,;, .•. / . / ,/ / ~ / r' _ "" '.0 f .. , n ,..-j""; roro~ <" '" 01 Ul:Z:~ U UU ;z; z: z 883 0.,0.~ / / ~ / ~ / I-W W ~ (/) ~:r: ~I­. C> ~ \ ro ~ ," r_ r~ r-..: '0 ro "N w~ U u ifff. ~"" N ·,·1 ~ DATUM-NAVD 1988 BASIS OF BEARINGS 10C ------4 , N89'S9'2S"W ALONG 1HE NOR1H LINE OF 1HE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SEC1l0N 20 BETWEEN 1HE FOUND NOR1H QUARTER CORNER I,ND 1HE FOUND SEC1l0N CORNER PER RECORD OF SURVEY RECORDED UNDER ReCORDiNG NUMBER 2000101012900001. BENCHMARK CITY OF RENTON BENCHMARK NUMBER 418 BRASS PIN IN CONCRETE MONUMENT LOCATED AT 1HE INTERSECTION OF SOU1H 7TH STREET AND RENTON AVENUE SOUTrl. ELEVA1l0N 305.80 (93,210M) LEGAL DESCRIPTION -=='-::..:==:.:.:.:....:..:..=.:..:--------------~--.- PARGa A: THAT PORTION OF THE H.H. TOBIN DONATION LAND CLAIM NO. 37, LYING SOUll-lERLi ;';.1';0 WESTERLY OF 1HE PLAT OF HIGHLAND ADDI1l0N TO 1HE TOWN OF RENTON, ACCORDiNG TO [HE PLAT 1HEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 17 OF PLATS, PAGE 32. IN K!I,G COUNTY, WASHlr,GVJN; .'f,O 1HAT PORTION OF 1HE NOR1HWEST QUARTER OF 1HE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST.~ V'U.~ .• IN f(I!'!G GWNTY, W,II.,SH!NGT0N,-LY!NG L'3R n I~m:( -IX-- PUGET SOUND POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY'S TRANSMlSSION RIGHT-OF--WAY AND EAST OF PRIMARY STATE HIGHWAY NO.1, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS; BEGINNING AT THE INlERSECTlON OF THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECnON 20, 'W1TH THE WeST LlN[ OF SAID PLAT, WHICH POINT IS NOR1H 89'59'27" WEST 1,386.85 FEET FROM 1HE NORTe'! QUARrEl': CORNER OF SAID SECTION; 1HENCE SOU1H 01'29'35" WEST ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID PLAT AND SAID LINE PRODUCED SOU1HERLY 973.04 FEET TO 1HE NOR1HERLY LINE OF PUGET SOUND POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY'S 1lRANSMISSION RIGHT-OF-WAY; 1HENCE NORTH 67'03'41" WEST 471.66 FEET TO 1HE EASTERLY LINE OF PRIMARY STA1lE HIGHWAY NO.1; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID HIGHWAY TO 1HE NOR1H LINE OF SAID SECTION; 1HENCE SOU1H 89"59'27" EAST ALONG SAID NOR1H LINE 316.54 FEET TO 1HE POINT OF BEGINNiNG. PARCEl 8: 1HAT PORTION OF 1HE H.H. TOBIN DONATION LAND CLA!M NO. 37, LYING SOU1HERLY OF THE PLAT OF HIGHLAND ADDI1l0N TO 1HE TOWN OF RENTON, ACCORDING TO 1HE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 17 OF PLATS, PAGE 32, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS; BEGINNING AT A POINT ON 1HE NOR1H LINE OF SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M" IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, WHICH IS NOR1H 89'59'27" WEST 1,366.85 FEET FROM 1HE NOR1H QUARTER CORNER 1HEREOF; 1HENCE SOU1H 01'29'35" WEST ALONG THE CENTERLINo OF CEDAR S1lREET 611.82 FEET TO 1HE SOU1H LINE OF SAID PLAT, AND THE TRUE PO"1f OF BEGINNING; 1HENCE SOU1H 88"33'25" EAST 310.14 FEET TO 1HE WEST LINE OF RENTON S]REET; 1HENCE SOU1H 01'24'21" WEST 491,98 FEET ALONG SAID WEST LINE AND WEST LINE PRODUCED SOU1HERLY TO 1HE NOR1HERLY LINE OF PUGET SOUND POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY'S RIGHT-OF-WAY; 1HENCE NOR1H 67'03'41" WEST ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY 355.5' FEET; 1HENCE NOR1H 01'29'35" EAST 361.72 FEET TO A POINT COINCIDENT WI1H 1HE SOU1H LI~jE OF SAID PLAT AND 1HE WEST LINE OF CEDAR STREET; 1HENCE SOU1H 88'33'35" EAST 20.00 F~ET TO 1HE ]RUE POINT OF BEGINNING. SLOPE ANALYSIS LEGEND < 15.00 15.00 to 25.00 25.00 to 40.00 > 40,00 TOPOGRAPHY NOTE DASHED CONTOURS SHOWN WERE DERIVED FROM LlDAR DATA PROVIDED BY 1HE PUGET SOUND LlDAR CONSORllUM AND/OR KING COUNTY GIS DEPARTMENT. IT IS A REPRESENTATION OF THE GROUND TOPOGRAPHY ONLY AND SHALL ONLY BE USED FOR PLANNING PURPOSES. CORE DESiGN, INC. DOES NOT WARRANT 1HE INFORMATION AND RECOMMENDS FIELD TOPOGRAPHY BE COLLECTED FOR DESIGN PURPOSES. DEVELOPMENT PLANNING crrY OF RENTON JUL 2 6 2005 RECEIVED . n_ ,---,- W 1-' <1. e, w Z ( ') (f) w o o I 1..l I " I I " " .,: ,I 1 J t 1 I 1 I I I / 1 1 \ J \ z 0 ~ ):. 11 ):. ~ !,) ~ 1: iii ):. 11 ;J! 0 ):. ~ 2 / ft a ' • n .-D3 • ~ DATE APRIL 2005 BOUNDARY AND TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY ~~ ... gf"'~~=~:""'DLRB=-__ -j DEFOOR SHORT PLA T i I i -I i iff ! ! i .1 /',,: ~DES'GN , .... ENG/HEEliNG· '(ANNIHG· 5U~VEY'NG ~ -- "~" . . _---" ._-_ .. __ ._._--- il!I\'£j ..... ...., ",",;;;u"l'."~y ;l/rlMSltm 11 :"<fI fI~'\lIICA(II~ :v.:"""CI:SI ~~~ .'_~--""'~_'.~_._ .. o._~,:"W:i/·, 3\:·.'(·..i.::·.~ ; '_!L;~~i;' '~:; "·'.r i;~;.,~; '·~;,-,;-.:.:L_._ . _ ... u __ ,_~. ____ ,·~·. ~:: ; ~., .---------------:~_::J__:i.~,..,~:-./_-=.=:::::::!i~' ~;;:~~;;;;;.~ '. -----.------.~ "",,,,.; . .rt--tiJ ----------- ~8U II NOT A PART OF TI-l15 AFFLICATION ""TEllsrA/t <Os ---------""'" PARCEL B 1«I7Ut '7 ..... - ~r--. if .;; W . /- / \ \ \ ------c~ 'SCALE: 1· = 50' LJ-J r L\4TVM: IUoIe 1_ QiMliDlciiiiIIIJIMct-nclO.lCl --- *~E$~=-"::::"=-P.lYAtIII""'(UbGll] LEGAL OESCRIPnON iDiDLT'-ij'-. ;U;1'ti ,ti;iiiAiIIDDi:i1lCii-iD ~~ ~ i:L.~~ 1IC iii TmT". ;:~ f(r;.~, \,~~~i\ ~ o '1 ~ ~ h~ ; t ~ 0 I ~hz ~ ~! kAT llIDIUIf'lI£ODM:ClII....::u.d "(7 PUft" 1'IICIA,III_CXUlft,....mIII; MD =:...~~=ilfiJif.W?'III·.,,::~_==~_=..&'f(7 L--; ~~lI"':u.~IIO.~::=rAl~-,-G'·-'fMDIUJ(7 , Jii __ A'1MI:~(711C ..... Ulll:ClIIIIDI£C1ICII .. _'M_I£IJ'.JC I J.-Gf"1MI ..... T.lNCtIl'CIIIITlSloICIII ........ IlUl'I.-.aFD:l' ... 1IC_lWCIUIItlDI' 5 I CCIMJI;tlUDtr:C1Dt 1MDICI:1CU1II0In'~".arAUll101IC1Uf .... fII ..... ~' : ..... ""'I'ICCIUCIEDICU1HCJI.'f.' ... IMRn101IC_nca.' .... ClI'UCIn.:aJllO '. _ MD LDIT Ca.l'M"I"I--'-" 1IIGtfT_G'-_'1 1ICIICI _ 'J"U'oM" IUf ; 471 ... FD:l'fDftIlWmUUII:tII ............ ITAIl...-'1A1'1ICJG: ...... ' I =::=r.:L~'='.::=T~tcII1II...,.r.ur ; a. ~ -.. !I) I "lHAT~1IIIIItIIlHI:lI.M.r-.DCIIA1IIIII\.AIID~IICLS7.~_DlllCll.TClN ..... T ..... !I) L l '. CI-...MIDI1IIIII1O'"'Tr..1IDI1'DII,~1It ... "'""1IUr:CI~ '"""t, co l"I'Q.LIM!n.I'\.A""_l2,"IOIIGCx""y.--,~draJ.a. ); ~ \J .i ~~A~:r=~::--: .. ~~-= -.I 0 ~t; Gf"IGMSlIIttYIIl.afUflUlICtcII1IIUIC"IIIIDIU.,,"'lIClIIICl'CIIIITtII ~ :=.~~ ==-::~I;:::~.~'::o':==£~"=: ~:r: ~I .....,-tI-_y: .cia .... vo.:t4'l" 1Df AUIIIO &lID ~--y JSUl IIttII ., II) o~ 1IDIZIIOII1MG'I"WJII"WYlIU'lIPttI'1OA"*'CCIIICIlDIf.ntnclClltM.. " 1::Ii! MIII'UT.-INlGfUCtlIGM11m1';1IGd1CUbltnnr'WTtaJlDnnla W Si 1I«1IU"*'CI__ Cl a: ~~~ .00 ~ il I~o SLOPE ANAL YS/S LEGEND B II I ffi I Q :~ ""SHEET 1 ~~ Ii .-t. -----------------,,-_ ........ _-----_ .. _._-,-_._. _.-_ ...... ". .::..~_ j PlIo;.i;;;r:1I r LEGAL DE6C~lpnQN ..-... .. TMAff"'iClRTlClNOI' TIe AA TCIIDI PCl'iATIClH lAO a..u1NO.J\LYHl IC1Uf1eJILT Me) de'MRLT t:. ne ~t CIf-W~ ADDnlClN TO ne fCIaN t:PfI:I!MI'ClN.AC.c:OIIII)tDTO'MI~TTIeI:I!"'~ Nw:uI'tI"eIf-~,.. ..... A2, NICtG CCUITT, ~fC:IrrtI AfC) TWAT f"QItTICIH '" TIe NORMIEIT ~ '" n.e NCIMMLEIT ~'" II!I::TION 20, ~ "1\IC:IRtlo4. ..... !MT.1IJ1. N lUG CQN1T. ~NII~ I. TMII NOIm4!JIL T t:PP'UQBT ec:uro I""QIef'Af'O L.1IIWtc:cP'P""""" ~~.QI4lT AfC) lAM "' ......... 61A18 WdIoCIIoT NO. L DUCftI!!!D M ~ e!QNrGfrG ., fie MILDT!.."'" I'EBTAllClMTleNC OI"JWJI"d!6TA'-C eouneJIIL T WD41'BT TO ne: ~ T ue CI' f"\deT ec:uc ~ ..-... .. CQ'PAHT"I~JIIICIWT-c:ll"-MT, necaNCJllmol.'~'41· I'EBTTOT\.8.....-ra.TL.Nl"'~.TA.1'I~TNO." e.. T ~ I.I./t) ........ ,. TO ne *'ITW Ir.NI t:P I4ID 1C81CUTJ.1 ..... '2'· .... T~UIP~t.. ........ ...,. "'- TWAT P"CIIIITICN '" ne MM. TCIDfj DrCNATIClH!.Aft) Q..At1 NO. n. LYIG IQIM!N.Tt:II ne ....... ' t:#~ ADDf1'1C»I TOne TOlIN'" III!NTCH. ~trDTOTI4IJlU.TTloeIIi!CI'~"YQ.ll'tln"'JIU.,.. ..... a."'IUrQc:aM'T.~~~ .... ~ DeQNGrG AT ... roM' ClN ne ICIRTJ.4 1.1 ~ ....... IIAIT.IW't,NICtGOOLI ""''21'' 1861 ...... _IIDT M2'I Ttl! " 'M9CII tICllIW on. .. "IIIt6T -'I..CINII ne~ .. " caJ)M1161'IIII!IT.U2 FUT TO ne ar::vrw .. HI '" MID f"LAT, Me) nil 1IIIII1"'ON1' t:P eI:GNIIGo lW!NCII 0CU1W .. ."a" BAIT JIOJ4I'E1!T TO ne: Ileal ue '" JII!HI'ClH ITIIII!aT. neca IICIUTM 01'"14'21" ~T ... ...,. 4QrrQ 6'ID llear ue ...., IEOT LM ~ &ouneJILT TO TIe frIIOIIt'neItLy u. CIf-P'IlIIT IQH) ~,NrC)LICINTCClt'PAHT"ItIID4T..go-lU4TJnet::::eNCIIItTM.''(U'4I"II!tT AL.QC) MID IIIICIWT-c:t' ..... ,.. .... PlaT. neca NORI'Io4 01.,..,... BMT 16112 FUT TO .... .-ot(T eoM:ID&NT IIITW TIe tICllIW LHI Of-IN!).-ut.T NC ne IC6T LHI "" c:EDAIt 1'fIIID'T. neca 8CUTW .. .., ....... T lODO I"EIlT TO ilSWUI!"'ONtOf-II!II!QNrDrG. ylCINITY MAE DEFOOR SHORT PLAT FOR GWC, INC. SITE STATISTICS TafALarra ...... -.. ..... NO."'LDf'Io "'~LOTOIZIlo ---.....".,,_. --. ...... IC~ - WO:1UI .,. cu. ~ DlTA,QC)· OIGL.B I'M1IL T • ." ....... .... IPiU.AC. ... ""' .... M:INt ••. --.. IIDI· •.••. ~"' ..... DEN&ITY CALCULATIONS QIIIIOII ..... r;p~. ·~1C1t-O-4II -"""""'-AM4 • ....-v ... ,..-cc:uo BoUe'1!Ntt ........ ..., ... "" ...... --. ~:'In •• (UJAC:IIeIJ .... ... ... ~:12li'''(Uli.AC:lll!l) ffi NEIG~eo~ DETAIL. MAP O\!.NERlAf'E'LICANT ..." .... ,..UN&.DJIIIDo eT. DUv~ 1lMMDGTC:IN ..,. -,- FLANNEB/ENCSINEEBl6URYEY08 """"_ .... ..,.. Na. 2STW P'UCa, ...,. -=-~1.lIfoeHIrIlfQ(1IOO'1 COJ",,,,, c::c:NTACt. ~ CIe\I. fII"L.AtteIIt ""~~L·!JrrDIre!Jt IIIO'I'"lAIIILt1CIIIIIIIM.~ ...... ·~ DATUM 6ENCl-NAI'<I<. ClTTr;pIlleJrCTClN~"""'''' atMI ~ .. CCINCIIIITI t1CMI1ENT LOCA.TaD ... T TIe ~ '* IC1IIfW 11M'TIIIBT AHPIIIEMT'ClN"~OQIM m.av ... 'hON XIUO (a.D:I'V I>HEET INDEX 1ITLB ...... I"IIiELI9rWn" ....... T nl 'I' i,; ~~ D "'''" ~~ ",0. o z ~ > -~ ~"" . ~~ ~~i U) ...... ~~ )." ~~ til) U~i ~Q:ih iO ~ ~ .. P ~~ fa So I 2 tu.t39A ,OOZ' .1 ' <;OOE 'LE iN'1r '01;00 'ON aooo::> "",,~ . .,..,.....,... ~~.,. _3Cl a.!','.' N019NIHS'lfm ~Vld~~OHSAL~HdO~d~OOdHa dV'l.I -IIV' 130 OOO~H913N '4. SEC. 20. 7WP. 23 N.. RGE. 5 E.. w.M. . . ~ ~::~, , I/r.ssra 17120 ~~ua- :.: ': I d~·1 ." ;" Ii! i ~=-=-==-=----~, 2. !l:L2~' (' ie' " .' ; : ---;:.~;~,;,J;~ , .' ! ·~<;"i~ i L" J; ~ ... ;!, ~ .' r J _~v =-1 II Ii I I , I' 'i ' , , I , , . , ., '1' , i ~hl~ : [ .. Ii:: ,~,. ~ .r:_J -I hla II) laUti ,;1 :ii :11 .:-,' ',. j.' ':. '1~'" PARC(L'B =~ -=:--- , \ NOT A PA~ OF T~I& APPLICATION ..... --.;-......, ...... _-;c;_. !tr r Ji '1'-' " --L 11t""'-'''''.r~1F . ______ 'lOS ----... ;~/:;" ------I / ,/ I .............. -----'~ SCALE: ,. = 50' LJ-J T ' ""--'CaIN veJIlT. POeITION, POUDLI: ~ aLI.. !!IIi \ _0_ ....................... \ .TMC.MIoCIN ..... NE2OI!D.,...~NO~.au.:e ) flLlX\eI.8~~I"IOI8TArfC)~ATAU. ..... IoCILOCIIIIICIUICP~ ... TOIlI ..... r.t.eCMli1"Mll«C GIUOI!f"llCJT'!CTf'IIU«AfrOI. .... I'RCI'1......" DotICIO'IL.LTOII!IIIIMlTfI..et)IIMOID4T!Jt~T. NO .... ~~~.na'CONT~~n: ;<-!~ (2Ib201' .• TAK.U.~(1112·0"'XIO'ec;a..40:': ~ l .'~Y J' ~~~II":::-~~~"C::= "{_', ~ ....... l"WC)'tECflVll ~ cutIG NI"f'&(T TO IIT1l • IOTALUonc:N ......... .A, c.GI"W'\..aT1C CP ~ n.~~" 'toIOCMUer~Ia'O"·~ f'I.LCW"ILELLI'1.l..C::WoIl2"·1"8Im IoQ.DIUrQC;I"IlII2'! I'JIl.NC .. "",. ~..,.~eeo~~""""'L.OCIIeNMC) ---:<.; '.~ ---~ 1'11)( ton..TO"OIlIoe-rwQl~MC)"'''''.~ • ~A!.L!III!N DU Nopqz«.t.INIDlCOIIIIlillOO1'aotlU ArfC)1IIOIlIC.~1ICICL ..... TMOI'f~TlJtAC:JOTa. tII"9I&AO ~ INTO !xc:AvAtlCM. NT ~ CIN UCJtaTlllleeP IEU8Il 0IlI COI"P.!ICTm I'tCIUC:J .............. ~noNTO~(oJD· TREE PLANnNG AND STAKING st:ALC Miit PLANT LIST ___ £!!!!!!!!!!!M!! SfECIRC vARtE!1g BJ HI fp ~ ,; " ~ > -~ I~ . !!i z ~ .. " ! 8)1 i . iIr'" : I~q '. I a: .J i~ ~i 0 ~i ~ Q:1C.L,'i, Q C.;;'~'··' ~:Z:("3~ ~ In ~$d ~ Q: ~~~ ~c ~ ~o ,~ ~""I ~Q; ~ ---• ..,...fJIICINCI" •• M.I1\I'I<Ie&.AlI! •• ,D"., .. 'c:.......,.,:I4&~UU~ ~.,~ •• *C) SHUT OF -ecNIl..!TII!JrmreL' -1 NW i/4, NW.t/4. SEC. 20, 1WP. 23 N., RG£ 5 £, W.M. ..~"-.'~ .. ':_-.. _ .. --.----> ,---"-"'--i I I , iii I i I a~:: ____ * .1/r1lUSl0lSl . "2D :;:~(.QI--, ~ ~ I~ ~!~ ~1 .d:, , Ii I" /ul ... ! ., II " I , .. 4,,, r' . -,i p;'(" 1'1 ',' (Ii . .: I" ~.. I '.' ·f·· \ '/' l ' .. ,.1 , '. ------------------------'-,~~~:-=-:-.~:S I, '!tr !' _:_ .• ·_·~_'_-·~~~_~~I' l:ir= ------------.. ---,~_:,_;;:.~jft!h'~:;::y,: ~.:.,;' .. ':~,,,: "'~:~_~ "_' .. :1-, . .: 1::;_~.:_~.g\.t.L~:,.~I~.w'~"f'F'7r,;u '. ~ .. , ..J '" , f"'':: , 'I ",:- ";; 7,,;. , '{' . ______ ~"7ST-~--"·-<: / -1 -.--:---~ • -'If ' .... ~---- J't : i" . hl~ I I; II' -_:_ Ii;: "L· I ~~. !_J , ,. ,,-; ,1<' .... h \ (.~')::\ \ ~,;~~.\ \ \~,\ \ ,~ NOT A PA~ OF TI-IIS APPLICATION " \ \ " I "II hi I,. '~I ' ..... -.. .; ....... --.. .. 11/1£I1srA7C fOs ----------- ..... '""'---""-' :!~.~ laUl. PARCEL B ,- lcrut"V, ._- \~..:.. \ .-\ \ ol,: I / ...,./ ,\ \ .~. \. \ ~~ SCALE: 1" co SO' LJ-J i OlINERlAPELICANT _ .... , ... ., MllIUiIIP It. txNAU"IIWIHN:IoTCN ..,. (2C»,......-w PL.ANNEBIENGINEEFY5UBYEYOR ..... --.... 14"1lINa.:tSIWP"l..AaI.llJI1IItoi ~1LIotoIMtGTQ<t,*,," (4D, .... wn CCMT',CT. 1'IICMML OI!N. I"'L.Nf«IIt .... ~~ ... 1M»«J9I '~J.IQ4IIIIII,,.a·~ DATUM .. ""- BASIS OF BEARINGS ...-,......, AI.QD TIe NCIIIITN LNI CP TMII traWfMII!IT r::u.tIImIJIl"'eer::naN:aoI!!ll1'l:DNM~NCIIIIfM QlMIm!IIlCOllleJllAfrC)TWI!I'QH)eecnc:tt~ f"'B' MC:DIIIP t:JI .......... fIIICCIIIIPID IIGDlIlllllXllllDlrQ NoI'eIDlf I:I~ BENCl-lMABK ctn'QI..m:IN~""". =='A;'~""'ftM...,. AO.cIDI ...... 1CIIfM. --- I . ~ ~ ~ ,., I ~ .. I J i ' p~ ~: d~ ~. < ~~! ""'" ~~ It '" I ' .. ~ a:~~i U)~I"'~~ ~ U)'ti~1 ~ a: ~~~ .. 0 ~ i! ~~ dill fQ ~I! I~ Of' 2 .',-041.39A / / / I I I 'i ~. ~ • F.i . -. n .~ .11 If It ~ I. r:- i I:. I!] -- II /l, I I I i I I I / / / / / ~*ld~."-~,-- ", ~;'.: }/r ..... ---"- i -1- -1- Terry Defoor GWI Inc. 24633 NE 133rd Street Duvall, WA 98019 tel: 206-999-8874 (owner / applicant) Mayor Kathy Keolker City Hall 1055 5 Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 (party of record) Tim Burkhardt 4927 197th Avenue E Bonney Lake, WA 98390 (party of record) Brian Beaman Icicle Creek Engineers PARTIES OF RECORD DEFOOR SHORT PLAT LUA05-089, SHPL-H, ECF Pat Conger 1301 S 9th Street Renton, WA 98055 (party of record) Ruth Larson 714 High Avenue S Renton, WA 98055 tel: 425-255-0290 (party of record) Debra Eby Ricci Ricci Grube Aita, PLLC Attorneys and Counselors at Law 1080 Broadacres Building 1601 Second Avenue Seattle, WA 98101 tel: (206) 770-7606 eml: driccijd@connectexpress.com (contact) Michael Chen Core Designs, Inc. William Collins 420 Cedar Avenue S Renton, WA 98055 (party of record) Eric & Karen Bernard PO Box 58306 Tukwila, WA 98138 tel: 206-200-4001 (party of record) Jason Walker Talasea 15020 Bear Creek Road NE Woodinville, WA 98077 (party of record) Maryann Reinhart GeoEng ineers. 230 NE Juniper Street ste: #101 Issaquah, WA 98027 14711 NE 29th Place ste: #101 Bellevue, WA 98007 8410 154th Avenue NE Redmond, WA 98052 (party of record) (party of record) Hugh Mortensen Watershed Company 1410 Market Street Kirkland, WA .98033 (party of record) Updated: 09/26/06 (party of record) (Page 1 of 1) \;- Terry Defoor GWI Inc. 24633 NE 133rd Street Duvall, WA 98019 tel: 206-999-8874 (owner / applicant) PARTIES OF RECORD' DEFOOR SHORT PLAT LUA05-089, SHPL-H, ECF Pat Conger 1301 S 9th Street Renton, WA 98055 (party of record) William Collins 420 Cedar Avenue S Renton, WA 98055 (party of record) Mayor Kathy Keolker-Wheeler City Hall Ruth Larson 714 High Avenue S Renton, WA 98055 tel: 425-255-0290 ,(party of record) Eric & Karen Bernard PO Box 58306 Tukwila, WA 98138 tel: 206-200-4001 (party of record) 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 (party of record) Tim Burkhardt 4927 197th Avenue E Bonney Lake, WA 98390 (party of record) Updated: 06/29/06 Debra Eby Ricci Ricci Grube Aita, PLLC Attorneys and Counselors at Law 1080 Broadacres Building 1601 Second Avenue Seattle, WA 98101 tel: (206) 770-7606 eml: driccijd@connectexpress.com (contact) (Page 1 of 1) Denis Law Mayor May 18,2009 Michael Chen Core Designs, Inc. 14711 NE29th Place #101 Believue,WA 98007 Department of Community & Economic Development SUBJECT: Expiration period for Defoor Short Plat City of Renton File LUAOS-089, ECF, SHPL-H Dear Mr. Chen: The City of .Renton Planning Division approved the above referenced application on October 17, 2006. This approval is ordinarily good for two (2) year{s),Pursuarit to RMC4-7-050M ofthe Renton Municipal Code, you may upon written request, prior to the expiration of the project, receive a single one (l)-year extensionfrom the Planning Division. In addition to the abo~e one (i)-yearextension, the City Council'under Ordinance No. 5452 (enclosed), has granted an extension oJ the period of validity on land use and subdivision approvals'. Therefore, certain land use and/or subdivision approvals expiring after April 1, 2009, upon written,' request and prior to theexpiration ofthe project, may receive al') additional one.:tinie two (2)-year extension beyond the standard expiration date listed inRMC 4 .. 8 and RMC 4-9. ' '.. . . . Our recordsindicate:that the, above referenced application received an additional cine {I)-year extension andwill expire on October 17,2009. This letter is to inform you that prior to the , expiration date of this project, you mayslit>'mit a written request f()r the additional two (2)-year extension under Ordinance No; 5452. Please be aware that this ,extension d()es not apply to temporary use permits, building permits,or public works permits. Also, this provision shall automatically expire on December 31,2010, and shall be removed from ~hecode at that time unless another ordinance is passed extending this date.,' . . . , , If you have cinyfurtherqu~stiol1s, please feel free tdcontactLaureen Nicolay at (425)430-7294. sincerely,....\ ... f .• 'd c. ~~V f\.--__ . -~' C. E. Vincent, Plannihg Director Enclosure: Copy of Ordinanc~ #5452 ct: terry Defoor, GWI hie. (AppliCant City of Renton File No.lUA05~089; SHPl-H Chip Vincent, Planning Director . " Jennifer Henning, Currenfl'lanning Manager. Neil Watts, Development Services.Director, , Kayr'en Kittrick, Development Engineering Supervisor Renton City Hall, • l055~South Grady Way'. Renton,Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov ' 'CITY.FR.ENfoN ~-. . , . . '. Denis La~,Mayo~ '. EcOnOIUic pevelopment,' Neighborhoods .and ...... ' ... , . , ............ ". 'S~ategic~lamiing; ; . '.' '",lex Pietsc:h;Administr~tor' . January 26; 2009 Terrybefoor . .... GWC, Inc. 14450NE 2gth Place #110 BeUevUe,WA98007 . · SUBJECT: . Defo~r ShortPlafLUA05-0~9, lieF, SHPL-H .' , ". .... -' " ',' , '.'. ,: .; " , : .. I>earMr. Defoor:' >. . This office ha$ reviewed :yourreq~e~t{ dated Jahtiary 22, 2009).t~ extend an~ppr6ved shoft pl'at (File No. LUA05~089,E.:CF,SHPL~H)that expiredon6ct()berf7~ 2008, .. · ..' '. . ',' ;". .'. '. " ;.' '.' ,.~ ,'" P~rsua~ttoRMC 4-7 ,.070l\1;the n~unicipaCc()de a11ows' theodginal appto~lng'bodYJO . .... issue,a single. one (1) yea'F exfeiisiori:/rher.efor~, YQursh'Qrt pl~t. eitensionr~q ~esfis' . . . . ' approved •. The. short,p1.at,*iU expireo~' Octo.ber 17,: 2009~" .. , .. : . ..... . ' .'" ..... . : "., /· ... ' .. i::' .. ~~:. '.;,~:~J~.,.';.<:.: ,::~,:-":, .,.' ,.' ." ... ,' .,,' ',' .:c-'" :"'1 , :., :' . -.. ,'"~ " . ' Y~usho~ld'be.aware :tJ:ii~':offi6.e·:i~.~ippo~'~~~4:~<?is;s~eon\yoh.~~llch~xt~nsiml:, .. If the "fiOal,short platapprQvalisrtotg9p1pr~t¢sl~yQqtQber 17;f009)t Will eXpire'· and carnio~ '.',' ...... . beextellde~:ag~iri, ,:.' ... :i>;"':" ,". -. . ...... :, ... . ". ,'" '," .',' r" ., ..... . :" .: .>;,c;:, .;r',:.:.·:. ..... .h·. . ". , .' ·.prease·feeffr~6t()_cpnt:ab(nie-~lt'(4:i5)'4jo:7235 should''youha\re:anyfurtli~rquestionsor , , ~ f · c6nimen:ts:regardipgthisexten~ioii:' . ' '.' .. , . -' .,' : ." '. .' .'.~ "/": .. , '. , . ,~" : ". ','. .' .~", '. .: ". '.' \' .'~ . '.~ - S'incer~{y;:" :". .. .. .'" ." .', .~,~:."".' . .. '> , :.: ~' . ", ; . ~ '. -'. :, .... , -. ~ ,,' ".,;.,'. cc:Chip Vincent; PlannmgDirector '. .' letiriifer Henning,CurrentPlannjrig Manager . ~Gity-ofR.entonEileX:UAO~;Og-9;cECE;.sHPt:H). Rick Moreno, PlanReview .' ;.', -:--'--:-'-"--'-""':---:--1~O:-55-' '·-'-So-u-'-th~G-r;-'ad-_y-w-.~ay-'-.. -:--R:-e-'-n--'to-'-n-,w-·"":'aS-h':"'in-'-gt-o-n-'-9-'-g-O-57-' -:---:---:--~---,-:.~.~ ..•.•• ';~ . '.~.' .'. ..' '. ..' . AHEAD,. OF THE·· .. CURVE ~ '1hispaper contains 50% recycled matenal, 30% post consumer • _1118.0 RAT E D land Development. Real Estate. Construction Consulting ; . ~.' ~ .. ' ... ~ . January 22, 2009 City of Renton Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way Rel1tC!1., Vi.A. 98057 SUBJECT: FILE #LUA05089, PE~\1IT #U070067 DEFOOR SHORT PLAT EXTENSION REQUEST UNTIL 10117/2009. GWC, INC. GWC and Associates would formally like to request the one year plat extension necessary to complete further development requirements by the city of Remon. s~ LPC Terry Defoor GWC, Inc. Ph 425.556.1913. Fx 425.556.1916.14450 N.E. 29th Place, Suite 110. Bellevue, WA 98007 .' ." .. ; :" . . . -" ",: . ':,,":. " :. :" ... '. .' Denis Law, Mayor Junei9,2008 ,Mich~el Chen' . Core Designs, Inc. . 14711 NE 2?th Phice #101 . . Bellevue, WA 98007 C1T'W>FRENTON . Department of COmIilunity and .' ·Economic Development Alex Pie~ch', Administl1ltor. . Subject: .' Expitation,ofPfeliniinaryApproval for the Defoor Short Plat .. City of Renton File LUA05-089 . . . . Dear Mr. Ch~n: ··Siilterely, . cc: ..... ~A .... /t//;:;p" A;:~; 'A/\/V~·:.·,·/f/~t:y'··., .' .. ': ..... ' .. ,. :; .. .' ,", . .,' "':.' " '-,",' " . .: -, ..... ',: I '.: : , ,',- , ' . . ... -.. ' -,;. " / / _/ .l)ecember II, 2006 ' .... Finance Committee Finance: Vouchers CAG: 06-165, Tiffany Park Activity Building, Danneko Construction Transportation (Aviation) Committee Transportation: Duvall Ave NE Improvements, Bergerl Abam Engineers Planning & Development Committee Appeal: Defoor Short Plat, Terry Defoor, SHP-05-089 ," Renton City Council Minutes tI) Page 448 expressed support for an appeal if cooperation is not obtained and there are sufficient grounds. . Councilman Persson stated the following: the bridges have to be rebuilt over Rainier Ave. S. and Hardie Ave. SW; Boeing has to transport the fuselages to their plant or many jobs will leave Renton; standing up to BNSF and relaying Renton's concerns is important; and the train station needs to be maintained. Council President Corman discussed the planning and financing of the bridge improvements. He said if the City were to appeal, the appeal should be tied to the significant costs of rebuilding the bridges while shipments are being made across those very bridges. He suggested that an appeal be fiied if the information is-not obtained by a particular date. PlanninglBuilding/Public Works Administrator Gregg Zimmerman indicated that staff hoped to have some information by December 15. He commented on some of the WSDOT funding challenges, and assured that both jurisdictions are in negotiations with the City. Mayor Keolker suggested that the Administration continue to work with the jurisdictions. Assuring that Council will be kept apprised ~f the status of the negotiations, she stated that if a solution is not attained, an appeal can then be filed. Mayor Keolker acknowledged the consensus of the Council. Finance Committee Chair Persson presented a report recommending approval of Claim Vouchers 254893 -255233 and three wire transfers totaling $3,631,742.44; and ap'proval of Payroll Vouchers 66749 -66894, one wire transfer, and 633 direct deposits totaling $1,998,225.22. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Finance Committee Chair Persson presented a report recommending concurrence in the staff recommendation to award the Tiffany Park Recreation Building project to the lowest bidder, Danneko Construction, in the amount of $448,147.20. The difference between the contract amount and the project budget of$355,000 is available from project savings in the Capital Improvement Fund and Fund 306. The Committee further recommended that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to sign the contract. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY LAW, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Transportation (Aviation) Committee Chair Palmer presented a report regarding Supplemental Agreement #6 to CAG-03-131, the Bergerl Abam Engineers, Inc. design agreement for the Duvall Ave. NE Widening Project. The Committee recommended concurrence in the staff recommendation to transfer $388,800 from the construction phase to the preliminary engineering (design) phase of this project, and to authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the supplemental agreement in the amount of $482,000. MOVED BY PALMER, SECONDED BY BRIERE, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Planning and Development Committee Chair Briere presented a report regarding the appeal of the Defoor Short Plat (SHP-05-089). The Committee reported withdrawal of the Defoor Short Plat appeal, which was referred on 7/17/2006. The Committee, therefore, recommended the referral be closed. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. • APPROVED BY PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Ci1Y COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORT l , Date /~-/l-~O~0! -December 11, 2006 The Planning and Development Committee reports withdrawal of the Defoor Short Plat appeal, which wasreferted July 17,2006. The Committee, therefore, recoriuriendsthe referral be closed. \Jut' ..... . ~ -TelTiBri~ cc: Jennifer Henning Jill Ding Zanetta Fontes Fred Kaufman :'0"·' :T~ .~,;.:. :' .. ~{;" ~( , CIT~'~F RENTON Kathy Keolker, Mayor November 27,2006 Debra Eby Ricci .' Ricci Grube Aita, PLLC 1080 Broadacres Building 1601 Second Avenue Seattle, WA 98101-3526 Re: Withdrawal of Appeal to Council Defoor ShortPiat; File No. LUA-05-089, SHP Dear Ms. Ricci: City Clerk . Bonnie I. Walton This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter dated November 17, 2006, indicating witlidrawal of the referenced appeal to the Renton City Council filed on June 26,2006.·· The appeal process has·tlierefore been cancelled.' . If! can provide further information of,assistance, please fed fre_e to contact me. Sincerely, ' Bonnie I. Walton City Clerk cc: Members, Rentori City Council JenniferHenning, Principal Planner Larry ~an-en, City Attorney 1055 South Grndy Way" Renton. Washmgton 98057" (425) 43~510 I FAJ(425) 430~516 ~ . . ~ This oaoercontains 500/0 recvded material. 30% oost"consumer . AHEAD OF THE CURVE RIfel GRUBE AlTA, rfLC ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LA W DEBRA EBY RICCI WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL.' (206) 624-5842 E-MAIL: DRICCIJD@CONNECTEXPRESS.COM Julia Medzegian City of Renton Council Liaison 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, W A 98057 Re: DEFOOR APPEAL VIA FIRST CLASS U.S. MAIL Dear Ms. Medzegian: November 17,2006 CITY OF RENTON NOV 2.2, 2006 RECEIVED CITY ot.eAI('s OFFICE TELEPHONE: (206) 770-7606 Vill :ralla. FACSIMILE: (206) 770-7607 This firm represents Terry Defoor who has an appeal pending before the City Council. The appeal has become moot and we will not be pursuing it further. We do not intend to bring any further appeals forward at this time. We have been in contact with Zanetta Fontes at the City Attorney's Office regarding this matter and she suggested I contact you directly. Ifwe need to submit any further paperwork to make our intentions clear, please notify me at your earliest convemence. If you have any questions, you can reach me at (206) 624-5842. ,PLLC 1080 BROADACRES BUILDING • 1601 SECOND AVENUE SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3526 RIC C I G RUB E A I T A, P L LC , SEf.\1'''TLE<'..'V/\!i)S:t, 1080 BROADACRES BUILDING. 1601 SECOND AVENUE SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3526 :i7NOV 2:Ci0t:5'P,1\-1 6 IL ADDRESS CORRECTION REQUESTED AND FORWARDING Julia Medzegian City of Renton Council Liaison 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 RECENEd NO~ 2. 0 2nn6 REN10N C\1)' CO\.l~c\\ '=il~;:::S?-j-~:2::::2 /I! j l! i I! I! !l! ! 11 j! ilL II ill iJ J I • iii! · II III j! i! iii J i J! j! I ! ! iii -, e • Kathy Keolker, Mayor November 13, 2006 Terry Defoor GWIInc . .. 24633 NE 133rd Street Duvall, WA98019 SUBJECT: Defoor Shor1,:Plat LUA-05-089, SHPL~H Dear Mr. Defoor: CIT~F RENTON Hearing :f:xaminer Fred J. Kaufman· This letter is to inform you that the appeal period has'ended for the Hearing Examiner's Madison . 'Place Short Plat approval. Noappeal~ were filed. This decision is final and you mayproceedwith the hext step. of the short plat process:' . , • '< .: -". • --•• , ".: The conditions listed in~he CitY ~fRentmi. Hearing. Examiner Report & Decision must be satisfied before the short plat can be ·r~corded .. I{you ~ave any questio~s regarding the recording . process 'or any other:matters for the shor,t pla(asweH~'as fot submitting.reviseq plans, you may contact Carrie Olsen at (425) 430-7235 .. ' '. Sincerely, N~mcyThompson ' .. S~cr~tarY to He~ng E"aminer . " cc: Jiil Ding,· Development Services Jennifer Henlling;.Development Services Debra Eby Ricci, Attomeyat Law Jason Walker, Talasea Parties of Record ----10-5-5-S-ou-th-G-ra-dy-W-.---:ay---R-e-nt-'on,-W-as-h-'-in-gt-o-n~9-8-05-5---(4-2-5)-4-3"""'O--6-51-5----~ A~EAD OF THE CURVE / Kathy Keolker, Mayor October 18, 2006 Ms. Julia Medzegian, City Council Liaison Renton, City HalL 7f11 Floor 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 RE: Defoor appeal Dear Julia: Office of the City Attonicy Lawrence J. Warren Senior Assistant City Attorneys , Mark Barber Zanella L. Fontes Assistant City Attorneys AnD S. Nielsen Garmon Newsom II Shawn E. Artbur The Defoor appeal is currently scheduled for October 26, 2006. I am writing to request that you reschedule this appeal fot a date at least two weeks from today. , " I have been in telephone contact with the attorney for the Applicant in the Defoor matter, ,Ms. Debra Ricci. She is in agreement with this request. The reaSon for the continuance i~ that, the Applicant and City staff have found a way to , allowthe project to proceed despite the Hearing Examiner's decision that is on appeal. In fact, the site plan for the new proposal waS approved by the H~g Examiner and the 14-~y appeal period is currently,running. Therefore, the, partiestotheappeal think it would be prudent to wait out the 14-day appeal period to see if any appeals are taken frODl the Hearing Examiner's Decision on the Site Plan, which was issued 17 October, ~006. Ifthere is no appeal, the appeal to the City Council MAy be moot. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me. ZLF:ma cc: Jay Covington Jill Ding ,Karen Orehoski ,,' very~'trulyyours, J..' , ,~' , // /,..< ," " " -. ' ,,' , tv (' ~~tta L. Fontes ' VSistant City Attorney ~P-os-t-O-n-iC-C-Il-o-x-62-6---R-'-e-nt-ol-l,-W-a-SI-li-11g-IO-n-98-0"":'S-7 --(-4-2'--)-2-55---86-7-8 -/ f-' AX-' -( 4-2-S)-2-5-5--S-4 7-4-~ ~ Thic:: 1'\-::a .......... l"'O'"\nbi"~ AAO/~ ~~n"\::ah:.ri-::al ~ot. nnc.tt"'nnC.'I~ AHEAD OF "tHE CURVE • • 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 1 i h day of October 2006, affiant deposited via the United States Mail a sealed enve1ope(s) containing a decision or recommendation with postage prepaid, addressed to the parties of record in the below entitled application or petition. Signature: SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this -ft//tday of Application, Petition or Case No.: N ary Public in ana for the State of Washington siding at kn ~ ,therein. J • Defoor Short Plat LUA 05-089, SHPL-H, ECF The Decision or Recommendation contains a complete list of the Parties of Record. • • HEARING EXAMINER'S REPORT J ". • • October 17, 2006 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON Minutes APPLICANT/OWNER: CONTACT: LOCATION: SUMMARY OF REQUEST: SUMMARY OF ACTION: DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT: PUBLIC HEARING: Terry Defoor GWCInc. 24633 NE 133rd Street Duvall, WA 98019 Debra Eby Ricci Ricci Grube Aita, PLLC Attorneys and Counselors at Law 1601 Second Ave., Ste. 1080 Seattle, WA 98101 Defoor Short Plat LUA 05-089, SHPL-H 900 Renton Avenue South Hearing Examiner Short Plat approval for the subdivision of 3.2 acres into five lots for the future development of single- family residences. Development Services Recommendation: Approve subject to conditions The Development Services Report was received by the Examiner on September 26, 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 October 3,2006 hearing. The legal record is recorded on CD. The hearing opened on Tuesday, October 3, 2006, at 9:25 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No.1: Yellow file containing the original Exhibit No.2: Neighborhood Detail Map application, proof of posting, proof of publication and other documentation pertinent to this request. Exhibit No.3: Preliminary Short Plat Map Exhibit No.4: Preliminary Landscape Plan Defoor Short Plat • File No.: LUA-05-089, SHPL-H October 17, 2006 Page 2 Exhibit No.5: Preliminary Grading and Utility Plan Exhibit No.7: Slope Analysis Exhibit No.9: City's Determination of the Unm~ed StreamsIWetland Classification Exhibit No. 11: City's Reconsideration of Unmapped Stream Determination Exhibit No. 13: Appeal to City Council of hearing Examiner's Decision Exhibit No. 15: Sheet Wl.l • Exhibit No.6: Tree Cutting/Land Clearing Plan Exhibit No.8: Environmental Review Committee Mitigation Measures Exhibit No. 10: Reconsideration Request/Appeal of Determination of Unmapped Streams Exhibit No. 12: Hearing Examiner's Decision Exhibit No. 14: Zoning Map The hearing opened with a presentation of the staffreport by Jill Ding, Senior Planner, Development Services, City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98055. The site is located to the west of Renton Avenue S, east of 1-405, and north of a Puget Sound Energy right-of-way. It is located in the R-8 zoning designation and within the Residential Single-Family Comprehensive Plan designation. The property is approximately 3.2 acres in area. The proposal is to subdivide the site into 5 lots and one open space tract west of the proposed lots. The site slopes from east to west with an approximate slope of 26%. The proposal does qualify as a Hillside Subdivision. There are High Landslide Hazard Areas, Erosion Hazard Areas, Steep Slope areas and High Coal Mine Hazard areas located on the site. The majority of these areas are located within the open space tract. The site is currently forested, approximately 25% of the vegetation would be removed for the development of this short plat. There also are four unmapped streams and an unmapped wetland on the site located within the open space tract. The streams flow east to west on the northern and southern portions of the site. The wetland was classified as a Category 3 Wetland, which requires a 25-foot buffer. ·It is located at the northeast comer of the project site. Stream A has been classified as a Class 4 stream, and is not under appeal. Drainage 1, Stream B and Stream C are under appeal. Drainage 1 is a Class 4 stream, Stream B a Class 3 stream and Stream C also a Class 4 stream. Access to the proposed lots would be via single-family residential driveways onto Renton Avenue S. The Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated with 3 mitigation measures. No appeals were filed. The plan is consistent with the Residential Single Family Land Use, Community Design and Environmental Elements. The net density for the site would be 1.67 dulac, which complies with the density requirement for the R-8 zone. The applicant has proposed larger lot sizes than required in the R-8 zoning standards, the lots are proposed to be located on a portion of the site that does not contain steep slopes and they appear to be adequate. Lots 1,2 and 3 Defoor Short Plat • File No.: LUA-05-089, SHPL-H October 17, 2006 Page 3 • should be adjusted to provide a minimum lot width of 50-feet for each of the proposed lots. Staff requested a revised short plat map be submitted prior to approval of the final short plat. A Homeowner's Association or Maintenance Agreements should be created to establish responsibility for any common improvements and the proposed open space tract. The preliminary plat map indicates the setback lines on each lot. The setbacks will be verified at the time of building permit review, each lot appears to provide adequate area to comply with the required setbacks. The building height and lot coverage appear to be in compliance with the R-8 zone, these building standards will be verified prior to the issuance of building permits for each individual structure. Access to all lots would be via single-family residential driveways off of Renton Avenue S. Halfstreet improvements including sidewalks, curb and gutter, paving, storm drainage, street lighting and street signs are required fronting the site on Renton Avenue S. Traffic, Parks and Fire mitigation fees have been recommended for this project. The subject site slopes from east to west and has an average slope of approximately 26%. A Geotechnical Report and Grading Plan has been submitted. The eastern portion ofthe site has been deemed suitable for development. There are no steep slopes on that portion of the site. The City's Critical Area Regulations permit averaging of stream buffers, Class 4 streams to a minimum of a 25- foot buffer and a Class 3 stream to a minimum of 37.5-foot buffer. Nothing below those minimums has been proposed for this site. A Native Growth Protection Easement must be established over critical areas and their associated buffers. The majority of the critical areas and their buffers are located within the open space tract. There are a few areas where the buffer areas will be extended into the setback areas of the individual lots, which is permissible. Approximately 25% of the vegetation would be removed from the plat. This project came in prior to the rule of saving 25% of the trees, therefore, they do not have to meet that requirement.' However, they are retaining a significant amount of trees. A landscape plan was submitted indicating 2 trees for each front yard or planting areas of each lot. A minimum 5-foot landscape strip is required along Renton Avenue S and that was not on the landscape plan. It was determined that if no additional area is available within the public right-of-way due to required improvements, the 5-foot landscaped strip may be located within private property abutting the public right-of-way. A revised landscape plan must be submitted prior to recording the final short plat. The site is located within the Renton School District, they have indicated that they can handle the proposed 2 additional students. The existing storm water runoff sheet flows to the west across the site and eventually is collected in one of the existing stream channels. The surface water runoff that will be created as a result of the construction will be directed to a series of level spreaders, detention would not be required on this site. The project is located within the City of Renton water and sewer service areas. There is an 8-inch water main in South 9th Street and a 4-inch water main in Renton Avenue S. There is an existing 8-inch sewer main fronting the site in Renton Avenue S. Separate sewer stubs will be provided to each building lot prior to recording of the short plat. Defoor Short Plat File No.: LUA-05-089, SHPL-H October 17, 2006 Page 4 • Debra Ricci, 1601 Second Avenue, Ste. 1080, Seattle, W A 98101 stated the engineers at Pace felt that they could modify the width of the lots to conform with the 50-foot provision, they just need a little extra time to make those adjustments. Jason Walker, Talasaea Consultants, 15020 Bear Creek Road NE, Woodinville, WA 98077 stated that he is a landscape architect and environmental planner with Talasaea. Regarding buffer averaging, there is a little over 10,150 square feet of buffer reduction that has been proposed to reduce the buffers to their minimum allowable dimension under the Code. There is 30,000 square feet available in the open space tract to accommodate the buffer replacement. Drainage 1 is proposed to be relocated into Stream A, which has a very rounded channel, it is not incised and has more flow capacity to handle increase in flow rates. Drainage 1 is an eroded channel and they are proposing to reconvey that channel to a pre-existing structure at the mouth of Stream A which also receives storm water runoff from that stream. That will help to stabilize and stop the erosion of that drainage. Stream A would also be enhanced with a number of native plants that have soil binding properties. Stream B, also proposed to be enhanced, is experiencing erosion from stormwater flows. Stream B is more significantly disturbed as far as erosion and is highly incised. The proposal is to provide approximately 20 pieces of large woody debris within that channel to provide energy dissipation for the stormwater. Stream C is in a remote comer of the site and will not be affected by any of these proposals. The proposed grading plan shows that they will be leveling the frontages of the lots to bring vehicular entry up to Renton Avenue S. It appears to be exceeding 12 yards offill. The plan appears to be stair stepped so that they will have a daylight basement house with a garage entry located at street level. Bill Collins, 420 Cedar Avenue S, Renton, W A 98055 stated that they were concerned with during and after construction and how any introduced fill would be prevented from introducing itself into the buffer setbacks, Stream A and B setbacks. The sides are very steep and a retaining wall will have to be built up to the edge of the stream buffers. Jason Walker stated that there would be wall systems available that could be placed with minimal impact to the streams. It appears from the drawings that there would be six to seven feet of fill. Without the final design, he could not be positive how it would actually'be handled. Kayren Kittrick, Development Services stated that Renton Avenue is wide enough there is no need for any addition to it. It will have to be verified that there is 20-feet of pavement to the north for access. The water line and fire flow requirements have been reviewed both by Staff and the Fire Department and is well taken care of. The stream buffers are the first thing to be marked when construction starts, double fencing is put up so that it is impossible to go beyond it, they try to minimize the errors. Without building plans it is difficult to say what is really going to happen with the walls and fill. With 12-feet of fill, there will have to be an engineered wall or rockery. A condition could be that the engineered wall must be in place before the final recording. Cedar Avenue stops at that location, it was never intended to go through. She did not believe that there was a dedicated right-of-way there. Defoor Short Plat • File No.: LUA-05-089, SHPL-H October 17, 2006 Page 5 • Jill Ding stated that she did some calculations on the lots and the lot line between Lots 2 and 3 could be adjusted to meet the required lot width. 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 10:25 a.m. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The applicant, Terry Defoor, filed a request for a short plat. 2. The yellow file containing the staff report, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) documentation and other pertinent materials was entered into the record as Exhibit #1. 3. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC), the City's responsible official issued a Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M). 4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter. 5. The subject site is located at 900 Renton Avenue South. The subject site is located on the southwest comer of the intersection of Renton Avenue and South 9th Street. The parcel is located on Renton Hill, east and upslope ofI-405. 6. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as suitable for the deVelopment of single-family uses, but does not mandate such development without consideration of other policies of the Plan. 7. The subject site is currently zoned R-8 (Single Family - 8 dwelling units/acre). 8. The subject site was annexed to the City with the adoption of Ordinance 1547 enacted in June 1956. 9. The subject site is approximately 140,723 square feet or 3.2 acres in size. The subject site is trapezoidal in shape with the south property line slanting from the southeast toward the northwest. The parcel is approximately 329 feet wide (east to west) by approximately 491 feet deep. 10. The subject site has complex topography. The site slopes downward to the west from Renton Avenue at an average grade of 26%. The site also contains landslide hazard areas, erosion hazard areas, both protected and sensitive slopes and coal mine hazard areas. Since the average slopes exceed 20% the subject site is classified as a "Hillside Subdivision." The "Hillside Subdivision" categorization required submission of additional geotechnical information, detailed grading information and larger lots, if appropriate. The applicant proposes importing approximately 7,000 cubic yards of fill material and grading approximately 7,100 cubic yards including approximately 100 cubic yards of cut. 11. Four unmapped streams and an unmapped wetland are located on the subject site. The applicant has appealed the classification of three of those streams and that appeal is pending before the City Council. Three of the streams cross the site at its eastern property line (Drainage 1, and Streams A and B), while I Defoor Short Plat • File No.: LUA-05-089, SHPL-H October 17, 2006 Page 6 the fourth, Stream C, runs across the northwest comer of the site for a short distance. The streams and· their CITY CLASSIFICATIONS and buffers from south to north are: Drainage 1: Class 4; 35-foot buffer Stream A: Class 4; 35-foot buffer Stream B: Class 3; 75-foot buffer Stream C: Class 4; 35-foot buffer In addition, Wetland B is located in the northeast comer of the site. It is approximately 196 square feet and generally centered on Stream B. It is designated as follows: Wetland B: Category 3; 25-foot buffer 12. Since the appeal of the stream classifications are still pending, the applicant submitted a short plat based on the City's classifications. The plat would work around and with the streams by using buffer averaging, rerouting Drainage 1 and creating five, somewhat irregularly shaped lots that all front along Renton A venue. Buffer averaging, would allow a reduction in the buffers to 25 feet for Class 4 streams, Stream A, and 37.5 feet for Class :3 streams, Stream B. The location of Stream C, in the northwest comer of the parcel, would not be affected by the proposed platting. Wetland B, a Category 3 wetland, would be unaffected as it is located entirely within the buffer proposed for Stream B. In addition, the majority of the subject site would be left undisturbed in protected areas containing the steeper slopes, coal mine areas, and enlarged stream buffer areas. No development on the subject site is proposed north of Stream B and there would be no reason to reduce its buffer between the stream and the north property line. 13. 14. Staff noted that approximately 25 percent of existing vegetation along the eastern portion of the subject site where the five lots would be developed would be cleared of vegetation. Some areas of the five private lots would contain required buffer areas and staff recommended that those be protected along with other undeveloped portions of the site into a Native Growth Protection Easement. Code also requires two trees be planted in each front yard and that there be landscaping in the street right-of-way. " Proposed Lots 1,2 and 3 (north to south) would be located south of Stream B and its narrowed 37.5 foot buffer and north of Stream A and its narrowed 25 foot buffer. Proposed Lots 4 and 5 would be located south of Stream A. Proposed Lot 4 would be located in the area where Drainage 1 would be relocated into Stream A. 15. In keeping with the hillside subdivision requirements, all of the proposed lots exceed the R-8 zone's required 4,500 square feet with lots ranging in size between 7,137 square feet to 10,198 square feet. As staff noted, the Proposed Lots 1 and 2 appear to be narrower than the required 50-foot.average for width but that Proposed Lot 3 appears to have sufficient width to allow an appropriate adjustment to the other two lots. This adjustment would modestly alter the lot area calculations but all of the lots already exceed 4,500 square feet. The open space tract would be 96,919 square feet. 16. Access to all the lots would be via Renton Avenue. Grading will be done to create appropriate driveway grades and reasonable building pads. The applicant proposes constructing retaining structures adjacent to the stream buffer areas. This would create trench-like, unnatural slopes adjacent to the creeks. 17. The density for the plat would be 1.67 dwelling units per acre after subtracting sensitive areas such as the steep slopes, coal mine and wetland areas. This falls below the generally accepted range of 4 to 8 Defoor Short Plat • File No.: LUA-05-089, SHPL-H October 17, 2006 Page 7 • units per acre but is the result of the constraints found on the site including the creeks, their buffers, the other sloping areas and access issues. 18. The subject site is located within the Renton School District. The project is expected to generate approximately 2 school age children. These students would be spread across the grades and would be assigned on a space available basis. 19. The development will increase traffic approximately 10 trips per unit or approximately 50 trips for the 5 single-family homes. Approximately ten percent of the trips, or approximately 5 additional peak hour trips will be generated in the rilomingand evening. 20. Stormwater currently sheet flows to the west in general. Some would enter the various drainages that flow east to west across the site. The ERC imposed drainage requirements if detention were determined to be required. Level spreaders would collect and disperse runoff resulting from the proposed construction on the site. Downspouts would be tightlined. 21. Sewer and water service will be provided by the City. The applicant will have to meet fire flow requirements for single-family homes and such requirements depend on home size and other factors that will be determined when building plans are submitted. 22. The City has adopted mitigation fees for transportation improvements, fire services and parks and recreational needs based on an analysis of the needs and costs of those services. These fees are applied to new development to help offset the impacts new homes and residents have on the existing community and the additional demand for services. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The proposed plat appears to generally serve the public use and interest. The applicant has attempted to design a plat that works around a number of site constraints and severe site constraints. Currently, three water features affect the more level, developable area of the subject site. The wetland has minimal impact since it is wholly contained within a proposed narrowed stream buffer. Similarly, Stream C is located out of the proposed development envelope and does not affect the site. The coal mine and protected slopes will be confined to a Native Growth Protection Easement. This leaves the eastern one- third of the site for development. The proposed buffer averaging allows the applicant to make use of the site in an almost reasonable fashion, although staff noted, some lots will have to be reconfigured to provide appropriate width. 2. The construction of improvements to retain and define the slopes and narrowed buffers along the streams should be more natural and blended or terraced even if this means the homes have to be designed to take advantage of the more natural or stepped slopes or are constrained by creating more gradual slope changes. The streams should be treated as natural, or, at least, aesthetic features of the subject site rather then be hemmed by either vertical rockeries or concrete walls. The required buffer on the north side of Stream B shall not be reduced as a result of constructing this plat. 3. The reduced density on this clearly compromised parcel appears appropriate. As noted, there are coal mine hazards, steep slopes, wetland and creeks all affecting the subject site. Creating five lots may even be taxing the site given its constraints but the applicant is entitled to some reasonable use of its approximately three-acre parcel. Given the constraints the reduced density appears as an acceptable tradeoff. Defoor Short Plat • File No.: LUA-05-089, SHPL-H October 17, 2006 Page 8 • 4. The development will create infill development in an area where urban services are available. The development will increase the tax base to help offset some of the impacts that the development will create on the City but those taxes will not completely reduce the impacts of new homes and their residents. 5. The development will increase the demands on the City's parks, roads and emergency services. The applicant shall therefore help offset those impacts by providing mitigation that matches the fees established by the City. 6. The applicant will have to provide appropriate onsite landscaping and street frontage landscaping per code requirements. 7. All required buffers shall be clearly delineated and incorporated into a Native Growth Protection easement even ifthey fall within any of the proposed five lots. 8. In conclusion, the proposed plat appears to provide a reasonable development scenario for this compromised parcel subject to the conditions enumerated below. DECISION: The proposed Short Plat is approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with the conditions imposed by the ERC. 2. The proposed short plat map shall be revised to show each lot with a minimum width of 50-feet. The revised short plat map shall be submitted to the Development Services division project manager prior to the approval of the final short plat. 3. A homeowner's association or maintenance agreement shall be created concurrently with the recording of the plat in order to establish maintenance responsibilities for this development. A draft of the document(s), if necessary, shall be submitted to the City of Renton Development Services Division for review and approval by the City Attorney and Property Services section prior to the recording of the short plat. 4. A Transportation Mitigation Fee based on $75.00 per net new average daily trip attributed to the project· shall be paid prior to the recording of the short plat. Each new lot is expected to generate approximately 9.57 new average weekday trips. The fee for the proposed short plat is. estimated at $3,588.75 ($75.00 x 9.57 trips x 5 lots = $3,588.75). 5. A revised Wetland Study, Stream Assessment, Habitat Study, Watershed Restoration and Mitigation Plan shall be submitted to the Development Services Division project manager for review and approval prior to the approval of the final short plat. The revised report shall include an onsite buffer averaging plan for the proposed impacts to the buffers of Streams A and B. 6. A revised short plat map showing a Native Growth Protection Easement over the proposed open space tract and the side yard areas of Lots 1,3, and 4 where the stream buffer extends into the side yards shall be submitted to the Development Services Division project manager prior to the approval of the final short plat. The Native Growth Protection Easement shall be recorded prior to or concurrent with the recording of the fmals short plat map. Defoor Short Plat • File No.: LUA-05-089, SHPL-H October 17, 2006 Page 9 • 7. The Native Growth Protection Easement shall be delineated with a split rail fence and identified with signage as approved by the Development Services Division Project Manager. A fencing and signage detail shall be submitted to the Development Services Division project manager at the time of Utility Construction Permit for review and approval and that such fencing and signage shall be installed prior to the recording of the final short plat. 8. A revised conceptual landscape plan shall be submitted to the Development Services Division project manager prior to the recording of the final short plat showing a minimum 5-foot wide planting strip along Renton Avenue S. 9. A Fire Mitigation Fee based on $488.00 per new single-family lot shall be paid prior to the recording of the final short plat. The fee is estimated at $2,440.00 (5 new lots x $488.00 = $2,440.00). 10. A Parks Mitigation Fee based on $530.76 per each new single-family lot shall be paid prior to the recording of the final short plat. The fee is estimated at $2,653.80 (5 new lots x $530.76 = $2,653.80). 11. The construction of improvements to retain and define the slopes and narrowed buffers along the streams shall be more natural and blended or terraced even if this means the homes have to be designed to take advantage of the more natural slopes or are constrained by creating more natural slope changes. The streams shall be treated as natural, or, at least, aesthetic features of the subject site rather then be hemmed by either vertical rockeries or concrete walls. ORDERED THIS 17th day of October 2006 TRANSMITfED TIDS 17th day of October 2006 to the parties of record: Jill Ding 1055 S Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 Bill Collins 420 Cedar Avenue S Renton, W A 98055 Eric & Karen Bernard PO Box 59306 Tukwila, WA 98138 Debra Eby Ricci Attorney at Law 1601 Second Avenue, Ste. 1080 Seattle, W A 98101 Pat Conger BOIS 9th Street Renton, W A 98055 Tim Burkhardt 4927 197th Avenue E Bonney Lake, W A 98390 Jason Walker Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 15020 Bear Creek Road NE Woodinville, W A 98077 Ruth Larson 714 High Avenue S Renton, W A 98055 Brian Beaman Icicle Creek Engineers 230 NE Juniper Street Issaquah, W A 98027 Defoor Short Plat • File No.: LUA-05-089, SHPL-H October 17, 2006 Page 10 • Michael Chen Core Designs, Inc. Maryann Reinhart GeoEngineers Hugh Mortensen Watershed Company 1410 Market Street Kirkland, W A 98033 14711 NE 29th Place, Ste. 101 Bellevue, W A 98007 8410 154th Avenue NE Redmond, W A 98052 TRANSMfITED THIS 17th day of October 2006 to the following: Mayor Kathy Keolker Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator Alex Pietsch, Economic Development Jennifer Henning, Development Services Stacy Tucker, Development Services King County Journal Stan Engler, Fire Larry Meckling, Building Official Planning Commission Transportation Division Utilities Division Neil Watts, Development Services Janet Conklin, Development Services Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 1 OOGof the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., October 31,2006. 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 of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of$75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies ofthis 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., October 31, 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. • • Project Loeation: 900 Renton Avenue S (parcel 0007200196) ~ li~ I ~ .Q I ~ ~. ~ t-J .. ~ t : j ~ ~Gi ~s~ AJ I co AJ I co 71"" .... " ...... GraI],.Y'Ave. S"·';" /0 3: I '1 \-·"-"'J,·r"'· .... ·_·,'"_ .. ,·,-·-\. .. _" .. " .. ,-.. l· .... ,. ,'/ "", ,,-' ........ ~ . ... t Ii II II. t il~ I Ii;! -~ '. , iii I; I : ,';'? . iI! I I J ·1 <. I .' I / I • • r--------------'-------..... , ------ /1 i:! i'I I b / / ! ! ..' .. . I I . I •• I I I :, "-': z ~ ~ 1-~ ~ i! iji ~ 0 ~ -t 2 s.71It /. I I , I I ~ I .:oI! .-.; ~ • • CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA05-089, SHPL-H, ECF APPLICANT: Terry Defoor, GWI, Inc. PROJECT NAME: Defoor Short Plat DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 140,723 square foot (3.2 acre) site zoned Residential - 8 dwelling units per acre (R-8) into 5 lots and an open space tract (Parcel B). The lots are proposed to range in size from 5,500 square feet to 11,574 square feet. The lots are intended for the eventual development of single-family residences. The subject site contains a Class 3 stream, 2 Class 4 streams, a Class 3 wetland, steep slopes, and high coal mine hazard areas. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: LEAD AGENCY: MITIGATION MEASURES:, 900 Renton Avenue S The City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section 1. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations found in the geotechnical report prepared by Icicle Creek Engineers dated June 10, 2005. 2. 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 Stormwater Management Manual and provide staff with a Construction Mitigation Plan prior to issuance of Construction Permits. This condition shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division. 3. This project shall be subject to the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual for the design of the detention facility, if detention is required per the 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual. ERe Mitigation Measures Page 1 of 1 • • CITY OF RENTON CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 26th day of September, 2006, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner documents. This information was sent to: Name: Terry Defoor Pat Conger Mayor Keolker William Collins Ruth Larson Eric & Karen Bernard Tim Burkhardt Debra Eby Ricci , Jason Walker Brian Beaman " Michael Chen Maryann Reinhart Hugh Mortensen (Signature of Sender): .~ ~ STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) , Representing Owner/Applicant POR POR POR POR POR POR POR POR POR POR POR POR 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 ~la~P.tiI~d purposes mentioned in the instrument. ,~$'f. ';.",~~,,~~ .: ~"'~f,S' H ~,,1. ~~ n :: ' ~J. 1.4... ~,~ ~ Dated:CJ-NLo -0(0 ~ ~ ~ +0 "TJ-~\ ~ for the Stat~ of~ash1ngton ! ~ ~ ~ ~ ., ~~\ ~U.\.'~ j~! , Notary (Print):'-l-..I.!..!..~=----I-'1f:-L'-.L.J,...~~..!.vv\!~A..;;..::..:h"";"" __ '='il' /T"~'k!:"...,C";.:;~:-'-Z.::::\_v~"'~~-~hI!"::=--- My appointment expires: I" ~"\\."..,. .::-"'1,\,\ W" .... , .... "' ........ """", -::t'.., .. ' ~:,~i?.rdjectName: ,'~ Defoor Short Plat '.,,::-.' : ProJect Number: LUA05·089, SHPL·H STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF KING } AFFIDA VIT OF PUBLICATION PUBLIC NOTICE Jody L. 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 September 22, 2006. The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of $96.60. rV£_~ ~ ,.#"'''''''~""," Legal Advertising Representative, King County !c?Grnal,\\\\\'\l i 111,111111 ., Subscribed and sworn to me this 25th day of Sej,tem~);~ 28~ . S:, ~ ~ 1'0 /I~ ",\ • j ~ .' of{\mISs/ '. 'C1 ~.\ '+? .,....... ~~ f ~ _(, 0,),,,),; :.~ C2~ ~! ff"Y") f~:. :.~~' "1 (~.... ~l -'-c:::::......!..----==~.L-~:(,.,..f--:+--j("L...L....L.;.L....L--":...-_:. ~'--... :-:;:'l~ ...... . v Q r -0 III :::: ~ B D Cantelon l ::::: 'Ch :~.: :: ql Notary Public for the State of Washington, Rfsidihg iQ~KentO~~Shingtoit,: _~ ~ ~ ! PO Number: 'h. -:;:. ".'\ '., 10 : J,'::::: I ~.:: .. "" /1 9'-) ~'::::.t '\:~{~~;,;:;~;;;:~,~~.,</ ~,_ • ~ ... ! • ! f t \ ~ \ .. 1. ~~~f ·<::a:"'·""'''':"_·~:~:~':':lji?fr.f'1-t:;' I' NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING 1 II '. RENTON HEARING EXAMINER i " RENTON, WASHINGTON . :l I : A Public Hearing will be held by the, , ' I Renton 'Hearing . Examiner in ,the \ ! Council Chambers on' the seventh < r floor of Renton City ~all, 1055 Sou,th I Grady Way, Renton, W¥hington, on " October. 3, 2006' at 9:00 AM to con- ; sider the following petitions: Defoor Short Plat LUA05-0S9, SHPL-H Location: 900 Renton' Avenue S . 'Description: The applicant is " requesting' Hearing: Examiner . ,approval to subdivide a'140,723 '.square foot (3.2 acre) site zoned Residential-' S dwelling units per . acre (R-S) i!lto 5 lots and an open " . space tract (Parcel B). The lots are propo,sed ,to range in .size from 5,500 square feet to 11,574 square , , feet. The'lots are intended for the I eventuaV development of single-': . family residences. The subject site ' contains a, Class 3 sj;ream, 2, Class . 4 streams, a Class 3. wetland, steep slopes, "and high cqal' mine hazard I areas'. . , " ; , . All' interested persons are invite~ to be present at the Public Hearing to " express their" opinions. Questions . shou,d be. directed to the Heanng Exaininer at 425-430-6515. I . Publication Date:. September 22; ." 2006 ' .1". ,'I 'l Published in the King County JOUrnall _ September 22',2006. #86,1640 '---.J :e • PROJECT NAME: Defoor Short Plat PROJECT NUMBER: LUA05-089, SHPL-H PROJECT DESCRIPTION:. Subdivision of a 140,723 square foot (3.2 acre) lot into 5 lots for single family residences and an Open Space Tract. The subject site is located within the Residential.;. 8 dwelling unit per acre (R-8) zoning designation. The proposed lot sizes range from 7,137 square feet to 10,198 square feet. Access to the proposed lots would be provided via single family residential driveways onto Renton Avenue S. A Class 3 steam, 3 Class 4 streams, a Category 3 wetland, Steep Slopes, and High Coal Mine Hazard areas are located on the project site. PROJECT NAME: Monterey Place II Preliminary Plat PROJECT NUMBER: LUA06-104, PP PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Preliminary Plat approval for the subdivision of an existing 11,459 square foot parcel into two lots located within the Residential - 8 dwelling unit per acre (R-8) zoning designation for the future construction of two new single family residences. The subject property was previously subdivided as a short plat under LUAOO-113 within the past 5 years, therefore the current subdivision request is reviewed as a Preliminary Plat. Proposed Lot 1 would be 5,269 square feet in area and proposed Lot 2 would be 6,143 square feet in area. Access to the proposed lots would be provided directly off of NE 16th Street. No sensitive areas have been identified on the project site. HEX Agenda 10-3-06 PUBLIC HEARING City of Renton Department of Planning / Building / Public Works PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER A. SUMMARY AND PURPOSE OF REQUEST: Public Hearing Date: Project Name: Applicant!Owner Address Contact! Address File Number: Project Description: Project Location: October 3, 2006 Defoor Short Plat Terry Defoor GWC Inc. 24633 NE 133rd Street Duvall, WA 98019 Debra Eby Ricci Ricci Grube Aita, PLLC Attorneys and Counselors at Law 1080 Broadacres Building 1601 Second Avenue Seattle, WA 98101 LUA05-089, SHPL-H, ECF Project Manager: Jill K. Ding, Senior Planner Subdivision of a 140,723 square foot (3.2 acre) lot into 5 lots for single family residences and an Open Space Tract. The subject site is located within the Residential - 8 dwelling unit per acre (R-8) zoning deSignation. The proposed lot sizes range from 7,137 square feet to 10,198 square feet. Access to the proposed lots would be provided via single family residential driveways onto R"enton Avenue S. A Class 3 steam, 3 Class 4 streams, a Category 3 wetland, Steep Slopes, and . High Coal Mine Hazard areas are located on the project site. 900 Renton Avenue S (parcel 0007200196) City of Renton P/BIPW Departme,e DEFOOR SHORT PiA T Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner LUA05-089, SHPL-H, ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE OCTOBER 3, 2006 Page 20f12 B. EXHIBITS: Exhibit 1: Project file ("yellow file") containing the application, reports, staff comments, and other material pertinent to the review of the project. Exhibit 2: Neighborhood Detail Map (dated June 27,2005) Exhibit 3: Preliminary Short Plat Map (dated June 2006) Exhibit 4: Preliminary Landscape Plan (dated April 2005) Exhibit 5: Preliminary Grading and Utility Plan (dated April 2005) Exhibit 6: Tree Cutting 1 Land Clearing Plan (dated April 2005) Exhibit 7: Slope Analysis (dated April 2005) Exhibit 8: Environmental Review Committee Mitigation Measures (dated 6/27/06) Exhibit 9: City's Determination of the Unmapped Streams/Wetland Classification (dated 11/3/05) Exhibit 10: Reconsideration Request/Appeal of Determination of Unmapped Streams (dated 11/17/05) Exhibit 11: City's Reconsideration of Unmapped Stream Determination (dated 12/7105) Exhibit 12: Hearing Examiner's Decision (dated June 8,2006) Exhibit 13: Appeal to City Council of Hearing Examiner's Decision (dated June 22,2006) Exhibit 14: Zoning Map Sheet G4 W % (dated 2/16/06) c. GENERAL INFORMATION: 1. Owner of Record: Terry Defoor GWC Inc. 24633 NE 133rd Street Duvall, WA 98019 2. Zoning Designation: Residential - 8 Dwelling Units per Acre (R-8) 3. Comprehensive Plan Residential Single-Family (RSF) Land Use Designation: 4. Existing Site Use: The site is currently undeveloped. 5. Neighborhood Characteristics: North: Single family residential; zoned R-8 East: Single family residential; zoned R-8 South: Puget Sound Energy Right-of-Way; zoned R-8 West: Single family residential; zoned R-8 6. Access: Renton Avenue S 7. Site Area: 140,723 square feet (3.2 acres) Defoor_HEXRPT.doc City of Renton PIBIPW Departmene DEFOOR SHORT PtA T Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner LUA05-089, SHPL-H, ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE OCTOBER 3, 2006 8. Project Data: Existing Building Area: New Building Area: Total Building Area: area N/A N/A N/A D. HISTORICAUBACKGROUND: Action Annexation Comprehensive Plan Zoning Stream Classification Appeal Land Use File No. N/A N/A N/A N/A comments N/A N/A N/A Ordinance No. 1547 5099 5100 N/A E. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE: 1. Chapter 2 Land Use Districts Section 4-2-020: Purpose and Intent of Zoning Districts Section 4-2-070: Zoning Use Table Section 4-2-110: Residential 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 Section 4-4-060: Grading, Excavation and Mining Regulations Section 4-4-080: Parking, Loading and Driveway Regulations Section 4-4-130: Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Regulations 4. Chapter 6 Streets and ,Utility Standards Section 4-6-060: Street Standards 5. Chapter 7 Subdivision Regulations Page 30f12 Date 6/05/1956 11/01/2004 11/0112004 10/26/2006 Section 4-7-050: General Outline of Subdivision, Short Plat and Lot Line Adjustment Procedures Section 4-7-070: Detailed Procedures for Short Subdivisions Section 4-7-120: Compatibility with Existing Land Use and Plan-General Requirements and Minimum Standards Section 4-7-150: Streets -General Requirements and Minimum Standards. Section 4-7-160: Residential Blocks -General Requirements and Minimum Standards Section 4-7-170:'Residential Lots -General Requirements and Minimum Standards Section 4-7-220: Hillside Subdivisions 6. Chapter 9 Procedures and Review Criteria 7. Chapter 11 Definitions F. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: 1. Land Use Element: Residential Single Family, objectives and policies. 2. Community Design Element: 3. Environmental Element: Defoor_HEXRPT.doc City of Renton P/BIPW Departmea DEFOOR SHORT PLA T PUBLIC HEARING DATE OCTOBER 3, 2006 G. DEPARTMENT ANAL YSIS: 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner LUA05-089, SHPL-H, ECF Page 40f 12 The proposal is to subdivide a parcel totaling 140,723 square feet (3.2 acres) located within the Residential - 8 dwelling units per acre (R-8) zone. The proposal would create 5 lots intended for the development of detached single-family residences. The lots are proposed to range in size from 7,137 square feet to 10,198 square feet. In addition, the applicant has proposed to include 1 open space tract. The subject site slopes from east to west and has an average slope of approximately 26%. The project meets the City's definition of a Hillside Subdivision as the average slopes exceed 20%. The High Landslide Hazard Areas, Erosion Hazard Areas, and Steep Slope areas are located on the western portion of the project site, primarily within the proposed open space tract. The site is currently forested with a mix of deciduous and evergreen trees, shrubs, and emergent vegetation. As proposed approximately 25% of the existing vegetation will be removed during the construction of the proposed plat improvements. Preliminary earthwork quantities are estimated at approximately 7,100 cubic yards. A high coal mine hazard area is located on the western portion of the subject site. The majority of the high coal mine hazard area is proposed to be located within the proposed open space tract. An unmapped wetland and four unmapped streams (streams A, B, C, and drainage 1) are located on the western portion of the subject site within the proposed open space tract. The wetland have been classified as a category 3 wetland,stream A has been classified as a class 4 stream, stream B as been classified as a class 3 stream, stream C has been classified as a class 4 stream, and drainage 1 has been classified as a class 4 stream. A class 3 stream requires a 75- foot buffer and a class 4 stream requires ,a 35-foot buffer. The City's classification of streams B, C, and drainage 1 is currently under appeal to the City Council. A Wetland Study, Stream Assessment, Habitat Study, Watershed Restoration, and Mitigation Plan prepared by Talasea Consultants, Inc. dated August 28, 2006 was submitted with the project application. The report contests the City's classification of streams B, C, and drainage 1, however it also indicates that the site could be developed with 5 residential lots provided averaging of the stream buffers is permitted. The current proposal would reduce the eastern portion of the stream buffer along streams A and B and would replace the reduced buffer on the parcel to the east. In addition the flow within drainage 1 would be relocated to stream A. Access to the proposed lots would be provided via single family residential driveways onto Renton Avenue S. 2. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and SEPA (RCW 43.21 C, 1971 as amended) on June 27,2006 the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) issued a Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M) for the project. The DNS-M included 3 mitigation measures. A 14-day appeal period commenced on July 3,2006 and ended on July 17, 2006. No appeals of the threshold determination were filed. 3. COMPLIANCE WITH ERC MITIGATION MEASURES Based on an analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) issued the following mitigation measures with the Determination of Non- Significance -Mitigated: 1. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations found in the geotechnical report prepared by Icicle Creek Engineers dated June 10, 2005. 2. 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 Defoor _ HEXRPT .doc City of Renton P/BIPW Departme,e DEFOOR SHORT PLAT PUBLIC HEARING DATE OCTOBER 3, 2006 Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner LUA05-089, SHPL-H, ECF Page 50f12 Requirements outlined in Volume \I of the Stormwater Management Manual and provide staff with a Construction Mitigation Plan prior to issuance of Construction Permits. This condition shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division. 3. This project shall be subject to the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual for the design of the detention facility, if detention is required per the 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual. 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 PRELIMINARY PLAT CRITERIA: Approval of a preliminary plat is based upon several factors. The following preliminary plat criteria have been established to assist decision makers in the review of the subdivision: (a) Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan Designation. The subject site is designated Residential Single Family (RSF) on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The objective established by the RSF designation is to protect and enhance single-family neighborhoods. The proposal is consistent with the RSF designation in that it would provide for the future construction of single-family homes. The proposed plat is consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan objectives and policies for Residential Single Family Land Use, Community Design, and Environmental Elements: Land Use Element Objective LU-FF. Encourage re-investment and rehabilitation of existing housing, and development of new residential plats resulting in quality neighborhoods that: 1) Are planned at urban densities and implement Growth Management targets; 2) Promote expansion and use of public transportation; and 3) Make more efficient use of urban services and infrastructure. The project would add 5 residential lots to an existing neighborhood and would result in a net density of 1.67 dwelling units per acre, which is less than the density desired under the Growth Management Act, however the applicant has designed the plat with fewer dwelling units in the effort to preserve sensitive areas. Policy LU-147. Net development densities should fall within a range of 4.0 to B.O dwelling units per net acre in Residential Single Family neighborhoods. The proposal for 5 lots on the subject site would arrive at a net density of 1.67 dwelling units per net acre after the required deductions, which is below the minimum density permitted in the R-8 zone, however the justification for a density below 4.0 dulac is that there are high coal mine hazard areas located on the subject site that are proposed to be preserved within a large open space tract. Policy LU-14B. A minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet should be allowed on in-fill parcels of less than an acre (43,560 sq. ft.) in single-family designations. Allow a reduction in lot size to 4,500 square feet on parcels greater than an acre to create an incentive for aggregation of land. The site is greater than one acre and all lots would be greater than 4,500 sq. ft. Policy LU-149. Lot size should exclude private sidewalks, easements, private road, and driveway easements, except alley easements. A private access easement is proposed to serve Lot 5. The area within the private access tract was not included within the individual lot area. Community DeSign Element Policy CD-16. During land division, all lots should front on streets or parks. Discourage single- tier lots with rear yards backing onto a street. All lots are proposed to front on a Renton Avenue S, which is a public street. Defoor_HEXRPT.doc City of Renton P/B/PW Departmen_ DEFOOR SHORT PLAT PUBLIC HEARING DATE OCTOBER 3, 2006 Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner LUA05-089, SHPL-H, ECF Page 60f12 Objective CD-K: Site plans for new development projects for all uses, including residential subdivisions, should include landscape plans. A conceptual landscape plan was submitted and as part of the preliminary short plat submittal. Two trees are proposed to be located within the front yards of planting strips of each of the lots and a 5-foot landscaped strip is proposed along existing Cedar Avenue S right-of-way. Policy CD-45. Existing mature vegetation and distinctive trees should be retained and protected in developments. The applicant is proposing to remove approximately 25% of all vegetation within the plat. Most of the vegetation retained would be preserved within the proposed open space tract. The proposed open space tracts are also proposed to protect Protected Slope sensitive areas, a High Coal Mine Hazard, a Category 3 wetland and its associated buffer, and three streams and their associated buffers. In addition, two new trees per lot and street frontage landscaping are required to be planted to compensate for the lost vegetation. Policy CD-53. Landscape plans for proposed development projects should include public entryways, street rights-of-way, storm-water detention ponds, and all common areas. A conceptual landscape plan was submitted with the preliminary application and proposes 2 trees in the front yards of each lot as well as a 5-foot landscaped strip along public rights-of-way. Policy CD-55. Maintenance programs should be required for landscaped areas in development projects, including entryways, street rights-of-way, storm-water retention/detention ponds, and common areas. The applicant will be required to maintain all common improvements as part creating a homeowners association or a maintenance agreement. Environmental Element Objective EN-C: Protect and enhance the City's rivers, major and minor creeks and intermittent stream courses. Four streams (streams A, B, C, and drainage 1) flow from east to west across the project site. Streams A, B, and C and their associated buffers are proposed to be located within an open space tract, over which a Native Growth Protection Easement will be required to be recorded. The flow within drainage 1 is proposed to be relocated into stream A. Policy EN-70. Land uses on steep slopes should be designed to prevent property damage and environmental degradation, and to enhance greenbelt and wildlife habitat values by preserving and enhancing existing vegetation to the maximum extent possible. Protected slope areas are located on the western portion of the subject site (within the proposed open space tract). No development is proposed on the protected slope areas. (b) Compliance with the Underlying Zoning Designation. The 3.23-acre site is designated Residential - 8 Dwelling Units per Acre (R-8) on the City of Renton Zoning Map. The proposed development would allow for the future construction of up to 5 new dwelling units and associated plat improvements. Density -The allowed density range in the R-8 zone is a minimum of 4.0 up to a maximum of 8.0 dwelling units per acre (dulac). Net density is calculated after critical areas, public rights-of-way, and private access easement~ are deducted from the gross acreage of the site. After the deduction of the area within the streams, wetland, protected slopes, and proposed access easements (10,219 square feet) from the 140,723 gross square foot site area (140,723 gross square feet -10,219 total deducted area = 130,504 net square feet = 3.0 net acres), the proposal would arrive at a net density of 1.67 dwelling units per acre (5 units I 3.0 acre = 1.67 dulac), which is below the minimum density allowed range permitted in the R-8 zone. The proposed density is due to the presence of High Coal Mine Hazard areas on the subject site. A geotechnical report prepared by Icicle Creek Engineers dated June 10, 2005 provides an analysis of the High Coal Mine Hazard Area located on the subject site and recommended that no building of single family residences occur over the High Coal Mine Hazard Area. Based on the information provided by the applicant a waiver from the minimum density requirements has been granted by the Development Services Director. Lot Dimensions -The minimum lot size permitted in the R-8 zone is 4,500 square feet for parcels greater than 1 acre in area or 5,000 square feet for parcels less than 1 acre in area. The subject Defoor_HEXRPT.doc City of Renton P/B/PW Departmene DEFOOR SHORT PLA T PUBLIC HEARING DATE OCTOBER 3, 2006 Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner LUA05-089, SHPL-H, ECF Page 70f12 site totals 3.23 acres in area; therefore a minimum lots size of 4,500 square feet is required. Pipestems of lots are shall not be included in the lot area. A minimum lot width of 50 feet is required for interior lots and 60 feet for corner lots. Lot depth is required to be a minimum of 65 feet. The Hillside Subdivisions requirements indicate that the City may impose larger lot sizes than permitted under the zoning regulations. Staff has reviewed the proposed lot sizes. The applicant has proposed larger lot sizes than the minimum required in the R-8 zoning standards, in addition the lots are proposed to be located on a portion of the site that does not contain steep slopes; therefore the proposed lot sizes appear adequate. Proposed lot widths range from 48 to 76 feet and lot depths range from 139 feet to 161 feet. The proposed lot widths for Lots 1 and 2 would have lot widths of 48 feet, which is less than the minimum lot width required of 50 feet. Lot 3 is a pipestem lot with a lot width that has a lot width of 60 feet, which exceeds the minimum lot width. It appears that the dimensions of Lots 1, 2, and 3 could be adjusted to provide a minimum lot width of 50 fe.et for each of the propose lots. Staff recommends as a condition of approval that a revised short plat map be submitted to the Development Services Division project manager prior to the approval of the final short plat showing each lot with a minimum lot width of 50 feet. The proposed short plat would create 5 lots with the following lot sizes: Lot Number Lot Size (square feet) 1 7,137 2 7,309 3 7,489 4 10,198 5 9,471 Access Renton Avenue S Renton Avenue S Renton Avenue S Renton Avenue S Renton Avenue S As proposed, all lots appear to be in compliance with the required lot depth and size standards as prescribed in the R-8 zone. In addition, the proposal includes 1 open space tract, which totals 96,919 square feet in area. Staff recommends a condition of approval requiring the establishment of a homeowner's association or maintenance agreement for the development, which would be responsible for any common improvements and the proposed open space tract within the plat prior to final short plat approval. Setbacks -The required setbacks for the R-8 zone are 15 feet in front for the primary structure and 20 feet for the attached garage, 5 feet along interior side yards, 15 feet for the primary structure for side yards along streets (including access easements) and 20 feet for the attached garage for side yards along streets (including access easements), and 20 feet for rear yards. The preliminary plat map indicates the setback lines on each lot. The setbacks will be verified at the time of building permit review, however each of the proposed lots appears to provide adequate area to comply with the required setbacks. Building Standards -The R-8 zone permits one single-family residential structure per lot. Each of the proposed lots would support the construction of one detached unit. Accessory structures are permitted at a maximum number of two per lot at 720 square feet each, or one per lot at 1,000 square feet in size. Building height in the R-8 zone is limited to 2 stories and 30 feet for primary structures and 15 feet for detached accessory structures. Maximum building coverage is limited to 35% of the lot area or 2,500 square feet, whichever is greater, for lots over 5,000 square feet in size. The Defoor _ H EXRPT .doc City of Renton P/BIPW Departme,e DEFOOR SHORT PLA T PUBLIC HEARING DATE OCTOBER 3, 2006 Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner LUA05-089, SHPL-H, ECF Page 80f12 proposal's compliance with each of these building standards will be verified prior to the issuance of building permits for each individual structure. Parking -Each detached dwelling unit is required to provide two off-street parking stalls per unit. The proposed building pads appear to be adequately sized for the provision of the required parking. However, verification of two off-street parking stalls will be necessary at the time of building permit review. (c) Compliance with Subdivision Regulations. Lot Arrangement: Side lot lines are to be at right angles to street lines, and each lot must have access to a public street or road. Access may be by private access easement street per the requirements of the Street Improvement Ordinance. The side lot lines of the proposed lots are at right angles to the Renton Avenue S. All lots would gain access directly to Renton Avenue S, a public roadway. As proposed, lots comply with arrangement and access requirements of the Subdivision Regulations. Lots: The size, shape and orientation of lots shall meet the minimum area and width requirements of the applicable zoning classification and shall be appropriate for the type of development and use contemplated. Each of the proposed lots satisfies the minimum lot area and depth requirements of the R-8 zone. Lots 1 and 2 are proposed with lots widths that would be less than the minimum lot width required. However, it appears that the dimensions of Lots 1, 2, and 3 could be adjusted such that all of the lots would comply with the minimum lot width requirement. When· considering the required setbacks, as well as access points for each lot, the proposed lots appear to have sufficient building area for the development of suitable detached single-family homes. The preliminary plat is classified as a Hillside Subdivision. The Hillside Subdivision Section, RMC 4-7-220, states that lots may be required to be larger than the underlying zoning minimum lot size. All of the lots proposed within the subdivision are proposed to be larger than 4,500 sq. ft. Due to the proposed extensive grading on the site the topography will be substantially altered and the slope of the proposed building pads will be greatly diminished. It appears that the applicant has proposed adequate lot sizes for the subdivision after the consideration of the grading that will occur for the construction of the building pads. Proposed Lots 1 and 2 are rectangular in shape. Lots 3-5 are irregularly shaped lots, however the presence of the streams on the project site and the shape of the original lot prevents these lots from being rectangular shaped. All of the lots are oriented to provide their front yards facing to the east towards Renton Avenue S. Property Corners at Intersections: All lot corners at intersections of dedicated public rights-of-way, except alleys, shall have minimum radius of 15 feet. There are no property corners to be dedicated for right-of-way purposed as part of this plat. (d) Reasonableness of Proposed Boundaries Access and Street Improvements: The subdivision proposes to provide access to the new lots via new residential driveways onto Renton Avenue S. Half street improvements including sidewalks, curb and gutter, paving, storm drainage, street lighting, and street signs are required fronting the site in Renton Avenue S. The proposed short plat is anticipated to generate additional traffic on the City's street system. In order to mitigate transportation impacts, staff recommends a condition of approval be placed on the project requiring a Transportation Mitigation Fee based on $75.00 per net new average daily trip attributed to the project. Each new lot is expected to generate approximately 9.57 new Defoor _ HEXRPT .doc City of Renton P/B/PW Departmen_ DEFOOR SHORT PLA T PUBLIC HEARING DA TE OCTOBER 3, 2006 Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner LUA05-089, SHPL-H, ECF Page 90f12 average weekday trips. The fee for the proposed short plat is estimated at $3,588.75 ($75.00 x 9.57 trips x 5 lots = $3,588.75) and is payable prior to the recording of the short plat. Topography: The topography of the subject site slopes from east to west and has an average slope of approximately 246. The project is classified as a Hillside Subdivision as the average slopes across the site exceed 20%. High Landslide Hazard Areas, Erosion Hazard Areas, Protected Siopes"and Sensitive Slope areas are located within the proposed open space tract. A geotechnical report prepared by Icicle Creek Engineers dated June 1 0, 2005 was submitted with the project application. The report provides recommendations for the development of single family residences on the project site. The Hillside Subdivision Section, RMC 4-7-220, requires that additional information regarding the soils, geology, drainage patterns, and vegetation be submitted with the project application. In addition, detailed grading plans and erosion control plans are also required. As previously stated a geotechnical report was submitted with the project application and provided additional information on the soils, geology, drainage patterns, and vegetation located on the subject site. Preliminary earthwork quantities are estimated at 7,100 cubic yards (100 cubic yards of cut and 7,000 cubic yards of fill). The preliminary grading plans indicate that the eastern portion of the site would be regarded such that the slopes on the project site will be reduced creating adequate areas for the construction of building pads. Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (TESCP) and the use of Best Management Practices would serve to mitigate potential erosion and off-site sedimentation impacts. The project application includes a Construction Mitigation Plan, which is subject to final approval prior to the issuance of construction permits for the project. In addition, the project will be subject to the 2001 DOE manual regarding erosion control, as conditioned by the ERC. A high coal mine hazard area is located on the western portion of the subject site. The high coal mine hazard area is proposed to be located within the open space tract. The geotechnical report submitted by the applicant recommended that no single family residential structures be built within the high coal mine hazard area. The City's Environmental Review Committee imposed a mitigation measure requiring that the applicant comply with all of the recommendations found in the geotechnical report. Four unmapped streams and an unmapped wetland are located within the proposed open space tract. As previously stated in the Project Description/Background section of this report the City's determination of the Classification of three of the streams (Stream B, Stream C, and Drainage 1) is under appeal by the applicant. Stream B has been classified as a Class 3 stream with a 75- foot buffer, and Stream C and Drainage 1 have been classified as Class 4 streams with 35-foot buffers. The wetland (Wetland B) has been classified as a Category 3 wetland with a 25-foot associated buffer and Stream A has been classified as a Class 4 stream with-a 35-foot associated buffer. In an attempt to move forward with the proposed short plat, the applicant has proposed to relocate the flow within Drainage 1 into the channel of Stream A and average the buffers of Stream A and B. The buffer areas of Streams A and B would be reduced down to a minimum of 25 feet along the eastern portion of Stream A where the stream borders Lots 3 and 4 and 37.5 feet along the eastern portion of Stream B where the stream borders Lot 1. The proposed location of the expanded stream buffer areas is off site on the parcel to the west of the project site which was previously reviewed as a preliminary plat under LUA05-093. The City's critical areas regulations require that mitigation for impacts to critical areas or their buffers be located onsite where possible. It appears that there is adequate room onsite to provide the additional stream buffer required while maintaining the proposed buffer reductions. Therefore, staff recommends as a condition of approval that a revised Wetland Study, Stream Assessment, Habitat Study, Watershed Restoration and Mitigation Plan be submitted to the Development Services Division project manager for review and approval prior to the approval of the final short plat. The revised report shall include an onsite buffer averaging plan for the proposed impacts to the buffers of Streams A and B. Defoor_HEXRPT.doc City of Renton PIBIPW Departmee DEFOOR SHORT PLA T PUBLIC HEARING DATE OCTOBER 3, 2006 Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner LUA05-089, SHPL-H, ECF Page 100f12 Wetland B and Streams A, B, and C and the majority of their associated buffer areas would be located within the proposed open space tract. A portion of the buffer area for Stream A would be located within the side yard areas of Lots 3 and 4 and a portion of the buffer area for Stream B would be located within the side yard area of Lot 1. The City's critical area regulations require that critical areas (including protected slopes, wetlands, and Class 2-4 streams) be protected under a Native Growth Protection Easement (NGPE). Therefore, the proposed open space tract and the portions of the stream buffers located within the side yard areas of Lots 1, 3 and 4 shall have a NGPE recorded over them. Staff recommends as a condition of approval that the submitted short plat map be revised to show a Native Growth Protection Easement over the proposed open space tract and the side yard areas of Lots 1, 3, and 4 where the stream buffer extends into the side yards. The Native Growth Protection Easement shall be shall be recorded prior to or concurrent with the· recording of the final short plat map. In addition, staff further recommends as a condition of approval that the Native Growth Protection Easement be delineated with a split rail fence and identified with signage as approved by the Development Services Division Project Manager. A fencing and signage detail shall be submitted to the Development Services Division project manager at the time of Utility Construction Permit for review and approval and that such fencing and signage shall be installed prior to the recording of the final short plat. Relationship to Existing Uses: The subject site is currently undeveloped. The surrounding area includes single-family residences developed under the R-8 zoning deSignations. The proposed lots are compatible with other existing and newly created lots in this area of the City. The proposal is consistent with the intent of the both the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code and would not be out of character with the existing or recent development in the area. Community Assets~ The entire site is forested with a variety of trees, shrubs, and ground cover. As a result of the development of the proposed short plat, approximately 25 percent of the existing vegetation would be removed along the western portion of the project site. To mitigate for the removal of existing mature vegetation and trees the City's landscaping regulations require the installation of landscaping within the public right-of-way. The minimum amount of landscaping required for sites abutting a non-arterial public street is 5 feet provided that if there is additional undeveloped right-of-way in excess of 5 feet, this shall also be landscaped. A determination has been made that if no additional area is available within the public right-of-way due to required improvements, the 5-foot landscaped strip may be located within private property abutting the public right-of-way. The landscaping proposed shall either consist of drought resistant vegetation or shall be irrigated appropriately. In addition, the applicant will be required to plant two ornamental trees, a minimum caliper of 1-1/2 inches (deciduous) or 6 -8 feet in height (conifer), within the 15-foot front yard setback area for the proposed lots or within the proposed planting strip. A landscape plan was submitted with the short plat application indicating that 2 trees would· be planted within the front yards or planting areas of each lot. However, no information was provided regarding the minimum 5-foot landscape strip required along Renton Avenue S. Staff recommends as a condition of approval that a revised conceptual landscape plan be submitted to the Development Services Division project manager prior to the recording of the final short plat showing a minimum 5-foot wide planting strip along Renton Avenue S. A detailed landscape plan shall be submitted at the time of Building Permit Application detailing the location and species of the proposed vegetation. The landscaping shall be installed prior to building occupancy. (e) Availability and Impact on Public Services (Timeliness) Police and Fire: Police and Fire Prevention staff indicate that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development, subject to the condition that the applicant provide Code required improvements and fees. Staff recommends a condition of approval requiring the applicant to pay a Fire Mitigation Fee based on $488.00 per new single-family lot. The fee is Defoor _ HEXRPT .doc City of Renton P/B/PW Departmen_ DEFOOR SHORT PLA T PUBLIC HEARING DATE OCTOBER 3, 2006 Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner LUA05-089, SHPL-H, ECF Page 11 of 12 estimated at $2,440.00 (5 new lots x $488.00 = $2,440.00) and is payable prior to the recording of the final short plat. Recreation: The proposal does not provide on-site recreation areas for future residents of the proposed plat. There are no existing recreational facilities in the immediate vicinity of the subject property and it is anticipated that the proposed development would generate future demand on existing City Parks and recreational facilities and programs. Therefore, staff recommends as a condition of approval that the applicant be required to pay a Parks Mitigation Fee based on $530.76 per each new single family lot. The fee is estimated at $2,653.80 (5 new lots x $530.76 = $2,653.80) and is payable prior to the recording of the final short plat. Schools: The site is located within the boundaries of the Renton School District No. 403. According to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the City of Renton Land Use Element (January 16, 1992), the City of Renton has a student generation factor of 0.44 students per single-family residential dwelling~ Based on the student generation factor, the proposed plat would potentially result in 2 additional students (0.44 x 5 = 2). The schools would include: Tiffany Park Elementary School, Nelsen Middle School, and Renton High School. The school district has indicated that they would be able to handle to additional students coming from the proposed development. Storm Water: The applicant submitted a Drainage Report prepared by Core Design, Inc. dated June 2005. The existing runoff sheet flows west across the subject site and is collected in one of three existing stream channels. The surface water runoff that will be created as a result of the construction of the plat improvements and subsequent single-family residences is proposed to be directed to a series of level spreaders. The report .indicates that detention would not be required. Staff from the City's Plan Review Section reviewed the applicant's storm drainage report and noted that it complied with the requirements of the 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual. As a condition imposed by the City's Environmental Review Committee, this project is required to meet a higher standard for flow control if it is determined upon further review that detention is required. If detention is required under the 1990 KCSWDM, this project is required to comply with the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual. All of the roof downspout systems shall be tightlined. Strip drains shall be required at the end of driveways where the slope exceeds 8%. A Surface Water System Development Charge, based on the current rate of $759.00 per new single-family lot, would be required prior to the issuance of construction permits for the plat. Water and Sanitary Sewer Utilities: There is an 8-inch water main in S. 9th Street and a 4-inch water main in Renton Ave South. Available fire flow in Renton Ave is less than 1,000 gpm. The proposed project is located in the 490 Water Pressure Zone and is outside an Aquifer Protection Zone. Static pressure in the area is approximately 80 psi. Pressure reducing valves will be required to be installed on the domestic water meters. The minimum fire flow required for single-family residences is 1,000 gpm. Hydrants are required within 300 feet of all structures. Existing hydrants to be counted as fire proteCtion will be required to be retrofitted with a 5-inch storz quick disconnect fitting. To provide a minimum of 1,000 gpm to proposed Lots 1-5, the proposed short plat will be required to tie into an existing 8-inch water main located generally at the intersection of S. 9th Street and Renton Avenue South and extend an 8-inch main south in Renton Ave to S. 10th Street. A tie in to the 4-inch in S. 10th will be required. This will provide 1,250 gpm. If the proposed residences exceed 3,600 square feet (including garage area), 1,500 gpm is required. Continuing the extension of an 8-inch main in S.10th Street to the east and tying into the 12-inch main in Grant Ave will provide 2,000 + gpm. New hydrants will be required to be installed as part of the water main extension in Renton Ave S. All short plats shall provide separate water services to each building lot prior to recording of the short plat. Separate permits and .fees for water meters will be required. DefoOf_HEXRPT.doc City of Renton P/B/PW Departmen_ DEFOOR SHORT PLA T PUBLIC HEARING DATE OCTOBER 3, 2006 Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner LUA05-089, SHPL-H, ECF Page 12 of 12 A System Development Charge at the current rate of $1,956 per single-family building lot shall be paid at the time of Utility Construction Permit. There is an existing 8-inch sewer main fronting the site in Renton Ave South. All short plats shall provide separate sewer stubs to each building lot prior to recording of the short plat. Separate permits and fees for side sewers will be required. Dual side sewers are not allowed and minimum slope shall be 2%. A System Development Charge at the current rate of $1,017 per new single-family lot shall be paid at the time of Utility Construction Permit. H. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Defoor Preliminary Short Plat, Project File No. LUA-05-089, SHPL-H, ECF subject to the following conditions: 1. The proposed short plat map shall be revised to show each lot with a minimum lot width of 50 feet. The revised short plat map shall be submitted to the Development Services Division project manager prior to the approval of the final short plat. . 2. A homeowner's association or maintenance agreement shall be created concurrently with the recording of the plat in order to establish maintenance responsibilities for this development. A draft of the document(s), if necessary, shall be submitted to the City of Renton Development Services Division for review and approval by the City Attorney and Property Services section prior to the recording of the short plat. 3. A Transportation Mitigation Fee based on $75.00 per net new average daily trip attributed to the projectshall be paid. prior to the recording of the short plat. Each new lot is expected to generate approximately 9.57 new average weekday trips. The fee for the proposed short plat is estimated at $3,588.75 ($75.00 x 9.57 trips x 5 lots = $3,588.75). 4. A revised Wetland Study, Stream Assessment, Habitat Study, Watershed Restoration and Mitigation Plan shall be submitted to the Development Services Division project manager for review and approval prior to the approval of the final short plat. The revised report shall include an onsite buffer averaging plan for the proposed impacts to the buffers of Streams A and B. 5. A revised short plat map showing a Native Growth Protection Easement over the proposed open space tract and the side yard areas of Lots 1, 3, and 4 where the stream buffer extends into the side yards shall be submitted to the Development Services Division project manager prior to the approval of the final short plat. The Native Growth Protection Easement shall be shall be recorded prior to or concurrent with the recording of the final short plat map. 6. The Native Growth Protection Easement shall be delineated with a split rail fence and identified with signage as approved by the Development Services Division Project Manager. A fencing and signage detail shall be submitted to the Development Services Division project manager at the time of Utility Construction Permit for review and approval and that such fencing and signage shall be installed prior to the recording of the final short plat. 7. A revised conceptual landscape plan shall be submitted to the Development Services Division project manager prior to the recording of the final short plat showing a minimum 5-foot wide planting strip along Renton Avenue S. 8. A Fire Mitigation Fee based on $488.00 per new single-family lot shall be paid prior to the recording of the final short plat. The fee is estimated at $2,440.00 (5 new lots x $488.00 = $2,440.00). 9. A Parks Mitigation Fee based on $530.76 per each new single family lot shall be paid prior to the recording of the final short plat. The fee is estimated at $2,653.80 (5 new lots x $530.76 = $2,653.80). EXPIRATION PERIODS: Preliminary Plats (PP): If the final plat is not filed within five (5) years of the dates of approval, the preliminary plat shall be null and void. Defoor_HEXRPT.doc NEIGrl-l6ORl-lOOD DETAIL MAP DEFOOR PROPERTY SHORT PLAT REt· TON, WASHINGTON Ol:'~ CEstGN tNC.. ec.tNEERING • PL4,,,UNG • 5I,IRYEY1NG CORE: NO. O4139A. JLNE n. 200s I" • 200' 1 l 1 j 1 J 1/ / ./" ,/ ./" ' " -. ../". ...;-J;,/ . ./" ;;.; -', .... , ----. /// / """'::x:· / ./' / / J I ...-!-'" ./ , .-' /' ,/ / "../" , I ,,"-....... SlR[AM'8'~ / __ YIE'I\.N0'A·~tuFRJt) ~I .(".~~..--./.. I: " 'l':"""'~' ~ ....... It-c--f:'""-'" .. :'>1" _." I ,./ -- .... "i . -::»:::::::>.~ \ r' ---t -- -----"-, ).L.2i:::::::;JI» r: --, -..l... . " . 'x:.;"x'· • I / lt1<I. .... _ ("")-------'-\~I l / j I I I I , ~" ' I ~ '''-''. K.._. '~." '~-";". "/ ."'. / / ~ ~ ..... ~ .. ,-/ ............ .' ,.-, -"'. ,/ ~ ) A' ....... , .. , .. ' .. -./" I . __ ~ ~. , .. ' . . I --....... """ ~. . -~ ... ~ __ ..... I , I ~~ '-;.--/--, ~ ,/ ./ ./ ,/ ,/ ,/ ----~TYI.IC ..... DIS_ contu! C;·~·:·::J[IIIS11MG'II(llNf) - - ---SfNlONlO -.wrtR - - ---A\IOlAe IUf'fU ,/ = = *= = =~",l[0H'IIII"'JN:.w -.-t-. -..".(lXlIIA'It conu LJI[ fI.1IOM ~w=Iu"'1XIO owe. NO. p.20U41.11$51',2OII ....... 7111 24833 tE 133FI) aT cwi~iP;;;;;;;'ia;;;;, DWALL, WI. 118018 '"oJO'-O' .;i' ACC<SS ......... ""'SF) 1 .......... ...... COIMY_" ........ ' WAXllllUtilIUtJllNC 1OiH'f AND HUWII[R (6 lTOItQ: WAIGIIUM IUUINC CCMJt.t.CE: DEFOOR SHORT PLAT LAYOUT t2 2 'lORD MO JO " LOTS aooo SF 011 CIltAlDt: .»a: DR eoo SF, 1HCK\O m"""TtII -------~--- ..f. / ~ ....... =::'.:.. · Ii' ---.~ ~ --- I /i ;;f I ~ / / L ',. j ----.....~ -., : ==~ '~. L __ ~_~~------ [~ . -. a 8 ~ PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN DEFOOR SHORT PLA.T G~S,~C-~DfSIGN DUVALL. rASHlNG70N 98tJtB ENGINEElING . 'LAHHING· JU.VEY'HG -S. 101M S1R£ET ! "-1.--...... ~ i '/ / I / z 0 .... > /1 ~ ;u .... ~ "" .... ~ :t: iii > ~ 0 > .... 2 -----.;... ... _ •. _._---------, -;- I ···f~::,." ~ ___ .1 ____ . ~ ~ ~ h' . <.i it: ~ !II '" '" ;!:' , . • <. e .------,--=~.-------,.-~---.. -~.--.-....... ------------.- Ii '" I a / I / ; / I 111II I §!I~J,! ~ J>. ~ ~ ~ --f ~ iji J>. ~ 0 J>. --f 2 ~Ji~ '( H i~ I / III . - '-i'- 'i I: -h is 1~llg I ~~ . a ~I -UI q I lin;!, ~D.~",j':;;;"'~~20D5!iL===1 PREUMINARYTREE CIJT71NG & CLEARING PlAN 2 .. A """",,,D IIC DEFOOR SHORT P. LAT i'" ... ORA..., I.RB 1/ i-." a! ~ ! 1 IO",.JM,... ... 'Ol --- fHOIHEft/NG . ,,'ANNING· SU,VEY/NG " " .:-./. So 101M STREET '" ~~'---"".'-' ,'. __ .. _-------- I § 1>- I l /1 ~ !i1 50! "' -i I I ~ 1: iji / 1U I ;J! 0 I 1>--i / 2 . , I " e CITY OF RENTON tit DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICATION NO{S): LUA05-089, SHPL-H, ECF APPLICANT: Terry Defoor, GWI, Inc. PROJECT NAME: Defoor Short Plat DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 140,723 square foot (3.2 acre) site zoned Residential - 8 dwelling units per acre (R-8) into 5 lots and an open space tract (Parcel B). The lots are proposed to range in size from 5,500 square feet to 11,574 square feet. The lots are intended for the eventual development of single-family residences. The subject site contains a Class 3 stream, 2 Class 4 streams, a Class 3 wetland, steep slopes, and high coal mine hazard areas. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: LEAD AGENCY: MITIGATION MEASURES:, 900 Renton Avenue S The City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section 1. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations found in the geotechnical report prepared by Icicle Creek Engineers dated June 10, 2005. 2. 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 Stormwater Management Manual and provide staff with a Construction Mitigation Plan prior to issuance of Construction Permits. This condition shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division. 3. This project shall be subject to the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual for the design of the detention facility, if detention is required per the 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual. ERe Mitigation Measures Page 1 of 1 ~4~· .It. ..a . ...... o e· .CIT-.O RENTON PlanninglBUildinglPublic Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrat~r . Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor . November 3. 2005 Michael Chen Core Design, Inc. 14711 NE 29th Place, Suite 101 Bellevue~ W A 98007 Subject: Administrative Determination ofUn-;mapped StreamlWetland Classification for Defoor Properties (parcel Nos. 0007200196, 0007200194, and 2023(59085) Dear Mr. Chen: This letter is in response to your request for the classification of 4 un-mapped streams and two unmapped wetlands as identifie4inthe W~tlandStudy, Stream Assessment, Habitat Study, Watershed Restoration, and Mitigation Plan prepared by Talasea . Consultants, mc. dated June 28, 2005 (revised October 3,2005). BACKGROUND . A Wetland Study, Stream Assessment,HabitatStudy, Watershed Restoration, and Mitigation Plan preparedbyTalaseaConsultan~, Inc. dated June 28,2005 was submitted· . to the City of Renton with. the ·preliminary short plat and preliminary plat applications for the Defoor Preliminary Short Plat and the Defoot1?reliminary Phit. The report identified ·3 streams, 2 drainages, and 1 wetland on the subjeCt properties. The report recommended that Streams B and C and Drainages land 2 be classified as Class 5 streamS, which are exempt from the City's critical areas regulations per RMC 4-3-050B.l. Stream A was . recommendedto beclassified as·aClass 4 sti"eam'\\fhich requires a 35~footbuffer and Wetland A was recommended to be a Class J~etI3nd with 25-foot required buffers. The Watershed Company{City's environmental cQ~sultant) conducted a site visit August 25th, 2005 and reviewed the applicant's report Acomment letter from The Waterslred Coni~y dated Septemb(!r 15, 2005 concurred with the applicant's recommended .. classification for Wetland A, .Stream A, and StreamC, however did not concur with the applicant' srecommended chissification for stream B and Drainage 2 and identified a wetland that had not been delineated. TheW~teished Company recOIilInended that . Stream B be classified as a Class 3 stream, that Drainage 2 be identified as an extension of Stream A,a Class 4 stream, and ih,atthe unmapped wetland be classified as a Class 3 wetland. ArevisedWetland Study, Stream Assessment,· Habitat Study, Watershed Restoration, and Mitigation Plan prepare<iby TaIaseaConsultants, fu~.(revised October 3,2(05) was . submitted to the City October5, 2005. The revised'report identified Drainage 2 as an extension of Stream A (a Class 4 stream),· delineated the unmapped wetland and labeled it , ·as Wetland B, and StreamBwas labeled as a Class 3 stream with a 75-foot requrre(i . ~. ---=--':"---'-'-~--'--.-1-O-55-S-o-u-th-G-t-ad-y--'-W.-a-y---R-en-t-on-,-w.-a-sh-'-in--'-gt-o-n-9-8-05-5~---~-R E N TON * .This~con~ 50% ~materiaJ. 30% postconsume~ .... HEADOF THE CURVE eO :: . ". .' . "',. . '. . . . ". buffer. However, Talasea requested a reconsideration of the classificati~n of Streain Bas" .a Clas~ J stream and recommended'that'Stream B be reclassified as' an unregul;lted Class 5 stream. City staff met with Hugh Mortensen of The Watershed Company to discuss the ' .. ' classification of the streams and drainage. Particularly the City'S classification criteria of •• streams (RMC 4-3-050L.l.a) was reviewed: ' Per Section RMC 4.c3-050L.l.c.iii of the City' s critical areas regulations, "Classification . of an unmapped stream or lake is effective upon expiration of the fourteen (14) day appeal period following the AdiIiinjstrator's determination." The Administrator has reviewed the City'S critical areas regulations (RMC 4-3-050), and the Wetland Study, Stream Assessment, Habitat Study, Watershed Restoration, and Mitigation Plan prepared by TaIasea Consultants, Inc and has rendered a decision. . . . FINl>INGS/CONCLUSION 1. The applicant has requested the4et~f.tWnation of the classification of 3 streams, .one drainage, and two we~!~:'·"".J "'."';' . "" . 2.. The applicant submitt~if'W\tiai1&~tudy, Str~~ sessment; Habitat Study, Watershed Restoraq,(jlt,ca,nd MitigatiemP;lan prep , .;y Talasea Consultants, Inc. (revised October 1,f2005}:~ ... ' . > • • ",' "\, ' , 3. The City's A~~trat<?r~ahd en~}ronmentalcti~«llritJthe Watershed . . . Company)have;fevi~v(e,d th~ :We1Lilhll~ttt~" stream. Ass~sment,. Habitat Study, Watershed Res~bragoni~£.r~~l{ion~)l~l!iepak.d qYr:~asea Consultants, Inc. (revisedOctobe,r3'~2oq5) ;mim{tMtt;;t~~CiM'cal ~a'GuI!tions found in RMC . 4-3-050. '. . -:,: -;:",'-,''';, .' < • . ' ~ ~1:~:":':;>~~' :" .;'.'\;.~>:< "J" ~~. i.·;~'·>.}.. "'~'~.' ..:.F £;.' _./ ~ . . -i ' .-/,:'. ~:" . . , DECISION '~t:. r~'<t;· .. ~ ..' ';!', .~~'.. "" ",_.".. ,: .... ~.;~I:: ;' Ai'<:f The City concurs that Wetl~~~ and Rshaltbe,d~sifi¥ ~Category3wetIands, and 'that Stream A shall be classit1&4js a CfaSsA strewn.'Sutrcient information has not been ,.'. .... . "".",., .', ",*".. .' ..... . provided to the City to show th~t Sfre~~~,~H~H!'f,t,~crassifiedasaCl~s 5 Stream, that . '. Stre~ C shall be. classfied as a Class 5 stream, and that Drainage ~l shaILbeclassfied as a ClasS: 5streain~ . . -.. -., The A-dtninistrator deternlined that: 1) Drainage 1 shall be cIassifiedas a Class 4 stream;. 2) Stteam:B shall be classified aSaClass 3 stream; and 3JStream C shalr~ classified as . a Class 4,streain.Theiefore,thedecision has been made notto aceepttheWetland Study, Stream.~ssessment, Habitat Study, Watershed Restoration, and Mitigation Plan prepared by T~~a Consultants, Inc, revised October 3, 2005. RECQNSIDERATION.Within 14 days of the effective date~fthe decision, any party' . may req:uest thai the Administrator reopen a decision. The Adininistratorniay modify his decisidri if material evidence not readily discoverable priortothe OriginaI deCision is '. found or if he finds there was misrepresentation of fact. Afterfeview of the ' .. . . tecoilsideration request, if the Administrator finds insuffi,ci~nteYidence to amend the .' ' ... originiddecision, there will berto further extension of the apj>ealperiod~Any'persOri eO wishing to talce further .action .must file a follIlc-d ap~al within the follow~ngapperu timeframe. . . . . . .. APPEAL. This administrative defision Will become ·fiIial if not appealed in writing to the Hearing Examiner on or before 5:00 pM on November 17,2005. Appeals to the Examiner ate governed by City ofRetlt~mMunicipalCode Section4-8-110 .. Additionalinformation regarding the appeal process maybe obtained from the Renton .. City Clerk'sOffi~e, (425)430-6510: Appeals mtistbefiled-inwriting, together with. the . required $75.00 applicatiohfee, to: HearingExaininer, CityofRenton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055.· . If you have any questions, you may cQiltactJiH Ding, Associate Planner at 425-430-7219~ . c Sincerely, . . \ / .~.d. I ...r I • , !. .. /1 . !v~·(/{ II/, . r ~,:.;;;-.l ,:. . ,):": Neil Watts Developmel1t Services Dir~~~f' cc: eO ~8] ~~~!~!EA DE\ELoPMENl ~CES " CIlY OF RENTON NOV 18 2005 17 November 2005 RE'CEIVED Mr. Neil Watts, Development Services Director City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 CITY OF RENTON NOV 1 7 2005 / :,/0 ~ RECEIVED J)t;., CITY CLERK'S OFFICE h Q.V\d-dQ Ii" ~r e..cL lPy .r a..SD tt v)4i k'er ~ho s+o.+ec1 V~r'Wly +hA.+ -f1u; ,So.. {(.Ju..e.sf fi,'(' j(1ecq,sic:l.e"'~I''''' ~L ,t TAL-931.,. t A-ffl III 1114t tt ~(l.r I ~!J E)CCl..wlI· YI e. r. ~~ e..t·. C,i +y A +-1-0 (/I e.r 1-1 ea.r i Y1 j £;qO •. ndH Q. or Subject: Reference: Defoor Properties (Parcel Nos. 0007200196, 0007200194, and 2023059085) Request for Reconsideration and Appeal (L.UA -0 5 -0 8 9) Dear Mr. Watts: We have reviewed your 3 November 2005 letter addressed to Michael Chen of Core Design in regards to the classifications of four un-mapped streams and two un-mapped wetlands on the Defoor properties. Du'e to the availability of additional information, both enclosed and forthcoming, we request a reconsideration of your determination, and request your examination of the information and historical factors that have effectively created several drainage features on the subject properties. We also request a reconsideration of the decision to allow a Class 5 rating for Stream B, Stream C and Drainage 1 based upon historical evidences suggesting the feature's artificial origin and past precedent set by the City in the previous review and classification of similar features. To preserve our options for a formal appeal, we also request that this notification be filed at this time for this purpose. We understand that there has been some difference of opinion, and subsequent internal discussion and meetings regarding the definition of a Class 5 classification for Stream C and Drainage 1. From communication between Hugh Mortensen (The Watershed Company) and Per Johnson (Talasaea Ecologist) on 25 October 2005, and from your 3 November letter, we understand that the City has declined the guidance of their peer review consultant and is attempting to regulate artificial drainages that have been intentionally created due to the discharge of untreated and undetained stormwater. Furthermore, Jill Ding, of the City of Renton, told us (in a telephone conversation on 25 October 2005) that the City desires to conduct a hearing regarding the Defoor project to clarify the new code for the purpose of defining City policy. If future meetings are scheduled between the City's peer review consultant and staff to discuss the Defoor properties, we would appreciate the opportunity to attend and provide any necessary information or clarification, as this would expedite the coordination and correspondence involved for this project, and associated time and costs for all parties. We wish to continue a dialogue with the City on this issue and avoid a hearing if at all possible, as it is Resource ~ Environmental Planning 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast· Woodinville. Washington 98077 • Bus: (425) 861·7550 • fax: (425) 861.7549 Mr. Neil Watts 17 November 2005 Page 3 existence, of Stream B, Stream C and Drainage 1. We request the decision provided in the 3 November 2005 letter is reconsidered and, if necessary, be addressed in an appeal hearing (barring all other available means in which we can discuss and potentially resolve this issue). Please contact Per Johnson or me at (425) 861-7550 if you have any further questions at this time. Thank you for the consideration of the City in this matter. Sincerely, Jason Walker, RLA, ASLA Senior Project Manager Attachment cc: Michael Chen, Core Design Terry Defoor, Owner Site Area, 1936 Site Area, 1946 Site Area, 1965 '~~l!.'~,~('.""" ... -....... Site Area, 1975 Kec'lkel~-WI~eeller. Mayor December 7, 2005 Jason Walker, RLA, ASLA Talasea Consultants, Inc. 15020 Bear Creek Road NE Woodinville, W A 98077 CIT_OF RENTON PlanninglBuildinglPublicWorks Department Gregg Zlmm~rl1ian .,.E.,Administrator ; , Subject: Reconsideration Req.uestof Administrative Determination of Un-mapped StreamfW etland Classification for Defoor Properties (parcel Nos. 0007200196,0007200194, and 2023059085) . Dear Mr; Walker: '. This letter is' in response to your letter dated November 17, 2005 requesting reconsideration of the classification of 3 un.;.mapped streams (Stream B, Stream C, and Drainage 1) as identified in the .Wetland~Study, Stream Assessment, Habitat Study, Watershed Rest{)ration, and MitigatiOItPlan ;prepared by Talasea Consultaflts, Inc. dat~. JUne 28, 2005 (revised October 3, 2ooS}· lriyoUr letter you indicate that the· creation of the 3 un-mapped streams was the result ofeiosiori~due to point-discharge ofstbfll1Water andshouldbe considered artificial andfegulated~Class 5 streams. RMC tk3-.. 050L.l.a.v defines a Class 5 stream asnon·iegulated waters that "flow within. an . artificially constructed channel where no naturally defined channel had previously . existed." The point discharge of stormwatet onto the subject site does not constitute an . artificially constructed channel thCit would be ClasSified as a Class 5 stream. In your letter you aIsocite a pre~ious, project. within the City, Sunnybrook Preliminary Plat (LUA05.;127, SA-H,PP, ECF), where. the inodification of7 drainage channels Was . permitted. You indicat~ that the previous approval should serve as a precedent for" the streams located on the subject pioperty..Sincelhe review and approval of the . - Sunnybrook Preliminary Plat, subsequent critical area regulations have been adopted, which include a new stream definition and stream claSsification system. ·Therefore, as the current project was submitted under the subsequent regulations, the previous approval of the alteration of 7 drainages would riot be a precedent. . The previous determination of the classification of the streams dated November 3,2005 stands. .' ------------~IO-5-5-S-o-ut-h-G-r~ad-y-W:-a-y--~R-en-t-on-,~W:~a-Sh~i~ng-t-on--9-80-5~5------------·~ * This p<IIlef contains 50"'{' recyded material; 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE · Defoor Reconsidenltion December .1, 2005 . Page 2of2 The,reconsiderationrequyst leiterals,o r¢'iuested: ~ appeaL Th~appealof the detenninationwiII contiriue.· 'You'willbenotifie<1of the date of the appeal-hearing when' the 'Office of the Hearing Exaininer has scheduled it. Please feel free to contact 1ill Ding at (425) 430-7219if you h,ave any questioris. . . . . Sincerely, ~eil Watts DevelopmentSeivices DireCtor. Cc: OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON June 8,2006 REPORT ANDmEGI-SWN-~---------~~-------- APPELLANT PUBLIC HEARING: Jason Walker Talasea 15020 Bear Creek Road NE Woodinville, WA 98077 Representing: Terry DeFoor, Appellant Debra Eby Ricci 1601 2nd Avenue. Ste. 1080 Seattle, W A 98101 Counsel for: Terry DeFoor, Appellant Zanetta Fontes City of Renton, Assistant City Attorney Jill Ding, Development Services Hugh Mortensen, Watershed Company Defoor Short Plat Appeal File No.: LUA 05-089, SHPL-H After reviewing the Appellant's written requests for a hearing and examining available information on file, the Exaininer conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The foOowing minutes are a summary of the May 2, 2006 hearing. The legal record is recorded on CD. The hearing opened on Tuesday, May 2, 2006, at 9:02 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the _ Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. Parties present: Zanetta Fontes, Assistant City Attorney Jill Ding, Development Services Hugh Mortensen, Watershed Company Debra Eby Ricci Attorney at Law 1601 2nd Avenue.Ste. 1080 Seattle, WA98101 Jason Walker Talasea 15050 Bear Creek Road NE Woodinville, W A 98077 Defoor Appeal <> e File No.: LUA-05-089, SHPL-H June 8, 2006 Page 2 The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No.1: Yellow file containing correspondence Exhibit No.2: Stapled packed dated May 1,2006 asking for the appeal, request to Mr. Watts and his response and the correspondence setting up the appeal hearing. Exhibit No.3: Talasea Letter dated November 17, Exhibit No.4: Icicle Creek Letter dated March 24, 2005 Requesting Reconsideration 2006 signed by Brian R. Beaman Exhibit No.5: GeoTechEngineers Letter dated May Exhibit No.6: More Defined Original Page 5 of 1,2006 Exhibit 2. Exhibit No.7: Large Map Showing Topography of ExhibitNo.8: Renton Coal Mine Map with Site Underground Features Exhibit No~ 9: Copy of Aerial Photograph dated 1936 Exhibit No. 10: Actual Aerial Photograph of Exhibit 9 Exhibit No. 11: . Drawing by Maryann Reinhart of a Cross Section of Stream B, West of Big Leaf Maple. The various parties introduced themselves and the parties they were representing. The Examiner stated that he had received a packet this morning and has not had an opportunity to review the information. A short break was taken so Ms. Ricci-could look over the yellow file. Jason Walker briefly described the packet presented this morning and the information contained within. The first 15 items were plans and photographs which will be discussed in detail later, the second stapled item was the reconsideration request that is part of the yellow file, the third and fourth stapled,items were letters from the consultants that will be testifying today. The site is located on the eastern side ofl-405, the-northeast comer is located at 9th Street and Renton Avenue S. - The site is a short plat adjacent to the preliminary plat of the same name. This site has two identified streams, Stream B to the north and Stream A and Drainage 1 are to the south and in the same corridor but separate channels, Drainage 1 is just south of StreamA. Offsite to the west is another drainage, Stream C and two wetlands to the west, Wetland A is offsite and Wetland B is onsite and associated with Stream B. This request was to address the Renton Municipal Code under the description of Class 5 Stream. They believe that this stream was ofman made origin. A Class 5 Stream is defined as a flow within an artificially constructed channel where no naturally defined channel had previously existed. They requested that Stream B be considered as a Class 5 and not a Class 3 stream as the City had rated this stream. Stream B originates from a 12-inch concrete pipe adjacent to Renton Avenue S. The upper basin of Stream B . th . conveys stomi water from Jones Avenue along 9 Street. There appear to be no detention or treatment structures for this runoff given that it was constructed prior tQ water quality standards. There are also some Defoor Appeal o e File No.: LUA-05-089, SHPL-H June 8, 2006 Page 3 catch basins along lOth Avenue South and a portion of Renton Avenue drains down towards Stream A. Stream C, off the southern portion of Cedar Avenue is also fed by stormwater runoff and is conveyed by the drainage channel. A photograph ofa I2-inch concrete pipe adjacent to Renton Avenue and the source point of Stream B hydrology were presented. Stream B is comprised of two channels in this eastern portion of the drainage adjacent to Renton Avenue S. These channels are incised features that are eroded and form a confluence into a single channel farther west. Vegetation is primarily alder with some black cottonwood and Big Leaf Maple. The northern channel of Stream B is incised to a depth of 6-feet and flows under the root mass of a Big Leaf Maple. There is a fair amount of erosion occurring in that drainage channel. At the northern end of Stream B the Big Leaf Maple is at the confluence, the eroded channel is beyond the confluence to the western side as it leaves the site. The remainder of Stream B is incised and eroded until it outfalls in a wetland area, the offsite wetland is the location of a historic mining entrance. All the eroded material is dispersed in this area. Stream B joins with Streain C at this point, with a similar drainage feature coming off of Cedar Avenue and then leaves the site at the same location. Stream A is in the southern portion of the site and has more natural characteristics. The Examiner stated that he was reluctant to get into Stream A, it may be different or exhibit characteristics that . make it more natural, however, this hearing is dealing with Stream B and it's characteristics, it doesn't matter how it contrasts with another stream. He did decide to allow the testimony at this time. Ms. Ricci stated that they had experts present that can speak to the comparative differences between the two streams. Stream B is not a naturally occurring stream, it is the result of high-pressure storm water flowing down from the early development of the City of Renton over the last few years. Stream A is a naturally occurring stream that existed as a process over time. Mr. Walker continued his testimony that Stream B is in a location where a previously naturally occurring . channel did not exist prior to the intentional discharge of undetained stormwater. The intentional release of stormwater on a highly erodable surface is basically the result of human intervention and that these features are artificially constructed. There were more photographs of the Stream and it's rounded side slopes. Upon cross-examination by Ms. Fontes. Mr. Walker stated that earlier he mentioned an adjacent site, and that site is to the west, under the same ownership and was approved earlier. He did believe that the maple tree was 60-80 years old, the core was rotten and so it was difficult to be sure of the exact age~ There are a number of Big Leaf Maple trees on the site, but this is the only one directly in the stream channel. . All photographs were taken on Wednesday, April 26, 2006. All measurements for the conceptual drawings were taken at the same time as the photographs. Diagram #4 of Exhibit 2 is a conceptual diagram of the two channels, the drawing is approximately to scale. The land between the channels is relatively flat with some undulation. The two channels are approximately 3- feet in depth and I8-inches to 2-feet wide. He didn't know if there was any ground water in thes,e channels. Stream B deposits into Wetland A that is on the adjoining parcel to the west (the Defoor Preliminary Plat) and Stream C skirts the perimeter, it does not enter the wetland. Stream A and the confluence of Stream B and C join another tributary south of the site known as Rolling Hills Creek. Previously in history there has been some activity on the site, there bas been a lot of earth moved because of the previous coal mine activities, some of that is still in evidence today. As far as ditching the channels, they are characteristic· of ditches, but have been formed by erosive flows fromstormwater. Defoor Appeal-" e File No.: LUA-05-089, SHPL-H June 8, 2006 Page 4 Upon questioning by Ms. Ricci, Mr. Walker stated that Big Leaf Maples are not known to grow directly within a channel of a stream unless that stream would have changed course. This tree is a very mature tree, his opinion is that the tree pre-dates the existence of those channels. The roots are being undermined by the water . . Brian Beaman, Icicle Creek Engineers, 230 NE Juniper Street, Ste., 101, Issaquah, WA 98027 stated that he is a principal engineer and hydrologist and that he was asked to review how this stream was formed. They excavated test pits across the site and drilled deep borings into to the coalmines. They are aware that the site, including Stream A and Stream B, is underlain by about 5-6 feetofweathered bedrock, below that is the hard bedrock itself. It is important to compare the whole site, not just the Stream B corridor because the rest of the site is an example of what should happen should waterflow across the ground surface. Stream A to the south has a more natural layer including smooth slopes that lead down to a channel with good topographic relief, there are other swales across the property with similar features of Stream B, they start out fairly flat and then there is somewhat of a broad swale that occurs but the other swales are dry. It is importantto understand that Stream B is being fed from the culvert, that is the uphill side, then down from there towards Wetland A. There is a natural process that creates swales across this slope but it may have been redirected and instead of sheet flowing it created the swales, but with the construction of Renton Avenue, the water has not been redirected. The topography on page 5 of Exhibit 2 is probably aerial, it is therefore quite generalized, there are no other swale like features to the north where StreamB runs. Exhibit 7 shows field topography of the upper portion of Stream B, if the stream contours were removed and the erosion features were taken out and the contours brought straight across, it would be a fairly level from the street for about 125-feet or so. As you go further down the channel it does start to develop that swale-like appearance. Looking at the adjacent property to the west, there are other dry swale features across that site. (On Exhibit 7 the dry swales were highlighted in blue). Once the glaciers retreated from this area, the landscape was more than likely barren, the climate was rainier and wetter and certainly a lot of features formed during that time before vegetation took place. 1bat is most likely when these swales formed. They have a water shape feature but are dry. The site has a long history of coal mine development dating to the late 1800's, this portion of the site was not impacted by the mining, the area just to the west of it was. The original main entry to the Renton Coal Mine was located almost where Wetland A is located, and that would have involved roads being built in this area, there was an open mine shaft into the ground at about an 11 degree angle below horizontal. It would not have made much sense to put their mine entry where water surface was going to flow. Some of the historical coal mine maps do show surface topography. The main tributary, Rolling Hills Creek, was shown on the map, there was no stream coming down across the area where Stream B is located today. This map does not show Stream AorB. They also looked at a 1936 aerial photograph of the area. Cedar Avenue and Renton Avenue were identified. The mines closed in the late 20's and this aerial is probably within 5-10 years after the Renton mine closed permanently. He pointed out the Stream A corridor on the photograph, which extends beyond the property to the east. Looking at the Stream B area, there is no topographic or vegetation pattern that would show an additional stream. The watershed for Stream A is visible with a channel like feature that extends off the property. Upon questioning byMs. Ricci, Mr. Beaman stated that going back during the active mining days, it is likely that the culvert did not exist so there was no water coming down the slope into the area of the main mine operation for the slope. After the mine closed, once water was introduced to the slope area, it found the path of least resistance, created these incised channels and found its way to the old mine entry which was probably Defoor Appeal File No.: LUA-05-089, SHPL-H June 8, 2006 PageS somewhat of a low spot. The grading of the stream transitions from a steep slope to a fairly flat area so a lot of depositions occurred and has filled in that area with eroded sediment and created that wet area. On questioning by Ms. Fontes. Mr. Beaman stated that storm water versus water hitting impervious surfaces and making their way into a storm water system would mean that less water would be getting into the ground. On Exhibit 7, he redefined what affect the glacial flows had on the land today. Not all naturally occurring streams have identical characteristics is a fairly general statement, there are certain characteristics which, comparing the Grand·Canyon to the Duwamish they are both naturally occurring streams and they both have different characteristics. Miners woulq have been able to redirect Stream B, if it had been there because it was a small stream. Stream B flows to Wetland A today, but there is no way to know if Stream B was there in 1936 or ifit was ifit outfIowed there or somewhere else. The site evaluation and seeing the character of the Stream B corridor and the 1936 aerial photograph show that there most likely was no stream there prior to the installation of the culvert on Renton Avenue South. If a lot of water were pushed down the steep slopes an incised channel vertically sided similar to what is seen in the field today would occur. This would be considered man made because the water is introduced by something that man has done, the water creates the ditch, but the water is directed to that area by man's activities. Maryann Reinhart, GeoEngineers, 8410 154tb Ave NE, Redmond, WA 98052 stated that she is a fluvial geomorphologist and her expertise is in the area of evaluating land forms, their development and particularly so the characteristics of streams from both small creeks all the way to large river systems. She has additional expertise in the area of sediment transport in fluvial ~ystems; including erosion and deposition. She was aSked by TaIasea Consultants to look at the two streams of interest on the Defoor property, Stream A and Stream B. She did go the property on April 26, 2006. Landforms in the Puget Sound ~ea are basically developed as a result of glaciation of continental ice masses that receded from this area somewhere between 10,000 and 13,000 years ago. There were drainage patterns that were left by the receding glaciers and in exchange for that there is a good bit of melt water that was coming from the melting ice. The process of the grinding, advance and recession of the glaciers, as well as the runoff of their melt waters developed much of the landforms and topography here in Puget Sound. In this particular area, some of the drainage swales that are glacially derived played a large roll in the development of the area. One of the key characteristics that seems to be missing from the story is the development of drainage basins. Drainage basin is synonymous with the term of watershed. Watershed is a little more informative of what happens in a natural drainage basin. Water falling from the sky as precipitation or snow runs off of the surface of a watershed and coalesces in a channel through which it then is conveyed to a receiving body, in Western Washington it is either Lake Washington or Puget Sound. The distinction here is important with respect to the origin of Streams A and B on the property. Stream A receives water from upgradient of Renton Avenue South. The watershed extends upstream of Renton Avenue South, that water historically collected off the ground surface of the watershed and was delivered to the main stem channel and then moves down slope. Watersheds tend to deliver water to the receiving channels, those channels, over a period of time, have an opportunity to adjust to the discharge that ends up in that channel as a . result of the surface water runoff. There is a definite relationship between the dimensions of the channel that receives water from the watershed and the size of the watershed. Several things can alter the shape and size of the channel, the geologic -materials that produce the soils, the gradient of the channel from upstream to downstream, and the climate. In Puget Sound streams there is a general relationship that is typically used with· Defoor Appeal . ·e File No.: LUA-05-089, SHPL-H June 8, 2006 Page 6 'e regard to the dimensions of the stream that has had an opportunity to evolve and adjust to all of the conditions that prevail over the period of that watershed. The channel will range about three times wider than it is deep. The Examiner stated that he would have to decide on the Sub A defmition of flow within an artificially constructed channel where no naturally defmed· channel has previously existed. What does artificially constructed actually mean. The fact that it is there does not mean that the channel was artificially constructed, no one was out there ditching it with a shovel or backhoe to create it. It may have fonned due to some alteration . of the flow upstream, with or without a culvert, the road may have taken a dip and risen something like a wash. . . Ms. Reinhart stated that artificially created could mean that you go in with a backhoe and create a channel where formally there was none. It is very difficult to draw a line between a ditch that is cleared out by a backhoe and an incised gully that is created by the discharge of energized water or just water flowing down the slope where previously there was not a natural drainage pattern within the watershed. In Stream A there is an incised bottom channel showing that probably more water was added recently or more abruptly, maybe caused by urbanization patterns upstream. In the case of Stream B it is a deeply incised channel, six feet deep by two feet wide. The sidewalls are very vertical. It is a very unnatural fonn for a channel in this environment, meaning the soils, gradient, and the climate does not favor development of an incised gully. From a fluvial geomorphic position Stream B is actually a gully. Based on her observations in the field, water does not flow off the sides of the gully and ifleft alone the sidewalls would not lay back to an angle of repose with flowing water. She was surprised at her visit to the site, she was looking to the bottom swale that is defined as a dip in the road, that is Stream A, StreamB is located up on the right limb of the Stream Aswale, it is at the top, it is a very unusual place for a stream to develop. The Stream B channel does not angle into the Stream A corridor, it makesits own path directly down stream along the fall line. This is not a typical pattern seen in any drainage basin in this area. The channel is getting its water fed to it by the culvert, it is not receiving surface water runoff from the area on either side of the channel, the only water that stream is conveying is water that is fed to it directly from the culvert. In terms of a channel that forms naturally in a watershed or small sub-basin, Stream B does not fit with what is typically seen in the Puget Sound area. If the discharge from the culvert was left to run the way it does now, it is possible that continued incision could be seen, there is bedrock that is seen in the base of the channel which is slightly more erosion resistant than the weathered material, that may represent a bed control feature. The erosion may take a little longer. The characteristics of the sidewalls of the channel are either vertical or concave and the channel is still atteIllpting to adjust to the discharge that is being conveyed by the channel. If it is not allowed to incise further it may broaden sli~tly, but there will continue to be very unstable sidewalls. This type of channel configUration is very consistent with similar channels that have fonned in the direct response to stonnwater runoff directed to an area that has not previously seen surface water runoff fonn a channel. Stream B is truly a gully, which is defined as a straight walled deep channel that is much deeper than it is wide and is typically associated with unmitigated runoff. Gullies are natural, but gullies that develop into streams generally will adjust to gradients, soil types, baSin sizes which help the channel to become more stable. A gully is very unstable by definition, the sidewalls can cave in, it will incise, it is not predictable in the fonn that it will take in terms of the depth and the width of the channel. The gully that matures into a well adjusted conveyance channel of natural waters, the sidewalls will typically, in these soils, lay back to near the angle of repoSe, they will become stabilized with vegetation. Just because a gully is natural, it does not mean that it should be in that particular location. Defoor Appeal File No.: LUA-05-089, SHPL-H June 8, 2006 Page 7 An unstable gully will typically have a flat floor and will be wider at the base than it is at the top, which means that from a developmental perspective the water began to coalesce with the inception of the channel and then rapidly, in adjustment to the discharge, it begins to incise and cut down. This channel has probably been developing on the order of decades, as opposed to Stream A that has been developing and adjusting to its conditions for probably thousands of years. The Examiner asked questions regarding how the stream could have started, rivers get their start somewhere and if everyone culverted or filled them there might not be a Columbia River or Cedar River today. Somehow this channel was formed, was it natural or not natural. There was much discussion as to how water courses across this land and how streams are formed and how water has a tendency to flow downstream and what kind of a course might be formed to get the water from point A to point B. The conditions do not seem to be present to generate another channel that have the dimensions and character of Stream B given the watershed area that was discussed. . Upon questioning by Ms. Ricci. Ms. Reinhart stated that in a couple of applications, she was familiar with the term hydraulic sluicing and that it is a known form of constructing channels. Hydraulic sluicing is used in a number of different applications, one the direction of discharge from a hose intending to create a depression or channel. If the water source were cut off, there most likely would not be water in that channel and vegetation would eventually take over. Ms. Fontes objected to the question. The Examiner stated that the culvert either could have created the channel or could exacerbate the creation of the channel, it would have a sluicing effect. Ms. Reinhart stated that was correct. More discussion continued on sheetflow and natural obstacles on the slope and the affect that would have had on the channel. If the culvert alone did not cause this channel, it might have still been created in this location from any number of reasons. It seems to be doing quite well now that it is there, it does not seem to want to go towards Stream A. Stream B now seems to have a life of its own. If water were merely flowing over the surfaces as surface runoff without the influence of the discharge coming from the culvert, you would have surface water that would make its way down slope by some preferred pathway. It doesn't become a big deal until the discharge is increased over and above what is being generated by the natural surface water runoff from precipitation in that area. The Big Leaf Maple did not grow in the channel, it has been undermined by what is presently the channel. Surface water runoff from the slope from normal precipitation would not have the momentum and energy to cause that type of erosion. A much larger source of discharge with a much higher level of energy would be needed to create that channel. Upon questioning by Ms. Fontes. Ms. Reinhart stated that her opinion regarding the source of the water in the culvert is coming from the urban development and the stormwater runoff from roofs, driveways, and paved areas. A portion of the runoff could be from ground water. She did not know if there were any naturally occurring springs in the area. A drainage channel is either created or happens as a result of an action, urban runoff that is directed to an existing channel, which is attempting to adjust to the increase in runoff from the urban development. Sometimes water channels will move and take different-courses, that is part of the adjustment of channels. It is her opinion that Stream A began because of a glacier. There appears to be 200 feet between Stream A and Stream B. Channels can be formed by the discharge of ground water. Defoor Appeal File No.: LUA-05-089, SHPL-H June 8, 2006 Page 8 Ms. Ricci asked further questions of Ms. Reinhart, who stated that there was no indication on the 1936 aerial photo that Stream B existed, and so it mostly likely is on the order of decades old. That is a very recent time frame. There is some point in time in which it could be said that the stream was created decades ago. With respect to the two streams, it is necessary to look at the information provided by the two streams and the environment and what is known about the natural drainage systems and say that it would be unusual at the very best for a channel with these dimensions, that is being very much deeper than it is wide, to be the same age as Stream A, this is a very youthful stream. If you cutoff the water, the stream would go dry. A stream must be able to feed itself with water and this one cannot It would be very hard to cut off the water to Stream A, it is being served by the watershed. If you cut off the water coming from upslope of Renton Avenue South you could create a small dam and -it would basically change the hydrology of the stream, it will still get some runoff from the sidewalls downstream, it will not be the stream that it is today. Lunch Break: 12:47 pm Reconvened: 2: 15 pm Pat Conger, 1301 South 9th Street, Renton, WA 98055 stated that she lives on the SE comer of 9th Street and -Renton Avenue South directly across the street from this parcel. She is directly across the street from the culvert that has been discussed. There is water in the culvert year round, even when there has been no rain. She has lived in this location for the past 12 years. -Upon questioning by Ms. Ricci. Ms. Conger stated that the people do water their lawns, wash their cars and other outside things around their homes. Some water is getting into the system all the time throughout the year. She can hear the sound of the water and sometimes there is more water than at other times. Brian Beaman stated that he is a professional engineer with Civil as a specialty. He routinely looks at plats and short plats, single-family residences, and road; projects for discharge of storm water from street drainages. They do not assess the piping, but do assess the outfall and what that outfall might do where it crosses natural ground ,surfaces or on re-entering streams. He routinely is called on to locate culverts under similar conditions to what is on this site. Based on his knowledge of the soil conditions on this site, with a culvert outflow at that location, he would expect that water would sluice out a.ditch following the fall line of the slope. It is not necessary to dig out the trench, the water just creates its own pathway. Hugh Mortensen, Watershed Company, 1410 Market Street, Kirkland, WA 98033 stated that he is an ecologist with over eleven years doing stream and wetland reconnaissance and delineation, he also is an on-call consultant to the City of Renton to review development proposals that come before the planning department. City of Renton, Kirkland, Shoreline, Monroe, Sammamish and Issaquah have called upon him to check classifications of streams. He did the classification of the streams on the Defoor property. On his inspection, he thought that Stream B was a Class 3, he never believed that it was a Class 5 stream. He spoke with Neil Watts regarding the descriptions of various classes of streams in the City of Renton, they _ further discussed artificially constructed streams and the fact that it had to be where a channel did not previously exist. Regarding Stream C, to the west and appears to start at the comer of the subject property and the adjoining parcel, his initial classification was that it was a Class 5. After talking with Mr. Watts he looked at the defmitions more closely and he saw the words "artificially constructed" channel, and after reviewing the elements, he changed his classification to a Class 4. Defoor Appeal o e File No.: LUA-05-089, SHPL-H June 8,2006 Page 9 He always considered Stream B as a Class 3 stream. In his opinion, this is not a Class 5 stream because he has observed it flowing in late August, since August is the month with the least amount of rainfall in this region, the end of August is1he most appropriate time to be looking at a stream to see if it is perennial or not. He checked the rainfall record for the preceding month and it showed to have had little to no rainfall for the 25 days prior to his site visit. When people water their lawns the water sometimes goes into both the stormwater pond and the ground water. The flow in the stream seemed to be more than what could be caused by lawn watering and car washing. Looking at the 1936 aerial photo, there was no retention pond or stormwater pond related to this system in. Just not seeing a stream does not mean that it is not there. If the stream is supported by ground water and has a very low flow, the channel could be in the neighborhood of 6-inches wide and it would not be seen on this scale of photograph. Without a detention pond or stormwater pond storage, water collects on impervious surfaces and runs off while it is raining and for a short time following that storm event it continues to run off. In August, the water that was in Stream B, he believed it to be ground water. Looking at Exhibit 7, in the NEcomer of the subject site there are dashed buffer lines around Wetland B, there appears to be some evidence of a broader swale formation and to a lesser extent it represents the same swale formation where Stream A runs. Rainfall in the PugetSound area falIson the ground and in areas where it can infiltrate, natural areas and non- paved areas, it percolates into the ground and becomes an enormous detention pond, it stores water, the ground is porous, it can store large or small amounts, that water is released down gradient and sometimes at great distances from where the water actually fell. Water seepage is characterized by a very steady metered flow over long periods of time. Water channels can move . . The likelihood of a channel forming as a result of water discharging at any point along the gradient upstream is highly plausible. The distance between Stream A and Stream B is 200 feet measured at the point where the culvert is shown on the map . . Upon questioning by Ms. Ricci. Mr. Mortensen ·stated that he has a broad background in studying natural resources. He has a degree in Ecology from Evergreen State College, but no degree in Geology or Civil Engineering. He has been a consultant to the City of Renton for approximately 2 years. He works with geomorphologists at his finn as well as stream biologists and engineers and has been involved in various aspects with designing streams and stream channels. Ms. Ricci asked and received conftrmation to his previous testimony today. He did not take any readings from the culvert or as to the water flow from the culvert. He confirmed that his classification of this stream was based on his one visit to the site in August 2005. Although there was ground water naturally occurring in this area, it is not causing the majority of water flow through the culvert. Stormwater is the majority of the water flowing through that culvert, stormwater that is collected up stream of the culvert. He was certain that stormwater has affected this channel. Referencing Exhibit 7, he stated that on this map he sees a smaller swale formation compared to Stream A. He does not necessarily believe that the stream cut that, but that that is an area where the stream channel would ordinarily flow. He did not see any evidence of ground water interceptions in the channel of Stream B and that the channel did not seem to be picking up ground water further down the hill. The ground water situation is that Defoor Appeal" :' e File No.: LUA-05-089, SHPL-H June 8, 2006 , Page 10 the stonnwater system is picking up ground water above the culvert and then shooting it down the hill. The ground water at one point in time did create a small channel subsequent to that and this erosive force of the stonnwater has deepened the existing channel and down cut it. Neil Watts, Development Services Director, City of Renton stated that he often is asked to interpret the language of the code and in particular as this case relates to stream classifications. An artificially constructed channel is a channel that has been created as a ditch, typically that would be something like a roadside ditch. It is something that is entirely manmade. Sluicing could be interpreted as a process of artificially creating a ditch. Mr. Watts stated that he is a licensed Civil Engineer, with a degree from Seattle University. He has been involved in land use aspects and land use reviews with Seattle and Renton for over 20 years. He has reviewed this project and has visited the site half a dozen times summer of 2005. Regarding the stonn system located on Renton Avenue South and the culvert at that location, the water going through that system, at some point created the stream that it now resides in. There has been a watercourse coming down the hill for a very long time, it has been altered by different influences by man, building yards, ditches, culverts, and stonn systems. It is not an entirely natural system any longer. It appears that Stream A and B are far enough apart and that they are defmed enough channels that this has been going on to some degree before the roads were built. The underground stonn system on 9th Street is pure speculation as to where and how that water ran prior to being constructed. Upon questioning by Ms. Ricci. Mr. Watts stated that he had not reviewed the extent of the area of the collection system on 9th Street nor did he have any sense of the volume that comes through that culvert onto the Defoor property. If.the culvert were closed off, it could be expected that there would be some flooding on the other side of the street. The source of the stream is actually the headwaters that are much further upstream. If the drainage course were closed off, the water would cease to flow. Stream B would cease to exist unless it was being fed by ground water sources below that point of closure. All the water that flows through the pipe dumps onto the Defoor property and created the stream channel. They have been unable to find any records or civil engineering records of what was there when the culvert was built. He does not know if there has always been a drainage channel in this exact specific location. He also had no infonnation of a previously existing channel in that exact location. The hill has not gone away and there has always been water running down the hill in some fashion and at some point the water has been directed into a man made system. The water now moves through a man made system. He is charged with detennining the language of the code that consultants to the City draft. He is familiar with the tenn ''hydraulic sluicing" which is an attempt to make a ditch or channel by using water from a stream or a fire hose. If a culvert was installed and water was diverted through it, you would get a very steep banked erosive channel for a period of time, as the decades go by it would start to become a more naturally appearing slope, the slopes would start to become less steep, vegetation would set in and after a period of time it would look and function as a natural stream channel. With steep slopes the initial beginning would be to incise the channel. Ruth Larson, 714 High Avenue S, Renton, WA 98055 stated that on Exhibit 5, page 2 she owns the 3nl house down from South 7th Street on High Avenue South and has ljved there'since 1963. She did not know when the stonnwater system an:d culvert were installed. They have torn up High Avenue South three times since she has lived there, but she doesn'~know what they were doing. Defoor Appeal File No.: LUA-OS-089, SHPL-H June 8, 2006 Page 11 eO Uphill from the Renton Avenue South location there are two springs that she has seen, one is located on the SE comer of High Avenue South and South 9th Street and the second one is located on the comer of South 9th Street' and Grant Avenue South. Along High Avenue South her house is the first one that.has a basement, none of the other homes were allowed to have a basement when they were built because of the water table. She has never seen the people living south of her property ever water their lawns, except for when the lawn was first planted. Brian Beaman stated that he has gone to the site approximately 15 times to do test pits, drilling and general reconnaissance, some of that for coal mine research. They have issued reports to Defoor and those most likely have been submitted to the City. He has done detail studies of the site. The road embankment is creating the contours across the site and because Renton Avenue requires fill on the downhill side, there has been a modification of the contour and likely the house development added fill as well. The culvert didn't extend out far enough so they had to pull the embankment back in to meet the culvert so that it would not get covered. The channel like contouring feature has been created in his opinion. The springs that Ms. Larson spoke of would most likely feed into Stream A as seen in the 1936 aerial photo. Wetland B is 196 square feet and the dotted line around the wetland is the buffer. Ms. Ricci gave her closing statement wherein she recapped the testimony heard today and stated that it is their firm belief that a Class 5 classification is much more consistent with the nature of conditions of this particular set of water features. Ms. Fontes gave her closing statement wherein she recapped their testimony and stated that their expert when' Jieviewing the site saw flowing water and classified Stream B as a Class 3 stream. Stream B is the main focus of today, that is the area where they want to build and has the most impact for them. The water that comes out of the culvert has certainly affected this stream, however, that is not the issue. The issue is whether the streambed was artificially constructed by sluicing, digging or whatever method. Ms. Ricci stated that they did establish that there was no pre-existing channel until the City introduced stormwater, collected and dispersed it onto the Defoor property. ' 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 4:08 pm. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The appellant, Jason Walker, hereinafter appellant, filed an appeal ofan administrative decision affecting property in the City of Renton. The decisions involved the classification of water courses that cross the subject property. 2. At the same time, the appellant sought reconsideration of the original decision by the Development Services Director. The original decision was issued on November 17,2005'. The decision denying the reconsideration was issued on December 7, 2005. At that time the appeal became active and a hearing was scheduled. The appellant sought a couple of continuances, which Were granted. Defoor Appeal ··e File No.: LUA-05-089, SHPL-H June 8,2006 Page 12 3. For purposes of semantics and attempting to use tenns that do not foreclose the appellant's appeal or immediately define the subjects of this appeal or prejudge the questions, this office will refer to the three water channels that cross portions of the subject site at issue as "water courses" rather than creeks, gullies, streams or ditches. Those other tenns may be used in this decision when describing how other parties other than the Hearing Examiner referred to those features. 4. The subject site is located on the west side of Renton Avenue North. The site is located generally south of South 9th Street if that street were extended west of Renton Avenue. South 10th Street would intersect the southeast corner of the site if that street were extended west of Renton Avenue. The subject site is a trapezoidal shaped parcel where the western property line is shorter than the eastern property line. 5. A number of water courses cross the subject site. They generally flow east to west across the parcel, which slopes down to the west They are identified on Page 2 of Exhibit 2 and the descriptive names are taken from that page: Drainage 1 enters the site west of the intersection of Renton Avenue and S. 10th Street. It runs in a northwest direction and joins Stream "A." Stream" A" enters the site from approximately halfway along the eastern boundary of the subject site and runs generally in a southwest direction. Stream "A" continues off-site. It joins an "unnamed tributary to Rolling Hills Creek." Stream "B" runs from what would be the southwest corner of the intersection of Renton Avenue S and S 9th Street Stream B emerges from a culvert under Renton Avenue S. Not far from where it emerges from the culvert Stream "B" splits into two channels and then merges back into one channel. It generally runs west across the site and enters the north side of Wetland A. Stream "B" according to the map ends at the wetland and then merges with Stream "C". Stream "C" enters at the extreme northwest corner of the subject site and runs south. It turns west and leaves the site continuing to flow along the western edge of Wetland A. Wetland A is located off-site. Wetland A was descnbed as being the location or near the location of a former coal mine entrance. Wetland B is located at the eastern end of Stream B. 6. The appellant challenged the City's stream classifications of three water courses, Streams B and C and Drainage 1. The allegation in each case is that these are not natural streams but that each is an "artificially constructed channel." 7. The appellant was proposing the side-by-side development of a Preliminary Plat and a Short Plat. The Preliminary Plat has been approved and its design would not be affected by this decision. The Short . Plat review has been placed on hold, as its design would be affected by this decision. These water courses flow across one or the other or both sites. In preparation for the City's review of those plans the applicant submitted a series of reports. The appellants reports recommended that Streams B and C and Drainage 1 (the only water courses at issue for the pending appeal) "be classified as Class 5 streams exempt from the City's critical areas regulations per RMC 4-3-050B.1." (Letter from Development Services Administrator to Michael Chen, November 3, 2005). The City's consultant determined that Defoor Appeal File No.: LUA-05-089, SHPL-H June 8,2006 Page 13 Stream B should be classified as a Class 3 stream and Drainage Ibe identified as an extension of Stream A, a Class 4 stream. Appellant sought reconsideration of Stream B's classification asking that it be classified as an unregulated Class 5 stream. 8. Ori November 3, 2005 the Administrator found that "sufficient information was not (underlined in original) provided to show that Stream B should be a Class 5 Stream, that Stream C be classified as a Class 5 stream, and that Drainage 1 shall be classified as a Class 5 stream." 9. "The Administrator determined that: I) Drainage 1 shall be classified as a Class 4 stream; 2} Stream B shall be classified as a Class 3 stream; and 3) StreamC shall be classified" as a Class 4 Stream." This effectively rejected the reports, to wit: "Therefore, the decision has been made not to accept the Wetland Study, Stream Assessment, Habitat Study, Watershed restoration, and Mitigation Plan prepared by Talasea €onsultants, Inc, revised October 3,2005." 1 o. The appellant alleges that these streams "are the direct result of intentional man-made activities (i.e. erosion due to point-discharge of stormwater) and should therefore be considered artificial by provisions ofthe RMC." They based this claim on historic aerial photographs, which they say do not show them as distinguishable in 1936 and 1946. They say that they do show as defined after 1965. They attribute this to point-discharge of unrestrained storm water onto a highly erodable soil surface. At the hearing the appellant produced additional evidence they claim shows that these water courses are not natural (see below). 11. The appellant states: "We believe Stream B, Stream C, and Drainage 1 were created as a result of the implementation of roadway and drainage improvements after 1946 ... These features exhibit 'flow within an artificially constructed channel where no naturally defined channel had previously existed' (RMC 4.3.050. (L}.l.a.v), and should therefore be considered artificial, meeting the definition of Class 5 Water." 12. The appellant iiI its appeal and reconsideration letter went on to note that similar drainage channels created by erosion were previously determined as artificial and unregulated. The Director found this line of argument unpersuasive noting that the code provisions had been specifically changed and therefore, prior decisions were not applicable. 13. The appellant then goes on to describe a mitigation and restoration plan to stabilize these water courses. These matters are not pertinent to this review since the only issue at this time is the legal classification of the water courses. The classification will determine what protections they are entitled to and what modifications, if any, are permitted. 14. The appeal was filed in a timely manner. 15. The appellant provided information to contrast the cross section profiles of Stream A and Stream B. The parties agree Stream A is a naturally occurring creek and show its geomorphology, that is, its historic origins and character. Stream A appears to follow or be located in a swale area that originates upstream or above Renton Avenue South. They suggest that it formed over several thousand years (page 2, GeoEngineers, Report of May 1,2006). They note its stable side-slopes and angle of repose adjusting over the course of its long-term location. It was noted that Stream A is incised at its base probably due to additional water flow resulting from upstream urbanization. Stream B, which the appellant claims is an artificially constructed water course, is deeply incised, the purported absence of a natural swale or depression upstream (east of Renton Avenue) that would have directed the channel in Defoor Appeal File No.: LUA-05-089, SHPL-H June 8, 2006 Page 14 this location and the stream's location at what is tenned a "topographic high point." Streams A and B are approximately 200 feet apart. 16. Stream B enters the site and not far downstream of the culvert, splits into two channels. The two channels are approximately 18 inches to 2 feet wide and 3 feet deep. The two channels rejoin (the confluence) approximately 125 to 150 feet down the slope from the culvert. At that point the single channel is approximately 2 to 3 feet wide and 5 to 6 feet deep. 17. . Stream B may be fed by a paved and developed area on the east side of Renton Avenue although . neighbors report that there is a spring and wet area upslope. These neighbors also report that a storm drain or catch basin located on the opposite side of Renton Avenue, at Renton and 9th, that presumably feeds the culvert always has a strong flow of water in it including during the dry months. The appellant's expert agreed it was a perennial stream but was not sure if ground water contributed to the flow. The appellant's witnesses all agreed that Stream B was formed by erosive flow or hydraulic sluicing generated by stormwater. 18. The two experts noted that the location, on a high topographic aspect, and features of Stream B (deeply incised) do not generally coincide with features of a naturally occurring creek and the erosion signs, soil type, location on slope all support the conclusion it is not a natural stream. -19. There are other swales like Stream B located along the slope but they are dry and still others are more gently curved. The general topography of the area was fonned about 10,000 years ago. 20. It was pointed out that some trees including Big Leaf Maples located near Stream B are not generally associated with wet areas. The Maple is approximately 60 to 80 years old according to a tree ring review. Since the tree is damaged, an accurate count of its rings was not possible. The soil under it is eroded and it is approximately 4 feet above grade. This purports to show that such a tree would not have grown straddling a creek 21. There are no "as-built" engjneering drawings or plans dating back to the 1950's near when the culvert feeding Stream B was constructed. The culvert is 12 inches in diameter. 22. Stream B enters Wetland A offsite where it deposits materials and joins with Stream C. 23. The historic aerial photograph from 1936 does not appear to show Stream B but does show Stream A's course. It shows that the road system has not changed much. 24. A general history of stream formation was presented by the appellant to show how natural versus artificial streams are fonned. A stream over time is affected by geologic composition, gradient, and climate. Stream A is approximately 3 times wider than deep, whereas Stream B is "gully-like" and deeply eroded which is not generally natural. Stream B does not appear to follow a natural stream location or evolution. The appellant presented testimony that it is in an unusual place and not a typical pattern. Stream B shows signs of being fairly "youthful" in its steep-walled profile, meaning it is decades old but not anywhere near as old as Stream A appears to be. The appellant alleges Stream B appears to be the result of hydraulic sluicing which was intended to create a depression or channel. The witness agreed that "gully" is not exclusive to a created channel and they do occur naturally. The proximity of Streams A and B make it appear, at l~st, unusual to be the same age. This office finds there is no evidence·that there was an intent to create a channel as opposed to just releasing water from a culvert on the downslope side of the roadway. Defoor Appeal File No.: LUA-05-089, SHPL-H June 8, 2006 Page 15 25. The appellant indicated that the old coal mine maps showing surface features do -not show either Stream A or Stream Bbut do show the more major Rolling Hills Creek. 26. The City's expert is familiar with the streams and definitions and helped draft the City's stream regulations. He found no evidence of "construction" such as spoils or ditching in any of the water courses. He had changed opinion on Stream C to Class 4 from initially believing it was a Class 5 based on this lack of purposeful ditching evidence. The expert also noted that the stream was perennial and was flowing in late August. He noted it was a normal August as far as rainfall. That is it was relatively dry with only one event, an approximately 0.05 inch rain on August 18,2005. He did not believe that lawn watering or car washing or similar human water generating uses would have generated sufficient water to keep Stream B flowing in August, that is, lawn watering, etc would not create runoff that lasted a significant length of time. He noted that there were no detention or retention systems for stormwater or other runoff in the vicinity and that such facilities were generally not required until the 1970's or 1980's. As for the absence of a definitive stream course in the 1936 aerial photos, he noted that a six- inch (6") creek or one with a very low flow would not be very visible on a photo of this scale when the photo was taken. He also noted that water channels can and do move and change location over time. The City emphasized that with water flowing in Stream B all year, it probably has its source in natural ground water from the hillside above the culvert. Stream B, they allege, would appear to be fed by water that does not originate from only storm events and therefore, drains natural, perennial water. The City's expert did not believe that either stream was constructed. 27. The location of the two natural springs noted by neighbors are in the vicinity and southeast of High Avenue and 9th and at 9th and Grant Avenue. It was noted by the appellant that these could be feeding Stream A, the natural stream. 28. The Administrator who made the decision noted that Stream A and B are far enough apart to support two natura1drainage courses. He acknowledges that huritan intervention has altered the flow and possibly the character of Stream B. The appellant's expert noted the same urbanization probably affected Stream A. There are no records that document the situation before the culvert was constructed. He did speculate that directing water through a culvert, even into a natural shallow swale, could create a steep banked erosive channel that eventually, over additional time, would attain a more natural slope and appearance, but that with steep slopes that occur on this hillside, an incised channel would probably be formed initially. CONCLUSIONS: 1. 'lbe appellant has the burden of demonstrating that the decision ·of the City Official was either in error, or was otherwise contrary to law or constitutional provisions, or was arbitrary and capricious (Section 4- 8-110(E)(7)(b). The appellant has demonstrated that the action of the City should be modified or reversed. The decision regarding the classification of the streams is affirmed. 2. Arbitrary and capricious action have been defined as willful and unreasoning action in disregard of the facts and circumstances. A decision, when exercised honestly and upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances, is not arbitrary or capricious (Northern Pacific Transport Co. v Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, 69 Wn. 2d 472,478 (1966). 3. An action is likewise clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing body, on the entire evidence, is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. (Ancheta v Daly, 77 Wn. 2d 255,259 (1969). An appellant body should not necessarily substitute its judgment for the underlying agency with expertise in a matter unless appropriate. Defoor Appeal File No.: LUA-05-089, SHPL-H June 8, 2006 Page 16 4. Section 4-8-110(E)(7)(a) requires that the decision of the City official be given substantial weight: "Substantial Weight: The procedural determination by the Environmental Review Committee or City staffshall carry substantial weight in any appeal proceeding. (Ord. 3891, 2-25-1985) The Hearing Examiner shall give substantial weight to any discretionary decision of the City rendered pursuant to this Chapterrritle. {Ord. 4346, 3-9-1992)." In other words the appellant must show clear and convincing evidence of mistake. First, in the matter of Stream C and Drainage 1 the appellant provided little if any testimony directed to those two water courses. The appellant certainly did not provide any compelling evidence that the Director was incorrect in classifying these two water courses. 5. The City summed up the issues quite accurately -here we have a disagreement between experts. There would appear to be reasonable grounds to accept the view of either set of experts. But code requires that the decision below be given substantial weight. So while it may be unlikely that a natural stream might have originated in the immediate vicinity of the culvert, it was not shown that it would be very unlikely. A number of factors can allow this office to determine that a natural stream, albeit, possibly a narrow and shallow stream existed in this location. Somewhere upslope sufficient water accumulates over the course of a year to create a perman~t, some might say, perennial stream, Stream B. This water is not generated by single storm events since it flows even in August, a relatively dry month. Neighbors report it flows through a catch basinjust east of the culvert all year. 6. A number of issues that were not explored also could lead one to believe some stream or storm flow crossed the subject site in this general location. The property in question was undoubtedly private property when the road and culvert were put in. Yet there is no record that was produced showing any objections from the then property owner about the effect this culvert and steam flow would have on their private property. In other words, it would appear that for some reason the past owner or owners permitted the City to instigate harm using erosive forces to create the water course on the subject site. Or, another alternative might be that the culvert merely formalized a natural drainage course that was located in this general location. As the record demonstrates, the storm drain or catchment on the opposite side of the road appears to always have a flow of water. These may atone time all been surface flows, small creeks, perhaps, that were captured and piped and conveyed to the culvert under Renton Avenue. Again, while the record does not contain any explicit evidence, you would surmise that if private property was being harmed by the culvert and sluicing action of the stormwater, the owner of the property would have raised some objection. Of course, it is possible that it was an absent owner but nonetheless, their interests were being harmed unless water always flowed onto and across the property in this location. 7. The old surface maps fail to show Stream A, the larger and natural stream but do show the more major Rolling Hills Creek. If Stream A was present when these old maps were drawn then it would appear that even this more natural larger stream was considered too small to document. Stream B might have been even smaller still and it might not show up on old aerial photos. Relying on historic maps certainly does notreliably help decide if Stream B existed. The resolution of aerial photographs from the 1930's probably left out smaller detail. Interpreting what details we see in older photographs using our 21st Century mindset could lead to misinterpretations. As we know, current aerial photographs now show incredible detail but that could lead one to believe good detail would be found in 60 and 70 year old photos. The photo evidence is not in itself compelling. 8. Then we have the code wherein it classifies streams with certain characteristics. Class 5 waters: Defoor Appeal File No.: LUA-05-089, SHPL-H June 8, 2006 Page 17 eO "(a) Flow within an artificially constructed channel where no naturally defined channel had previously existed ... " The Code does not specifically define "artificially" or "constructed." "Artificially" constructed would seem to mean that there was an intent to "construct" the water course as opposed to just releasing the water from an outfall onto a slope where nature took its course. Webster's Third New International Dictionary (unabridged) defines "artificially" as "in an artificial manner." It defines "artificial" as "contrived through human art or effort and not by natural causes detached from human agency: relating to human direction or effect in contrast to nature." The same source defines "construct" as "to form, make, or create by combining parts or elements: Build, Fabricate (in constructing a new freeway). 9. As noted in the findings, there was no evidence that someone dug a ditch. There were no spoils or piles of material along Stream B. The Director admitted that over time, the culvert could have sluiced the soils and added to Stream B's downward cutting (erosion) or might have created it. But erosion was probably not intended. It does not appear that anyone intentionally planned for erosion to create or deepen Stream B. There is no evidence that anyone purposefully "artificially constructed" Stream B. Stream B might have always been there. Focused by a culvert and unaccompanied by some fonn of dissipater as would now be installed (if piping to the bottom of the hillside were not required) Stream B could certainly be the gully-like formation we now see. It was also noted that Stream A showed signs of incising although not at the scale of Stream B. Could Stream B have been a very gentle, shallow swale with stream flow, and then been deeply incised after the culvert was installed? There is no answer. 10. Also, while the experts testified that this location would be an unusual location for Stream B to develop, we have the unusual situation where Stream B actually naturally split into two separate channels for a distance of some 120 feet before rejoining in what has been called a ~onfluence. That is something, some impediment whether rock, soil type, log or fit of nature caused a stream that was only one channel to suddenly branch out and create a second parallel channel. Since this was described as an area where no natural channel would naturally form we now have two side-by-side channels. 'So whatever force of nature created a second channel on this section of sidehill might have been the precursor to a similar event years ago that first created Stream B as opposed to having it been created solely by the installation· of the culvert. 11. The appellants have speculated, based on normal geological history, that Stream B was not natural but speculation does not meet the appellant's burden. This office, too, can speculate: Water has probably always flowed down this hillside ii1 various shallow rills. Historically it was channeled or captured into a storm or piped system and culverted and conveyed under Renton Avenue and, in what now would be considered a primitive manner, released unimpeded on the west side of Renton Avenue. This release point might possibly be where it originally crossed the road or hillside. The appellant has the burden of demonstrating that the decision was erroneous and speculation does not meet that burden. 12. The decision below is entitled to substantial weight and will not be overturned unless there is clear and convincing evidence that an error has occurred. If reasonable minds could reach differing conclusions, an error is not substantiated. The decision below must be affinned. I' Defoor Appeal ;e File No.: LUA-05-089, SHPL-H June 8, 2006 Page 18 DECISION: The decision of the Director is affirmed. ORDERED THIS 8th day of June 2006. .. -;,. -.~-' ' HEARING R '",' TRANSMITTED TIllS. 8th day of June 2006 to the parties of record: Zanetta Fontes Assistant City Attorney Renton, W A 98055 Pat Conger 1301 S 9th Street . Renton, W A 98055 Brian Beaman Icicle Creek En~~ 230 NE Juniper Street, Ste., 101 Issaquah, W A 98027 Neil Watts Director, Development Services City of Renton William Collins 420 Cedar Ave S Renton, W A 98055 Ronnie CS Teng, Leng:"Sheng Teng, Mei-Yu Teng Dang, Wei Kang Kho, Chiu-Chu Tuan 835 Elm Avenue . San Gabriel, CA 91107 Jason Walker Ta1asea 15020 Bear Creek Road NE W <X>dinville, W A 98077 Debra Eby Ricci Attorney at Law 1601 2M Avenue, Ste. 1080 Seattle, W A 98101 Maryann Reinhart GeoEngineers 8410 154th Ave NE Redmond, W A 98052 Ruth Larson 714 High Avenue South Renton, W A 98055 Tim Burkhardt 4927 197th Ave E Bonney Lake, W A 98390 Terry DeFoor SWI, Inc 24633 NE 133M Street Duvall, WA 98019 Jill Ding Development Services City of Renton Renton, W A 98055 Hugh Mortensen Watershed Company 1410 Market Street Kirkland, W A 98033 Eric & Karen Bernard POBox 58306 Tukwila, W A 98138 Michael Chen Core Design, Inc. 14711 NE 29th Place, Ste. 101 Bellevue, WA 98007 Defoor Appeal File No.: LUA-05-089, SHPL .. H June 8,2006 Page 19 .0 TRANSMITIED TIllS 8th day of June 2006 to the following: Mayor Kathy Keolker Jay Covington,Chief Administrative Officer Julia Medzegiarr;Council Liaison Larry Warren, City Attorney Gregg Zimmennan, PBPW Administrator Alex Pietsch, Economic Development Jennifer Henning, Development Services Stacy Tucker, Development Services Stan Engler, Fire Marshal Larry Meckling, Building Official Planning Commission Transpiration Division Utilities Division Neil Watts, Development Services Janet Conklin, Development Services King County Journal Pursuant to Title;N, Chapter 8, Section 100Gofthe City's Code, request for reconsideration must be fded in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., June 22, 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 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 fded in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., June 22, 2006. H the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants, the executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by Oty Council or final processing ofthe1ile. You may contact this office for iBformation 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 aU 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. ~tJo t t tJ t otJ t o e RICCI o e G RUB E A IT A, P L L C ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW 10RO BROADACR"S BUILDING CITY OF RENTON . 1601 SECOND AVENUE JUN 2. 2 2006 TO: Renton City Clerk COMPANY: I'I\X NUMBER: 4254306516 PHONE NUMBER: SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 TEL. (206) 770-7606 FAX (206) 770-7607 FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET FROM; Karen Orehoski DATE: 6/2212006 TOTAL NO. OF PI\GF.S INCLUDING COVER: 11 RE: CITY~Wj8FACE ./tp,r01. '2-p.th. MAl Defoor Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision LUA 05-089, SHPL-H €±A o URGENT 0 FOR YOUR FILE 0" FOR YOUR REVIEW 0 PLeASE REPLY o PLEASE RECYCLE NOTES/COMMENTS: DearClctk: Following this page you will find my client's Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision, File No. LUA 05-089, SHPL-H. I am sending the originals via U.S. Mail today. I am also faxing a receipt indicating that we paid the required $75.00 to your office on June 16, 2006. If there are any questions or if you do not receive all the pages, please contact me immediately. You can reach me at (206) 838-8650 Best regards, Karen Orehoski THE DOCUMENTS ACCOMl"ANYING TRIS FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION CONTAIN INFORMATION TlfAT IS ~R MAY Bit CONFIDENTIAL AND/OR PROTECTED BY TnE ATl'ORNEY-CLIF:NT PRIVILEGE. TIlE INFORMATION IS INTENDED FOR THE SOLE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL NAMED ON THIS TRANSMISSION SHEET ONLV. If YOU ARE NOT Til! INTEND~D RECIPIENT, OR AN ACENT' OR EMPLOYEE OF THE RECIPIENT, PLEASE BE AWARE THAT ANY DISCLOSURF., COPYING, DISTRIBUTION, OR USE OF THIS INFORMATION IS PROHIBITED. IF YOU n AVJ; RECEIVED TIns FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION IN ItRROR. PLEASE NOTIFY US BY COLLECT TU.EPHON~ CALL IMMEDIATELY, AND WE WILL ARRANGE FOR Tnl RETRIEVAL OF TfU DOCUMENTS. THANK YOU. crt: dif'!. lHlarney AJeil tUaHs Fled Kau;I'IYlQn , -... 86/22/2886 13:39 2867787687 RICCI GRUBE AlTA PLA PAGE 82/H APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISIONIRECOMMENDATIO~ITYOFRENTON L L1 TO RENTON CITY COUNCIL JUN 2 2 2006 F1LENO. Un as"-oeCJ ,5HPL-J-j' . APPLICATJONNAME b ocr gh"rt Pl a /-CITY6l~rfRWsE8FF1CE The undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the decision or recommerfJ:60; df'ili~ Mil Land Use Hearing Examiner, dated . J u n ~ ~ , 20.Qk. 1. IDENTIFICATION OF PARTY APPEllANT: Name: I~ r 11/ j)~ hro-r-Address:2Lj"~3INI3 /pZr?! Sf. DIA V~II~ wl1 1?() I '7 2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (AttaCh additional sheets, if neccssary) Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon Which this appeal is based: FINDING OF FACT: ~lease designate number as denoted in the Ex.aminer's Report) No. _ Error: f I ~ It r..f ,)'-1.( P[~ C-h -< c:/ /Yl-l m ,'r ~ 17 ttl V1 m tftldrl»/09.. t:ffl/ ~rr7JrT w-,-rn bn41/1fj.F Correction: "f-f7t c.. j-. CONCLUSIONS: No. _'Error: P / I PI r.f .J -../.f /If t/?! c h ./ c/ /J1 { m IJ I'?I n tI (// en act d r ~ sst'/'? 1 a I! -t',. a rs-W ITn (JtfnC /1/1 r Itrnf'. Correction: ________________________ _ OTHER: No. __ Ettor. __ ~ ____ ~ _________ --------------------~-- Corooction: ____________________ ....-_________________ __ 3. SUMMARY OF ACTION REOUESTED The City Council is requested to grant the following relief: (Attach explanation, if desired) X Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relief:St"("""" ~C4?~9" Modify the decision or recommendation as follows: /Yl ~ m /l'Y&?/ j/1 e?f I1I/h Remand to the Examiner for funher consideration as follows: Other Dat~ l NOTE: Please refer to Tille IV, Chapter 8, of the Renton Municipal Code, and Section 4..a-, 10F, for specific appeal procedures. H:'CITY f:l.F.RK\APPIV\T .\APPF.Al. t<'I Council.doc ..::tJOfftJfOtJf ~~vv~ ~~UO~ ~~I~ rL~ ATTACHMENT TO APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISIONIRECOMMENDATION TO RENTON CITY COUNCIL FILE NO. LUA 05-089, SHPL-H APPEAL OF JUNE 8, 2006 HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS: FINDINGS OF FACT: No. 17 Error: The Hearing Examiner states in ~ 17 of his Findings of Fact that neighbors of the Defoor property testified that there is a spring and wet area slope feeding Stream B. The Hearing Examiner improperly assigns this information as a Finding of Fact because the neighbors did not testify as experts and there was no evidence presented that Stream B is fed by a spring. Correction: ~ 17 should read that there was no evidence supporting the neighbors' testimony and that the neighbors are not experts. The only evidence presented to support that a wet area slope and/or a spring is feeding Stream B was non-expert testimony by neighbors of the property. Further, the existence of ground water is irrelevant to the ultimate decision which is whether or not this watercourse was artificially created. No. 23 Error: The Hearing Examiner states in 1 23 of his Findings of Fact that the 1936 aerial photograph does not appear to show Stream B (emphasis added). Correction: This Finding of Fact should read that the 1936 aerial photograph does not show Stream B. No. 24 Error: In the last sentence of~ 24, the Hearing Examiner states, "This office fmds there is no evidence that there was an intent to create a channel as opposed to just releasing water from a culvert on the downslope side of the roadway." It should be noted that no evidence was presented at aU regarding the intent of the City when the culvert system and roadway were constructed. Further, intent is irrelevant to determine the matter at hand as Renton Municipal Code (RMC) does not address intent. Correction: This sentence should be stricken because (1) no evidence was presented to support the Hearing Examiner's conclusion on intent and (2) intent is irrelevant in constming the relevant RMC provisions. No. 26 Error: The Hearing Examiner'S summary of the City expert, Hugh Mortensen's, testimony fails to note that the Mr. Mortensen's conclusion that the stream was perennial because it was flowing in late August was based on one site visit. Mr. Mortensen presented no field notes or other evidence to support his testimony. Mr. Mortensen based his conclusion that Stream B should be classified as a Class 3 stream on one site visit and does not have the field notes to support that finding. Mr. Mortensen states that a possible reason Stream B is not seen in the 1936 aerial photograph is because a six inch stream would not be visible on a photograph of this scale. The Hearing Examiner fails to note in his findings that this is speculation on Mr. Mortensen:s behalf and there was no evidence FILE NO. 05-089, SHPL-H APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION OF JUNE 8, 2006 06/22/2006 13:39 2067707607 RICCI GRUBE AlTA PLA PAGE 04/11 supporting a finding that Stream B was in existence at all in 1936 and certainly no evidence supporting a finding that it was six inches in width at that time. Further, the Hearing Examiner fails to note that no evidence was presented supporting Mr. Mortensen's conclusion that water other than storm water is feeding Stream B. Correction: ,26 should note that Mr. Mortensen's conclusions are based upon one site visit and no other evidence was presented supporting his speculation that Stream B was in existence at all in 1936. The paragraph should also reflect that there was no evidence presented that water other than stonn water is feeding Stream B. CONCLUSIONS: No.5 Error: In, 5 of the Conclusion section, the Hearing Examiner states that he believes this matter has come down to a disagreement between experts. The Hearing Examiner then goes on to state that the decision below must be given substantial weight. While this is true, it goes against reason to assign substantial weight to the decision of the Development Services Director when that decision was based upon one site visit by the City'S expert, Hugh Mortensen, and when Mr. Mortensen is unable to support his findings by field notes or any other data. The Appellant presented several geomorphologic experts, all of whom agreed that Stream B is an artificially constructed watercourse and all of whom presented scientific data based upon severa] visits to the site in question. The Hearing Examiner does not appear to give any weight at all to this testimony and evidence. While City Ordinance 4346 does require the Hearing Examiner to give substantial weight to the decision beJow, it does not mean that evidence presented to the contrary should not be assigned the proper weight. The Hearing Examiner conc1udes that because there may be water, other than storm water that runs in Stream B it is perennial and therefore qualifies as a Class 3 stream. This conclusion ignores the evidence that Stream B was fonned by actions taken by the City of Renton and not through natural means. The Hearing Examiner bases his conclusion that Stream B is a Class ~ stream on testimony that it has a perennial flow. However. according to RMC, the pereIUliaI nature of a watercourse does not bar that watercourse from being a Class 5 stream: Class 5: Class 5 waters are non-regulated non-salmonid-bearillg waters which meet one or more of the following criteria: (a) Flow within an artificially constructed channel where no naturally defined channel had previously existed; and/or (b) Are a surficially isolated water body less than one-half (0.5) acre (e.g., pond) not meeting the criteria for a wetland as defined in subsection M of this Section. RMC 4-3-050(L)(a)(v). The Hearing Examiner's conclusion in ~ 5 is based on a flawed reading of RMC. Whether or not the watercourse has a perennial flow is irrelevant to whether it was artificially constructed. The drafters ofRMC did not address the nature of the flow of an FILE NO. 05-089, SHPL-H APPEAL OF HEARlNG EXAMINER'S DECISION OF JUNE 8, 2006 · 135/22/21305 13: 39 ~~b II~ Ib~ I o e artificially constructed watercourse and the Hearing Examiner cannot now base his decision on an element that is not addressed in RMC. Further, the Hearing Examiner does not assign the proper weight to the testimony and evidence presented by the Appellant's experts. The Hearing Examiner fails to note that the City presented no evidence, other than speculation. that Stream B is a naturally occurring stream while the Appellant's experts testified and pre~ented evidence that it is an artificially constructed watercourse. Correction: Because the Hearing Examiner did not take into consideration all the testimony and evidence presented during the hearing, the Hearing Examiner'S decision should be reversed based on the evidence and testimony presented by the Appellant's experts. According to RMC, the perennial nature of Stream B does not preclude it from qualifying as a Class 5 stream and inasmuch as the Hearing Examiner's decision is based on the possible perennial nature of Stream B, the decision should be reversed. No.6 Error: In ~ 6, the Hearing Examiner concludes that because there were no objections from the previous property owneT when the road and culvert were installed, that there must have been a pre-existing stream. There was no evidence presented to support this conclusion of the Hearing Examiner. The decisions of a prior property owner are irrelevant to these proceedings. It is improper for the Hearing Examiner to surmise what a past owner would do and certainly when no evidence was presented that the past owner did not object to the City. Correction: This should be stricken from the Hearing Examiner's decision and the decision should be reversed in that it was partly based on irrelevant information that was not supported by testimony or evidence. No. 7 Error: The Hearing Examiner addresses the photographic evidence presented by the Appellant and concludes that Stream B not appearing in the aerial photographs is not compelling evidence that Stream B did not exist prior to the City's construction of the roadway and culvert. This conclusion by the Hearing Examiner fails to recognize that there was also testimony from the Appellant's experts that Stream B is likely only decades old. This testimony is based on geomorphologic data. The Hcaring Examiner failed to consider the photographic evidence and the testimony presented by the Appellant's expert in conjunction with each other. The City failed to present any evjdence or testimony to support that Stream B was in existence before the road and culvert ~ere constructed. Correction: The Hearing Examiner's decision should be reversed because the Hearing Examiner failed to consider all the evidence and testimony prescnte~ during the hearing. No.8 Error: The Hearing Examiner addresses the definitions of "artificially" and "constructed" as used in RMC 4-3-050(L)(a)(v) to define a Class 5 stream. RMC does not define "artificially" or "constructed". It is widely recognized in the law that when a statute fails to define a term, that term will be construed in accordance with its general dictionary definition. City of Yakima v. Johnson. 16 Wn.App. 143, 146,553 P.2d 1104, 1105-1106 (J 976). As the Hearing Examiner notes, WebsteJ."'S Third New International Dictionary defines "artificial" as "contrived through human art or effort and not by natural causes detached from human agency: relating to human direction or effect in FILE NO. 05-089, SHPL-H APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION OF JUNE 8,2006 06/22/2006 13:39 2067707607 RICCI GRUBE AlTA PLA contrast to nature." "Construct" is defined as "to fonn, malee, or create by combining parts or elements: Build, Fabricate." WhHe the Hearing Examiner recognizes that ordinary meaning must be assigned to these words, he states in ~ 8 that artificially constructed seems to mean there was intent to construct the water course. The Hearing Examiner extends the definitions provided by Webster's Third New International Dictionary by adding the element of intent. The definitions do not speak to intent nor does the RMC. Correction: The Hearing Examiner's decision should be reversed because the ordinary meaning of "artificially" and "construct" do not contain an element ofintent and RMC does not require that the City intentionally construct an artificial channel in order for a watercourse to be a Class 5 stream. The drafters of RMC did not include an element of intent in their definition and the Hearing Examiner cannot now base his decision on lack of intent. PAGE 06/11 No.9 Error: The Hearing Examiner's conclusions in ~ 9 are based upon his fmding that the City did not intentionally construct a watercourse. As noted above, this is in error because neither the ordinary meaning of "artificially" and "constructed" nor RMC require that there be intent. Reading the definition of a Class 5 stream as a whole, it is clear that Stream B is a Class 5 stream: "Flow within an artificially constructed channel where no naturally defined channel had previously existed." The City offered no evidence that Stream B existed prior to the construction of the road and culvert system. On the other hand, the Appellant's experts presented ample evidence that this watercourse was not in existence prior to the construction of the road and culvert system. Correction: The Hearing Examiner's decision should be reversed because he mistakenly bases his decision on lack of intent by the City where intent is not an element in the RMC or the ordinary definitions of"artificiaIly" or "constructed". No. 10 Error: The conclusions reached by the Hearing Examiner in ~ 10 are not supported by any evidence presented by the City. These conclusions are not supported by any Finding ofFact'in the record. Correction: The Hearing Examiner's decision should be reversed because his conclusions are not based on evidence of record. No.1 I Error: The Hearing Examiner states the Appellant has speculated that Stream B is artificial and that speculation does not meet the Appellant's burden. The record reflects that the Appellant's case is based on much more than speCUlation. The Appellant's case is based on geomorphologic science and this qualifies as more than speculation. However, the City'S case appears to be based on a conclusion reached by one person who made one visit to the site at issue. The expert testimony and evidence presented by the Appellant qualifies as more than speculation and should be given more weight than the Hearing Examiner is willing to assign to it. Even while giving substantial weight to the decision below, the ample evidence presented by the AppelJant met the Appellant's burden in this matter, demonstrating that the decision below was in error by a showing of clear and convincing evidence. Correction: The Hearing Exarnjner'~ decision should be reversed because he fails to base his decision on evidence of record. FILE NO. 05-089, SHPL-H APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION OF JUNE 8,2006 ·. 06/22/2006 13: 39 ••. i· 2~o7{l:llbl:l{ i'\ \J e ~lCCl b~U~~ ALIA ~LA o e No. 12 Error: As stated above, the Appellant met the burden of demonstrating that the decision below was in error and did so with clear and convincing evidence. The record itself clearly demonstrates that Stream B was artificially constru~ by the City's construction of the roadway and owvcrt system. The Hearing Examiner fails to assign the p.rqpcr weight to testimony and evidence presented by the Appellant. Correction: The Heating Examiner's decision should be reversed because the Appellant did meet his burden of demonstrating error with the decision below and did so by presenting clear and convincing evidence to the Hearing Examiner. SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED: The Appellant respectfully requests that the Renton City Council reverse the June 8.2006, decision of the Hearing Examiner and grant the following relief: Classify Stream B as a Class 5 stream based upon the evidence in the record demonstrating that Stream B was artificially constructed When the City of Renton constructed the roadway and culvert system. FILE NO. 05-089, SHPL-H APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION OF JUNE 8. 2006 r'A\:Jt:. ~ (f 11 ~l::1bll1::11clH RICCI GRUBE AlTA PLA PAGE 69/E ••• :e REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL TO ACCEPT NEW EVIDENCE FILE NO. LUA 05-089, SHPL-ll RE: APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION OF JUNE 8,2006 The Appellant, Terry Defoor, respectfully requests that the City CounCil accept new evidence in this matter attached to this Request as Exhibit A. This affidavit was n.ot available to the Appellant at the tjme of the hearing before the Hearing Examiner as the author of the affidavit Larry Fisher of the Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife, did not make a site visit until after the hearing took place. In accordance with RMC 4-8- 110F(5), this evjdence was not available to the Appellant at the time of the hearing before the Hearing Examiner. FILE NO. 05-089, SHPL-H REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL TO ACCEPT NEW EVIDENCE ~t.lO"t.I'Ot.l( o • EXHmITA Defoor Appeal of June 8~ 2006 Hearing Examiner's Decision LVA 05-089, SHPL-H EXHIBIT A -Declaration of Larry Fisher 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 L~bll~/b~1 ~LCCL ~~U~~ ALIA ~LA ". APPEAL OF .TUNE 8: 2006 HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISIONIRECOMMENDATION TO RENTON CITY. COUNCIL ~AGE llill R.E: DEFOOR APPEAL FILE NO. LUA 05-089, SHPL-H DECLARA nON OF LARRY FISHER I, Lany Fisher, certify and declare a~ follows: 1. I am an Area. Habitat Biologist with 1J1e Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2. 1 have rcvicW\'Xl the fea.tures on the Defoor propElJ1y located jn the City of Renton 14 referred to as Stream B and Drainage 1. )5 3. My review of Stream B and Drainage 1 took place: on Friday M31' 30, 2006, at the ) 6 property site at issue. 1 was accompanied by Wmiam Shiels, Principal of Talasaea 17 Consulttmts. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4. B~ed an the geomorphologic characteristics of Stream B and Drainage 1, it is my opinion that Stream B and ))rainagc ] ate the rcstdt of erosion due to 1I1c c:tiscbarge of st.onnwater EIlong Renton A,,'enue South, at'Id are therefore artificial watercourses. DATED at ·f?<.II~yy ... , Wasbington this zz. ~day of --:3"",,... l .2006. ~ ?j.: . ...f)=::- L.any Fisher Area Habitat Biologist Washington Department. ofFish and Wildlife DECLA RA nON OF LARRY flSHBR. PJi: DEFOOR . APPEAL TO J:\f.NTON CITY COl.JNcn. -"lice I of I 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) 4-8-110F: Appeals to City Council -Procedures 1. Time for Appeal: Unless a specific section or State law providing for review of decision of the Examiner requires review thereof by the Superior Court or any other body, any interested party aggrieved by the Examiner's written decision or recommendation may submit a notice of appeal to the City Council, 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. TrailsDlittal 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: H, 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 detennines 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 appIica~on. 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, modiJying 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) ~ I I I I I g I t-J .. ~ ~ : ! : s ~ ~O ~~~ ~ :;0 I tl) \ /""""'"""" GranVAve. S "', AJ 3: I '1 ..... -....... -." ......... ~ ... . Z~ING MAP BOO'. 92)/ [·f~ U 93:; ':c;' ~~f1J ~:~~~li Jf 25 T24N~~4~'" ....... ,:;30:T;g4N}'I5E i,ST2~N Fj5 '2~. f~~N R4E RESIDENTIAL ~ Resource Conservation ~ ResIdential 1 dulac ~ Residential 4 dulac ! R-9 ! Residential 8 dulac I RHH I Residential Manufactured Homes I R-IO I Residential 10 dulac ! R-14! Residential 14 dulac ! RM-r! Residential Multi-Family !RM-T I Residential Multi-Family Traditional I RH-U I Residential Multi-Family Urban Cenler- MIXED USE CENTER ~ Center Village lut-NII Urban Center -North 1 ~ Urban Center -North 2 [E!J Center Downtown- I COR I Commercial/Office/Residential COMMERCIAL ~ Commercial Arterial- ~ Commercial Office- ~ Commercial Neighborhood INDUSTRIAL ~ Industrial -Heavy o Industrial -Medium o Industrial -Light <Pl Publicly owned --Renton City Limits --Adjacent City Limits _ Book Pages Boundary KROll PAGE \, \ 1 T2 • May include Overlay Districts. See Appendb: maps. For additional regulations in Overlay Districts. please see RMC 4-3. PAGE# INDEX SECTITOWNJRANGE Printed by Print & Mail Services, City of Renton • ... '. Kathy Keol~er, Mayor August 30, 2006 Terry Defoor GWllnc. 24633NE 133rd Street..' Duvall, WA 98019 SUBJECT:, Defoor Short Plat Off Hold Letter . LUA05-089, SHPL-H, ECF Dear Mr. 'Defoor:: CITY~FRENT0N" PlanningIBuildingIPublic Wo~ks Department, " Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator This letter is to infomi you that the city has receiv~d,all bfthe requested information and lhat .. review of' the Defoor Short Plat may continue. The project has been, ten~tively scheduled for a public hearing before the Hearing Examiner on October' 3: 2906 .. " If additional information is needed, you will be iriform!3d althat time. If you have any additiQnalque'stidns, please contact meat (425)430-1219. -.:\ ! ' l:! 1{;t2: JiIIK.Ding .. V Senior Planner '. ". ,-~. '.J cc: Pat Conger, William Collins, Mayor Kathy keolker, Ruth Larson, Eric & Karen Bernard, Tim Burkha~dt,Debra Eby Ricci IPartY(ies),of Record ···· .. s·· '~ -'-'-.:..----,--~1....:.0SC'""'S-'s...:;..o....:.uth-:,--,Or-ad-y-w-aY--,~:.....R:.....en-to-n,....:.'. ,· ...... w,....as.;...;hin....:.· =gt-on-9S-0":"'SS-. -'---:.-----'-'-:--RENT C) N . -' , . ~ , '. ., '. AHEAD OF THE CURVE """'This p8pei' cOntains SO% rEicvded material. 30% post consumer • Kathy Keolker, Mayor . July 25, 2006 Terry Defoor GWlln.c. '. 24633 NE 133rd Street Duvall, WA 98019 SUBJECT: Defoor Short Plat HoldLetter LUA05-089, SHPL-H, ECF Dear Mr. Defoor:' CITY~F'RENTON PlanningIBailding/Public Works. Department Gregg Zimmerm.nJ'.E., Admfuisti"ator ~ " .... . . .' Per my June i9, 2006 letter to you,revisions to the· Defoor Short Plat were requested .in order to bring' your project into· compliance with the City~s" critical areas regulations regarding the onsite streams and. their associated buffers. The City i:lasnptreceived the. requested informatibnand cannot continue processing ,your short plat application until this information has been received. Therefore'ydur project is . being placed on hold pending the receipt of the. materials requested iri m"y June 29;.2006 letter to you,' Wflich. includes:,. . . , ' . -.' '. 1 .. The current~h6rt plafmap shows'Lots 1\,2;3; and 4 withina.regulatedstream or buffer area.' 'It- appears. that.'tt1epnsite stream bu~ers may b~ averaged in aceordtmce with RMC 4-3~.050L.5 to achieve the 5 lots proposed: ,ple.ase:':S'l:ibmit5 copies of a reivised shOrt plat'rnapand 1 reduced . 8% i~ch-by 11,'inch, PMTshowinga\~revised lot layout with,th~lots 'located outside of the' regulated strearTl,and byffer areas; '.-":',: . '. . .' . . 2; If the applicant elects to average the stream buffer areas a revi.sed stream report addressing the stream buffer averaging requirements in RMC 4,.3-050L.5 shalibe submitted. Please submit 3 . . copies of a revised stream report. . . Once theseitems'have been.received review.of y(?urproject will continue and a public hearing 'before the nearing, examiner will be scheduled. If upon further'review additibnalinformation is required, you will be notified at thattirrie. . . -. . . . '. .' . Sincerely, .... C}A 1{.J/--'?i .~KOing V . . Senioi" Planner . cc: Pat Conger, William Collins, Mayor Kathy Keolker, Ruth Larson, Eric & Karen Bernard, Tim Burkhardt, Debra Eby Ricci I Party{ies) of Record . Enclosure 1. ,-' -":"--'-~--:-'--1-O-5S-S-'o-'-uth-Gr-a-dy-W-aY---'R-e-ilt-on,-'-:-W-'-as';':':'hin"";'· -'-gto-. n-98-'0-55--------'-----'-·~ (i) This pa~rcOntains:50% <~ ma1etia1, 30"10 post coosu'rner . AHEAD OF THE CURVE All UNITEDSTIJTES POSTIJL SERVICE FORM 3547 fee due 75 ¢ First dassmail Postage and Fees Paid USPS Restricted Data Permit No. G10 NEW: .6~,@j)CITY.OF~NTON ." ~ij~ .... . Office of the City Clerk lOSS South Grady '!laY -RentDO ~ 980SS ADDRESS sa:NICE REOUESfED .~ ...... . ~ .. ' .;' ~.;. _ .. .. .. E-ICPMP 980:33 THE WATERSHED COMPANY 1410 MARKET ST KIRKLAND WA 98033-5436 7506THSTS KIRKLAND WA 98033-6715 07/3110614:160705110050868 C\:1 proc:20060713 eff:20060527 " " ~-.. --.-.---.~ .-.- . Jqjl tbrteDsea 1 ~.Ccqaty , l410 JmIIet St. .. ~jj~j';;;:~!;:m:S. 1A CJIm I. . ...... 1) 1I.1 .. 1 .. 1.1I ..... II;.;n.;i.I .. I;.I .. II.JI ..... IIII".I"I.1 TO THE--P{)STMASTER OF 1055 GRANT AVE S RENTON WA 98057-9998 .-~.-. iTY OF RENTON UG () 9 2006 RECEIVED CI "Y CLERK'S oFFle 11.1111111 ill ;-;.T.tl;;;JI.IIII.IIII.IIIIIII.I.IIII.IIIIIII.I-.~,', ..... -- .luly 17,2006 CONSENT AGENDA Council Meeting Minutes of 7/10/2006 Appointment: Municipal Arts Commission CAG: 06-108, Maplewood Golf Course Driving Range Netting, NETServices City Clerk: Quarterly Contract List, 4/1/2006 to 6/30/2006 Appeal: Defoor Short Plat, Terry Defoor, SHP-05-082 Appeal: Provost Variances, Alan & Cynthia Provost, V -06- 024 ComprehenSIve Plan: 2006 Amendments EDNSP: Legislative Consulting Services, Doug Levy EDNSP: SLake WA Infrastructure Improvement Project Grant, Economic Development Administration Annexation: Maplewood Addition, Maple Valley Hwy Renton City Council Minutese . Page 247 Johnson stated that bikers fail to dismount their bikes when they cross the bridge by the Renton Senior Activity Center. On another subject, he thanked Council for its support of the senior center, and conveyed how much he enjoys the center's planned hikes. Items on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion which follows the listing. Approval of Council meeting minutes of 7/10/2006. Council concur. Mayor Keolker appointed Evelyn Reingold, 833 SW Sunset Blvd., L-56, Renton, 98055, to the Municipal Arts Commission to fill the unexpired term of Edythe Gandy, who has resigned (term to expire 12/31/2006). Refer to Community Services Committee. . City Clerk reported bid opening on 6130/2006 for CAG~06-1 08, Maplewood Golf Course Driving Range Netting Replacement; three bids; engineer's estimate $100,000 -$110,000; and submitted staff recommendation to award the co~tract to low bidder, NETServices, LLC, in the amount of$135,449.81~ Council concur. City Clerk submitted Quarterly Contract List for period of 4/1/2006 to 6/30/2006; 5"1 contracts and 20 addenda totaling $9,108,034.81. Information" ~ity Clerk reported appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision regarding the Defoor Short Plat; appeal filed on 6/22/2006 by Terry Defoor, represented by Karen Orehoski, Ricci Grube Aita, PLLC, 1601 2nd Ave., Suite 1080, Seattle, 98112, accompanied by required fee. The appeal packet includes one additional letter received as allowed by City Code. Refer to Planning and Development " Committee. City Clerk reported appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision regarding the Provost variances application; appeal filed on 6/30/2006 by Alan and Cynthia Provost, PO Box 1492, Renton, 98057, accompanied by required fee. Refer to Planning and Development Committee. Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department requested approval of a one-time exception to the December 15 filing deadline for two additional City-initiated 2006 Comprehensive Plan amendments, and referral of the amendments to the Planning and Development Committee and' Planning Commission. Economic Development,Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department recommended approval of an agreement in the amount of $53,200 with Ooug Leyy for legislative consulting services for 2006-2007. Council concur. Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department recornrnended approval of an agreement with the U.S. Department of Commerce Economic Development Administration for a $2,054,314 Financial Assistance Award for the South Lake Washington Infrastructure Improvement Project. Council concur. Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department recommended a public hearing be set on 8/7/2006 to consider the proposed Maplewood Addition Annexation (located in the vicinity of Maple Valley Hwy.) and associated zoning, for which the City's requested boundary expansion was approved by the Boundary Review Board (from 60.5 to 340 acres). Council concur. ~ OF RENTON COUNCIL AGEND_ILL I AI#: {;, e; Submitting Data: For Agenda of: 07/1712006 DeptlDiv /Board .. AJLS/City Clerk Staff Contact. ..... Bonnie I. Walton Agenda Status Consent .............. Subject: Public Hearing .. Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated 6/8/2006 . Correspondence .. regarding the Defoor Short Plat application. (File No. Ordinance ............. LUA-05-089, SHP) Resolution ............ Old Business ........ Exhibits: New Business ....... A. Response letter -Collins (7/10/2006) Study Sessions ...... B. City Clerk's letter (7/512006) Information ......... C. Appeal -Ricci Grube Aita PLLC (6122/2006) D. Hearing Examiner's Report & Decision (6/8/2006) Recommended Action: Approvals: Refer to Planning and Development Committee. Legal Dept ........ . Finance Dept ..... . Other .............. . Fiscal Impact: NI A Expenditure Required .. . Transferl Amendment. ..... . Amount Budgeted ...... . Revenue Generated ........ . Total Project Budget City Share Total Project.. SUMMARY OF ACTION: Appeal of the Hearing Examiner decision on the Defoor Short Plat application was filed on 6122/2006 by Karen Orehoski, Ricci Grube Aita PLLC, Representative for Terry Defoor, accompanied by the required $75 fee. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Council to take action on the Defoor Short Plat application appeal. cc: Jennifer Henning Larry Warren Rentonnetlagnbilll bh X July 10, 2006 Office of the City Clerk and City Council Members City of Renton Renton, W A 98057 Subject: LUA 05-089 Defoor Property Plat -Stream "B" Appeal (9th & Renton Avenue S. Application) Dear City Council Members: C'TY OF RENTON JUL 1 0 2006 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE This letter concerns the planning / public comment phase of the Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated June 8, 2006 regarding the Defoor Short Plat application, located at 900 Renton Avenue South (position comment allowed per letter dated July 5, 2006 mailed by Bonnie Walton, City Clerk). I wish to stress that I am not an "expert," and have knowledge only through contact with a City of Renton, Park Department Director, senior citizen / long-time neighbors in the vicinity of the stream in question, and daily observations of the groundwater contribution to this stream. The 1939 aerial photograph presented by t4e applicant during the Hearing Examiner's review of this short plat reinforces some of this knowle'clge. Per my dear friend Gene Coulon, now deceased, several natural springs / streams originated in and around what is now Phillip Arnold, Park, east of Jones Avenue South. One of the springs fed the City water tank at 1308 Beacon Way South. Another of these steams discharged westward along the North side of what is now 9th Street, from the 'park to .the then-wooded area along the North side of the Defoor property (now referred to as "Stream B"). This stream was later held by a man-made dam at the West side of the intersection of 9th and Grant, with the discharge allowed to flow into its previous "channel." This dam is visible in the aerial photograph previously submitted. One will note that South 9th actually splits, just west of the dam, into a "Y", with the primary road heading northeast. The father of the neighbor at 9th and High (SW comer) had first- hand experience with the development / revision of this dam. While housing and street development along South 9th proceeded, this open-air, natural stream was forced into an underground pipe alongside South 9th, the dam was removed, and the intersection of 9th and Grant was developed as we see it today. Natural groundwater from Phillip Arnold Park and vicinity continues to run every day of the year through this pipe, as can be seen and heard by anyone passing along South 9th, for its entire length. Respectfully submitted, d~ William Collins 420 Cedar Ave So Renton, WA 98057 CIT_OF RENTON July 5, 2006 July 10, 2006 City Clerk Bonnie I. Walton APPEAL FILED BY: Karen Orehoski, Ricci Grube Aita PLLC, Representative for Terry Defoor RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated 6/8/2006 regardirig the Defoor Short Plat application, located at 900 Renton Ave. S. (File No. LUA-05-089, SHP) 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 Lake 'Nashington/May Creek DredgingpennitDefoor Short Plat I. application has been filed with the City Clerk. . . In accordance with Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110F, the City Clerk shall notify all parties ofrecorq of the receipt of the appeal. Other parties of record may submit letters limited to support oftheir positions regarding the appeal within ten (10) days of the date of mailing of the notification of the ftIing of the appeal. The deadline for submission of additional letters is"" 5:00pm, July 17,2006. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the written appeal and other pertinent documents will be reviewed by the Council's Plaiming and Development Corwnittee. The Council Liaison will notify all parties of record of the date and time bfihe 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.fot information. The recommendation of the Committee will be presented for consideration by the fuUCouncilat a subsequent Council meeting. . . . Copy of the appeal and the Renton Municipal Code regc;tniing appeals of Hearing Examiner decisions or recoinmendations are attached. Please note that the .City Council will be considering the merits of the appeal based upon the written record previously established: Urile~s a.showing can be made that additional evidence could not reasonably have been available ~t 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 meat 425-430~6502~ Sincerely, . Bonnie I. Walton City Clerk Attachments -l-OS-S-,-S-OU-'-tb-Grad-. -y-,W,""-a-y--R-. e-n-'-too,""-' -w'-'-ashln-· -gt...:...on-9s-0 ..... SS"'---(-42-S)-4-3-'-O.-6S-1-0 '-F-AX-' -,(4-2-S)"':"'4-3-0--6S-}-6-· ~ . ~ AHEAD OF THE CURVE' \:i This PaPer conIains 50% recyded m3tetia1,30% post consumer ~lCCl GRUBE AlTA PLA t-'AGE 1:12/11 APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DEtISIONIRECOMMENDATIO~rrvOF RENTON L TO RENTON CITY COUNCIL JUN 2 2 2006 FIT..ENO .. £,(/1 ()S-oeCf/5HPL-J-j . APPLICATJONNAME Defoor gh"rt Pl a 1-. CITYtl1Bf~8FFICE The undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the decision or recommAfrfJ:£Olr Jf'ili~ MN Land Use Hearing Examiner, datoo . Ju n-< ~ ,20Qk. 1. IDENTIFICATION OF PARTY APPELLANT: Name: T~ r 11/ j)~ hrcrr Address: 2 Jf /,~ 3~ G / p?r?! S-/. REP~ENTATIVE (IF ANY): Name:f(,CG./6rwbe ,fzfq, PL-L-C-, Address:/{,o/ r~r~4 /jv-l'.,F",,-I-I lo~ 7 DlA V~I ~I wI! 1?"tJ I , J~"'rt 1-( , W If t:t i' //2-, . . 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 FACf: ~lease designate number as denoted. in the Ex.aminer's Report) No. _ Error: :p /...( 11 r../ S-,/ -t P{-t/-;?JCh -t 4' 1}1-1 m ffr t/J n ttl V1!7j 1ft! dr I») /01. PI / / ~ rr7JrT' ¥V7'rn bn 6/ //7'1.F Correction: "f-'f7:r c.. + CONCLUSIONS: No._ Error: PII PI r ~ r...t.f A @ C h./ c:/ /J1( m /l r7I rrP/ (/I tR? acldr/ss/r71 a/I -('rat's WITn· {JtfnC/Mf/trr?f. Correction: ________________________ _ OTHER: No. ___ Ettor. ________ ~ ___________________________________ ~--- Comoction: ______________________________ ~~ ______ __ 3. SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED The City Council is requested to grant the following relief: (Attach ex.planation, if desired) .. X Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relief:Sf"'"-t"''' tf;;JC-4?~¢ Modify the decision or recommendation as follows: I'YJ../ m /lY~ f/1 t?f 11 rn Remand to the Examiner for funher consideration as follows: ____ . Other NOTE: Please refer to Title IV. Chapter 8, of the Renton Municipal Code. and Section 4-8-110F, for specifiC appeal procedures. R':\r.TTY f:J .F.RK\APPRAI.\APPP.Al. m C.OImdl.doc City of Renton Municip.tode: Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110 -ASS' 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) 4-8-110F: Appeals to City Council -Procedures 1. Time for Appeal: Unless a specific section or State law providing for review of decision of the Examiner requires review thereof by the Superior Court or any other body, any interested party aggrieved by the Examiner's written decision or recommendation may submit a notice of appeal to the City Council, 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. Tr:ansmittal 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. 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: li, 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 appIica~on. 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 fmding 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) .LtJo"tJ,otJ, ATTACHMENT TO APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISIONIRECOMMENDATION TO RENTON CITY COUNCIL FILE NO. LUA 05-089, SHPL-H APPEAL OF JUNE 8, 2006 HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS: FINDINGS OF FACT: No. 17 Error: The Hearing Examiner states in ~ 17 of his Findings ofFaet that neighbors of the Defoor property testified that there is a spring and wet area slope feeding Stream B. The Hearing Examiner improperly assigns this information as a Finding of Fact because the neighbors did not testify as experts and there was no evidence presented that Stream B is fed by a spring. Correction: ~ 17 should read that there was no evidence supporting the neighbors' testimony and that the neighbors are not experts. The only evidence presented to support that a wet area slope and/or a spring is feeding Stream B was non-expert testimony by neighbors of the property. Further, the existence of ground water is irrelevant to the ultimate decision which is whether or not this watercourse was artificially created. No. 23 Error: The Hearing Examiner states in ~ 23 of his Findings of Fact thatthe-1936 aerial photograph does not appear to show Stream B (emphasis added). Correction: This Finding of Fact should read that the 1936 aerial photograph does not show Stream B. No. 24 Error: In the last sentence of~ 24, the Hearing Examiner states, "This office fmds there is no evidence that there was an intent to create a channel as opposed to just releasing water from a culvert on the downslope side of the roadway." It should be noted that no evidence was presented at all regarding the intent of the City when the culvert system and roadway were constructed. Further, intent is ilTelevant to detennine the matter at hand as Renton Municipal Code (RMC) does not address intent. Correction: This sentence should be stricken because (1) no evidence was presented to support the Hearing Examiner's conclusion on intent and (2) intent is irrelevant in construing the relevant RMC provisions. No. 26 Error: The Hearing Examiner'S summary of the City expert, Hugh Mortensen's, testimony fails to note that the Mr. Mortensen's conclusion that the stream was perennial because it was flowing in late August was based on one site visit. Mr. Mortensen presented no field notes or other evidence to support his testimony. Mr. Mortensen based his conclusion that Stream B should be classified as a Class 3 stream 011 one site visit and does not have the field notes to support that finding. Mr. Mortensen states that a possible reason Stream B is not seen in the 1936 aerial photograph is because a six inch stream would not be visible on a photograph of this scale. The Hearing Examiner fails to note in his findings that this is speculation on Mr. Mortensen's behaJf and there was no evidence FILE NO. 05-089, SHPL-H APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION OF JUNE 8, 2006 I Lt:Jbllt:J/bt:J1 ~l~~l ~~U~~ AliA ~LA ~A~~ tI'lIll supporting a finding that Stream B was in existence at all in 1936 and certainly no evidence supporting a finding that it was six inches in width at that time. Further, the Hearing Examiner fails to note that no evidence was presented supporting Mr. Mortensen's conclusion that water other than storm water is feeding Stream B. Correction: ~ 26 should note that Mr. Mortensen's conclusions are based upon one site visit and no other evidence was presented supporting his speculation that Stream B was in existence at aU in 1936. The paragraph should also reflect that there was no evidence presented that water other than stonn water is feeding Stream B. CONCLUSIONS: No.5 Error: In ~ 5 of the Conclusion section, the Hearing Examiner states that he believes this matter has come down to a disagreement between experts. The Hearing Examiner then goes on to state that the decision below must be given substantial weight. While this is true, it goes against reason to assign substantial weight to the decision of the Development Services Director when that decision was based upon one site visit by the City'S expert, Hugb Mortensen. and when Mr. Mortensen is unable to support his findings by field notes or any other data. The Appellant presented several geomorphologic experts, all of whom agreed that Stream B is an artificially constructed watercourse and all of whom presented scientific data based upon several visits to the site in question. The Hearing Examiner does not appear to give any weight at all to this testimony and evidence. While City Ordinance 4346 does require the Hearing Examiner to give substantial weight to the decision below, it docs not mean that evidence presented to the contrary should not be assigned the proper weight. The Hearing Examiner concludes that because there may be water, other than storm water that runs in Stream B it is perennial and therefore qualifies as a Class 3 stream. This conclusion ignores the evidence that Stream B was fonned by actions taken by the City of Renton and not through natural means. The Hearing Examiner bases his conclusion that Stream B is a Class ~ stream on testimony that it has a perennial flow. However, according to RMC, the perennial nature of a watercourse does not bar that watercourse from being a Class 5 stream: Class 5: Class 5 waters are non-regulated non-salmonid-bearing waters which meet one or more of the following criteria: J (a) Flow within an artificially constructed chaJU1el where no naturally defined channel had previously existed; and/or (b) Are a surficially isolated water body less than one-half(O.5) acre (e.g., pond) not meeting the criteria for a wetland as defined in subsection M of this Section. RMC 4-3-050(L)(a)(v). The Hearing Examiner's conclusion in ~ 5 is based on a flawed reading ofRMC. Whether or not the watercourse has a perennial flow is irrelevant to whether it was artificially constructed. The drafters of RMC did not address the nature of the flow of an FILE NO. 05-089, SHPL-H APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION OF JUNE 8, 2006 L~bll~/b~1 ~lCCl O~U~~ AliA ~LA artificially constructed watercourse and the Hearing Examiner cannot now base his decision on an clement that is not addressed in RMC. Further, the Hearing Examiner does not assign the proper weight to the testimony and evidence presented by the Appcllant's experts. The Hearing Examiner fails to note that the City presented no evidence, other than speculation. that Stream B is a naturally occurring stream while the Appellant's experts testified and pre~ented evidence that it is an artificially constructed watercourse. Correction: Because the Hearing Examiner did not take into consideration all the testimony and evidence presented during the hearing, the Hearing Examiner's decision should be reversed based on the evidence and testimony presented by the Appellant's experts. According to RMC, the perennial nature of StTeam B docs not preclude it from qualifying as a Class 5 stream and inasmuch as the Hcaring Examiner's decision is based on the possible perennial nature of Stream B, the decision should be reversed. No.6 Error: In ~ 6, the Hearing Examiner concludes that because there were no objections from the previous property owner when the road and culvert were installed, that there must have been a pre-existing stream. There was no evidence presented to support this conclusion of the Hearing Examiner. The decisions of a prior property owner are irrelevant to these proceedings. It is improper for the Hearing Examiner to surmise what a past owner would do and certainly when no evidence was presented that the past owner did not object to the City. Correction: This should be stricken from the Hearing Examiner's decision and the decision should be reversed in that it was partiy based on irrelevant information that was not supported by testimony or evidence. No.7 Error: The Hearing Examiner addresses the photographic evidence presented by the Appellant and concludes that Stream B not appearing in the a.erial photographs is not compelling evidence that Stream B did not exist prior to the City's construction of the roadway and culvert. This conclusion by the Hearing Examiner fails to recognize that there was also testimony from the Appellant's experts that Stream B is likely only decades old. This testimony is based on geomorphologic da~a. The Hcaring Examiner failed to consider the photographic evidence and the testimony presented by the Appellant's expert in conjunction with each other. The City failed to present any evidence or testimony to support that Stream B was in existence before the road.and culvert ~ere constructed. Correction: The Hearing Examiner's decision should be reversed because the Hearing Examiner failed to consider all the evidence and testimony presented during the hearing. No.8 Error: The Hearing Examiner addresses the definitions of "artificially" and "constructed" as used in RMC 4-3-050(L)(a)(v) to define a Class 5 stream. RMC does not define "artificially" or "constructed". It is widely recognized in the law that when a statute fails to define a term, that term will be construed in acc·ordanee with its general dictionary definition. City of Yakima v. Johnson. 16 Wn.App. 143, 146,553 P.2d 1104, 1105-1106 (J 976). As the Hearing Examiner notes, Webster's Third New International Dictionary defines "artificial" as "contrived through human art or effort and not by natural causes detached from human agency: relating to human direction or effect in FILE NO. 05-089, SHPL-H APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION OF JUNE 8, 2006 I 06/22/2006 13:39 2067707607 RICCI GRUBE AlTA PLA PAGE 06/11 contrast to naturc." "Construct" is defined as "to foun, make, or create by combining parts or elements: Build, Fabricate." While the Hearing Examiner recognizes that ordinary meaning must be assigned to thcse words, he states in ~ 8 that artificially constructed seems to mean there was intent to construct the water course. The Hearing Examiner extends the definitions provided by Webster's Third New International Dictionary by adding the element of intent. The definitions do not speak to intent nor does the RMC. Correction: The Hearing Examiner's decision should be reversed because the ordinary meaning of "artificially" and "construct" do not contain an element of intent and RMC does not require that the City intentionally construct an artificial channel in order for a watercourse to be a Class 5 stream. The draftcrs of RMC did not inch.ide an element of intent in their definition and the Hearing Examiner cannot now base his decision on lack of intent. No.9 Error: The Hearing Examiner's conclusions in ~ 9 are based upon his finding that the City did not jntentionally construct a watercourse. As noted above, this is in error because neither the ordinary meaning of "artificially" and "constructed" nor RMC require that there be intent. Reading the defmition of a Class 5 stream as a whole, it is clear that Stream B is a Class 5 stream: "Flow within an artificially constructed channel where no naturally defined channel had previously existed." The City offered no evidence that Stream B existed prior to the construction of the road and culvert system. On the other hand, the AppeJlant's experts presented ample evidence that this watercourse was not in existence prior to the construction of the road and culvert system. Correction: The Hearing Examiner's decision should be reversed because he mistakenly bases his decision on lack of intent by the City where intent is 110t an element in the RMC or the ordinary definitions of"artiP.cially" or "constructed". No. 10 Error: The conclusions reached by the Hearing Examiner in ~ 10 are not supported by any evidence presented by the City. These conclusions are not supported by any Finding of Fact ill the record. Correction: The Hearing Examiner's decision should be reversed because his conclusions are not based on evidence of record. No. II Error: The Hearing Examiner states the Appellant has speculated that Stream B is artificial and that speculation does not meet the Appellant's burden. The record reflects that thc Appellant's case is based on much more than speculation. The Appellant's case is based on geomorphologic science and this qualifies as more than speculation. However, the City's case appears to be based on a conclusion reached by one person who made one visit to the site at issue. The expert testimony and evidence presented by the Appellant qualifies as more than speculation and should be given more weight than the Hearing Examiner is willing to assign to it. Even while giving substantial weight to the decision below, the ample evidence presented by the Appellant met the Appellant's burden in this matter, demonstrating that the decision below was in error by a showing of clear and convincing evidence. Correction: The Hearing Examiner'~ decision should be reversed because he fails to base his decision on evidence of record. FILE NO. 05-089, SHPL-H APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION OF JUNE 8, 2006 Ltlb tttl/btll ~lCCl G~U~~ AlIA ~LA • No. 12 Error: As stated above, the Appellant met the burden of demonstrating that the decision below was in error and did so with clear and convincing evidence. The record itself clearly demonstrates that Stream B was artificially constructed by the City's constmction of the roadway and oulvert system. The Hearing Examiner fails to assign the p.roper weight to testimony and evidence presented by the Appellant. Correction: The Hearing Examiner's decision should be reversed because the Appellant did meet his burden of demonstrating error with the decision below and did so by presenting clear and convincing evidence to the Hearing Examiner. SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED: t-'Al::I~ tlllH The Appellant respectfully requests that the Renton City Council reverse the June 8.2006, decision of the Hearing Examiner and grant the following relief: Classify Stream B as a Class 5 stream based upon the evidence in the record demonstrating that StTeam B was artificially constructed when the City of Renton constructed the roadway and culvert system. FILE NO. 05-089, SHPL-H APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION OF JUNE 8, 2006 I "'tlO ((tI (Otl ( ~l~~l U~U~~ AlIA ~LA ~A\.:I~ t:J'::II 11 • REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL TO ACCE.PT NEW EVIDENCE FILE NO. LUA 05-089, SHPL-H RE: APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION OF JUNE 8, 2006 The Appellant, T eny Defoor, respectfully requests that the City Council accept new evidence in this matter attached to this Request as Exhibit A. This affidavit was n.ot available to the Appellant at the time of the bearing before the Hearing Examiner as the author of the affidavit Larry Fisher of the Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife, did not make a. site visit until after the hearing took place. In accordance with RMC 4-8- ] 10F(5), this evidence was not available to the Appellant at the time of the hearing before the Hearing Examil1er. FILE NO. 05-089, SHPL-H REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL TO ACCEPT NEW EVIDENCE .<:t:lb((t:l(bt:l( ~lCCl O~U~~ AliA ~LA ~AoE:: HlIll • EXHffiITA Defoor Appeal of June 8, 2006 Hearing Examiner's Decision LUA 05-089, SHPL-H EXHIBIT A -Declaration of Larry Fisher rM\:I1:. .1..1./.1..1. --' --' ---------_ ..... OJ •• _. "'-'VI 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 8 9 10 11 12 13 APPEAL OF .JUNE 8~ 2006 HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISIONIRECOMMENDA nON TO .RENTON CITY COUNCIL RE: DEFOOR APPEAL FILE NO. LUA 0.5-089, SHPL-H DECLAR4. nON OF LARRY FISHER I. Lany Fisher, certify and declare as foUows; 1. I am an Area Hahitat Biologist with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2. I have reviewed the features on the Defoor prc.'porty located in the City of Renton 14 referred to as Stream B and Drainage J. )5 3. My review of Stream Band Dl"ZllMge 1 took place on Friday Mil)' 30, 2006, at the:: ] 6 propeny site at issue. l·was accompanied by WjJliam Shiels. Principal of TalasaeB ] 7 Consultants. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4. ~lUed an the gcotporpho)ogic characteristics of stream B 8Jld Drainage I, it is my opinion that Stream B and Orainage ] arc the rcsult of erosion due to the discharge of st.onnwz'er aJong Renton Avenue South. and are th.erefore artificial watercourses. DATED at .&<., (~Y<J" , Washington 111;S Z2. ~day of -;::r..,,.... to .2006. ~~ ~ ~.:.-f)-=:- Lany Fisher Area Habitat Biologist Washjngton J)epaitm~t ofFish and Wildlife D.ECLARA nON OF LARRY FTSHBR RB: DEFOOR . APPEAL TO RFJqON CITY COtlNCT( .• PIlCC I of I Lt:lbfft:lfbt:lf ~l~~l O~U~~ AliA ~LA RICCI GRUBE AlTA, PLLC ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW 10110 BROADACttl;S BUILDING 1601 SECOND AVENUE SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 TEL. (206) 770-7606 CITY OF RENTON JUN 2. 2 2006 FAX (206) 770-7607 COY 6lfe'hWl8FFtCE /tp,r01 . 2-p.th. MAl -TO: Renton City Clerk COMPANY: FAX NUMBER: 4254306516 PHONE NUMBER: FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET FROM; Karen Orehoski DATB: 612212006 TOTAL NO. OF PAGF.S INCLUDING COVER: 11 RE: Defoor Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision LVA 05-089, SHPL-H o URGENT 0 FOR YOUR FILE 0' FOR YOUR REVIEW 0 PI.6A.SE REPLY o PLEASE RECYCLE NOTES/COMMENTS: DearCleJ;k: Following this page you will find my client's Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision, File No. LUA. 05-089, SHPL-H. I am sending the originals via U.S. Mail today. I am also faxing a receipt indicating that we paid the required $75.00 to your office onJune 16,2006. If thc.te are any questions or if you do not receive all the pages, please contact me immediately. You can reach me at (206) 838-8650 Best regards, Karen Orehoslri THE DOCUMENTS ACCOMPANYING THIS FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION CONTAIN INFORMATION TlUT IS OR MAY Br, CONFIDENTIAL AND/OR PROTECTED BY TilE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE. TIlE INFORMATTON TS INTENDED FOR THE SOLE USE OJ! THE INDIVfDlIAL NAMED ON THIS TRANSMISSION SHEET ONr.Y. J.P YOll ARE NOT THE INTENDJi:D RECIPIENT, OR AN AGENT OR EMPLOYEE OF TIlE RECIPIENT, PLEASE BE AWARE THAT ANY DISCLOSURE, COPYING, DISTRIBUTION, OR USE OF TlUS INFORMATION IS PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS FACSIMILE TRANSMrSSION IN ItRROR. PLEASE NOTIFY US BY COLLECT TET.EPHON~ CALL IMMEDIATELY, AND WE WILL ARRANCE FOR TrrE RETRIEVAL OF nn DOCUMENTS. THANK YOU. &: a'f'l. Marney AJeil tUaHs PI td /(/:Jtc!' IJ1.Qn , -j .J .. e' "-June 8, 2006 . OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND DECISION APPELLANT PUBLIC HEARING: Jason Walker Talasea 15020 Bear Creek Road NE Woodinville, W A 98077 Representing: Terry DeFoor, Appellant Debra Eby Ricci 1601 2nd Avenue. Ste. 1080 Seattle, W A 9810 1 Counsel for: Terry DeFoor, Appellant Zanetta Fontes City of Renton, Assistant City Attorney Jill Ding, Development Services Hugh Mortensen, Watershed Company Defoor Short Plat Appeal File No.: LUA 05-089, SHPL-H After reviewing the Appellant's written requests for a hearing and examining available information on file, the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The following minutes are a summary of the May 2, 2006 hearing. The legal record is recorded on CD. . The hearing opened on Tuesday, May 2, 2006, at 9:02 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affIrmed by the Examiner. Parties present: Zanetta Fontes, Assistant City Attorney Jill Ding, Development Services Hugh Mortensen, Watershed Company Debra Eby Ricci Attorney at Law 1601 2nd Avenue.Ste. 1080 Seattle, W A 9810 1 Jason Walker Talasea 15050 Bear Creek Road NE Woodinville, WA 98077 Defoor Appeal e File No.: LUA-05-089, SHPL-H June 8,2006 Page 2 The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No.1: Yellow file containing correspondence asking for the appeal, request to Mr. Watts and his response and the correspondence setting up the appeal hearing. Exhibit No.3: Talasea Letter dated November 17, 2005 Requesting Reconsideration Exhibit No.5: GeoTech Engineers Letter dated May 1,2006 Exhibit No.7: Large Map Showing Topography of Site Exhibit No.9: Copy of Aerial Photograph dated 1936 Exhibit No. 11: Drawing by Maryann Reinhart of a Cross Section 9rStreaniB~ West of Big Leaf Maple. Exhibit No.2: Stapled packed dated May 1, 2006 Exhibit No.4: Icicle Creek Letter dated March 24, 2006 signed by Brian R. Beaman Exhibit No.6: More Defined Original Page 5 of Exhibit 2. Exhibit No.8: Renton Coal Mine Map with Underground Features Exhibit No. to: Actual Aerial Photograph of Exhibit 9 The various parties introduced themselves and the parties they were representing. The Examiner stated that he had received a packet this morning and has not had an opportunity to review the infonnation. A short break was taken so Ms. Ricci could look over the yellow file. Jason Walker briefly described" the packet presented this morning and the infonnation contained within. The fITst 15 items were plans and photographs which will be discussed in detail later, the second stapled item was the reconsideration request that is part of the yellow file, the third and fourth stapled items were letters from the consultants that will be testifying today. The site is located on the eastern side ofl-405, the northeast comer is located at 9th Street and Renton Avenue S. The site is a short plat adjacent to the preliminary plat of the same name. This site has two identified streams, Stream B to the north and Stream A and Drainage 1 are to the south and in the same corridor but separate channels, Drainage 1 is just south of Stream A. Offsite to the west is another drainage, Stream C and two wetlands to the west, Wetland A is offsite and Wetland B is onsite and associated with Stream B. This request was to address the Renton Municipal Code under the description of Class 5 Stream. They believe that this stream was of man made origin. A Class 5 Stream is defined as a flow within an artificially constructed channel where no naturally defmed channel had previously existed. They requested that Stream B be considered as a Class 5 and not a Class 3 stream as the City had rated this stream. Stream B originates from a 12-inch concrete pipe adjacent to Renton Avenue S. The upper basin of Stream B conveys storm water·from Jones Avenue along 9th Street. There appear to be no detention or treatment structures for this runoff given that it was constructed prior to water quality standards. There are also some I Defoor Appeal e File No.: LUA-05-089, SHPL-H June 8,2006 Page 3 catch basins along 10th Avenue South and a portion of Renton Avenue drains down towards Stream A. Stream C, off the southern portion of Cedar A venue is also fed by stormwater runoff and is conveyed by the drainage channel. A photograph of a 12-inch concrete pipe adjacent to Renton A venue and the source point of Stream B hydrology were presented. StreamB is comprised of two channels in this eastern portion of the drainage adjacent to Renton Avenue S. These channels are incised features that are eroded and form a confluence into a single channel farther west. Vegetation is primarily alder with some black cottonwood and Big Leaf Maple. The northern channel of Stream B is incised to a depth of 6-feet and flows under the root mass of a Big Leaf Maple. There is a fair amount of erosion occurring in that drainage channel. At the northern end of Stream B the Big Leaf Maple is at the confluence, the eroded channel is beyond the confluence to the western side as it leaves the site. The remainder of Stream B is incised and eroded until it outfalls in a wetland area, the off site wetland is the location of a historic mining entrance. All the eroded material is dispersed in this area. Stream B joins with Stream C at this point, with a similar drainage feature coming off of Cedar Avenue and then leaves the site at the same location. Stream A is in the southern portion of the site and has more natural characteristics. The Examiner stated that he was reluctant to get into Stream A, it may be different or exhibit characteristics that make it more natural, however, this hearing is dealing with Stream B and it's characteristics, it doesn't matter how it contrasts with another stream. He did decide to allow the testimony at this time. Ms. Ricci stated that they had experts present that can speak to the comparative differences between the two streams. Stream B is not a naturally occurring stream, it is the result of high-pressure storm water flowing down from the early development of the City of Renton over the last few years. Stream A is a naturally occurring stream that existed as a process over time. Mr. Walker continued his testimony that Stream B is in a location where a previously naturally occurring channel did not exist prior to the intentional discharge of undetained stormwater. The intentional release of stormwater on a highly erodable surface is basically the result of human intervention and that these features are artificially constructed. There were more photographs of the Stream and it's rounded side slopes. Upon cross-examination by Ms. Fontes, Mr. Walker stated that earlier he mentioned an adjacent site, and that site is to the west, under the same ownership and was approved earlier. He did believe that the maple tree was 60-80 years old, the core was rotten and so it was difficult to be sure of the exact age. There are a number of Big Leaf Maple trees on the site, but this is the only one directly in the stream channel. All photographs were taken on Wednesday, April 26, 2006. All measurements for the conceptual drawings were taken at the same time as the photographs. Diagram #4 of Exhibit 2 is a conceptual diagram of the two channels, the drawing is approximately to scale. The land between the channels is relatively flat with some undulation. The two channels are approximately 3- feet in depth and I8-inches to 2-feet wide. He didn't know if there was any ground water in these channels. Stream B deposits into Wetland A that is on the adjoining parcel to the west (the Defoor Preliminary Plat) and Stream C skirts the perimeter, it does not enter the wetland. Stream A and the confluence of Stream B and C join another tributary south of the site known as Rolling Hills Creek. Previously in history there has been some activity on the site, there has been a lot of earth moved because of the previous coal mine activities, some of that is still in evidence today. As far as ditching the channels, they are characteristic of ditches, but have been formed by erosive flows from stormwater. ,Defoor Appeal e " File No.: LUA-05-089, SHPL-H June 8, 2006 Page 4 Upon questioning by Ms. Ricci. Mr. Walker stated that Big Leaf Maples are not known to grow directly within a channel of a stream unless that stream would have changed course. This tree is a very mature tree, his opinion is that the tree pre-dates the existence of those channels. The roots are being undeImined by the water. Brian Beaman, Icicle Creek Engineers, 230 NE Juniper Street, Ste., 101, Issaquah, WA 98027 stated that he is a principal engineer and hydrologist and that he was asked to review how this stream was fOImed. They excavated test pits across the site and drilled deep borings into to the coalmines. They are aware that the site, including Stream A and Stream B, is underlain by about 5-6 feet of weathered bedrock, below that is the hard bedrock itself. It is important to compare the whole site, not just the Stream B corridor because the rest of the site is an example of what should happen should water flow across the ground surface. Stream A to the south has a more natural layer including smooth slopes that lead down to a channel with good topographic relief, there are other swales across the property with similar features of Stream B, they start out fairly flat and then there is somewhat of a broad swale that occurs but the other swales are dry. It is important to understand that Stream B is being fed from the culvert, that is the uphill side, then down from there towards Wetland A. There is a natural process that creates swales across this slope but it may have been redirected and instead of sheet flowing it created the swales, but with the construction of Renton Avenue, the water has not been redirected. The topography on page 5 of Exhibit 2 is probably aerial, it is therefore quite generalized, there are no other swale like features to the north where Stream B runs. Exhibit 7 shows field topography of the upper portion of Stream B, if the stream contours were removed and the erosion features were taken out and the contours br:ought straight across, it would be a fairly level from the street for about 125-feet or so. As you go further down the channel it does start to develop that swale;.like appearance .. Looking at the adjacent property to the west, there are other dry swale features across that site. (On Exhibit"7 the dry swales were highlighted in blue). Once the glaciers retreated from this" area, the landscape was more than likely barren, the climate was rainier and wetter and certainly a lot of features fOImed during that time before vegetation took place. That is most likely when these swales formed. They have a water shape feature but are dry. The site has a long history of coal mine development datingto the late 1800's, this portion of the site was not impacted by the mining, the area just to the west of it was. The original main entry to the Renton Coal Mine was located almost where Wetland A is locate~ and that would have involved roads being built in this area, there was an open mine shaft into the groUnd at about an 11 degree angle below horizontal. It would not have made much sense to put their mine entry where water surface was going to flow. Some of the historical coal mine maps do show surface topography. The main tributary, Rolling Hills Creek, was shown on the map, there was no stream coming down across the area where Stream B is located today. This map does not show Stream A orB. They also looked at a 1936 aerial photograph of the area. Cedai Avenue and Renton Avenue were identified. The mines closed in the late 20's and this aerial is probably within 5-10 years after the Renton mine closed permanently. He pointed out the Stream A corridor on the photograph, which extends beyond the property to the east. Looking at the Stream B area, there is no topographic or vegetation pattern that would show an additional stream. The watershed for Stream A is visible with a channel like feature that extends off the property. Upon questioning by Ms. Ricci, Mr. Beaman stated that going back during the active mining days, it is likely that the culvert did not exist so there was no water coming down the slope into the area of the main mine operation for the slope. After the mine closed, once water was introduced to the slope area, it found the path of . least resistance, created these incised channels and found its way to the old mine entry which was probably Defoor Appeal e File No.: LUA-05-089, SHPL-H June 8,2006 PageS '. somewhat of a low spot. The grading of the stream transitions from a steep slope to a fairly flat area so a lot of depositions occurred and has filled in that area with eroded sediment and created that wet area. On questioning by Ms. Fontes, Mr. Beaman stated that storm water versus water hitting impervious surfaces and making their way into a storm water system would mean that less water would be getting into the ground. On Exhibit 7, he redefined what affect the glacial flows had on the land today. Not all naturally occurring streams have identical characteristics is a fairly general statement, there are certain characteristics which, comparing the Grand Canyon to the Duwamish they are both naturally occurring streams and they both have different characteristics. Miners would have been able to redirect Stream B, if it had been there because it was a small stream. Stream B flows to Wetland A today, but there is no way to know if Stream B was there in 1936 or if it was if it outflowed there or somewhere else. The site evaluation and seeing the character of the Stream B corridor and the 1936 aerial photograph show that there most likely was no stream there prior to the installation of the culvert on Renton Avenue South. If a lot of water were pushed down the steep slopes an incised channel vertically sided similar to what is seen in the field today would occur. This would be considered man made because the water is introduced by something that man has done, the water creates the ditch, but the' water is directed to that area by man's activities. Maryann Re~ GeoEngineers, 8410 1541h Ave NE, Redmond, WA 98052 stated that she is a fluvial geomorphologist and her expertise is in the area of evaluating land forms, their development and particularly so the characteristics of streams from both small creeks all the way to large river systems. She has additional expertise in the area of sediment transport in fluvial systems, including erosion and deposition. She was asked by Talasea Consultants to look at the two streams of interest on the Defoor property, Stream A and Stream B. She did go the property on April 26, 2006. Landforms in the Puget Sound area are basically developed as a result of glaciation of continental ice masses that receded from this area somewhere between 10,000 and 13,000 years ago. There were drainage patterns that were left by the receding glaciers and in exchange for that there is a good bit of melt water that was coming' from the melting ice. The process of the grinding, advance and recession of the glaciers, as well as the runoff of their melt waters developed much of the landforms and topography here in Puget Sound. In this particular area, some of the drainage swales that are glacially derived played a large roll in the developmentofthe area. One of the key characteristics that seems to be missing from the story is the development of drainage basins. Drainage basin is synonymous with the term of watershed. Watershed is a little more informative of what happens in a natural drainage basin. Water falling from the sky as precipitation or snow runs off of the surface ofa watershed and coalesces in a channel through which it then is conveyed to a receiving body, inWestem Washington it is either Lake Washington or Puget Sound. The distinction here is important with respect to the origin of Streams A and B on the property. Stream A receives water from upgradient of Renton Avenue South. The watershed extends upstream of Renton Avenue South, that water historically collected off the ground surface of the watershed and was delivered to the main ,stem channel and then moves down slope. Watersheds tend to deliver water to the receiving channels, those channels, over a period of time, have an opportunity to adjust to the discharge that ends up in that channel as a result of the surface water runoff. There is a definite relationship between the dimensions of the channel that receives water from the watershed and the size of the watershed. Several things can alter the shape and size of the channel, the geologic materials that produce the soils, the gradient of the channel from upstream to downstream, and the climate. In Puget Sound streams there is a general relationship that is typically used with Defoor Appeal • File No.: LUA-05-089, SHPL-H June 8,2006 Page 6 regard to the dimensions of the stream that has had an opportunity to evolve and adjust to all of the conditions that prevail over the period of that watershed. The channel will range about three times wider than it is deep. The Examiner stated that he would have to decide on the Sub A definition of flow within an artificially constructed channel where no naturally defmed channel has previously existed. What does artificially constructed actually mean. The fact that it is there does not mean that the channel was artificially constructed, no one was out there ditching it with a shovel or backhoe to create it. It may have formed due to some alteration of the flow upstream, with or without a culvert, the road may have taken a dip and risen something like a wash. Ms. Reinhart stated that artificially created could mean that you go in with a backhoe and create a channel where formally there was none. It is very difficult to draw a line between a ditch that is cleared out by a backhoe and an incised gully that is created by the discharge of energized water or just water flowing down the slope where previously there was not a natural drainage pattern within the watershed. In Stream A there is an incised bottom channel showing that probably more water was added recently or more abruptly, maybe caused by urbanization patterns upstream. In the case of Stream B it is a deeply incised channel, six feet deep by two feet wide. The sidewalls are very vertical. It is a very unnatural form for a channel in this environment, meaning the soils, gradient, and the climate does not favor development of an incised gully. From a fluvial geomorphic position Stream B is actually a gully. Based on her observations in the field, water does not flow off the sides of the gully and ifleft alone the sidewalls would not lay back to an angle of repose with flowing water; 'She was surprised at her visit to the site, she was looking to th~ bottom swale that is defmed as a dip in the road, that is Stream A, Stream B is located up on the right limb of the Stream A swale, it is at the top, it is a very unusual place for a stream to develop. The Stream B channel does not angle into the Stream A corridor, it makes its own path directly down stream along the fall line. This is not a typical pattern seen in any drainage basin in this area. The channel is getting its water fed to it by the culvert, it is not receiving surface water runoff from the area on either side of the channel, the only water that stream is conveying is water that is fed to it directly from the culvert. In terms of a channel that forms naturally in a watershed or small sub-basin, Stream B does not fit with what is typically seen in the Puget Sound area. If the discharge from the culvert was left to run the way it does now, it is possible that continued incision could be seen, there is bedrock that is seen in the base of the channel which is slightly more erosion resistant than the weathered material, that may represent a bed control feature. The erosion may take a little longer. The characteristics of the sidewalls of the' channel are either vertical or concave and the channel is still attempting to adjust to the discharge that is being conveyed by the channel. . If it is not allowed to incise further it may broaden slightly, but there will continue to be very unstable sidewalls. This type of channel configuration is very consistent with similar channels that have formed in the direct response to stormwater runoff directed to an area that has not previously seen surface water runoff form a channel. Stream B is truly a gully, which is defined as a straight walled deep channel that is much deeper than it is wide and is typically associated with unmitigated runoff. Gullies are natural, but gullies that develop into streams generally will adjust to gradients, soil types, basin sizes which help the channel to become more stable. A gully is very unstable by definition, the sidewalls can cave in, it will incise, it is not predictable in the form that it will take in terms of the depth and the width of the channel. The gully that matures into a well adjusted conveYlUlce channel of natural waters, the sidewalls will typically, in these soils, lay back to near the angle of repose, they will become stabilized with vegetation. Just because a gully is natural, it does not mean that it should be in that particular location. - Defoor Appeal . e File No.: LUA-05-089, SHPL-H June 8, 2006 Page 7 An unstable gully will typically have a flat floor and will be wider at the base than it is at the top, which means that from a developmental perspective the water began to coalesce with the inception of the channel and then rapidly, in adjustment to the discharge, it begins to incise and cut down. This channel has probably been developing on the order of decades, as opposed to Stream A that has been developing and adjusting to its conditions for probably thousands of years. The Examiner asked questions regarding how the stream could have started, rivers get their start somewhere and if everyone culverted or filled them there might not be a Columbia River or Cedar River today. Somehow this channel was formed, was it natural or not natural. There was much discussion as to how water courses across this land and how streams are formed and how water has a tendency to flow downstream and what kind of a course might be formed to get the water from point A to point B. The conditions do not seem to be present to generate another channel that have the dimensions and character of Stream B given the watershed area that was discussed. Upon questioning by Ms. Ricci, Ms. Reinhart stated that in a couple of applications, she was familiar with the term hydraulic sluicing and that it is a known form of constructing channels. Hydraulic sluicing is used in a number of different applications, one the direction of discharge from a hose intending to create a depression or channel. If the water source were cut off, there most likely would not be water in that channel and vegetation would eventually take over. Ms. Fontes objected to the question. The Examiner stated that the culvert either could have created the channel or could exacerbate the creation of the channel, it would have a sluicing effect. Ms. Reinhart stated that was correct. More discussion continued on sheetflow and natural obstacles on the slope and the affect that would have had on the channel. If the culvert alone did not cause this channel, it might have still been created in this location from any number of reasons. It seems to be doing quite well now that it is there, it does not seem to want to go towards Stream A. Stream B now seems to have a life of its own. If water were merely flowing over the surfaces as surface runoff without the influence of the discharge coming from the culvert, you would have surface water that would make its way down slope by some preferred pathway. It doesn't become a big deal until the discharge is increased over and above what is being generated by the natural surface water runoff from precipitation in that area. The Big Leaf Maple did not grow in the channel, it has been undermined by what is presently the channel. Surface water runoff from the slope from nonnal precipitation would not have the momentum and energy to cause that type of erosion. A much larger source of discharge with a much higher level of energy would be needed to create that channel. Upon questioning by Ms. Fontes, Ms. Reinhart stated that her opinion regarding the source of the water in the culvert is coming from the urban development and the stormwater runoff from roofs, driveways, and paved areas. A portion of the runoff could be from ground water. She did not know if there were any naturally occurring springs in the area. A drainage channel is either created or happens as a result of an action, urban runoff that is directed to an existing channel, which is attempting to adjust to the increase in runoff from the urban development. Sometimes water channels will move and take different courses, that is part of the adjustment of channels. It is her opinion that Stream A began because of a glacier. There appears to be 200 feet between Stream A and Stream B. Channels can be formed by the discharge of ground water. · Defoor Appeal File No.: LUA-05-089, SHPL-H June 8, 2006 Page 8 Ms. Ricci asked further questions of Ms. Reinhart, who stated that there was no indication on the 1936 aerial photo that Stream B existed, and so it mostly likely is on the order of decades old. That is a very recent time frame. There is some point in time in which it could be said that the stream was created decades ago. With respect to the two streams, it is necessary to look at the information provided by the two streams and the environment and what is known about the natural drainage systems and say that it would be unusual at the very best for a channel with these dimensions, that is being very much deeper than it is wide, to be the same age as Stream A, this is a very youthful stream. If you cut off the water, the stream would go dry. A stream must be able to feed itself with water and this one cannot. It would be very hard to cut off the water to Stream A, it is being served by the watershed. If you cut off the water coming from upslope of Renton Avenue South you could create a small dam and -it would basically change the hydrology of the stream, it will still get some runoff from the sidewalls downstream, it will not be the stream that it is today. Lunch Break: 12:47 pm Reconvened: 2: 15 pm Pat Conger, 1301 South 91h Street, Renton, W A 98055 stated that she lives on the SE comer of 91h Street and Renton Avenue South directly across the street from this parcel. She is directly across the street from the culvert that has been discussed. There is water in the culvert year round, even when there has been no rain. She has lived in this location for the past 12 years. Upon questioning by Ms. Ricci. Ms. Conger stated that the people do water their lawns, wash their cars and other outside things around their homes. Some water is getting into the system all the time throughout the year. She can hear the sound of the water and sometimes there is more water than at other times. Brian Beaman stated that he is a professional engineer with Civil as a specialty. He routinely looks at plats and short plats, single-family residences, and road,projects for discharge of storm water from street drainages. They do not assess the piping, but do assess the outfall and what that outfall might do where it crosses natural ground surfaces or onre-entering streams. He routinely is caIJed on to lOcate culverts under similar conditions to what is on this site. Based on his knowledge of the soil conditions on this site, with a culvert outflow at that location, he would expect that water would sluice out a ditch following the fall line of the slope. It is not necessary to dig out the trench, the water just creates its own pathway. Hugh Mortensen, Watershed Company, 1410 Market Street, Kirkland, WA 98033 stated that he is an ecologist with over eleven years doing stream and wetland reconnaissance and delineation, he also is an on-call consultant to the City of Renton to review development proposals that come before the planning department. City of Renton, Kirkland, Shoreline, Monroe, Sammamish and Issaquah have called upon him to check classifications of streams. He did the classification of the streams on the Defoor property. On his inspection, he thought that Stream B was a Class 3, he never believed that it was a Class 5 stream. He spoke with Neil Watts regarding the descriptions of various classes of streams in the City of Renton, they further discussed artificially constructed streams and the fact that it had to be where a channel did not previously exist. Regarding Stream C, to the west and appears to start at the comer of the subject property and the adjoining parcel, his initial classification was that it was a Class 5. After talking with Mr. Watts he looked at the defmitions more closely and he saw the words "artificially constructed" channel, and after reviewing the elements, he changed his claSsification to a Class 4. I Defoor Appeal e File No.: LUA-05-089, SHPL-H June 8, 2006 Page 9 He always considered Stream B as a Class 3 stream. In his opinion, this is not a Class 5 stream because he has observed it flowing in late August, since August is the month with the least amount of rainfall in this region, the end of August is the most appropriate time to be looking at a stream to see if it is perennial or not He checked the rainfall record for the preceding month and it showed to have had little to no rainfall for the 25 days prior to his site visit. When people water their lawns the water sometimes goes into both the stormwater pond and the ground water. The flow in the stream seemed to be more than what could be caused by lawn watering and car washing. Looking at the 1936 aerial photo, there was no retention pond or. stormwater pond related to this system in. Just not seeing a stream does not mean that it is not there. If the stream is supported by ground water and has a very low flow, the channel could be in the neighborhood of 6-inches wide and it would not be seen on this scale of photograph. Without a detention porid or stormwater pond storage, water collects on impervious surfaces and runs offwhile it is raining and for a short time following that storm event it continues to run off. In August, the water that was in Stream B, he believed it to be ground water. Looking at Exhibit 7, in the NE corner of the subject site there are dashed buffer lines around Wetland B, there appears to be some evidence of a broader swale formation and to a lesser extent it represents the same swale formation where Stream A runs. Rainfall in the Puget Sound area falls on the ground and in areas where it can infiltrate, natural areas and non- paved areas, it percolates into the ground and becomes an enormous detention pond, it stores water, the ground is porous, it can store large or small amounts, that water is released down gradient and sometimes at great distances from where the water actually fell. Water seepage is characterized by a very steady metered flow over long periods of time. Water channels can move. The likelihood of a channel forming as a result of water discharging at any point along the gradient upstream is highly plausible. The distance between Stream A and Stream B is 200 feet measured at the point where the culvert is shown on the map. Upon questioning by Ms. Ricci, Mr. Mortensen stated that he has a broad background in studying natural resources. He has a degree in Ecology from Evergreen State College, but no degree in Geology or Civil Engineering. He has been a consultant to the City of Renton for approximately 2 years. He works with geomorphologists at his fIrm as well as stream biologists and engineers and has been involved in various aspects with designing streams and stream channels. Ms. Ricci asked and received confIrmation to his previous testimony today. He did not take any readings from the culvert or as to the water flow from the culvert. HeconfIrmed that his classifIcation of this stream was based on his one visit to the site in August 2005 .. Although there was ground water naturally occurring in this area, it is not causing the majority of water flow through the culvert. Stormwater is the majority of the water flowing through that culvert, stormwater that is collected up stream of the culvert. He was certain that stormwater has affected this channel. Referencing Exhibit 7, he stated that on this map he sees a smaller swale formation compared to Stream A. He does not necessarily believe that the stream cut that, but that that is an area where the stream channel would ordinarily flow. He did not see any evidence of ground water interceptions in the channel of Stream B and that the channel did not seem to be picking up ground water further down the hill. The ground water situation is that · Defoor Appeal File No.: LUA-05-089, SHPL-H June 8,2006 Page 10 the stonnwater system is picking up ground water above the culvert and then shooting it down the hill. The ground water at one point in time did create a small channel subsequent to that and this erosive force of the stonnwater has deepened the existing channel and down cut it. Neil Watts, Development Services Director, City of Renton stated that he often is asked to interpret the language of the code and in particular as this case relates to stream classifications. An artificially constructed channel is a channel that has been created as a ditch, typically that would be something like a roadside ditch. It is something that is entirely manmade. Sluicing could be interpreted as a process of artificially creating a ditch. Mr. Watts stated that he is a licensed Civil Engineer, with a degree from Seattle University. He has been involved in land use aspects and land use reviews with Seattle and Renton for over 20 years. He has reviewed this project and has visited the site haifa dozen times summer of2005. Regarding the stonn system located on Renton Avenue South and the culvert at that location, the water going through that system, at some point created the stream that it now resides in. There has been a watercourse coming down the hill for a very long time, it has been altered by different influences by man, building yards, ditches, culverts, and stonn systems. It is not an entirely natural system any longer. It appears that Stream A and B are far enough apart and that they are defined enough channels that this has been going on to some degree before the roads were built The underground stonn system on 9th Street is pure speculation as to where and how that water ran prior to being constructed. Upon questioning by Ms. Ricci. Mr. Watts stated that he had not reviewed the extent of the area of the collection system on 9th Street nor did he have any sense of the volume that comes through that culvert onto the Defoor property. If the culvert were closed off, it could be expected that-there would be some flooding on the other side of the street. The source of the stream is actually the headwaters that are much further upstream. If the drainage course were closed off, the water would Cease to flow. Stream B would cease to exist unless it was being fed by ground water sources below that point of closure. All the water that flows through the pipe dumps onto the Defoor proPerty and created the stream channel. They have been unable to find any records or civil engineering records of what was there when the culvert was built. He does not know if there has always been a drainage channel in this exact specific location. He also had no information of a previously existing channel in that exact location. The hill has not gone away and there has always been water running down the hill in some fashion and at some point the water has been directed into a man made system. The water now moves through a man made system. He is charged with detennining the language of the code that consultants to the City draft. He is familiar with the tenn ''hydraulic sluicing" which is an attempt to make a ditch or channel by using water from a stream or a fire hose. If a culvert was installed and water was diverted through it, you would get a very steep banked erosive channel for a period of time, as the decades go by it would start to become a more naturally appearing slope, the slopes would start to become less steep, vegetation would set in and after a period of time it would look and function as a natural stream channel. With steep slopes the initial beginning would be to incise the' channel. Ruth Larson, 714 High Avenue S, Renton, WA 98055 stated that on Exhibit 5, page 2 she owns the 3rd house down from South 7th Street on High Avenue South and has Hved there since 1963. She did not know when the stonnwater system and culvert were installed. They have tom up High Avenue South three times since she has lived there, but she doesn't-know what they were doing. Defoor Appeal ·e . File No.: LUA-05-089, SHPL-H June 8,2006 Page 11 Uphill from the Renton Avenue South location there are two springs that she has seen, one is located on the SE comer of High Avenue South and South 9th Street and the second one is located on the comer of South 9th Street and Grant A venue South. Along High Avenue South her house is the frrst one that has a basement, none of the other homes were allowed to have a basement when they were built because of the water table. She has never seen the people living south of her property ever water their lawns, except for when the lawn was first planted. Brian Beaman stated that he has gone to the site approximately 15 times to do test pits, drilling and general reconnaissance, some of that for coal mine research. They have issued reports to Defoor and those most likely have been submitted to the City. He has done detail studies of the site. The road embankment is creating the contours across the site and because Renton A venue requires fill on the downhill side, there has been a modification of the contour and likely the house development added fill as well. The culvert didn't extend out far enough so they had to pull the embankment back in to meet the culvert so that it would not get covered. The channel like contouring feature has been created in his opinion. The springs that Ms. Larson spoke of would most likely feed into Stream A as seen in the 1936 aerial photo. Wetland B is 196 square feet and the dotted line around the wetland is the buffer. Ms. Ricci gave her closing statement wherein she recapped the testimony heard today and stated that it is their firm belief that a Class 5 classification is much more consistent with the nature of conditions of this particular set of water features. Ms. Fontes gave her closing statement wherein she recapped their testimony and stated that their expert when reviewing the site saw flowing water and classified Stream B as a Class 3 stream. Stream B is the main focus of today, that is the area where they want to build and has the most impact for them The water that comes out of the culvert has certainly affected this stream, however, that is not the issue. The issue is whether the streambed was artificially constructed by sluicing, digging or whatever method. Ms. Ricci stated that they did establish that there was no pre-existing channel until the City introduced stormwater, collected and dispersed it onto the Defoor property. 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 4:08 pm. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION Having reviewed the record in this matter, the 'Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The appellant, Jason Walker, hereinafter appellant, filed an appeal of an administrative decision affecting property in the City of Renton. The decisions involved the classification of water courses that cross the subject property. 2. At the same time, the appellant sought reconsideration of the original decision by the Development Services Director. The original decision was issued on November 17, 2005. The decision denying the reconsideration was issued on December 7, 2005. At that time the appeal became active and a hearing was scheduled. The appellant sought a couple of continuances, which were granted. Defoor Appeal '. File No.: LUA-05-089, SHPL-H June 8,2006 Page 12 3. For purposes of semantics and attempting to use tenns that do not foreclose the appellant's appeal or immediately define the subjects of this appeal or prejudge the questions, this office will refer to the three water channels that cross portions of the subject site at issue as "water courses" rather than creeks, gullies, streams or ditches. Those other terms may be used in this decision when describing how other parties other than the Hearing Examiner referred to those features. 4. The subject site is located on the west side of Renton Avenue North. The site is located generally south of South 9th Street if that street were extended west of Renton Avenue. South lOth Street would intersect the southeast comer of the site if that street were extended west of Renton Avenue. The -subject site is a trapezoidal shaped parcel where the western property line is ~hoiter than the eastern property line. --- - 5. A number of water courses cross the subject site. They generally flow east to west across the parcel, which slopes down to the west. They are identified on Page 2 of Exhibit 2 and the descriptive names are taken from that page: Drainage I enters the site west of the intersection of Renton Avenue and S. 10th Street. It runs in a northwest direction andjoins Stream "A." Stream "A" enters the site from approximately halfway along the eastern boundary of the subject site and runs generally in a southwest direction. Stream "A" continues off-site. It joins an "unnamed tributary to Rolling Hills Creek." Stream "B" runs from what would be the southwest comer of the intersection of Renton -Avenue S and S 9th Street. Stream B emerges from a culvert under Renton Avenue S. Not far from where it emerges from the culvert Stream "B" splits into two channels and then merges back into one channel. It generally runs west across the site and enters the north side of Wetland A. Stream "B" according to the map ends at the wetland and then merges with Stream "C". Stream "C" enters at the extreme northwest comer of the subject site and runs south. It turns west and leaves the site continuing to flow along the western edge of Wetland A. Wetland A is located off-site. Wetland A was described as being the location or near the location of a former coal mine entrance. - Wetland B is located at the eastern end of Stream B. 6. The appellant challenged the City's stream classifications of three water courses, Streams B -and C and Drainage I. The allegation in each case is that these are not natural streams but that each is an "artificially constructed channel." 7. The appellant was proposing the side-by-side development of a Preliminary Plat and a Short Plat. The Preliminary Plat has been approved and its design would not be affected by this decision. The Short Plat review has been placed on hold, as its design would be affected by this decision. These water courses flow across one or the other or both sites. In preparation for the City's review of those plans the applicant submitted a series of reports. The appellants reports recommended that Streams B and C and Drainage I (the only water courses at issue for the pending appeal) "be classified as Class 5 streams exempt from the City's critical areas regulations per RMC 4-3-050B.I." (Letter from Development Services Administrator to Michael Chen, November 3, 2005). The City's consultant determined that I ---- Defoor Appeal e File No.: LUA-05-089, SHPL-H June 8, 2006 Page 13 Stream B should be classified as a Class 3 stream and Drainage 1 be identified as an extension of Stream A, a Class 4 stream. Appellant sought reconsideration of Stream B's classification asking that it be classified as an unregulated Class 5 stream. 8. On November 3,2005 the Administrator found that "sufficient information was not (underlined in original) provided to show that Stream B should be a Class 5 Stream, that Stream C be classified as a Class 5 stream, and that Drainage 1 shall be classified as a Class 5 stream." 9. "The Administrator determined that: 1) Drainage 1 shall be classified as a Class 4 stream; 2) Stream B shall be classified as a Class 3 stream; and 3) Stream C shall be classified as a Class 4 Stream." This effectively rejected the reports, to wit: "Therefore, the decision has been made not to accept the Wetland Study, Stream Assessment, Habitat Study, Watershed restoration, and Mitigation Plan prepared by Talasea Consultants, Inc, revised October 3,2005." 1 O. The appellant alleges that these streams "are the direct result of intentional man-made activities (i.e. erosion due to point-discharge of stormwater) and should therefore be considered artificial by provisions of the RMC." They based this claim on historic aerial photographs, which they say do not show them as distinguishable in 1936 and 1946. They say that they do show as defined after 1965. They attribute this to point-discharge of unrestrained stormwater onto a highly erodable soil surface. At the hearing the appellant produced additional evidence they claim shows that these water courses are not natural (see below). 11. The appellant states: "We believe Stream B, Stream C, and Drainage 1 were created as a result of the implementation of roadway and drainage improvements after 1946 ... These features exhibit 'flow within an artificially constructed channel where no naturally defmed channel had previously existed' (RMC 4.3.050. (L).I.a.v), and should therefore be considered artificial, meeting the definition of Class 5 Water." 12. The appellant in its appeal and reconsideration letter went on to note that similar drainage channels created by erosion were previously determined as artificial and unregulated. The Director found this line of argument unpersuasive noting that the code provisions had been specifically changed and therefore, prior decisions were not applicable. 13. The appellant then goes on to describe a mitigation and restoration plan to stabilize these water courses. These matters are not pertinent to this review since the only issue at this time is the legal classification of the water courses. The classification will determine what protections they are entitled to and what modifications, if any, are permitted. . 14. The appeal was filed in a timely manner. 15. The appellant provided information to contrast the cross section profiles of Stream A and Stream B. The parties agree Stream A is a naturally occurring creek and show its geomorphology, that is, its historic origins and character. Stream A appears to follow or be located in a swale area that originates upstream or above Renton Avenue South. They suggest that it formed over several thousand years (page 2, GeoEngineers, Report of May 1,2006). They note its stable side-slopes and angle of repose adjusting over the course of its long-term location. It was noted that Stream A is incised at its base probably due to additional water flow resulting from upstream urbanization. Stream B, which the appellant claims is an artificially constructed water course, is deeply incised, the purported absence of a natural swale or depression upstream (east of Renton Avenue) that would have directed the channel in · Defoor Appeal •• File No.: LUA-05-089, SHPL-H June 8,2006 Page 14 this location and the stream's location at what is termed a "topographic high point." Streams A and B are approximately 200 feet apart. 16. Stream B enters the site and not far downstream of the culvert, splits into two channels. The two channels are approximately 18 inches to 2 feet wide and 3 feet deep. The two channels rejoin (the confluence) approximately 125 to 150 feet down the slope from the culvert. At that point the single channel is approximately 2 to 3 feet wide and 5 to 6 feet deep. 17. Stream B may be fed by a paved and developed area on the east side of Renton Avenue although neighbors report that there is a spring and wet area upslope. These neighbors also report that a storm drain or catch basin located on the opposite side of Renton A venue, at Renton and 9th, that presumably feeds the culvert always has a strong flow of water in it including during the dry months. The appellant's expert agreed it was a perennial stream but was not sure if ground water contributed to the flow. The appellant's witnesses all agreed that Stream B was formed by erosive flow or hydraulic sluicing generated by stormwater. 18. The two experts noted that the location, on a high topographic aspect, and features of Stream B (deeply incised) do not generally coincide with features of a naturally occurring creek and the erosion signs, soil type, location on slope all support the conclusion it is not a natmal stream. 19. There are other swales like Stream B located along the slope but they are dry and still others are more gently curved. The general topography of the area was formed about 10,000 years ago. 20. It was pointed out that some trees including Big Leaf Maples located near Stream B are not generally associated with wet areas. The Maple is approximately 60 to 80 years old according to a tree ring review. Since the tree is damaged, an accurate count of its rings was not possible. The soil under it is eroded and it is approximately 4 feet above grade. This purports to show that such a tree would not have grown straddling a creek. 21. There are no "as-built" engineering drawings or plans dating back to the 1950's near when the culvert feeding Stream B was. constructed. The culvert is 12 inches in diameter. 22. Stream B enters Wetland A ofIsite where it deposits materials andjoins with Stream C. 23. The historic aerial photograph from 1936 does not appear to show Stream B but does show Stream A's course. It shows that the road system has not changed much. 24. A general history of stream formation was presented by the appellant to show how natural versus artificial streams are formed. A stream over time is affected by geologic composition, gradient, and climate. Stream A is approximately 3 times wider than deep, whereas Stream B is "gully-like" and deeply eroded which is not generally natmal. Stream B does not appear to follow a natmal stream location or evolution. The appellant presented testimony that it is in an unusual place and not a typical pattern. Stream B shows signs of being fairly "youthful" in its steep-walled profile, meaning it is decades old but not anywhere near as old as Stream A appears to be. The appellant alleges Stream B appears to be the result of hydraulic sluicing which was intended to create a depression or channel. The witness agreed that "gully" is not exclusive to a created channel and they do occur naturally. The proximity of Streams A and B make it appear, at least, unusual to be the same age. This office finds there is no evidence that there was an intent to create a channel as opposed to just releasing water from a culvert on the downslope side of the roadway. Defoor Appeal e · File No.: LUA-05-089, SHPL-H June 8, 2006 Page 15 25. The appellant indicated that the old coal mine maps showing surface features do not show either Stream A or Stream B but do show the more major RoIling Hills Creek. 26. The City's expert is familiar with the streams and definitions and helped draft the City's stream regulations. He found no evidence of "construction" such as spoils or ditching in any of the water courses. He had changed opinion on Stream C to Class 4 from initially believing it was a Class 5 based on this lack of purposeful ditching evidence. The expert also noted that the stream was perennial and was flowing in late August. He noted it was a normal August as far as rainfall. That is it was relatively dry with only one event, an approximately 0.05 inch rain on August 18,2005. He did not believe that lawn watering or car washing or similar human water generating uses would have generated sufficient water to keep Stream B flowing in August, that is, lawn watering, etc would not create runoff that lasted a significant length of time. He noted that there were no detention or retention systems for stormwater or other runoff in the vicinity and that such facilities were generally not required until the 1970's or 1980's. As for the absence of a definitive stream course in the 1936 aerial photos, he noted that a six- inch (6") creek or one with a very low flow would not be very visible on a photo of this scale when the photo was taken. He also noted that water channels can and do move and change location over time. The City emphasized that with water flowing in Stream B all year, it probably has its source in natural . ground water from the hillside above the culvert. Stream B, they allege, would appear to be fed by water that does not originate from only storm events and therefore, drains natural, perennial water. The City's expert did not believe that either stream was constructed. 27. .The location of the two natural springs noted by neighbors are in the vicinity and southeast of High A venue and 9th and at 9th and Grant Avenue. It was noted by the appellant that these could be feeding Stream A, the natural stream. 28. The Administrator who made the decision noted that Stream A and B are far enough apart to support two natural drainage courses. He acknowledges that human intervention has altered the flow and possibly the character of Stream B. The appellant's expert noted the same urbanization probably affected Stream A. There are no records that document the situation before the culvert was constructed. He did speculate that directing water through a culvert, even into a natural shallow swale, could create a steep banked erosive channel that eventually, over additional time, would attain a more natural slope and appearance, but that with steep slopes that occur on this hillside, an incised channel would probably be formed initially. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The appellant has the burden of demonstrating that the decision of the City Official was either in error, or was otherwise contrary to law or constitutional provisions, or was arbitrary and capricious (Section 4- 8-11O(E)(7)(b). The appellant has demonstrated that the action of the City should be modified or reversed .. The decision regarding the classification of the streams is affrrmed ... 2. Arbitrary and capricious action have been defmed as willful and unreasoning action in disregard of the facts and circumstances. A decision, when exercised honestly and upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances, is not arbitrary or capricious (Northern Pacific Transport Co. v Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, 69 Wn. 2d 472,478 (1966). 3. An action is likewise clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing body, on the entire evidence, is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. (Ancheta v Daly, 77 Wn. 2d 255, 259 (1969). An appellant body should not necessarily substitute its judgment for the underlying agency with expertise in a matter unless appropriate. .. ·Defoor Appeal e· ',. File No.: LUA-05-089, SHPL-H June 8, 2006 Page 16 4. Section 4-8-11 O(E)(7)(a) requires that the decision of the City official be given substantial weight: "Substantial Weight: The procedural detennination by the Environmental Review Committee or City staffshall carry substantial weight in any.appeal proceeding. (Ord. 3891, 2-25-1985) The Hearing Examiner shall give substantial weight to any discretionary decision of the City rendered pursuant to this Chapterffitle. (Ord. 4346; 3-9-1992)." In other words the appellant must show clear and convincing evidence of mistake. First, in the matter of Stream C and Drainage 1 the appellant provided little if any testimony directed to those two water courses. The appellant certainly did not provide any compelling evidence that the Director was incorrect in classifying these two water courses. 5. The City summed up the issues quite accurately -here we have a disagreement between experts. There would appear to be reasonable grounds to accept the view of either set of experts. But code requires that the decision below be given substantial weight. So while it may be unlikely that a natural stream might have originated in the immediate vicinity of the culvert, it was not shown that it would be very unlikely. A number of factors can allow this office to determine that a natural stream, albeit, possibly a narrow and shallow stream existed in this location. Somewhere upslope sufficient water accumulates over the course of a year to create a permanent, some might say, perennial stream, Stream B. This water is not generated by single storm events since it flows even in August, a relatively dry month. Neighbors report it flows through a catch basin just east of the culvert all year. . 6. A number of issues that were not explored also could lead one to believe some stream or storm flow crossed the subject site in this general location. The properly in question was undoubtedly private property when the road and culvert were put in. Yet there is no record that was produced showing any objections from the then property owner about the effect this culvert and steam flow would have on their private property. In other words, it would appear that for some reason the past owner or owners permitted the City to instigate harm using erosive forces to create the water course on the subject site. Or, another alternative might be that the culvert merely formalized a natural drainage course that was . located in this general location. As the record demonstrates, the storm drain or catchment on the opposite side of the road appears to always have a flow of water. These may at one time all been surface flows, small creeks, perhaps, that were captured and piped and conveyed to the culvert under Renton Avenue. Again, while the record does not contain any explicit evidence, you would surmise that if private property was being harmed by the culvert and sluicing action of the stonnwater, the owner of the property would have raised some objection. Of course, it is possible that it was an absent owner but nonetheless, their interests were being harmed unless water always flowed onto and across the property in this location. 7. The old surface maps fail to show Stream A, the larger and natural stream but do show the more major Rolling Hills Creek. If Stream A was present when these old maps were drawn then it would appear that even this more natural larger stream was considered too small to document. Stream B might have been even smaller still and it might not show up on old aerial photos. Relying on historic maps certainly does not reliably help decide if Stream B existed. The resolution of aerial photographs from the 1930's probably left out smaller detail. Interpreting what details we see in older photographs using our 21st Century mindset could lead to misinterpretations. As we know, current aerial photographs now show incredible detail but that could lead one to believe good detail would be found in 60 and 70 year old photos. The photo evidence is not in itself compelling. 8. Then we have the code wherein it classifies streams with certain characteristics. Class 5 waters: I Defoor Appeal e· File No.: LUA-05-089, SHPL-H June 8, 2006 Page 17 "(a) Flow within an artificially constructed channel where no naturally defmed :channel had previously existed ... " The Code does not specifically define "artificially" or "constructed." "Artificially" constructed would seem to mean that there was an intent to "construct" the water course as opposed to just releasing the water from an outfall onto a slope where nature took its course. Webster's Third New International Dictionary (unabridged) defines "artificially" as "in an artificial manner." It defines "artificial" as "contrived through human art or effort and not by natural causes detached from human agency: relating to human direction or effect in contrast to nature." The same source defines "construct" as "to fonn, make, or create by combining parts or elements : Build, Fabricate (in constructing a new freeway). 9. As noted in the fmdings, there was no evidence that someone dug a ditch. There were no spoils or piles of material along Stream B. The Director admitted that over time, the culvert could have sluiced the soils and added to Stream B's downward cutting (erosion) or might have created it. But erosion was probably not intended. It does not appear that anyone intentionally planned for erosion to create or 10. i deepen Stream B. There is no evidence that anyone purposefully "artificially constructed" Stream B. Stream B might have always been there. Focused by a culvert and unaccompanied by some form of dissipater as would now be installed (if piping to the bottom of the hillside were not required) Stream B could certainly be the gully-like formation we now see. It was also noted that Stream A showed signs of incising although not at the scale of Stream B. Could Stream B have been a very gentle, shallow swale with stream flow, and then been deeply incised after the culvert was installed? There is no answer. Also, while the experts testified that this location would be an unusual location for Stream B to develop, we have the unusual situation where Stream B actually naturally split into two separate channels for a distance of some 120 feet before rejoining in what has been called a confluence. That is something, some impediment whether rock, soil type, log or fit of nature caused a stream that was only one channel to suddenly branch out and create a second parallel channel. Since this was described as an area where no natural channel would naturally form we now have two side-by-side channels. So whatever force of nature created a second channel on this section of sidehill might have been the precursor to a similar event years ago that first created Stream B as opposed to having it been created solely by the installation of the culvert. . 11. The appellants have speculated, based on normal geological history, that Stream B was not natural but speculation does not meet the appellant's burden. This office, too, can speculate: Water has probably always flowed down this hillside in various shallow rills. Historically it was channeled or captured into a storm or piped system and culverted and conveyed under Renton Avenue and, in what now would be considered a primitive manner, released unimpeded on the west side of Renton Avenue. This release point might possibly be where it originally crossed the road or hillside. The appellant has the burden of demonstrating that the decision was erroneous and speculation does not meet that burden. 12. The decision below is entitled to substantial weight and will not be overturned unless there is clear and convincing evidence that an error has occurred. If reasonable minds could reach differing conclusions, an error is not substantiated. The decision below must be affmned. • I • ,_ Defoor Appeal • ,',. File No.: LUA-05-089, SHPL-H June 8, 2006 Page 18 DECISION: The decision of the Director is affmned. ORDERED THIS 8th day of June 2006. HEARING . R TRANSMITTED TIllS 8th day of June 2006 to the parties of record: Zanetta Fontes Assistant City Attorney Renton, W A 98055 Pat Conger 1301 S 9th Street Renton, W A 98055 Brian Beaman Icicle Creek Engineers 230 NE Juniper Street, Ste., 101 Issaquah, W A 98027 Neil Watts Director, Development Services City of Renton William Collins 420 Cedar Ave S Renton, W A 98055 Ronnie CS Teng, Leng-Sheng Teng, Mei-Yu Teng Dang, Wei Kang Kho, Chiu-Chu Tuan 835 Elm Avenue San Gabriel, CA 911 07 Jason Walker Talasea 15020 Bear Creek Road NE Woodinville, WA 98077 Debra Eby Ricci Attorney at Law 1601 2nd Avenue, Ste. 1080 Seattle, W A 9810 1 Maryann Reinhart GeoEngineers 8410 154th Ave NE Redmond, W A 98052 Ruth Larson 714 High Avenue South Renton, W A 98055 Tim Burkhardt 4927 197th Ave E Bonney Lake, W A 98390 e· TenyDeFoor SWI, Inc 24633 NE 133M Street Duvall, W A 98019 Jill Ding Development Services City of Renton Renton, W A 98055 Hugh Mortensen Watershed Company 1410 Market Street Kirkland, W A 98033 Eric & Karen Bernard POBox 58306 Tukwila, WA 98138 Michael Chen Core Design, Inc. 14711 NE 29th Place, Ste. 101 Bellevue, W A 98007 Defoor Appeal e File No.: LUA-05-089, SHPL-H June 8,2006 Page 19 TRANSMlTIED TIllS 8th day of June 2006 to the following: Mayor Kathy Keolker Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison Larry Warren, City Attorney Gregg Zimmennan, PBPW Administrator Alex Pietsch, Economic Development Jennifer Henning, Development Services Stacy Tucker, Development Services Stan Engler, Fire Marshal Larry Meckling, Building Official Planning Commission Transpiration Division Utilities Division Neil Watts, Development Services Janet Conklin, Development Services King County Journal Pursuant to Title N, Chapter 8, Section 100Gofthe City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., June 22,2006. 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 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 N, 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., June 22, 2006. H 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 ofthe.fiIe. 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. • t. '. '.: ~ f ,~' .. . 1 '_ • 't'.' ., ".', '. .':' . ,~" '. ...... ; ,',' " '." '.' • I" ~ ". ..... , '. -~ ~. ~. ' .~ ... ,.'. , , .~~ . ' "'. . " , ~ /" ... ". . ~ , , , " ,-. , , , .' 'f'.' .t •• ' , . "j:' .") '" .. " ,' .. .. ..;.'. : .:'., ~ '. . .. - '-i' ..... . .. ' :,' .. ~ ~ r .. : :-;.... ~ \. -,; .. " ~ ; ,", " ;. ';..' " ....... r .. I-. ~ , . ;: '. '. 'w' , .... (.') .. ;0..:' !.' :. /:., , , .. ": ',.·.t .... "l ., .... ,. .':, , J ", " , ,-j ~ " ' .... ~ ~>,' ... , ... ,~. ", t "' ... ' . . ... ". .. :. ... , ••• \~ I , :; .. , ~ .. .. ~'.' ,. • oJ.' , ; I:. ~ .~ . . ,., .... .', ::. J' .,4· .. ·· .• r --... , ,I f· .:. ;'. ,"'} .~ ... 'I" :-,::' ~: -:, .:; ,'-. . ," .... . , , . \' '," ', .. ' '.:' '.' .'.,1 .. "" ~. ';'$'., • t. ". ~ , , " .' . ,'. -..... ~ . .' ~ 0".; : '-0-,. '. ,. " '., \'. " ' .. ":, ." " " ~.' -. 'f' • '.~' .. '.l' . .... " .,;, .1,.- ", ''.-: : , .. : ... .:...., ... ,'. . , ..... "~ " ~' . ' .. ·;,t ,' . ~'-'~"" ~ .' .f,. '3' . -, ." '<;,' '.,: ; ,. ~·.,l '. \.' " .~ " ". ,".: .~ . .,"i:' ..," I .• ' ,'~'''' .::'{ ~ , .~~'" :'.,. . ".' .. I, ".,,:, ,', :>. " '\' .' "'. "" , l." •• . :' ( ; .'." '. ~.' '! ,.' ,',", ...... "". " "',. "" ' ,-". \. , . .. ,' . 'I .', ~ -'. ., ': " , '. ,. '. , ',: \ \ ' .~, ,; \~~ . .-.' . "'", ..... ;" , '. -,' '; J', • : ~ j-!.» .' -, , '1,~': :.. ~.' \ ,'. ", ',>, t .,,' . -. ... ~.' " . ,,- .. ;;.-'. , .. ".: .• , . ." ", '~':~ , ., ';':, .. , '~ .. . '~ ..... ", :,:. '\ ,.,: '. : .:-.:.;( ' . ., ......... " . . " I:' .. ':,. , " , .. ~ '. , .. ' :-:'f, " ,.'. :,.,: "\,' " ' 'i .' .'. , , ',' ':.: .. "" ~. : \ ~.. I" .. ' ...... < . .-~. '.,.1.. 1.: .... ,'-[ '.:'" .: . ... , .) ", '.'; . : : ~ .,.OJ • ..' ....... " , " " " ". ",; "., , , .. :~ ~ :~'" .'-.., ...... .;. .;'. , '. t ~ . , , .. ~ . ,~ .; ' .. ..... •••.• } !; '. ~. ". " ~'. , .. -'~ . -',t" .' .. : .~ . '-'.' "-', , . ~" . ,'. ' .. ", .... " ~. ~~ ... ~ . '~ . , ~ .I. ... ,: .' . ,.. , .\ . , .. ., .... . ,> '~ , ~ : ., " ." ,-~'", " t , ". c. . ... . ... ,. ",: I •. t ''''. "', ,.' .; ~. . ":,, .' , "f. ~ . , . '.. .; ~ .': '. v .,--,-," ." ." ~.' '., "'/' ._l .••• .1.' .\' . , .t. II" ::-" " 'r' ' f.:~::-/ .. ':-_":~';:<'!. ':li' '. r!: '.~;: ' . ~'., '. o· ./ ~~ ". , ~ ,J .~ ~, " , .. : . , . -:.. :'" r) ·t.,' '..; ',,', ".' .. ,' -,~ .. ", .' ,. ." ,~', . , i ~ ',' C l' . : ',) ... "" -' " , .,. ': .... :' ..... ' ..... ., .,' .' '~ : , . '.' ,.::-, ,~ .. . , ;'" . ~-.' \. , , < ;:. •• : ~ : • 4 ••• . '.' ~ , '" ... ,.- ''-i''''' '.e >.;:: .... ~. , .' . t.·. ." ,r"'" r •• . _ .... ~ . ~ .' .. .' i t." ·.f: , ........ . ';" ".:_ :1'. ';-" 1 ... " , '.' . ..:.' ;-.... ~ '. :,-f ',' " ' .... j .... -\ ....... ;, '. ';' l "'~ -.'~ . • • July 5, 2006 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING ST ATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) § COUNTY OF KING ) BONNIE I. W ALTON, 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 of 21 and not a party to nor interested in this matter. That on the 5th day of July, 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 Karen Orehoski, Ricci Grube Aita PLLC, representing Terry Defoor, of the Hearing Examiner's decision regarding the Defoor Short Plat application. (LUA-05-089, SHP). Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE me this 5th day of July, 2006. otary Public in an Washington, residing in Renton . J;::' '. " .~, .'':_l: "\.' :-.'-.: ,. ", .'. .~ .. . ~ .~ '" " ·1.· •. . ; .'. :. -', . ', " .... ,. '" -,: , ~.' " . " " . " ..... " ~t~ ;..~. ,. . , . '\. -J" .' . , ,,'~ , ',,' . ..... \" , '1" y ; ., , '. "': \ .. ' \ .~ • ~, .f. , ~~. :.1" '. ,I •. ••• .l.. .' •••• ··.r ., '.' ',~ ... : :','1, .\.t -, T'.: .... , ': ' .. ;.. '. "':-.' ..-~ '- r,·.- '. ,'. .. : .. ~' ,~ :: ,~ " -~ ;', "', . ...: " ... r .. ';_ ~, .':" ,.:.. . '.-.[' .... • ~ •• I • " . ,.'\ ,.r' ',,,:", ,t,' ... ~ " . 1. :a . ~ . , ~.' : ..... ; .', , ,. ,i . ' , , .. / ... ~ " :'-. J .', .' '.,:, , ' " .: . .... !: . (I. ':":, . ":'.. ' .~ '. ' . ,J.~~ e··· .: ' .. ' ,~ :r-,-.... <' "--; . . f-··-· 'J' '.~ .. . " ..... • "l ". " .~". '_ t.,' ..' ,'.' '. ~f, ,,"- . . '~ . ' .. ::' :. !. '-:"'f ,'. {.: ,; ,'I .':.~ "":.' . ' . ..... ." '.' " . , ·"1, ., . . ',.. , ".)'~, "f " .r;'- ~ ' .. -, I ,', -.,' :: . ::~. ''''';'~:'':'I ' .. ' . _-:" .'1."'. ' . '-, ". . J,:. " -",,~ , ,,;" , , . , '-~ "'" ,.t.. " :. ~ .. , : ' . , 'f ~'. "I .,: /\ .. .. ~ ., f':~ .• ... -:'~' :~'. , ". c,: • ,. t' .' . ,'. , <, ~ ... , L~ ~ , : .... " ", ' ... . ~ '.~ .. ' . .' ~ ·r: \ " ~1., • " " '::' . ' . , . '. ',0:. .', -. ~ , .... : I,. !.; (; . .':' 1\}~ .: . • :....... j. .:.. .\ (: , . , . '. " ',: ~~.,,: .,. 'i '.-" "". "., .. ":.~'. ",' ..... :.~ ., .. .< . ..... ": .' ~., . .~-:: ' ': .~. , " :\ .> "," -:, . V. ,'" . ~ . - ':.:. ~ ... ,.1' • ..... .~ '. ,.' .. \.>. • r 'J ,.. (. ...... . -~. ~. " , ',' . ~::;. " , " -' . ~ , . " ; " .,' J . . ,' ','. , ' "" .'~, .. \/ .' . ' •• 1.. ,l ~:_ .~."..' ., ..... ,,:.' ...... -~.', '~: "~ ( . .... ,'" ',1 '. : ':. ,'~ ~ ;. . ~.' . \' '}. ", } ." ' .. ~ I. • .... : ,; "", ..... f. . \ ~ , ,.'. " .~. ", .' " . " '.-' ~ ~ . -'. " '." .. :-- , '," .< < ' ". .> . ~ " ;". '.', ':'<:\', , ,'C' ~ " ' .. ... ', " : .... "- . ,,', '. :t:- " .• of:;,. ' .. '." " ':,' '. ,~. . .... .' , ..... _, .•.. " ~,~: ."-' .t. ..... '", 1 ,. , ~ . " .: .',' ",."::".. '. :: . I ... ' , ~' .. "'." ... t·,·,. ,.: ~':: '1 . .... .... ; .~' , ", .- . i -',', -t:' r , .' '.' .... ". ;. " '; " ",1 " ••. . 'j' ... ~ ~>' ., .)-' : -:.'. I, " ... -, ':", . ,'. "';" . ,',\ ,,',' "': 'i,: . .', ~'" '. , . '\, ',. :" .'.'\.>-rt 'f".: .. ' ':.:..; .~.. . " ,. ) ' ..... '.' .. ", (0-, , . .' " ~ .... ; ~ .~. ;:.. , .. {.' :.:": ... , ,. , . ,-:.. :. ~." I" '-• '," \,.~ . , ... ~ .,,-.' . " .. ,' .' l' _.; .,-.... . ~" , " .' ,,~'; " ,;':;,,::-, .:1'1' : . ~ " )':.,:. ': ••• ; T ••• ! ' :.t , , ',:.~." •• ,., •• : •• )! :..' ".,. • ," ,,!,.., ", .' ,-:.,.l,.> ~., , . • ,;;. ~ ~ .. :.' /-\ ,." 4 ~. : .", ,. " .... , '.' .' . , '. • ' ',r ~ " .: ,. _ \ . ... ~. ~( ~ . ·1 . , .\, ( '.' , ,. :. :'.~" '" .-. ... :' ~.' ",j .) .,,;' " . • <; ~.. "'\ "','~ . .. , , . .' ·;~'\·.i " . " ,' .... ..... " . -I: v, -r'\ J ~. :. ' •• ";': .". ",,/.,,',: " " '. ; ' ..... ,.," '. .-:.:.~. '. .... ,ll "' . -:" ... ,' ". '.-, .-:':> ;", . '. ~ , ":J. '.. '! ; ~ .... : \.: ."'); ." ~ -.r· , '~ , -; ..... ' .. ""t. ~: .1, ..... .... ;,.. .;: . ~ ~. :. . ... ',.J ...... ' •• , ., 05/22/2005 13:39 2057707507 RICCI GRUBE AlTA PLA PAGE 02/11 • f. APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISIONIRECOMMENDATIOlQlTVOfRENTON L TO RENTON CITY COUNCIL JUN i 2 2006 FILENO. /.,fA ()S"-oeCf/5HPL-J-/' .' APPLICATIONNAME Door ghl?rt Plat-CrrvttCEfRWsE 8FF1CE The undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the decision or recommerfJ:6o; o~'ili~ M/J Land Use Hearing Examiner, dated . Jilt VI -< 8' , 20,Qk. 1. IDENTIFICATION OF PARTY APPELLANT: Name: l...f Y 11/ i)~ ff'CT"'l- Address: 2Lj",~ 37NG /~?r?/ Sl. DIA V~ I ~, wl1 1?"() I '1 REPRE~ENT ATIVE (IF ANY): Name:I<ICc,./ 6nrbe AlG, fL-I-(., , Address://;1o/ r~~P7'?eI /Iv,f.~Fl4lf.l lo~ .s ~"T! / ~, W IJ-~ 8" / / 2-> 2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Attach additional sheets, if necessary) Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon Whieh this appeal is based: FINDING OF FACT: ~lease designate number as denoted in the Examiner's Report) No. _ Error: f /..{ It S'"..f S"'"t ~ /( -t-/-7t c-h ~ 4 /Yl.{ m I'r t/l n 4 V7 n? tIf II dr I » ;" rz 1. PI / / -I rn; rT" VI,---/ Tn b'n 4/17 'jf' Correction: ;} f-~ c. j-. CONCLUSIONS: No. _ Error: P / I PI f.f S""(./ P'{ 'f/?l C h ./ c/ fYll m /l r7I 11 d (/I I1/J Rfcldr~ss/r71 a/I -t'I'O rs WITn (Jtfnc fur/on),. Correction: _________________________ _ OTHER: No. ___ Ertor: _______ ~ ______________________ ~-- Correction: ________________________________ _ 3. SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED The City Council is requested to grant the following relief: (Attach explanation, if desired) X Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relief:S~<''' tf;;JC4?~ef' Modify the decision or recommendation as follows: m ./ m 1lYi?! j/I t4 11 ~ Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows: Other ~ APpelIailtlReSentatiVelgnatUre NOTE: Please refer to Tille ,,,, Chapter B, of the Renton Municipal Code, and Section 4-6-11 OF, for specIfic appeal procedures. H:\r.TTV r.J .F.R K\A PPRA T .\A PPF.A 1. tt'I C.ouncil.doc 05/22/2005 13:39 2057707507 RICCI GRUBE AlTA PLA ATTACHMENT TO APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISIONIRECOMMENDATION TO RENTON CITY COUNCIL FILE NO. LUA 05-089, SHPL-H APPEAL OF JUNE 8, 2006 HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS: FINDINGS OF FACT: PAGE 03/11 No. 17 Error: The Hearing Examiner states in,-r 17 of his Findings of Fact that neighbors of the Defoor property testified that there is a spring and wet area slope feeding Stream B. The Hearing Examiner improperly assigns this information as a Finding of Fact because the neighbors did not testify as experts and there was no evidence presented that Stream B is fed by a spring. Correction: ~ 17 should read that there was no evidence supporting the neighbors' testimony and that the neighbors are not experts. The only evidence presented to support that a wet area slope and/or a spring is feeding Stream B was non-expert testimony by neighbors ofthe property. Further, the existence of ground water is irrelevant to the ultimate decision which is whether or not this watercourse was artificially created. No. 23 Error: The Hearing Examiner states in ,-r 23 of his Findings of Fact that the 1936 aerial photograph does not appear to show Stream B (emphasis added). Correction: This Fjnding of Fact should read that the 1936 aerial photograph does not show Stream B. No. 24 Error: In the last sentence of,-r 24, the Hearing Examiner states, "This offtce finds there is no cvidence that there was an intent to create a channel as opposed to just releasing water from a culvert on the downslope side of the roadway." It should be noted that no evidence was presented at all regarding the intent of the City when the culvert system and roadway were constructed. Further, intent is ilTelevant to detcnnine the matter at hand as Renton Municipal Code (RMC) does not address intent. Correction: This sentence should be stricken because (1) no evidence was presented to support the Hearing Examiner's conclusion on intent and (2) intent is irrelevant in constming the relevant RMC provisions. No. 26 Error: The Hearing Examiner's summary of the City expert, Hugh Mortensen's, testimony fails to note that the Mr. Mortensen's conclusion that the stream was perennial because it was flowing in late August was based on one site visit. Mr. Mortensen presented no field notes or other evidence to support his testimony. Mr. Mortensen based his conclusion that Stream B should be classified as a Class 3 stream on one site visit and does not have the field notes to support that finding. Mr. Mortensen states that a possible reason Stream B is not seen in the 1936 aerial photograph is because a six inch stream would not be visible on a photograph of this scale. The Hearing Examiner fails to note in his findings that this is speculation on Mr. Mortensen's behalf and there was no evidence FILE NO. 05-089, SHPL-H APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION OF JUNE 8, 2006 OS/22/2005 13:39 2057707507 RICCI GRUBE AlTA PLA PAGE 04/11 supporting a finding that Stream B was in existence at all in 1936 and certainly no evidence supporting a finding that it was six inches in width at that time. Further, the Hearing Examiner fails to note that no evidence was presented supporting Mr. Mortensen's conclusion that water other than storm water is feeding Stream B. Correction: ~ 26 should note that Mr. Mortensen's conclusions are based upon one site visit and no other evidence was presented supporting his speculation that Stream B was in existence at aU in 1936. The paragraph should also reflect that there wa~ no evidence presented that water other than stonn water is feeding Stream B. CONCLUSIONS: No.5 Error: In ~ 5 of the Conclusion section, the Hearing Examiner states that he believes this matter has come down to a disagreement between experts. The Hearing Examiner then goes on to state that the decision below must be given substantial weight. While this is true, it goes against reason to assign substantial weight to the decision of the Development Services Director when that decision was based upon one site visit by the City's expert, Hugh Mortensen, and when Mr. Mortensen is unable to support his findings by field notes or any other data. The Appellant presented several geomorphologic experts, all of whom agreed that Stream B is an artificially constructed watercourse and all of whom prescntcd scientific data based upon several visits to the site in question. The Hearing Examiner does not appear to give any wejght at all to this testimony and evidence. While City Ordinance 4346 does require the Hearing Examiner to give substantial weight to the decision be.low, it does not mean that evidence presented to the contrary should not be assigned the proper weight. The Hearing Examiner concludes that because there may be water, other than storm water that runs in Stream B it is perennial and therefore qualifies as a Class 3 stream. This conclusion ignores the evidence that Stream B was fonned by actions taken by the City of Renton and not through natural means. The Hearing Examiner bases his conclusion that Stream B is a Class ~ stream on testimony that it has a perennial flow. However, according to RMC, the pereIlllial nature of a watercourse does not bar that watercourse from being a Class 5 stream: Class 5: Class 5 waters are non-regulated non-salmonid-bearil1g waters which meet one or more of the following criteria: (a) Flow within an artificially constructed cha1Ulel where no naturally defined channel had previously existed; and/or (b) Are a surficially isolated water body less than one-half (0.5) acre (e.g., pond) not meeting the criteria for a wetland as defined in subsection M of this Section. RMC 4-3-050(L)(a)(v). The Hearing Examiner's conclusion in ~ 5 is based on a flawed reading ofRMC. Whether or not the watercourse has a pereIlllial flow is irrelevant to whether it was artificially constructed. The drafters of RMC did not address the nature of the flow of an FILE NO. 05-089, SHPL-H . APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION OF JUNE 8, 2006 OS/22/2005 13:39 2057707507 RICCI GRUBE AlTA PLA artificially constructed watercourse and the Hearing Examiner cannot now base his decision on an clement that is not addressed in RMC. Further, the Hearing Examiner does not assign the proper weight to the testimony and evidence presented by the Appellant's experts. The Hearing Examiner fails to note that the City presented no evidence, other than speculation, that Stream B is a naturally occurring stream while the Appellant's experts testified and pre~ented evidence that it is an artificially constructed watercourse. PAGE 05/11 Correction: Because the Hearing Examiner did not take into consideration all the testimony and evidence presented during the hearing, the Hearing Examiner'S decision should be reversed based on the evidence and testimony presented by the Appellant's experts. According to RMC, the perennial nature of StTeam B docs not preclude it from qualifying as a Class 5 stream and inasmuch as the Hearing Examiner's decision is based on the possible perennial nature of Stream B, the decision should be reversed. No.6 Error: In ~ 6, the Hearing Examiner concludes that because there were no objections from the previous property owner when the road and culvert were installed, that there must have been a pre-existing stream. There was no evidence presented to support this conclusion ofthe Hearing Examiner. The decisions of a prior property owner are irrelevant to these proceedings. It is improper for the Hearing Examiner to surmise what a past owner would do and certainly when no evidence was presented that the past owner did not object to the City. Correction: This should be stricken from the Hearing Examiner's decision and the decision should be reversed in that it was partly based on irrelevant information that was not supported by testimony or evidence. No.7 Error: The Hearing Examiner addresses the photographic evidence presented by the Appellant and concludes that Stream B not appearing in the aerial photographs is not compelling evidence that Stream B did not exist prior to the City'S construction of the roadway and culvert. This conclusion by the Hearing Examiner fails to recognize that there was also testimony from the Appellant's experts that Stream B is likely only decades old. This testimony is based on geomorphologic data. The Hearing Examiner failed to consider the photographic evidence and the testimony presented by the Appellant's expert in conjunction wjth each other. The City failed to present any evidence or testimony to support that Stream B was in existence before the road and culvert were constructed. Correction: The Hearing Examiner's decision should be reversed because the Hearing Examiner failed to consider all the evidence and testimony prescnte~ during the hearing. No.8 Error: The Hearing Examiner addresses the definitions of "artificially" and "constructed" as used in RMC 4-3-050(L)(a)(v) to define a Class 5 stream. RMC does not define "artificially" or "constructed". It is widely recognized in the law that when a statute fails to defme a term, that term will be construed in accordance with its general dictionary definition. City of Yakima v. Johnson, 16 Wn.App. 143, 146,553 P.2d 1104, 1105-1106 (J 976). As the Hearing Examiner notes, Webster's Third New International Dictionary defines "artificial" as "contrived through human art or effort and not by natural causes detached from human agency: relating to human direction or effect in FILE NO. 05-089, SHPL-H APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION OF JUNE 8, 2006 05/22/2005 13:39 2057707507 RICCI GRUBE AlTA PLA contrast to nature." "Construct" is defined as "to form, malee, or create by combining parts or elements: Build, Fabricate." While the Hearing Examiner recognizes that ordinary meaning must be assigned to thesE: words, he states in ,-r 8 that artificially constructed seems to mean there was intent to construct the water course. The Hearing Examiner extends the definitions provided by Webster's Third New International Dictionary by adding the element of intent. The definitions do not speak to intent nor does the RMC. Correction: The Hearing Examiner's decision should be reversed because the ordinary meaning of "artificially" and "construct" do not contain an element of intent and RMC does not require that the City intentionally construct an artificial channel in order for a watercourse to be a Class 5 stream. The drafters of RMC did not jnclude an element of intent in their definition and the Hearing Examiner cannot now base his decision on lack of intent. PAGE 05/11 No.9 Error: The Hearing Examiner's conclusions in ~ 9 are based upon his finding that the City did not intentionally construct a watercourse. As noted above, this is in error because neither the ordinary meaning of "artificially" and "constructed" nor RMC require that there be intent. Reading the definition of a Class 5 stream as a whole, it is clear that Stream B is a Class 5 stream: "Flow within an artificially constructed channel where no naturally defined channel had previously existed." The City offered no evidenCE: that Stream B existed prior to the construction of the road and culvert system. On the other hand, the Appellant's experts presented ample evidence that this watercourse was not in existence prior to the construction of the road and culvert system. Correction: The Hearing Examiner's decision should be reversed because he mistakenly bases his decision on lack of intent by the City where intent is not an element in the RMC or the ordinary definitions of "artificially" or "constructed". No. 10 Error: The conclusions reached by the Hearing Examiner in ~ 10 are not supported by any evidence presented by the City. These conclusions are not supported by any Finding of Fact in the record. Correction: The Hearing Examiner's decision should be reversed because his conclusions are not based on evidence of record. No. 11 Error: The Hearing Examiner states thc Appellant has speculated that Stream B is artificial and that speculation does not meet the Appellant's burden. The record reflects that the Appellant's case is based on much more than speCUlation. The Appellant's case is based on geomorphologic science and this qualifies as more than speculation. However, the City's case appears to be based on a conclusion reached by one person who made one visit to the site at issue. The expert testimony and evidence presented by the Appellant qualifies as more than speculation and should be given more weight than the Hearing Examiner is willing to assign to it. Even while giving substantial weight to the decision below, the ample evidence presented by the AppeUant met the Appellant's burden in this matter, demonstrating that the decision below was in error by a showing of clear and convincing evidence. Correction: The Hearing Exarnjner'~ decision should be reversed because he fails to base his decision on evidence of record. FILE NO. 05-089, SHPL-H APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMTNER'S DECISION OF JUNE 8,2006 05/22/2005 13:39 2057707507 RICCI GRUBE AlTA PLA No. 12 Error: As stated above, the Appellant met the burden of demonstrating that the decision below was in error and did so with clear and convincing evidence. The record itself clearly demonstrates that Stream B was artificially constructed by the City's constmction ofthe roadway ~U1d oulvert system. The Hearing Examiner fails to assign the proper weight to testimony and evidence presented by the Appellant. Correction: The Hearing Examiner's decision should be reversed because the Appellant did meet his burden of demonstrating errOr with the decision below and did so by presenting clear and convincing evidence to the Hearing Examiner. SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED: PAGE 07/11 The Appellant respectfully requests that the Renton City Council reverse the June 8. 2006, decision of the Hearing Examiner and grant the following relief: Classify Stream B as a Class 5 stream based upon the evidence in the record demonstrating that Stream B was artificially constructed when the City of Renton constructed the roadway and culvert system. FILE NO. 05-089, SHPL-H APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION OF JUNE 8, 2006 06/22/2006 13:39 2067707607 RICCI GRUBE AlTA PLA PAGE 09/11 • REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL TO ACCEPT NEW EVIDENCE FILE NO. LUA 05-089, SHPL-R RE: APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION OF JUNE 8,2006 The Appellant, Terry Defoor, respectfully requests that the City Council accept new evidence in this matter attached to this Request as Exhibit A. This affidavit was not available to the Appellant at the time of the hearing before the Hearing Examiner as the author of the affidavit. Larry Fisher of the Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife, did not make a. site visit until after the hearing took place. In accordance with RMC 4-8- 1] OF(5), this evidence was not available to the Appellant at the time of the hearing before the Hearing Examiner. FILE NO. 05-089, SHPL-ll REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL TO ACCEPT NEW EVIDENCE 06/22/2006 13:39 2067707607 RICCI GRUBE AlTA PLA e PAGE 10/11 EXHIBIT A Defoor Appeal of June 8, 2006 Hearing Examiner's Decision LVA 05-089, SHPL-H EXHmIT A -Declaration of Larry Fisher OS/22/2005 13:39 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 l2 13 2057707507 RICCI GRUBE AlTA PLA PAGE 11/11 • • APPEAL OF .JUNE 8~ 2006 HEARING EXAMINER'S DE CISIONIRECOMMENDA "fION TO .RENTON CITY COUNCIL RE: DEfOOR APPEAL FILE. NO. LUt\ 05-089, SHPI.-H DECLARATION OF LARRY FISHER I. Larry Fisher, certify and declare a:; foUo,"y:;; 1. I am an Area. Habitat Bjologi$t with the Washington Department of Fi!lh and Wildlife, 2. I have reviewed the fea,tures on the Defoof proporty localed in the City of Renton 14 referredfo as Stream B and Drainage 1; ]5 3. My review of Stre!am B and Drainage 1 took place on Friday Ma)' 30, 2006, at. the 16 property site at issue. 1 was accompanied by Wi Hi am ShieJs. Pnncipal of TalasaeB 17 CODSultllnts. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4. Based on the gC01DClrphoiogi.c characteri3tics of Stream B aJld Drainage 1, it is my opinion tha.t Stream B and Drainage J atc thc reSlllt of erosion dlle to the discharge of sfQnT1Wl1'er along Renton Avenue South, and are therefore artificial watercourses. DATED at '&<.1 (~y\,) .. , W3shingtonthis Z.z.~dayof ~""""'l, __ -,.2006. Lany FIsher Area Habitat Biologist Washington J)ep8.rtm~r. ofFish and Wildlife DECLARA nON OF LARRY flSHERRB: DEFOOR APPEAL TO RF.NTON CITY COl.1NCn. -p"t::c 1 of 1 05/22/~00~ 13:39 TO: 2057707507 RICCI GRUBE AITA PLA RICCI GRUBE AlTA, PLLC ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW lOKO BR0ADACltlSS 'BUILDING 1601 SECONO AVENUE SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 TEL. (206) 770-7606 FAX (206) 770-7607 FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET FROM; Renton City Clerk Karen Orehoski COMPANY: DATE: 6122/2006 "I\X NUMBER.; TOTAL NO. Of PI\GF.S INCLUDING COVER: 4254306516 11 PI'IONE NUMBER: RE: PAGE 01/11 CITY OF RENTON JUN 2.2 200S RECEIVED CIlY CLERK'S OFFICE /+p,ro'f. 'Z.p.(h, MAl Defoor Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision LUA 05-089, SHPL-H o URGENT 0 FOR YOUR FILE I2J FOR YOUR REVIEW 0 PLEASE REPLY o PLEASE RECYCI.E NOTES/COMMENTS: Dear Clerk folloWlg this page you will find my clie.nt's Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision, File No. LUA 05-089, SHPL-I-I. I am sending the originals via U.S. Mail today. I am also faxing a receipt indicating that we paid the required $75.00 to your offiee on June 16, 2006. If there are any questions or if you do not receive all the pages, please contact mc immediately. You can reach me at (206) 838-8650 Best tegards, Karen Orehoslri THE DOCUMENTS ACCOMPANYING THIS FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION CONTAIN INFORMATION TRAT IS OR MAV BF; CONFIDENTIAL AND/OR PROTECTED BY TUE ATTORNEY-CLmNT PRIVILEGE. THE INFORMATION IS INTENDED FOR THE SOLE USE OJ!' THI INDIVIDUAL NAMED ON THIS TRANSMISSION SHEET ONI.V. If YOU ARE NOT TIlE lNTEND(i:O RECIPIENT, OR AN AGENT OR EMPLOYEE OF TilE RECIPIENT, PLEASE BE AWARE THAT ANY DISCLOSURF.. COPl'ING, DISTRIBUTION, OR USE OF THIS INFORMATION IS PROHIBITED. IF YOU nAVJi, RECEIVED TillS FACSIMILE TRA NoS M IS510 N IN F;R.R.OR. PL [AS 'E /II OTIFY US BY CO LLE CT TIi:I.EPII ONE CA L L JMMED.IAl'ILY, AND WE WILL ARRANGE FOR TilE RETRIEVAl. OF TlU DOCUMENTS. THANK YOU. ~sh CITY OF RENTON City Clerk Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 425-430· 651 0 o Check No. _____ _ o C~yFee 1d'1\ppeaJ Fee Description: De .pOnT <\ hr:n-+ . I/o I----,---~ LvA-o~--:£) ~9, 51ifJ~_."1i 7 Funds Received From: Name f:t Cq ::bif ~:I' Address L 0 "7 PI d~ A5t< loft) City/Zip Seq tile l WA-J-'~ 10 ( Receipt N~ 0588 Dale &/1 o/~oCa o Notary Service 0 ________________ _ l~mount $ 7), 0 ;;-] ~ (Jl "-to to "-to ~ ~ -(Jl I-' W W to to ~ (Jl ..... ..... ~ e~ ;0 H o o H (j) ;0 C tJ:l rr1 D -.-~ II I D II D (j) rr1 ~ In "-I-' I-' RI~CI GRUBE AlTA, P~LC ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LA W KAREN OREHOSKI WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL: (206) 838-8650 E-MAIL: KARENO@RICCILAW.NET City of Renton ATTN: City Clerk 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 June 22, 2006 TELEPHONE: (206) 770-7606 FACSIMILE: (206) 770-7607 CITY OF RENTON JUN 2 6 2006 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Re: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision, File No. LUA 05-089, SHPL-H Dear Clerk: Enclosed you will find the Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision for File No. LUA 05- 089, SHPL-H. These documents were faxed to the City Clerk's office at (425) 430-6516 on June 22,2006 and confirmation oftheir arrival in your office was given by Jason that same day. Thank you for your assistance with this matter. If you have any questions or concerns, you can reach me at (206) 838-8650. Very truly yours, ~~O~r0 -! K:en Orehoski RICCI GRUBE AIT A, PLLC 1080 BROADACRES BUILDING • 1601 SECOND AVENUE SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3526 APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISIONIRECOMMENDATION L TO RENTON CITY COUNCIL FILE NO. . fA II ()5"-O'OQ /5 HP L-I-/ APPUCATION NAME _________ --'--_______________ _ The undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the decision or recommendation of the Land Use Hearing Examiner, ~ted . J u VI < 8' , 20Qf2.. 1. IDENTIFICATION OF PARTY APPELLANT: Name: T~ y Yl/ j)~ h-crr I REPRE~ENT ATIVE (IF ANY): Name:/s'ICc./ 6114 bl' &171 t P {'l-~ . Address: 2Lj{,'P 3 N13 /~?r7/' Sf. Address:/('()/ r~~~d 1Iv".,JI1/f-/ /o2V DvT v", / / ,VVA 1<?-tJ I '1 I S ~ ~TlI.f t W If &J g-1/ 2- 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: ~lease designate number as denoted in the Examiner's Report) No. _ Error: f I ..{ It ~ ~ S",{ -I /T-f-b, & h ./ 4' /Yl ,( m ~r tf7 17 4 VlIZJ Pfddft»)ll71. 41/ I'rrtJrT wirn h'n4//7'j.f' Correction: I f-f7t c-+: . CONC~USIONS:' ~ No._· Error:~/II/f f.f S~.f Vf tPt c h~'c/ iJ11 mil r7/ n d t/l na ac/ d r / ss /-"71 a / I -t'r n rs-W lin {J1f nc / I/l r l/Jnf. Correction: _________ ---.:.... _______________ _ OTHER: No. Error. ________ ~ _____________________________________ _ Correction: ___________________________ ~ ______________ _ 3. SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED The City Council is requested to grant theJollowing relief: (Attach explanation, if desired) X. Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relief:') ~ ~ " tf;i;vn ~e:/ Modify the decision or recommendation as follows: 111../ in rrt?! P1 e:1 PJ f11 Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows: Other ~1dP APpeUant/Resentati ve Sfgnature Date l NOTE: Please refer to Title IV, Chapter 8, of the Renton Municipal Code, and Section 4-8-110F, for specific appeal procedures. R\(,ITY ('I .RRK\APPRAL\APPRAL to Counci1.doc • City of Renton Municipal Code; Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110 -Appeals 4-8-110C4 • I , w 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) 4-8-110F: Appeals to City Council-Procedures 1. Time for Appeal: Unless a specific section or State law providing for review of decision of the Examiner requires review thereof by the Superior Court or any other body, any interested party aggrieved by the Examiner's written decision or recommendation may submit a notice of appeal to the City Council, upon a form furnished by the City Clerk, within fourteen (14) calendar days from'the date of the E~aminer's written report. . 2. Notice t~ 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 ~o Provide Comments: Other parties of record may submit letters in support of ,< their positions within ten (i0) '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, an4 additional letters submitted by the parties. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-1982) 5. Council,R~view Pr~ures: No public hearing shal~ be held by the City Council. No new or additional evidence or testimony shalI'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 p.ew or additional evidence or testimony, and a remand to the Hearing Examiner for receipt of such evidence or testimo~y, it shall be presumed that no new: or additional evidence or testimony has bee~ 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 reeord, 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 ~he 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 m~ified, the City Council may remand the proceeding to the Examiner for reconsideration, or enter its own decision upon the applica~ion. 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) ATTACHMENT TO APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISIONIRECOMMENDATION TO RENTON CITY COUNCIL FILE NO. LUA 05-089, SHPL-H APPEAL OF JUNE 8, 2006 HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS: FINDINGS OF FACT: No. 17 Error: The Hearing Examiner states in ~ 17 of his Findings of Fact that neighbors of the Defoor property testified that there is a spring and wet area slope feeding Stream B. The Hearing Examiner improperly assigns this information as a Finding of Fact because the neighbors did not testify as experts and there was no evidence presented that Stream B is fed by a spring. Correction: ~ 17 should read that there was no evidence supporting the neighbors' testimony and that the neighbors are not experts. The only evidence presented to support that a wet area slope and/or a spring is feeding Stream B was non-expert testimony by neighbors ofthe property. Further, the existence of ground water is irrelevant to the ultimate decision which is whether or not this watercourse was artificially created. No. 23 Error: The Hearing Examiner states in ~ 23 of his Findings of Fact that the 1936 aerial photograph does not appear to show Stream B (emphasis added). Correction: This Finding of Fact should read that the 1936 aerial photograph does not show Stream B. No. 24 Error: In the last sentence of~ 24, the Hearing Examiner states, "This office finds there is no evidence that there was an intent to create a channel as opposed to just releasing water from a culvert on the downslope side of the roadway." It should be noted that no evidence was presented at all regarding the intent of the City when the culvert system and roadway were constructed. Further, intent is irrelevant to determine the matter at hand as Renton Murucipal Code (RMC) does not address intent. Correction: This sentence should be stricken because (1) no evidence was presented to support the Hearing Examiner's conclusion on intent and (2) intent is irrelevant in construing the relevant RMC provisions. No. 26 Error: The Hearing Examiner's summary of the City expert, Hugh Mortensen's, testimony fails to note that the Mr. Mortensen's conclusion that the stream was perennial because it was flowing in late August was based on one site visit. Mr. Mortensen presented no field notes or other evidence to support his testimony. Mr. Mortensen based his conclusion that Stream B should be classified as a Class 3 stream on one site visit and does not have the field notes to support that finding. Mr. Mortensen states that a possible reason Stream B is not seen in the 1936 aerial photograph is because a six inch stream would not be visible on a photograph of this scale. The Hearing Examiner fails to note in his findings that this is speculation on Mr. Mortensen's behalf and there was no evidence FILE NO. 05-089, SHPL-H APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION OF JUNE 8, 2006 supporting a finding that Stream B was in existence at all in 1936 and certainly no evidence supporting a finding that it was six inches in width at that time. Further, the Hearing Examiner fails to note that no evidence was presented supporting Mr. Mortensen's conclusion that water other than storm water is feeding Stream B. Correction: ~ 26 should note that Mr. Mortensen's conclusions are based upon one site visit and no other evidence was presented supporting his speculation that Stream B was in existence at all in 1936. The paragraph should also reflect that there was no evidence presented that water other than storm water is feeding Stream B. CONCLUSIONS: No.5 Error: In ~ 5 of the Conclusion section, the Hearing Examiner states that he believes this matter has come down to a disagreement between experts. The Hearing Examiner then goes on to state that the decision below must be given substantial weight. While this is true, it goes against reason to assign substantial weight to the decision of the Development Services Director when tha~ decision was based upon one site visit by the City's expert, Hugh Mortensen, and when Mr. Mortensen is unable to support his findings by field notes or any other data. The Appellant presented several geomorphologic experts, all of whom agreed that Stream B is an artificially constructed watercourse and all of whom presented scientific data based upon several visits to the site in question. The Hearing Examiner does not appear to give any weight at all to this testimony and evidence. While City Ordinance 4346 does require the Hearing Examiner. to give substantial weight to the decision below, it does not mean that evidence presented to the contrary should not be assigned the proper weight. The Hearing Examiner concludes that because there may be water, other than storm water that runs in Stream B it is perennial and therefore qualifies as a Class 3 stream. This conclusion ignores the evidence that Stream B was formed by actions taken by the City of Renton and not through natural means. The Hearing Examiner bases his conclusion that Stream B is a Class ~ stream on testimony that it has a perennial flow. However, according to RMC, the perennial nature of a watercourse does not bar that watercourse from being a Class 5 stream: Class 5: Class 5 waters are non-regulated non-salmOliid-bearing waters which meet one or more of the following criteria: (a) Flow within an artificially constructed channel where no naturally defined channel had previously existed; and/or (b) Are a surficially isolated water body less than one-half (0.5) acre (e.g., pond) not meeting the criteria for a wetland as defined in subsection M of this Section. RMC 4-3-050(L)(a)(v). The Hearing Examiner's conclusion in ~ 5 is based on a flawed reading ofRMC. Whether or not the watercourse has a perennial flow is irrelevant to whether it was artificially constructed. The drafters ofRMC did not address the nature of the flow of an FILE NO. 05-089, SHPL-H APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION OF JUNE 8, 2006 artificially constructed watercourse and the Hearing Examiner cannot now base his decision on an element that is not addressed in RMC. Further, the Hearing Examiner does not assign the proper weight to the testimony and evidence presented by the Appellant's experts. The Hearing Examiner fails to note that the City presented no evidence, other than speculation, that Stream B is a naturally occurring stream while the Appellant's experts testified and pre.c.ented evidence that it is an artificially constructed watercourse. Correction: Because the Hearing Examiner did not take into consideration all the testimony and evidence presented during the hearing, the Hearing Examiner's decision should be reversed based on the evidence and testimony presented by the Appellant's experts. According to RMC, the perennial nature of Stream B does not preclude it from qualifying as a Class 5 stream and inasmuch as the Hearing Examiner's decision is based on the possible perennial nature of Stream B, the decision should be reversed. No.6 Error: In ~ 6, the Hearing Examiner concludes that because there were no objections from the previous property owner when the road and culvert were installed, that there must have been a pre-existing stream. There was no evidence presented to support this conclusion ofthe Hearing Examiner. The decisions of a prior property owner are irrelevant to these proceedings. It is improper for the Hearing Examiner to surmise what a past owner would do and certainly when no evidence was.presented that the past owner did not object to the City. Correction: This should be stricken from the Hearing Examiner's decision-and the decision should be reversed in that it was partly based on irrelevant information that was not supported by testimony or evidence. No.7 Error: The Hearing Examiner addresses the photographic evidence presented by the Appellant and concludes that Stream B not appearing in the aerial photographs is not compelling evidence that Stream B did not exist prior to the City's construction of the roadway and culvert. This conclusion by the Hearing Examiner fails to recognize that there was also testimony from the Appellant's experts that Stream B is likely only decades old. This testimony is based on geomorphologic data. The Hearing Examiner failed to consider the photographic evidence and the testimony presented by the Appellant's expert in conjunction with each other. The City failed to present any evidenc~ or testimony to support that Stream B was inexistence before the road and culvert were constructed. Correction: The Hearing Examiner's decision should be reversed because the Hearing Examiner failed to consider all the evidence and testimony presente~ during the hearing. No.8 Error: The Hearing Examiner addresses the definitions of "artificially" and "constructed" as used in RMC 4-3-050(L)(a)(v) to define a Class 5 stream. RMC does not define "artificially" or "constructed". It is widely recognized in the law that when a statute fails to define a term, that term will be construed in accordance with its general dictionary definition. City a/Yakima v. Johnson, 16 Wn.App. 143, 146,553 P.2d 1104, 1105-1106 (1976). As the Hearing Examiner notes, Webster's Third New International Dictionary defines "artificial" as "contrived through human art or effort and not by natural causes detached from human agency: relating to human direction or effect in FILE NO. 05-089, SHPL-H APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION OF JUNE 8, 2006 contrast to nature." "Construct" is defined as "to form, make, or create by combining parts or elements: Build, Fabricate." While the Hearing Examiner recognizes that ordinary meaning must be assigned to these words, he states in ~ 8 that artificially constructed seems to mean there was intent to construct the water course. The Hearing Examiner extends the definitions provided by Webster's Third New International Dictionary by adding the element of intent. The definitions do not speak to intent nor does the RMC. Correction: The Hearing Examiner's decision should be reversed because the ordinary meaning of "artificially" and "construct" do not contain an element of intent and RMC does not require that the City intentionally construct an artificial channel in order for a watercourse to be a Class 5 stream. The drafters of RMC did not include an element of intent in their definition and the Hearing Examiner cannot now base his decision on lack of intent. No.9 Error: The Hearing Examiner's conclusions in ~ 9 are based upon his finding that the City did not intentionally construct a watercourse. As noted above, this is in error because neither the ordinary meaning of "artificially" and "constructed" nor RMC require that there be intent. Reading the definition of a Class 5 stream as a whole, it is clear that Stream B is a Class 5 stream: "Flow within an artificially constructed channel where no naturally defined channel had previously existed." The City offered no evidence that Stream B existed prior to the construction of the road and culvert system. On the other hand, the Appellant's experts presented ample evidence that this watercourse was not in existence prior to the construction of the road and culvert system. Correction: The Hearing Examiner's decision should be reversed because he mistakenly bases his decision on lack of intent by the City where intent is not an element in the RMC or the ordinary definitions of "artificially" or "constructed". No. 10 Error: The conclusions reached by the Hearing Examiner in ~ 10 are not supported by any evidence presented by the City. These conclusions are not supported by any Finding of Fact in the record. Correction: The Hearing Examiner's decision should be reversed because his conclusions are not based on evidence of record. No. 11 Error: The' Hearing Examiner states the Appellant has speculated that Stream B is artificial and that speculation does not meet the Appellant's burden. The record reflects '. that the Appellant's case is based on much more than speculation. The Appellant's case is based on geomorphologic science and this qualifies as more than speCUlation. However, the City's case appears to be based on a conclusion reached by one person who made one visit to the site at issue. The expert testimony and evidence presented by the Appellant qualifies as more than speculation and should be given more weight than the Hearing Examiner is willing to assign to it. Even while giving substantial weight to the decision below, the ample evidence presented by the Appellant met the Appellant's burden in this matter, demonstrating that the decision below was in error by a showing of clear and convincing evidence. Correction: The Hearing Examiner's decision should be reversed because he fails to base his decision on evidence of record. FILE NO. 05-089, SHPL-H APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION OF JUNE 8, 2006, No. 12 Error: As stated above, the Appellant met the burden of demonstrating that the decision below was in error and did so with clear and convincing evidence. The record itself clearly demonstrates that Stream B was artificially constructed by the City'S construction of the roadway and culvert system. The Hearing Examiner fails to assign the proper weight to testimony and evidence presented by the Appellant. Correction: The Hearing Examiner's decision should be reversed because the Appellant did meet his burden of demonstrating error with the decision below and did so by presenting clear and convincing evidence to the Hearing Examiner. SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED: The Appellant respectfully requests that the Renton City Council reverse the June 8, 2006, decision of the Hearing Examiner and grant the following relief: Classify Stream B as a Class 5 stream based upon the evidence in the record demonstrating that Stream B was artificially constructed when the City of Renton constructed the roadway and culvert system. FILE NO. 05-089, SHPL-H APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION OF JUNE 8, 2006 ~sh CITY OF RENTON City Clerk Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 425-430-6510 o Check No . ...:.-____ _ ·0 C~yFee 1I2'i\ppeal Fee Description: De .poor-._S'hf2-L + . _l1d LuA-0 $"""--0 ~9 ~Slt~k""rL , Funds Received From: Name ~tCq :b~ ~I Address L 0 ~ PI d= Ste /OiD City/Zip S~qf//eJ WIt f~/O I Receipt N~ 0588 Date (PI ¥ ~()Ca o Notary Service o ---------------------- I Amount $ 7S; 00 I e e ; REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL TO ACCEPT NEW EVIDENCE FILE NO. LUA 05-089, SHPL-H RE: APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION OF JUNE 8, 2006 The Appellant, Terry Defoor, respectfully requests that the City Council accept new evidence in this matter attached to this Request as Exhibit A. This affidavit was not available to the Appellant at the time of the hearing before the Hearing Examiner as the author of the affidavit, Larry Fisher of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, did not make a site visit until after the hearing took place. In accordance with RMC 4-8- 110F(5), this evidence was not available to the Appellant at the time of the hearing before the Hearing Examiner. FILE NO. 05-089, SHPL-H REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCiL TO ACCEPT NEW EVIDENCE , • EXHIBIT A Defoor Appeal of June 8, 2006 Hearing Examiner's Decision LUA 05-089, SHPL-H EXHIBIT A -Declaration of Larry Fisher , " 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ,13 • APPEALOF.~E8,2006 HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISIONIRECOMMENDATION TO RENTON CITY COUNCIL RE: DEFOOR APPEAL FILE NO. LUA 05-089, SHPL-H DECLARATION OF LARRY FISHER I,LarryFisher. certify and dectareas follows: L lanun Area. Habitat Biologist with the Washington Department ofFish~dWildlife. 2. I have reviewed the features on the Defoor property located in the City of Renton ::1;(: r~ferred to as Stream.B and Drainage. 1. My review of Stream B and Drainage 1 tookp]ace on Friday May 30, 2006, at the 16 property site at issue. I wasaccpmpanied by William Shiels, Principal of Talasaea 17 Consultants. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4. Based on the geomoiphologic characteristics of Stream B and Drainage 1, it is my opinion that Stream B arid Dtainage 1 are the result of erosion due to the discharge of stonnwater along Renton Avenue South, and are·therefore artificial watercourses. DATEDat ·&c..II~yv .. " Washington this z 2.. ~ day of -:s Vr-. t. • 2006. ~ ~.:..-{)-.- Larry Fisher Area Habitat Biologist Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife OECC'ARA TION·OFLARRYF1SHBRITRE:,,~EFOOR APPEAL TORENTONt::JttYCotiNclt: '~'p~~ r 00 .' . \' ® City Clerk's Office Distribution List ~ Appeal, Defoor Short Plat (LUA-05-089, SHP) + ~ - + ~~NcrO~ June 22, 2006 ' .. 1 King County Journal 2 City Attorney • Larry Warren ~ Zanetta Fontes 1 City Council * Julia Medzegian 1 EDNSP/Economic Development Alex Pietsch 1 Fire DeptlFire Prevention Stan Engler 7 Planning Commission Judith Subia 13 Parties of Record (see attached list) 1 PBPW I Administration Gregg Zimmerman 6 PBPW IDevelopment Services • Jennifer Henning Larry Meckling • Neil Watts ~ Jill Ding Stacy Tucker Janet Conklin 1 PBPW ITransportation Services Peter Hahn , I PBPWlUtilities & Tech Services Lys Hornsby 1 LUA-05-089 • , * Cover Letter & POR List only Jason Walker Talasea 15020 Bear Creek Rd NE Woodinville, W A 98077 Debra Eby Ricci Attorney at Law 1601 2nd Ave., Ste. 1080 Seattle, WA 98101 Hugh Mortensen Watershed Company 1410 Market St. Kirkland, W A 98033 William Collins 420 Cedar Ave. S Renton, W A 98055 Ronnie CS Teng, Leng-Sheng Teng, Mei-Yu Teng Dang, Wei Kang Kho, Chiu-Chu Tuan 835 Elm Ave. San Gabriel, CA 91107 e- Terry DeFoor SWI, Inc. 24633 NE 133rd St Duvall, W A 98019 Brian Beaman Icicle Creek Engineers 230 NE Juniper St., Ste. 101 Issaquah, W A 98027 Ruth Larson 714 High Ave. S Renton, W A 98055 Tim Burkhardt 4927 197th Ave. E Bonney Lake, W A 98390 Pat Conger BOIS 9th St. Renton, W A 98055 Maryann Reinhart GeoEngineers 8410 154th Ave. NE Redmond, W A 98052 Eric & Karen Bernard P.O. Box 58306 Tukwila, WA 98138 Michael Chen Core Design, Inc. 14711 NE 29th PI., Ste. 101 Bellevue, W A 98007 STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF KING } AFFIDA VIT OF PUBLICATION PUBLIC NOTICE Daniele M Ledvina, 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 July 3, 2006. The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of $113.40. ~~iy'i\.~ Daniele M Ledvina Legal Advertising Representative, King County Journal Subscribed and sworn to me this 3rd day of July, 2006. JOD U::tr7ft J f/Y) \\,Htimiiff/! .,,\\ D C fll/ . <\".' ~ •• '.n •• OI)", )'/" < -. .' mrnr ' /: r/ '.' .' CO r88/·. \5)...-: ~ ".~"\' 0",', 0 ~ T." t11,O ~'.?::::' I: r. -;,.:; . 1 (1) "E-: ,. ,;;J_. <01 ;g : -:1 .(0 0 .::.: ~. ':-::, -.. C\. . .::If. ~ ~., . , , 0'" ~ v.~-~· . :'!"osrJin9i..· .;:;; v···., '...... ~ '.,': .>Pu' ..... nC \", •. . u. \\ B D Cantelon "" J ",hi u a ~\ \ Notary Public for the State of Washington, Residing in Kent, Washington PO Number: NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE RENTON, WASHINGTON The Environmental Review Committee has issued a Determination of Non-Significance- Mitigated for the following project under the authority of the Renton Municipal Code. Defoor Short Plat LVA05-089, SHPL-H Location: 900 Renton Avenue S. The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 140,723 square foot (3.2 acre) site zoned Residential - 8 dwelling units per acre (R-8) into 5 lots and an open space tract (Parcel B). The lots are proposed to range in size from 5,500 square feet to 11,574 square feet. The lots are intended for the eventual development. of single-family residences. The subject site contains a Class 3 stream, 2 Class 4 streams, a Class 3 wetland, steep slopes, and high coal mine hazard areas. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on July 17,2006. 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. Publication Date: July 3, 2006 Published in the King County Journal July 3, 2006. #860966 '. e • ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ISSUANCE OF ~ DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED (DNS-M) POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: Defoor Short Plat PROJECT NUMBER: LUAO~89, SHPL-H, ECF LOCATION: 900 Renton Avenue S DESCRIPTION: The applicant Is proposing to subdivide a 140,723 square foot (3.2 acre) site zoned ResldentJal-8 dwelling units per acre (R-8) Into Slota and an open space tract (Parcel B). The lots are proposed to range In size from 5,500 square feet to 11,574 square feeL The lots are Intended for the eventual development of slngle-famlly residences. The subject aite contains a Clasa 3 stream, 2 Class 4 streams, a Class 3 wetland, steep slopes, and high coal mine hazard areas THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERG) 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 July 17, 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 Sectlon.~~110.B. A"dltlonal Infonnatfon regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Cler1<'(OffIce, (425) 430-6510 . . jllfJji i: IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION IS APPEALED, A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE SET AND ALL PARTIES NOTIFIED. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION AT (425) 430-7200. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION 1 ~.,: CERTIFICATION I, j ; 11 :D)'}1a.. , hereby certify that :; copies of the above document were posted by mffn ~ conspicuous places or nearby the described property on :0..""'\\\\"\'" A TrEST: Subscribed and sworn before me, a Notary Public, in and fo rt~ ..... I , on the ...>:;;:).....L.. __ day of ,..,.0 \. ( ~' \,.'lNN "'1"\ .. 1" $" ~ .... ".." .. W.\\\IItI~& 3. $';.~",\ON ~~"~ ~,.....r."-¥--'=f--t-:--f-I:.¥--,,.p.~~....:;..~#~~.ji.~o 1'AIp J-~.' . , -0 ~ ~ '" ~o ~ ". , ~ ~ ~ : ~ ~ 4lJ f.J ;~= 8\.. () _ OoP L.J.;.~~LO~lO..::::::~~ff#:~~ 19-~~~ .- t. 1\ """I ~A~; "'I;)F"'/AS~:"" ..... "" 'II: \\ \", .... ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ISSU;f-NCE OF of. DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED (DNS-M) ! POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: Defoor Short Plat PROJECT NUMBER: LUA05-089, SHPL-H,'ECF LOCATION: 900 Renton Avenue S DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 140,723 square foot (3.2 acre) site zoned Residential - 8 dwelling units per acre (R-B) Into 5 lots and an open space tract (Parcel B). The lots are proposed to range in size from 5,500 square feet to 11,574 square feet. The lots are Intended for the eventual development of single-family re~idences. The subject site contains a Class 3 stream, 2 Class 4 streams, a Class 3 wetland, steep slopes, and ~Igh coal mine hazard areas i 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 July 17, 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 1, ,O.B. A, '1'd\tional Information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City (425) ~ ~\~10. :·~·l:' l . :RONMENTAL DETERMINATION IS APPEALED, A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE SET AND NOTIFIED. ' FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION AT (425) 430-7200. MOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROP AUTHORIZATION " :. , > .... ... , i~:X''T~F~~t?~r /; : .' :;.f~~ing!B':iildihg(ptibJic Worlcif.)~epaitnienf .... . . :', . ',," " •.. It .' Gr.e,gg Zimmel"man P.E.~:.Adini~ilitratqr \. '.'~ '. I..,.", .~ • .' .'., .. . ~ " .. --',\, 1', . , .. :(.' . ,',', , . ". ,", .".-,~, . June,292006" .- ;', " " '.'., " ::: . :. " . ;: :'.:; " '0,' .. ~ .. Terry :Oefoor :"> . : .. '. ':", . ,'", , ,GWI;I'nc~.'·'.'> . . . : 24633.;NE 133rd Street , Duvail;WA980~9 ., ' . . ~, " ';'; ';. '-: . , ",': ',' .. " '" ." ." ~.', SUBjEct: .. Defoor Short Plat '" .:.; " ... LUA05-08Q, SHPL.:;Hi E:C~ : .. '.' '. .'.' ... ."'.,-, ,", ,:'" . '. ~', ,.... . .... ' ,.' ~ :. . -:. . . ,.- '., ! ~ ' .... "." .. , . This~ letter'. iswtitten on behalf ofihe~nYir611~~n~t· R~Vi.e~·cb~njittee(ERCJ t().~d~i;~Y9U :~hat~:lli~Y; .. ~. . 'have',¢>mpleted their-review of the subject proj~ctan(t~aveissued ·.a-5threshold: Deterri1in~tionofNon;..· . 'Significai1ce.~Mitiga.ted With' Mitigatiori\,tv1~~~~r~~:,Plea~erefe,rt())IJ~ericlose~ERC Rep(?rt:al'!(fO~~ision, '. Se.ction C fO'r a~listof the Mitigatic>nMeas~"-as';>"' ': .. : ..•. '.' -. • . .. ~.......,.: .~~... .' '. ; . . -.' ., ,", '", . '!. "" ,~ . . . -',., .-" . -.::.+. . ,-...... :. '::.:'.:;-'.~.>':'-~:'<. ~.' '>\ .. :'~'-,,-~ .. ,:'."."";"::";'~'->':: ....... : .. ~" .. :\;;~ .. :. ':~~. ;:.\,.... '. '".'>.':.>'.~':~ .. '.~:.<~,\~: .. , . Appeals,of:the'environ.mentaL~etermii'lation'iTlUst·be'file<iin' writing. on or before 5;OO:;PM:onJuly, ,0 ":, '1~~ 200'6.: 'Appe~ls;ml.lst be fileq"!n Yjiitir9:fogetl;lerwith 'the"-eq~ir~,d':~7.5:;pO appli~~ibnf~;~tttl:;:Hearing ,',Examiner"CitY,: 9f':~enton", 10.55; S6ut.h ,GradY:;VV~y;J~~oton,\JVA>Q89~5.' Appeal~··to· the: ExarnirieF:'are' . ~ ~~'.:: . If the . Er'i,vi,r(jr.'!i1l,eti.tal'.[)atell11ination js.:i3PP~~1.~9;:!3;~pu!?Ji¢';l;le,atingc!~te Will t~e set an<~' §ill p~lI;ties.{lotified;. . The precedjng :information will :asslst'yol{i~'pi~ni1ing' for imtit~inenraiiOt:l of your projecCan:d:"eriable' you to exerclse YOur..',sppeal rights more JuJly: ·ILy6u: ch,oose;·to do. SQ .. ' If you 'have' any questiOns' or desire clarification .. anhe'above, pleasecafl+n~:at:{:425r430-7:it9.;· .. ' ,;,' ;" .' . ".::V' <. ....• ,:'.. . .-. "., .: t .: 1 . '.': -;"', -:'" '.:'~: \l~ .. :''':'~.-f' ": " .. -'. :": .~. :.; .. In additib~i:',r~Yi~o~s. are. required' t(b~ci~r,.'~utjinitted .short~platmateri8ls!o comply with 'th~;.Gity',~;c·ritical' , :Areas'Regulatiorjs regar~ing the. onsite;stre~rii~):ln<;l theira~$bGipt¢CI,buffers. I?lease submiC5,:copies of a·revise·tI~hoiiplaUnap and.1' re<iucEJd ,8~Y2i;If1CfJ· b}IJ1 J6~hJ~M:t:,: Ifan'y ch~lnges :arej)fopbsed: to.tbe' . subtnitt~d'wetlaod:and streamrepor1pieparec:(b)f'falas~a; 'pl$asii'submit3 copies.' ·of 'a:reVised:Wetland,': andstrearfi:;f~PQft.::.:llthes~it~ms ,ai'~;o~f:fe8~Hv~~;:tiy):ulyJ7;~?:bo6"y~urprojectYlilJ bE(pi~se~;,Pfl~h~I.~: ;.' Once, thes'e;items~ hav~ been /eCeiv~d':tevi,ew;of:,youi:.proje.ctwill;con~ihue ~nd,a publicheatihgibefo.retlle'.. . ~<. ',;' he~ringe~~mlf)~(willbe sch~d,lll,efl;Jf:u.R~l!~:futtne(reVie.w'a~~itiOriaHnformati011 IS req~:I[!!QEi~G:w'u. be,: ?:. . , ' notified aUhaltime;/ ::.~c·t::;" .,". ~ ,:" ... d' " .... .:">: .-"., ,'.:-."~.~.'~ .. '.~",~.::~'.,"'" ""-i' ·~·····:···:~::···'·':-i; .• :·. ..... -,'-' Fo(.the Enviro~Ri~htal Review commihee~.:::.< .,',C;, .<' '.,' ..• .. ,cc: , ,',: " . -<",,/:' -..... : .. :-' .. ".' . . .... :: ~ .. , ~~: . -. , ' . . . .... '. -" " ~ . ~ " ::. ·.··r:-,·' ". .," '. :: ,.: .:.' .. " ., .. "' . . .... ,~ . . ....... ':::,': -...... . " .'· . ..,~~.r -.: , .. '.' ' .. ; . ,CiT.;d~:;ItENi.O·N/ ,,' . .'. ,'.::' :." "~r,:··~':,'·~,:....·.J\,··· ". ."., .,.', i, .. · .. ::,", '. '- '. .~ . Plann~g/B~ildi#gtPtibi.i~W6rks.riepartmen(: " . )' . :: .,,:·',~~e~Zi.pIn'~r~:~Iip,:E:,Ad~il~trator,' '" .,,,' Kathy !(eolke~;Ma;oi:<' . '. . ,.' '. ,.' .':, , ',' .:.. ~ , '. '. ~-' .' . . ". ,.: . ,.', " . '.". : ., , ',' . '. ',." !' . ' .. ' ',. ;', ,.' . ": c: .' _. ....,~ ":"'1"-'.,.'.- : ,~, '. ' ':::Washington State ." . . .' ,.,:'::Depiu1menjof Ecology, . 1,.-:, ,.;. ," ."" .. , \.' .. . ',:,. 'Srh/iroDmental Review Section . '. POBox 47703 ; ;:<;?!Yril(?ia·;YVA.98504"1'Z03 ." .... ' ., ". ' .. j" '. .::' .. : '.: " . " . .' .'_." ,. '. Subjett:· ·Envlronmental Detenninatlons .,,'"'' , ,'f " '.:' ' .~ '. . . -~ • "~.. ,:¥ '. -' .' " . . ,: ~:Tfan~rrlitt~d h~r~Withis~c;:opyOfth~~,,~roh~erital'D~ieni1in~ti~n ~f6r'thejQlfo~ing ~n)j~Gt r~~ie~ed by , .' ,·.·;the'En"ironli1ei1taiRevie~ Comr'nittee(ERO)' on)June27, 2006:"., "" ,','., '. '. < . :; ; D~TER'MiNATION' OF NbN-S'I~Ni:FICAN'CE ~Mi~'IGA t~:D ' ... " .• " ,.' " J ", • '.,. • ,~, :.' • • . . ~ . 'PR6jecfNAMi:: .. " .bMoo('s'hort:plat' ',', ; : ,I' :;,PROJE:CT:~UMaER: 'LUA05';o89,S~PL~H, E,CF" . ", ",." ,." . tOCATION:', 900"RentonA~~nueS:","': , . .'i:~· , . 'l)ESCRIPTION: .' ·theapt{lica'nt'iS:.fn;QP~siilgt6SlJbiiiVld;·a·149J~3squ~refootJ3;2 . ·ac;relsitezQned:~esid~iiti.ar ~·8j·dwe!ling;tI>nitSper·acr~ .. (R~).into 5' . ' .. ; ,-" '.' "lo~Ca~~afl!Jpen.spa'ce;trCl~t(p,~~ge,,:',£n~,';.ir~,e'lpt5,: are;pr:op,osed ,to '. ,. . .... ,<'rang~J"i;size;'fr,ol:i1,5;~,09,sqiJarEt:f~etW11.~5r4 ,squa ... efe~t .. :Tl:le , •. . ";'." . ." lo.~. ate, i~ten~~c!' fo.r the,. ~'(entlJal d~v~lopm:elJt of, sin-gle-family , , '., " " r~sid~nces. ,.Tfie·:subjec~'site cO[ltahls~a 'Class ,3 stream; 2 'CI~~s 4 .'. ,( .. ' ,;. . ." ".': .;,;:: '~=;:m~t:~'~/~~,~,!:~tY.i,~ga,n~;!,~~e~e~.:fj.,}.~.p~~(,,~:.~,::hI9·h",C~~I.·~i.n,~ -,~ ;~.,.:;"., . : .,: . ;;>,~ '. " /' ' " _~'_··'>".'I'·"-~'_'~'.'· '-'.,' _ ' ... ~\., ':'-<":",~,:~,:.~'J"":/'~' .-...... , .. -:,"';~," :. ~I.'.'-:·.;~j·'{/;:.::.~·~·:: .. ,:.,.".,_,.~.-.:"~~)'::,.": .. ""~' .. ' '. ",' .:-~~ .. . 'App~alsof, the~nvironmEmtal deterri1in~tiprtml.ist befil~d in: ~.rJt~i1g/c)'"6r,:befo~e5:90:PM·,on .July " ' ;1J~2006. Appeals musfbe filed in. writingJqgeth'er with therequji"ed$l5.POap'p'lica~iorr fee with: . Hearing Exarrliner, ,CitYoH~e.nton; 1055 :Sout.l'l:pragy'VI(a.y, Renton,:WA.9~Q5,5;<~Appec3'ls 'to the . Examiner are - .g()yemedbY,CiW of Rent()rl Municip~I'~CI,e';~~dion4~8-1'1 O:B:'"Ad,di!ion~Lirifor:rrlatip((:regarding the . . • ~ppealpr,oc,ess, lTIay be obtained frol11' th~~!1t~rl;,e!ty Clerk's9ffice;.(425:)~30-651()~".. .: , If y~(j' ~~'ve ~u'~stiO:~S; Ple~~e ~II '~e ~f(~~;)~~:O~72~ 9. ',' ':' " ~?!;th<i!~~';i~pgie';il!I~v1:.w~mi~{:: .... · .' ..... '. .•••. • ... '.' · '., .. ' ..' •. " ..... · :..~ " .,; " " \ ' ...... ..... , .' ". ~ " .:' . '~, . ~ ~ ,-,·'·l1~·j if:?<~ '-~~:~'/" '. -', '4/' ,;;7jJ'-' .' . . : ". > ~ JiII"K,' Ding ~ '., , ' :~' ",: :seniorJ~ian'ner ' , ,', kirig,co~ntywastewatet~ rreatmelliDjJi~r9~:" <WDFW; Stewart Reinbold ' ,"" ;"., , , .' r.' ';- , ", r ': Da\iid .F" Dietzman,' DepartmentofMjturatR~sources . . .' i.... :.WSDOT,'Northwest Regiol\. '. . ..•. .•......... .., ... ;: >';:' .. bJWailJish,TritiaIOffice, ',: , ... '.'<,:< '..' .. '.' .. ' .. ' .~, .... ;' ···,'K~r~n :Walt~r~:Fishelies, ,r..1~¢!<.I~sh:~l~ln~ja.l'l:rri~~(Ordinance): , "M,elissa Cal,vert, Mu~klE(shoot Cultural Resourc~s Program --, US Army COfp. of Engine~rs , ',~ I ~~ ,,' : ,', . . . ;.'" :'$teph,mif:j' Kramer;' OffiCe.of Arcoaeology8; HistoJjc Pres.erVation ';'. . ~-' .. \. ' .. r' "::~~-"-'" : -,'. .' " .. ' -'. .' -'.', -y'" :·--::c .:\.,:.".-'-~ -.:-:" -, '/ '.',' ~', ",:- .•..•...... ;........ ..... ....... . 1~55 Soum araay Way .·~LW~ .• 980S5 ... · •• :' •. ,.·.I\'<W~;:\'> . ';;:" , , .. ~~';;;~:iLtJ~~~'m~"I:\no/n;.,;;..;';" .. ,L',·", " .. ,AliiAD OF .THECU'iI,Vi·,; " " 1 -• ~ •• _ - : -. ",' > "- '.'-.' , APPLICATION N9($): '. :~.: " lUA05':089;,'SHPL-H,ECF" " . ", ", . i ' . \ , .:'-' . -:., - ,-'"!,...';. Terry Defoor,'GWI,:lnc. ' " ' ", • • ) .'.. • .1,- ,,: ~:",' Defdor';Short~l~t;;,' '",,', . . .... ,' ' .. :;,< . ,'." r, J' " ", DESCRIPTioN OFPRdpOsAi.:",' '" The:a~Pli~ntis·;proPO~i~g,tosiJtidivld'e a' i40,723 'squ~re fo~t(j.~i~~':e)\ site, zoned Resid~ntiar ..:..ir ~welling' units', pera~re(R-8r into 5, lots aridari Open space' tract, (~ar.¢eU:~t'ih~lbts~, ':are :proposed 'to:range'insize', from" 5j500 square ~faet :t6 ; H;57 4 .squ~re,.feet. The )<;>ts 'are:'intenc(edfo·r, ill's;' " ' '~ " ,eventual, deve,opm~l1tofJingle~fart1i1y residence~."the :subj~c~"site~on~!ns a\'¢la~s 3 str'eam,:2ClaS5':4:st;~~m:s' .. ',' a tiass 3 wetland;·steei>'Slopes~·aridhigli roai:inihehaze:lrd'araas." <>", ,'" ',.', , , ," . ,-; .. .'.' <- " .- ·',.'r -/': . ~. ~ .... " -: 1 3. , 2. 3., ,,' ' LOCATION OFPHop6sAL:'~:":. " .' . ~ -" . ' , :" , " -<' " ~. .' " • 1. '2: CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) APPLICATION NO(S): LUA05-089, SHPL-H, ECF APPLICANT: Terry Defoor, GWI, Inc. PROJECT NAME: Defoor Short Plat DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 140,723 square foot (3.2 acre) site zoned Residential - 8 dwelling units per acre (R-8) into 5 lots and an open space tract (Parcel B). The lots are proposed to range in size from 5,500 square feet to 11,574 square feet. The lots are intended for the eventual development of single-family residences. The subject site contains a Class 3 stream, 2 Class 4 streams, a Class 3 wetland, steep slopes, and high coal mine hazard areas. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: LEAD AGENCY: 900 Renton Avenue S 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 July 17, 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. PUBLICATION DATE: July 3,2006 DATE OF DECISION: June 27, 2006 SIGNATURES: M1!o/jJ Date I ~{fl-';}L9U Date To: Gregg Zimmerman, Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator Terry Higashiyama, Community Services Administrator Larry Rude, Interim Fire Chief Alex Pietsch, EDNSP Administrator From: Jennifer Henning, Development Planning Defoor Short Plat (Ding) LUA05-089, SHPL-H The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 140,723 square foot (3.2 acre) site zoned Residential - 8 dwelling units per acre (R-8) into 5 lots and an open space tract (Parcel B). The lots are proposed to range in size from 5,500 square feet to 11,574 square feet. The lots are intended for the eventual development of single-family residences. The subject site contains a Class 3 stream, 2 Class 4 streams, a Class 3 wetland, steep slopes, and high coal mine hazard areas. Lowe's of Renton (Ding) LUA05-161, SA-H, SA-M, ECF The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) review, and Master Plan and Site Development Plan approvals for a Lowe's Home Improvement retail store totaling 129,342 sq ft, with a garden area totaling 26,222 sq ft and 411 parking spaces. The 9.7S-acre site is zoned Urban Center North-1 (UNC-1), and is located at SOO Garden Ave. N at the intersection of Park Ave. N and Garden Ave. NE. Exit 7 Auto Sales (Ding) LUA06-044, SA-A, ECF Applicant is requesting Administrative Site Plan Review, and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the construction of an auto sales lot. The proposed auto sales lot would be constructed on a 1.S7 acre vacant parcel located within the Commercial Arterial (CA) zoning designation. Access to the site would be provided via it commercial driveway onto NE 44th Street. A Class 2 stream and an associated Category 2 wetland have been identified on the west side of the subject property. A Class 2 stream requires a 100- foot buffer and a Category 2 wetland requires a 50-foot buffer. A reduction in the stream buffer down to a minimum of 75 feet has been requested. . cc: K. Kooiker, 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 REPORT e City of Renton Department of Planning / Building / Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT A. BACKGROUND ERe MEETING DATE Project Name: Applicant: Contact File Number: Project Manager: Project Description: Project Location: Exist. Bldg. Area gsf: Site Area: RECOMMENDA TlON: Project Location Map June 27, 2006 Defoor Short Plat Terry Defoor, GWI, Inc., 24633 NE 133rd Street Duvall, WA 98019 Michael Chen, Core Design, Inc., 14711 NE 29th Place Ste 101 Bellevue, WA 98007 LUA-05-089, SHPL-H, ECF Jill K. Ding, Senior Planner The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 140,723 square foot (3.2 acre) site zoned Residential - 8 dwelling units per acre (R-8) into 5 lots and an open space tract (Parcel B). The lots are proposed to range in size from 5,500 square feet to 11,574 square feet. The lots are intended for the eventual development of single-family residences. The subject site contains a Class 3 stream, 2 Class 4 streams, a Class 3 wetland, steep slopes, and high coal mine hazard areas (Project description continued on page 2). 900 Renton Avenue S N/A Proposed New Bldg. Area: N/A 3.2 acres Total Building Area gsf: N/A Staff recommends that th,e Environmental Review Committee issue a Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M). V", -! I -, CO " ./>--C1\ > / ~\ ercrpt.doc \ City of Renton PIBIPW Department a DEFOOR PRELIMINARY SHORT P. REPORT June 27, 2006 PROJECT DESCRIPTION CONTINUED: .nmental Review Committee Staff Report LUA-05-089, ECF,SHPL-H Page 20(5 The applicant is proposing to subdivide the subject site into 5 single family residential lots and an open space tract (Parcel B). The lots are proposed to range in size from 5,500 square feet to 11,574 square feet with a resulting net density of approximately 1.66 dwelling units per acre (3.2 gross acre site -0.23-acres sensitive areas = 2.97 net acre ~ 5 units I 2.97 net acre = 1.66 dulac). Landscape, roadway, utility improvements and one open space tract would be established with the plat. Access to the project would be provided via residential driveways onto Renton Avenue S. The applicant has identified steep slopes, coal mine hazard areas, two Class 4 streams, one Class 3 stream and one Category 3 wetland. A slope analysis was submitted with the project application and two slopes that exceed 40% were identified on the project site. Slopes that exceed 40% for a height greater than 15 feet are considered protected slopes. The remainder of the site contains slopes that are between 25 and 40 percent grade, and are classified as Sensitive Slopes. The coal mine hazard areas, streams and buffer areas, and wetland and wetland buffer area are all proposed to be located within an open space tract (Parcel B). A portion of the coal mine hazard areas would be located on the northwestern corner of proposed Lot 1 and the northwestern corner of the stormwater detention vault. Project construction would require extensive grading and excavation activities throughout the site for the installation of new building pads, roadways, and utilities. Preliminary earthwork quantities are estimated at approximately 100 cubic yards of cut and 7,000 cubic yards of fill. In addition, all of the trees located within lot areas are proposed to be removed for the creation of building pads as part of on-site grading activities. B. RECOMMENDATION 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 da eal Period. Issue DNS with 15 day Comment Period with Concurrent 14 day Appeal Period. C. MITIGA TION MEASURES DETERMINATION OF xx. NON -SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGA TED. xx. Issue DNS-M with 14 da A eal Period. Issue DNS-M with 15 day Comment Period with Concurrent 14 day Appeal Period. 1. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations found in the geotechnical report prepared by Icicle Creek Engineers dated June 10, 2005. 2. 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 Storrriwater Management Manual and provide staff with a Construction Mitigation Plan prior to issuance of Construction Permits. This condition shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division. 3. This project shall be subject to the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual for the deSign of the detention facility, if detention is required per the 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual. 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 subject site is deSignated on the City's Critical Areas Maps as containing potentially high coalmine hazards, as well as steeply sloped areas that qualify as either sensitive or protected slopes. With the project application, the applicant submitted a Geotechnical Report prepared by Icicle Creek Engineers dated June 10, 2005 and an addendum to the Geotechnical Report dated September 30, 2005. According to the report the site topography slopes from the east to the west. The slope ranges from 5 to 20 percent grade, however there are ercrpt.doc City of Renton PIB/PW Department & DEFOOR PRELIMINARY SHORT P. REPORT June 27, 2006 .nmental Review Committee Staff Report LUA-05-089, ECF,SHPL-H Page 30f5 some local areas where steeper slopes exist. Slopes in excess of 40% grade, which meet the City's definition of a protected slope, are located along the sides of the stream channels for streams A and B. The protected slope areas are proposed to be protected within an open space tract. The applicant's SEPA checklist indicates that earthwork activities are estimated at 7,100 cubic yards of dirt work (100 cubic yards of cut and 7,000 cubic yards of fill) in order to create the appropriate grades for the installation of the building pads. The report also identified high and low coal mine hazards on the subject site. High coal mine hazard areas are areas where mines have been abandoned and improperly sealed and are within 200 feet of the ground surface or are shallower than 15 times the thickness of the seam. Areas with high coal mine hazards may be subject to subsidence. Low coal mine hazards have been properly backfilled and no sinkholes or regional subsidence should occur in the location of low coal mine hazard areas. The high coal mine hazard areas are proposed to be placed within an open space tract with a small portion of the high coal mine hazard areas being located on the northwestern corner of proposed Lot 1. The high coal mine hazard area on Lot 1 would be located primarily within the rear yard setback area, where the construction of structures is limited to detached accessory structures. However a portion of the high coal mine hazard area is located within the buildable portion of Lot 1. Due to the potential hazards associated with constructing a structure over the high coal mine hazard area, staff recommends a mitigation measure to require a Native Growth Protection Easement over the open space tract and over the high coal mine hazard area on proposed Lot 1. The geotechnical report provides mitigation measures for construction in ·and around the coal mine hazard areas and recommendations for site preparation and earthwork, excavations, structural fill, cut and fill slopes, spread footings, floor slab support, subgrade walls, lateral resistance, utilities, pavements, and erosion control and drainage measures. Staff recommends a mitigation measure requiring the applicant to comply with the recommendations found in the geotechnical report prepared by Icicle Creek Engineers dated June 10, 2005. Due to the slopes located on the. subject site, the potential exists for erosion to occur from the subject site. . Staff recommends a mitigation measure that requires the applicant to comply with the Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements as outlined in Volume II of the Stormwater Management Manual. Mitigation Measures: 1. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations found in the geotechnical report prepared by Icicle Creek Engineers dated June 10, 2005. 2. 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 Stormwater Management Manual and provide staff with a Construction Mitigation Plan prior to issuance of Construction Permits. This condition shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division. Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations 2. Water -StreamslWetlands Wetland Impacts: A Wetland Study and Stream Assessment report prepared by Talasea Consultants, Inc. dated June 28, 2005 (revised October 3, 2005) was submitted with the project application. The report identified 3 streams, 1 drainage, and 1 wetland on the subject site. Stream A was classified as a Class 4 stream, Stream Bwas classified as a Class 3 stream, and Stream C was classified as a Class 5 stream. The wetland (Wetland B) was classified as a Category 3 wetland and the drainage was classified as a Class 5 stream. However, the report prepared by Talasea requests that the classification of Stream 8 as a Class 3 stream be reconsidered by the City and reclassified as a Class 5 unregulated stream. The Watershed Company (the City's environmental consultant) and the City's Development Services Director have review the report prepared by Talasea regarding the classification of the streams and wetland and do not concur with the classifications of Streams 8 and C and Drainage 1 as proposed by the report prepared by Talasea. A determination is being issued by the City, which would classify Stream A as a Class 4, Stream 8 as a Class 3 stream, Stream C as a Class 4 stream, Drainage 1 as a Class 4 stream, and Wetland A as a Category 3 wetland. Class 3 streams require a 75-foot buffer from the ordinary high water mark, Class 4 streams require a 35- foot buffer from the ordinary high water mark, and Category 3 wetlands require a 25-foot buffer from the edge of the wetland. The applicant appealed that determination to the Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner issued a decision upholding the Director's determination on June 8,2006. The 14 day appeal period ended June 22,2006. To retain the proposed lot configuration, the applicant proposed to culvert and relocate a portion of Stream 8 around Lot 1 and discharged the water to an energy dissipater and into an enhanced stream channel. The relocation of a stream may only be permitted under the City's critical area's regulations; the project must be associated with: ercrpt.doc City of Renton P/B/PW Department • DEFOOR PRELIMINARY SHORT P .nmental Review Committee Staff Report LUA-05-089, ECF,SHPL-H REPORT June 27, 2006 Page 4 0'5 1. A public flood hazard reduction/habitat enhancement project approved by State and/or Federal agencies; 2. Expansion of public road or other public facility improvements where no feasible alternative exists; or 3. A public or private proposal restoring a water body and resulting in a net benefit to on or off-site habitat and species. The project is not a public project, so it doesn't meet criteria 1 or 2. In addition, the applicant is not proposing a restoration project so it wouldn't meet criteria 3. The proposed lot arrangement as shown on the preliminary short plat map would not comply with the required stream and wetland buffer requirements found in the City's critical area regulations RMC 4-3-050 and will therefore have to be revised prior to the recording of the final short plat map. The desired 5 lots may be achieved through buffer averaging. Any impacts proposed to a wetland, stream, wetland buffer, or stream buffer area will be required to be mitigated according to the City's critical areas regulations as shown in a mitigation plan approved by the Development Services Division Project Manager prior to preliminary short plat approval. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation is recommended. Nexus: N/A 3. Water -Stormwater Impacts: The applicant has submitted a Drainage Report prepared by Core Design, Inc. dated June 2005 with the land use application. The report indicates that on-site surface water currently sheet flows to the west into one of the existing stream channels, the north channel, the central channel, and the south channel. The report indicates that the majority of the flow is collected in the central channel. The channel flows southwesterly for 650 feet where it joins with another existing stream channel and flows to the northwest for 350 feet where it enters a culvert and flows underneath 1-405 and then Benson Road S. The flow is eventually discharged into an existing wetland. The north channel flows southwesterly for approximately 350 feet, the southerly for approximately 150 feet, then southwesterly for approximately 2005 feet where it joins with the existing stream channel referred to above before it crosses under 1- 405. The report indicates that no visible signs of downstream flooding or erosion are present. The applicant proposes to direct the stormwater runoff from the proposed lots to a series of level spreaders. The applicant states that no detention is required per KCSWDM Section 5.2.2. If under the 1990 manual the applicant determines that detention would be required for the proposed short plat, staff recommends a mitigation measure that would require the applicant to design the detention facility to comply with the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manu~. - Mitigation Measures: This project shall be subject to the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual for the design of the detention facility, if detention is required per the 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual. Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations 4. Plants Impacts: The site is currently heavily vegetated with a mix of deciduous (Alder, Big Leaf Maple and Black Cottonwood) and evergreen trees (Douglas Fir, Western Red Cedar, and Western Hemlock), and various unidentified shrubs, grasses, and forbs. The tree cutting and land-clearing plan submitted by the applicant indicates that the construction of the proposed subdivision would result in the clearing of approximately 25% of the subject site. The proposed clearing limits encompass all of the proposed lots and the proposed stormwater improvements. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation is recommended. Nexus: N/A 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 . ....l!.-Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File. Copies of all Review Comments are attached to this report. ercrpt.doc City of Renton PIBIPW Department • DEFOOR PRELIMINARY SHORT P .nmental Review Committee Staff Report LUA-05-089, ECF,SHPL-H REPORT June 27, 2006 Page 50f5 Environmental Determination Appeal Process Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM July 17, 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. 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. RMC section 4-4-030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. 2. Commercial, multi-family, new single family and other nonresidential construction activities shall be restricted to the hours between seven o'clock (7:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m., Monday through Friday. Work on Saturdays shall be restricted to the hours between nine o'clock (9:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m. No work shall be permitted on Sundays. 3. Within thirty (30) days of completion of grading work, the applicant shall hydroseed or plant an appropriate ground cover over any portion of the site that is graded or cleared of vegetation and where no further construction work will occur within ninety (90) days. Alternative measures such as mulch, sodding, or plastic covering as specified in the current King County Surface Water Management Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton may be proposed between the dates of November 1st and March 31st of each year. The Development Services Division's approval of this work is required prior to final inspection and approval of the permit. Fire -1.-A fire hydrant with 1,000 GPM fire flow is required within 300 feet of all new single-family structures. If the building square footage exceeds 3,600 square feet in area, the minimum fire flow increases to 1,500 GPM and requires two hydrants within 300 feet of the structures. 2. Street address must be visible from a public street. 3. Existing and new hydrants will be required to be retrofitted with a Storz "quick disconnecf' fitting. Plan Review -Surface Water 1. The Surface Water System Development Charge (SOC) is $715 per single-family lot. This fee is payable at the time the utility construction permit is issued. Plan Review -Water 1. Water service stubs are required to be installed to the each building lot prior to recording of the plat. Plan Review -Sanitary Sewer 1. Any existing septic system shall be abandoned in accordance with King County Health Department prior to building permit occupancy. 2. Separate side sewers stubs are required in each building lot. No dual side sewers are allowed. 3. The Sanitary Sewer System Development Charges (SOC) is $900 per building lot. This fee is payable at the time the utility construction permit is issued. Plan Review -Transportation 1. Street improvements including, but not limited to paving, sidewalks, curb and gutter, storm drain, landscape, street lighting and street signs will be required along the Renton Avenue S frontage of the parcel. 2. All wire utilities shall be installed underground per the City of Renton Undergrounding Ordinance. Plan Review -General 1. All plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards. Property Services 1. See attached Pro ert Services comments, dated October 28, 2005. ercrpt.doc / /1 i;( I § / / f-~ 6" ., '~- I ;111 !~~, ""/-, __________ 111: I I i ,; ~.--:----~..,.~~.~,--- :~. =:,; ..... ' ...... -;. .... ~~-----..!~---~ L __ ~_~~ _____ _ J l --------- ------- PRELIMINARY SHORT PLAT DEFOOR SHORT PLAT ''''''.2M",",",.", --- fHalHElIINO, 'lANNING· III'Vfr'HG " II • So tOlH STREET "'. I / /1 '" I I {f~ If' II • .': .... ' ..... . ::: •• ~. '::c ':" -'--, . -.~-.;t.: :.r;:-r: > ,;; ~~~_~~'·\.;·~;.6~·· (t .~ <~zJ:~;;"'::;c;:: .......... UI~I ~i!~ ui~,d II! Uf I;~ I J~i I§ ~I I --. ./ en 4 [t 1 q ~.It! 14?f' ... JM_a--ICN '-t\.....lftlii ---......., ~DfSIGH ~ ... ~ fNO'HlftlHG . ""NNING· SU.Vft'lHG \ ) \'-:.::i .:" .~"_ ">: "'I •. ' , ·-,.-·.1-~~~Q I II '" I Ii / / f--~ .. 1- / J ! DAT£. AFM ztIO$ .. ~ .. R .........., lit: t§ ~-.. "'" I!~ _lit: ! k ~ ~!'!! PREliMINARY TREE ctITT1NG '" CI.EARING PLAN DEFOOR SHORT PLA T ~DfS'GN '611,.,.._ ....... --- (HOINfftfNO. 'tANNING· JU'V(rlHG i, ' ,.""j \.:";.~:J II . ""'. S. I01H S1R£ET II iii I § / / IE • r c • c •• c c c z ~ l> ~ ~ ~ .... 1: iii ~ c .... 2 ca~flE::::::\ '#1''''''""",,_,., ---~OESIGN ~ ... ~ fHGIHfl"HO· ,t"H,."",G· SU'V'''HO 5.7IH I I I I I I I DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECf: e,,·· CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM October 28, 2005 Jill Ding '6 SonjaJ. Fesser y~ Defoor Short Plat, LUA-OS-OS9-SHPL Format and Legal Description Review Bob Mac ODie and I have reviewed the above referenced short plat submittal and have the follo~gconnnen~: Connnents ~or the Applicant: Remove the legal description for "Parcel A" from the short plat submittal. It is not a part of this subdivision, but is a part of a separate subdivision application. Information neededJor final short plat approval includes the following: Note the City of Renton land use action number and land record number, LUA-05-089-SHPL and LND-20-0430, respectively, on the short plat submittal, preferably in the upper right-hand comer of the drawing shee~. The type size used for the land record number should be smaller than that used for the land record number. .. Show two ties to the City of Renton Survey Control Network (tie the subject property to the Survey Control Network). The geometry will be checked when the ties have been provided. Note the bearings for all interior lot lines of the proposed lo~. Provide short plat and lot closure calculations. Include a statement of equipment and procedures used, per WAC 332-130-100. . Indicate what has been, or is to be, set at the comers of the proposed lots. \H:\Fi1e Sys\LND -Land Subdivision & Surveying Records\LND-20 -Short P1ats\043O\R VOSIOI9.doc October 28, 2005 Page 2 · I ': f '-'.:./ Note the date the existing monuments were visited. Note discrepancies between bearings ~d distances of record and those measured or calculated, if any. The city will provide addresses for the proposed lots as soon as possible. Said addresses need to be noted on the short plat drawing. Note all easements, covenants and agreements of record on the drawing. On the final short plat submittal, remove all references to trees, utilities facilities, topog lines and other items not directly impacting the subdivision. These items are provided only for preliminary short plat approval. Remove all density and zoning information from the fmal drawing. Remove all references to building setback lines. Setbacks 'will be determined at the time of issuance of building permits. Note encroachments, ifany. The City of Renton Administrator of PlanninglBuildinglPublic Works is the only city official who signs this short plat drawing. Provide an appropriate approval block and signature line. Pertinent King County approval blocks also need to be noted on the drawing. All vested owner(s) of the subject short plat need to sign the document. Include a declaration block on the drawing. Note that if there are restrictive covenants, easements or agreements to others (City of Renton, . etc.) as part of this subdivision, they can be recorded concurrently with the short plat. The short plat submittal and the associated document(s) are to be given to the Project Manager as a package. The short plat document will be recorded first (with King County). The recording number(s) for the associated document(s) (said documents recorded concurrently with, but following the short plat) need to be referenced on the short plat document. Fee Review Comments: The Fee Review Sheet for this review of the preliminary short plat is provided for your use and information. H:\File sys\l.ND -Land Subdivision & Surveying Records\l.ND-20 -Short PJats\043O\RV051019.doc\cor .. \:A\ RM-F \ \ .. \ \. \ R-8 R-8 H4 .. 29 T23N R5E W 112 ~ ZONING ----Renton Clf,y UmftIf ~ ~~8DVI<Z8 G4 20 T23N R5E W 112 • • 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 8th day of June 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: ,2006. Application, Petition or Case No.: Defoor Appeal File No.: LUA 05-089 SHPL-H The Decision or Recommendation contains a complete list of the Parties of Record. • [~_H_E_ARl_N_G_E_XAM __ I_N_ER_'_S_RE_PO_R_T_~] • • OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON June 8, 2006 REPORT AND DECISION APPELLANT PUBLIC HEARING: Jason Walker Talasea 15020 Bear Creek Road NE Woodinville, W A 98077 Representing: Terry DeFoor, Appellant Debra Eby Ricci 1601 2nd Avenue. Ste. 1080 Seattle, W A 98101 Counsel for: Terry DeFoor, Appellant Zanetta Fontes City of Renton, Assistant City Attorney Jill Ding, Development Services Hugh Mortensen, Watershed Company Defoor Short Plat Appeal File No.: LUA 05-089, SHPL-H . After reviewing the Appellant's written requests for a hearing and examining available information on file, the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The following minutes are a summary of the May 2, 2006 hearing. The legal record is recorded on CD. The hearing opened on Tuesday, May 2,2006, at 9:02 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affmned by the Examiner. Parties present: Zanetta Fontes, Assistant City Attorney Jill Ding, Development Services Hugh Mortensen, Watershed Company Debra Eby Ricci Attorney at Law 1601 2nd Avenue. Ste. 1080 Seattle, WA 98101 Jason Walker Talasea 15050 Bear Creek Road NE Woodinville, W A 98077 I I Defoor Appeal • File No.: LUA-05-089, SHPL-H June 8, 2006 Page 2 The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No.1: Yellow file containing correspondence asking for the appeal, request to Mr. Watts and his response and the correspondence setting up the appeal hearing. Exhibit No.3: Talasea Letter dated November 17, 2005 Requesting Reconsideration Exhibit No.5: GeoTech Engineers Letter dated May 1,2006 Exhibit No.7: Large Map Showing Topography of Site Exhibit No.9: Copy of Aerial Photograph dated 1936 Exhibit No. 11: Drawing by Maryann Reinhart of a Cross Section of Stream B, West of Big Leaf Maple. • Exhibit No.2: Stapled packed dated May 1,2006 Exhibit No.4: Icicle Creek Letter dated March 24, 2006 signed by Brian R. Beaman Exhibit No.6: More Defmed Original Page 5 of Exhibit 2. Exhibit No.8: Renton Coal Mine Map with Underground Features Exhibit No. 10: Actual Aerial Photograph of Exhibit 9 The various parties introduced themselves and the parties they were representing. The Examiner stated that he had received a packet this morning and has not had an opportunity to review the information. A short break was taken so Ms. Ricci could look over the yellow file. Jason Walker briefly described the packet presented this morning and the information contained within. The first 15 items were plans and photographs which will be discussed in detail later, the second stapled item was the reconsideration request that is part of the yellow file, the third and fourth stapled items were letters from the consultants that will be testifying today. The site is located on the eastern side ofI-405, the northeast comer is located at 9th Street and Renton Avenue S. The site is a short plat adjacent to the preliminary plat of the same name. This site has two identified streams, Stream B to the north and Stream A and Drainage 1 are to the south and in the same corridor but separate channels, Drainage 1 is just south of Stream A. Offsite to the west is another drainage, Stream C and two wetlands to the west, Wetland A is offsite and Wetland B is onsite and associated with Stream B. This request was to address the Renton Municipal Code under the description of Class 5 Stream. They believe that this stream was of man made origin. A Class 5 Stream is defined as a flow within an artificially constructed channel where no naturally defmed channel had previously existed. They requested that Stream B be considered as a Class 5 and not a Class 3 stream as the City had rated this stream. Stream B originates from a 12-inch concrete pipe adjacent to Renton Avenue S. The upper basin of Stream B conveys storm water from Jones Avenue along 9th Street. There appear to be no detention or treatment structures for this runoff given that it was constructed prior to water quality standards. There are also some Defoor Appeal File No.: LUA-05-089, SHPL-H June 8, 2006 Page 3 • • catch basins along I Oth Avenue South and a portion of Renton Avenue drains down towards Stream A. Stream C, off the southern portion of Cedar A venue is also fed by stormwater runoff and is conveyed by the drainage channel. A photograph of a I2-inch concrete pipe adjacent to Renton Avenue and the source point of Stream B hydrology were presented. Stream B is comprised of two channels in this eastern portion of the drainage adjacent to . Renton Avenue S. These channels are incised features that are eroded and form a confluence into a single channel farther west. Vegetation is primarily alder with some black cottonwood and Big Leaf Maple. The northern channel of Stream B is incised to a depth of 6-feet and flows under the root mass of a Big Leaf Maple. There is a fair amount of erosion occurring in that drainage channel. At the northern end of Stream B the Big Leaf Maple is at the confluence, the eroded channel is beyond the confluence to the western side as it leaves the site. The remainder of Stream B is incised and eroded until it outfalls in a wetland area, the offsite wetland is the location of a historic mining entrance. All the eroded material is dispersed in this area. Stream B joins with Stream C at this point, with a similar drainage feature coming off of Cedar Avenue and then leaves the site at the same location. Stream A is in the southern portion of the site and has more natural characteristics. The Examiner stated that he was reluctant to get into Stream A, it may be different or exhibit characteristics that make it more natural, however, this hearing is dealing with Stream B and it's characteristics, it doesn't matter how it contrasts with another stream. He did decide to allow the testimony at this time. Ms. Ricci stated that they had experts present that can speak to the comparative differences between the two streams. Stream B is not a naturally occurring stream, it is the result of high-pressure storm water flowing down from the early development of the City of Renton over the last few years. Stream A is a naturally occurring stream that existed as a process over time. Mr. Walker continued his testimony that Stream B is in a location where a previously naturally occurring channel did not exist prior to the intentional discharge ofundetained stormwater. The intentional release of stormwater on a highly erodable surface is basically the result of human intervention and that these features are artificially constructed. There were more photographs of the Stream and it's rounded side slopes. Upon cross-examination by Ms. Fontes, Mr. Walker stated that earlier he mentioned an adjacent site, and that site is to the west, under the same ownership and was approved earlier. He did believe that the maple tree was 60-80 years old, the core was rotten and so it was difficult to be sure of the exact age. There are a number of Big Leaf Maple trees on the site, but this is the only one directly in the stream channel. All photographs were taken on Wednesday, April 26, 2006. All measurements for the conceptual drawings were taken at the same time as the photographs. Diagram #4 of Exhibit 2 is a conceptual diagram of the two channels, the drawing is approximately to scale. The land between the channels is relatively flat with some undulation. The two channels are approximately 3- feet in depth and I8-inches to 2-feet wide. He didn't know if there was any ground water in these channels. Stream B deposits into Wetland A that is on the adjoining parcel to the west (the Defoor Preliminary Plat) and Stream C skirts the perimeter, it does not enter the wetland. Stream A and the confluence of Stream Band C join another tributary south ofthe site known as Rolling Hills Creek. Previously in history there has been some activity on the site, there has been a lot of earth moved because of the previous coal mine activities, some of that is still in evidence today. As far as ditching the channels, they are characteristic of ditches, but have been formed by erosive flows from stormwater. Defoor Appeal • File No.: LUA-05-089, SHPL-H June 8, 2006 Page 4 • Upon questioning by Ms. Ricci, Mr. Walker stated that Big Leaf Maples are not known to grow directly within a channel of a stream unless that stream would have changed course. This tree is a very mature tree, his opinion is that the tree pre-dates the existence of those channels. The roots are being undermined by the water. Brian Beaman, Icicle Creek Engineers, 230 NE Juniper Street, Ste., 101, Issaquah, W A 98027 stated that he is a principal engineer and hydrologist and that he was asked to review how this stream was formed. They excavated test pits across the site and drilled deep borings into to the coalmines. They are aware that the site, including Stream A and Stream B, is underlain by about 5-6 feet of weathered bedrock, below that is the hard bedrock itself. It is important to compare the whole site, not just the Stream B corridor because the rest of the site is an example of what should happen should water flow across the ground surface. Stream A to the south has a more natural layer including smooth slopes that lead down to a channel with good topographic relief, there are other swales across the property with similar features of Stream B, they start out fairly flat and then there is somewhat of a broad swale that occurs but the other swales are dry. It is important to understand that Stream B is being fed from the culvert, that is the uphill side, then down from there towards Wetland A. There is a natural process that creates swales across this slope but it may have been redirected and instead of sheet flowing it created the swales, but with the construction of Renton Avenue, the water has not been redirected. The topography on page 5 of Exhibit 2 is probably aerial, it is therefore quite generalized, there are no other swale like features to the north where Stream B runs. Exhibit 7 shows field topography of the upper portion of Stream B, if the stream contours were removed and the erosion features were taken out and the contours brought straight across, it would be a fairly level from the street for about 125-feet or so. As you go further down the channel it does start to develop that swale-like appearance. Looking at the adjacent property to the west, there are other dry swale features across that site. (On Exhibit 7 the dry swales were highlighted in blue). Once the glaciers retreated from this area, the landscape was more than likely barren, the climate was rainier and wetter and certainly a lot of features formed during that time before vegetation took place. That is most likely when these swales formed. They have a water shape feature but are dry. The site has a long history of coal mine development dating to the late 1800' s, this portion of the site was not impacted by the mining, the area just to the west of it was. The original main entry to the Renton Coal Mine was located almost where Wetland A is located, and that would have involved roads being built in this area, there was an open mine shaft into the ground at about an 11 degree angle below horizontal. It would not have made much sense to put their mine entry where water surface was going to flow. Some of the historical coal mine maps do show surface topography. The main tributary, Rolling Hills Creek, was shown on the map, there was no stream coming down across the area where Stream B is located today. This map does not show Stream AorB. They also looked at a 1936 aerial photograph of the area. Cedar Avenue and Renton Avenue were identified. The mines closed in the late 20's and this aerial is probably within 5-10 years after the Renton mine closed permanently. He pointed out the Stream A corridor on the photograph, which extends beyond the property to the east. Looking at the Stream B area, there is no topographic or vegetation pattern that would show an additional stream. The watershed for Stream A is visible with a channel like feature that extends off the property. Upon questioning by Ms. Ricci, Mr. Beaman stated that going back during the active mining days, it is likely that the culvert did not exist so there was no water coming down the slope into the area of the main mine operation for the slope. After the mine closed, once water was introduced to the slope area, it found the path of , least resistance, created these incised channels and found its way to the old mine entry which was probably Defoor Appeal File No.: LUA-05-089, SHPL-H June 8, 2006 Page 5 • • somewhat ofa low spot. The grading of the stream transitions from a steep slope to a fairly flat area so a lot of depositions occurred and has filled in that area with eroded sediment and created that wet area. On questioning by Ms. Fontes, Mr. Beaman stated that storm water versus water hitting impervious surfaces and making their way into a storm water system would mean that less water would be getting into the ground. On Exhibit 7, he redefined what affect the glacial flows had on the land today. Not all naturally occurring streams have identical characteristics is a fairly general statement, there are certain characteristics which, comparing the Grand Canyon to the Duwamish they are both naturally occurring streams and they both have different characteristics. Miners would have been able to redirect Stream B, if it had been there because it was a small stream. Stream B flows to Wetland A today, but there is no way to know if Stream B was there in 1936 or if it was if it outflowed there or somewhere else. The site evaluation and seeing the character of the Stream B corridor and the 1936 aerial photograph show that there most likely was no stream there prior to the installation of the culvert on Renton Avenue South. If a lot of water were pushed down the steep slopes an incised channel vertically sided similar to what is seen in the field today would occur. This would be considered man made because the water is introduced by something that man has done, the water creates the ditch, but the water is directed to that area by man's activities. Maryann Reinhm GeoEngineers, 8410 154th Ave NE, Redmond, WA 98052 stated that she is a fluvial geomorphologist and her expertise is in the area of evaluating land forms, their development and particularly so the characteristics of streams from both small creeks all the way to large river systems. She has additional expertise in the area of sediment transport in fluvial systems, including erosion and deposition. She was asked by Talasea Consultants to look at the two streams of interest on the Defoor property, Stream A and Stream B. She did go the property on April 26, 2006. Landforms in the Puget Sound area are basically developed as a result of glaciation of continental ice masses that receded from this area somewhere between 10,000 and 13,000 years ago. There were drainage patterns that were left by the receding glaciers and in exchange for that there is a good bit of melt water that was coming from the melting ice. The process of the grinding, advance and recession of the glaciers, as well as the runoff of their melt waters developed much of the landforms and topography here in Puget Sound. In this particular area, some of the drainage swales that are glacially derived played a large roll in the development of the area. One of the key characteristics that seems to be missing from the story is the development of drainage basins. Drainage basin is synonymous with the term of watershed. Watershed is a little more informative of what happens in a natural drainage basin. Water falling from the sky as precipitation or snow runs off of the surface of a watershed and coalesces in a channel through which it then is conveyed to a receiving body, in Western Washington it is either Lake Washington or Puget Sound. The distinction here is important with respect to the origin of Streams A and B on the property. Stream A receives water from up gradient of Renton Avenue South. The watershed extends upstream of Renton Avenue South, that water historically collected off the ground surface of the watershed and was delivered to the main stem channel and then moves down slope. Watersheds tend to deliver water to the receiving channels, those channels, over a period of time, have an opportunity to adjust to the discharge that ends up in that channel as a result of the surface water runoff. There is a definite relationship between the dimensions of the channel that receives water from the watershed and the size of the watershed. Several things can alter the shape and size of the channel, the geologic materials that produce the soils, the gradient of the channel from upstream to downstream, and the climate. In Puget Sound streams there is a general relationship that is typically used with Defoor Appeal • File No.: LUA-05-089, SHPL-H June 8, 2006 Page 6 • regard to the dimensions of the stream that has had an opportunity to evolve and adjust to all ofthe conditions that prevail over the period of that watershed. The channel will range about three times wider than it is deep. The Examiner stated that he would have to decide on the Sub A definition of flow within an artificially constructed channel where no naturally dermed channel has previously existed. What does artificially constructed actually mean. The fact that it is there does not mean that the channel was artificially constructed, no one was out there ditching it with a shovel or backhoe to create it. It may have formed due to some alteration of the flow upstream, with or without a culvert, the road may have taken a dip and risen something like a wash. Ms. Reinhart stated that artificially created could mean that you go in with a backhoe and create a channel where formally there was none. It is very difficult to draw a line between a ditch that is cleared out by a backhoe and an incised gully that is created by the discharge of energized water or just water flowing down the slope where previously there was not a natural drainage pattern within the watershed. In Stream A there is an incised bottom channel showing that probably more water was added recently or more abruptly, maybe caused by urbanization patterns upstream. In the case of Stream B it is a deeply incised channel, six feet deep by two feet wide. The sidewalls are very vertical. It is a very unnatural form for a channel in this environment, meaning the soils, gradient, and the climate does not favor development of an incised gully. From a fluvial geomorphic position Stream B is actually a gully. Based on her observations in the field, water does not flow off the sides of the gully and ifleft alone the sidewalls would not lay back to an angle of repose with flowing water. She was surprised at her visit to the site, she was looking to the bottom swale that is dermed as a dip in the road, that is Stream A, Stream B is located up on the right limb of the Stream A swale, it is at the top, it is a very unusual place for a stream to develop. The Stream B channel does not angle into the Stream A corridor, it makes its own path directly down stream along the fall line. This is not a typical pattern seen in any drainage basin in this area. The channel is getting its water fed to it by the culvert, it is not receiving surface water runoff from the area on either side of the channel, the only water that stream is conveying is water that is fed to it directly from the culvert. In terms of a channel that forms naturally in a watershed or small sub-basin, Stream B does not fit with what is typically seen in the Puget Sound area. If the discharge from the culvert was left to run the way it does now, it is possible that continued incision could be seen, there is bedrock that is seen in the base of the channel which is slightly more erosion resistant than the weathered material, that may represent a bed control feature. The erosion may take a little longer. The characteristics of the sidewalls ofthe channel are either vertical or concave and the channel is still attempting to adjust to the discharge that is being conveyed by the channel. If it is not allowed to incise further it may broaden slightly, but there will continue to be very unstable sidewalls. This type of channel configuration is very consistent with similar channels that have formed in the direct response to stormwater runoff directed to an area that has not previously seen surface water runoff form a channel. Stream B is truly a gully, which is defined as a straight walled deep channel that is much deeper than it is wide and is typically associated with unmitigated runoff. Gullies are natural, but gullies that develop into streams generally will adjust to gradients, soil types, basin sizes which help the channel to become more stable. A gully is very unstable by definition, the sidewalls can cave in, it will incise, it is not predictable in the form that it will take in terms of the depth and the width of the channel. The gully that matures into a well adjusted conveyance channel of natural waters, the sidewalls will typically, in these soils, lay back to near the angle of repose, they will become stabilized with vegetation. Just because a gully is natural, it does not mean that it should be in that particular location. Defoor Appeal File No.: LUA-05-089, SHPL-H June 8,2006 Page 7 • • An unstable gully will typically have a flat floor and will be wider at the base than it is at the top, which means that from a developmental perspective the water began to coalesce with the inception of the channel and then rapidly, in adjustment to the discharge, it begins to incise and cut down. This channel has probably been developing on the order of decades, as opposed to Stream A that has been developing and adjusting to its conditions for probably thousands of years. The Examiner asked questions regarding how the stream could have started, rivers get their start somewhere and if everyone culverted or filled them there might not be a Columbia River or Cedar River today. Somehow this channel was formed, was it natural or not natural. There was much discussion as to how water courses across this land and how streams are formed and how water has a tendency to flow downstream and what kind of a course might be formed to get the water from point A to point B. The conditions do not seem to be present to generate another channel that have the dimensions and character of Stream B given the watershed area that was discussed. Upon questioning by Ms. Ricci, Ms. Reinhart stated that in a couple of applications, she was familiar with the term hydraulic sluicing and that it is a known form of constructing channels. Hydraulic sluicing is used in a number of different applications, one the direction of discharge from a hose intending to create a depression or channel. If the water source were cut off, there most likely would not be water in that channel and vegetation would eventually take over. Ms. Fontes objected to the question. The Examiner stated that the culvert either could have created the channel or could exacerbate the creation of the channel, it would have a sluicing effect. Ms. Reinhart stated that was correct. More discussion continued on sheetflow and natural obstacles on the slope and the affect that would have had on the channel. If the culvert alone did not cause this channel, it might have still been created in this location from any number of reasons. It seems to be doing quite well now that it is there, it does not seem to want to go towards Stream A. Stream B now seems to have a life of its own. If water were merely flowing over the surfaces as surface runoff without the influence of the discharge coming from the culvert, you would have surface water that would make its way down slope by some preferred pathway. It doesn't become a big deal until the discharge is increased over and above what is being generated by the natural surface water runOff from precipitation in that area. The Big Leaf Maple did not grow in the channel, it has been undermined by what is presently the channel. Surface water runoff from the slope from normal precipitation would not have the momentum and energy to cause that type of erosion. A much larger source of discharge with a much higher level of energy would be needed to create that channel. Upon questioning by Ms. Fontes, Ms. Reinhart stated that her opinion regarding the source of the water in the culvert is coming from the urban development and the stormwater runoff from roofs, driveways, and paved areas. A portion of the runoff could be from ground water. She did not know if there were any naturally occurring springs in the area. A drainage channel is either created or happens as a result of an action, urban runoff that is directed to an existing channel, which is attempting to adjust to the increase in runoff from the urban development. Sometimes water channels will move and take different courses, that is part of the adjustment of channels. It is her opinion that Stream A began because of a glacier .. There appears to be 200 feet between Stream A and Stream B. Channels can be formed by the discharge of ground water. Defoor Appeal • File No.: LUA-05-089, SHPL-H June 8, 2006 Page 8 • Ms. Ricci asked further questions of Ms. Reinhart, who stated that there was no indication on the 1936 aerial photo that Stream B existed, and so it mostly likely is on the order of decades old. That is a very recent time frame. There is some point in time in which it could be said that the stream was created decades ago. With respect to the two streams, it is necessary to look at the information provided by the two streams and the environment and what is known about the natural drainage systems and say that it would be unusual at the very best for a channel with these dimensions, that is being very much deeper than it is wide, to be the same age as Stream A, this is a very youthful stream. If you cut off the water, the stream would go dry. A stream must be able to feed itself with water and this one cannot. It would be very hard to cut off the water to Stream A, it is being served by the watershed. If you cut off the water coming from upslope of Renton Avenue South you could create a small dam and -it would basically change the hydrology of the stream, it will still get some runoff from the sidewalls downstream, it will not be the stream that it is today. Lunch Break: 12:47 pm Reconvened: 2:15 pm Pat Conger, 1301 South 9th Street, Renton, WA 98055 stated that she lives on the SE comer of 9th Street and RentonAvenue South directly across the street from this parcel. She is directly across the street from the culvert that has been discussed. There is water in the culvert year round, even when there has been no rain. She has lived in this location for the past 12 years. Upon questioning by Ms. Ricci, Ms. Conger stated that the people do water their lawns, wash .their cars and other outside things around their homes. Some water is getting into the system all the time throughout the year. She can hear the sound of the water and sometimes there is more water than at other times. Brian Beaman stated that he is a professional engineer with Civil as a specialty. He routinely looks at plats and short plats, single-family residences, and road'projects for discharge of storm water from street drainages. They do not assess the piping, but do assess the outfall and what that outfall might do where it crosses natural ground surfaces or onre-entering streams. He routinely is called on to locate culverts under similar conditions to what is on this site. Based on his knowledge of the soil conditions on this site, with a culvert outflow at that location, he would expect that water would sluice out a,ditch following the fall line of the slope. It is not necessary to dig out the trench, the water just creates its own pathway. Hugh Mortensen, Watershed Company, 1410 Market Street, Kirkland, WA 98033 stated that he is an ecologist with over eleven years doing stream and wetland reconnaissance and delineation, he also is an on-call consultant to the City of Renton to review development proposals that come before the planning department. City of Renton, Kirkland, Shoreline, Monroe, Sammamish and Issaquah have called upon him to check classifications of streams. He did the classification of the streams on the Defoor property. On his inspection, he thought that Stream B was a Class 3, he never believed that it was a Class 5 stream. He spoke with Neil Watts regarding the descriptions of various classes of streams in the City of Renton, they further discussed artificially constructed streams and the fact that it had to be where a channel did not previously exist. Regarding Stream C, to the west and appears to start at the comer of the subject property and the adjoining parcel, his initial classification was that it was a Class 5. After talking with Mr. Watts he looked at the defmitions more closely and he saw the words "artificially constructed" channel, and after reviewing the elements, he changed his classification to a Class 4. Defoor Appeal File No.: LUA-05-089, SHPL-H June 8, 2006 Page 9 • • He always considered Stream B as a Class 3 stream. In his opinion, this is not a Class 5 stream because he has observed it flowing in late August, since August is the month with the least amount of rainfall in this region, the end of August is:the most appropriate time to be looking at a stream to see if it is perennial or not. He checked the rainfall record for the preceding month and it showed to have had little to no rainfall for the 25 days prior to his site visit. When people water their lawns the water sometimes goes into both the stormwater pond and the ground water. The flow in the stream seemed to be more than what could be caused by lawn watering and car washing. Looking at the 1936 aerial photo, there was no retention pond or stormwater pond related to this system in. Just not seeing a stream does not mean that it is not there. If the stream is supported by ground water and has a very low flow, the channel could be in the neighborhood of 6-inches wide and it would not be seen on this scale of photograph. Without a detention pond or stormwater pond storage, water collects on impervious surfaces and runs offwhile it is raining and for a short time following that storm event it continues to run off. In August, the water that was in Stream B, he believed it to be ground water. Looking at Exhibit 7, in the NE corner of the subject site there are dashed buffer lines around Wetland B, there appears to be some evidence of a broader swale formation and to a lesser extent it represents the same swale formation where Stream A runs. Rainfall in the Puget Sound area falls on the ground and in areas where it can infiltrate, natural areas and non- paved areas, it percolates into the ground and becomes an enormous detention pond, it stores water, the ground is porous, it can store large or small amounts, that water is released down gradient and sometimes at great distances from where the water actually fell. Water seepage is characterized by a very steady metered flow over long periods of time. Water channels can move. The likelihood of a channel forming as a result of water discharging at any point along the gradient upstream is highly plausible. The distance between Stream A and Stream B is 200 feet measured at the point where the culvert is shown on the map. Upon questioning by Ms. Ricci, Mr. Mortensen stated that he has a broad background in studying natural resources. He has a degree in Ecology from Evergreen State College, but no degree in Geology or Civil Engineering. He has been a consultant to the City of Renton for approximately 2 years. He works with geomorphologists at his firm as well as stream biologists and engineers and has been involved in various aspects with designing streams and stream channels. Ms. Ricci asked and received confirmation to his previous testimony today. He did not take any readings from the culvert or as to the water flow from the culvert. He confirmed that his classification of this stream was based on his one visit to the site in August 2005. Although there was ground water naturally occurring in this area, it is not causing the majority of water flow through the culvert. Stormwater is the majority of the water flowing through that culvert, stormwater that is collected up stream of the culvert. He was certain that stormwater has affected this channel. Referencing Exhibit 7, he stated that on this map he sees a smaller swale formation compared to Stream A. He does not necessarily believe that the stream cut that, but that that is an area where the stream channel would ordinarily flow. He did not see any evidence of ground water interceptions in the channel of Stream B and that the channel did not seem to be picking up ground water further down the hill. The ground water situation is that Defoor Appeal • File No.: LUA-05-089, SHPL-H June 8, 2006 Page 10 • the stormwater system is picking up ground water above the culvert and then shooting it down the hill. The ground water at one point in time did create a small channel subsequent to that and this erosive force of the stormwater has deepened the existing channel and down cut it. Neil Watts, Development Services Director, City of Renton stated that he often is asked to interpret the language of the code and in particular as this case relates to stream classifications. An artificially constructed channel is a channel that has been created as a ditch, typically that would be something like a roadside ditch. It is something that is entirely manmade. Sluicing could be interpreted as a process of artificially creating a ditch. Mr. Watts stated that he is a licensed Civil Engineer, with a degree from Seattle University. He has been involved in land use aspects and land use reviews with Seattle and Renton for over 20 years. He has reviewed this project and has visited the site half a dozen times summer of 2005. Regarding the storm system located on Renton Avenue South and the culvert at that location, the water going through that system, at some point created the stream that it now resides in. There has been a watercourse coming down the hill for a very long time, it has been altered by different influences by man, building yards, ditches, culverts, and storm systems. It is not an entirely natural system any longer. It appears that Stream A and B are far enough apart and that they are defined enough channels that this has been going on to some degree before the roads were built. The underground storm system on 9th Street is pure speculation as to where and how that water ran prior to being constructed. Upon questioning by Ms. Ricci, Mr. Watts stated that he had not reviewed the extent of the area of the collection system on 9th Street nor did he have any sense of the volume that comes through that culvert onto the Defoor property. If the culvert were closed off, it could be expected that there would be some flooding on the other side of the street. The source of the stream is actually the headwaters that are much further upstream. If the drainage course were closed off, the water would cease to flow. Stream B would cease to exist unless it was being fed by ground water sources below that point of closure. All the water that flows through the pipe dumps onto the Defoor property and created the stream channel. They have been unable to find any records or civil engineering records of what was there when the culvert was built. "-, He does not know if there has always been a Qrainage channel in this exact specific location. He also had no information of a previously existing channel in that exact location. The hill has not gone away and there has always been water running down the hill in some fashion and at some point the water has been directed into a man made system. The water now moves through a man made system. He is charged with determining the language of the code that consultants to the City draft. He is familiar with the term "hydraulic sluicing" which is an attempt to make a ditch or channel by using water from a stream or a fire hose. If a culvert was installed and water was diverted through it, you would get a very steep banked erosive channel for a period of time, as the decades go by it would start to become a more naturally appearing slope, the slopes would start to become less steep, vegetation would set in and after a period of time it would look and function as a natural stream channel. With steep slopes the initial beginning would be to incise the channel. Ruth Larson, 714 High Avenue S, Renton, WA 98055 stated that on Exhibit 5, page 2 she owns the 3rd house· down from South 7th Street on High Avenue South and has lived there since 1963. She did not know when the stormwater system and culvert were installed. They have tom up High Avenue South three times since she has lived there, but she doesn't-know what they were doing. Defoor Appeal File No.: LUA-05-089, SHPL-H June 8, 2006 Page 11 • • Uphill from the" Renton Avenue South location there are two springs that she has seen, one is located on the SE comer of High Avenue South and South 9th Street and the second one is located on the comer of South 9th Street and Grant A venue South. Along High Avenue South her house is the first one that has a basement, none of the other homes were allowed to have a basement when they were built because of the water table. She has never seen the people living south of her property ever water their lawns, except for when the lawn was first planted. Brian Beaman stated that he has gone to the site approximately 15 times to do test pits, drilling and general reconnaissance, some of that for coal mine research. They have issued reports to Defoor and those most likely have been submitted to the City. He has done detail studies of the site. The road embankment is creating the contours across the site and because Renton Avenue requires fill on the downhill side, there has been a modification of the contour and likely the house development added fill as well. The culvert didn't extend out far enough so they had to pull the embankment back in to meet the culvert so that it would not get covered. The channel like contouring feature has been created in his opinion. The springs thafMs. Larson spoke of would most likely feed into Stream A as seen in the 1936 aerial photo. Wetland B is 196 square feet and the dotted line around the wetland is the buffer. Ms. Ricci gave her closing statement wherein she recapped the testimony heard today and stated that it is their firm belief that a Class 5 classification is much more consistent with the nature of conditions of this particular set of water features. Ms. Fontes gave her closing statement wherein she recapped their testimony and stated that their expert when reviewing the site saw flowing water and classified Stream B as a Class 3 stream. Stream B is the main focus of today, that is the area where they want to build and has the most impact for them. The water that comes out of the culvert has certainly affected this stream, however, that is not the issue. The issue is whether the streambed was artificially constructed by sluicing, digging or whatever method. Ms. Ricci stated that they did establish that there was no pre-existing channel until the City introduced stormwater, collected and dispersed it onto the Defoor property. 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 4:08 pm. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Exa'miner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The appellant, Jason Walker, hereinafter appellant, filed an appeal of an administrative decision affecting property in the City of Renton. The decisions involved the classification of water courses that cross the subject property. 2. At the same time, the appellant sought reconsideration of the original decision by the Development Services Director. The original decision was issued on November 17,2005. The decision denying the reconsideration was issued on December 7, 2005. At that time the appeal became active and a hearing was scheduled. The appellant sought a couple of continuances, which were granted. Defoor Appeal • • File No.: LUA-05-089, SHPL-H June 8, 2006 Page 12 3. For purposes of semantics and attempting to use terms that do not foreclose the appellant's appeal or immediately define the subjects of this appeal or prejudge the questions, this office will refer to the three water channels that cross portions of the subject site at issue as "water courses" rather than creeks, gullies, streams or ditches. Those other terms may be used in this decision when describing how other parties other than the Hearing Examiner referred to those features. 4. The subject site is located on the west side of Renton Avenue North. The site is located generally south of South 9th Street if that street were extended west of Renton Avenue. South 10th Street would intersect the southeast comer of the site if that street were extended west of Renton Avenue. The subject site is a trapezoidal shaped parcel where the western property line is shorter than the eastern property line. 5. A number of water courses cross the subject site. They generally flow east to west across the parcel, which slopes down to the west. They are identified on Page 2 of Exhibit 2 and the descriptive names are taken from that page: Drainage 1 enters the site west of the intersection of Renton Avenue and S. 10th Street. It runs in a northwest direction and joins Stream "A." Stream "A" enters the site from approximately halfway along the eastern boundary of the subject site and runs generally in a southwest direction. Stream "A" continues off-site. It joins an "unnamed tributary to Rolling Hills Creek." Stream "B" runs from what would be the southwest comer of the intersection of Renton Avenue S and S 9th Street. Stream B emerges from a culvert under Renton Avenue S. Not far from where it emerges from the culvert Stream "B" splits into two channels and then merges back into one channel. It generally runs west across the site and enters the north side of Wetland A. Stream "B" according to the map ends at the wetland and then merges with Stream "C". Stream "C" enters at the extreme northwest comer of the subject site and runs south. It turns west and leaves the site continuing to flow along the western edge of Wetland A. Wetland A is located off-site. Wetland A was described as being the location or near the location of a former coal mine entrance. Wetland B is located at the eastern end of Stream B. 6. The appellant challenged the City's stream classifications of three water courses, Streams B and C and Drainage 1. The allegation in each case is that these are not natural streams but that each is an "artificially constructed channel." 7. The appellant was proposing the side-by-side development of a Preliminary Plat and a Short Plat. The Preliminary Plat has been approved and its design would not be affected by this decision. The Short Plat review has been placed on hold, as its design would be affected by this decision. These water courses flow across one or the other or both sites. In preparation for the City's review of those plans the applicant submitted a series of reports. The appellants reports recommended that Streams Band C and Drainage 1 (the only water courses at issue for the pending appeal) "be classified as Class 5 streams exempt from the City's critical areas regulations per RMC 4-3-050B.1." (Letter from Development Services Administrator to Michael Chen, November 3, 2005). The City's consultant determined that Defoor Appeal File No.: LUA-05-089, SHPL-H June 8, 2006 Page 13 • • Stream B should be classified as a Class 3 stream and Drainage 1 be identified as an extension of StreamA, a Class 4 stream. Appellant sought reconsideration of Stream B's classification asking that it be classified as an unregulated Class 5 stream. 8. On November 3, 2005 the Administrator found that "sufficient information was not (underlined in original) provided to show that Stream B should be a Class 5 Stream, that Stream C be classified as a Class 5 stream, and that Drainage 1 shall be classified as a Class 5 stream." 9. "The Administrator determined that: 1) Drainage 1 shall be classified as a Class 4 stream; 2) Stream B shall be classified as a Class 3 stream; and 3) Stream C shall be classified as a Class 4 Stream." This effectively rejected the reports, to wit: "Therefore, the decision has been made not to accept the Wetland Study, Stream Assessment, Habitat Study, Watershed restoration, and Mitigation Plan prepared by Talasea Consultants, Inc, revised October 3,2005." 1 O. The appellant alleges that these streams "are the direct result of intentional man-made activities (i.e. erosion due to point-discharge of stormwater) and should therefore be considered artificial by provisions of the RMC." They based this claim on historic aerial photographs, which they say do not show them as distinguishable in 1936 and 1946. They say that they do show as defined after 1965. They attribute this to point-discharge of unrestrained stormwater onto a highly erodable soil surface. At the hearing the appellant produced additional evidence they claim shows that these water courses are not natural (see below). 11. The appellant states: "We believe Stream B, Stream C, and Drainage 1 were created as a result ofthe implementation of roadway and drainage improvements after 1946 ... These features exhibit 'flow within an artificially constructed channel where no naturally defmed channel had previously existed' (RMC 4.3.050. (L).1.a.v), and should therefore be considered artificial, meeting the definition of Class 5 Water." 12. The appellant in its appeal and reconsideration letter went on to note that similar drainage channels created by erosion were previously determined as artificial and unregulated. The Director found this line of argument unpersuasive noting that the code provisions had been specifically changed and therefore, prior decisions were not applicable. 13. The appellant then goes on to describe a mitigation and restoration plan to stabilize these water courses. These matters are not pertinent to this review since the only issue at this time is the legal classification of the water courses. The classification will determine what protections they are entitled to and what modifications, if any, are permitted. 14. The appeal was filed in a timely manner. 15. The appellant provided information to contrast the cross section profiles of Stream A and Stream B. The parties agree Stream A is a naturally occurring creek and show its geomorphology, that is, its historic origins and character. Stream A appears to follow or be located in a swale area that originates upstream or above Renton Avenue South. They suggest that it formed over several thousand years (page 2, GeoEngineers, Report of May 1,2006). They note its stable side-slopes and angle of repose adjusting over the course of its long-term location. It was noted that Stream A is incised at its base probably due to additional water flow resulting from upstream urbanization. Stream B, which the appellant claims is an artificially constructed water course, is deeply incised, the purported absence of a natural swale or depression upstream (east of Renton Avenue) that would have directed the channel in I Defoor Appeal • File No.: LUA-05-089, SHPL-H June 8,2006 Page 14 • this location and the stream's location at what is termed a "topographic high point." Streams A and B are approximately 200 feet apart. 16. Stream B enters the site and not far downstream of the culvert, splits into two channels. The two channels are approximately 18 inches to 2 feet wide and 3 feet deep. The two channels rejoin (the confluence) approximately 125 to 150 feet down the slope from the culvert. At that point the single channel is approximately 2 to 3 feet wide and 5 to 6 feet deep. 17. Stream B may be fed by a paved and developed area on the east side of Renton Avenue although neighbors report that there is a spring and wet area upslope. These neighbors also report that a storm drain or catch basin located on the opposite side of Renton A venue, at Renton and 9th, that presumably feeds the culvert always has a strong flow of water in it including during the dry months. The appellant's expert agreed it was a perennial stream but was not sure if ground water contributed to the flow. The appellant's witnesses all agreed that Stream B was formed by erosive flow or hydraulic sluicing generated by stomiwater. " 18. The two experts noted that the location, on a high topographic aspect, and features of Stream B (deeply incised) do not generally coincide with features of a naturally occurring creek and the erosion signs, soil type, location on slope all support the conclusion it is not a natural stream. 19. There are other swales like Stream B located along the slope but they are dry and still others are more gently curved. The general topography of the area was formed about 10,000 years ago. 20. It was pointed out that some trees including Big Leaf Maples located near Stream B are not generally associated with wet areas. The Maple is approximately 60 to 80 years old according to a tree ring review. Since the tree is damaged, an accurate count of its rings was not possible. The soil under it is eroded and it is approximately 4 feet above grade. This purports to show that such a tree would not have grown straddling a creek. 21. There are no "as-built" engineering drawings or plans dating back to the 1950's near when the culvert feeding Stream B was constructed. The culvert is 12 inches in diameter. 22. Stream B enters Wetland A offsite where it deposits materials and joins with Stream C. 23. The historic aerial photograph from 1936 does not appear to show Stream B but does show Stream A's course. It shows that the road system has not changed much. 24. A general history of stream formation was presented by the appellant to show how natural versus artificial streams are formed. A stream over time is affected by geologic composition, gradient, and climate. Stream A is approximately 3 times wider than deep, whereas Stream B is "gully-like" and deeply eroded which is not generally natural. Stream B does not appear to follow a natural stream location or evolution. The appellant presented testimony that it is in an unusual place and not a typical pattern. Stream B shows signs of being fairly "youthful" in its steep-walled profile, meaning it is decades old but not anywhere near as old as Stream A appears to be. The appellant alleges Stream B appears to be the result of hydraulic sluicing which was intended to create a depression or channel. The witness agreed that "gully" is not exclusive to a created channel and they do occur naturally. The proximity of Streams A and B make it appear, at least, unusual to be the same age. This office finds there is no evidence that there was an intent to create a channel as opposed to just releasing water from a culvert on the downslope side of the roadway. Defoor Appeal File No.: LUA-05-089, SHPL-H June 8, 2006 Page 15 • • 25. The appellant indicated that the old coal mine maps showing surface features do not show either Stream A or Stream B but do show the more major Rolling Hills Creek. 26. The City's expert is familiar with the streams and definitions and helped draft the City's stream regulations. He found no evidence of "construction" such as spoils or ditching in any of the water courses: He had changed opinion on Stream C to Class 4 from initially believing it was a Class 5 based on this lack of purposeful ditching evidence. The expert also noted that the stream was perennial and was flowing in late August. He noted it was a normal August as far as rainfall. That is it was relatively dry with only one event, an approximately 0.05 inch rain on August 18,2005. He did not believe that lawn watering or car washing or similar human water generating uses would have generated sufficient water to keep Stream B flowing in August, that is, lawn watering, etc would not create runoff that lasted a significant length of time. He noted that there were no detention or retention systems for stormwater or other runoff in the vicinity and that such facilities were generally not required until the 1970's or 1980's. As for the absence of a definitive stream course in the 1936 aerial photos, he noted that a six- inch (6") creek or one with a very low flow would not be very visible on a photo of this scale when the photo was taken. He also noted that water channels can and do move and change location over time. The City emphasized that with water flowing in Stream B all year, it probably has its source in natural ground water from the hillside above the culvert. Stream B, they allege, would appear to be fed by water that does not originate from only storm events and therefore, drains natural, perennial water. The City's expert did not believe that either stream was constructed. 27. The location of the two natural springs noted by neighbors are in the vicinity and southeast of High Avenue and 9th and at 9th and Grant Avenue. It was noted by the appellant that these could be feeding Stream A, the natural stream. 28. The Administrator who made the decision noted that Stream A and B are far enough apart to support two natural drainage courses. He acknowledges that human intervention has altered the flow and possibly the character of Stream B. The appellant's expert noted the same urbanization probably affected Stream A. There are no records that document the situation before the culvert was constructed. He did speculate that directing water through a culvert, even into a natural shallow swale, could create a steep banked erosive channel that eventually, over additional time, would attain a more natural slope and appearance, but that with steep slopes that occur on this hillside, an incised channel would probably be formed initially. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The appellant has the burden of demonstrating that the decision of the City Official was either in error, or was otherwise contrary to law or constitutional provisions, or was arbitrary and capricious (Section 4- 8-11O(E)(7)(b). The appellant has demonstrated that the action ofthe City should be modified or reversed. The decision regarding the classification of the streams is affirmed. 2. Arbitrary and capricious action have been defined as willful and unreasoning action in disregard of the facts and circumstances. A decision, when exercised honestly and upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances, is not arbitrary or capricious (Northern Pacific Transport Co. v Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, 69 Wn. 2d 472, 478 (1966). 3. An action is likewise clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing body, on the entire evidence, is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. (Ancheta v Daly, 77 Wn. 2d 255,259 (1969). An appellant body should not necessarily substitute its judgment for the underlying agency with expertise in a matter unless appropriate. I Defoor Appeal • • File No.: LUA-05-089, SHPL-H June 8,2006 Page 16 4. Section 4-8-110(E)(7)(a) requires that the decision of the City official be given substantial weight: "Substantial Weight: The procedural detennination by the Environmental Review Committee or City staff shall carry substantial weight in any appeal proceeding. (Ord. 3891,2-25-1985) The Hearing Examiner shall give substantial weight to any discretionary decision of the City rendered pursuant to this Chapterrritle. (Ord. 4346, 3-9-1992)." In other words the appellant must show clear and convincing evidence of mistake. First, in the matter of Stream C and Drainage 1 the appellant provided little if any testimony directed to those two water courses. The appellant certainly did not provide any compelling evidence that the Director was incorrect in classifying these two water courses. 5. The City summed up the issues quite accurately -here we have a disagreement between experts. There would appear to be reasonable grounds to accept the view of either set of experts. But code requires that the decision below be given substantial weight. So while it may be unlikely that a natural stream might have originated in the immediate vicinity of the culvert, it was not shown that it would be very unlikely. A number of factors can allow this office to determine that a natural stream, albeit, possibly a narrow and shallow stream existed in this location. Somewhere upslope sufficient water accumulates over the course of a year to create a permanent, some might say, perennial stream, Stream B. This water is not generated by single storm events since it flows even in August, a relatively dry month. Neighbors report it flows through a catch basin just east of the culvert all year. 6. A number of issues that were not explored also could lead one to believe some stream or storm flow crossed the subject site in this general location. The property in question was undoubtedly private property when the road and culvert were put in. Yet there is no record that was produced showing any objections from the then property owner about the effect this culvert and steam flow would have on their private property. In other words, it would appear that for some reason the past owner or owners permitted the City to instigate harm using erosive forces to create the water course on the subject site. Or, another alternative might be that the culvert merely formalized a natural drainage course that was located in this general location. As th~ record demonstrates, the storm drain or catchment on the opposite side of the road appears to always have a flow of water. These may atone time all been surface flows, small creeks, perhaps, that were captured and piped and conveyed to the culvert under Renton A venue. Again, while the record does not contain any explicit evidence, you would surmise that ifprivate property was being harmed by the culvert and sluicing action of the stormwater, the owner of the property would have raised some objection. Of course, it is possible that it was an absent owner but nonetheless, their interests were being harmed unless water always flowed onto and across the property in this location. 7. The old surface maps fail to show Stream A, the larger and natural stream but do show the more major Rolling Hills Creek. If Stream A was present when these old maps were drawn then it would appear that even this more natural larger stream was considered too small to document. Stream B might have been even smaller still and it might not show up on old aerial photos. Relying on historic maps certainly does not reliably help decide if Stream B existed. The resolution of aerial photographs from the 1930's probably left .out smaller detail. Interpreting what details we see in older photographs using our 21 st Century mindset could lead to misinterpretations. As we know, current aerial photographs now show incredible detail but that could lead one to believe good detail would be found in 60 and 70 year old photos. The photo evidence is not in itself compelling. 8. Then we have the code wherein it classifies streams with certain characteristics. Class 5 waters: Defoor Appeal File No.: LUA-05-089, SHPL-H June 8, 2006 Page 17 • • "(a) Flow within an artificially constructed channel where no naturally defmed 'channel had previously existed ... " The Code does not specifically define "artificially" or "constructed." "Artificially" constructed would seem to mean that there was an intent to "construct" the water course as opposed to just releasing the water from an outfall onto a slope where nature took its course. Webster's Third New International Dictionary (unabridged) defines "artificially" as "in an artificial manner." It defines "artificial" as "contrived through human art or effort and not by natural causes detached from human agency: relating to human direction or effect in contrast to nature." The same source defines "construct" as "to form, make, or create by combining parts or elements: Build, Fabricate (in constructing a new freeway). 9. As noted in the findings, there was no evidence that someone dug a ditch. There were no spoils or piles of material along Stream B. The Director admitted that over time, the culvert could have sluiced the soils and added to Stream B's downward cutting (erosion) or might have created it. But erosion was probably not intended. It does not appear that anyone intentionally planned for erosion to create or deepen Stream B. There is no evidence that anyone purposefully "artificially constructed" Stream B. Stream B might have always been there. Focused by a culvert and unaccompanied by some form of dissipater as would now be installed (if piping to the bottom of the hillside were not required) Stream B could certainly be the gully-like formation we now see. It was also noted that Stream A showed signs of incising although not at the scale of Stream B. Could Stream B have been a very gentle, shallow swale with stream flow, and then been deeply incised after the culvert was installed? There is no answer. 10. Also, while the experts testified that this location would be an unusual location for Stream B to develop, we have the unusual situation where Stream B actually naturally split into two separate channels for a distance of some 120 feet before rejoining in what has been called a confluence. That is something, some impediment whether rock, soil type, log or fit of nature caused a stream that was only one channel to suddenly branch out and create a second parallel channel. Since this was described as an area where no natural channel would naturally form we now have two side-by-side channels. So whatever force of nature created a second channel on this section of sidehill might have been the precursor to a similar event years ago that first created Stream B as opposed to having it been created solely by the installation of the culvert. 11. The appellants have speculated, based on normal geological history, that Stream B was not natural but speculation does not meet the appellant's burden. This office, too, can speculate: Water has probably always flowed down this hillside in various shallow rills. Historically it was channeled or captured into a storm or piped system and culverted and conveyed under Renton Avenue and, in what now would be considered a primitive manner, released unimpeded on the west side of Renton Avenue. This release point might possibly be where it originally crossed the road or hillside. The appellant has the burden of demonstrating that the decision was erroneous and speculation does not meet that burden. 12. The decision belowis entitled to substantial weight and will not be overturned unless there is clear and convincing evidence that an error has occurred. If reasonable minds could reach differing conclusions, an error is not substantiated. The decision below must be affirmed. I Defoor Appeal • File No.: LUA-05-089, SHPL-H June 8, 2006 Page 18 DECISION: The decision of the Director is afftrmed. ORDERED THIS 8th day of June 2006. • ~!J~Ck~ FREDl.KA f HEARING E INER TRANSMITTED THIS 8th day of June 2006 to the parties of record: Zanetta Fontes Jason Walker Terry DeFoor Assistant City Attorney Talasea SWI, Inc Renton, W A 98055 15020 Bear Creek Road NE 24633 NE 133rd Street Woodinville, W A 98077 Duvall, WA 98019 Pat Conger Debra Eby Ricci Jill Ding 1301 S 9th Street Attorney at Law Development Services Renton, W A 98055 1601 2nd Avenue, Ste. 1080 City of Renton Seattle, W A 98101 Renton, W A 98055 Brian Beaman Maryann Reinhart Hugh Mortensen Icicle Creek Engineers GeoEngineers Watershed Company 230 NE Juniper Street, Ste., 101 8410 154th Ave NE 1410 Market Street Issaquah, W A 98027 Redmond, W A 98052 Kirkland, WA 98033 Neil Watts Ruth Larson Eric & Karen Bernard Director, Development Services 714 High A venue South PO Box 58306 City of Renton Renton, W A 98055 Tukwila, W A 98138 William Collins Tim Burkhardt Michael Chen 420 Cedar Ave S 4927 197th Ave E Core Design, Inc. Renton, W A 98055 Bonney Lake, W A 98390 14711 NE 29th Place, Ste. 101 Bellevue, W A 98007 Ronnie CS Teng, Leng-Sheng Teng, Mei-Yu Teng Dang, Wei Kang Kho, Chiu-Chu Tuan 835 Elm Avenue San Gabriel, CA 91107 Defoor Appeal • • File No.: LUA-05-089, SHPL-H June 8, 2006 Page 19 TRANSMITIED THIS 8th day of June 2006 to the following: Mayor Kathy Keolker Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison Larry Warren, City Attorney Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator Alex Pietsch, Economic Development Jennifer Henning, Development Services Stacy Tucker, Development Services Stan Engler, Fire Marshal Larry Meckling, Building Official Planning Commission Transpiration Division Utilities Division Neil Watts, Development Services Janet Conklin, Development Services King County Journal Pursuant to Title N, Chapter 8, Section 100Gofthe City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., June 22, 2006. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision ofthe Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title N, 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., June 22, 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 ofthe 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. • CIT~F RENTON Terry Defoor GWI, Inc. 24633 NE 133rd Street Duvall, W A 98019 Re: Defoor Short Plat Appeal, LUA 05-089, SJPL-H, ECF Dear Mr. Defoor: Hearing Examiner Fred J. Kaufman The appeal hearing in the above matter has been rescheduled for Tuesday, May 2~ 2006 at 9:00 a.m. The hearing will take place in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. The address is 1055 S Grady Way in Renton. If this office can provide any further assistance, please address those comments in writing. Sincerely, Fred Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton FKlnt cc: Larry Warren, City Attorney· Kathy.Kedlker, Mayor Neil Watts, Development Services' Jennifer Henning, Development Services Jill Ding, Development SerVices Michael Chen, Core Design, hic. Ronnie CS Teng, Leng-Sheng Teng, Mei-Yu Teng Dang, Wei Kang Kho, Chiu-Chu Tuan, Owners Parties of Record ----10-5-5-S-ou-th-G-ra-dy-W-ay---R-e-"ot-oo-,-W-as-h-in-gt-o-0-9-80-5-5---,-(4-2-5)-4-30---65-1-5----~ Ci) This ~aper contains· 50% recycled material, 30% post Consumer AHEAD 0 F THE CURVE -::;;: e e 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 . Representati ve 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 March 18, 2006. /o~ ~al Advertising Representative, King County Journal Subscribed and sworn to me this20th day of March, 2006. .' ~'"",",,\'" ......... , b..1t1¥ fj "'" . .:-~ : •...•... ~(n*" f ...:~~\SSIO.;;·· •• \)~ '1, : .. 0"'" . ~L'" r.\ I, .. :CJ t-W]"A "O •• Y· ~ :: "'ttl--~' , ~: oe".. fi:. ~ ~ ~ ~ 1':1,.,' ~ '" : : ~ y.. ; v8ue :' : ~ '"A '.,7. . .. ~ "~ '·9-19 07 ",O~ : I 0', -.'.t' -II, I(' .......... <:)' _-- . // • /I -" WASH\~ ... --Kathy Dalseg V (/. . ""\\\n~~~""" Notary Public for the State of Washington, Residing in Covington, Washington PO Number: NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING RENTON HEARING EXAMINER RENTON,WASHINGTON A Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, Washington, on March 28, 2006 at 9:00 AM to consider the following petitions: Defoor Short Plat Appeal LUA05-089, SHPL-H, ECF Location: 900 Renton Avenue S. Description: The applicant is re- questing an appeal of the ad- ministrative determination to classifY three un-mapped streams as follows: Drainage 1 as a Class 4 stream, Stream B as a Class 3 stream and Stream C as a Class 4 stream and the decision to not accept the Wetland Study, Stream Assessment, Habitat Study, Watershed Restoration, and Mitigation Plan prepared by Talasea Consultants, Inc. revised October 3, 2005. All interested persons are invited to be present at the Public Hearing to express their opinions. Questions should be directed to the Hearing Examiner at 425-430-6515. Published in the King County Journal March 18, 2006. #848482 • ~ i· I . ',:, J , ~~. '" ~~. ,.J/"! 'e PROJECT NAME: Defoor Short Plat Appeal PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-05-089, SHPL-H, ECF PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting an appeal of the administrative determination to classify three un-mapped streams as follows: Drainage 1 as a Class 4 stream, Stream B as a Class 3 stream and Stream C as a Class 4 stream and the decision to not accept the Wetland Study, Stream Assessment, Habitat Study, Watershed Restoration, and Mitigation Plan prepared by Talasea Consultants, Inc. revised October 3,2005. PROJECT NAME: Rainier Station PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-05-155, SA-H, V-H, LLA, ECF PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and Site Development Plan review for 52,000 sq ft of commercial space in 3 buildings, with a 209-stall parking garage, on 3.3 acres zoned Commercial Arterial (CA). The site is located at 601 Rainier Ave. NE. Existing buildings on the site will be removed. HEX Agenda 3-28-06 C· lIT"Y' O'F RIE"'ITO' N· bHc:AD·:I:N' :l"'~.·Itt,~'A'I\':''';lit\'''I::R' . . .'. . E:,'I:'" Ii " '~ ~ Flll::. ... " :." ~~F·.~~~tVI; il',"'1!:: RE """T"ON" ,I\:·/d\:SLJ'I'N''-''TtG:\N : :. ·r.~$lt '. ;, !, V.·V:/"'\.· Ir].' :-.. ~,(:t·~.1 :,', A,Publie iflearing win be' held' by. the Rer;lfa.ni'!I:t~~~ililg?;E~xaminer,iRf:the, GOllRei I" Charnbers.;ani·the,seventhvJlo0r' (),1i'lRenlpij~Gi,ty},liial 1:,. to'S.S':·South Grady, 'Way!"'Renton, Washingtan" 'an Mar,c ht;.,28i'i';;i20,0 6\ at 9·:001 AM~ ta; cons;ider·tber,fallawi ng, petitioRS: . . ,'~' Deloor Shortd?Jat A'ppeal Fm'E:NO. ,ll!J.'AiO'5~O.89""SHPL-H', EeF lQ~Cl,tj()m900r'R~ntQm~A'Ienue S. Description: the:"applicanhis~tEtquestingi,an;,appeahof': the: adtriil'llstrative;d~~etmina,ti.on, to:classif¥: threetun;.mapp~dtstr~arosJ.as;follows.· Drainage;1:as;a; 'Classi:4 stream;'Sfteam"B,asia,Class\ 3,. stream,'and',Stream;'C.~as;.a'~lassj.4' stream,and"the' dij~is,ii>~"to:'mot~5~c::e.~p~;[~he:Wetland>'StlJdY~?'Stream, Assessri);'i(tr"lifallitat:Study, Watershedl' 7Re~to~ationi!! an~~M.itigation; ,Plan' ~prepared;: lly, l'alasea' ;Cons~lt~1111:S'i,·4nc.,;revised! 'October,c 3, ... ' . 'y' . '2005~' " . .'. " FOR FUR;rHERINFORMAtIQN; :PLE~SE CQN:rACT TI:tE CIJ'Y; OF ·RENTiONHEARING EXAMINER~S;OFFICEAT'425430~6515 ., Il>Oi.NO{f~REMOVETHIS'NO.mICE;VVITHQU:rpROPER.Al!JJ:HORIZAT:ION. • STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF KING} AFFIDAVIT 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 inKing 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 issue~ of. the King County Journal (and not in. supplement. form) which was regularly . distributed" to its subscribers during the below stated period. The annexed n9tice,a Public Notice was published on January 20, 2006. The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of $77.40. . ~\\\\\"""1I111 . ~",,\ p..NN 8 III/~ ... ~ ~ •••••••• JIfI~ ... ~J ~".······.v.·~ ~ ~ ••• \ .... 'on E~ ••• ~.~ J~:!A...-./ .::::; 0 .. ~~ ~ .. ...c\ ~ Y 1l0H-"" .... • c. ..... , ... '. Lega Advertising Representative, King County ~~r ~ 0 1 AR Y j'" ~ .. ed and sworn to me this 20th day of Ja~~'\200(r.-.-;'_ /,2 ~ ~ ~ \ PUB\.\~, E ~ ~ "~···.~C'L n. \~y~~ ~ --+' +-~--:;.,c-"""7I<--_____ ----'-' -~ ~ .......... tj\~ "§-,t .er ~III. OF W~S '!I.\\~ . Notary P . for the State of Washington, Residing in ~~l1mw~~~shington PO Number: NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING RENTON HEARING EXAMINER RENTON, WASHINGTON A Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, RentOn, Washington, on January 31, 2006 at 9:00 AM to consider the following petitions: . Defoor Short Plat Appeal LUA05-089, SHPL-H, ECF Location: 900 RentOn Avenue S. Description: The applicant is 'requesting an. appeal of the administrative determination to classify three un-mapped streams as follows: Drainage 1 as a Class 4 stream, Stream B as a Class 3 . stream and Stream C as a Class 4 stream and the decision to not accept the Wetland Study, Stream Assessment, Habitat Study, Water- shed RestOration, and Mitigation Plan prepared by TalaseaCon- sultants, me. revised October 3, 2005. All interested persons are invited to be present at the Public Hearing to express their opinions. Questions should be directed to the Hearing Examiner at 425-430-6515. Publication Date: January 20, 2006 Published in the King County Journal January 20, 2006. #848482 • e e City of Re.n Department of Planning / Building / Public As ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT':"~~ '\. APPLICATION NO: LUA05-089, SHPL-H, ECF APPLICANT: TerryDefoor PROJECT TITLE: Defoor Short Plat SITE AREA: 140,723 square feet LOCATION: 900 Renton Avenue S COMMENTS DUE: OCTOBER 26 2005 DATE CIRCULATED: OCTOD!::,", ,~5 PROJECT MANA~ DinQ X PLAN REVIEW: J';;n lilian -=-'\ 6 ~ BUILDING AREA (gross): N/A I WORK ORDER NO: 77456 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Subdivision of a 140,723 square foot (3.2 acre) lot into 5 lots for single family residences and Parcel B. The subject site is located within the Residential - 8 dwelling unit per acre (R-8) zoning designation. The proposed lot sizes range from 5,500 square feet to 11,574 square feet. Access to the proposed lots would be provided via single family residential driveways onto Renton Avenue S. A Class 2 steam, a Class 4 stream, and a Class 5 stream, Steep Slopes, and High Coal Mine Hazard areas are located within proposed Parcel B of the subdivision. In addition a proposed stromwater detention vault would also be located within Parcel B. 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 SeN/ces ".. Energy/ Natural Resources Historic/Cultural Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet ~FS 8. 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 dif I infonnation is needed to properly assess this proposal. Date ".. .' ~~~ .. CITY. RENTON ..aL.... ...... Kathy Keolker-~eeler, . Mayor December 8, 2005 . Jason Walker, RLA, ASLA Talasea Consultants, Inc. 15020 Bear Creek Road NE Woodinville, WA 98077 HearingEXaminer . Fred J~Kaufnian Re: Appeal of Defoor PropertIes, Parcel Nos. 0007200196, 0007200 194, and 2023059085 Dear Mr. Walker: We are in receipt of Mr. Watts Reconsideration of Administrative Determination letter and. therefore, have scheduled the appeal hearing in this matter for Tuesday, January 31, 2006 at 9;00 a.m. The hearing will take placein the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City HaiL The address is I 055S Grady Way in Renton. Ifthis office can provide any further assistance, please address.those comments in writing. ----'. . Sincerely, 1<0"'~' -~' . '~-r~e-91},'·· >,:~ , . '. . Fred Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton FKfnt cc: Larry Warren, City Attorney Neil Watts, Development SerViCes . Services . Core DesIgn, Terry Defoor, Applicant RonnieCS Teng, Leng-Sheng Teng, Mei-Yu Teng Dang, Wei KangKho, Chiu-Chu Tuan, Owners Parties of Record ----10-5-5-S-ou-th-G--,ra:-d-y-W.-a-y--'-Re'-;"D-to-D-,-W-as~h-:-iD-g-to-D-9-8-05-5---(4-2-5-) 4-3-0-:-6-5-1-5--:---"':' .~ * Thi~ pa~r contains 50% recyded material, 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE • Ke(Jllkelr-WJlleeler, Mayor December 7, 2005 Jason Walker, RLA, ASLA Talasea Consultants, Inc. 15020 Bear Creek Road NE Woodinville, W A 98077 CITY., RENTON Planning/BtiildinglPublic Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator Subject: Reconsideration Request of Administrative Determination of Un-mapped Stream!W etland Classification for Defoor Properties (parcel Nos. 0007200196,0007200194, and 2023059085) Dear Mr. Walker: ,This letter is in response to' your letter dated November 17, 2005 requesting reconsideration of the classification of 3 un.;.mapped streams (Stream B, StreamC, and Drainage 1) as identified in the Wetland~Study, Stream Assessment, Habitat Study, Watershed Restoration,and MitigationPlaJJprepared by Talasea Consultarits; Inc. dated, June 28, 2005 (revised October 3,2005); Iriyour letter you indicate that the'creation of the 3 un-mapped streams was the result of erosion due to poinJ-discharge of stormwater and should be considered artificial and 'regulated is Class 5 streams. RMC 4-3- 050L l.a. v defines a Class 5 stream as non--regulated waters that "flow within an artificially constructed channel where no naturally defined channel had previously existed." The point discharge of stormwater onto the'subject site does not constitute an , "artificially constructed channel that would be classified as a Class 5 stream. , , , In your letter you also Cite a previous project within the City, Sunnybiook Preliminary Plat, (LUA05-127,' SA-H, PP~ ECF), where the modification of 7 drainage channels was permitted. You indicate that the previou~ approval should serve as a precedent for the streams located on the subject property. Since the review and approval of the " Sunnybrook Preliminary Plat, subsequent critical arearegulations have been adopted, which include a new stream definition and stream classification system. Therefore, as the current project was submitted under the subsequent regulations, the previous approval'of the alteration of 7 drainages would not be a precedent. ,The previous determination of the classification of the streams dated November 3, 2005 stands. ' -------10-S-S-S-o-ut-h-G-r...,.ad-y-W:-a~y---R-en-t-on-,-W-a-sh-i-ng-t-on-9-g0-S.:..:.s------~ * This paper contains 50% recycled material, 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE . Oefoor ReConsideration, • e December 7, 2005 Page 2 of2 . The reconsideration request letter also' requested ~n appeal, Th~. appeal of the " determination will coritiriu~. Youwill be notified of the date 'of the appeal hearing when' the Office of the Hearing Exaininer has scheduled it. Please feel free.to contact Jill Ding at (425) 430-7219. if you h~ve any questions. . Sincerely, ~eil Watts Development Services Director. ", .... e rB°ffi To~~!r~~EA 17 November 2005 Mr. Neil Watts, Development Services Director City of Renton 1 055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 CITY OF RENTON NOV 1 7 2005 / :(jo f#" RECEIVED ;I)t:, CITY CLERK'S OFFICE hQ.~d-dc.dio(~rLclIo'l ~o..sot( tJCl{f(er who s-l-o.-kJ v-e.f"~ly +~+ fJul ',S Go {(.J4Ae.s I-fi,'(' ,l{eCbpsic:Let'a.i-. Ut/,· L ,1 TAL-931.. . A-Ifl 'Tl1 m< tt e..G..r, K-~ E)C(1..ml't1 ex, Ii~ e.t '. ti+y A +./-0 (/I e.r '~~Q4;;' i't.1:l &" ),Q~iiit~'~,.,~;.?~, Subject: Reference: Defoor Properties (Parcel Nos. 0007200196, 0007200194, and 2023059085) Request for Reconsideration and Appeal ( L.UA -05-0 8 ~) Dear Mr. Watts: We have reviewed your 3 November 2005 letter addressed to Michael Chen of Core Design in regards to the classifications of four un-mapped streams and two un-mapped wetlands on the Defoor properties. Due to the availability of additional information, both enclosed and forthcoming, we request a reconsideration of your determination, and request your examination of the information and historical factors that have effectively created several drainage features on the subject properties. We also request a reconsideration of the decision to allow a Class 5 rating for Stream B, Stream C and Drainage 1 based upon historical evidences suggesting the feature's artificial origin and past precedent set by the City in the previous review and classification of similar features. To preserve our options for a formal appeal, we also request that this notification be filed at this time for this purpose. We understand that there has been some difference of opinion, and subsequent internal discussion and meetings regarding the definition of a Class 5 classification for Stream C and Drainage 1. From communication between Hugh Mortensen (The Watershed Company) and Per Johnson (Talasaea Ecologist) on 25 October 2005, and from your 3 November letter, we understand that the City has declined the guidance of their peer review consultant and is attempting to regulate artificial drainages that have been intentionally created due to the discharge of untreated and undetained stormwater. Furthermore, Jill Ding, of the City of Renton, told us (in a telephone conversation on 25 October 2005) that the City desires to conduct a hearing regarding the Defoor project to clarify the new code for the purpose of defining City policy, If future meetings are scheduled between the City's peer review consultant and staff to discuss the Defoor properties, we would appreciate the opportunity to attend and provide any necessary information or clarification, as this would expedite the coordination and correspondence involved for this project, and associated time and costs for all parties. We wish to continue a dialogue with the City on this issue and avoid a hearing if at all possible, as it is Resource "& Environmental Planning 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast· Woodinville. Washington 98077 • Bus: (425) 861·7550· Fax: (425) 861·7549 \ 1 ,~.-- Mr. Neil Watts 17 November 2005 Page 2 • unprecedented in our experience to obtain a clarification of this kind, and unduly prohibitive in cost for a project of this scale. In regards to the stream classifications, we believe Stream B, Stream C, and Drainage 1 are the direct result of intentional man-made activities (i.e., erosion due to point-discharge of stormwater) and should therefore be considered artificial by the provisions of the RMC. We base our conclusions on documented historical factors, including aerial photographs and correspondence with Raymond van der Roest of the City of Renton's Surface Water Utility (Talasaea 2005). Attached are aerial photographs from 1936, 1946, 1965, and 1974 (submitted herein as additional information for your review and consideration). The enlargements of the site were created from stereo pair photographs in which topographic information is visible. We can provide a copy of the stereo pairs to the City if it would assist in review of the features. The aerial photos indicate that Streams Band C, and Drainage 1 were created and defined after pavement and storm drainage improvements were provided at Cedar Avenue South and Renton Avenue South. These drainage features (Streams Band C, and Drainage 1) are not distinguishable in 1936 and 1946. After 1965 stream features are defined, and apparently attributable to the pOint-discharge of undetained stormwater onto a highly erodible soil surface. We believe Stream B, Stream C, and Drainage 1 were created as a result of the implementation of roadway and drainage improvements sometime after 1946. These features exhibit "flow within an artificially constructed channel where no naturally defined channel had previously existed" (RMC 4.3.050.(L).1.a.v.), and should therefore be considered artificial, meeting the definition of a Class 5 Water. The Origin and characterization of these features are described in detail in the Wetland Study, Stream Assessment, Habitat Study, Watershed Restoration and Mitigation Plan, revised 3 October 2005. At the request of Talasaea, a remote sensing specialist is presently conducting further review of the historical aerial photographs and forthcoming results will be provided to the City for further review and consideration. Similar drainage channels, created from erosive forces of intentionally released stormwater, were previously determined as artificial and unregulated by the City of Renton. In 2002 an MONS was issued for the Sunnybrook project (MDNS #LUA-01-127, EGF, SA-H), in which an approved mitigation plan (prepared by T alasaea Consultants) allowed modification of seven incised and eroded drainage channels. The City accepted that these drainages were created through the erosive point-discharge (intentional release) of stonnwater from several conveyance structures adjacent to a public road and accepted the characteristics of these features to be arti~cial. Per the RMC at that time, the City did not apply the definition of "Stream", "River" or "Watercourse" to ditches, canals, stormwater runoff devices or other entirely artificial watercourses. This previous definition is very similar to the Class 5 Water under the present RMC in that "artificial" watercourses continue to be exempt. Due to this past decision, we believe this precedent serves to clarify the interpretation of the features found on the Defoor properties, which have been artifiCially created by identical circumstances. The Wetland Study, Stream Assessment; Habitat Study, Watershed Restoration and Mitigation Plan, revised 3 October, includes a detailed mitigation approach that will effectively stabilize and improve these unstable and eroding features. The plan will provide a net improvement in stream functions while providing increased site stability and provision of improved water quality for the untreated stormwater entering the site. We believe that the Class 5 stream rating (under the RMC) allows for regulatory relief and flexibility to improve these features due to the intentional creation, and lack of historical Mr. Neil Watts 17 November 2005 Page 3 existence, of Stream B, Stream C and Drainage 1. We request the decision provided in the 3 November 2005 letter is reconsidered and, if necessary, be addressed in an appeal hearing (barring all other available means in which we can discuss and potentially resolve this issue). Please contact Per Johnson or me at (425) 861-7550 if you have any further questions at this time. Thank you for the consideration of the City in this matter. Sincerely, Jason Walker, RLA, ASLA Senior Project Manager Attachment cc: Michael Chen, Core Design Terry Defoor, Owner Site Area, 1936 .. ' .... Site Area, 1965 ".;. . Kathy Keolket~ Wheete~, Mayor. November 8, 2005 Michael Chen Core Design, Inc: • 14711 NE:291h Place Suite 101 Bellevue, 'ivA 98007 .·Subject: Defoor Preliminary Short Plat LUA-05-089, SHPL-H,ECF Dear Mr; Chen: CITY. RENTON PlanningIBuildinglP1lblicWorks Department . Gregg Zimmerman P.E~ Administrator The Environmental Review Committee has elected to Table the threshold determination oftheDefoor PreliminaryShortPI~tdlJet(jthe design ofth~shQrt plat. application being in conflict with the City's det~rminatiol'l oq~eqlassification ofthe.;onsitestreams. The. , projec£is therefore being placed~orihOldpending either:'. . . . . . ... . '1., Re;isionof the prelirninaiy"~~O~pl~tinaterialsto' corrlply with the Ad~inistrati~~ '. Determination oftheUnh')apped;st(eams and wetlands!ocated onthesubject site dateC:fNovember 3, '200S';Qr'" . "'. ' .. '. >' ...., 2; . The appeal of the City's6las$ifl~tionof the uomappedstreamsresultiogir1'-the Clty's.det~rminationbeillgpv~rtLi~ned(the appeal period ends November 17,' 2005). .', ..... , . . ... .. If the'appli6arltelectsto revise.th~,stlo~pl~tm_aterials,' please submit 5 copie~ ofth~·. revised materials. Please cohtactme at(425) 430-7219 if you have anyquestions;': . . " '"' : .. " . . .' . ..." .. Sincerely, . ')L4 y( ;;]2;::--; .t:/' Jill K. Diri9~< . -"., U AssoCiate Planner . Enclosure. . .. " "'.,. Cc RonriieCS Teng, Leng-Sheng'Teng, Mei-Yu Teng Dang,. WeiK~mg Kho,Chiu-Chu Tuarilowners TerryDefQor/applk~ant . -.... -:' " . . Parties of. Record " .. !;. ~ -------~-~10-S-S-s-o:-ut-h~G'--'ra-d-y-W-a"-y-----~R----en-:to-n-,-W:-a':':"sh-in-g-to-n-9S-0-S-S --::.----~ R:ENT:O N * This, paper;"'ritains 50;.~ material, 3O%posl consumer AHEAD OFTHE CURVE Kathy Keolker-Wheeler,Mayor November 8, 2005 William Collins 420 Cedar Avenue S Renton, WA 98055 •• . CITytfF RENT,ON PlanningIBuildinglPublic Works Department' . Gregg ZimmermanP.E., Administrator RE: Defoor Preliminary Short Plat Comment Letter Dear Mr. Collins; , Thank you for your comment letter dated August 5, 2005 regarding the Defoor preliminary short plat Your comments have been added to the officiaLfile and you have been made a party of record .. The decision maker .will consider your comments when rendering a decision on the Defoor preliminary short plat. . If you have.any aqditionalcoinments or concerns feel free to'qontact me at (425)430- 7219. . . Sincerely,' . . C .. Tl~~:r ~.. ~ '-1/'~., ..... . Jill K·Ding··V·- Associate Planner '. . '. '.- --------~--~lO~5~5-S-ou-t-h-G-ra-d-y-W-a-y---R-en-t-on-,~W-a~Sh~in-g-to-n-9~8~O~55~----------~~ .' .~ Thic:. n~nQf" rnnt:::ainc:. ~o/ ... ~rWi rn::dP.ri;:,,1 ":vlo/n ~t fYVlRllrTlAr AHEAD OF THE ¢URVE. '~4~.·. 411:», ...IIi - CITY. RENTON PlanningIBUildinglPublic Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator Kathy Keolker-Wbeeler, Mayor November 3, 2005 . Michael Chen Core Design, Inc. 14711 NE29th Place, Suite 101 Bellevue, W A 98007 Subject: Administrative Detennination of Un-:mapped Stream/W etland Classification for Defoor Properties (parcel Nos. 0007200196, 0007200194, and 20230S908S) Dear Mr. Chen: This letter is in response to your request for the classification of 4 un-mapped streams and two unmapped wetlands as identifieq in the Wetland Study, Stream Assessment, Habitat Study, Watershed Restoration, and Mitigation Plan prepared byTalasea . Consultants, Inc. dated June 28, 200S (revised October 3, 2OOS). BACKGROUND AWetIand Study, Stream Assessment, Habitat Study, Watershed Restoration, and Mitigation Plan prepared by Talasea Consultants; Inc. dated June 28, 200S was submitted to the City of Renton with the preliminary short plat and preliminary plat applications for the Defoor Preliminary Short Plat and-the Defoor Preliminary Plat. The report identified 3 streams, 2 drainages, arid 1 wetland on the subject prqperties. The report recommended that Streams B andC and Drainages land 2 be classified as Class S streams, which are exempt from the City' s critical areas regulations per RMC 4-3-0S0B.l. Stream A was reconuilendedto be Classified as a Class 4 stream, which requires a 3S-foot-buffer and Wetland A was recommended to be a Class 3wetiand with 2S-foot required buffers. the Watershed Company (City's environmental consultant) conducted a site visit August 2Sth, 200S and reviewed the applicant's report, A comment letter from The Waterslled Company dated September IS, 200S concurred with the appliCant's recommended , classification for Wetland A, Stream A, and StreamC, however did not concur with the applicant's recommended classification for Stream B and Drainage 2 and identified a . ' wetland that had not been delineated. The Watershed Company recommended that StreamS be classified as a Class 3 stream, that Drainage 2 be identified as an extension - of Stream A, a Class 4 stream, and th,at the unmapped wetland be classified as a ClaSs 3 wetland. Arevised Wetland Study, Stream Assessment, Habitat Study, Watershed Restoration, and Mitigation Plan prepared by Talasea Consultants, Inc. (revised October 3, 200S) was submitted to the City OctoberS, 200S. The revised report identified Drainage 2 as an extension of Stream A (a Class 4 stream), delineated the unmapped wetland and labeledit . as Wetland n, and StreamB was labeled as a Class 3 stream with a 7S-foot required' ~--'---'-'-~---'--l-O-SS-S-:-o-u-th-G"-t-ad-y--=-W."""a-Y---R-en-t-on-,-w.-a-sh-in-gt-o-n-9-8-0S-S------~. * This paperrontai,,".; 50% recycled material, 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE • I buffer. However, Talasea requested a reconsideration of the classification of Stream Bas' a Class J stream and recommended that 'Stream B be reciassifiedas an unregulated Class. 5 stream. City staff met with Hugh Mortensen of The Watershed Company to discuss the .' classification of the streams and drainage. Particularly the City's classification criteria of streams (RMC 4-3-050L.l.a) was reviewed. Per Section RMC 4-'3-050L.l.c.iii of the City's critical areas regulations, "Classification of an unmapped stream or lake is effective upon expiration of the fourteen (14) day a.ppeal period following the Administrator's determination." The Administrator has reviewed the City's critical areas regulations (RMC 4-3-050), and the Wetland Study,' Stream Assessment, Habitat Study, Watershed Restoration, aild Mitigation Plan prepared by Talasea Consultants, Inc and has rendered a decision. FINDINGS/CONCLUSION 1. The applicant has requested the det~r,mination of the classification of 3' streams, one drainage, and two wetl.antlS:<'·· .' ",-.; '-, . 2. The applicant submitte(rfW~tlilI1d'Study, Streap\"¥sessment, Habitat Study, ,: ' ." ::: -;. . .. J..... . '<J~ Watershed Restorat~oi1" qnd Mitigation p,lan ptep3fea;~y Talasea Consultants, Inc. (revised October 3;:2005),;1' ....,'1;>:;- 3~ The City's AdmiJiis.tratocand environmental con~ult~t, (the Watershed Company)hav~~'feview~d th~'wd.tljiJ)~,:Stu4~ Stream A~s~sment, Habitat Study, Watershed' Restbration,; an~rMiti;,;,.;L onflarl~Rrepared by T~asea Consultants, Inc. (revisedbcto~r 3;}2005) ,hli~':c; ,,':~~Q;!~~:clllical area,~l~tions found in RMC 4-3-050.;. ':: 'f"'-' ··'~"';~~;V., J i~' . .' :~" .. " "'':';'" .'-.':", ~-<' .~i DECISION -.t. . >+--> '.t1'f The City concurs that Wetlan,dSA' and Bsha)l'.be,da&,sifi&i ~~Category 3 wetlands, and '. that Stream A shall be classifled,:as a Class,4 stream.'Stfffielent information has not been provided to the Gity to show thatStteaw,~sp()l!!4,;Qerci~sifiedasaClass 5 Stream, that StreamC shall be classfied as a Class 5 stream, and that Drainage I' shall be classfied as a Class; 5 stream~ . The Administrator detemiined that: 1) Drainage 1 shall be dassifiedas a Class 4 stream; 2) StreamB shall bee1assified as a Class 3 stream; and 3) Stream C shall be classified as a ClaSs 4 ~stream; Therefore, the deCision has been made not to accept the Wetland Study, Stream Assessment, Habitat Study, Watershed Restoration,andMitigationPlan prepared by Taiasea Consultants, Inc. revised October 3,'2005. . . . , RECQNSIDERA TION. Within 14 days of the effective date of the decision, any party' . may request that the Administrator reopen a decision. The Adininistratormay modify his decision if material evidence not readily discoverable prior to the original decision is . found ()f if he finds there was misrepresentation of fact. A~rreview of the . reconsideration request, if the Administrator finds insufficient evidence to amend the ,original decision, there will be ItO further extension of the appeal period. Any person , . wishing to take further action must file a fonn~ appeal within the followjng appeal timeframe. . . APPEAL. This administrative d~ision will become final if not appealed in writing to the Hearing Examiner on or before 5:00 pM on November 17, 2005. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110. Additional information regarding the appeal process maybe obtained from the Renton City Oerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. Appeals must be filed in writing, together with the . required $75.00 application fee, to: HearingExaminer, City ofReriton, 1055 South . Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. . If you have any questions, you may cQiltactJill Ding, Associate Planner at 425-43~-7219. Sincerely, i . / . I'dttl· ,4., . ~., . j j I '. ,'1 \ l.:.r {. /i. / . ! /J';' ,{/. • 1.' . IV l...-./ (! .. Neil Watts." ,~:.~?~. ; Development Services Direct9r~ . {;:" ,,:; cc: . =£:nnltg';;~!t~,;I~~i:~i' ) Terry Defoorl Applicant" .:'8·.' \t~1...; ;., Ronnie CS Teng~ir111g~q¢rig'Teti~; Mei~\{ifTel!~D~g,j Wei Kang Kho,Gqifi:¢4.Y''Fu,anlOwnerS . ".:*,.:k., ... Parties of Record . "', .... '... , .... ,.j' DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM October 18, 2005 Jill Ding Jan lllian x7216 DEFOOR SHORT PLAT LUA 05-0893 900 Cedar Ave South I have reviewed the application for the Defoor Short Plat located at 900 Cedar Ave South and have the following comments: EXISTING CONDITIONS WATER SEWER STORM STREETS There is an 8-inch water main in S. 9th Street and a 4-inch water main in Renton Ave South. Available fire flow in Renton Ave is less than 1,000 gpm. The proposed project is located in the 490 Water Pressure Zone and is outside an Aquifer Protection Zone. Static pressure in the area is approximately 80 psi. Pressure reducing valves will be required to be installed on the domestic water meters. There is an existing 8-inch sewer main fronting the site in Renton Ave South. . There are no improved drainage facilities fronting the site in Renton Ave South. There are no street improvements fronting the site in Renton Ave South. CODE REQUIREMENTS WATER 1. The Water System Development Charges are based on a rate of $1,525.00 x 5 single-family homes. Estimated fees based on the entire site plan is $7,625.00. Payment of these fees will be required prior to issuance of utility construction permit. Fees may be subject to change January 2006. 2. Fire flow requirement for single-family residences is 1,000 gpm. Hydrants are required within 300 feet of all structures. Existing hydrants to be counted as fire protection will be required to be retrofitted with a 5- inch storz quick disconnect fitting. 3. To provide a minimum of 1,000 gpm to proposed Lots 1-5, applicant will be required to tie into an existing 8-inch water main located generally at the intersection of S. 9th Street and Renton Avenue South and extend an 8-inch main south in Renton Ave to S. 10th Street. A tie in to the 4-inch in S. 10th will be required. This will provide 1,250 gpm. If homes will 3,600 square feet, 1,500 gpm is required. Continuing the extension of an 8-inch main in S.10th Street to the east and tying into the 12-inch main in Grant Ave will. Defoor Short Plat October 26, 2005 • provide 2,000 + gpm. (See water redlines). New hydrants will be required to be installed as part of the water main extension in Renton Ave S. 4. All short plats shall provide separate water services to each building lot prior to recording of the short plat. Separate permits and fees for water meters will be required. SANITARY SEWER 1. The Sanitary Sewer System Development Charges are based on a rate of $900 x 5 single-family homes. Estimated fees based on the entire site plan is $30,600.00. Payment of these fees will be required prior to issuance of utility construction permit. Fees may be subject to change January 2006. 2. Dual side sewers are not allowed and minimum slope shall be 2%. 3. All short plats shall provide separate sewer stubs to each building lot prior to recording of the short plat. Separate permits and fees for side sewers will be required. SURFACE WATER 1. The Surface Water System Development Charges are based on a rate of $715.00 x 5 single-family homes. Estimated fees based on the entire site plan is $3,575.00. Payment of these fees will be required prior to issuance of utility construction permit. Fees may bee subject to change January 2006. 2. A preliminary drainage report has been submitted and reviewed. The drainage report addresses requirements for detention and water quality design per the 1990 KCSWM. Report indicates project is exempt form detention. 3. Applicant will be required to tightline all roof downspout systems. 4. A temporary erosion control plan will be required and shall be installed and maintained to the satisfaction of the representative of the Development Services Division for the duration of the project. The first order of business shall be installation of a silt fence along the perimeter of the site that is to be disturbed. The silt fence shall be in place before clearing and grading is initiated. This will be required during the construction of both off-site and on-site improvements as well as building construction. 5. Strip drains are required where driveway slopes exceed 8%. TRANSPORTATION 1. Half street improvements including sidewalks, curb and gutter, paving, storm drainage, and street signs are required along Renton Ave South. 2. Street lighting plans are required to be submitted with the civil plans. 3. Applicant will be required to comply with the City of Renton's Trench Restoration and Street Overlay Requirements. 4. A traffic control plan, approved by the City will be required for any construction impacting the City's right of way. MISCELLANEOUS 1. Construction plan indicating haul route and hours, construction hours and a traffic control plan shall be submitted for approval prior to any permit being issued. 2 rl ! I Defoor Short Plat October 26, 2005 2. Haul hours shall be restricted to 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. unless approved in advance by the Development Services Division. 3. Rockeries or walls to be constructed greater than 4 feet in height will require a separate building permit and the following note shall be added to the civil plans: "All rockeries or walls greater than 4 feet in height will require a separate building pennit. A licensed engineer with geo-technical expertise must be retained for proposed rockeries greater than four feet in height. The engineer must monitor rockery construction and verify in writing that the rockery was constructed in general accordance with ARC standards and with hislher supplemental recommendations, in a professional manner and of competent and suitable material. Written verification by the engineer must be provided to the City of Renton public works inspector prior to approval of an occupancy permit or plat approval for the project." 4. Mailboxes are required to be clearly noted and shown on the construction plans at time of submittal. Plans shall also include a note requiring a "NO PARKING" sign be posted. 5. Separate permits and fees for side sewers, water meters, and storm drainage connections will be required. PLAN REVIEW -GENERAL 1. All plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards. 2. All required utility, drainage and street improvements will require separate plan submittals prepared according to City of Renton drafting standards by a licensed Civil Engineer. 3. When plans are complete three copies of the drawings, two copies of the drainage report, a construction estimate and application fee shall be submitted at the sixth floor counter. A fee worksheet is attached for your use, but prior to preparing a check, it is recommended to call 425-430-7266 for a fee estimate as generated by the permit system. 4. Applicant shall be responsible for securing all necessary private or public easements for utilities and/or street improvements. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS 1. Traffic Mitigation Fees are based on a rate of $75.00 x 9.57 trips x 5 single-family homes. Estimated fees . based on the site plan is $ 3,588.75 .. Payment of these fees will be required prior to recording of the plat. 2. Staff recommends a SEPA condition requiring this project to design and comply with Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements as outlined in Volume II of the Stonnwater Management Manual. cc: Kayren Kittrick 3 fi DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: • CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM October 28, 2005 Jill Ding ~ SonjaJ. Fesser y~ Defoor Short Plat, LUA-05-089-SHPL Format and Legal Description Review Bob Mac Onie and I have reviewed the above referenced short plat submittal and have the following comments: Comments for the Applicant: Remove the legal description for "Parcel A" from the short plat submittal. It is not a part of this subdivision, but is a part of a separate subdivision application. Information needed for final short plat approval includes the following: Note the City of Renton land use action number and land record number, LUA-05-089-SHPL and LND-20-0430, respectively, on the short plat submittal, preferably in the upper right-hand comer of the drawing sheets. The type size used for the land record number should be smaller than that used for the land record number. Show two ties to the City of Renton Survey Control Network (tie the subject property to the Survey Control Network). The geometry will be checked when the ties have been provided. Note the bearings for all interior lot lines of the proposed lots. Provide short plat and lot closure calculations. Include a statement of equipment and procedures used, per WAC 332-130-100. Indicate what has been, or is to be, set at the comers of the proposed lots. \H:\Fiie Sys\LNO -Land Subdivision & Surveying Records\LND-20 -Short Piats\0430\RV051019.doc October 28, 2005 Page 2 Note the date the existing monuments were visited. Note discrepancies between bearings and distances of record and those measured or calculated, if any. The city will provide addresses for the proposed lots as soon as possible. Said addresses need to be noted on the short plat drawing. Note all easements, covenants and agreements of record on the drawing. On the final short plat submittal, remove all references to trees, utilities facilities, topog lines and other items not directly impacting the subdivision. These items are provided only for preliminary short plat approval. Remove all density and zoning information from the final drawing. Remove all references to building setback lines. Setbacks will be determined at the time of issuance of building permits. Note encroachments, if any. The City of Renton Administrator of PlanninglBuildinglPublic Works is the only city official who signs this short plat drawing. Provide an appropriate approval block and signature line. Pertinent King County approval blocks also need to be noted on the drawing. All vested owner(s) of the subject short plat need to sign the document. Include a declaration block on the drawing. Note that if there are restrictive covenants, easements or agreements to others (City of Renton, etc.) as part of this subdivision, they can be recorded concurrently with the short plat. The short plat submittal and the associated document(s) are to be given to the Project Manager as a package. The short plat document will be recorded first (with King County). The recording number(s) for the associated document(s) (said documents recorded concurrently with, but following the short plat) need to be referenced on the short plat document. Fee Review Comments: The Fee Review Sheet for this review of the preliminary short plat is provided for your use and information. H:\FiJe Sys\LND -Land Subdivision & Surveying Records\LND-20 -Short PJats\0430\RV051OJ9.doc\cor ( . PROPERTY SERVICeEE REVIEW FOR SUBDIVISIONS No. ~ ---"'58"'"-"'----__ APPLICANT: -SoUbJ IE. Co =p=:b-'9 RECEIVED FROM ___ ----;~--:--- (date) JOB ADDRESS: 9?<? i3Eb..iTObl AVE. <5. WO# __________ _ N~TURE OF WORK: 5-1 Of 6HOBt"'P' ~(:t:~:nB ~ ~) LND # RO-04-30 V PRELIMINARY REVrEW OF SUBDIVlrlON BY LONG PLAT, ~D Mo.RE INFo.RMATlON: .. LEGAL DESCRIPTION SHORT PLAT, BINDING SITE PLAN, ETC. pm #'s -VICINlTY MAP -FINAL REVrEW OF SUBDIVISlo.N, THIS REVrEW REPLACES SQUARE FOOTAGE -OTHER PRELIMINARY FEE REVrEW DATED _____ _ FRo.NT Fo.o.TAGE SUBJECT PRo.PERTY PARENT pm# DeCaro -o19c;, -X NEW KING co.. TAX ACCT.#(s) are required when assigned by King County. It is dIe intent of mis development fee analysis to put dle developer/owner on notice. lhat me fees quoted below may be applicable to me subject site upon development of me property, All quoted fees are potential charges !hat may be due and payable at me time me construction permit is issued to install the on-site and off-site improvements (i.e. underground utilities, street improvements, etc.) Triggering mechanisms for the SOC fees will be based on current City ordinances and determined by the applicable Utility Section. Please note that mese fees are subject to change wimout notice. Final fees will be based on rates in effect at time of Building Permit/Construction Permit application. The existing house on SP Lot # ___ , addressed as has not previously paid ____ SDC fees, due to connection to City utilities prior to existance of SDC fee o.rd. SP Lot# will be subject to future SDC fees if triggering mechanisms are touched within current City Ordinances. We understand that this subdivision is in the preliminary stage and that we will have the opportunity to review it again before recordation. The ollowmg ql,loted ees do mdu e Inspection NOT' d . . ~ ees, SIde sewer permIts, r w permIt ees,or the cost of water meters. SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT PARCEL. METHo.Do.F ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS NO.. NO.. ASSESSMENT UNlTS Latecomer Agreement (pvt) WATER Latecomer Agreement (p\'t) W ASTEW A TER Latecomer Agreement (pvt) o.THER Special Assessment District/W A TER Special Assessment District/W ASTEW ATER Joint Use Agreement (METRO.) Local Improvement District· Traffic Benefit Zones $75.00 PER TRIP, CALCULATED BY TRANSPQRTA Tlo.N FUTURE OBLlGATlo.NS SYSTEM DEVELo.PMENT CHARGE -WATER .. Estimated # o.F UNITS! .. Pd Pre\,. " Pa'rtiallv Pd (Ltd Exemption) .. Never Pd SQ. FTG. Single family residential $l,S2S/unit x 5 Mobile home dwelli~ unit $1220/unit in park Apartment, Condo $915/unit not in CD or COR zones x Commercialllndustrial,$0.213/sq. ft. of property (not less than $l,525.00) x Boeing. by Special Agreement/Footprim of Bldg plus 15 ft perimeter (2,800 GPM threshold) SYSTEM DEVELo.PMENT CHARGE -WASTEWATER .. Estimated .. Pd Prevo Partially Pd (Ltd Exemption) .. Never Pd Single family residential $900/unit x 5 Mobile horne dwelling unit $720/unit x Apartment, Condo $540/unit not in CD or Co.R zones x Commercial!lndustrial $0.l26/sq. ft. of propertv x(not less than $900.00) SYSTEM DEVELo.PMENT CHARGE -SURFACEWATER Estimated .. Pd Prevo Partially Pd (Ltd Exemption) Never·Pd Single faillily residential and mobile home dwelling unit $715/unit x 5 All other properties $O.249/sq ft of new impen'ious area of property x (not less than $715.00) I PREUi\Ui'\A{{ \' TOTAL ~~"~~--~-~---. ~ __ IO/leto5 [ljXi~ S o.RFEE -0- -0- -0- / ;' -0- / " -0-- * --- SDC FEE $ 7 C;ZS.OO $4500.00 $3575.00 \5 (;;00.00 '< CD '" '1 tv o o lf1 *11' suhjed property is within an LID, it is de\clopers responsihility to check with the Finance Dept. f(lr paid!un-paid status. '1 CD < Square footage figures an: taken frolll the I..:illg County Assessor's lIlap and are suhject to change. CUITenl Cit) SDC fee ch:.tr·ges apply to -----.-.. _--- EFFTCTI\T .LHlu"q 1.20(15 ... CD ~ :J o City of Rein Departme~t of Planning / Building / Public As ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS DUE: OCTOBER 26 2005 DATE CIRCULATED: OCTOBER 122005 APPLICANT: Ter Defoor PROJECT MANAGER: Jill Din PROJECT TITLE: Defoor Short Plat PLAN REVIEW: Jan lilian o SITE AREA: 140,723 s uare feet BUILDING AREA CITY OF RENTON LOCATION: 900 Renton Avenue S WORK ORDER NO: 77456 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Subdivision of a 140,723 square foot (3.2 acre) lot into 5 lots for single family residences and Parcel B. The subject site is located within the Residential - 8 dwelling unit per acre (R-8) zoning designation. The proposed lot sizes range from 5,500 square feet to 11,574 square feet. Access to the proposed lots would be provided via single family residential driveways onto Renton Avenue S. A Class 2 stSam, a Class 4 stream, and a Class 5 stream, Steep Slopes, and High Coal Mine Hazard areas are located within proposed Parcel B of the subdivision. In addition a proposed stromwater detention vault would also be located within Parcel B. 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 SeNices '- Energy/ Natural Resources Historic/Cultural 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 information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date City of R.n Department of Planning / Building / Public as ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: .. /{;tit ;fiV'P~ COMMENTS DUE: OCTOBER 26 2005 APPLICATION NO: LUA05-089, SHPL-H, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: OC fPai£R~=2 ~OO5~ 11 :1 \'\:'7 rr r----, II~iJJ '-'-' ,~ L!:::> U ~ U;; 1111 APPLICANT: Terry Defoor PROJECT MANAGER: Jil 1'lri9 PROJECT TITLE: Defoor Short Plat PLAN REVIEW: Jan lIIian/llll n,..~ 4 III II BUILDING AREA (gross): u U Vvl I £ lUU:> II~ SITE AREA: 140,723 square feet N/A LOCATION: 900 Renton Avenue S WORK ORDER NO: 7745 6 r.ITY m:: Qr::~ Tr", I SUMMA~Y OF ~ROPOSAL:, ~ubdivision.of a .140,723 sq~are fo.ot (3.2 acre) lot into ~ lots f~ sill~le fa~§J&jd~Hd.e.~·~n~ Parcel~. The subject sIte IS located wIthin the ResIdentIal - 8 dwelling Unit per acre (R-8) zOning desIgnatIon. The proposed lot sIzes range from 5,500 square feet to 11,574 square feet. Access to the proposed lots would be provided via single family residential driveways onto Renton Avenue S. A Class 2 steam, a Class 4 stream, and a Class 5 stream, Steep Slopes, and High Coal Mine Hazard areas are located within proposed Parcel B of the subdivision. In addition a proposed stromwater detention vault would also be located within Parcel B. 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 Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transoortation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Natural Resources Historic/Cultural Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Signature of Director or Date City of R.n Department of Planning / Building / Public as ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: 6t.J..rltueh.l. ~b \"dp/ COMMENTS DUE: OCTOBER 26 2005 , APPLICATION NO: LUA05-089, SHPL-H, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: OCTOBER 122005 APPLICANT: Terry Defoor PROJECT MANAGER: Jill Ding PROJECT TITLE: Defoor Short Plat PLAN REVIEW: Jan lilian SITE AREA: 140,723 square feet BUILDING AREA (gross): N/A LOCATION: 900 Renton Avenue S I WORK ORDER NO: 77456 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Subdivision of a 140,723 square foot (3.2 acre) lot into 5 lots for single family residences and Parcel B. The subject site is located within the Residential - 8 dwelling unit per acre (R-8) zoning designation. The proposed lot sizes range from 5,500 square feet to 11,574 square feet. Access to the proposed lots would be provided via single family residential driveways onto Renton Avenue S. A Class 2 steam, a Class 4 stream, and a Class 5 stream, Steep Slopes, and High Coal Mine Hazard areas are located within proposed Parcel B of the subdivision. In addition a proposed stromwater detention vault would also be located within Parcel B. 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 UghtlGlare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Natural Resources Historic/Cultural Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS > We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Date ' lo4C\ s# ____ ~_~ , ______ ___ Project Name: Project Address: 900 ~ ~ s. Contact Person: TVI!';J t>~~ Permit Number: ~L~0~A~O~5~--=O~eG~ __________________________ ~ __________ _ Project Description: 5 LoT SF=~ ~\W« p~ Land Use Type: o Residential o Retail o Non-retail Calculation: '5)( q. '01 ::: '-\1· f>5 p..~ .'-\1, CO~ y. ''''~:> ~. ~I S~e>.'S Transportation Mitigation Fee: Calculated by: Method of Calculation: -Et-ITE Trip Generation Manual, 7th Edition o Traffic Study ('Z.\o ') ~~(C... o Other 9.'S~ ~ It-or City of Re.n Department of Planning / Building / Public as ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: 1rv.rt::a)(~8f'\ COMMENTS DUE: OCTOBER 26 2005 • APPLICATION NO: LUA05-089, SHPL-H, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: OCTOBER 122005 APPLICANT: Terry Defoor PROJECT MANAGER: Jill Ding PROJECT TITLE: Defoor Short Plat PLAN REVIEW: Jan lilian SITE AREA: 140,723 square feet BUILDING AREA (gross): NlA LOCATION: 900 Renton Avenue S WORK ORDER NO: 77456 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Subdivision of a 140,723 square foot (3.2 acre) lot into 5 lots for single family residences and Parcel B. The subject site is located within the Residential - 8 dwelling unit per acre (R-8) zoning designation. The proposed lot sizes range from 5,500 square feet to 11,574 square feet. Access to the proposed lots would be provided via single family residential driveways onto Renton Avenue S. A Class 2 steam, a Class 4 stream, and a Class 5 stream, Steep Slopes, and High Coal Mine Hazard areas are located within proposed Parcel B of the subdivision. In addition a proposed stromwater detention vault would also be located within Parcel B. ---.. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS '-~ ", Element of the ~, Probable Probable Environment ", Minor Major .... " . ..,J.mpacts Impacts Earth "-'. Air Water Plants Land/Shoreline Use '-" Animals ~ , Environmental Health Energy/ Natural Resources B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS More Information Necessary . . .y" '" ..... , IO/d.Y/~ '\. Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Housing Aesthetics UghtiGlare Recreation Utilities Transportation Public SeNices Historic/Cultural Preservation Airport Environment 10.000 Feet 14.000 Feet ", We have reviewed thi;;;f,ipplication with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MITIGATION ITEMS: FIRE DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM October 12,2005 Jill Ding, Associate Planner I/Ji_ James Gray, Assistant Fire Marsha}f\ /)!r Defoor Short Plat, 900 Renton A~~ 1. A fire mitigation fee of $488.00 is required for all new single-family structures. FIRE CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. A fire hydrant with 1000 GPM fire flow is required within 300 feet of all new single- family structures. If the building square footage exceeds 3600 square feet in area, the minimum fire flow increases to a minimum of 1500 GPM and requires two hydrants within 300 feet of the structure. . Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. i: \defoorsperc.doc City of R.n Department of Planning / Building / Public as ENVIRONMENTA DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS DUE: OCTOBER 26 2005 DATE CIRCULATED: OCTOBER 122005 APPLICANT: Defoor PROJECT TITLE: Defoor Short Plat feet : N/A LOCATION: 900 Renton Avenue S SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Subdivision of a 140,723 square foot (3.2 acre) lot into 5 lots for single family residences and Parcel B. The subject site is located within the Residential - 8 dwelling unit per acre (R-8) zoning designation. The proposed lot sizes range from 5,500 square feet to 11,574 square feet. Access to the proposed lots would be provided via single family residential driveways onto Renton Avenue S. A Class 2 steam, a Class 4 stream, and a Class 5 stream, Steep Slopes, and High Coal Mine Hazard areas are located within proposed Parcel B of the subdivision. In addition a proposed stromwater detention vault would also be located within Parcel B. 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 UghtiGlare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Uti/ities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Natural Resources Historic/Cultural Preservation Airport Environment 10.000 Feet 14.000 Feet B. POLICY-RELA TED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELA TED COMMENTS . ~~ b~f1 . h particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identifl'ed areas of probable impact or eeded to properly assess this proposal. Date A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS "It is anticipated that the proposed development would generate future residents that would utilize existing City park and recreation facilities and programs. The City has adopted a Parks Mitigation Fee of $530.76 per each new single family lot to address these potential impacts." Parks Mitigation Fee City of R.n Department of Planning / Building / Public as ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: ~ COMMENTS DUE: OCTOBER 26 2005 APPLICATION NO: LUA05-089, SHPL-H, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: OCTOBER 122005 APPLICANT: TerryDefoor PROJECT MANAGER: Jill Ding PROJECT TITLE: Defoor Short Plat PLAN REVIEW: Jan lilian SITE AREA: 140,723 square feet BUILDING AREA (gross): N/A LOCATION: 900 Renton Avenue S WORK ORDER NO: 77456 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Subdivision of a 140,723 square foot (3.2 acre) lot into 5 lots for single family residences and Parcel B. The subject site is located within the Residential - 8 dwelling unit per acre (R-8) zoning designation. The proposed lot sizes range from 5,500 square feet to 11,574 square feet. Access to the proposed lots would be provided via single family residential driveways onto Renton Avenue S. A Class 2 steam, a Class 4 stream, and a Class 5 stream, Steep Slopes, and High Coal Mine Hazard areas are located within proposed Parcel B of the subdivision. In addition a proposed stromwater detention vault would also be located within Parcel B. 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 LigWGlare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Natural Resources Historic/Cultural Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS ~~ m~ h;:£-;dr;;, 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 ditional information is nee to properly asses this proposal. Date ( City of Ra, . Department of Planning / Building / Public 14lls ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET COMMENTS DUE: OCTOBER 26 2005 APPLICATION NO: LUA05-089, SHPL-H, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: OCTOBER 122005 APPLICANT: Terry Defoor PROJECT MANAGER: Jill Ding PROJECT TITLE: Defoor Short Plat PLAN REVIEW: Jan lilian SITE AREA: 140,723 square feet BUILDING AREA (gross): NlA LOCATION: 900 Renton Avenue S WORK ORDER NO: 77456 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Subdivision of a 140,723 square foot (3.2 acre) lot into 5 lots for single family residences and Parcel B. The subject site is located within the Residential - 8 dwelling unit per acre (R-8) zoning designation. The proposed lot sizes range from 5,500 square feet to 11,574 square feet. Access to the proposed lots would be provided via single family residential driveways onto Renton Avenue S. A Class 2 steam, a Class 4 stream, and a Class 5 stream, Steep Slopes, and High Coal Mine Hazard areas are located within proposed Parcel B of the subdivision. In addition a proposed stromwater detention vault would also be located within Parcel B. 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 Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public SelVices Energy/ HistoridCultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS tVoua 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 whe~ 'Ciitional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. s Date • DATE: October 12, 2005 LAND USE NUMBER: LUA05-0B9, SHPL-H, ECF PROJECT NAME: Defoor Short Plat PROJECT DESCRIPTION: SubdMslon 01 a 140,723 square foot (3.2 acre) lot into 5 lots for single family residences and Parcel B. The subject site Is located within the Residential· 8 dwelling unit per acre (R·B) zoning designation. The proposed 101 sizes range from 5,500 square leet to 11,574 square leet. Access to the proposed lots would be provided via single family residential driveways onto. Renton Avenue S. A Class 2 steam, a Class 4 stream, and a Class 5 stream, Steep Slopes, and High Coal Mine Hazard areas are located within proposed Parcel B of the subdivision. In addition a proposed stromwater detention vault would also be located within Parcel B. ' PROJECT LOCATION: 900 Renton Avenue S OPTIONAL DETERMINATION Of NON-SIGNIFICANCE, MmGATED (DN5-M): As Ihe Lead Agency, the Cily 01 Renton has determined that significant environmental impacts are unlikefy to result lrom the proposed project. Therefore, as permitted under the RCW 43.21 C.ll 0, the City of Renton Is uslng the Optional ON5-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 8 single comment period. There will be no comment period lollowlng the issuance of the Threshold Detenninatlon of Non-Significance· Mitigated (DNS·M). A 14·day appeal period will follow the Issuance of the ONS·M. PERMIT APPUCATION DATE: NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: July 26, 2005 October 12, 2005 APPUCANTJPROJECT CONTACT PERSON: Mlch.el Chen, Core Deslgn.lnc_: Tel:(425) BB5-7B77: Eml: mcOcoredeslgnlnc.com PennltsIRevlew Requested: Environmental (SEPA) Review, Hearing Examiner Short Plat Other Permits which may be required: Construction, Fire, Building Permits Requested Studies: Drainage Report. Geotechnical Study, & Wetland Report Location where application may be reviewed: PlannlnglBulldlnglPublic Works Department, Development Services Division, Sixth Floor Renton Clty Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055 PUBLIC HEARING: Public hearing is tentatively scheduled for November 15 2005 before the Renton Hearing Examiner In Renton Council Chambers. Hearings begin at 9:00 AM on the 7th floor of the new Renton City Hall located at 1055 South Grady Way. CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Zonlnglland Use: Environmental Documents that Evaluate the Proposed Project: The subject site is designated Resld~:ntial Single-Family (RSF) on·the City of Renton Comprehensive Land Use Map and Residential-B dwelling units per acre (R-B) on lhe Ci1y's Zoning Map. Environmental (SEPA) Checklist Development Regulations Used For Project Mitigation: The project will be subject to the City's SEPA ordinance, RMC 4-3-050 Critical Areas, RMC 4-4-030 Development Guidelines and Regulations and other\ applicable codes and regulations as appropriate, 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 8S cited above. The applicant will be required to pay the appropriate Transportation Mitlgatfon F9fI; The applicant will be required to pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation F99; and The appOcant will be required to pay the approprlste Parks Mitigation FeB. The applicant wlfl be required to comply with Department of Ecology's Stonnwater Management Manual for erosion control The applicant shall comply with f8COfT1mendations found in the Wetland Report prepared by Ta/asea Consultants, Inc. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations found In the Geotechnical Report prepared by Icicfe Creek Engin99fS. Comments on the above application must be submitted In writing to Jill Ding, Associate Planner, Development Services Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055, by 5:00 PM on October 26,2005. This matter Is also tentatively scheduled for a public hearing on November 15, 2005, at 9:00 AM. Council Chambers, Seventh Floor. Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton. II you are Interested In attending the hearing, please contact the Development Servfces OMslon to ensure that the hearing has not been rescheduled at (425) 430-7262. If comments cannot be submitted in writing by the date Indicated above. you may still appear at the hearing and present your comments on the proposal before the Hearing Examiner. If you have questions about this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional inlonnatlon by mail, please contact the project manager. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be nolHied of any decision on this project. CONTACT PERSON: Jill K, Ding, Associate Planner; Tel: (425) 430-7219 PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALUNG FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION 11 you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project, complete this form and relum to: Cily of Renlon, Developmenl Planning, 1055 So. Grady Way, Renlon, WA 98055. Name/Rle No_: Defoor Short Pla1lLUA05-089, SHPL-H, ECF NAME: MAILING ADDRESS: _________________________ _ TELEPHONE NO,: ________ _ . --~ ' .... __ :~_'1 .~ •• ~"_r~:::_:'.::::..~,':~ \ . '~i-;,·~.;,\Lc.8 F. KO~~tr(G i~ ~j N-OTARY PUBUC I~ CERTIFICATION . 11 STATE OF WASHINGTON ~ ~ COM,MISSION EXPIRES t I, \ i ,t I{ 1<-121·~· , hereby ceitify that 3 copies of thlb~ab&v~§d9E\Ihie6~ were"'"posted by me iL3-conspicuous places or nearby the described property on DATE: loire) IQ~ A TIEST: Subscribed and sworn before me, a Notary Public, in and fi eJ"ul~.on"" (r dayo' O~l.tr %0& I ~. Agencies -Env. Checklist, PMT's, NOA See Attached Michael Chen, Core Design, Inc. -Accpt Ur Contact Terry Defoor, GWI, Inc. -Accpt Ur Applicant Ronnie CS Teng -Accpt Ur, NOA Owner Leng-Sheng Teng -Accpt Ur, NOA Owner Mei-Yu Teng Dang -Accpt Ur, NOA Owner Wei Kang Kho -Accpt Ur, NOA Owner Chiu-Chu Tuan -Accpt Ur, NOA Owner Pat Conger -Accpt Ur, NOA Party of Record Bill Collins -Accpt Ur, NOA Party of Record Ruth Larson -Accpt Ur, NOA Party of Record Mayor Kathy Keolker-Wheeler -Accpt Ur, NOA Party of Record Surrounding Property Owners See Attached (Signature of Sender)j~ ~ STATE OF WASHINGTON ) COUNTY OF KING ) SS ) , --. -~~' __ '.A··,,~ ~.,:. " __ CHAHL~ ::;. F. KOKKO' . NOTAHY PUBliC STATE OF WASHINGTON COMMISSION EXPIRES , MARCH 19,2006 I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Stacy Tucker c ~:r"'".~'~~==l.I. signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. O\! n ~ ~ Dated: /D (tf (()~ -~-r~~~4,--:~-;--:-:-~---:-:-:-:~-- Notary Public in and for the Sate of Washington Notary (print):_-=.C--::, ~:--:-~-::-~-.--_F~t!a_~....:-...:...-() _______ _ My appOintment expires: 3./ (Ii lOb r Defoor Short Plat LUA05-089, SHPL-H, ECF template --affidavit of service by mailing ' .. Dept. of Ecology· Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympja, WA 98504-7703 WSDOT Northwest Region' Attn: Ramin Pazooki King Area Dev. Serv., MS-240 PO Box 330310 Seattle, W A 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 . . .. 329470004006 ATKINS JON W & SUSAN M 15451 SE 167TH PL RENTON WA 98058 329470011001 CASEY ELIZABETH A 812 RENTON AV S RENTON WA 98055 329470011100 COBLENTZ PAUL G+SCHMIDT, KATHLEEN A 816 RENTON AV S RENTON WA 98055 329470015002 FAKHARZADEH M HAD! PO BOX 78404 SEATILE WA 98178 329470014005 GILROY PAUL E 1316 SlOTH ST RENTON WA 98055 329470014203 MARCHEDI MONTE 907 GRANT AV S RENTON WA 98055 329470014500 -NO~\,:\f MELNICHUK LYUOBOV ldr&\o5 905 S 9TH ST RENTON WA 98055 329470003107 PH AM PHUNG T . NGUYEN LIEN T 1512 MORRIS AV S RENTON WA 98055 202305900500 PUGET SOUND ENERGY /ELEC PROPERTY TAX DEPT PO BOX 90868 BELLEVUE WA 98009 329470005102 WILLIAMS JEAN MGIGLI JAMES A 30303 31ST SW RENTON WA 98023 329470003008 BERNARD ERIC O+KAREN E PO BOX 58306 TUKWILA WA 98138 329470003206 CASTELLUCCIO CARRIE A 818 CEDAR AVE S RENTON WA 98055 329470012108 CONGER PATRICIA E & BARRY F 1301 S 9TH ST RENTON WA 98055 329470010003 FAULL DON L 804 RENTON AV RENTON WA 98055 329470016208 GOLDMANN BRUCE W+DEBORAH R 807 GRANT AV S RENTON WA 98055 329470010102 MASTOR ERIC A+JENNIFER L 808 RENTON AV S RENTON WA 98055 329470004105 NEWELL JOHN 0 815 RENTON AV S RENTON WA 98055 329470016000 PINKLEY WAYNE E 811 GRANT AV S RENTON WA 98055 202305908503 TENG LENG SHENG HSU HEI-YU & TENG RONNIE 835 ELM AV SAN GABRIEL CA 91775 329470013106 WRIGHT DAVID H 918 RENTON AV S RENTON WA 98055 e 329470002000 BURTON BRIAN D 806 CEDAR AV S RENTON WA 98055 329470017008 CITY OF RENTON 1055 S GRADY WY RENTON WA 98055 329470012504 COX E A 420 1/2 RENTON AV RENTON WA 98055 329470005003 GIGLI JAMES A 4512 NE 204TH PL LAKE FOREST PARK 329470002109 WA 98155 MAC DONALD MARY L 802 CEDAR AV S RENTON WA 98055 329470014609 MCINTOSH DOUGLAS L 903 GRANT AV S RENTON WA 98055 000720019108 PH AM AUGUSTINE N 1005 GRANT AV S RENTON WA 98055 202305905004 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 19515 N CREEK PKWY BOTHELL WA 98011 329470012009 THOMPSON LORNA J 803 108TH AV E EDGEWOOD WA 98372 NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED (DNS-M) DATE: October 12, 200S LAND U~E NUMBER: LUAOS-089, SHPL-H, ECF PROJECT NAME: Defoor Short Plat PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Subdivision of a 140,723 square foot (3.2 acre) lot into S lots for single family residences and Parcel B. The subject site is located within the Residential - 8 dwelling unit per acre (R'8) zoning designation. The proposed lot sizes range from S,SOO square feet to 11,S74 square feet. Access to the proposed lots would be provided via single family residential driveways onto Renton Avenue S. A Class 2 steam, a Class 4 stream, and a Class S stream, Steep Slopes, and High Coal Mine Hazard areas are located within proposed Parcel B of the subdivision. In addition a proposed strom water detention vault would also be located within Parcel B. PROJECT LOCATION: 900 Renton Avenue S 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. Therefore, 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 26, 200S October 12, 200S APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON: Michael Chen, Core Design, Inc.; Tel:(425) 885-78n; Eml: mc@coredesignlnc.com Permlts/Review Requested: Other Permits which may be required: Requested Studies: Location where application may be reviewed: PUBLIC HEARING: CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Zoning/Land Use: Environmental Documents that Evaluate the Proposed Project: Development Regulations Used For Project Mitigation: Environmental (SEPA) Review, Hearing Examiner Short Plat Construction, Fire, Building Permits Draina'ge Report, Geotechnical Study, & Wetland Report PlannlnglBulidinglPublic Works Department, Development Services Division, Sixth Floor Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055 . , Public hearing is tentatively scheduled for November 15. 2005 before the Renton Hearing Examiner in Renton Council Chambers. Hearings begin at 9:00 AM on the 7th floor of the new Renton City Hall located at 10SS South Grady Way. ):. The subject site is designated Residential Single-Family (RSF) on the City of Renton Comprehensive Land Use Map and Residential - 8 dwelling units per acre (R-8) on the City's Zoning Map. Environmental (SEPA) Checklist The project will be subject to the City's SEPA ordinance, RMC 4-3-0S0 Critical Areas, RMC 4-4-030 Development Guidelines and Regulations and other applicable codes and regulations as appropriate. Proposed Mitigation Measures: The following Mitigation Measures will likely be imposed on the proposed project. These recommended Mitigation Measures address project impacts not covered by existing codes and regulations as cited above. The applicant will be required to pay the appropriate Transportation Mitigation Fee; The applicant will be required to pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee; and The applicant will be required to pay the appropriate Parks Mitigation Fee. The applicant. will be required to comply with Department of Ecology's Storm water Management Manual for erosion control The applicant shall comply with recommendations found in the Wet/and Report prepared by Talasea Consultants, Inc. . '. .'. . .' :'lo. I • • . The applicant shall comply with the'recommendations found in the Geot~chnical Report prepared by Icicle Creek Engineers.' . Comments on the above application must be submitted In writing to Jill Ding, Associate Planner, Development Services Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055, by 5:00 PM on October 26,2005. This matter is also tentatively scheduled for a public hearing on November 15, 2005, at 9:00 AM, Coundi Chambers, Seventh Floor, Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton. If you are interested in attending the hearing, please contact the Development Services Division to ensure that the hearing has not been rescheduled at (425) 430-7282. If comments cannot be submitted in writing by the date indicated above, you may still appear at the hearing and present your comments on the proposal before the Hearing Examiner. If you have questions about this proposal, or wish to be made a party of . record and receive additional information by mail, please contact the project manager. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. CONTACT PERSON: Jill K. Ding, Associate Planner; Tel: (425) 430-7219. I PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION I If you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project, complete this form and return to: City of Renton,. Development Planning, 1055 So. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Name/File No.: Defoor Short PlatlLUA05-089, SHPL-H, ECF NAME: MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE NO.: CITY eF RENTON' Kp.nllcp.r •. Wh,,,,ler, Mayor .. Planningl)3UildinglPublic Works Department . Gregg Zimmernian P.K, Administrator , October 12, 2005 Michael Chen . Core Oesrgn, Inc; • ' . . 14711· NE29th Place #101 Believue,W A 98007 Subject: . Defoor Short Plat Lt)A05:.089, SHPL-H, ECF Dear Mr. Chen; The Development Planning$e9tiori,.of the City of:He~ton hasd~termined that ~the subject application is comple~e"ciccbrding t6s~bmittalr6quirementsand,' therefore, is " abceptedforreview. ' . ",.' . .... . . . ~ .. ..,-. Itis tentativelys~hedule~' fOr~o.n~icje~~t,i(jrj:·I)~?the'~nVi~onmf3rltat: Revi,9w Comj:nittee' on NOVember 8,2005. Prior toJh~~r~vJ¢W(YQu_willt>.~~n6tifie.d.itanyacjditionaliriformation .' . isrequiredtocontinuep!odesSing:ydu~'a'p'pUC~fioii ': ........, ,'. '. .:.... .' -'.", . .:; ... / ,lnadditiOf), this matter is tentativelysched(lIedf~raPublic'Hearing on November,15,: 2005. at ·9:00 AM,' Council. Charnl?ers, . $eventhFIOQr; .Renton .. City Hall," 1055 South '. Grady Way, Henton. The ,applicant or:representative(shOfthe:applicantarerequiredto be '. present at the public hearing; A copy of 'the· .staff, report will b~ mailed to" you: . one' week bef,orethe hearing. ." . .... .' ,." Please contaCt me at (425) 430'-7219' if you haVe~ny:qUestions. Sincerely, .... ~ 1(dJ.'···· ~illK Ding ~. AssoCiate Planner .' . . .. . .. -,. . . . '. '. .".. . -, '" . . . . cc: . RonnieCS Teng, Le~g-Shen-g Tang, Mei'-Yu Teng Dang, Wei Kang Kho, Chiu-Chu Tuan fOwners . . Terry Defoor/Applicant '. . .... . . '. ,Pat Conger,· Bill Collins, Ruth Larson,Mayor Kathy Keolker.,Wheeler IPartiespf R~~ . .. . ~ .... , --------1-O-55-S-'-o-u-;th-G-r-ad-y-Vl-a-y---=R~e-nt-on-,-=Vl--'a-sh-i-'-:-ng-t-on-98-0-5-5---~-'-:-RE N TON .' . * This paper-contains .50"11. ..eq.aed material, 30% post consumer AHEAD·.OF THE CURVE Kathy Keolker-Wheeler. Mayor October 12, 2005 Superintendent's Office Renton School District #403 300SW7'hStreet' . Renton, WA 98055:.2307 . . . . Subject: Defoor Short' Plat. LUA05~089, SHPL-H;ECF CITY eF RENTON PlaIining/BuildinglPublic Works Department Gregg Zimnierman P.E., Administrator The City of Renton Development Services ,Division has received ar, application for a, 5.,iot single~ family subdivision located at· 900 Renton AvenueS.· Please see the. enclosed Notic~ of . '. Application for further details. . ., Inorderto process, this application,the DevelopmenfService~:.givision needs to know which . Renton schools would be attended by children living in residence!:) at thelocatiori indicated . above .. Please fill :in the appr.opriate. schools' on the list below and, return this letter to my , . attention; Development Services, Dlvis,ion;' City of Rehton, 1Q55 ,South Grady Way, Henton, '. Washington 98055 by October '26, 2005..;,.' , .. . ';. ,,< .. Elementary School: '_..,...--,--~_~~..."..,..-' ~ ... ,;:"-. --:---'-:'----,.".,., . .,;.,. ... _---:-"_~~_---=----=-.,--__'__,_.,__­ '::: '.' :.::::~~::~.~. "~".>.; ~ '" . ::-;.,. Middle School: .--'--.,--,-,-----,,-'7-7"-~~ .. '-''''''-.... ~-:'-'-.. -'-.. ,..,.. .. --:-----:--:-:.,-------:--'-----:----,- High School:_' -::-' _-,--_-'---'--~:..,----':---'--_---'-----'-'-'--_'__-'--_:__-.,--_~~-'-----'---.::.. Will the schools youhaveindic:ated'beabl~to handle the impact.of the additional'students estimated·to come from the propose(:fdevelopment?' '. Yes'No._,---,--,-- . Any CQmments:_..,...----,-_-'--___ ....;.·_' _"'..,..-.,--' ,,_ . .....,,,,_ ... _. _..,.......,. ____ ---'-_ __=_'"---'--~"-----=-- . '. Thank you for providing this important information. If you have any quest,ions regarding this . project, please contacti11e at(425)430~7219. . Sincerely, ... ~ ... '. tf:P7J tI .. v'n:; . \/ ,Jill K. Ding .' Associate Planner . Enel. ----'-----1~O-55-So-u-th-G-r-a-dy-W:-ay---R-e-nt-o-Ii,-W:--a-sb-i-ng-'-t-on-9-S0-S-s------'---·~ .••. * This paper contains 50% recyded material, 30% pos! consumer .AHEAD OF THE CURVE .. : . -( , . Ke(,lkel~-Wlileeler,. Mayo~ · September 29, 2005 . . Michael Chen Core Design, Inc. 14711 NE 29thPlace; Suite 101 Bellevue, W A 98007 CITY'.F RENTON PlanninglBuildinglPublic Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.K, Administrator RE: pefoor Short Plat Wetla~d Study, Stream Asse~sment; Habitat Report, and · Preliminary Restoration PI~mReviewCommerits Dear Mr. Chen; . , . . . . The City of Renton has completed its' r~view of the Wetland Study, Stream Assessmerit, Habitat Report, and Preliminary Restorati()Il Plan piepa,red by Tall:isea Consultants, Inc . per the email that I sent you Septeriiber 12, 2005. Additional inforrilation isrequired for the City to acceptthe projectas.complete and b~gin the review, process. Please find . attached the following COIIlIhents: •.... ' . 1. Coniment letter frbmHugh 'M:ortenseri;The':Wat~rshed Company dated, .' September 15; 2005. . . "'.,,> . . . . . . ", "':-:, Please sub,ffijta revised Wetlanro;Strearrl stpdyanq arevis~d,~reli~naryplat fuap addressingihe corruhentsfrom The Watershed Compan.Y~ I have atta~heda checklist of .. ' items required when revisioIi~arell1adetoa land use application: I would be happy to sit' down and ·meet with you ir'youhavearlditionalc<unments,or concerns with regards to the,. irifonnation found in this letter,or you may C all meat (425) 430-7?19. Sincerely, .. /1» 1(pt; 1/ Jill K. Ding Associate Plailner Enclosures Cc Terry Defoor/applicant · RonnieCT Teng, Leng-Sheng Teng, Mei-: Yu Teng Dang, Wei Kang Kho, and Chiu-Chu . Tuan/owners . . Parties of record ------1-0-55-S-o-u-th-G-r,-a-dy-w,-ay-;-·--R-e-nt-..,.o-n,~w,-a-Sh-i-ng-t-on-98-0-5-5-----~· ~ * This paper contains 50% recycled material, 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE ~ ~ SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS REVISIONS TO EXISTING LAND USE APPLICATIONS City of Renton Development Services Division 1055 South Grady Way-Renton, WA 98055 . Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax: 425-430-7231 Revisions should be submitted to the Development Services staff at the 6th floor counter of Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, between 8:00 A.M. and 4:00 P,M. Monday through Friday. Please submit the following items: 1. 0 42. 0 3. 0 4. 0 5. 0 Cover Letter: Please submit 12 copies of a cover letter detailing the nature and the extent of your revisions. Please include your project's City Land Use Application file number (see reverse side for sample letter). r;ees: Plaase SI:JBA'lit additional review fa8G, All f88 FeftJlid leqtlests llIust be sl:JBMliUed ill wlilillg. Revisions: Please submit 12 copies of all revised submittals (unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Di~ision). Plan Reductions: Please provide one 8 Y.2u x 11" PMT reduction of each revised plan sheet. Colored Maps (For projects with Environmental Review or Public Hearing): If you have revised your site plan, landscape plan, or elevations, please submit one colored copy of each revised plan. . Red-North Arrow, outer property boundary. Proposed new lot lines (dashed). Do not color existing lot lines which are to be eliminated or relocated. Blue-Street names identified with lettering of at least 1" in height. Street names must be legible at a distance of 15-ft. I Brown-Existing buildings (Please do not color buildings which will be demolished or . removed) Yellow-Proposed buildings Light Green-Landscaped areas Dark Green-Areas of undisturbed vegetation All Plans and Attachments must be folded to 81h" by 11" Extensive changes to your Original application will require a new application. Authorization from the Development Services Division is needed for any revisions submitted after the end of the environmental determination appeal period. PW/DevServ/FormsIPlanningfRevisions LUA 08101/05 15 September 2005 Jill Ding, Associate Planner City of Renton Planning Department 1055 South Grady Way . Renton, W A 98055 Re: Defoor Short Plat project -Environmental Review . Dear Ji]l,: , ,":: .. ~ -'"'::;:'.-~:;',~ ... ~.-.- Thank you for the opportunity to review the above referenced 'project for compliance with City of Renton Critical Areas Ordinance. For this review I read through the information you provided me,' which included a document entitled: Wetland StUdy, Stream Assessment, Habitat Report and Preliminary Restoration Plan -Defoor Property (GWC, Inc.), prep.ared by Talasaea Consultants, Inc., dated 28 June 2005~ Talasaea also supplied a digital version of a circa-1936 aerial photo of the site and vicinity .. I also made a site visit on the 25th of August 2005 to evaluate site conditions, check the , accuracy of the delineation and classification, and verify the stream classifications. This·· letter presents the findings oftny review. . It is my understanding that only the 3.2":acre Parcel B portion of the property is proposed for development. Therefore, areas north of Stream C were not evaluated as part of this. · review. · Findings Wetlands . .' . · Wetland A . appears to' have been· accuratel y. delineated, compared to· the provided surVey . map. However, only a few remaining delineation flags were foundrluring the site visit. ·Therefore, much of the boundary of Wetland A was not precisely verified. Since.no development is planned within more than 1 00 feet of the wetland, verification .of the exact wetland boundary as flagged is not necessary. The wetland has been accurately. classified as a Category 3 wetland (25,:foot buffer). Another wetland was found associated with Stream B, just west of Renton Avenue South, which has no(yet been delineated. This area exhibited dark, mottled soils that were saturated to the surface. In addition to blackberries and other weeds, plants include willows, horsetail, nettles and lady's thumb (Polygorium persicaria). This wetland is small, highly disturbed, and may be exempt from regulation at the local level. However, all wetlands,regardless of size, are regulated by theWashin8ion Department of Ecology. Streams Drainages 1, and Stream C (upper portion only) have been accurately classified as Class 5 streams. Stream A has been accurately classified as a Class 4 stream. However, from an examination of the aerial photo, it appears that Stream A extends all.the way up to the road,where it is labeled as Drainage 2: While stormwater has affected this drainage, it 1410 Market Street, Kirkland, WA98033 -(425) 822 5242 -fax (425) 827 8136 . watershed@watershedco.com -wwW.watershedco.com J. Hall 15 September 2005 Page 2 of3 appears to be the original path of the historic stream. In fact, the photo suggests that this stream persisted upstream of the road, prior to development of that lot. Additionally, the ravine also extends up to the road as depicted in the topography shown on the provided maps, and observations during the site visit. Such a deep ravine was argUably not cut by recent flashy stormwater flow. . As presented by· the Talasaea report, the aerial photograph does not reveal an obvious stream channel in the vicinity of Stream. B. There are two plausible explanations for this. First, the stream is very narrow and could easily have been obscured by vegetation. Second, the resolution of the photo is such that a small stream channel may not be· discemable. Contrary to the assumption that stream B is intermittent, steady flow was noted along the full length of the on.;.sitechannel during the late-August site visit. The recent (August) rainfall has been relatively normal. Overall rainfall for this Surrimer has been slightly .. below normal. Stormwater is likely a major source offlow for thi.s stream, as evidenced by down cutting of the bed. However, since rainfall. is not above average this· year and .. since late summer flow was observed, the source of observed base flqw. for this stream is . likely not stormwater. Typically,small streams that flow through the summer months are supported by natural groundwater sources. The . presence of such groUndwater is·· sufficient evidence to conclude that this is a historic stream that satisfies the CAO Class 3 stream definition. No stream ordinary high water mark (OHWM) flagging was found on the property. It is .. presumed· that maps· produced for this proj ect used stream centerliries for locating these features. A requirement that measurement of buffers extend from the OHWM of a stream is found in Ordinance 5137; Renton Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO), section.L. I.bj . . Clearing for the· dispersal trench for the detention pond is depicted withiri the Stream A . buffer. Location of this dispersal system is allowed provided that the site topography is such that the location is necessary for hydraulic gravity flow. Submitted plans are not detailed enough to determine whether or not location of this. facility within the buffer is necessary . . Preliminary Restoration Plan In concept, this plan is well presented and has nearly all required components. The· species selection density and planting specifications are appropriate. Unfortunately, the proposed performance standards would· not measure plarisuccess over time. The only quantitative performance standard offered is a 100% first-year survival .guarantee. Typically, restoration plans would also include percent cover goals and survival goals . . beyond one year, Also, no long-term monitoring or maintenance plan is proposed. Current industry standards· for revegetation plans typically include a 5-year monitoring/maintenance period with annual monitoring reports issued following site inspections. Renton CAO subsections EAe. and f., require fencing and signage to protect stream buffers from intrusion by adjacent land uses. Part 4 of the mitigation plan notes reads· . , .. " , J. Hall 15 September 2005 Page 3 of3 "irrigation, fence and SIgn installation", however no fencing or signage details are included. Recommendations The following tasks are recommended for corrections to the submittal: 1) Delineate and classify the wetland associated with Stream B. 2) Flag, survey and display the OHWM of the streams. 3) Alter the proposal to 'incorporate ,mitigation sequencing to avoid, minimize ._ WId mitigate proposed impacts to, Stream A, Stream B ,and ,the,_associat~d wethmd,-and the buffers. Permitted alterations to streams and stream buffers are outlined in section L of the RentonCAO. Permitted alterations to wetlands and wetland buffers are outlined in section M. 4) Move the stormwater dispersaL device and associated clearing out of the buffer or provide statements and/or graphics to illustrate that its location is necessary within the buffer for,gravity flow. , 5) Incorporate appropriate 5-year cover and survival goals' into the mitigation, plan. 6) Incorporate a 5-yeai monitoring and maintenance plan into the mitigation' ~~, , 7) Incorporate a split-rail type fence and signage wherever new lots are proposed to abut wetland or stream buffers.' , ' ,Implementation of these recommendations will ensure that the project meets the Jetter , aIld intent of the City of Renton CAO. ' ' , Please call with any questions. Sincerely, ~?/h-< - Hugh Mortensen EcologistIPWS From: To: Date: Subject: Jill, <mc@coredesigninc.com> <JHall@ci.renton.wa.us> 08/23/2005 2:27:58 PM RE: Defoor Short Plat We will provide a 5 foot landscape strip with either lawn (irrigated) or drought tolerant ground cover. The builder of the homes usually picks one of the two. Hope this clarifies the landscape plan requirement. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! " Michael Chen Senior Land Planner mc@coredesigninc.com Core Design, Inc. 14711 -NE 29th Place, Suite 101 Bellevue WA 98007 Tel: 425.885.7877 Fax: 425.885.7963 www.coredesigninc.com -----Original Message----- From: Jill Hall [mailto:JHall@ci.renton.wa.us] Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 4:29 PM To: CORE -Michael Chen Subject: Defoor Short Plat ' Michael, I was looking through the Defoor Short Plat file and realized that a Landscape Plan is missing. A 5-foot landscaped strip (either irrigated or drought tolerant) 'should be shown along Renton'Avenue S and two trees of a minimum 1 1/2 inch caliper should be shown in the front yards or planting strips of each lot. Please submit 12 copies of a conceptual landscape plan and 1 reduced PMT. Thanks! Jill Hall Associate Planner City of Renton Ph: (425) 430-7219 Fx: (425) 430-7300 Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor CITY IF RENTON Planning/BuildingIPublic W6rks Department , Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator . August 1S, 200S . . '. Michael Chen Core. Design, Inc. . .14711 NE29thPIaceSuite 101' BeUevue, W A 9800! Subject: Defoor Short Plat LUA-05~089, SHPL.-H, ECF' Dear Mr..Chen: The Development PianningSedion6fthe City of Rentonha,s 'sent the submitted Wetland/Stream Delineation Report to an outside. consultant' fOr'.reviewand verification based on concerns the Cityhas re~eivedr:eg~rdihgthes.erisitivEi,areas:on-site. TherefQre,the subjectapplicatlon is incorilpl~te-'ac.cording to submittal requirements per RMC4:-8~1~OC and; therefore,is nofaqc~p~edf6r.·review pending:aresponsefrom the . City's consultant .' " "', , .. ',:' ':":'/"'-:;::' ,. ,...';'::;' .' .", , . -'~ .. :. ' ... .' :. Once the City has cQmpl~ted it',s' second~rYreviewyou'4'lill' be informed: if additional . , informatiCm is required toacceptyolJr application: for review; If the City concurs with·the . .conclusions ,in the submittecJ:report, your application will beJormally accepted and revieW of your application wili begin: Please contact 'me at(42S) 430-7219 if you have any questions, " . '" .... ',' . -. ,': . :..,:,:., .. . Sincerely, iJa-a-.' '. .' , ... , .• .' , '. . ....... ' '. Associate Planner , Enclosure" Cc Ronnie CSTeng, Leng-Sheng Teng; Mei-YU Teng Dang, . Wei Kang Kho, Chiu-ChuTuanlovvners Terry Defoor/applicant Parties of Record ~ ~-~----10-5-5-S-ou-t-h-G-ra-d~y-W:-a-y---R-e--'nt--"o-n,-w:-a-s-hi-n-gt-on---'-9-g0-5-5---,------R E N T ON * This pape~contains 50% recycled material, 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE , Mayor August 10, 2005 Hugh, Mortensen, The Watershed Company 1410 Market Street Kitkland,W A 98033 RE: Defoor ShortPlatLUA05~089"SHPL-H Wetland/Stream Assessment' Dear Hugh; CITye,F RENTON PlimningiBuildinglPublic Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator . . . .'. ." .. -;. ,". . . . Per our co~versa~iontoday, Iarnendosing thewetlaIldl,Sfream asse&sment for the Defoor Short Plat (LUA05-089, SHPlrl!). "The City would like you>tocoIldlict a review ofthe' , 'enclosed assessment for both the;'str~avis and wetland identified, including the ,proposed, ' classification of the streams/wethlnd and thedelineationofthe:wetlancl. " ., '" ;:, . ',' ".":::. . ..... ",' '.~. . Please provide.a cosfestlmnte for reYiewpfthe.'~bove'items. Ifyolihave anyquestjons, feel free to contact me by phone: at' (425),A30~7~190i. by eIhai1.atjhall @cLtenton. wa~ us.' " Sincerely, " , ,~'.'!,," " .......... ". ": ',' ... " . . . . '. . . \ " Associate Planner' Enclosure ~'.' ----:-~--l-O-SS--.--'-So~u-th-G-r-a~dy-W;-ay---R-e-n-to-n,-W;-a-s-hi-ngt-on-9-g0-S-s-'· ------R E N TO N * This paper contains 50% req<cIed material, 30% post co~sumer AHEAD OFTHE CURVE August 5, 2005 Susan Fiala Senior Planner Development Services Division Development / Planning City of Renton Subject: LUA 05-089 Defoor Property Plat (Renton A venue Portion) Dear Susan Fiala: aillliM . . D , A~ttJG; OJS{ 2005 I BUUlU6IDJ¥ISION This letter concerns the planning / public comment phase of the proposed new homes at the extreme South end of Renton Avenue South South. We have lived on Renton Hill since 1968 and are very familiar with the proposed area of development. I wish to stress that the identified Class 4, natural stream (quite visible during heavy rains) running in a southwest direction between lots 4 and 5 is still subject to runoff from the proposed construction. Although this stream does not contain fish, it does follow a natural cut in the ground with steep slopes on each side of it, which all contribute to the larger stream bed further west. Upon visiting the site as well as referring to the contour maps of the area, it also appears that a second natural stream begins at or near the SW comer of 9th and Renton Ave So. These natural drainage areas should be well documented and accounted for during and after construction. In addition the proposed lots are located over steep slopes, especially on their west half. We are concerned that a considerable amount of fill would be required to create a level lot, or, a considerable amount of silt, dirt, coal slag and other existing debris will find its way down the steep slopes during 'excavation -without recovery. The first few feet of the proposed development contains slag and other coal debris from an old coal mine entrance, as well as 9 decades of being used as a garbage and refuse dump site. To their credit, the proposed development has left a sizable green belt between the five proposed lots and the property westward. However, we would like to ensure that no natural or man-made debris (dirt, coal, sandstone, garbage), nor any other materials whatsoever be allowed to fall into the area outside the immediate property lines of the proposed development of each lot. Even though each lot has a defined property line, any introduced fill material should not be allowed to extend beyond this line. Recovery stipulations must be made a legally binding agreement to any approvals for development. Development over the steep slopes must not endanger downhill aspects of the existing natural contours, nor contribute silt, etc flowing into the larger "main" stream, which runs from just south of 18th and Grant Ave So, northwesterly to a collection point west of Benson Road between City Hall and Sam's Club. (This stream shows as a green line in the City-wide development map book on the counter in your Planning Dept office area). '1 ... " J If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to write. Thank you very much. Sincerely, William Collins 420 Cedar Ave So Renton, WA 98055 Cc: Ruth Larson City of Renton ., JUL 2 6"2005 "Ht:CEIVED LAND USE PERMIT MASTER APPLICATION PROPERTY OWNER(S) PROJECT INFORMATION NAME: r V' Ronnie CS 'reng ,I Leng-Sheng, Teng ,/ PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: Defoor Short Plat "lVlEll' -YU, ".1epR ~!g Iw,el !'\aug ~o/ ADDRESS: 835 Elm Ave. Chiu-Chu Tuan PROJECT/ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION AND ZIP CODE 900 Renton Ave S. ! .. -_. ZIP: , CITY: San Gabriel, CA 91107 Renton, WA 98055 TELEPHONE NUMBER: KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): 0007200196 APPLICANT (if other than owner) NAME: Terry Defoor EXISTING LAND USE(S): VACANT COMPANY (if applicable): GWI Inc. PROPOSED LAND USE(S): Single-Family Residential ADDRESS: 24633 NE 1 33rd street EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: Residential Single Family CITY: Duvall, ZIP: 98019 WA PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION (if applicable): TELEPHONE NUMBER 206-999-8874 EXISTING ZONING: R-8 CONTACT PERSON PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): NAME: Michael Chen I SITE AREA (in square feet): 140 723 SQUARE FOOTAGE OF ROADWAYS TO BE DEDICATED COMPANY (if applicable): Core Design, Inc. FOR SUBDIVISIONS OR PRIVATE STREETS SERVING THREE LOTS OR MORE (if applicable): ADDRESS: 14711 NE 29th Place, Suite 101 I PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN UNITS PER NET CITY: Bellevue, WA ZIP 98007 ACRE (if applicable): l.I-1o NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS (if applicable): 5 TELEPHONE NUMBER AND E-MAIL ADDRESS 425-885-7877 mc@coredesigninc.com NUMBER OF NEW DWELLING UNITS (if applicable) 5 Q· ... \'eb/pw/dc\'scn.,/t~mn::Jpl!mninglmu!)tcfnpp.do\.~ 09l24i03 PROJECT INFORMATION (continued) r-----L---~~~~----------------------_, NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): a SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED NON-RESIDENTIAL PROJECT VALUE $625, 000 IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREA, PLEASE INCLUDE SQUARE FOOTAGE (if applicable) 0 AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA ONE 0 AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA TWO , BUILDINGS (if applicable): ! FLOOD HAZARD AREA sq. ft. 0 I SQUARE FOOT AGE OF EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): ~ GEOLOGIC HAZARD 11M1 sq. ft. NET FLOOR AREA OF NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if o HABITAT CONSERVATION sq. ft. applicable): ~ SHORELINE STREAMS AND LAKES 1,()\'Z-sq. ft. NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE NEW PROJECT (if applicable) 0 WETLANDS sq ft. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY (Attach legal description on separate sheet with the followinQ information included) SITUATE IN THE NW QUARTER OF SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 23, RANGE~, IN THE CITY OF RENTON. KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. TYPE OF APPLICATION & FEES I List all land use applications being applied for: 1. Short Plat 3. 2, SEPA 4. Staff will calculate applicable fees and postage: $ ___ _ AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP I. (Print Name/s) , declare that I am (please check one) Kthe current owner of the propelty involved in this application or __ the authoriz epresentative to act for a corporation (please attach proof of authorization) and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith are in ail respects true and correct to the best ot my knowledge and belief. ; I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that K.. {5 n 11 C ~ . .... ~ signed this instrument and ack.nowledged it to be his/herlthelr free and voluntary a or the . " / uses and purposesr)lentioned, in t~e instrument. ... """, \ \ \ -----/-/bO'~~~~ __ ...... ~01eNl"'B"'" I, (Signature f·OwnerIRepresematlve) --...... ,"",., 4ft " -,'" I .... I -,;:0" S~ '" .... 0 I (Signature of Owner/Representative) (). w~h/p\\'JJ\.' v'Scrvl f~Jrms/rlilnn i ng/ma:Hcrapp, doc i ~ fj, ~111:~\ ~ ~ -<-~aJ-V:A--'''-----''-, ... ::tii,:s. ~. ~ iC , .. ." ::~ ........... ' ~ ~ ~.~ ·""lO~ i· : I~ "~~'. _. , " " ", D $' '". , K ill ",,~O;'.,,""";~"':~.! ~A II 'lY'"t:J ,pA;,C'. III "lrI: ...... Notary (print)~L..:...l+--l-~-· ___ ,_L/_' I ~ \\""""", My appOintment eXPires:. __ CfL· _,......_/L-~.::::....-_O __ ~_~ __ 1),//24/03 FFDr'1 : CCiLnUELL F:r-1NI<ER e FAX NO.: 6262915808 • 1\F1l!.R RECORDING MAll TO: 'ELM ,A v' G-• , City, State. Zip SffN Filed for ilecord at Request of; SPEClAL POWER OF ATrORNEY L~6r" 5#&.14-.; TENG( (SALE) I M~,'-itA-, TG-Na, l(AtVr ,'hcrwbyappolat loNAI/5-' e s T~No/ '" O\y O'l.le and lawful dtol1le)' for me ami In my ume Cld 5tII8d. n for my use and benefit to hareain. sell. C'.ontract to convery, or CODVI:}' my and ai, ri&ftt, drk, ~ iD aitd to 1ho fonawing dcacnDcd real property: VA-cA-NTUbVi:> Loc..f Tt-i> /J 7 JfE-AlTDA/ eAr(l ICiN~ e.tJ&UtlT,ey Ass~r's Property Tax Plsn:eJlA~ Number: T ogecher with any pel'SOftal property Ioc:md 1br:rtIon. .;u, .:e 3 ~s ? /) JJ...r- t7 0 07~{) 0 1?:6 ~bc . 7Z~OI?~ G:vin, lind ~tin2 U!)to my J4id ~ In faa full authority ad JIO""" ~ do ¥,d porfonn any and al1 other IIC15 nccc:aaary or Incident to the p!l'fonNlDelI cu:l uoc:u!Um of the J:IOWc:n heRtn expressly I781lted with power • to do end perform all acts autharimd hereby, u fully 'to an IDIcntl and .,urpqscs as the Gnntor(s) IJ'Ilsht or could do if pcrson~ly pre$Cllt. This SJ'lecial Power of Aaomcy will C8U& UMi be of DO furlber sftClC't after the I If> ~ day of ,:run tl. . 2~f)6 . or &ix. (6) monthlfrom die dltJe hcnof, whichever flntoccun. Le--NG, ~.> f/r=-,J Gr ., T EN'r M~'-Yu, 7'E'N:r.rrr~~ LPB·70 7/97 ST.·\TE O!' )-u WARNThiG: This power of attorney will result in another person having full right to sell your property. It is nlCommended that you obtain counsd from your I i attorney prior to execution of this document. I JEGION all GAlITENG COY OF JOHANNESBURG sa COlj'lTY ut'. __ . _____________ . ___ ) REPUBLIC OF 80UTH AFRICA} CONSULATE GENERAl OF THE UMT&D snn:es OF AMERICA ; ::en:fy thllt I know or h3VC slltisfllctory evidence thal Leng-SbeM_Teng & Kef-Yu Teng (is/!IIt:) the pc:rson(s) who IIIJPCm:O before me. and said pcrlcn(s) acknowledged thal'~) signed this insuumall and ~k~owlcriged it te be (IIiIlId2rltheir) freI: and voi\;r::ary &Ct for the uses and PIlJllOSCS mentioned in this i:lstrument. D3ted: _J_un--'-e __ l_4tb~99::.:5::..::-~_ ~~ Notary Puhllc in and for the state of ~ -= My appointment expires: -..;:::IB=D=EF::;:...:_"----'-_______ _ STEPHEN J. WILGER VICE CONSUL OF TUE UNITED STATES OFAMERICA , LPB-70 10;96 Page 2 of~ :\FTER RECORDING MAll TO: Name ,I20&,"'ir;.._~_ .. -T'GtJ cr Address f?g e 7;;lk A1rc-- Filed for Record at Request of: SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY ~I k'" ~4: kAc (SALE) I clfru-c } -{d!W -->herebyappoint RO"';NI5--C~ E~y as my true and lawful mey for me and in my name and stead, and for my use and benefit to bargain, sell, contract to convey, or convey any and all right. title. interest in and to the following described real property: VA-CMf liwv loc~ AT j(~/OJJ cr-rt / ~/N6t COLl)V~ .~1JtG-OF ((,/Ik:I/Vvt:,ro,.j Assessor's Property Tax ParcellAccount Number: Together with any personal property located thereon. 2e)')., so ~ ;t)§r- p eC' 72-o-O/9-&- co to) 72-0-0 rt t/: Giving and granting unto my said attomey in fact full authority and power to do and perfonn any and all other acts necessary or incident to the perfonnance and execution of the powers ~erein expressly granted with power to do and perform all acts authorized hereby; as fully to all intents and purposes as the Grantor{s) might or could do if personally present. This Special Po?r of Attorney will cease and be of no further effect after the· 2-6 -fh cay of MAt ,P1rl? b . or six (6) months from the date hereof, whichever fll'St occurs_ kilo, (J.&( --/~-1 ~ ht-J.J , cd Ie) -cf./-r,{ LPB-70 7/97 ev \ M, v V~ . .1 -</\C/J r~ jliAN. \ CO/u -cllt,( Dmed: __________________________ ___ STATE OF_-titt;!J--C~ ...... .......,;=:_,~T':':"'" ...... FS;;.:S;:;.·---) )-p COUNTYOF~~~~~~~~--------) W ARNlNG: This power of attorney will result in another person having full right to sen your property. It is recommended that you obtain counsel from your attorney prior to execution of this document. J c;crtify dial I know or have satisfactory evidaic;c that Tuan, Ch i u -Ch u and [ao. We i Kang--- ~8JC) the pcrson(s) who appcIIII:d be~ me, and said pcrson(s) adalowlcdgcd that ~) signed this insuumcnt and acknowledged it to be (MsIhadtbeir) free and voluntary act for the uses and VWJ"""'l....,IU,lU·, ned in this instrument. Oa!cd: 26M AY 2005 Pu lie In and for the state of Sd R. K ji Ilu'ITnl -- Myappointmcntcxpircs: Specia.l Notary (PL96-g) Duly Appointed and qualifieCl My commission expires:J une 25, 200' LPB-70 10/96 Page 2 of2 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION . WAIVEeF SUBMITTAL REQUIR.ENTS . -.. ~ .. ,. ·",,·_·FOR, LAN·D US&=APPbICA+IONS··~ --.. ::.:~:~./~U0jj:r:'f.rlN:'3.~~~mI0:\/(~U/ )0~f~:::C{~s.i~G::~! /:.:/:·:i<!·(:<>!R#'i~I#Hi:>::::i:·\·/!:! .. ·: Calculations, f.~§~~:~#~:~9:f::~!##.Y::~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Construction Mitigation Description 2 AND. 4 :t¥.n~!~:W#~#~~~}::::::::::::::::::::::~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Dra.il1c:1ge Control Plan 2 .. __ .... .. .. ' :~j~~~~~~~i#.6::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::~::::::::::::::::::::: :::~:::~{::::\:~:::::~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .. Elevations, Architectural 3 AND 4 :$~~~~~:¢~~~!i~:~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Existing Covenants (Recorded Copy) 4 :~i~!n9:~~~~~&.~~~:¢9P'y'):~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Flood Hazard Data 4 Geotechnical ReporhAND3 .. . ._ .... ,"' ... . :$~~~j~g:~!~~;:¢~~~~(~::::::::::::::::::::::::;::::::~:::::::~:::::i:::::): {:.i:::::i::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::~::::::::::::::::::::::: :::i:::~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::<:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~::: :;:.~",:~::~, .. : ... ... ; :;.#.r=-:;'~~i:;:::::::::::::::::::~::::::~~:::::::?:~:::::::(:;i:f:'Ui:~~::::<:: :i::\i:::?::::i:/):\:: ::~:::~6.:~~~::{~Z:~:::~:~:::·'.'.:_-·~'~~~::~ :~~1;i~~~~1~~f;~;;\~,~~ ~~'f;0@ ~;;~;~j2i2!:E~t"~S~I::s.i-0ThfFt;-f);~ ~ff~1i ~ ... ·~b~g~l,q~s.cription4 _ . . .. -~:::~=~~~,~: .... -' ---.. ..........':~.~~.:_;" .. "" . ..._ ' .. __ .' ...'Cc~~ ...... ~:~~-:~.~~ := :~#f8f~~~~#~~~:~~:9.#~~~~~!~i:~1:::~i:i:(::~ii1i:i~ij; ~~i:)!~i~~~~f~~:::::i:::~: :::~)::):~~::::::::::~.< ~::>::::::::::~::::f:::::::~:::::::::::t::::~?<::<::~:::~::H:::?~i!i~~l~~i :~: ~~;;~;..~~~ ... M~ilin9'Labels for Property Owners 4-.-.Co: .,: '" ••.• , ... m"-""-_~' ': ,-. ~': M~~:~f:~$.jw.~~~~~:~~~8~~~:~::?::~:~:~~~:}Lt:~:~:~·~~~~~; .~~~~~8>~:::~~~:::~~;:~~~: ~~:~{:~~~~f~2~:::::~:~~i: :;~~~~:::~~~:~~:!~{~:~~:~:~{t::::::~~~:~:~):~:::~:~~~::~:~~:7~::~:~:~::/~: I·.:·':~'=:;~~ Master Application Form 4 ~~~@j~~¢~~:~@:~:~~~~m~~tj:~::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Neighborhood Detail Map·~ , \\ This requirement may be walved.by: 1. Property Services Section 2. Public Works Plan Review Section 3. Building Section 4. Development Planning Section Q:\WEB\PW\DEVSERV\Forms\PJanning\waiver.x1s 01/0612004 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION WAIV~ OF SUBMITTAL REQUe=MENTS ''''''''''~'''''''''''''~'"~''.-,,,. ,,,~-ROR, LAND .. USE.APPLICATIO·NS . '''.L~=~~.~=_·,n~~',;<·~-·~·?·~'''-.•. -~" ".'" [[/[[[.[:[:/[·W~~[WeEclli~:;\~~:~N1~i[[[i[i[i@[:[ifU~ltf/)mAg~7~~[U[~~[[[[\i[U[[i[./[i[.[$e~~~W:~iH:iiiUiiHiiHi!!i:ii Parking, Lot Coverage & Landscaping Analysis 4 ~I~~: ~~~~~: (P:M1~}' ~: ~: ~::::: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~::: ~: ~::: ~: ~: ~::::: ~: ~: ~::: ~: ~: : ~::::: ~:::~: ~:~: ~: ~: ~::: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~:~: ~: ~::::: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~::: ~: ~:~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~::: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~::: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~:~: ~:~ Postage 4 R@p.p.!i#ti~f:i:~~9:~~~Jj~~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:::~:~:~:~:~: :~:~:::~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:::~: ~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:::~:~:~: ::~:~:~:~:~:::~:~:~:~:::~:~:~:~:~:~:::~:~:~:~~~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~~~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:: Public Works Approval Letter 2 : . ~~~~~i!t:#~§:~:e~:~:y::::::::::::::::~:~:::~:::~:::~~:~y~~~?t~:::~::::?:::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::r~::::::::::::::::::::~:!:::~:~:::~~?:::::? '-"::~'-:~ Screening Detail 4 ~!t~: :~!~~:~:~~~: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~:~::::~:: ~~ ~ ~~: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~: ~ ~:: ~~~::: ~::~:::~::: ~ ~ ~:}:: ~~~:::: ~:~:: ~ ~:~~: ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~:~:~:: ~:::~: ~ ~ ~~: ~ ~ ~ ~~:: ~ ~ ~ ::::~::: ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~:~~:~:~: ~ ~: ~: ~ ~:~: ~ ~ ~: ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~:::::~:~ ~~: ~ ~~:~ ~~:~ ~~:~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~: ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~:~:: ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~: ~ ~ Street Profiles 2 t#.i~~ ~~~~~ #.~ ~!~f~@'f~ ~ ~::~:::: ~~ ~~: ~~: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~: ~ ~:~: ~~ ~: ~~ ~ ~:~: ~ ~ ~: ~:: ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~: ~: ~ {~~ ~~ ~: ~:: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~::: ~~::: ~.~ ~ ~~:: ~ ~ ~: ~ ~: ~ ~ ~: ~: ~: ~ ~: ~ ~: ~ ~ ~:: ~ ~:: ~ ~: ~ ~ ~ ~: ~:::~~: ~:~: ~~ ~ ~::::: ~~: ~: t ~ ~ ~~:: ~:: ~ ~ ~:: ~: ~::: ~ ~:~:::~:::: ~ ~:::~ ~~: Topography. Mapa Ii.. ~~ t.~~#i~:$.t~~i:~::;:::::;:~::~i;:~:~:~:!:<:~:;~~:::~::~::~::::(::~!.:::::::}:::::~::::>:::: ::~/Xi)::::::::::~ :::::::::::~:~~:>:~.::~~:~~: ;::::}~/~~:;:;~:::~:~j:i;:::::::~:)!ii::j:::~:~~~::~:~::::::::::!:~~::::::::>:i:\::: .' ': tree CliWngiLci'n'(j Ciearing:Plan 4 ......... -. . c.... ... " '.~'" .'" '.'.'" ,," .. " -"'.' ." .............. . . ' ' y,~:¢~~~~j~~~9~:9Y~~y~~~~:~~::::::::::::: ::::::::::::~::::~::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::~:::~::: ~::::::}~:~.:~::~i:?:::::~::::;:::>:::::!;:;:~::{I~:;::?:::::::i::;:~:}}: .... ' .,..... . . _ .. Utilities Plan, Generalized 2 , .. , .. ." .:~ .. w~i~~:Mi~tiQ~iffi~LF~:4~:::~::::::L:L:!i.::::::::::~::::: :::::~:::::>:~~::::::::\:: ::::::::~;::~:::::::::irt:: ~::~~:::~:'~::?<tI:{;:n::;::I:{L:/:::::::::~::::\:::::;:;:L;:i: ~ ~ .. _.~._,~ •. _. "' .. _ -,-,_ •. ,__, .... '." .• _~' _, ,._ ~ ..• _ ..•• ~.~ __ .= M~· .. _ ..... ~_ ~ _._ I~;~'~ ~::~I~~~:;;~i~:~:~;0j~J0:i~~:;:::i!~:~:::::~;:~:: ni~;{fi:~::;f~~~;:;i~j' ~;:::;~~~~:j:\t:~: ft~;~i~;;~~!8~~~i;;:~:I:':~J:~~i~~~:~:~~r~~i~:~;[:~:ji~:;~i:~:D!:;::~i r~~f~~~~ ~.~: : -~._;"'~~.4,",_-':: .. -:--:;;--~:,-, ••. , .. """-.~. --'. -.f",";.: -_.-~ .... --_ ..• :-,,-.•• ""--'-'~"--.. -.. ~ ..... ~ .-~ ...... -.~~-.-....... ~'"""''''---'~ •• '.'''--•.. -. ..-~ .. -----. '--"---1-.;· -~ .. -.:.:.-.--~-~,:, Wireless;'~-.·oc>_.~ -. , . .-. ,'~,. -' . ::~:' ".'-' ' ',' .,: : -c' :'~:::-';:C~~': ... -, . '<~-'.-: .. ': :,-::' :~:. ' "~~~';" ,'~~< '~~,': ~.:.~:;::'.': ~., !:;:-'~; :~~.~·~~.~PIi~~(~greeme·Rt~~tement;'~~i;·: -. . ,~~~:~=::~;~,:. c;:,~'; ';:.~'~~.~ '):;:~'~2-:"~:·~~~::·~~·.:·~--:;·~-::c:C::'~~~~:::> ::.: ':::~:J.-~>: '~':~:::::'. I::· ..... Inv~ntory ofEXisti~g--Sites 2AND3,c:~~ 7C:'~ .. " _'--.'-':, ___ .. .': :.::::::-:,:-" _. ~., r :'-~:::-1=~~,s~Agre~~ilt;.:.ora~-:-;A~~~;~~;:,;:;:·:~~,:",-· '.",.~~--.. -.,~ -: .. ;:. ... :...:..=.~ :"<', i-::=.-. '=~·-:;'·>::·~:.-::i~:" : ::::·~~~.~:~:~'-=::;··:i~~::~:;;;=:~~~::.3;;:~:: :':: .. ~, ,: : . Map of Existing Site Conditions 2 AND. 3 Map of View Area 2 AND. 3 Photosimulations 2 AND 3 -. \\ . This reguirement may be walved by: 1. Property Services Section, . 2. Public Works Plan Review Section 3. Building Section. DATE: 4. Development Planning Section /' Q:\WEB\PW\DEVSERV\Forms\Planning\waiver.xls 01106/2004 ,', DATE: TO: FROM: ,SUBJECT: CITY OF RENTON FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU MEMORANDUM Fe bruary 1, 2005 Susan Fiala, Senior Planner Jim Gray, Assistant Fire Marshal~ J/ Defoor Property Plat, Cedar & Renton Aves S Fire Department Comments: 1. A fire hydrant with 1000 GPM fire flow is required within 300 feet of all new single:"family structures. If the building square footage exceeds' 3600 square feet in area, the minimum fire flow increases to 1500 GPM and requires two hydrants within 300 feet of the strUctUre. ' 2. A 'fire' mitigation fee of $488.00 is required for all new single-family structures. . . .... 3. Fire Department access roadways require a minimum 20 Foot paved. roadway. Fire department turnarounds are required for roads over 150 feet in length. The turnaround shall meet the minimum dimensions ' shown on attached diagram. ( Lots 11 & 12 ) 4. All building addresses shall be visible from the public street . . 5. All lots between 500 and 700 feet on a dead in access road are required to be sprinklered, lots 9 thru 12. 6. Maximum road grade on a public street is 15%. Verify that the grade will not exceed the 15%. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON . "" -' . . " JUL '2 6 2005 "RECEIVED ~. 1~" . ~~~:::. 'r~i' ),~, E ~-~ ··~f: , , , TO: CITY OF RENTON MEMO PUBLIC WORKS FROM: Susan Fiala Jan lilian DATE: February 15, 2005 SUBJECT: PREAPPLICATON REVIEW COMMENTS DEFOOR PROPERTY PLAT PREAPP NO. 05-015 CEDAR AVE S. & S. 9TH STREET NOTE ON PRELIMINARY REVIEW COMMENTS CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT: 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 beslJbject to modification and/or concurrence by official decision maker~(e~g. Hearing Examiner,Boards of Adjustment, . Board of Pliblic 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. . WATER 1. There is an existing 4-inch water main fronting the northern portion of the site (Lots 1-15) in Cedar Ave S. There is an a-inch water main in S. 9th Street and a 4-inch water main in Renton Ave S. fronting Lots 16-24. There is a 4-inch water main in S. 10th Street. Available fire flow in Renton Ave is less than 1,000 gpm. Based on the site plan submitted, the water comments will be addressed in two phases. . • Lots 16-24. To provide a minimum of 1,000 gpm to proposed Lots 16-24, applicant will be required to tie into an existing a-inch water main located generally at the intersection of S. 9th Street and Renton Avenue South and extend an a-inch main south in Renton Ave to S. 10th Street. tie in to the 4-inch in S. 10th will be required. This will provide 1,250 gpm. If homes exceed 3,600 square feet, 1,500 gpm is required. Continuing the extension of an a-inch main in S.1 OthStreet to the east and tying into the 12-inch main in Grant Ave will provide 2,000 + gpm. (See water redlines). • Lots 1-15. Applicant will be required to tie into an existing 12-inch main located just north of the NE property comer in Cedar Ave and extend an a-inch water main within the plat to the end of the cul-de-sac. From that point, a 4-inch water main will be extended in the private drive to the end of Lot 11. This will provide 1,250 gpm. 2. All new construction must have a fire hydrant capable of delivering a minimum of 1,000 gpm and must be located within 300 feet of each structure. New hydra.t:lts will be required to be installed as part of the water main extension within the plat and in ·Rent6nAve S; Defoor Property Plat Page 2 of3 3. The proposed project is located in the 490 Water Pressure Zone and is outside an Aquifer Protection Zone. Static pressure in the area is approximately 80 psi. Pressure reducing valves will be required to be installed on the domestic water meters 4. The Water System Development Charges (SOC) are $1,525 per new building lot. These are payable at the time the utility construction permit is issued. SANITARY SEWER 1. There is an existing 8-inch sewer main fronting Lots 16-24 in Renton Aye South and an 8- inch sewer main in Cedar Ave South. 2. An 8-inch sewer main will be required to be extended within the plat, however gravity service will not be able to be provided due to the elevation of the site. Applicant will not be allowed to extend sewer through the coal mine hazard area and connect into the manhole located at the southwest comer. A lift station will be required to serve Lots 1-15. Lots 16-24 will require separate sewer stubs to each property. Grinder pumps will most likely be required to serve most lots. . 3. Separate side sewers are required. Minimum slope shall be 2%. 4. The Sanitary Sewer System Development Charges (SOC) is $900 per new building lot. , These are. payable at the time the utility construction' permit is issued. SURFACE WATER 1. A. preliminary drainage plan and drainage report will be required for the' site plan application. The drainage plan shall include provision for detention and water quality treatment in compliance with the requirements of the 1998 KCSWM Level 2. This will be a SEPA condition. 2. Applicant shall submit separate structural plans for review and approval under a separate building permit for proposed vault. Special inspection from. the building department is required. 3. A geotechnical report is required. 4. The Surface Water System Development Charges (SOC) are $715 per new building lot. These are payable at the time the utility construction permit is issued. 5. Roof drains are required to be tightlined to the storm system within the plat. TRANSPORTATION 1. The traffic mitigation fee of $75 per additional generated trip shall be assessed per new single family home at a rate of 9.57 trips. ($75 x 9.57 x = $) 2. A traffic study will be required for this project. The report shall be prepared by a state licensed engineer containing elements and information as identified in the City of Renton "Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis of New Development". 3. Full street improvements within the plat and along Renton Ave S. including, but not limited to paving, sidewalks, curb & gutter, storm drain, street signs, and streetlights will be required. Defoor Property Plat Page 3 of3 4. Applicant may submit a request to reduce right-of-way width to forty-two feet for residential access streets within this subdivision if building lots are less than one hundred feet in depth. Internal streets would consist of thirty-two feet of pavement with five-foot sidewalks. Easement for city owned utilities to be installed back of sidewalk is required under this application. 5. Public streets shall not exceed 15% grade. 6. All wire utilities shall be installed underground per the City of Renton Undergrounding Ordinance. If three or more poles-are required to be moved by the development design, all existing overhead utilities shall be placed underground. GENERAL COMMENTS 1. All plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards. 2. When approval of preliminary plat is granted, please submit permit ,application, three (3) copies of utility drawings, two (2) sets of street lighting plans, two (2) copies of the drainage report, an itemized cost of construction estimate and application fee at the counter on the sixth floor. A fee worksheet is attaChed for your use, but prior to preparing a check, it is recommended to call 425-430-:7266 -for a fee estimate as generated by the permit system. The fee for review and inspection of these improvem~nts is 5% of the first $1 00,000 of the estimated construction costs; 4% of anything over $100,000 but less than $200,000, and - 3% of anything over $200,000. Half the fee must be paid upon application. 3. Separate permits for water meters, side sewers, irrigation meters and storm drainage connections are required. . 4. Rockeries/Retaining Walls. All rockeries or retaining walls, greater than 4 feet in height to be constructed as part of this site will require a separate building permit and shall have the following separate note be included on the civil plan: "A licensed engineer with geo technical expertise must be retained for proposed rockeries greater than four feet in height. The engineer must monitor rockery construction and verify in writing that the rockery was constructed in general ~ccordance with ARC standards and with his/her supplemental recommendations, in a professional manner and of competent and suitable material. Written verification by the engineer must be provided to the City of Renton public works inspector prior to approval of an occupancy permit or plat- approval for the project. A separate building permit will be required." 5. City asbuilts show a 30-foot utility easement located within the northern portion of Lot 16. An 8-inch sewer main and an 8-inch water main are located within this easement. _ cc: Kayren Kittrrick MEMORANDUM DATE: I TO: Construction Services, Fire Prevention, Economic Development, Plan Review, Project Planner ,FROM: Neil Watts, Development Services Division Director SUBJECT: New Preliminary Application: DeIftr9.c ~tJ' Pltot LOCATION: 20Z-30sCfo gSI oon ::tWO I q % oa01ZQOf q 0 PREAPPNO. PQ£;O§-OI5 A meeting with the applicant has been scheduled for I ( ~ , Thursday, Feb I' If, 7/tf, >:=, -in one of the 6th floor conference rooms. If this I ._ . meeting 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 th~rough "permit level" review at this time. Note only major issues that must be resolved prior to formal land use and/or building permit application submittal. Plan Reviewer assigned is -OO0Li, Please submit your written comments to 1U,7~ P;(J((! least two (2) days before the meeting. Thank you. ,:-/~?i'1~ ;Lh /o':J~ H:\DiViSion_sC:.ser\Dev & Plan.ing\Template\Preapp2 Revised 1-05 (Planner) at I CITY OF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works MEMORANDUM DATE: February 17, 2005 TO: Pre-Application File No. 05-015 FROM: Susan Fiala, Senior Planner, (425) 430-7382 SUBJECT: Defoor Property Plat General: We have completed a preliminary review of the pre-application for tlie 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 andlor 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 located in the 700/800 block of Cedar Ave. South, in the Renton Hill neighborhood. The proposal is to subdivide a three parcels, of approximately 10-acres into 24 lots for the eventual construction of single family residences. ZoninglDensity Requirements: The subject property is located within the Residential - 8 dwelling units per acre (R-8) zoning designation. The density range required in the R-8 zone would be a minimum of 4.0 to a maximum of 8.0 dwelling units per acre (dulac). The method of calculating net density is as follows: A calculation of the number of housing units and/or lots that would be allowed on a properly after critical areas and public rights-of-way and legally recorded private access easements are subtracted from the gross area (gross acres minus streets and critical areas multiplied by allowable housing units per acre). Required critical area buffers and public and private alleys shall not be subtracted from gross acres for the purpose of net density calculations. The applicant did provide a net density for this site which would be 2.55 dulac which is below the minimum of 4.0 dulac of the R-8 zone. No information as to how the density was calculated was provided . with the pre-application. However, according to RMC 4-1-11 OD.1.b., if the applicant can show that minimum density can not be achieved due to lot configuration, lack of access, environmental or physical constraints, minimum density may be waived by the Reviewing Official. There is no guarantee of this waiver. Based on the City's definition of "critical areas," coal mine hazard designated areas are not typically deducted for purposes of calculating net density. All square footages of areas to be deducted (Le. public right-of-way, private access easements, and critical areas-protected slopes) must be provided at the time of formal land use application in order to determine density. Development Standards: The R-8 zone permits one residential structurelunit per lot. Detached accessory structures are permitted at a maximum number of two per lot at 720 square feet each, or one per lot at 1,000 square feet in size. Defoor Property Plat -Pre-Application .ting February 17. 2005 Page 2 of 5 Minimum Lot Size. Width and Depth -The minimum lot size that would permitted in the R-8 zone is 4,500 sq. ft. for parcels greater than 1 gross acre and 5,000 sq. ft. for parcels less than 1 acre-gross. The site is greater than one (1) acre-gross; therefore, a lot size of 4,500 sq. ft. (net area-after easement deductions, if applicable) would be required. A minimum lot width of 50 feet for interior lots and 60 feet for comer lots, as well as a minimum lot depth of 65 feet, is also required. Land area included in private access easements must not be included in lot area calculations. Please provide both the gross and net square footage of each lot at the time of formal land use application. For the formal land use application, all lots must be fully dimensioned to determine compliance. Building Standards -The R-8 zone would allow a maximum building coverage of 35% of the lot area or 2,500 square feet, whichever is greater for lots 5,000 square feet in size or greater. Lots less than 5,000 square feet in size would permit a maximum building coverage of 50% of the lot area. /' In the R-8 zone, building height is restricted to 30 feet and two stories. Detached accessory structures must remain below a height of 15 feet and one-story with a gross floor area that is less than the primary structure. Accessory structures are also included in building lot coverage calculations. Square footages of buildings to remain, if any, must be provided at the time of formal land use application. Also, any buildings that are to be removed/demolished must obtain a demolition permit and be removed and inspected prior to recording the final plat. Setbacks -Setbacks are the minimum distance required between the building footprint and the property line or private access easement. The required setbacks are 15 ft. for the primary structure and 20 ft. for attached garages accessed from the front yard in the front, 20 ft. in the rear and 5 ft. on interior side yards. The side yards along a street setback is 15 ft. for the primary structure and 20 ft. for the attached garages which access from the side yard along a street. No setbacks were shown on the pre-application materials. The front yards of Lots 10, 11 and 12 would be measured from the private access easement. All setbacks are to be shown on the formal land use application plat plan submittal, but must be removed prior to final plat recording. Access/Parking: Access to the development is proposed from a new public road extending south from Cedar Ave. South and terminating in a cul-de-sac with a private access easement extending further to the south from its terminus. Lots 16 through 24 would gain access directly to Renton Ave. South. From review of the provided plat drawing with underlying topography, in the north portion of the new public road there appear to be steep slopes which may be classified as sensitive or protected (see discussion under Sensitive Areas). If these are protected slopes, no development may occur on the slopes and the road would need to be re-Iocated. Private streets are all0wed for access to six or less lots, with no more than 4 of the lots not abutting a public'right-of-way. The street is to include a minimum easement width of 26 feet with 20 feet of paving. Private driveways may serve a maximum of two lots and must have a minimum easement width of 20 feet with 12 feet of paving. ' " Each lot is required to accommodate off street parking for a minimum of two vehicles per lot. In addition, appropriate shared maintenance and access agreement/easements will be required between 'lots with shared access. Private streets and private driveways are easements. The land area of the easement is to become part of the abutting lots. Addresses of lots along private streets/driveways are to be visible from the public street by provision of a sign stating all house numbers and is to be located at the intersection of the private street and the public street. Driveway Grades: The maximum driveway slopes can not exceed fifteen percent (15%), provided that driveways exceeding eight percent (8%) are to provide slotted drains at the lower end of the driveway. If the grade exceeds 15%, a variance from the Board of Adjustment is required. Landscaping and Open Space: For plats abutting non-arterial public streets, the minimum off-site landscaping is a five (5 ft.) wide irrigated or drought resistant landscape strip provided that if there is . Defoor Property Plat -pre-AP.n Meeting February 17, 2005 Page 3 of6 additional undeveloped right-of-way in excess of 5 ft., this also must be landscaped. For plats abutting principal, minor or collector arterials, the width increases to 10ft. unless otherwise determined by the reviewing official during the subdivision process. . Tree requirements for plats include at least two (2) trees of a City approved species with a minimum caliper of 1 % inches per tree must be planted in the front yard or planting strip of every lot prior to building occupancy. Hillside Subdivisions: Based on the topography underlying the pre-application submittal, calculations were made to determine whether or not the site would be categorized as a "hillside SUbdivision". It appears that the average slope is 20% and greater which meets the definition. According to RMC 4-7- 220, hillside subdivisions ordinarily have greater attention paid to the potential for drainage, erosion and slope stability problems. The review and approval of the Hearing Examiner is required for this type of subdivision. Sensitive Areas: Based on the City's Critical Areas Maps, the site is located within critical areas, including: Geologic Hazards (steep slopes), seismic, erosion, coal mine and landslide hazards. Geologic Hazards -The site appears to contain areas of 15%, 25% and 40+% slopes as shown on the City's Slope Analysis map. As required by the City's Critical Areas Regulations, a slope delineation indicating the location of these slopes will be required as part of the formal land use application. 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. Pursuant to the Renton MuniCipal Code (RMC4-3-050J) the applicant will be required to obtain a geotechnical report stamped and signed from a Geotechnical Engineer stating that the proposed development is suitable with respect to the current site conditions for soils, slopes, landslides, erosion, seismic, etc. In addition, the report would need to address any special construction· requirements deemed necessary by the Geotechnical Engineer. Through the plat review process, the City may condition the approval of the development in order to require mitigation of any potential hazards based on the results of the studies. In addition, pursuant to RMC section 4-3-050.J.3, the geotechnical report submitted with the application may be required to undergo independent secondary review by a qualified specialist selected by the City at the applicant's expense. Coal Mine hazards are within the site and within 200 and 500 feet of the site. According to RMC 4-3- 050.J.B., these hazards are to be reviewed and addressed in a coal mine assessment report. A coal mine assessment report will be required as part of the formal land use application. Seismic Hazards -The seismic hazard is related to potential liquefaction of soils during an earthquake event. Before the applicant pursues detailed design and engineering for the development of the site, it is recommended that the geotechnical analysis assess soil conditions and detail construction measures to assure building stability. Environmental Review: The project requires SEPA review due to the number of lots of the proposed plat (greater than four dwelling units and critical areas).· The proposal would be brought to the Environmental . Review Committee for review as it is their charge to make threshold determinations for environmental checklists. Typically, mitigation of impacts is accomplished through fees related to issues such as transportation, fire and parks as well as measures to reduce impacts to environmental elements such as soils , streams, water, etc. Permit Requirements: The project would require Preliminary Plat review and Environmental (SEPA) Review. With concurrent review of these applications, the process would take an estimated time frame of 12 weeks. After the required notification period, the Environmental Review Committee would issue a Threshold Determination for the project. When the required two-week appeal period is completed, the project would go· before the Hearing Examiner for a recommendation to the City Council on the Preliminary Plat The Hearing Examiner's recommendation, as well as the decision issued by the City Council, would be subject to two-week appeal periods. The application fee would be $2,000 for the Preliminary Plat and % of full fee for SEPA Review (Environmental Checklist) which is dependent on project value: less than $100,000 is $200 (1/2 of Defoor Property Plat -pre-APPlicatiOn.ting February 17, 2005 . Page 40f6 $400.00 full fee) and project value over $100,000 is a $500.00 fee (1/2 of $1000.00 full fee) plus first class postage per mailing label required for notification to surrounding property owners within 300 feet of the site. Estimated fees for the land use applications is $2,500.00 plus postage costs. The applicant will be required to install a public information sign on the property. Detailed information regarding the land use application submittal requirements is provided in the attached handouts. Once Preliminary Plat approval is obtained, the applicant must complete the required improvements and dedications, as well as satisfy any conditions of the preliminary approval before submitting for Final Plat review. The Final Plat process also requires City Council approval. Once final approval is received, the plat may be recorded. The newly created lots may only be sold after the plat has been recorded. Fees: In addition to the applicable building and ·construction permit fees, the following mitigation fees would be required prior to the recording of the plat. o A Transportation Mitigation Fee based on $75 per each new average daily trip attributable to the project; o A Parks Mitigation Fee based on $530.76 per new single family residence; and, o A Fire Mitigation Fee based on $488 per new single family residence. A handout listing all of the City's Development related fees is included in the packet for your review. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: The existing development is located within the Residential Single Family (RSF) Comprehensive Plan Land Use deSignation. The following proposed policies are applicable to the proposal: Land Use Element Objective LU-FF: Encourage re-investment and rehabilitation of existing housing, and development of new residential plats resulting in quality neighborhoods that: . 1. Are planned at urban densities and implement Growth Management targets, 2. Promote expansion and use of public transportation; and 3. Make more efficient use of urban services and infrastructure. Policy LU-147. Net development densities should fall within a range of 4.0 to 8.0 dwelling units per acre in Residential Single Family neighborhoods. Policy LU-148. A minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet should be allowed on in-fill parcels of less than one acre (43,560 sq. ft.) in single-family designations. Allow a reduction on lot size to 4,500 square feet on parcels greater than one acre to create an incentive for aggregation of land. The minimum lot size is not intended to set the standard for density in the designation, but to provide flexibility in subdivision/plat design and facilitate development within the allowed density range. Policy LU-149. Lot size should exclude private sidewalks, easements, private road, and driveway easements, except alley easements. Policy LU-1S0. Required setbacks should exclude public or private legal access areas, established through or to a lot, and parking areas. Policy LU-1S2. Single-family lot size, lot width, setbacks, and impervious surface should be sufficient to allow private open space, landscaping to provide buffers/privacy without extensive fencing, and sufficient area for maintenance activities. Policy LU-1S3. Interpret development standards to support plats designed to incorporate vehicular and pedestrian connections between plats and neighborhoods. Small projects composed of single parcels and/or multiple parcels of insufficient size to provide such connections, should include future street stubs. Future street connections should be clearly identified to notify residents of future roadway connections. Policy LU-1S4. Interpret development standards to support new plats and infill project deSigns incorporating street locations, lot configurations, and building envelopes that address privacy and quality of life for existing residents. Defoor Property Plat -pre-AP.n Meeting February 17. 2005 Page 50f6 Environmental Element Policy EN-70. Land. uses on steep slopes should be designed prevent property damage and environmental degradation, and to enhance greenbelt and wildlife habitat values by preserving and enhancing existing vegetation to the maximum extent possible. Policy EN-71. Allow land alteration only for approved development proposals or approved mitigation efforts that will not create unnecessary erosion, undermine the support of nearby land, or unnecessarily scar the landscape. Policy EN-72. Mitigate problems of drainage, erosion, siltation, arid landslides by decreasing development intensity, site coverage, and vegetation removal as slope increases. Policy EN-73. Protect high landslide areas from land use development and roads. Policy EN-76. Design, locate, and construct utility systems in a manner which will preserve the integrity of the existing land forms, drainage ways, and natural systems. . Community DeSign Element Objective CD-A: The City's unique natural features, including land form, vegetation, lakeshore, river, creeks and streams, and wetlands should be protected and enhanced as opportunities arise. Policy CD-1: Integrate development into natural areas by clustering development and/or adjusting site plans to preserve wetlands, steep slopes, and notable stands of trees or other vegetation. Natural features should function as site amenities. Use incentives such as flexible lot size and configuration to encourage preservation and add amenity value. Objective CD-D: New neighborhood development patterns should be consistent with Renton's established neighborhoods and have an interconnected road network. Policy CD 15. Land should be subdivided into blocks sized so that walking distance are minimized and convenient routes between destination points are pOints are available. Policy CD-16. During land division, all lots should front on streets or parks. Discourage single-tier lots with rear yards backing onto a street. Policy CD-17. Development should be designed to result in a high quality development as a primary goal, rather than to maximize density as a first consideration. The Department of Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning (EDNSP) indicate that the following policies are advisory to the applicant and are intended to inform them of the City Council's desired outcome for infill development. Code implementing these policies is on the department's 2005 work program and may be adopted prior to formal review of projects now at the pre-application stage. Policy CD-13. Infill development should be reflective of the existing character of established neighborhoods even when designed using different architectural styles, and lor responding to more 'urban setbacks, height or lot requirements. Infill development should draw on elements of existing development such as placement of structures, vegetation, and location of entries and walkways, to reflect the site planning and scale of existing areas. Policy CD-14. Architecture of new structures in established areas should be visually compatible with other structures on the site and with adjacent development. Visual compatibility should be evaluated using the following criteria: a. Where there are differences in height (e.g., new two-story development adjacent to single- story structures), the architecture of the new structure should include' details anc;J elements of . .' Defoor Property Plat -pre-ApPlicati0weting February 17, 2005 Page 6ot6 design such as window treatment, roof type, entries, or porches that reduce the visual mass of the structure. b. Garages, whether attached or detached, should be constructed using the same pattern of development established in the vicinity. Structures should have entries, windows, and doors located to maintain privacy in neighboring yards and buildings. Additional Comments: • Due to the likely presence of protected slopes which prohibit development, staff recommends that the applicant assess the site more closely and complete a slope analysis. Based on the outcome of these findings, the plat may need to be re-designed. • In advance of submitting the full land use 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 JUN-28-2005 17:16 425 430 7300 P.02/02 WAIVEIaPF ~~;BMITTAL REQUlfWJIENTS FdR LAND USE· APPLICATIONS. . . ·i?~!?;~iirm~[rl:,f~~~~~_~~~~~~ji~i!~~H7.ljjJ'IW~~ijj!~~)!l!!!~j~ji!ij~j;~)!j~!!#~'_~i/Y~~/i\:ji!:2;( Calculations, t:; .. 2.. r· ". ,: l¢9.~~ ~ ~ ~ ~f:~~~f~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~: ~: ~~ ~ ~~~:~: ~~ ~ ~~:;~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~: ~: ~;~; ~ ~:; ~\ .!~ ~ !~r:~j: ~:~: ~ ~~~j'~i:!; ~ ~ ~~~. ~ ~ ~ ;~f~:~ ~} ~: ~:::; :~i: ~ ~: ~ ~ ~~; ~~ {~{: ~ ~:~: ~:; ~~: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :~~: ~: ~ ~ ~:: ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~!:~: ~: ~ ~ ~ ~::::: ~:::!:~: ~: ~ ~ ~ ~:~:; ~::: ~::::::: ~ :~ Construction Mitigation Description. 2 AND .:;' ,~'''.' . l'!( ~~~~~w~~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~: ~: ~:!: ~~ ~ / ~~~: ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~: ~~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ t ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~::~ ~ ~ ~: ~i ~~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~! ~~ ~ i ~ ~:: {~: ~ ~~ ~ ~! ~ ~ ~! ~! ~ i ~ ~~~i ~~ ~:~ ~~{ ~ ~!~ ~~: ~~ ~~: ~ ~::: ~:::~! ~~~ ~~ ~ ~?~; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~} ~ ~~ ;~; :~~?~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~; ~ ~;! ~!; {~~;! ~!: ~: ~; ~ ~~!~! ~: ~!; ~ ~ ~ Drainage cOntrol Plan 2' ' ~iM9.~ ~~~~J ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ;~:~:~: ~ ~~; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~: ~{::~ ~ ~:~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ :;!~:; ~ m ~; ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~; ~> ~ ~ ~~~} ~ ~ ~ ~:;: ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~; ~ ~ ~! ~ ~ ~; ~ ~ ~ ~;; ~ ;;:~:);} ~~ ~~ ~~; ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~; <:~:;: ~ ~~~ ~~!; ~ ~;;; ~;~ ~~;~;;; ~;~; ~: ~:;:;:; ~; ~;;: ;~ Elevations. ArchitecturabAND4 I;. {} ~~~_ ~~~~!i~;~ ~ ~~ ~!:!: ~: !:~:~:~:~: ~:;: !~~ ~ ~~~: ~ ~~ ~ ~;~ ~!:~: ~:~:;:~:~; ~: ~ ~~ {~: ;~;:~:~ :~:) ~ ~~;: ~! ~ ~ ~~. ~; ~}~: ~:;:;: ~: ~:~ ~~; ~ \ \: : ~:;::} ~! ~!~!~:~::;:~;; {;; ~ ~;; ~~: ~; ~ ~ ~~!:!~ ~:~:~: ~: ~: ~:~ ~ ~;: ~ ~ ~? ~:;: ~:;: ~: ~: ~:; ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~;:' ., Existing Covenants (Recorded Copy). ~~~i:l9:~~~:t~~#~~~~P.1.):~:~:~:~:~:;:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~ :~:~:~;~:~:::;:?~:~:!:~:~:~ :~;~:~:;:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~;;}. :~:~:::~:~:~:~:~;~;~:~:;<:~:~<:::~:~:~:~:!:~:~;~:~;::~:~:~:~:~:~:~:;:;:~:::!~::~:;:;:~:;:;: -i'fl Flood Hazard Data. i!; ";,'11: .. . f.!Q9f::~~~:~~r~:~:~:~:~:~::::;~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~;~:~:::~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~!~:i:~:;:~:~~~:)i:~:~: :;:~:!f~i::';"F=-:1::~:r.<~;~::.r.~ii~:~::0':f::~~:~~:~:-:r:~:~.":":~;~:-.";~:o:'i~: ~:~::"':'>"!":.~:~~;~:':":~;~":"{:-:"::;~~:~:":':~:":":~:~"="\~:::"!":;::~;~:~t":"::~:":":~:':":~:;O:O:~:~)":"::~:-:":~:':':~::":":;:::-:"\":"!:~:":":;:':":):":"':::~> , . Geotechnical Reporh AND 3 J(,' :". '~~r; ~ ~f~g: P.!~~;~ ~~~( (~: ~: ~:~: ~:~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~:~: ~:f~: ~:;:~:;:~:) ~~:i f.;: j:~ :j; ~: ~:!:~ ~:: ~:~;::~ :~; ~: ~: ~ :~: ~ :~: ~ :~: ~: ~:~:~ :~; ~:~ {: ~:~ :~: ~ :~: ~: ~: ~:~;::~:~:~: ~:~: ~:~: ~: ~: ~: ~; ~: ~: ~:~: ~: ~:~: ~: ~: ~;~; ~: ~: ~: ~::: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~::;:: §rading Plan, Delailed2 \i~:, ': i • ~~9~~~~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~~::~;~~~:~:~:~:~:::~:~:f~~~~~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:::~:~.fi'i;:~~:~:~:~:~ {:~:~:}~:~;~~~~~~i~~~~~r 1:1:~;:~~J:~~~:~:iiftrf~~:~:l;a~::~~;:~:~:~::: ... ' King County Assessor's Maplndicatina..,.Site ... "-"')'.:".: . . .... ,.:' .' ... : .~",", ... . .. ' . . ~"':. ~&.$~!ij~~~~~:W~~~~~~:~;·~}~~~~~~~j~~i;~~~i~~~i ~~~~~i~~~~~:~~~~ii~" ~:~~ji:~i~;~;~~iii~8~: i~I~:~~~~~;~~~5;j::fii:~:~~~~~::':~:f:;;~~:';~iji~~~~j:\I~~~j~~i;~~';:E:;i:~: .... ~_-~ ,'. ',~ ~~~ Des9f1ption. ..' .;:.,. . _ .. _...... ., ....... . .' ~~:~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~~~i~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ ?<i ~~~ ~~;i~{ ~:,~:~~f: ;~~ ~: ~~ ~~ ~~~. ~ ~~j: ~~: ~ ~:~ :i~:::~ ~~:~ ~!~: ~:~: ~: : ~~ ~~ ~ ~ :~~ ~~ !~; ~:~ ;~~~:~:~: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~:: ~~: ~~ ~ ~~:; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~: ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~: ~ ~~: ~; ~ ~; ~: ~;~ ~ ~? ~ ~: ~; ~; ~ ~ ~~;:; ~: . Mailing-Labels for Property Owners. . (:. ,:~:i, ,i, i\ . . ' .. ~~~~~~~~!~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\~~~~~:~~~~~:ij}~~~if~~~ ~Ii;'~~~;j~~j:j:o:';~~~'''';l::::o:l~'f3If::~":''t~~~r:.!;~~t':":~:~"':"t:":'·~:~,,=,:~::O:;I+: t'"-::O:~'::":"I7-":}"':"::~::":'~~~~;~::7'~;!~\~~;;:"':'~;~7-":?":"f:":'~~~~~;~:::"'I~~~~?!':"}:"':'~~"""\~~;i""':<'""~~~~;~~~?~}...,.:~;~,..,.}....,:::,...::~~:~ ~'. . .,. " ,,·.;i'· R! Master A"'plication Form. ';t~i;.)' "~\!~! Ill.: . .) "I" .j 'I.. '.' . '. _ ,i'\:\, !" M~~~~i¢~*~~#:~~~~m~~~:~:~:~:~:~t{~::~:~:~: §~~:i~~;~~~~~~!~~~~~~~~~~~;~ ~{:~:~;);:~~~~:~{~:;:~:: ~~~;~;~~);j~:;:~:~:~:~:~;~~:~:r:;~~:;:~:;{:~:;~~~~~;~:~;~~~~:~:~:~:~~~;;~;::~~~:~~~:;::~ . Neighborhood Detail Map 4 :':T\: '.' ,;, ~ ,', 'il'i1 ~, ~i This requirement may be. waived by: 1. Property SelVlces Section . -t:-Public Works Plan Review Section 3. Building section 4. Development Planning Section Q;\WEB\PW\[)EVSERV\Forms\Planning\walwer.xls .j "t, ' ,'-"'" 01l06l2004 TOTAL P.02 P.01/02 ~~~~ ~~~~ (~W: ~j {:~; ~:~:~:~: ~:~: ~ :~: ~: ~ :~:!:~:~;::~: ~;~;~;~;~; ~:~: ~; ~: ~:!: ::: ~~:::: ~ i! :~;;;~: ~: ~:~:~:~: ~: ~:~: ~:~: ~: ~: ~;~:~: !:!::; ~:~:~:~: ~:~:~: ::~:::~:~:~: ~:~: ~:~;~: ~: ~:~:?:: ~: ~: ~:~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~:~: ~:~:~:~: ~: ~;~: ~: ~: ~; ~; ~: ~: ~::; ~; ~:;:~ Postage. . t ~~P.P!I~~~~~~_~~~~~~~:~:)~:~:~:)~{{:~:i}:~:~: if};~:~{:~:;:~:~:~: ~:~:~:)\})~;~;;:~:~: ~:i:~:r~:~:;:;:!:~:~;:;l;:;~:;:~:~:~:~:~\:~:~:~:::::::~:::~:::~:~:::;:~;:;~;~:;;;:~;21 Public Works Approval Letteu .. '. 1 ~~~i~~:~:~~:::~:::~;~;~:~:~:~:~~t~~!~}::~:\~~~{:~:\\}~:~;~;;: :~:~:~:~(:i:i:~t:~:~:~:~: i;~:;:~:~:~:i~~~~~~~t:t:~~ ~{~~:~:~:;~}r~:!;~:!:~:~:~:~:~:}~::{:~:~;~:~:~:~;;:~;~;~~~:;;!:~:;:;:;:~:~:;:;:~:; Screening D~tail • '. I,.' , i . . .~ ~i~: J?I~~ ~~: ~~~: ~; ~: ~: ~: ~: ~:; ~ ~ ~ ~; ~ ~ ~ i ~;~; ~~~; ~; ~:~: ~:~: ~:~; ~~::~ ~~ ~~:~ ~ ~;~:~::;~;~: ~;~~:: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ;~;~: ~::: ~i;:;; ~ ~ ~~ ~~: ~ a ~: ~ ~ ~:~: ~;:~ ~~: ~ ;~~ ~ ~?~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~: ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~: ~ ~:; ~~ ~~ ~; ~;~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~~~;::; ~; ~ ~ ~;:~:; ~~ ~~ ~;; ~ ~~; ~;~ ~ ~ ~:~ ~;~::~:!::: ~: ~;::~; ~ ~:; ~; ~:::;;::: Street Profiles z ~. Krill;, . , ~\led ~ $~ e.,u...o.,\eJ ~,ver ~ tttl~:~~~~:#'~~~!ij~~_~~~~~~~~~i~;~~~~~~~~~~~t~:~~~;~(~~~}~:~: !:~~~~\):;~~~~:,~~;;:;;;~ :~;~;~~/;};~(}~:~~~~i; ;~;~~:;:;;~~~r;~~~:;:;~~~;~;\;:~;;~~~~;~~;i~~~~~~;;~~;:;:;~;;:::::~::::;;;~;~:{~;]j] t..~ Topography Map:s (~;' *" t~ffl~: ~~~~~i ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~: ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~; ~ ~i ~i~: ~ ~~ ~: ~: ~~ ~~: ~ ~~: ~~ ~ {~~f~ i~:) ~::; ~~ ;~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~::~ ~:~:~:: J.;I? ~~~ ~ ~;~: ~ ~ ~ ~?; :~: ~~: ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~)~ ~ ~~~ : ~:) ~~;}.;:;:~ ~~ ~ ;~~ ~ {} ~: ~ ~:; ~ ~ i: ~ ~ ~: ~~::;~: ~: ~ ~: ~i~:~; ~~ ~~:; ~:;: ~; i; ~; ~: ~);: ~ ~;:) , ~. ~~::¢~~~~~r9~:~~~~~~~~r~:~:~:~:~ ?\:~f~~{;~~~:~~~:~:~ :~:~{~~~~:~~~:~:~:~:?:i~~; t:r~~:~:::~:!:~:::~~;~~:~~;:~:;:~:~:~:i::::~::~:;~~~~~~;~~~~~:::~:;::::~:~::;::::~::::;::~, -~lIties Plan, GeneraliZed z .' .. ~ i~).Tree Cuttin9lLand 'Cle8ring Plan, ~ A, ~ ... ' .. ' ....... . W.ti~~~iji~(;ii~~~~~r:{:~:I;}~.;}:~:~:~:~:~;;;~;~ ~.;(j:;:~:~:?~:::!;~:l:!:~ :~:~:i:~:!:i~j:~:~:~~l?:i:~; :~:~~:~:::~:~;~;({:~:!.~~:~:~:~~~:::~:~::~:::~:~:~:~:~~~:;:~:::~:~:::::::~::::::::~:~::1_, Wetlands ~,ti93tionPian, p"limlnary.,,-:, ;', '. ..... . . .•... .... . .. :. ' ..... . m~a~~p~~~~~~;!:::~;::::~:!:f;~:~~;:;~~:~:~~~:i:!:~:!:!:~:~:: :{~;iC£~:~:~:!:!:::::::~;~;?~:~:t~:~:~;::~:~ :~:~:~::t~:~;~:~:~~:;:~:~:~{:~:.::~~:;:::~:~:~:~~;::::~:~:~:i:~:::~;;:~:~:I~j:'~::; -.. .. .• • - -". • •• ~. ~ ,-• . .~:~ '1; ~-"!"~.:~ ~; .. ; I to.. • ... _. • • •• " -• .-. ~ : Wireless::·' :u " . .,' . .,.-. • APpiicant Agreemsnt.sta_meni ~ ~~ 3 ff;~~i_~»;' :~':'. . " .. - I..~ : ,-_I"_v_en_to_ry..:..-o_f Exi_·s_tl_n~g:-S~lt~aS"..;a_.AND...;",;,,;.;.3~"=-"_"~._' _--t'~L'_---'~-+~~~---i-~-~~~~~~~=--~"""_~ 'l-easeAgreement.:'Draftz_3.:~~::-=-::· ... ;',; -.-'-'. -~' ... :'.~::';'-.. '~-': Map of existing Site Conditions 2 AND :I Map of View Area 2 AND S Photoslmulations 2. AND:5 ,,\ This requirement may be walved by: 1. Property Services SectIon <~2, Public Wor1<s Plan Review Section \' 3. Building Section . 4. Development Planning SectJon DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON -.. -: . " JUL2 6 2005 RECEIVED ,.'.' -'- ~ J.' .. I' .' " ;~ .:' ... + q ~, ·.1- \ j Q;\WEB\PW\DEVSERV\Farms\Pbinnlng\waIver.xl& .. -___ " i ... ,. '" 't:~~ . DENSITY WORKSHEET DEV ':OPMENT PlANNING . ITY OF RENTON ' -,:~' : ," JUL'2 6 2005 ::tCt"r:IVl=n City of Renton Development Services Division 1 055 South Grady Way-Renton, WA 98055 Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax: 425-430-7231 1. Gross area of property: 1. 140,723 2. Deductions: Certain areas are excluded from density calculations. These include: Public streets** square feet Private access easements** 101019 _ square feet Critical Areas* square feet Total excluded area: 2. 101109 square feet square feet 3. Subtract line 2 from line 1 for net area: 3. 1301704 square feet 4. Divide line 3 by 43,560 for net acreage: 4. ----'3=.-=.0=.0 ___ acres 5. Number of dwelling units or lots planned: 5. _.....;5'---___ unitsllots 6. Divide line 5 by line 4 for net density: 6. _1.;..;..6.;;;;..;6"'---_ = dwelling units/acre *Critical Areas are defined as "Areas determined by the City to be not suitable for development and which are subject to the City's Critical Areas Regulations' including very high landslide areas, protected slopes, wetlands or floodways." Critical areas buffers are not deducted/excluded. ** Alleys (public or private) do not have to be excluded. hnp:llwww.ci.renton.wa.us/pw/devserv/forms/pianning/density.doc 1 Last updated e ~OREI,IELOPM'ENT PLANNING '" CITY OF RENTON ~ DESIGN JUL 2 6 2005 RECEIVED Project Narrative Core Design, 'nc. 14711 N.E.29thPlace,Suite 101 Bellevue, Washington 98007 425.885.7877 Fax425.885.7963 www.coredesigninc.com Defoor Short Plat --Renton, Washington • Project Name: Project Size: Location of Site: • Parcel Numbers: • Current zoning: Surrounding zoning: • Current use: • Soil type and Drainage: Defoor Short Plat The total site is approximately 3.23 acres. The location of the project is in the 900/1000 block of Renton AveS. 0007200196 Residential 8 dulac North: Residential 10 dulac Multi-Family South: Residential 8 (Single-family home) West: Commercial -Commercial Arterial East: Residential 8 dulac (Single-family home) The site is currendy vacant. Special site features: There is a category 3 stream, steep slopes and coal mine hazards located on the site. Based on field observations the site consist of native soil and bedrock exposures. A storm drainage system has been designed which will route drainage to a level flow spreader located along the west property line. This drainage system has been designed to handle all the stormwater run-off that will be generated by the site. The system will include temporary erosion control barriers during site construction. • Proposed property use: The proposal is to subdivide the property into 5 single-family detached, fee simple, lots. • Access: Each lot will be accessed from Renton Ave S. • Off-site improvements: N I A • Est. Construction Costs: $300,000 • Est. fair market value: $750,000 • Quantity and type of fill: The quantities of the cut and fill that will occur on site are approximately ± 7,000 cubic yards. If it is discovered that the site ENGINEERING· PLANNING· SURVEYING • Trees to be removed: • Land dedication: • Number, size, and density of lots: • Proposed job shacks: • Modifications: will need fill material, the applicant will submit a fill source statement at that time. Due to the topography of the site, all trees in the lot areas will be removed as part of this development. Please see the Tree Cutting/Land Clearing plan for the approximate location of the clearing limit. N/A There are 5 lots proposed for the property. The average lot size is approximately 5,045± S.P. The net density is approximately 1.55 dulac. The site will have a construction trailer during the construction of the development. None l··~·~~~ ________ ~_"_C~It~Y_._O_F_RE __ N_T_"O_N_'_'_· ___ " __ ~ ______ ~-J;I . " ",~NVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST, ". Project: Defoor Property Short Plat Applicant: Terry Defoor GWCInc. 24633 NE 133rd Street Duvall, WA 98019 (206) 999-8874 Representative/Contact: Core Design, Inc. Attn: Michael Chen 14711 NE 29th Place, Suite 101 Bellevue, Washington 98007 Phone: (425) 885-7877 Date: June 20, 2005 · - TABLE OF CONTENTS A. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................... 1 B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS ...................................................................................... 3 1. EARTH ............................. , ...................................................................................... 3 2. AIR .......................................................................................................................... 4 3. WATER ................................................................................................................... 4 4. PLANTS .................................................................................................................. 6 5. ANIMALS ............................................................................................................... 7 6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES ........................................................... 7 7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH .............................................................................. 8 8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE ............................................................................. 9 9. HOUSING ............................................................................................................... 10 10. AESTHETICS ......................................................................................................... 10 11. LIGHT AND GLARE ............................... ~ ............................................................. 11 12. RECREATION ........................................................................................................ 11 13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION ................................................ 12 14. TRANSPORTATION .............................................................................................. 12 15. PUBLIC SERVICES ............................................................................................... 13 16. UTILITIES ............................................................................................................... 13 C. SIGNATURE ........................................................................................................................ 13 Appendices Appendix A --Legal Description Appendix B ~-Vicinity Map ,. e ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIS.- INTRODUCTION 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 must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not mow the answer or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply". Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to )Vhich 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 ~hecklist for nonproject proposals: (A nonproject proposal in~ludes plans, policies and programs where actions are different or broader than a single site-specific proposal) . Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does n.ot apply". IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPRO]ECT ACTIONS (part D). For nonproject actions, the references in the checklist to the word "project", "applicant", and "property or site" should be read as "propos~l," "proposer",and "affected geographic area," respectively. ., . A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Defoor Property Short Plat 2. Name of applicant: Terry Defoor GWC,Inc. 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Applicant: Terry Defoor GWC, Inc. 24633 NE 133rd Street Duvall, WA 98019 (206) 999-8874 4. Date checklist prepared: Ju"ne 20, 2005 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Renton D~velopment Services Division Contact Person: Michael Chen c/o Core Design, Inc. 14711 NE 29th Place, Suite 101 Bellevue, WA 98007 (425)885-7 8 77 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Plat construction is scheduled to start in early 2006, subject to the approval process and market demands. Home construction is proposed to start in mid 2006. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. Not at this time. . 8. List apy environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, direcdy related to this proposal. . Preliminary stonndrainage report, prepared by Core Design, Inc. Preliminary Geotechnical Report and Coal Mine Hazard Assessment, prepared by Icicle Creek Engineers Wetland Delineation Report, prepared by Talasaea Consultants. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals direcdy affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. N one to our knowledge. Environmelltal Checklist Defoor Short Plat Page 1 , . 10. List any gQvernment approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Short Plat Approval SEP A Determination Drainage Plan Approval Water and Sewer Construction Plan Approval Grading Permit Final Plat Approval Residential Building Permits 11. Give a brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size ofthe project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.) This application proposes a 5 lot short plat on a 3.23-acre site under the existing requirements for an R-8 zone. The homes are anticipated to be in the middle income price range. Construction of the site will result in 20% of the property being developed. 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 ofthe 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 location of the project is in the 900 block of Renton Ave NE and is located in the NW 1/4, Section 20, Township 23N, Range SE. The site is just to southwest of the intersection of Renton Ave S. and South 9th Street. A legal description and vicinity map is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. Environmental Checklist De/oar Short PI(/( Page 2 , . B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS a. 1. Earth General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rollin Q teep slopes, mountainous other ~ The site is generally hilly, sloping up from 1-405 to Renton Ave S. at approximately 18%. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? The steepest slope is approximately 40% found within a ravine on the property. 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. The Natural Resources Conservation Services has mapped the site as Alderwood and Kitsap soils. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. No, not to our knowledge. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source. of fill. The purpose of the grading is to construct the proposed building pads and utility locations for single-family residences. The grading is intended to be 100 cubic yards of cut and 7,000 cubic yards of fill. If it is discovered that the site will need fill materials, a fill source statement will be submitted at that time. Please refer to the Preliminary Grading and Utility Plans prepared by Core Design, Inc for additional information. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Erosion could occur as a result of denuded soil during and immediately following storm events. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Approximately 13% will be covered by impervious surface. Environmental Checklist Defoor SlIol'/ PI(/{ EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY Page 3 . . . h.'" Proposed measures to reduce or etrol erosion, or other impacts to the e earth, if any: A temporary erosion and sedimentation control (TESCP) plan will be prepared and implemented prior to commencement of construction activities. During construction erosion control measures may include any of the following: siltation fence, temporary siltation ponds and other measures which may be used in accordance with requirements of the City. At completion of the project, permanent measures will include stormwater runoff detention and water quality facilities as required. 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. During construction, there will be increased exhaust and dust particle emissions. After construction, the principle source of emissions will be from automobile traffic, lawn equipment, and others typical of a residential neighborhood. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. Off-site sources of emissions or odors are those typical of the residential neighborhoods that surround this site, such as automobile emissions from traffic on adjacent roadways and fireplace emissions from nearby homes. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Construction impacts will not be significant and can be controlled by several methods: watering or using dust suppressants on areas of exposed soils, washing truck wheels before leaving the site, and maintaining gravel construction entrances. Automobile and fireplace emission standards are regulated by the State of Washington. The site has been included in a "No Burn Zone" by the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency which went into effect on September 1, 1992. No land clearing or residential yard debris ftres would be permitted on-site, nor in the surrounding neighborhood in accordance with the regulation. 3. Water a. Surface: 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 are no water bodies associated with this property. We are aware of wetland that is located off site to the west. Ellvirollmellfal Checklist Defoor Short Plat Page 4 2) Will the project require any worker, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) o~ the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. N one to our knowledge. 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. Not applicable. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No, there will be no surface water withdrawals or diversions. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. No. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No, a public sanitary sewer system will be installed to serve the future homes. b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No groundwater will be withdrawn, public water mains will be installed as part of the plat construction. No water will be discharged to groundwater except through the incidental inftltration of stormwater. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage: industrial, containing the following chemicals ... ; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of· houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. The site will be served by sanitary sewers. There will be no waste material discharged to the ground from the development. Post-development stormwater runoff from roadways will be routed around the proposed development and discharged down stream. Home sites will be collected and routed through flow spreaders. Requirements for water quality and runoff rate control will be met. Environmental Checklist De/oor Short Plat Page 5 c. Water Runoff (including storm we: 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. Stormwater runoff will result from impervious surfaces and will be collected and routed to a level flow spreader located behind the proposed lots. The runoff will continue down slope and recharge the wedand located off-site to the west of the subject site. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. This would be very unlikely. The only materials that could enter ground or surface waters would be those associated with automobile discharges and yard and garden preparations. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: A City approved storm drainage system will be designed and implemented in order to mitigate any adverse impacts from stormwater runoff. The system will include temporary erosion control barriers during site construction, and permanent stormwater collection/treatment facilities soon a~ter beginning site development construction. This permanent system will ensure that prior to the release of stormwater into the downstream storm system, the system will have significandy reduced the potential impacts to ground and surface waters. 4. Plants a. Check or underline types of vegetation found on the site: deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other: cottonwood evergreen tree: ftr, cedar, pine, other: hemlock shrubs X grass pasture wet soil plants: cattail, creeping buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, horsetail, water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other: other types of vegetation: b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Of the site, only those areas proposed for lots will have the existing vegetation removed. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. No threatened or endangered plants are known to exist on the site. Environmental Checklist Defoor Short Plar Page 6 " d.' Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: The yard areas associated with individual ownership will be landscaped by the future residents with both formal and informal plantings. 5. Animals a. Underline 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: red-tailed hawk mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. No threatened or endangered species are known to exist on the site. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. No. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: The yard areas associated with individual ownership will be landscaped by the future residents with both formal and informal plantings. 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Electricity and/or natural gas will be the primary source of energy used to provide heating and cooling to each home. These forms of energy are immediately available to the site. The builder will provide the appropriate heating and cooling systems which are energy efficient and cost effective for the homebuyer . . b. '. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. . No. Environmental Checklist Defoor ShOrT Plat Page 7 '. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal: List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: The requirements of the Uniform Building Code and the State Energy Code will be incorporated into the construction of the buildings. Energy conserving materials and fixtures are encouraged in all new construction. 7. Environmental Health a. Me 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. The project will not generate any environmental health hazards. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. None to our knowledge. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: There are no on-site environmental health hazards known to exist today nor are there any that will be generated as a direct result of this proposal. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? The main source of off-site noise in this area originates from the vehicular traffic present on Renton Ave South.· 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 noise impacts will result from the use of construction and building equipment during site development and home construction. These temporary activities will be limited to normal working hours. Long-term impacts will be those associated with the increase of human population; additional traffic and noise associated with residential areas will occur in the area. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Building construction will be done during the hours prescribed by the City of Renton. Construction equipment will be equipped with muffler devices and idling time should be kept at a minimum. Environmental Checklist Def(wl" Short PlaT Page 8 ,i 8, Land and Shoreline Use tit a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The site is currently vacant. The current use of the adjacent properties is as follows; North: South: East: West: Single -Family PSE Transmission Line Easement Single -Family Interstate 405 b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe: Not to our knowledge. c. Describe any structures on the site. There are no structures on site. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? N/A e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? The current zoning is It-S. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the si~e? The current comprehensive plan designation is Residential Single Family. g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Not applicable. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. Yes, portions of the site have been classified as a coal mine hazard and steep slope. Please reference the Coal Mine Hazard Assessment and Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation report prepared by Icicle Creek Engirleers, dated June 10,2005. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Approximately 13 people (5 x 2.5 persons per dwelling unit). j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None Environmental Checklist Defoor Short PIal Page 9 e k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: None l. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: The area around the site consists of residential housing. This use is compatible with surrounding uses both existing and proposed. 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or lo';-income housing. The short plat contains 5 new single-family residences. The new homes are anticipated to be in the middle-income price range. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: None proposed because the current property owner is a proponent of the redevelopment of the property. 10. Aesthetics a. Whatis the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material( s) proposed? The buildings will meet the height r~quirements of the R-8 zone and will not exceed 2 stories or 30 ft. The exterior building materials may include any of the following; wood, hardwood, masonry and asphalt shingles. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? Due to the natural sloping topography of the surrounding neighborhood the visual impact on the adjacent area will be minimal. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: The homes will be of a scale and size to be compatible with the existing neighborhoods. Landscaping will be installed by the future residents to provide an additional visual buffer. Environmental Checklist Defoor Shurt Plat Appendix A " 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur. Light and glare will originate from building lighting and exterior lighting. Light will also be produced from vehicles using the site. These impacts would occur primarily in the evening and before dawn. 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? The only offsite source of light and glare are from vehicles and street lighting from the adjacent streets and the single-family neighborhoods. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Street lighting, when deemed necessary, will be installed in a manner that directs the lighting downward. 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Philip Arnold Park Cedar River Park Liberty Park 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 . recreational opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any? Impacts will be mitigated through participation in the City's park mitigation program. The required mitigation fee will be paid prior to recording the subdivision. Environmental Checklist Defoor Short PIal Page II .. .. 13. Historic and Cultural Pres_tion a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. No. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: N one, there are no known impacts. If an archeological site is found during the course of construction, the State Historical Preservation Officer will be notified. 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. Access to the site will be off Renton Ave S. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? No. The closest bus stop is 0.6 miles away at the intersection of Main Ave. Sand S.4th Street. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? Four parking spaces will be provided in association with each home; a total of 20 spaces will be provided on the site. The spaces will be located in garages and on the driveways. There are no parking spaces eliminated. d. Will the proposal requir:e any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or' streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or priv~te). Yes. Improvements to the existing road will be made. Curb and gutters will be installed. . 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. This project is estimated to generate 48 ADT (9.57 ADT /DU). Peak volumes would occur during the morning and evening commutes. Ell viro1l11l ell tal Checklist Defoor Shorl Plat Pagel2 ," g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: Transportation impacts will be mitigated through participation in the city's traffic mitigation program. 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. The need for public service such as fire, health, and police protection will be typical of single family development of this size. The school children originating from the homes in this development will attend the schools in the Renton School District. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. The roads and homes will be constructed to meet all applicable standards and codes of the City and the Uniform Building Code. The proposed development will contribute to the local tax base and provide additional tax revenue for the various public services. The impact to the schools and traffic will be mitigated through the payment of impact fees. 16. Utilities a. Underline utilities currently available at the site: electricity. natural gas. water. refuse service. telephone. sanitary sewer, septic system, other. . All utilities are available to the site through the proper extension of services. Extension of services is the developers' responsibility. 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 will be provided by Puget Sound Energy Natural Gas will be provided by Puget Sound Energy. Water Service will be provided by City of Renton Sanitary Sewer will be provided by the City of Renton Telephone Service will be provided by Qwest. C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: Michael Chen, Senior Land Planner Envirol1mel1tal Checklist Defoor Short Plat Date Submitted: Tune 20, 2005 Page 13 .. .. CORE DESIGN, INC. BELLEVUE WA 98007 Legal Description Parcel B: Legal Description Core Project No: 04139A 06/20105 That portion of the H.H. Tobin Donation Land Claim No. 37, lying southerly of the Plat of Highland Addition to the Town of Renton, according to the Plat thereof recorded in Volume 17 of Plats, page 32, in King County, Washington, described as . follows: BEGINNING at a point on the north line of Section 20, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in King County, Washington, which is north 89°59'27" west 1,386.85 feet from the north quarter corner thereof; thence south 01°29'35" west along the centerline of Cedar Street 611.82 feet to the south line of said plat, and the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence south 88°33'25" east 310.14 feet to the west line of Renton Street; thence south 01 °24'21" west 491.98 feet along said west line and west line produced southerly to the northerly line of Puget Sound Power and Light Company's right-of-way; thence north 67°03'41" west along said right-of-way 355.51 feet; thence north 01 °29'35" east 361.72 feet to a point coincident with the south line of said plat and the west line of Cedar Street; thence south 88°33'35" east 20.00 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. Environmental Checklist Defoor Short Plat Appendix A Environmental ChecklisT Defoor Short Plat Vicinity Map vit::IN1T¥,RLAF i" '.> 1200'~;, Appendix B ~ Core Design, 'nc. ~\.At.\~\NG Niot-l 5 . lU L 1. G 1.f3f3S 1471 I N.E. 29th Place, Suite 101 Bellevue, Washingtan 98007 425.885.7877 Fax425.885.7963 RECE\'lEO CONSTRUCTION MITIGATION DESCRIPTION Defoor Short Plat, Core Project # 04139A I. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION DATES www.coredesigninc.com Grading will start Spring 2006. The road and utilities will start shortly thereafter with building construction to follow. II. HOURS OF OPERATION FOR RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION Per City of Renton: Monday -Friday: Saturday: Sunday: 7AM-8PM 9AM-8 PM None III. PROPOSED HAULINGffRANSPORTATION ROUTES All equipment, materials, and laborers will enter the site off of Renton Ave S. IV. MEASURES TO BE IMPLEMENTED TO MINIMIZE DUST, TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS, MUD, NOISE AND OTHER NOXIOUS CHARACTERISTICS . • Dust Best management practices will be used to minimize dust on the project site. Water trucks or metered fire hoses will be used as needed to wet down the areas used by construction equipment. Disturbed slopes will be hydroseeded per the Erosion/Sedimentation Control Plan to control dust. • Traffic During site infrastructure and building construction, the traffic entering and leaving the site will consist of subcontractors and deliveries. When arriving for work, the subcontractors will be traveling opposite the traffic leaving the residential area, and materials are primarily delivered at off peak hours during the day. None of these operations are anticipated to have a significant impact on the peak or non-peak traffic hour in the area. 1:\2004\04139A \Oocs\04139A Const Mitigation.doc 06/27/05 ENG I NEE R I N G . P LA N N I N G . 5 U R V E YIN G • • Transportation Impacts There will be one access point for construction of the project located off of Renton Ave S. As was stated above the construction traffic will not have a significant impact on traffic. The construction of the entrance and all associated wet and dry utilities to the project may require some construction in the Renton Ave S.right-of-way. This work will be performed during non-peak hours and lane channelization will be used if needed. • Mud In keeping with state law, any vehicle with deposits of mud, etc. on the vehicle's body, (fender, undercarriage, wheels or tires) will be cleaned of such material before the operation ofthe vehicle on a paved public highway. In addition a street sweeper. will also be used as necessary to remove any deposits from the roadways. . • Noise All Construction equipment will have approved mufflers. Impacts from noise are expected to be minimal. The hours of operation will be consistent with . City regulations. I :\2004\04139A \Docs\04139A Const Mitigation.doc 06/27/05 ,. ~ CORE ~DESIGN June 21, 2005 DEVELOPMENT PlANNING Core No. 04139A CITY OF RENTON Mr. Neil Watts . JUL 2 6 2005 City of Renton RECEIVED 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Subject: Defoor Property Short Plat • Core Design, 'nc. 14711 N.E. 29th Place, Suite 101 Bellevue, Washington 98007 425.885.7877 Fax425.885.7963 www.coredesigninc.com Storm Drainage Management Concept Dear Mr. Watts: We are in the process of preparing the preliminary short plat submittal documents for the Defoor Property project that Terry Defoor is pursuing. As a part of this effort, we are looking into designing the storm water facilities to serve 5 lots using Best Management Practices for Reducing Facility Size as stated below. Section 5.2.2 -BMPs for Reducing Facility Size states, "The flow control BMPs presented in this section may be used to reduce the size of required flow control facilities implemented as described below." This refers the reader to the following criteria #2, "If roof runoff is dispersed according to the requirements of Section 5.1.2 (p. 5-9) on single family lots greater than or equal to 22,000 square feet, and the vegetated flow path of the roof runoff is 50 feet or longer, the roof area may be modeled as grassed surface rather than impervious surface when sizing the required flow control facility." This criteria is further reinforced in "Low Impact Development: Technical Guidance Manual for Puget Sound" Section 7.2.3: Partial Dispersion on Residential Lots and Commercial Buildings which states: "If roof runoff is dispersed on single-family lots greater than 22,000 square feet according to the design criteria and guidelines in BPM T5.10 of the 2004 SMMWW (Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington), and the vegetative flow path is 50 feet or longer through luidisturbed native landscape or lawn/landscape area that meets the guidelines in Section' 6.2: Amending Construction Site Soils, the roof may be modeled as landscape area." The average lot size is approximately 6,700 sf, however, the total site will retain 100,000 sf of second growth forest downstream of the lots. Therefore, the total dispersion area will average approximately 26,700 sf per lot, which exceeds the 22,000 sf per lot criteria stated above. In addition, the vegetated flow path. through the second growth forest exceeds the minimum 50 ft stated above. Since the roof area will be modeled as grass, the proposed development will generate less than a 0.1 cfs increase in the existing site conditions 100-year peak flow rate. Therefore, the project falls under exemption #3 from Core Requirement #3 as stated below and will not require detention. ENGINEERING· PLANNING· SURVEYING 04139A LtrO! Ci Renton 06/29/05 _Neil Watts -City of Renton • Page: 2 Section 1.2.3 Exemption #3 from Core Requirement #3 states, "Any threshold discharge area within a proposed project is exempt if the project improvements within the threshold discharge area generate less than 0.1 cfs increase in the existing site conditions 100-year peak flow rate, AND all ofthe following conditions are met: a) If the project is a redevelopment project, flow control BMPs must be applied as specified in Section 5.2, and the project improvement must not significantly impact a "severe erosion problem" or "severe flooding problem", and must not be located within a Landslide Hazard Drainage Area, AND b) If the project is a single family residential project, the runoff from impervious surfaces must be infiltrated or dispersed using flow control BMPs specified in Appendix C, and any areas of native vegetation assumed not to be cleared for the purposes of computing the increase in 100-year peak flow must be preserved within a tract or by covenant as described in Appendix C, AND c) For projects other than redevelopment projects and single family residential projects, the new impervious surface within the threshold discharge area must be comprised of either non-pollution-generating roofs that comply with the roof downspout controls in Section 5.1, OR roads, trail, or driveways that comply with the rural roadway dispersion requirements in Section 5.2.1, AND d) The manner in which runoff is discharged from the project site must not create a significant adverse impact per Core Requirement # 1." The site drainage falls under all of the criteria stated above. I expect that you will find that the design concepts presented in this letter will adequately protect the public and satisfy the requirements of the King County Surface Water Design Manual. We would appreciate it if you would send us a written reply to signify your approval of this design element, so that we can incorporate it into the plans we are preparing for the DeFoor Property preliminary short plat submittals. If you have any questions or comments that you would like to discuss, you can contact me at (425)885- 7877 or reach me via e-mail atorrhs@coredesigninc.com. Robert H. Stevens, P .E. Senior Project Engineer t'ff~N'NG OEVE2~~~ RENTON . JU\>l 0 ,OOS ··f\ECE\'lEO PACIFIC NORTHWEST TITLE COMPANY OF WASHINGTON, INC. 215 Columbia Street Seattle, Washington 98104-1511 Senior Title Officer, LaVonne Bowman{lavonnebowman@pnwt.com) Assistant Title Officer, Daisy Lorenzo (daisylorenzo@pnwt.com) Assistant Title Officer, Kathy Turner (kathyturner@pnwt.com) Assistant Title Officer, Peter Child (peterchild@pnwt.com) Unit No. 8 Re/Max Realty South FAX No. (206) 343-8403 Telephone Number (206)343-1328 10803 SE Kent KangleyRoad, #101 Kent, WA 98030 Title Order No.: 578234 Attention: Tim Burkhardt Your Ref.: Kao/Tuan/Teng/Dang SECOND REPORT A. L. T. A. COMMITMENT SCHEDULE A Effective Date: April 27, 2005, at 8:00 a.m. 1. Policy{ies) to be issued: ALTA Owner's Policy Standard ( ) Extended ( ) Proposed Insured: Amount Premium Tax (8.8%) GWC, INC., a Washington corporation TO.BE AGREED UPON NOTE: IF EXTENDED COVERAGE FOR OWNERS OR LENDERS WILL BE REQUIRED FOR A PENDING TRANSACTION, PLEASE NOTIFY US AT LEAST ONE WEEK PRIOR TO CLOSING SO THAT WE MAY INSPECT THE PREMISES. 2. The Estate or interest in the. land described herein and which is covered by this commitment is fee simple. 3. The estate or interest referred to herein is at Date of Commitment vested in: . /-v·WEI-KANG KAO and.:-CHIU-CHU TUAN, husband and wife, as to an undivided half interest, and~ENG SHENG TENG and~U MEI-YU DANG, husband and wife, by deed whIch recites as joint tenants, as to the remaining undivided half interest 4. The land referred to in this commitment is situated in the State of Washington, and described as follows: As on Schedule A, pages 2 and 3, attached. A.L.T.A. COMMITMENT SCHEDULE A Page 2 Order No. 578234 The land referred to in this commitment is situated in the State of Washington, and described as follows: PARCEL A: That portion of the H. H. Tobin Donation Land Claim No. 37, lying southerly and westerly of the plat of Highland Addition to the Town of Renton, according to the plat thereof recorded in Volume 17 of Plats, page 32, in King County, Washington; AND that portion of the northwest quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 20, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in King County, Washington, lying northerly of Puget Sound Power and Light Company's transmission right-of-way and east of Primary State Highway No.1, described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the north line of said Section 20, with the west line of said plat, which point is north 89°59'27" west 1,386.85 feet from the north quarter corner of said section; thence south 01°29'35" west along the west line of said plat and said line produced southerly 973.04 feet to the northerly line of Puget Sound Power and Light Company's transmission right-of.:.way; thence north 67°03'41" west 471.66 feet to the easterly line of Primary State Highway No.1; thence northerly along said highway to the north line of said section; thence south 89°59'27" east along said north line 316.54 feet to the point of beginning. PARCEL B: That portion of .the H. H. Tobin Donation Land Claim No. 37, lying southerly of the Plat of Highland Addition to the Town of Renton, according to the plat thereof recorded in Volume 17 of Plats, pag~ 32, in King County, Washington, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the north line of Section 20, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in King County, Washington, which is north 89°59'27" west 1,366.85 feet from the north quarter corner thereof; thence south 01°29'35" west along the centerline of Cedar Street 611.82 feet to the south line of said plat, and the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence south 88°33'25" east 310.14 feet to the west line of Renton Street; (continued) A.L.T.A. COMMITMENT SCHEDULE A Page 3 LEGAL DESCRIPTION, continued: Order No. 578234 thence south 01°24'21" west 491.98 feet along said west line and west line produced southerly to the northerly line of Puget Sound Power and Light Company's transmission right-of-way; thence"north 67°03'41" west along said right-of-way 355.51 feet; thence north 01°29'35" east 361.72 feet to a point coincident with the south line of said plat and the west line of Cedar Street; thence south 88°33'35" east 20.00 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. END OF SCHEDULE A NOTE FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY: The following may be used as an abbreviated legal description on the documents to be recorded, per amended RCW 65.04. Said abbreviated legal description is not a substitute for a complete legal description within the body of the document. Ptn. H.H. Donation Land Claim #37 and ptn. 20-23-5, W.M. PACIFIC NORTHWEST TITLE COMPANY OF WASHINGTON, INC. A.L.T.A COMMITMENT Schedule B Order No. 578234 I. The following are the requirements to be complied with: A. Instruments necessary to create the estate or interest to be insured must be properly executed, delivered and duly filed for record. B. Payment to or for the account of the grantors or mortgagors of the full consideration for the estate or interest to be insured . . II. Schedule B of the Policy or Policies to be issued (as set forth in Schedule A) will contain exceptions to the following matters unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company: A. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any created, first appearing in the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof' but prior to the date the proposed Insured acquires for value of record the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. B. GENERAL EXCEPTIONS: 1. Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public records. 2. Public or private easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public record. 3. Encroachments, overlaps, boundary line disputes, or other matters which would be disclosed by an accurate surveyor inspection of the premises. 4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records, or Liens under the Workmen's Compensation Act not shown by the public records." 5. Any title or rights asserted by anyone including but not limited to persons, corporations, governments or other entities, to tide lands, or lands comprising the shores or bottoms' of navigable rivers, lakes, bays, ocean or sound, or lands beyond the line of the harbor lines as established or changed by the-United States Government. 6. (a) Unpatented mining claims; (b) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (c) water rights, claims or title to water. 7. Any service, installation, connection, maintenance, capacity, or construction charges for sewer, water, electricity or garbage removal. 8. General taxes not now payable or matters relating to special assessments and special levies, if any, preceding the same becoming a lien. 9. Indian tribal codes or regulations, Indian treaty or aboriginal rights, including, but not limited to, easements or equitable servitudes. C. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS: As on Schedule B, attached. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS: A.L.T.A. COMMITMENT SCHEDULE B Page 2 NOTE FOR INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY: Order No. 578234 EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 1997, AND PURSUANT TO AMENDMENT OF WASHINGTON STATE STATUTES RELATING TO STANDARDIZATION OF RECORDED DOCUMENTS, THE FOLLOWING FORMAT AND CONTENT REQUIREMENTS MUST BE MET. FAILURE TO COMPLY MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF THE DOCUMENT BY THE RECORDER. FORMAT: MARGINS TO BE 3" ON TOP OF FIRST PAGE, 1" ON SIDES AND BOTTOM -I" ON TOP, SIDES AND BOTTOM OF EACH SUCCEEDING PAGE. RETURN ADDRESS IS ONLY ITEM ALLOWED WITHIN SAID 3" MARGIN. NOTHING WITHIN I" MARGINS. FONT SIZE OF 8 POINTS OR LARGER AND PAPER SIZE OF NO MORE THAN 8 1/2" BY 14". NO ATTACHMENTS ON PAGES SUCH AS STAPLED OR TAPED NOTARY SEALS; PRESSURE SEALS MUST BE SMUDGED. INFORMATION WHICH MUST APPEAR ON THE FIRST PAGE: RETURN ADDRESS, WHICH MAY APPEAR WITHIN THE UPPER LEFT HAND 3" MARGIN. TITLE OR TITLES OF DOCUMENT. IF ASSIGNMENT OR RECONVEYANCE, REFERENCE TO RECORDING NUMBER OF SUBJECT DEED OF TRUST. NAMES OF GRANTOR(S) AND GRANTEE(S) WITH REFERENCE TO ADDITIONAL NAMES ON FOLLOWING PAGES, IF ANY. ABBREVIATED LEGAL DESCRIPTION (LOT, BLOCK, PLAT NAME, OR SECTION, TOWNSHIP, RANGE AND QUARTER QUARTER SECTION FOR UNPLATTED) . ASSESSOR'S TAX PARCEL NUMBER(S). (continued) A.L.T.A. COMMITMENT SCHEDULE B Page 3 Order No. 578234 SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS (continued): 1. EASEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS REFERENCED THEREIN, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE FOLLOWING: GRANTEE: PURPOSE: AREA AFFECTED: RECORDED: RECORDING NUMBER: City of Renton Sewer line Northerly portion of Parcel B January 10, 1967 6126689 2. EASEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS REFERENCED THEREIN, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE FOLLOWING: GRANTEE: PURPOSE: AREA AFFECTED: RECORDED: RECORDING NUMBER: City of Renton Public utilities Northerly portion of Parcel B May 21, 1975 7505210389 3. RELINQUISHMENT OF ACCESS TO STATE HIGHWAY AND OF LIGHT, VIEW AND AIR BY DEED TO STATE OF WASHINGTON: RECORDED: RECORDING NUMBER: July 23, 1958 4924770 4. AGREEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: BY: RECORDED: RECORDING NUMBER: REGARDING: Transamerica Title Insurance Company, a California corporation, and Gene O. Farrell and Nancy Lee Farrell October 23, 1979 7910230907 Common easement for ingress, egress and utilities (continued) A.L.T.A. COMMITMENT SCHEDULE B Page 4 Order No. 578234 5. GENERAL AND SPECIAL TAXES AND CHARGES: FIRST HALF DELINQUENT MAY 1, IF UNPAID: SECOND HALF DELINQUENT NOVEMBER 1, IF UNPAID: YEAR: TAX ACCOUNT NUMBER: LEVY CODE: 2005 202305-9085-03 2110 AFFECTS: Portion of Parcel A CURRENT ASSESSED VALUE: Land: $28,000.00 Improvements: $0.00 AMOUNT BILLED GENERAL TAXES: $333.57 SPECIAL DISTRICT: $1.95 $5.00 TOTAL BILLED: $340.52 PAID: $170.26 TOTAL DOE: $170.26 6. GENERAL AND SPECIAL TAXES AND CHARGES: FIRST HALF DELINQUENT MAY 1, IF UNPAID: SECOND HALF DELINQUENT NOVEMBER 1, IF UNPAID: YEAR: TAX ACCOUNT NUMBER: LEVY CODE: AFFECTS: 2005 000720-0194-05 21io Remainder of Parcel A CURRENT ASSESSED VALUE: Land: $11,000.00 . Improvements: $0.00 AMOUNT BILLED GENERAL TAXES: $131.05 SPECIAL DISTRICT: $1.68 $5.00 TOTAL BILLED: $137.73 PAID: $68.87 . TOTAL DOE: $68.86 7 . GENERAL AND SPECIAL TAXES AND CHARGES: FIRST HALF DELINQUENT MAY 1, IF UNPAID: SECOND HALF DELINQUENT NOVEMBER 1, IF UNPAID: YEAR: TAX ACCOUNT NUMBER: LEVY CODE: AFFECTS: 2005 000720-0196-03 2110 Parcel B CURRENT ASSESSED VALUE: Land: $16,000.00 Improvements: $0.00 (continued) GENERAL TAXES: SPECIAL DISTRICT: TOTAL BILLED: A.L.T.A. COMMITMENT SCHEDULE B Page 5 AMOUNT BILLED $190.61 $1.77 $5.00 $197.38 PAID: $98.69 Order No. 578234 TOTAL DUE: $98.69 8. DEED OF TRUST AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: GRANTOR: TRUSTEE: BENEFICIARY: AMOUNT: DATED: RECORDED: RECORDING NUMBER: Wei-Kang Kao and Chiu Chu Tuan, husband and wife Stewart Title Company of Washington, Inc., a corporation Fortune Development Corporation, a Washington Corporation $75,000.00 September 11, 1989 September 26, 1989 8909261260 The amount now secured by said Deed of Trust and the terms upon which the same can be discharged or assumed should be ascertained from the holder of the indebtedness secured. 9. Payment of Real Estate Excise Tax, if required. The property described herein is situated within the boundaries of local taxing authority of City of Renton. Present Rate of Real Estate Excise Tax as of the date herein is 1. 78%. 10. Until the amount of the policy to be issued is provided to us, and entered on the commitment as the amount of the policy to be issued, it is agreed by every person relying on this commitment that we will not be required to approve any policy amount over $100,000, and our total liability under this commitment shall not exceed that amount. NOTE 1: A survey of the herein described property was recorded under Recording Number 8511129001, a copy of which is hereto attached. (continued) A.L.T.A. COMMITMENT SCHEDULE B Page 6 Order No. 578234 NOTE 2: Upon notification of ~ancellation; there will be a minimum cancellation fee of $50.00 plus tax of $4.40. END OF SCHEDULE B Title to this property was examined by: Nancy Nash Any inquiries should be directed to one of the title officers set forth in Schedule A. PC/NN/8907180139/8912291919 May 2, 2005 Re/Max Realty South 10803 SE Kent Kangley Road, #101 Kent, WA 98030 Attention: Tim Burkhardt Order No.: 578234 Your Ref.: Kao/Tuan/Teng/Dang Please find enclosed a copy of a Second Report of a Commitment for Title Insurance on the above referenced transaction, as requested. Thank you for the opportunity to serve you. Pacific Northwest Title Company of Washington, Inc. takes great pride in the service and customer satisfaction we are able to provide our customers.' If we can answer any questions or provide further assistance, please feel free to call. LaVonne Bowman Senior Title Officer Unit No. 8 H.H. Tobin Donation Land Claim No. 37 ,..,B_5'6_l6.- _:-H-' PARCEL A ", PARCELS PACIFIC NORTHWEST TITLE Order No. Company of Washington, Inc. 578234 IMPORTANT: This is not a Plat of Survey. It is furnished as a convenience to locate the land indicated hereon with reference to streets and other land. No liability is assumed by reason of reliance hereon. N t TO: cc: ReMax 10803 Kent, Attn: Ref.# SE Kent Kangley Rd, Washington 98030 Tim Burkhardt Kao/Tuan/Teng/Dang Core Design rem@coredesigninc.com #101 ~ PACfrlC NOKfHWI':sr ~ """'-ofW........,.. Inc. 215 Columbia Street Seattle, Washington 98104 SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT #1 of second report PNWT Order Number: 578234 Seller: Kao, Teng Buyer/Borrower: GWC, Inc. The following matters affect the property covered by this order: • A Full Update of the commitment from April 27, 2005 through June 17, 2005 at 8:00 a.m. has disclosed the following: **Nothing further of record. • There has been no change in the title to the property covered by this order since April 27, 2005, EXCEPT the matters noted hereinabove. Dated as of June 22, 2005 at 8:00 a.m. lb PACIFIC NORTHWEST TITLE COMPANY By: LaVonne Bowman Title Officer Phone Number: 206-343-1328 .i OE '.6..',.I.S"~ .. ftl ,-"l\W-,"" ~. -u-.4 iato )J u4 .... PUIJa' IIOl8 PRE A ~ 1112 _Ml-I'I' •• ' .... = .... It;k ~tl_. lIuela clll.letl ~ , cr-... tM City o~ ........ -.tolJlll oorpmatla leoatn Ja tile ~ ~ . 1 Dac. Mate f4 ••• ,.,.... lraaia IIII1lA4 1IIQnatee •• ~ .I~ •• S.S~& .. ,.. ... U. II .1~Uoa o~ ..... or 0.. DIallIIr (tl..OO) _ 1. ill __ paM. U. I~ JIue~ ..... 1;0 till canau., lt11 .. 0 .. - ...... _~ ..... ,.., 1111 tM oa411;1 .... aDII. 1'Uern.tl .. _nu.n. _.ted, tIIII i*J8t.l. 1'J&at, lIdTUap lUll aatIIoritr 1ie OOMU.t,re- __ tnot, _laYill, np.l1' IUd operate a t __ 1JIaI& 1IUlt8z7 • ..-r u.. lIUII. ...... 1117 .... olM, .,.,.1' u4 alAac tile tGllowiJls t18aar11te4 lut loea~ la .... 1/201' __ 1/4 ~ Seftloa 20, !WaIdd. 2, JItrllI., BIap 5 JaR •• .JI., nas Oo-tr. SkM ot ... tap_. 1;0-'011;: Beet.,. at a J01lR 14 tNt ... , 01' .. So1l1ohwat OHMr g~ ~t #4. V.',,, .MaU. to lleta. DIIC 00aatJ' • ... t ••• ~ u.... 8RtIl15 tN'. u.... ... t )04 _, i1e 1M _I; ,J.s. .t ~ .A..... .Abo ..... -'. at • jilM, IJ,Iiin" 8IUIa .. 11., tNt-... , .t tiM aouIl' aa.t ~ et ~,,' ..... , .... _11;1_ '-...... a.c c.a_.~~~~~_tM ..... , ~ LllM or lIIdoa .1~ :.,:. .... _ n.J ~ SOUh 01' 1;l1li ___ t OUMZ' 01' aaY arn., #5- 8a14 Ma1'te7 ..... 11M aIIall _ laM .eu, ............. a tqt;Il or _, 1.... i1Ua , ... ~ ul e1tIIl1 be 1IM4 _~ ... JU'S or a. ..ut.rr Seal' .,.u.~ ~ ana ... '1118 .......... 1ftU to ".alt, lt11 ...... n ... ".ica tM ry_ _; "'~~. .~. _.'._ riP' 1;0 •• U. 1aI Mnia .... 1'lw, t. It.1 aI tIIIIlr .......... la .. ~ ........... Wlldell liIIIIl.l _, _ bDou18tat wit.a * 1'1P-~ ~ 1;0 tIIII CIrUtee. ~ .. brtIIIR ~ to ....... _14 ~_ 1;M oaK 0Na •• lu" ............ .os.-,hINt aU 1M. or ..... 1IIIaieIl it U' ---------~- 1. -"" *7 -7 .atf'e OR ..... or ~ .... 01' Gal,," 1»7 1;U IInatM ill ......... er·. z.sc~ -zWT ~ •. tIIU ~ 111 ... 1dtlllld WUftilt7 car .., tud1dsaYoeWU. D iliiiBi _II' * Qlai;ozo JIu _.4 W. 1ut~" to 1M dHa"'" b7 1_ ~ .. m.~ ___ ..-.1117 ..nIMtr1_ ... 1'1;. -I-*' ..,..._ ...-.1 .. 1telliRetc, am ___ . IIt.,~·· .. _., , U-'D .... ~ ....... _ ..... -~ 1Mb .: ......... HI. ~ 1_ IIi.JIite UIIl' ....... 1IF 1u CUW ~ w.a ll."'.r, •. ~ ·1'50 ___ , to auMri"F pqte4 .,. GIUIuG .... /3 Z' ..... tb.N ... ptet ~ tile Cl"F eo_n .r .aid Clt,.. .,; f , t -i j j i i r C1' ::0 ..... o TIns INSTRUMENT. made this 13thda,y of May 19 ~. -7ranBallnerica DeVeTapment·-CO"=m'""p'""a""'ny.,.,.....-...;;.;;;::L--- by and bebfeen .!::~~J5 i.a "'·,J'·.''Ild _____________ _ ___________ . ______ ~and _____________ _ _________________ ~ _______ ~Md~ ___________________ __ ______________________ ~and. ________________ __ hereinafter called "Grantor(s)u. and the CITY OF RENTON. a Municipal Corporation of King County. Washingtfln. hereinafter called "Grantee". WITNESSE1H: and Th~i,Grantor(s;I. for and t n cons t derati on of the SUlli of $:::Z:':3'0r::l0='n"::"::" no . . _ --paid by Grantee. and other valuable consideration. dO by these presents, !Irant, bargatn, sell. convey. Md warrant unto the said Grantee. its. succe,ssors and assigns. an easement for public utilities (including water and sewar) wHh necessary appurtenanc!!s over, through, across and upon the fo11ow1i.9 described property 1n King County, Washington. more particular!y described as follows: - Beginning at the Ronm"est COl'nSZO -of the Nozotheast qutZPtel' of the NCs~st quaz'tezo of Secti,.on 30~ TOr.1nBhip 23, Range ~ East W.M., i;1umce South Dog' East Bt4.91 feet, thence N 89°61' East 30.00 fest -to the t1'ue point of beginning, thanes South Dog' &%8t 30.00 feet, thence Ronh 89°SZ' East 310.00 feet, thence Nozoth Oog' West 3I)IJo feet. thence Bout" 8goSZ' ..,est 310.00 feet to the t1'we point of beginning. See E%hi.bi.t "A" fozo vicini~' map Together wi th a tem~'orary cons tructi on easenent deseri bed as: Said temporar,y .construction easement shall remain in force du~ing construction and until such time as the utilities and appurtenances have been accepted for the operation and maintenance by the Grantee but not later than ________ _ {" " I· . ' Said here!ofore IIl!nt1oned grantee. its successors or assigns. shall have the right. without LJr10r not'ice or proceeding It 1.,. at such tims IS 1liiy be neCtssary to enter upon said above described property for the purpose of constructing. 1III1ntain1ng. repairing. altering or reCDAstructing Slid utility, or .. king any connections therewith. without incurring iny legal obl i9at1ons or l1abl11tytherefore. provided. that such constnlct1on. main- taining. repairing. ~1tering or reconstruction of such utility shall be acc~1ished in such I manner that the private iqJrovements existing 1h the ri~t right(s)-of-way shall not be disturbed or damaged. or in the event they are disturbed or dlflllged. they will be replaced in IS good • e»nd1t10n as they were ., fmnediately before the property was entered upon by the Gfoantee. The Grantor shall fully use and' enjoy the aforedeu"1bed premises. 1ncludfngthe right to retain the right to use the surf,;\,;1 of safd r1ght-of-w~ ; f such use does not interfere wi th installation and. main.tenMlce of the utility line. However,the grantor shall not erect buildings or structures over. under or across the right-of-way during ·the· existence of such utl1tty. ing This easement. shall be a coven~t running with the land and shall be bind- t;)n.the Grantor. his S!lccessors. heirs and assigns. Grantors covenant that the 1 awfu 1 ownprs of the abo.ve properties and that they have a good and t to' this agreemeQt. California 5T ATE OF *"'tllifWt COtftTY OF I8WG' San Francisco S5 and and and and . OIl tbb . 13th day of May C~l!,!!{.?ir before rie, tile IInderaicMd, a ~Z'Y. ",bIic in a .. d f~r the .State of -" ... _. duly cCllDia.loMd and ·...,m par.or.-n,. appearea' John VJ~ Magee. Jr. end William A. Montagne: to .. known to be t~ Preiident and Assistant Secretary; ra .... ctlv.I', of . Transal1:1erica Development Com?a~ corporation tbat executed t. fOAloi."" lnat~nt, and acJt~ledled the .. i.e! inatl1llll8nt to lie the fN. a~ volun.;&ry act aad dead of aald ~orpar.tlon. for the usea and pIIrpaa .. tMHin s:entiOMd. a .... em' aatb atated tUI: they were authorised to execute t .... id ir.8tr ... n~.ndtba~ tile ... 1 nffixed b the corporate leal of .. ld corporaUon. WITlfISS Ill)' __ ltd and oUlciel aaal berato affixed the eta)' and' )'ear It. this certificate above ·WI"ittefl. I I , I J f i I 1 . I lr~:r ' TTJC Lot flUB I ,{l"QnS-AmsPiaa .~ ~~el fl81 't'i . ~ 1. Renton sal Arlkr I~ . l~ City of. Renton . ~ i.~:-l King County, WA 3'~ I .'. I ~.J I . ." I " . , - 7 __ 6----- EXHIBIT "A" Vicri.nity Map z o ~ ;z O!tf 9 !t --.-~ ,---... -'-, I-a.. "£."" ... , I r~ ~~'~'" -,. .':! ~. ~ o 1/1 ... C' rl. 111---:.., 2. __ . -. , ~ S. 9 TH flO' " , IS • .i ' .. q :z >-..., ....J l"- n o o c fiLED for RIIord at .... at • m b~ q. m::!: . OFFICE OF THE aTY CLns -""!WlN M'IN,'V·J moo zao MILL AVE. SOUTH .HEWN WN5* =f REte'" :;i; :~c ;-. , 'lies· .. k .... a 6. L.' I ,. " ... Cr··j'-~"·· -". ' .. :' .... p' .. [,",;. !', . '~ i. ., .... ,-- (. . \ . ,'<', ~.'~..;.,:--; .. .-' -" ....... __ If IIIIIIIIf .If ~~mY rl> IHSUUHCI COIIPAIIY 1063S N.lt 8th. STREl~T AGREEMENT , rt , bFfI' V~'F, W"'SHJ~GT .. ·· . : •. ." lY Common Eesement toZ" Insress, EVes., and Utilities·' Come now THAHSAMERICA Trn.E IBSURANCB COMPANY, A. C~l1toZ'Ji1a cozopoi'aticin.· as. 'l'Z"LlStee, which acquired tItle u TRABSAMERICA:. TITLE . INstJRAlfCB . CORPANYOF WASHINGTON I a ~arpaZ"at1on w~th full· po"e~ . ot sale and convelan~e~ as to' Pucel A; TRANS~CA TITLE INSURANCE t· A Cal1foZ"nia coZ"poraUon. as to PaZ"cel B C"TZ"ansamerIca.l').. and.-GENE O. FARRILL am NANCY' LEE FARRELL ("FaZ"Z"elllt) and enteZ" Int'othls:Ease~ent . Agreement' as' tollows: . '. . . : '.' . 1. F8Z"Z"ell heZ"eby grants and conveys an easement to 'l'Z"ansamerica tor the purposes o~ a CODDDon easemei'lt tor ingress, egress and utIlitIes oveZ" the land descrIbed on ExhibIt "A" attached. 2 •. 'l'Z"ansamer1.ca hereby grants and conveys an easemfmttoFarrell foZ" the pmopo ••• 01' a CODDDon easeinent t'or ingress, egress and utIlities over the land described on Exhibit. "B" attached. 3. 'l'h~se easements azoe hereby Joined as a common easement toZ" the use ot both parties,·their successors and assigns. 4. Farrell has constructed a driveway on portionsotthe common easement and agreea to reasonably maintain said easement·· in substantially its '~resent configuration and condition to permit passage ot vehicles and peoestrians. .' 5. Either party may construct additional driveway Improvements on the common easement. 6. Farrell agrees to hold Transamerica harmless from.~y and all 'claims or' . liabilities arising out of the use of the easement by any persons. . Dated this /'f':"~ .. __ day o~ 1'lIo I XClSl 'A\JC NOr RECHl!f?ED (]King Co. ,'?ecord~ OJ'iision 8J '1'-.7~, Deputy October, 1319 • ./ '------"d~~ ne O. Farr Trans8II)er1ca BYIL b I (L \... \1 ,. EXHIBIT nA" An e~sement over that portion of vacated 7th Street and a.portion of the H. H. Tobin Donation Land Claim'Number 37. described ':as follows: Beginning at the SE corner of Lot 15, Plat No. 1 of Renton co-operative Coal company's Acre Tracts as recorded in Volume 9, page 29, BoOk of Plats, records of King County, Washington 1 thence S 00°09'00" E on the East line of:said Lot 15 produced a distance of 20.00 feet to the true 'point of beginning; thence continuing S Ooo09'aO" E, 10.00 feetJ thence S 88 22'00" W parallel with the South line of said Lot 15, a distance of 135.00 feet; thence !II 000 09' 00'· W a distance of;lO.OO feet; thence N 880 22'00. E, a distance of 135.00 feet to' the true point of beginning • . Situated in SW 1/4 of 17-23-5 and m'l 1/4 of Section 20-23-5. . " . EXBI.BIT ItBY An easement over that portJ,dn of vacatE:d:7t.h .. stiet:t and, a portion of the H. H •.. Tobin Donation Land Cl-.lim:Number 37 described as follows: ,: ;. .. . Beginning at the SE corner .of Lot 15, P'lat No. 1 of Renton Co-operative Coal Company'.s Acre Tracts as recorded ~n Volume 9, page 29, Book of Plats, records ot': K~:n9 "~ounty r Washingtcnl thence S 00°09'.00" E on the East line: of said Lot· IS' produced a d!stance·· of .3.0 •. 00 feet to the, t~Ue .. pr:';nt of·. beginning; then'.:e continuing S. 00°09' ooa B'; 45~ 00 feet; thence S88022' ooa W parallel with the South line of said Lot IS,a distance of 145.00 feet; thence N 90°09'00. W a 'distance Ilf 45.00 feet; thence N 880 22' 00· E, a distance of 145.00 feet, to the true point of beginning. ": ' situated in SW 1/4 of 17-23-5 and NW 1/4 Section 20-23-5. " 0-~ .0 - STATE or WASHINGTON ) )ss. COUNTY or KING ) • , .. On this 11 dai ofOctober.'l979. before me personally' . appeared GENBo.-rARRELL, and NANCY LEE r~RRELL, to iDe known to ..... . be the individuals des~rlbed in and who executed the within and foregoing 1nst~ent. and acknowledged to me'that they . slgned the same as their tree and volumtary act and deed, tor:: the' uses and purposesth.erein m~ntloned. . . -.; .... Given under m1 hand ~d official seal the day and year in this certificate first above written. ~.. : ~ ) ,." ". e::~!i?~~ioi,,;:E:;;>·· 9AIll..?-L-lA5/.f , ' . 1" .... STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss" COUNTY OF KING On thi, L1'--day 0 . O~ober. 1979. before me personally appeared I-v....JClA, M...4:A.m . to me known to t'e , the '. . __ otNSAMERICA TITLE INSURANCE COM~ANY. the corporat· on· thatexeci;:ted the wi thin and foregoing instr1,lJllent; and acknowledged t~e said' instrument ~o be the free and volumtary act and deed of 'said corporatIon, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. and on oath stated that_~~ authorized to execute the said instrument and that the seal attached 1s the corporate seal of said corporation. , r ' Given under.1DJ' hand and official seal the day and year.lp.~tbi8,> certificate first above written. . " .......... .. " .. ' .,,: ! f: l I , f , t j .. , t: .. :1-~. : .. ~ .:. ,-.:". ~. :- " 1:_. r::: 1"'., '-'-, •• J 1-: ~, t.: c;;:o .. ". ':. :rJ !?: );3;:: .j:'.:; t.u~ 'C-r.-l "--. ".~ .-:; ;Z .. :.::: ::U .; ...• ~ i ! l' . ~ . . ( I "(. o • f I f· I j ----____ .,.rt~r.-.·m72 .. ;;.-M?,. ... ?~· 1I ..... kIII AFFIDAVIT OF INSTALLATION OF PUBLIC INFORMATION SIGN City of Renton Development Services Division 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055 Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax: 425-430-7231 STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING ) ) Michael Chen _______ -:--___ -:--________ --.,..-______ ' being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says: 1. On the 30 day of ~, 20 0)", I installed 1 public information sign(s) and plastic flyer box on the property located at 90011 000 Blk.Renton Ave. ,South for the following project: Defoor Short plat Prj)je.ct name Terry ~toor Owner Name 2. I have attached a copy of the neighborhood detail map marked with an "X" to indicate the location of the installed sign. 3. This/these public information sign(s) was/were constructed and installed in locations in conformance with the requirements of Chapter 7 Title 4 of Renton Municipal Code. Installer Signature SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 30 day of ~. ,20 OS . . J)_ ~ V - LAURIE K. BARNHART NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF WASHINGTON COMMISSION EXPIRES JULY 22. 2008 ()UU-vJe \<. ~~ NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington, residing at ~\=rn . My commission expires on 1 ... z.. 2 -0 S . 09/24/03 l .. ' '¥i'. I rf LI kC~,~ : ~ li~f,l . :. ~ .. ::: .-. " .. .. " \ II d I I I I I I I I II \ \ \\ \\ \ \ \ \ \ II ~ '" S.P. 119-78, ...al:: (2) I ~ <15 I \ ~ \\ \;oj \ \ \ \ \I \1 II " /I I I ,I \1 \\ \ \ II .......... ~ co. t-"-=c.::....j -~~gt 22 [illl ~ J:: !iJ • 29 ~ ( · · , C. C.AROWI '-... 1.07 Ac. -............. 0.(.. ~ 7'01..131 E~ ~~ ~ 28 . -_._-_. IE!S' ~~ 125" t-HOT ~ r.L./9!i --"'-...... .. _---- --R/'II _------"""'7!-:o."'. 'Z--.-- SIU 6.55Ac. T. L.lI/· 604 ._---_--=\1 .1 ." -~. Printed: 07-26-2005 ENT ,'tANton*, DEV~~P~,<RENT6N ~:'JUL~2 6 2005 ·RECEIVeO .ITY OF RENTON • 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Land Use Actions RECEIPT Permit#: LUAOS-089 Payment Made: 07/26/200503:20 PM Receipt Number: Total Payment: 1,400.00 Current Payment Made to the Following Items: Trans Account Code Description 5010 000.345.81.00.0007 Environmental Review 5011 000.345.81.00.0008 Prelim/Tentative Plat Payments made for this receipt Payee: GWC INC. Trans Method Description Amount Payment Check 09524 1,400.00 Account Balances Amount 500.00 900.00 Trans Account Code Description Balance Due 3021 5006 5007 5008 5009 5010 50ll 5012 5013 5014 5015 5016 5017 5018 5019 5020 5021 5022 5024 5036 5909 5941 5954 5955 5998 303.000.00.345.85 000.345.81.00.0002 000.345.81.00.0003 000.345.81.00.0004 000.345.81.00.0006 000.345.81.00.0007 000.345.81.00.0008 000.345.81.00.0009 000.345.81.00.0010 000.345.81.00.0011 000.345.81.00.0012 000.345.81.00.0013 000.345.81.00.0014 000.345.81.00.0015 000.345.81.00.0016 000.345.81.00.0017 000.345.81.00;0018 000.345.81.00.0019 000.345.81.00.0024 000.345.81.00.0005 000.341.60.00.0024 000.341.50.00.0000 604.237.00.00.0000 000.05.519.90.42.1 000.231.70.00.0000 Park Mitigation Fee Annexation Fees Appeals/Waivers Binding Site/Short Plat Conditional Use Fees Environmental Review Prelim/Tentative Plat Final Plat PUD Grading & Filling Fees Lot Line Adjustment Mobile Home Parks Rezone Routine vegetation Mgmt Shoreline Subst Dev Site Plan Approval Temp Use or Fence Review Variance Fees Conditional Approval Fee Comprehensive Plan Amend Booklets/EIS/Copies Maps (Taxable) Special Deposits Postage Tax Remaining Balance Due: $100.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 100.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 R0504047 • ~ITY OF RENTON ., 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 . ~ JUL.i 6 20...,,0=5 ____________________ _ Printed: O'ReCElVED Land Use Actions RECEIPT Permit#: LUA05-089 Payment Made: 07/26/200503:21 PM Receipt Number: R0504048 Total Payment: 100.00 Payee: PAUL & LAURIE BARNHART Current Payment Made to the Following Items: Trans Account Code Description Amount 5011 000.345.81.00.0008 Prelim/Tentative Plat 100.00 Payments made for this receipt Trans Method Description Amount Payment Check 9999 100.00 Account Balances Trans Account Code Description Balance Due 3021 303.000.00.345.85 5006 000.~45.81.00.0002 5007 000.345.81.00.0003 5008 000.345.81.00.0004 5009 000.345.81.00.0006 5010 000.345.81.00.0007 5011 000.345.81.00.0008 5012 000.345.81.00.0009 5013 000.345.81.00.0010 5014 000.345.81.00.0011 5015 000.345.81.00.0012 5016 000.345.81.00.0013 5017 000.345.81.00.0014 5018 000.345.81.00.0015 5019 000.345.81.00.0016 5020 000.345.81.00.0017 5021 000.345.81.00.0018 5022 000.345.81.00.0019 5024 000.345.81.00.0024 5036 000.345.81.00.0005 5909 000.341.60.00.0024 5941 000.341.50.00.0000 5954 604.237.00.00.0000 5955 000.05.519.90.42.1 5998 000.231.70.00.0000 Park Mitigation Fee Annexation Fees Appeals/Waivers Binding Site/Short Plat Conditional Use Fees Environmental Review Prelim/Tentative Plat Final Plat PUD Grading & Filling Fees Lot Line Adjustment Mobile Home Parks Rezone Routine Vegetation Mgmt Shoreline Subst Dev Site Plan Approval Temp Use or Fence Review Variance Fees Conditional Approval Fee Comprehensive Plan Amend Booklets/EIS/Copies Maps (Taxable) Special Deposits Postage Tax Remaining Balance Due: $0.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ CORE ~DES'GN Core Design, 'nc. 14711 N.E. 29th Place, Suite 101 Bellevue, Washington 98007 425.885.7877 Fax425.885.7963 www.coredesigninc.com PRELIMINARY STORM DRAINAGE REPORT FOR DEFOOR PROPERTY SHORT PLAT Prepared by: Reviewed by: Date: Core No.: RENTON, WASHINGTON Philip D. Sarandos, E.I.T. Rob H. Stevens, P.E. June 2005 04139A ,.. / . " JUL2 6 2005 RECEIVED ENGINEERING· PLANNING· SURVEYING I I I DEFOOR PROPERTY TABLE OF CONTENTS ,I I. Project Overview ,I II. Existing Conditions Summary III. Off-site Analysis '1 A. Upstream Tributary Area ·1 B. Bypass Area C. Downstream Analysis ,I IV. Developed Conditions Summary A. Hydrologic Analysis I I I I I I I I I I I Core Design, Inc. Page 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I. PROJECT OVERVIEW The Defoor Property Short Plat is located at S 9th Street and Renton Avenue S in Renton, Washington (see the attached vicinity map). This site consists of second growth forest and drains to the west with slopes averaging 10-50% . The proposed project includes subdividing the existing property into 5 single family lots and constructing 5 single-family homes with associated utilities. The existing Renton Ave. S. frontage will remain as existing and will serve the proposed lots. Portions of Renton Ave. S. and S. 10th St. that discharge onto the site will bypass the developed portion of the site and discharge to their natural discharge locations downstream of the proposed development. The storm runoff from lots will be directed to a series of level spreaders. Detention will not be provided per KCSWDM Section 5.2.2 -BMPs for Reducing Facility Size, which states that on single family lots greater than or equal to 22,000 square feet, and the vegetated flow path of the roof runoff is 50 feet or longer, the roof area may be modeled as grassed surface rather than impervious surface when sizing the required flow control facility. Since the roof area will be modeled as grass, the proposed development will generate less than a O.lcfs increase in the existing site conditions 100-year peak flow rate. Therefore, the project falls under exemption #3 in KCSWDM Section 1.2.3 from Core Requirement #3 and does not require detention. Core Design, Inc. Page 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II. EXISTING CONDITIONS SUMMARY The existing 3.41 ac site (3.23 ac Project area and 0.18 ac right-of-way) is covered by native, second growth forest and has a history of coal mining activity. The site soils are identified as Arents, Everett Material, An (Outwash) and Beausties, BeD (Till) (see the attached Site Soils Map). Runoff naturally sheet flows west across the site into one of three existing stream channels. Core Design, Inc. Page 4 I .}dd····· ...... :", (::, .•... ~ .. .- Il 'I ·1 I I I I ... n N01'26'SO"E , •••••••• d. I' u.... ~ .. ' ddd ....• '.·' .... dd .. d . .--........... d ..... dd ... ddd .. d ... d .. d::::.".,.".,,, .... ,:.:· .: .. ~ .... ,. I I .:.:.... : "': I'··':"· I···· IXV' ,....: ai 'N; . 1") .. PAo285········ PAii280 PARCEL 8 140723± SF 3.2306± ACRES 4, 5,S()O SF PAD 275 -..J <5 !j N01'2S'S2"E 361.64 ~~~~~~~~~~--~~~~--~~~----------------~~~~~~~----------------------------------J~ 973.04 LEGAL DESCRIPTION Q. § '---''':----dl1Q-. ~ .. ~. ~----d.-d ... -..... .""d.-. ~--~----~--274--------~ .1J,5 74s~F: ....... . ·········p~p2]i .w.·.·············· .... , .............. . SCALE: 1" o 20 40 \~_~._ -----"t ,-<:: " " ,'.", ~ ."::. :.~" = 40' 80 I DEFOOR PROPERTY SITE PLAN JUNE 2005 CORE JOB NO. 04139A I 'OF AGRICULTURE lION SERVICE SHEET NO.1l KING COUNTY AREA, WAS: (RENTON QUADRAN( .\\ " • II'" II' .'-.11-e.g:: ." 180000 FEET DEFOOR PROPERTY SOILS MAP fRM!==~A JUNE 2005 CORE JOB NO. 04139A .. 'HUCfCJJ/ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1---- I 3.2.2 KCRTSIRUNOFF FILES METHOD -GENERATING TIME SERIES _;-','~:;T:'T~~~~3~i~:~i~9~~\~~~~~~~~N'~C~~~~--~~ES,~~g:a,~¥~i~~O~:~PES:.jj __ ,- SCS Soil Type SCS KCRTS Soil Notes Hydrologic Group Soil Group Alderwood (AgB, AgC, AgD) C Till Arents, Alderwood Material (AmB, AmC) C Till i Arents, Everett Material (An) B Outwash 1 Beausite (BeC, BeD, BeF) C Till 2 * Bellingham (Bh) , D Till 3 Briscot (Br) D Till 3 Buckley (Bu) D Till 4 Earlmont (Ea) D Till 3 Edgewick (Ed) C Till 3 Everett (EvB, EvC, EvD, EwC) AlB Outwash 1 Indianola (InC, InA, InD) A Outwash 1 Kitsap (KpB, KpC, KpD) C Till Klaus (KsC) C Outwash 1 Neilton (NeC) A Outwash 1 Newberg (Ng) B Till 3 Nooksack (Nk) C Till 3 Norma (No) D Till 3 Orcas (Or) D Wetland Oridia (Os) D Till 3 Ovall (OVC, OvD, OvF) C Till 2 Pilchuck (Pc) C Till 3 Puget(Pu) D Till 3 Puyalluo (Py) B Till 3 .. . ..... _ ..... ... ~-~ .. --... ~ ... - Ragnar (RaC, RaD, RaC, RaE) B Outwash 1 . Renton (Re) D Till 3 Salal (Sa) C Till 3 Sammamish (Sh) D Till 3 Seattle (Sk) D Wetland, Shalcar (Sm) D Till 3 Si (Sn) C Till 3 Snohomish (So, Sr) D Till 3 Sultan (Su) C Till 3 Tukwila (Tu) D Till 3 Woodinville (Wo) D Till 3 Notes: 1. Where outwash soils are saturated or underlain at shallow depth «5 feet) by glacial till, they should be treated as till soils. 2. These are bedrock soils, but calibration of HSPF by King County DNR shows bedrock soils to have similar hydrologic response to till soils. 3. These are alluvial soils, some of which are underlain by glacial till or have a seasonally high water table. In the absence of detailed study, these soils should be treated as till soils. 4. Buckley soils are formed on the low-permeability Osceola mudflow. Hydrologic response is assumed to be similar to that of till soils. 1998 Surface Water Design Manual 911/98 3-25 I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I III. OFF-SITE ANALYSIS A. UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY AREA There is approximately 0.04 acres of existing Renton Ave. S. roadway to the north end of the site that will be bypassed via a series of catch basins and storm drain and will discharge into an existing stream channel. In addition, there is approximately 0.24 acres of S. 10th St. that currently discharges onto the site at the southernmost lot and will be bypassed via a catch basin and storm drain and will connect to an existing catch basin that will discharges into an existing stream channel. B. BYPASS AREA The storm runoff from lots will be directed to a series of level spreaders. Detention will not be provided. C. DOWNSTREAM ANALYSIS Drainage from the site naturally sheet flows to the west and is collected in one of three existing stream channels, the north channel, the central channel and the south channel. The majority of the flow is collected in the central channel. The channel flows southwesterly at an average slope of 30% for approximately 650ft where it joins with another existing stream channel and flows northwesterly at an average slope of 10% for approximately 350 ft. The flow then enters a $6'·".¢.oh¢r~t¢ culvert and continues northwesterly for approximately 400 ft. as it passes under Interstate 405. The flow then enters an open channel for approx 20 ft. and enters another 36" concrete culvert and continues southwesterly for approximately 90 ft. as it passes under Benson Rd. S. The flow is then discharged into an open, flat bottom channel which carries it southwesterly for approximately 900 ft. and discharges into an existing wetland. Core Design, 1m'. Page 5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I c. DOWNSTREAM ANALYSIS -CONT. The north channel flows southwesterly at an average slope of 50 % for approximately 350 ft., then southerly at an average slope of30 % for approximately150 ft., then southwesterly at an average slope of 20 % for approximately 200 ft., where it joins with the existing stream channel referred to above running northwesterly before crossing under Interstate 405. The south channel runs westerly at an average slope of 40% for approximately 300 ft. where it joins with the Central channel. There are no visible signs of downstream flooding or erosion. Core Design, ]l1c. Page 6 w···· I 3~7\/V ~~L--_~~ 6((.'7., RENTON s/I ;,-----. 7 . I I I • I 1 --I -- p. s. p, & LCD. ....' '~I" :>- ~. ;'1 ' ..... ~ .. , ,0 . 1::, . . ·'.~I· .r;:. ... :~ . Q), '.~, · .. ···~'A r .. ::t:, '~I' .-.1 ~, ~I I , ··I~ ' ... , ... v.r--,. _.- - TRANS O[VEU fl' CONe F n :l.e,f, ~ N-' -0 0J~ 00 » ~~ (j)-...J ::::0 ItN I 0J () »It () rrl :;;o(j) r fTl'1 (j) OJ ~ C,!) ~ '+ 0 ,.; " OJ " ;;. ,-',,:;-:-- .. .:. ~~I~I~")'~ ~ .. ". -- Wtrj e=s >00 ~ ~ Z /) -'" ~ ""~ .. , ........ "." .. , ........ " ... " 8d~= (f) g; ~ ~ ~~o () .\ <.o ... :;j0 » og:z~ ~ F;; =UtC1~ •• Z '= ~ 9 ~ 0 lit-' o ~ ~ .. .... :zl'i ~ ~ ~~ II II ~ ~ ~ LL~ ~ 0 .. .,. ------ t30' I \ / : 1 /~ ; \'/ I \. ';lj I " ,;:it, ( ·1 'I'~ r", I r " I I 1,,1\ " I ........ \, "'\ .. " """ ,", \ \ ~'l i'r I ' , j",\':_I" ' \ l ,'~\.:r ' I" \ I I III \ 1 i;;1 "j' I 'l rl l ,,' 1'/ I r"lt! .' , ,,' i , .." I I ,-" ,,.", ',,' ' , ; I I \ \ I ," .",~,,,, f.i . f'R • , 1 I I ' "II' I't,· I "', ,\ \ ql (1.,\1'" ' ,.,", ' ' 'l ' ", ' , I ' ' ,! 'f'" " , I ' , . -'.' ' " , IT " -i' ~"l·'1 l .- li'l \ ","!' /'r\"I'6-0' j '" \ NY ~4' !~ ' '( ". "~: .. " .. :;'\~,'; .~:~"r ""1tr:r ..,. O~~ I~ ~ ~ I~ ~ ~ >=~ ~~O (J) ~Z » ~< ~ trj \ " ' " OO-t ",.J '""""'\ !\ ~ll ~ ~~ >= ~ ~ " K i \ .. , CONC DRIVE ~oo >~ ~" ~ L 2·! ........... I r RENTON AVE. S. TRIBUTARY BYPASS o I···············n I I I I 1 1 I····················· I I I ············ '. ........... I ·········· ... ' .......... , ......... . ···········b··.· ............... , ............... . PARCEL B 140723± SF 3.2306± ACRES ............... : ........ . ........ ,; ..... . PAD 275 .... -............ . ", ........•. .0; ... PROPOSED BASIN 3.41 Ac 973.04 LEGAL DESCRIPTION ................... , .... ....... t"l ...• ; •...... , ....... ............... , S.10TH ST . TRIBUTARY BYPASS 0.24 Ac .......... S.F . 'PA/t274· .... · .. ········ ." . SCALE: 1" 0 20 40 I I I 40' 80 ! DEFOOR PROPERTY PROPOSED BASIN MAP JUNE 2005 CORE JOB NO. 04139A I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SECTION 3.2 RUNOFF COMPUfA1l0N AND ANALYSIS MEIHODS FIGURE 3.2.2.A RAINFALL REGIONS AND REGIONAL SCALE FACTORS ST 1.1 ST1.0 Ra'infall Regions and Regional Scale Factors v·· d Incorporated Area ---c:::l RiverlLake -MajorRoad . 9/1/98 1998 Surface Water Design Manual 3-22 I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I IV. DEVELOPED CONDITIONS SUMMARY A. HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS The hydrologic analysis was conducted using the King County Runoff Time Series software (KCRTS) methodology. The site soils are identified as Arents, Everett Material, An (Outwash) and Beausties, BeD (Till). The Seatac rainfall region was used, with a regional scale factor of 1.0. Using the predeveloped pervious area shown in the table below, a predeveloped time series was generated. Upon completion of the final improvements, the developed time series was manufactured in much the same way. The developed site's impervious area, 5,000sfper lot, 0.57ac total for 5 lots, was modeled as till grass per the 1998 King County Surface Water Drainage Manual (KCSWDM), Section 5.2.2. -BMPs for Reducing Facility Size. Pre-Developed Area Developed Area (Acres) (Acres) Till Forest 2.85 2.23 Outwash Forest 0.56 0.30 Till Grass -0.70 Outwash Grass -0.18 Total 3.41 3.41 Core Design, 1nc. Page 7 I I A. HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS -CONT. I Since the roof area will be modeled as grass, the proposed development will generate less than a O.lcfs increase in the existing site conditions 100-year peak flow rate. Therefore, I the project falls under exemption #3 from Core Requirement #3 as stated below and will not require detention. I I Flow Frequency Analysis Pre-developed time series I ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--------Flow Frequency Analysis------- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak - -Peaks - -Rank Return Prob I (CFS) (CFS) Period 0.180 2 2/09/01 18:00 0.230 1 100.00 0.990 0.049 7 1106/02 3:00 0.180 2 25.00 0.960 I 0.133 4 2/28/03 3 :00 0.138 3 10.00 0.900 0.004 8 3/24/04 20:00 0.133 4 5.00 0.800 0.079 6 1105105 8:00 0.116 5 3.00 0.667 I 0.138 3 1118/0621:00 0.079 6 2.00 0.500 0.116 5 11124/06 4:00 0.049 7 1.30 0.231 0.230 1 1109/08 9:00 0.004 8 1.10 0.091 I Computed Peaks 0.213 50.00 0.980 I I Flow Frequency Analysis Developed time series ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--------Flow :frequency Analysis-------I Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak - -Peaks - -Rank Return Prob (CFS) (CFS) Period I 0.199 2 2/09/01 18:00 0.321 1 100.00 0.990 0.068 7 1105102 16:00 0.199 2 25.00 0.960 0.183 3 2/28/03 3:00 0.183 3 10.00 0.900 I 0.016 8 3/24/04 19:00 0.164 4 5.00 0.800 0.097 6 1105105 8:00 0.147 5 3.00 0.667 0.164 4 1118/06 16:00 0.097 6 2.00 0.500 I 0.147 5 11124/06 4:00 0.068 7 1.30 0.231 0.321 1 1109/08 6:00 0.016 8 1.10 0.091 Computed Peaks 0.280 50.00 0.980 I -'1 Core Design, Inc .. Page 8 I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I WETLAND STUDY, STREAM ASSESSEMENT, HABITAT STUDY, WATERSHED RESTORATION AND MITIGIATON PLAN DEFOOR PROPERTY (GWC, INC.) -RENTON, WASHINGTON Prepared For: MR. TERRY DEFOOR Duvall, Washington Prepared By: TALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC Woodinville, Washington 28 June 2005 (Revised 3 October 2005) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Wetland Study, Stream Assessment, Habitat Study, Watershed Restoration and Mitigation Plan Defoor Property (GWC, Inc.) -Renton, Washington Prepared for: Mr. Terry Defoor GWC, Inc. 24633 NE 133rd Street Duvall, WA 99019 Prepared by: Talasaea Consultants, Inc 15020 Bear Creek Road N.E. Woodinville, WA 98077 28 June 2005 (Revised 3 October 2005) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Defoor Property SITE NAME: SITE LOCATION: CLIENT: PROJECT STAFF: FIELD SURVEY: Wetland Study, Stream Assessment, Habitat Study, Watershed Restoration and Mitigation Plan EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Defoor Property The project site (10.13 acres) is comprised of three contiguous parcels located in Renton, Washington. The project site is located west of Cedar Avenue South and Renton Avenue South and east of Interstate 405. The legal description is the NW y.. of Section 20 of Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M. Mr. Terry Defoor, GWC, Inc. Bill Shiels, Principal; Jason Walker, Project Manager; and Per Johnson; Ecologist Conducted on 21 March 2005 and 15 September 2005 LJETERMINATION: Three streams (Streams A, B, and C), one stormwater drainage (Drainage 1) and two wetlands (Wetlands A and B) have been identified on the project site. The three streams are located on tile southern portion of the project site and flow from east to west before exiting the site to the southwest. Hydrology within all three streams appears to be stormwater runoff from surface streets, which is released at the eastern extent of the property, at four separate discharge locations. In reviewing historical aerial photographs, Stream A existed on the project site prior to the surrounding development and continued northwest where its headwaters were found at Philip Arnold Park. Drainage 1 and Streams Band C were not evident in historical aerial photographs. These streams, we believe, were created by the subsequent conveyance and release of stormwater onto the subject property, following the paving of Cedar Avenue South, Renton Avenue South and other streets in the vicinity around 1950. Wetland A, approximately 3,374 sf, is a palustrine emergent wetland located at the southwest corner of the property, a topographically flat area. Wetland A appears to be a newly forming feature upon backfill of relict mining entrances. Soils within Wetland A include outwash material deposited from upstream erosion within Stream B. Wetland B is a very small wetland, approximately 196 sf, located at the southeastern portion of the project site within a braid of Stream B. Stream A is regulated by the City of Renton as a Class 4 stream due to its non-salmon bearing intermittent flow within a preexisting channel; Class 4 streams require a 35-foot buffer. Stream B has been classified by the City's environmental consultant as a Class 3 stream due to observed perennial flow; Class 3 streams require a 75-foot buffer. Drainage 1 and Stream C are classified as Class 5 streams, since historical aerial photographs suggest that no naturally defined channel had existed previously. Wetlands A and B are Category 3 wetlands as they are characterized by emergent vegetation of low species richness. Category 3 wetlands require a 25-foot buffer. HYDROLOGY: Surface water from Streams A and B was observed flowing through and off site during our March site visit; however, flow within Stream A had ceased by our September site visit. Flow within Stream C infiltrated into the surrounding sandy soil present throughout the site. Hydrology within Wetlands A and B was present during our site investigation with saturation to the surface. All streams and drainages, except for Stream B, have been determined to be seasonally intermittent, supported by stormwater runoff. Stream B has been determined to have persistent flow resulting from groundwater interflow, a determination with which we respectfully disagree. SOILS: The Natural Resources Conservation Service has mapped the site as Alderwood and Kitsap soils, very steep (AkF), on the southwest corner of the property; Arents, Everett material (An) on the northeast corner of the southeastern portion of the project area; and Beausite gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30% slopes (BeD) throughout the remainder of the property. Soils within the upland areas corresponded to those mapped; however, soils within the wetland did not correspond to those mapped and exhibited characteristics of sandy outwash material. Soils identified within the wetland include deep horizon of dark course sand. VEGETATION: Vegetation throughout the properties includes a native deciduous forest canopy adjacent to Cedar Avenue South, and a mixed deciduous and coniferous forest canopy throughout the remainder 3 October 2005 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 931 CAReport(30ct05).doc Page i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Defoor Property Wetland Study, Stream Assessment, Habitat Study, Watershed Restoration and Mitigation Plan of the properties. The understory is comprised of both native and non-native shrubs and herbs, including Indian plum, bittercherry, hazelnut, snowberry, Himalayan blackberry, reed canarygrass, evergreen huckleberry, colonial bentgrass, lady fern, and sword fern. Vegetation within the wetland is dominated by reed canarygrass, though snowberry and Himalayan blackberry occupy the perimeter. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: GWC, Inc., has proposed the development of five residential lots within the project area adjacent to Renton Avenue South with associated stormwater management and dispersal facilities. The proposed action involves clearing and grading of approximately 1.35 acres. SENSITIVE AREA IMPACTS: Impacts to regulated sensitive areas were avoided where possible; however, unavoidable alterations to approximately 240 If of Class 3 stream, 256 sf of Class 4 stream buffer, and 196 sf of wetland will occur as part of the proposed residential development. PROPOSED MITIGATION: Mitigation will occur through the creation of 196 sf of Category 3 emergent wetland plus 196 sf of wetland enhancement, 256 sf of stream buffer replacement, 60,633 sf of mature forested buffer protection, and the development of 8 watershed basin restoration p!ar. This Wi!! achieve an increase of stream functions while providing improved site stability. 3 October 2005 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 931 CAReport(30ct05).doc Page ii I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Defoor Property Wet/and Study, Stream Assessment, Habitat Study, Watershed Restoration and Mitigation Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS Page i. Executive Summary ii. Table of Contents iii. List of Figures iii. List of Tables iii. List of Appendices 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1 GENERAL PROPERTY' DESCRiPTiON AND LAND USE i 3.0 METHODOLOGy ................................................................................................................... 1 3.1 Background Data Reviewed ......................................................................................... 2 3.2 Field Investigation ......................................................................................................... 2 4.0 RESULTS ............................................................................................................................... 3 4.1 Analysis of Existing Information ................................................................................... 3 4.1.1 Natural Resource Conservation Service ........................................................ 3 4.1.2 National Wetland Inventory ............................................................................. 3 4~ 1.3 1990 King County Wetlands Inventory Map .................................................. 3 4.1.4 City of Renton Sensitive Area Map ................................................................. 3 4.1.5 City of Renton S20 T23N R5E W'Y2 Storm System Map .............................. .4 4.1.6 WDNR FPARS-ArcIMS Mapping System ..................................................... .4 4.1.7. WDFW Priority Habitats and Species and WDNR Natural Heritage Databases ......................................................................................... 4 4.2 Analysis of Field Conditions ................................................................................. 5 4.2.1 Wetland A ................................................................................................ 5 4.2.2 Wetland B ................................................................................................ 5 4.2.3 Drainage 1 ............................................................................................... 5 4.2.4 Stream A .................................................................................................. 5 4.2.5 Stream B .................................................................................................. 6 4.2.6 Stream C ................................................................................................. 8 4.2.7 Uplands ................................................................................................... 8 4.2.8 Wildlife ..................................................................................................... 9 5.0 PROPOSED PROJECT ........................................................................................................ 9 5.1 Project Description ........................................................................................................ 9 5.2 Sensitive Area Impacts ............................................................................................... 10 6.0 WATERSHED BASIN RESTORATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES ..................... 10 6.1 Goals, Objectives, and Performance Standards ...................................................... 11 6.2 Plantings ...................................................................................................................... 11 6.3 Habitat Features ......................................................................................................... 11 6.4 Irrigation ....................................................................................................................... 12 7.0 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT ............................................................................ 12 3 October 2005 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 931 CAReport(30ct05 ).doc Page iii I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Defoor Property Wetland Study. Stream Assessment. Habitat Study. Watershed Restoration and Mitigation Plan 8.0 MONITORING METHODOLOGy ....................................................................................... 13 8.1 Vegetation ................................................................................................................... 13 8.2 Water Quality, Hydrology, and Bank Stability ........................................................... 13 8.3 Wildlife ......................................................................................................................... 14 9.0 SUCCESS CRITERIA ................................................................................................ 14 10.0 MAINTENANCE (M) AND CONTINGENCY (C) ......................................................... 14 11.0 PERFORMANCE BOND ............................................................................................ 15 12.0 AS-BUILT PLAN ........................................................................................................ 15 13.0 SUMMARy ........................................................................................................................... 15 14.0 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................... 16 3 October 2005 Talasaea Consultants. Inc. 931 CAReport(30ct05).doc Page iv I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Defoor Property Wetland Study, Stream Assessment, Habitat Study, Watershed Restoration and Mitigation Plan LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Figure 2. Figure 3. Figure 4. Vicinity Map NRCS Soils Map National Wetlands Inventory Map City of Renton Draft Water Class Map LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Calendar for Performance Monitoring and Maintenance Events LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX A: Wetland Delineation Data Sheets (Talasaea, 2005) APPENDIX B: APPENDIXC: City of Renton Internal Records Search Results (Renton, 2005) Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitats and Species Database APPENDIX D: Washington Department of Natural Resources Natural Heritage Program APPENDIX E: Index of Drawings (Reduced Plan Sheets) Sheet W1.0: Wetland & Stream Basin Restoration Plan -Existing Conditions & Overview Plan Sheet W1.1: Wetland & Stream Basin Restoration Plan -Proposed Site Plan Impacts Sheet W2.0: Sheet W2.1: Sheet W2.2: & Mitigation Wetland & Stream Basin Restoration Plan -Enhancement Planting Plan Wetland & Stream Basin Restoration Plan -Planting Details & Notes Wetland & Stream Basin Restoration Plan -Planting Specifications APPENDIX F: Index of Drawings (Full Size Plan Sheets) Sheet W1.0: Wetland & Stream Basin Restoration Plan -Existing Conditions & Overview Plan Sheet W1.1: Wetland & Stream Basin Restoration Plan -Proposed Site Plan Impacts Sheet W2.0: Sheet W2.1: Sheet W2.2: 3 October 2005 931 CAReport(30ct05).doc & Mitigation Wetland & Stream Basin Restoration Plan -Enhancement Planting Plan Wetland & Stream Basin Restoration Plan -Planting Details & Notes Wetland & Stream Basin Restoration Plan -Planting Specifications Talasaea Consultants, Inc. Page v I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Defoor Property Wetland Study, Stream Assessment, Habitat Study, Watershed Restoration and Mitigation Plan 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report is the result of a wetland delineation, stream assessment, and habitat study on an approximately 1 0.13-acre site located in Renton, Washington (Figure 1). The site is the location of historical coal mining activities. The property owner is proposing development of the property into residential lots and open space. Three streams, one stormwater drainage, and two wetlands are located on the southern portion of the property. The objective of this report is to: 1) describe the critical areas identified and delineated on the site, 2) describe wildlife use and habitat, 3) identify proposed impacts to sensitive areas and mitigation requirements for the proposed development, and 4) provide sufficient description of the proposed development and mitigation activities. This report is prepared in accordance with Section 4.3.050.F.8 of the Renton Municipal Code (RMC). 2.0 GENERAL PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LAND USE The proposed property is located within the city limits of Renton. The property is comprised of three separate but adjacent parcels, which includes parcels 0007200194, 0007200196, and 2023059085. Development is currently proposed at the eastern extent of parcel 0007200196, adjacent to Renton Avenue South and hereafter referred to as the "project area." The project area is bordered to the north by a 30-foot wide utility easement, to the south by a Puget Sound Energy utility easement, to the east by Renton Avenue South, and Interstate 405 to the west (Figure 1). The legal description is the NW % of Section 20 of Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M. Currently, the property is undeveloped, though it contains an abandoned concrete foundation near the southern portion of the western parcel where coal-mining activities historically occurred. The site slopes down from east to west; most of the property consists of relatively steep slopes. An undeveloped upland mixed forest canopy dominates the site, with an understory of native and non-native shrubs. Surrounding land uses include: single-family residences to the north and east, an undeveloped utility easement to the south, and Interstate 405 (1-405) to the west. 3.0 METHODOLOGY The wetland and stream analysis of the site involved a four-part effort. The first part consisted of a preliminary assessment of the site (and its immediate surroundings) and involved reviewing published resource information relating to local environmental conditions. This information included: 1) wetland and soil maps from resource agencies, 2) sensitive areas maps from King County and the City of Renton, and 3) relevant studies completed or on-going in the vicinity of the project site. The second part involved a field survey in which direct observations and measurements of soils, hydrology, and vegetation were made to determine whether wetlands were present, the type of wetlands present, and the extent of their boundaries (see Section 3.2 Field Investigation). The third part involved an information request regarding on site features, such as stormdrain outfalls, to the City of Renton. The fourth part of our study involved a review of historical aerial photographs, both mono and stereo-pairs, circa 1936, 1946, 1960, 1968, 1974, 1980, 1985, 1990, 1995, 2000, 2002, and 2004. This historical aerial photographic review was performed to observe the documented pre-development conditions and changes to the site and its immediate vicinity over time. 3 October 2005 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 931 CAReport(30cto5).doc Page 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .... ,. .-. SOURCE: THE THOMAS GUIDE 2005; METROPOLITAN PUGET SOUND. eTALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. Resource & Environmental Planning 15020 Bear Creek Road Norlheasl Woodinville. Washinglon 98077 Bus (425)861-7550 -Fax (425)861-7549 FIGURE #1 VICINITY MAP DEFOOR PROPERTY RENTON, WA DESIGN PJ SCALE NTS DATE 28 JUNE 05 REVISED 28 SEPT 05 NORTH CD PROJECT '131 © Copyright -Talasaea Consultants. INC. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Defoor Property Wetland Study. Stream Assessment. Habitat Study. Watershed Restoration and Mitigation Plan 3.1 Background Data Review Background information reviewed prior to and following the field investigations included the following documents: • King County Soil Survey, Natural Resource Conservation Service, 1973, • National Wetlands Inventory Map (Renton Quad), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USGS, 1988), • King County Sensitive Area Folio and Wetland Inventory, King County, 1990, • City of Renton Sensitive Area Maps, • City of Renton S20 T23N R5E WY-z Storm System Map, • WDNR FPARS-ArciMS Mapping System, (l VVashington Department of Fish and VVHdfife (\AJDF\".f) Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) Database, and • Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) Natural Heritage Database. 3.2 Field Investigation A general site reconnaissance was conducted on 21 March 2005 to gain an overall impression of the existing environment and current land uses. Observations were made of the general plant communities, wildlife habitats, and the locations of obvious and probable wetland areas and streams. Present and past land use practices were noted, as were significant geological and hydrological features. Wetland Delineation: Once likely or potential wetland areas were located, the routine on-site determination method was used to delineate the wetland using the procedures outlined in: 1) the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987) and 2) the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (1997). The wetland delineation was also conducted on 21 March 2005 . . Plant species were identified according to the taxonomy of Hitchcock and Cronquist (1973) and the wetland status of plant species was assigned according to the list of plant species that occur in wetlands for Region 9, published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Reed 1988, 1993). Wetland classes were determined on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's system of wetland classification (Cowardin, et al., 1979). Vegetation was considered hydrophytic if greater than 50% of the dominant plant species had a wetland indicator status of facultative or wetter (Le., facultative, facultative wetland, or obligate wetland). Soil on the site was considered hydric if one or more of the following characteristics were present: • organic soils or soils with a histic epipedon (Le., organic surface layer), • matrix chroma just below the A-horizon (or 10 inches, whichever is less) of 1 or less in unmottled soils, or 2 or less if mottles were present, or • gleying immediately below the A-horizon. Indicators of wetland hydrology may include, but are not necessarily limited to: drainage patterns, drift lines, sediment deposition, watermarks, stream gauge data and flood predictions, historic records, visual observation of saturated soils, and visual observation of inundation. An evaluation of the vegetation, soils, and hydrology was made at various locations along the interface of wetland and upland. Wetland boundary points were then determined from this information, and marked with flagging and surveyed. 3 October 2005 931CAReport(30ct05).doc Talasaea Consultants. Inc. Page 2 I I I I I I I I I. I I I I I I I I I Defoor Property Wetland Study, Stream Assessment, Habitat Study, Watershed Restoration and Mitigation Plan Data forms for representative locations in both the upland and wetland were prepared by Talasaea Consultants and are presented in Appendix A. These data forms document the vegetation, soils, and hydrology information that aided in the wetland boundary determination. Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation: After all streams and drainages were identified and classified per Renton Municipal Code (RMC), the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) was delineated within the vicinity of the project area. The OHWM was then field approximated and included in the site plan for design purposes. The OHWM delineation was completed on 15 September 2005. 4.0 RESULTS 4.1 Analysis of Existing Information 4.1.1 Natural Resources Conservation Service The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has mapped the site as Alderwood and Kitsap soils, very steep (AkF), on the southwest corner of the property; Arents, Everett material (An) on the northeast corner of the southeastern portion of the project area; and Beausite gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30% slopes (BeD) throughout the remainder of the project area (Figure 2). AkF soils have variable rates of permeability and are comprised of approximately 50% Alderwood gravelly sandy loam and 25% Kitsap silt loam. Neither of these components (Alderwood or Kitsap soils) are considered hydric according to the 2001 NRCS King County soils list. The An soil type is an excessively drained soil that is similar to Everett gravelly sandy loam, although has been disturbed by urban development. Neither An soil or Everett gravelly sandy loam are considered hydric (NRCS, 2001). The Beausite Series is a well-drained soil type typically underlain by sandstone at a depth of 20 to 40 inches. The BeD soil in specific is known to include up to 20% Alderwood soils and are underlain by andesite. This also is not considered to be a hydric soil (NRCS, 2001). 4.1.2 National Wetlands Inventory The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS, 1988) identified no wetlands or streams on the project area (Figure 3). A small riverine, intermittent streambed, seasonally flooded wetland (R4SBC) is identified to the south (downstream) of the project area. The wetland is long and narrow, extending from approximately ~ mile to the south-southeast of the project area to approximately 100-feet southwest of the project area. This small, riverine wetland corresponds to the ilocation of the unnamed tributary to Rolling Hills Creek, located off site of the property to the south. 4.1.3 1990 King County Wetlands Inventory Map The 1990 King County Wetlands Inventory Map (King County, 1990) depicts no wetlands on or near the project area. 4.1.4 City of Renton Sensitive Area Maps The City of Renton Sensitive Area Maps was reviewed prior to visiting the site to determine the extent of known sensitive areas on the project area. Though the proposed Renton Water Class Map (Renton, 2005) depicts a small, Class 3 stream, tributary to Rolling Hills Creek, immediately off site to the southwest of the proposed project area (Figure 4), no streams or drainages are identified on the subject parcels. The classification of the off site tributary to Rolling Hills Creek is based on a revised stream classification system that defines Class 3 streams as non-salmonid bearing with perennial flow. The Greenbelt Sensitive Areas Map (Renton 2002) illustrates a narrow band of greenbelt that extends along the southern edge of 3 October 2005 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 931 CAReport(30ct05 ).doc Page 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I~ I LE6END I I I I fI AkF BeD ALDERHOOD AND KITSAP SOILS, VERY STEEP BEAUSITE GRAVELLY SANDY LOAM, 15-30% SLOPES ARENTS, EVERETT MATERIAL NORTH An SOURCE: U.s. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION SERVICE, KING COUNTY AREA SOIL SURVEY, 1'113 CD (]f)TALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. Resource 8c Environmental Planning 15020 Bear Creek Road Norlheasl Woodinville. Washinglon 98077 Bus (425)861 -7550 -Fax (425)861-7549 FIGURE #2 NRCS SOILS MAP DEFOOR PROPERTY RENTON, HA DESIGN PJ SCALE NTS DATE 28 JUNE 05 REVISED 28 SEPT 05 PROJECT '131 © Copyright -Talasaea Consultants, INC. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SOURCE: U.s. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, NATIONAL WETLANDS INVENTORY MAP, RENTON QUADRANGLE, 1'188 Q)TALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. Resource & Environmental Planning 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast Woodinville, Washington 98077 Bus (425)861-7550 -Fax (425)861-7549 FIGURE #3 NATIONAL WETLANDS INVENTORY MAP DEFOOR PROPERTY RENTON, WA DESIGN PJ SCALE NTS DATE 28 JUNE 05 REVISED 28 SEPT 05 PROJECT '131 © Copyright -Talasaea Consultants, INC. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I WATER CLASSES e-~~ "~Q.v..­....,.- eTALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. Resource '" Environmental Planning 1S020 Bear Creek Road Northeast. WoodiDvine. WashiDgton 98077 Bus (425)861-7550 -FBI (425)861-7549 ".., - FIGURE #4 GITY OF RENTON DRAFT WATER GLASS MAP DEFOOR PROPERTY RENTON, WA LEGEND: Class I Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Piped or culverted (dol5) CdyLimits PoIcnlial Annexation Area DESIGN PJ SCALE NTS DATE 28 JUNE 05 REVISED 28 SEPT" 05 PROJECT '131 © Copyright -Talasaea Consultants. INC. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Defoor Property Wetland Study, Stream Assessment, Habitat Study, Watershed Restoration and Mitigation Plan the project area. This area corresponds to the Puget Sound Energy utility easement to the south of the project area, which the unnamed tributary of Rolling Hills Creek flows through. The Renton Wetland Inventory Map (Renton, 1992) is the most current citywide wetland inventory map available. This map depicts no wetlands in the vicinity of the project area, according to City-personnel (Kinast, 2005). Other sensitive area maps were reviewed and illustrate other sensitive and hazard areas on the project area. According to the Sensitive Area Slide Map (Renton, 2002), the project area is comprised of both Moderate and High Slide Hazard areas. The Seismic Hazard Areas Map (Renton, 2003) depicts a small pocket of High Seismic Hazard along the southwest extent of the project area. The entire project area is classified as an Erosion Hazard area according to the Erosion Hazard Areas Map (Renton, 2003). In addition, the southern portion of the project area is illustrated as both Moderate and High Coal Mine Hazard areas based on the Coal Mine Hazard Map (Renton, 2003). This area corresponds to the location of abandoned concrete structure and unnamed drainages. Due to the extent of the Slide Hazard, Seismic Hazard, Erosion Hazard, and Coal Mine Hazard areas on the project area, please refer to the Coal Mine Hazard Assessment and Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation Report, prepared by Icicle Creek Engineers and dated 17 January 2005. 4.1.5 City of Renton S20 T23N R5E W% Storm System Map The City of Renton S20 T23N R5E W~ Storm System Map (Storm System Map), dated 22 March 2005, was obtained from the City of Renton following their internal records search for related drawings and inventories of the storm drain system in the vicinity of the project area. The results of this search are presented in Appendix B. Two mapped storm drain release points onto the subject parcels are identified on the Storm System Map. One stormwater release point is located at the southwest corner of Renton Avenue South and South 9th Street. The second release point is located at the southern terminus of Cedar Avenue South. These two release points are depicted as creating drainage channels on the subject parcels, which is illustrated flowing in a westerly direction before exiting the site through a piped stormwater conveyance across 1-405 and into Rolling Hills Creek. According to personal communication with Raymond van der Roest of the City of Renton on 14 June 2005, the location of these drainages and their conveyance under 1-405 are likely inaccurate as they are based of old field drawings, prior to electronic capabilities. 4.1.6 WDNR FPARS·ArcIMS Mapping System The Washington State Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) Forest Practice Application Review System (FPARS) ArciMS Mapping Application was reviewed to determine the location and WDNR typing of identified drainages on the project area and immediately off-site. According to the ArciMS Mapping Application, the unnamed tributary to Rolling Hills Creek is classified as a Type N stream (non-fish habitat according to Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 222-16-030 (3) and (4)) exists immediately off-site of the project area to the south. In addition, a portion of Stream A, identified on the site, upstream of its confluence with the Type N tributary to Rolling Hills Creek, is classified as a Type U stream (Unknown, unmodeled mapped hydrographic feature). 4.1.7 WDFW Priority Habitats and Species and WDNR Natural Heritage Databases The WDFW Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) database was searched for sensitive species and habitats on and near the subject property. The results of this search indicated that no priority habitats or species were present on the subject property. The unnamed tributary of Rolling Hills Creek, located approximately 300 to 400 feet southwest of the project area, is not listed as a priority habitat. However, priority habitats and species were identified within the surrounding area. The priority habitats identified include wetlands, streams, and urban natural open spaces. Of these priority habitats, a long, narrow stretch of urban natural open space along the southern 3 October 2005 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 931 CAReport(30ct05).doc Page 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Defoor Property Wetland Study. Stream Assessment. Habitat Study. Watershed Restoration and Mitigation Plan bank of the Cedar River is located approximately 1,/..-mile to the northeast of the project area. The Cedar River is identified approximately ~-mile to the northeast of the project area. Approximately %-miles to the southwest of the project area is a long, narrow stretch of palustrine scrub-shrub and palustrine-emergent wetlands associated with Panther Creek. Cedar River is identified as a priority habitat for multiple priority anadromous and resident species, including Chinook, coho, bull trout, sockeye, steelhead, cutthroat, and rainbow trout. An unnamed tributary to the Black River (presumably Panther Creek) is located approximately 1 1,/..-mile to the southwest of the project area and flows through the wetlands associated with Panther Creek. This unnamed creek is listed as priority habitat for anadromous coho salmon and resident cutthroat trout. The WDNR Natural Heritage Program database search did not reveal any sensitive habitats on or near the subject property. Results from the WDFW and WDNR database searches are presented in Appendices C and D. 4.2 Analysis of Field Conditions One wetland (Wetland A), two stormwater drainages (Drainages 1 and 2), and three unnamed streams (Streams A, B, and C) were identified on the project area (Sheet W1.0). These features are described in the following sections. 4.2.1 Wetland A Wetland A, approximately 3,374 sf, is a palustrine emergent wetland (Cowardin, et. al. 1979) located at the southern extent of the western parcel (Sheet W1.0). Wetland A has one dominant class of vegetation (herbaceous) with a second class of vegetation (scrub-shrub) along its perimeter. Vegetation within Wetland A is dominated by reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea) with salmonberry (Rubus spectabi/is) and Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor) along its perimeter. Soils within Wetland A do not correspondto those identified by the NRCS (Figure 2). Soils observed consisted of a thick horizon of sand, which appear to be outwash material from Stream B (See Section 4.2.3 below). Sand has been deposited in Wetland A on a topographically flat area, adjacent to the relict coal mining structure, behind (up slope) an exposed cement sill or foundation presumably used for coal mining activities. These soils consist of a horizon of very dark brown (10YR2/2) sand with redoximorphic features (mottles) present above a horizon of dark gray (1 OYR4/1) sand with mottles present. Wetland hydrology was present during our site visit: soils were saturated to the surface around the wetland edge and surface flow from Stream B was observed flowing through the wetland. According to RMC Section 4.3.050.M.1, Wetland A is classified as Category 3 wetland, since the wetland is newly emerging with emergent vegetation with low species richness. Under the RMC, Category 3 wetlands require a 25-foot buffer. 4.2.2 Wetland B Wetland B, approximately 196 sf, is a very small palustrine scrub shrub wetland (Cowardin, et. al. 1979) located at the eastern end of a small braid in the Stream B channel, on the eastern most parcel (Sheet W1.0). Wetland B has two dominant classes of vegetation (scrub-shrub and emergent). Vegetation within Wetland B is dominated by Pacific willow (Salix lasiandra), Himalayan blackberry, giant horsetail (Equisetum telmateia), and hedge bindweed (Calystegia sepium). Soils within Wetland B (Arents and Everett Material (An)) correspond to soils identified by the NRCS (Figure 2). Soils observed consisted of a thick horizon of very dark brown (10YR 2/2) gravelly sandy loam with redoximorphic features (mottles) present. As An soils are classified as a somewhat excessively drained, observed wetland hydrology is believed to be solely supported from flow within Stream B, which defines the wetland's northern, eastern, and southern limits. According to RMC, Wetland B is classified as Category 3 wetland and requires a 25-foot buffer. 3 October 2005 Talasaea Consultants. Inc. 931 CAReport(30ct05 ).doc Page 5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Defoor Property Wetland Study, Stream Assessment, Habitat Study, Watershed Restoration and Mitigation Plan 4.2.3 Drainage 1 Drainage 1 is an eroded stormwater conveyance channel. This drainage exhibits a defined bed and banks that have developed through the intentional point-discharge of undetained stormwater, originating from catchbasin outfalls located along the west side of Renton Avenue South (Sheet W1.0). Drainage 1 flows down a steep gradient west of Renton Avenue South. The channel of Drainage 1 channel has become increasingly incised and littered with debris (e.g., used tires, garbage bins, and metal barrels). Stormwater from this drainage flows downstream to the west where it converges with Stream A in a wide, historic ravine. The banks of Drainage 1 include native and non-native plant species. Adjacent to Renton Avenue South, where the drainage originates, vegetation is dominated by Himalayan blackberry and other non-native species. Along the banks of the drainage further downstream, vegetation becomes increasingly more native, with big-leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), salmonberry, vine maple, sword-fern, and lady-fern .. Since Drainage 1 is the direct result of the point-discharge of undetained stormwater, it is classified as a Class 5 stream (RMC Section 4.3.050.L.1) and isnot regulated by the City of Renton. 4.2.4 Stream A Stream A is the southern-most stream identified on the project area and originates downstream of an existing stormwater outfall location along the west side of Renton Avenue South (Sheet W1.0). Stream A flows southwest through a wide ravine before exiting the site to the southwest. Flow continues off site to the southwest for approximately 400-feet before entering an unnamed tributary to Rolling Hills Creek. Due to the source of hydrology to Stream A (e.g., undetained stormwater), flow within the channel is intermittent. Our review of historical aerial photographs suggests that this stream existed in its present wide ravine, which extended to the northwest. Historically, the headwaters of Stream A were located where Phillip Arnold Park currently exists. It is believed that the undetained release of stormwater into the existing channel has increased the extent and depth of the stream through flashy flows characteristic of stormwater runoff. The slope of the surrounding riparian area is relatively steep as the channel is confined within a ravine. Vegetation throughout the ravine and riparian area is comprised of three classes including: forested, shrub, and herbaceous vegetation. Species composition along the riparian corridor include big-leaf maple, black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa), western red cedar (Thuja pticata), Pacific willow, bittercherry (Prunus emarginata), Indian plum (Oemleria cerasiformis), snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus), Himalayan blackberry, reed canarygrass, evergreen huckleberry (Rubus laciniatus), perennial ryegrass (Lotium perenne), lady-fern, and sword fern. As Stream A is conveyed through a naturally-defined channel, it is regulated as a Class 4 stream under RMC, and requires a 35-foot buffer. 4.2.5 Stream B Stream B begins along the northeast corner of the eastern parcel, adjacent to Renton Avenue South (Sheet W1.0). Hydrology within Stream B occurs as a result of point-discharge of undetained stormwater of one stormwater outfall location on the western edge of Renton Avenue South at its intersection with South 9th Street. Stormwater is collected in a series of catchbasins and open roadside ditches along surface roads (Jones Avenue South, High Avenue South, Grant Avenue South, and South 9th Street) upslope of the project area and is released into the project area. 3 October 2005 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 931 CAReport(30ct05).doc Page 6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Defoor Property Wetland Study, Stream Assessment, Habitat Study, Watershed Restoration and Mitigation Plan After stormwater is released, flow within the shallow channel forks to the south and north around a narrow band of shrubs and alders whereupon Wetland B occurs. As stormwater flows around this narrow band, the channel becomes increasingly incised to a depth of 3-feet to 6-feet. Prior to its confluence with the southern fork, the northern fork flows under the roots of a mature big- leaf maple. Once the two forks of Stream B rejoin, flow continues downstream to the west. As the stream approaches the southern terminus of Cedar Avenue South, flow within the channel appears to be actively eroding the right bank (north bank) as it turns in a southwest direction and approaches Wetland A. As Stream B approaches Wetland A, the slope of the surrounding topography decreases, as does the depth of the channel. Once the stream enters Wetland A, the channel looses well-defined banks and surface flows are displaced with rills created in the deposited sandy outwash material that comprises the wetland. Flow exiting the wetland resumes within a defined channel that conveys flow abruptly to the south before exiting the site and presumably entering an unnamed tributary of Rolling Hills Creek, approximately 300-feet off site. The slope of the surrounding riparian area is relatively steep, though it becomes more gradual as Stream B flows west and approaches Wetland A. Vegetation throughout the riparian area is comprised of three classes including: forested, shrub, and herbaceous vegetation. Plant species composition along the riparian corridor of the stream include big-leaf maple, black cottonwood, western red cedar, Pacific willow, Indian plum, bittercherry, snowberry, Himalayan blackberry, reed canarygrass, evergreen huckleberry, colonial bentgrass, lady fern, and sword fern. Vegetation composition adjacent to Stream B, as it flows through Wetland A, becomes predominantly comprised of those species adapted to wet conditions, as described in Section 4.2.1. As Stream B exits Wetland A, vegetation along the right and left bank becomes monotypically dominated by Himalayan blackberry. In the letter to the City from the City's environmental consultant, Stream B is described as occurring in a historical channel and having perennial flow with summer baseflow supported by groundwater. As a result, Stream B has been determined to be a Class 3 stream with required 75-foot buffers, a description we do not agree with. After reviewing historical aerial photographs dating back to 1936, we believe that an alternate description more accurately portrays this stream channel. In 1936, the ravine in which Stream A is confined extended to the northeast beyond Renton Avenue South, across South 9th Street, and to the east toPhillip Arnold Park. There does not appear to be any visible channel present where Stream B is currently, in either the 1936 and 1946 aerial photos. In the 1960 aerial photo, a channel is visible in the approximate location of Stream B with an area of disturbance, believed to be outwash deposition, located in the vicinity of Wetland A. According to the City's environmental consultant, there are two plausible explanations for the absence of a visible Stream B channel in either of the 1936 or 1946 aerial photographs: 1) the channel is narrow and could be obscured by vegetation or 2) the quality and resolution of the photo is such that a small channel could not be discernable. We contest that there is a third plausible explanation that correlates with observed changes and development in the vicinity of the project area, as depicted in the historical aerial photos and with personal communication with Raymond van der Roest of the City of Renton's Surface Water Utility. Under this third plausible explanation, Stream B formed as a consequence of the provision of stormwater conveyances and pavement of the surrounding surface roads. The installation of the stormwater conveyances on Renton Avenue occurred around 1950. Surface roads in the vicinity of project area were being paved during the 1946 aerial photo, although that portion of Renton Avenue South or Cedar Avenue South, adjacent to the project area, was not paved. According to Mr. van der Roest, the catch basins and stormwater outfalls were installed in the 1950's, although no records could be located. Following the installation of the catchbasins and 3 October 2005 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 931 CAReport(30ct05).doc Page 7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Defoor Property Wetland Study, Stream Assessment, Habitat Study, Watershed Restoration and Mitigation Plan stormwater outfalls, undetained release of flashy stormwater began occurring. As previously mentioned, the project area has been classified as an erosion hazard area and a moderate to high slide hazard area. As a result, a channel has formed and has eroded through the soft gravelly sandy loam soils and soft sandstone bedrock (Renton Formation), creating a channel that is very narrow and deep. As previously mentioned, this drainage flows under a mature big- leaf maple, which is a feature that apparently pre-dates the establishment of the drainage channel. It is our opinion that Stream B is the result of approximately 50 years of undetained stormwater discharge onto the subject project area, resulting in highly incised channels and the formation of stream channel characteristics. Due to the intentional release of stormwater at the origin of the drainage, we do not believe that Stream B was naturally-defined or that the channel previously existed prior to the catchbasins and their outfalls. As such, we believe that Stream B should be classified as a Class 5 stream under RMC and therefore not be regulated by the City of Renton. In absence of historical context, we recognize that Stream B possesses some attributes associated with a Class 3 stream that would warrant this drainage to be placed in this category. However, given the historical context, we respectfully request a reconsideration of this drainage classification to a Class 5. Pending the outcome of this request, for project planning purposes, we have retained the Class 3 rating in the mitigation of proposed impacts to this feature. 4.2.6 Stream C Stream C begins in the vicinity of the southwest corner of Cedar Avenue South (Sheet W1.0), where stormwater collected along Cedar Avenue South is released through a 4-inch pipe, perched approximately 5 feet above ground, and onto broken concrete and debris, such as an old shopping cart and mobile camper..Stormwater released from this outfall location has also created a relatively incised channel, which flows to the west. Stream C is the smallest of the three identified streams and most of its flow infiltrates during normal rainfall events. However, it appears that during significant rainfall events, flow continues west before abruptly turning to the south where it converges with Stream B downstream of Wetland A and upstream of its presumed confluence with an unnamed tributary of Rolling Hills Creek. The slope of the surrounding riparian area is relatively steep, although it becomes more gradual as Stream C flows west. Vegetation throughout the riparian area is similar to the other riparian areas adjacent to the other streams, which is comprised of three classes including: forested, shrub, and herbaceous vegetation. Plant species composition along the riparian corridor of the stream include big-leaf maple, black cottonwood, western red cedar, Pacific willow, Indian plum, bittercherry, snowberry, Himalayan blackberry, reed canarygrass, evergreen huckleberry, colonial bentgrass, lady fern, and sword fern. Our review of historical aerial photographs suggests that this stream did not exist prior to the completion of paving and installation of catchbasins along Renton Avenue South and Cedar Avenue South. The release of undetained stormwater onto the subject parcel is believed to be solely responsible for the creation of the incised channel associated with Stream C, as similarly described for Stream B. As Stream C resulted from the direct release of stormwater, where no historic channel previously existed, Stream C is classified as a Class 5 stream under RMC. 4.2.7 Uplands The upland areas are undeveloped and are dominated by native and non-native vegetation. There is evidence of an existing old road running north to south through the upland area, paralleling Cedar Avenue South. This road was visible in historic aerial photos circa 1980. In addition, evidence of another road exists extending west from Renton Avenue South to the area 3 October 2005 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 931 CAReport(30cto5).doc Page 8 I I I .1 1 I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I Defoor Property Wetland Study, Stream Assessment, Habitat Study, Watershed Restoration and Mitigation Plan of abandoned coal mining activities. Along the northern portion of the project area, adjacent to Cedar Avenue South. the upland areas are dominated by a native deciduous forest canopy comprised of big-leaf maple with an understory of Indian plum, Himalayan blackberry, hazelnut (Cory/us cornuta), soft rush (Juncus effusus) and sword fern. Throughout the southern portion of the project area, adjacent to Renton Avenue South and south of the southern terminus of Cedar Avenue South, the upland areas are dominated by a mixed deciduous and conifers forest canopy with an understory comprised of both native and non-native vegetation previously characterized in Sections 4.2.2, 4.2.3, and 4.2.4. Soils throughout the upland area are primarily bright, brittle sandy loam. Two test plot locations established adjacent to Cedar Avenue South (where evidence exists of an abandoned road demonstrates sandy soil with a presence of redoximorphic features (mottles) with dark brown (7.5YR4/6) chroma. However, soil chroma observed at these two locations was dark yellowish brown (10YR4/4) and brown (10YR4/3). 4.2.8 Wildlife Wildlife observations on the site were limited to birds (primarily songbirds and red-tailed hawk); however, due to the time of year of our visit and the secretive nature of most wildlife, the probability of additional unobserved species is high. Numerous songbird species, including spotted towhee, black-capped chickadee, dark-eyed junco, American robin, and American crow, were observed on site. In addition to songbirds, a red-tailed hawk was observed flying over the site from east to west. No nests were observed on the project area, however, large deciduous and coniferous trees on-site could provide suitable perching habitat. The red-tailed hawk is not State-listed, Federally-listed, or listed as a priority species by the State. Therefore, the presence of a red-tailed hawk should not be a regulatory constraint. 5.0 PROPOSED PROJECT 5.1 Project Description GWC, Inc., has proposed development of five residential lots within the project area adjacent to Renton Avenue South with associated stormwater management and dispersal facilities (see Sheet W2.0, enclosed). The proposed action involves clearing and grading of approximately 1.04 acres, including approximately 256 sf of Class 4 stream buffer, filling approximately 240 If of Class 3 stream (Stream B), and filling of Wetland B, totaling approximately 196 sf. All applicable standard best management practices (BMPs) will be implemented to reduce the opportunity of unanticipated adverse impacts to all on site critical areas, including streams and wetlands. Mitigation for required alterations to critical areas and their buffers will occur in conjunction with the proposed development. Stormwater collected from three existing catchbasins along Renton Avenue South will be redirected from existing outfall locations and released into two improved dispersal outfalls adjacent to Stream A and B, per RMC Section 4.3.C.7. Stormwater collected from the northernmost catch basin, located at the intersection of Renton Avenue South and South 9th Street, will be tight-lined around Lot 1 to the north before being released into an improved outfall upstream of the existing Stream B channel, west of proposed Lot 1. Stormwater collected from the southernmost catchbasin will be redirected to the center catch basin, located between Lots 4 and 5, before being released through an improved stormwater dispersal outfall location. The release of stormwater will be designed to replicate existing hydrologic support to Stream A, Stream B, and Wetland A, while reducing the erosive energy of existing undetained stormwater flows through the installation of woody debris and native plantings. Stormwater collected from the five lots will be released through three infiltration/dispersal trenches into the vegetated hillside west of the lots, which will maintain existing baseflow conditions of the existing streams. 3 October 2005 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 931 CAReport(30ct05).doc Page 9 I I I I I I I I I 'I I I I I I I I I I Defoor Property Wetland Study. Stream Assessment. Habitat Study. Watershed Restoration and Mitigation Plan 5.2 Sensitive Area Impacts Avoiding impacts to critical areas and buffers significantly influenced the design of the Defoor Property development. The project has been designed to avoid impacts to Stream A and its buffer while minimizing unavoidable impacts to Stream B and Wetland B. The proposed alterations to streams and buffers are unavoidable and represent the least damaging practicable alternative, as determined by applying the following criteria: 1) physical availability, 2) technical feasibility, 3) cost, 4) environmental impacts, and 5) ability of the project to perform its intended purpose. The proposed project will minimally impact Stream A and its buffer, with the exception of approximately 256 sf of Stream A buffer that would be permanently impacted by Lot 4. However, approximately 240 If Stream B, where it's channel is severely eroded and incised, would be tight-lined and released through a modified outfall location to attenuate flow. Furthermore, approximately 196 sf of wetland fill would occur through the filling of Wetland B to allow development of Lot 1 (Sheet W1.1). These impacts are unavoidable in order to provide reasonable use of the project site and will provide improved stabilization to the existing and relocated stormwater outfall locations and ultimately improve stability throughout the Stream A and B basin. Furthermore, as additional mitigation for impacts to critical areas and their buffers, 620.633 sf of existing mature forest will be preserved in a native growth protection area. 6.0 WATERSHED BASIN RESTORATION AND MITIGATION PLAN Presently, the Stream A, B, and C basin experiences flashy releases of stormwater from upstream development. As a result, flows within these stream channels are extremely erosive and threaten the stability of the project site, which is classified as Erosion Hazard Area and Moderate to High Slide Hazard Area. The necessity of the site stability is further emphasized due to its additional classifications as Moderate to High Coal Mine Hazard area, High Seismic Hazard area, and its proximity to Interstate 405. Water quality within the streams is assumed to be poor, as the flow within the channels is in large part, if not solely, the result of undetained and untreated stormwater from existing upstream residences and surface roads. In general, stormwater from these types of developments contain elevated temperatures and increased concentrations of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), dissolved heavy metals, increased nutrient concentrations (Le., Total Nitrogen (TN), Total Phosphorus (TP), total suspended solids (TSS), and pesticides (A.C. Kindig & Company et al. 2003). All of these water quality pollutants/toxicants negatively effect salmonids behaviorally, biophysically, and biochemically. Erosion and further incising of the stream channels through sandy loam soils and sandstone bedrock reduces the water quality within the streams by increasing concentrations of TSS and TP. The following mitigation measures (Sheet 2.0 enclosed) will be implemented, as required by RMC Section 4.3.050.L.3 and Section 4.3.050.M.12, for unavoidable alterations to a Class 3 stream, Category 3 wetland, and their buffers. Mitigation for wetland fill will occur through 196 sf of wetland creation (1: 1 creation to alteration ratio) plus 196 sf of wetland enhancement (1 : 1 enhancement to alteration ratio). Alterations to stream buffer (Stream A) will occur through 256 sf of stream buffer replacement. In addition, mitigation for tight-lining Stream B around the north end of Lot 1 will occur through the installation of native vegetation, woody material (e.g., root wads), and live fascines, resulting in an increase in biologic and hydrologic function. An open- rail fence with appropriate signage will be installed along the western periphery of the proposed lots to deter human access and alterations to the protected and mitigated areas. Together, these mitigation measures will have a net-benefit to the stability and condition of the watershed basin. 3 October 2005 Talasaea Consultants. Inc. 931 CAReport(30ct05).doc Page 10 I I I I I I I I I I I ~ I I I I I I I I Defoor Property Wetland Study, Stream Assessment, Habitat Study, Watershed Restoration and Mitigation Plan 6.1 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS Goal 1: Restore, enhance, and protect the watershed basin associated with Streams A and B. Objective A-1: As mitigation for unavoidable stream channel and buffer alterations, restore the structural diversity of approximately 256 sf of altered stream buffer by diversifying the plant community through planting native herbaceous, shrub, and tree species. Performance Standard: Plant survival will be 100% after one year. Any plant mortality within the restoration areas at the end of first year will be replaced per a one-year plant guarantee. Objective A-2: Protect and preserve existing mature forest canopy to retain soil stability attributes offered through extensive root systems and the opportunity of efficient interception of precipitation from mature vegetation. Performance Standard: Protect approximately 60,633 sf of existing mature forest upon steep slopes within a native growth protection area (NGPA). Goal 2: Provide increased soil binding and channel stability within the channels of Streams A and B from the erosive forces that result from undetained off-site stormwater discharge through the installation of native plantings, woody material, live fascines, and riprap revetment. Objective A-3: Reduce incising and other erosion within the existing channels by installing soil binding and channel stabilizing features, such as native plantings, woody material, live fascines, and riprap revetment. Performance Standard: Quarterly visits during the first year following construction will be completed to inspect the installation of native plantings, channel enhancement features, and note any erosion that may occur .. Any noted erosion occurring on the project site within channels Stream A or B will be corrected as needed. Goal 3: Provide increased opportunity for sequestering of pollutants/toxicants within released stormwater through the attenuation of flows and the installation of native plantings, woody material, and live fascines. Objective A-4: Through the installation of native plantings, woody material, and live fascines, provide the opportunity for sequestering of pollutants/toxicants and therefore, improve water quality within Streams A and B. Performance Standard: Quarterly visits during the first year following construction will be completed. Analysis of turbidity levels at upstream and downstream locations, within Streams A and B, will be performed using a Hach 2100P field turbidimeter to show, at a minimum, a no net increase in turbidity leaving the site. 6.2 Plantings The plant species used in the mitigation plan (Sheet W2.0) were chosen for a variety of qualities, including: adaptation to specific water regimes, value to wildlife, value as a physical or visual barrier, growth habit (structural diversity), and aesthetic values. Native tree, shrub and herbaceous species were chosen to increase both the structural and species diversity of the riparian and upland areas, thereby increasing the area's value to wildlife for food and cover. Plant materials will consist of a combination of bare-root specimens, container plants, cuttings, and seed. 6.3 Habitat Features Down logs, stumps, and brush piles from existing significant conifer and deciduous trees will be incorporated into the on-site portion of channel enhancement and riparian restoration to provide 3 October 2005 931CAReport(30cto5).doc Talasaea Consultants, Inc. Page 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Defoor Property Wetland Study, Stream Assessment, Habitat Study, Watershed Restoration and Mitigation Plan ecologically important habitat features for wildlife. These habitat features will be relocated from areas on the project site that will be cleared for development. Down logs, stumps, and brush piles provide the slow release of nutrients as the wood decays, while also providing cover for amphibians, small mammals, and other wildlife. Boulders recovered from the site excavation will be placed in small piles throughout the restoration area. These piles provide habitat for reptiles and small mammals. 6.4 Irrigation A temporary above-ground irrigation system will be designed and installed by the landscape contractor for the restoration area. To minimize the potential for plant desiccation in the restoration area, a soil moisture retention agent will be incorporated into the backfill of all planting pits. 7.0 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT A pre-construction meeting will be held on site to review and discuss all aspects of the proposed restoration project prior to any construction activity. The owner, as well as a City representative, will attend the meeting. Prior to commencement of any work by contractors adjacent to the critical areas, the clearing limits will be staked and fenced. Silt fences will be installed at the clearing limits and significant habitat features and vegetation to be retained will be clearly marked in the field. A wetland biologist will regularly supervise plan implementation during construction to ensure that the restoration plan is completed as designed. Any significant modifications to the design that may occur as a result of unforeseen circumstances will be approved by the owner, the City, and Talasaea Consultants prior to their implementation. Stormwater containment and erosion control will adhere to King County's Erosion and Sediment Control Standards as stated in King County Municipal Code (KMC) 15.25.090. This will occur through the use of King County approved Best Management Practices (BMPs) during construction to protect the water quality of Wetland A and Streams A and B from possible impacts. Implementing BMPs will act to minimize erosion and sedimentation and protect water quality within the wetlands and stream during storm events. Silt fences, straw bales, and other structures will be installed to slow runoff and remove suspended sediments during construction. BMPs to be implemented may include, but will not be limited to: • Street sweeping, • Rocked road entries, • Silt fencing, • Catchbasin inserts, • Temporary cover, • Interceptor swales, • Rock-lined swales, • Rock check dams or triangle silt dikes, and • Site runoff containment. Street sweeping will be implemented to clean construction sediments from roads to minimize sediment-laden runoff into storm drains. Rocked road entries will minimize mud and sediment collection on roadways. Catchbasin inserts will act as sediment control during construction by removing sediment and other pollutants adsorbed to sediments from stormwater. Silt fencing at the clearing limits will reduce over-ground stormwater sediment transport. Temporary cover 3 October 2005 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 931 CAReport(30ct05 ).doc Page 12 I I I I I I I I I I I I 'I I I I I I I Defoor Property Wetland Study, Stream Assessment, Habitat Study, Watershed Restoration and Mitigation Plan (Le., straw or plastic sheeting) to exposed soils and stockpiles will reduce the availability of exposed sediments to over-ground stormwater sediment transport. Interceptor swales will divert construction runoff from sensitive areas to treatment facilities. Rock-lined swales will reduce the sediment loads in stormwater runoff. Rock check dams or triangle silt dikes will be placed in the interceptor swales to reduce the velocity and sediment loads of stormwater runoff. Site runoff containment will detain and treat stormwater prior to release to ensure water quality within State surface water quality standards under WAC 173.201A. Other BMPs will be implemented, as appropriate. 8.0 MONITORING METHODOLOGY Performance monitoring of the wetland and stream buffer mitigation areas will be conducted for a period of five years, with reports submitted annually to the City of Renton according to the schedule presented in Table 1. Reports will include: a) photo-documentation, b) estimates of percent vegetative cover, plant survival and undesirable species, c) water quality and hydrology, d) wildlife usage, and e) an overall qualitative assessment of project success for the wetland mitigation. Ta bl 1 C I d f P rf e aen ar or e ormance M 't . om onng an d M . t am enance E vents Year 1 Year 2 Baseline Conditions PM-2 PM-3 PM-4 PM-5 AssessmenUPM-1 MR MR R,MR MR R,MR R,MR Winter 2006 Spring 2007 Summer 2007 Fall 2007 Spring 2008 Fall 2008 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 MR PM-6 MR PM-7 MR PM-8* R,MR R,MR R,MR Spring 2009 Fall 2009 Spring 2010 Fall 2010 Spring 2011 Fall 2011 *Obtam final approval to get release of bond from City of Renton (presumes performance criteria are met). PM == Performance Monitoring R == Report MR == Maintenance Memo and Review 8.1. Vegetation Permanent vegetation sampling points or transects will be established to incorporate all of the representative plant communities. The same monitoring locations will be re-visited each year with a record kept of all plant species found. Vegetation will be recorded on the basis of relative percent cover of the dominant species within the vegetative strata. All monitoring will be conducted by a qualified biologist. Photo-points will be established from which photographs will be taken throughout the monitoring period. These photographs will document general appearance and progress in plant community establishment in the mitigation area. Review of the photos over time will provide a semi- quantitative representation of success of the planting plan. Monitoring and photo-point locations will be shown and described in the baseline assessment report. 8.2 Water Quality, Hydrology, and Bank Stability During each monitoring event, the water regime within the mitigation area will be assessed to ensure that proper hydrological conditions exist within both the wetland and its buffer. Water quality will be assessed qualitatively; unless it is evident there is a serious problem. In such an event, water quality samples will be taken and analyzed in a laboratory for suspected pollutants. Qualitative assessments of water quality may include: 3 October 2005 931CAReport(30ct05).doc Talasaea Consultants, Inc. Page 13 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Defoor Property Wetland Study, Stream Assessment, Habitat Study, Watershed Restoration and Mitigation Plan • Oil sheen or other surface films, • Abnormal color or odor of water, • Stressed or dead vegetation or aquatic fauna, • Turbidity, and • Absence of aquatic fauna. In addition, bank stability of on-site streams banks will be noted and any areas of potential erosion or bank undercutting will be described. In the event that erosion or bank instability is observed, the source of erosion will be determined immediately and corrective actions will occur as necessary. 8.3 Wildlife Birds. mammals. reotiles. amohibians and invertebrates, which are readilv observable (either hv • . • • J - \ - -.-. _. --~ direct or indirect means) will be identified and recorded in the wetland and buffer areas. Direct observations include actual sightings, while indirect observations include tracks, scat, nests, song, or other indicative signs. The kinds and locations of habitat with greatest use by each species will be noted, as will any breeding or nesting activities. 9.0 SUCCESS CRITERIA Success of plant establishment within the mitigation area will be evaluated on the basis of both percent survival and percent cover. For woody planted species, success will be based on at least an 85% survival rate of all planted trees and shrubs, or at least 80% cover of equivalent recolonized native species, by the end of the five-year monitoring period. Noxious plant species will be maintained at levels below 20% total cover, except in the wetland mitigation area, where reed canarygrass is currently the dominant herbaceous species. Noxious weed species will be defined as those identified on the most current King County Noxious Weed List and may include Scot's broom, Himalayan and evergreen blackberry, purple loosestrife, hedge bindweed, Japanese knotweed, English ivy, and creeping nightshade. Removal and control of these invasive plant species will be achieved through routine maintenance in the mitigation areas. Such maintenance is necessary to achieve successful plant establishment and compliance with the 20% threshold for the listed exotic/invasive species. Removal of undesirable species will occur by hand whenever possible. No chemical treatment will be employed without prior approval by the City. 10.0 MAINTENANCE (M) and CONTINGENCY (C) Established performance standards for the project will be compared to the monitoring results in order to judge the success of the mitigation project. Contingency will include the items listed below and would be implemented if these performance standards are not met. Maintenance and remedial action on the site will be implemented immediately upon completion of the monitoring event (unless otherwise specifically indicated below). 1. Replace dead plants with the same species or a substitute species that meets the goal and objectives of the mitigation plan (C) 2. Re-plant areas after reason for failure has been identified (e.g., moisture regime, poor plant stock, disease, shade/sun conditions, wildlife damage, etc.) (C) 3. Perform corrective measures, as necessary, to provide adequate hydrology to support the desired wetland plant community (C) 4. Irrigate all planted areas with a temporary above ground system for a minimum of 2 years following plant installation (M) 5. Excavate, as needed, to correct alterations of surface drainage patterns (C) 3 October 2005 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 931 CAReport(30ct05).doc Page 14 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Defoor Property Wetland Study, Stream Assessment, Habitat Study, Watershed Restoration and Mitigation Plan 6, Remove/control weedy or exotic invasive plants twice yearly by manual or chemical means approved by the City of Renton. Use of herbicides or pesticides within the mitigation area would only be implemented if other measures failed or were considered unlikely to be successful, and would require prior agency approval (C & M) 7. Clean-up trash and other debris within the mitigation areas on a twice-yearly basis (M) 8. Selectively thin and prune woody plants to meet the mitigation plan's goal and objectives (e.g., removal of dead or diseased portions of trees/shrubs and thinning of volunteer trees such as red alder) (M) 11.0 PERFORMANCE BOND A performance bond will be posted with the City of Renton by the property owner for the cost of replacement of plantings and the five-year monitoring plan to assure the success of the mitigation plan. The bond may be released in partial amounts in proportion to work successfully completed over the monitoring period as the applicant demonstrates performance for implementing the conditions of the plan. 12.0 AS-BUILT PLAN Following completion of construction activities, an as-built plan for the wetland mitigation area will be provided to the City of Renton. The plans will identify and describe any changes in grading, planting or other constructed features such as open rail fence in relation to the original approved plan. 13.0 SUMMARY A critical areas and wildlife study was conducted on a 1 0.13-acre (approximate) property, located in the City of Renton, Washington. This study was conducted to document and characterize existing sensitive areas, including wetlands, streams, and wildlife habitat for a proposed five lot residential development. Three streams, two wetlands, and one stormwater drainage were identified on the study area. All critical areas identified on the property are hydrologically supported by undetained point discharges of stormwater from adjacent surface streets. Two of the streams (Streams Band C) and Drainage 1 show no evidence of previous existence prior to the release of stormwater onto the property around 1950. Stream C and Drainage 1 are classified as Class 5 streams and are not regulated by the City of Renton. Stream B, though identical to Stream C in origin, has been classified as a Class 3 stream based on the presence of apparent perennial flow by the City's environmental consultant. We request a reconsideration of this determination based upon additional information provided herein, but have retained the Class 3 stream classification for planning and buffer purposes pending the consideration of this request. Stream A, also hydrologically supported by undetained stormwater, appears to have existed prior to the release of stormwater and therefore is classified as a Class 4 stream, requiring a 35-foot buffer. Wetlands A and B are classified as a Class 3 wetlands and require 25-foot buffers. The proposed project has been designed to minimize impacts to critical areas by avoiding Stream A and Wetland A. However, alterations to Stream A's buffer, Stream B, and Wetland B were determined unavoidable. To mitigate for impacts to stream buffer, stream, and wetland alterations, a watershed basin restoration and mitigation plan has been developed. Through the implementation of this plan, no net loss of wetland area, wetland functions, or stream functions will occur. 3 October 2005 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 931 CAReport(30ct05).doc Page 15 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Defoor Property Wetland Study, Stream Assessment, Habitat Study, Watershed Restoration and Mitigation Plan 14.0 REFERENCES A.C. Kindig & Co, Cedarock Consultants Inc. 27 February 2003. City of Renton: Best Available Science Literature Review and Stream Buffer Recommendations. City of Renton. Online: http://www.ci.renton.wa.us/ednsp/images/caostrea . pdf Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior. FWSOBS-70/31. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss. Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation. 1989. Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S.D.A. Soil Conversation Service, Washington, D.C. Hitchcock, C.L., and A. Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press. 730 pp. Icicle Creek Engineers. 17 January 2005. Coal Mine Hazard Assessment and Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation Report. King County. Dec.1990. King County Sensitive Area Folio and Wetland Inventory. Munsell Color. 1988. Munsell Soil Color Charts. Kollmorgen Instruments Corp., Baltimore, Maryland. Reed, P.B. Jr. 1988. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Northwest (Region 9). USF&WS BioI. Report 88. Reed, P.B. Jr. 1993. Supplement to: National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Northwest (Region 9). USF&WS BioI. Report 88. Renton, City of. 25 April 2005. Renton Municipal Code. Washington State Department of Natural Resources Forest Practice Application Review System (FPARS), "ArclMS". < http://www3.wadnr.gov/dnrapp5/website/fpars/viewer.htm> June 2005 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, King County Area Soil Survey. 1973. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1988. National Wetlands Inventory Map, Renton Quadrangle. 3 October 2005 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 931 CAReport(30ct05).doc Page 16 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Defoor Property Wetland Study, Stream Assessment, Habitat Study, Watershed Restoration and Mitigation Plan APPENDIX A Wetland Delineation Data Sheets (Talasaea, 2005) 3 October 2005 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 931 CAReport(30ct05).doc Appendix A I "., ':;-~' L ~ ". ' .. ', " /',' '~'DATA FORM 1 ' " , " ','." .... ,-:-,. I I projectlSite:}>~pf2-f~121~ ,"~~~~'.: ," Date:~1 ~* ~' ' ',APpliC~t1o~n,er:-rn~ ~~',' -: ,~,~C.J.I~,~.' " I I I I I' I I .~ • :. '. • '. . • > IDvestiaati,r(s):~ , :WV; f...wt~6Vt ' ,.\ " Do Notmal Circums ces exist ontbe ,site?," (@ no 'Isthesitesigriificantly~ed (atypical situation)? ','," yes " , Is the, area, a otential Problem Area?' " --- VEGETATION .~': .. .... '. Stratuin Indicator ' 'Dominant Plant Secies' ',:" ",.! . ".;' .. ~ .,' . "." ',:;' . . .... -- HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: , , . '". % ofdomfuants'OBL,FACW" &FAC:: . . ';' ': . ~ : -" Check all,indicatOi's:tbat apply &expIaiii belo,!\,: , " .' ,,' .' \,.-. , ... ;.... .... .' ... Stratum Indicator " I I I " ..... ; .. :" .: .. ::'~'.: . -" .. '.-"-' . Regionai,knowledge~()£pIilDtc6~1lnitieS " :;, ',: <:'wetIaild:p~t ~£o~, ~'~,.oTHER , Physiol9pcal or reprodti.cti've~adaptatioDs ,_' _', ,Morphologtcal adaptattops,;, ' ,_, _', Technic8ILiteratuI'e" ' " " WetIaDdPlantData Base 1 Hydi:opliytic vegetation JI"""'!! 1-~ __ ,_,_, ______ ~ "::'. ",' 1_-, Is it thegr~wing season? -~-, Basedon~, , .s~~~·~··-" ,-'. ,": ...... .-:'6==1 :., .... . ... : . . ProtiIe Description '. " .. , . ,Depth HoriZon; . Matrix: color Mottlecolbr~, Mottle abimdance. . Texture, concretions, .; Drawing of soil .. (inc~f::s) ,.... . (1vIuns~II:' .•. (MtinseII . siZe & contraSt . structure, etc. prof"Ile I-_--"-.;,;......~---,--___ _r_--..:m::;o::i::.:st:!..) ~+__ .. ·....:m=oi=s::l.t)-.,--_· '_' ___ -+_.:-..-_.....;... __ ~_I. ':(match description) ......... .~t( '~.' ··.···.a··.· . v;"l-u " ':;":'.:" " • 1····i4A· .~··.~.·.·····.:~m·~f~ : ..... ~ .~ .. ... ' .. , ..... . -, ~ ... . .~." ":" .. ': ..... ,; . ,.'; .. ' , ." . ,:' :." .',. '. : ........ .-. " ;, -,' " 8 I : ,~ I Hydric SOirIn~:::::(Check a1ltfiaJap~ly} . ..,::._ Concretioils '. .. ..... . ..1 ""'.. . . ." .. ·HisticEp.iR.~don .. ,,~~,_~_~ __ ~ -.:--...HighcOrganic.Content-in,surface-Layer of Sandy"SoW;C--_--: /' ........ ··'·'·slIlfidicOdof· .. ' . ", ... ""::."". "'·Lo .• '1S.rgteand· ·.io~n;SLtre".O-akic·"al··;'.~H·gv.indri·'~c-ans·doYl:l··SSL°iIsISt~ . ,.',' .. ' .. ' .... :.·1 :.== .... ,. ,', ~:·RA.· .·eq.d·u.··uiCc·m.M ... ·.gOCiS:··tui'eo •. · .. n·.eli··. 'uR .• o.e.n inn s•• .... ,: e ... :.· .... · .• ·· ~ ' .. _._: _:LiStedon,National.Hydric Soils.List -.' .:,!~ Gle ed or Low-Chroma: Col "_'_" _._ .... Other. (eX lain hi remarks), ., .. .... ,. .; Hydric soils pr~eDt? . .•.. .:,.yes . . :.... • Rationale for .deciSion/Remarks:· .:'. . . . 'E ~~t-;~b~0\~~~1 v~,'i~~. .... ·1 ; ',' ~ .. : .. '" .-. , .:,' .,', :.;. Wetland Determiilation .(circle) :~=::Jt;fn~!~seiii?:~;-~~noC~-~~~-':;~;:;--. .. yes .0---. .I VetIand':'h -ole resent-? . . ~wetlana?' ...• tatioiiaIeJRemarkS: -.....~--.-... . ........ :.... . ,,;:1 . ..~s.0-:_~t~:~~ .. ~;~fs:·.. -.... ·1 --_ . ..:.-'-' -". ;-. ,-' ~-.. -., ---...:..-~~~,-:--:--' -:-' '-" .-~.~ ... .:' -~.-~-. '~-~--.-' '-.. -:-:-.--:.-""---;--::-.... ----... --... ---.----=-----..•. --..... -----.. -.---·-··-~-·-·~~.d " .. -.:-.---.. --•• ~~-"--'-.----.:-:...-•. .....,..--.....;--.. -:--•• -.-.~.--•.•. -•... ..,-. ',' ~. -:-! -------_ •.••. :-_. --- OTES: I ; .. ' I- I .... ; ... :.:: r." ' . ,.' --", ---_ ...... -.--~ .: .• ;:......~;l!: .... ';-: , ".. ".,.' , . :., " : ..•. -.-: •.. ~: •. :.:::-•.• ,"t-' .. -::'-'-'" '.", • ,_ ," '.,.. ..... ; .. . ".: ........ I ~r.ojectlSite:~~pt2-f~W~'~~>~ __ ..' . Date: ~I.~· ~ , Applicantl()wn.er:T~~' ~~ -·G~c/l~ .. · I I I I 1 I ~ ~~6V1..' ... ,' . , '0;'11'\ -~ t\~ ~ . .. ;yv,,~ .. ·~l~tJ.~·.· . .. ,: , :%ofdorin~tsOBL"FACW;&FAC:' ..... '-. -: :, ..... . Stratuin Indicator Dominant Plant S ecies' .~Wll..;...· .:r.~ t-lI( ", . ,\.' . Stratum I' CheckaIlindicatorS:tluitapply'& explambelo~: -.' '.< . i I :::~~::\::::Z!t~=~'-::=:z:=~~~) -x< .·T~~hrtic·arLiter8tute·· .. . . ,"> Wetland PlantI)itta· Base " . ".r·" . Hydrophytic vegetation present? I ' '.Rationale fordecisionJRe~: . ' ,. . ~f~f'.a4 ~~ \~~'d#~'~ ~,~~~, .... : Indicator .-~ ',' ,-.. -I ==~~RflJ:.eGY _________ . ~-.-.. '. ..:. . . ',-.. :"" : 1_' -Is,itthe ~o~gseason?. _ .• ~'" ' '·'n~rw~~~rMarks~.:--:-.-:--e-s---::=:--r--~---"-~-...,.;.;..,.j ~-::-:~Basedon;',:,~~.~ -~ ---'-' -" Drift.Lmes.--eo .. Dept. of inundation: ' ~ches . . . , Oxidized Root (live roots I' .... .. ...... . .. '. .' ~e.... Channels <12 in. es 0 I-~~~-~:;~f'.--:pr~i~ I-:~!=:.~-:-.:=-:,:-:-:{:-~U-:_~-~--:-.>-_~-::~ ..... :~-:;-~~~.~e~~+--Le:-.. :,-~v-.e-'~:"".:-.:--, •• '-"_-,-.-:Y-e-s:-·-§)-.. -l .... Check all that appiy' &: explain below: ~ / k Other: Stream, Lake orgage data: /. . '. 1 . . Aerial hoto hs: . Other:. Wetland hyclroIogypresent?· '. yes •. .--. Rationale for decisionlRemarks: . 1 .. ~. ,.'~r ~h~f~l .. ~:~J~(~J .C{~~" '".--... ,". -I I Depth . Horizon, . Matrix: color Mottle colors " Texture~. concretions, : Drawing ·of soil (inches)' . ". (MUJiseU'c . (MunseU ~size & contraSt' struc~,etc, profile l-_---'-___ f----'-__ -!-.,..·.:;m=.;o;:;is;,:t)'-· -..;.-!--.;.;m:;;,;:o;:;is;,:t),--· -1---'-'---..;.---r------~--1. ''(match description) . . Profile Description' '1 . ---',.--' .... -:D-lt /'--'---- ,.. ' .. 1 .. ': :.:':.:'. :.'. ,.' ij, ..•... "g ......... ," ·'1 " '2. . ,- J' -•. : •• . ~.: ~ ".:", :. " " . 'I f" : •••••. -. ".,." .... :',.- Hydric SOilIn;!!~::;: ,(cheCkalI,tbat apply). . "'~:Concreti~ns . . . '''1 Histie Epm~on' '. _ .. _ .. ~ __ '_~_. ___ ~Eg1i.Organic Cbntent·in.Swface·Layer of.. Sandy-Soil~ -.-- . _' __ sulfidic Odor' '-" . -" , , .. ,'-' _ Orgamc StreakiDg in Sandy Soils . .' ....... ' .. : ... 1._ .. , '_. '_. _ AquicMoiStlire· Regime' .. ' " .:~~~li::!·~~~~ridb()lbrs' ..',: fIydric.so.(lspreSent?, ,:.~ Yes" .•• 1 ~tioria1e fordeclsionlRfii1larlCS:.' . '. .....', .' ','J ....... ··~wot~~~;tz:;.."lU:l*e.i'~; '." ::". . " -, ~, :;.' .. )TES: ·l~~<"'~(~j= • •. ---.-0--":' . r~ ;. ".. . I I . , .•.. : , , -.; I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I···· 1 I- I I I I ~r~jectlSi_te;1:>.~p~.f~1t1~·~~ ~.~. . Date: ~l .. ~._ ~ Applicant/o~.e~~EffL-~l?>~· --(;:,.vJC-/l~ • .. <W~~···>:· Dominant Plant S ecles :1: .: Indicator .... ~.~ .... ·.~.11~ .,' ~-:.~J. '. . r rJ" ~'1fJ i: ~ . . :' HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS:-.... ': . •.. -' "--. '-.-' ., '.' -.. -..... ... ..' ·r-:'··-%·ofdOrin~~·OBL. PA6Y,&FAC: -:.1 aato< . _ Check all indic~orStb8tapply & expIainbelo~: .. , --... -.-., '-. Stratum Indicator . :':;'/¥~.· , . : .• " ,;i~~.;. " .L· .. ;:';:';:W~~~~=:;:';:'==~~~~>X ." Technical Literature: . . 'Wetlail(iPlantDara Base' .' .~ ·OTHER __ Hydrophyticvegetatibn'present? .no - . _ Rationale for decisimIlRermiIxs: . .. . ;~+,~~~~f~')-1 .. ~~, . HYDROLOGY -. . .. ".. ....,,' . ........ .. " .' . -:~.;, .," ... . ~; 1_ ~~:;~W_in_~~_eas~~l ____ ._. ___ -_-_ . . Dept. of inundation: . ~lliches. _. . _ . --r-._.. -' I-:C~h==ann::7::e:-=:ls:....<..:.:1=:=Z~m7;~' ~esr.::n~..-4 _____ --'-___ ~-'--_-l Depth~oJree water iIJ pit ___ .:. --1f: i~ches_,_ -..• __ •.•. -_.-.FA9_N~utral: .ye no Water-stained . I _ -ri~~~=~~r~~~till~~~~i~~in~cli~~~;;~---~: -.--:-~?'t~:~-~---·~~:==::::~:~:~·~-__:Ga~es-: : :'~~'-===-'-_~--~yei8-: .- Check all that apply & explain below: I 1 Stream, Lal<:e or gage data; Aerial hoto hs: -I -Wetland hyqn,Iogy present?· .. __ · ' .. I RatiOnalefOrdecisiO~1S:·tU. vJ~~'ll(~1 Cy(~~, I . , .. ,.' . ..... . .. .-.s-'~"';'··'-~-~·~""··'· .. --"'.·-':-··'-···'-···--·~"-~"-':"-" ..... "-~-'-""--" _._"_ ... ...;,;.-....;., ... --... "':". -.-... :: ..... ::.::::=:::==:=~:==:========:= .. =.=:::::::-: .. ::.,r-.... ~.-z*"""ti·l ,MapUnlt:Name'Akf~t~·~~('~~h~~s ... ,~L.lz (Seri~s &~hase} :.' ~~ $~ ~ '. ,. "".: .~, . :'. ~'. "-;: . .' . ~ .,~"., : '. '. .... . . -. . ." ":.:.,< Flela:observatlonsconfirm . Yes. e. N·~ ed ' .. Profile Description Depth . Horizon Ma.t:riX color Mottle colors . ,MottJeabrindance 'Texture,concretions; ~. . .. Drawingof.soil . '(fuch~s)' . , .: . (Munse:n'i:~:(Mrinsell . size&: contraSt Structure, etc. . profile. moist)" moist) . ' .. : . ··:(match description} . {~~£'~To.f--;I'~~ . :'" ." ..... 1 I . "1 -d,': ., : ~; :1 '~:i.:. :1 "';-1 J9 ! Hydric Soil:Indicators: .. (checkallthatapply); . :::::::~·.!i:::!·:~:l~~Pi~i~o~' . ···.i .~_. __i .. . •...... , ... ~~cbnieni .. sUrr .... LaYCF 9tS~dy-SGiI..,. ...J __ ··:·_'Suifidic.Odoi> '.--.... ,. -..... ~ ... ': . "::'. :"OrgahlcStreakiDgm~S~dy Soils;.' .. .... '. ..' < ~ Lisiecnlll):.dcalHydrlc Soils List "I ~Listed on· National Hydric Soils List -. . .... "i,i! _'_Other(ex' him in remarks) '. , . .. Hydric soils::pr~ent? . Rationale forcfeCisiorilRe . ~ . . .. ' ... ~t.;s;~~1-&" $01\1 Ct1'~'A , .. OTES: c. " .:1 . . . '-~ . I I I I I I I I . .: .j,.... ',I, .. .:,.:",': " . . ,'. . .'::~ . ': : ~ .. ~, ; ... : .' .-:,DATAFORMI .' i, ' ... ... ' ': ,,' .... . .... ~ .. -~: .. :Routine WetJmld Detenriinad~n. .' ." .... '-"':-.'-'-"'-"~"~~~';.~ .~: -cWA State.WetbmdDeIin~tion l\ii~~~~' . "'.1987 Co sWetland Delineation ManuSI) Project/Site: '"j.)~P~ f~1LJ":"" ·~M ~ ~ . Date~~t, ~ .. ~ Applicant/own.er: -r~ ~~ -~\A.IC.IIM\.C." ....... ~. ~~~t. '.' '" .: . DorrrlnantPlant S eci~s' . Stratuin ..... Indicator- : ,,:;. " . CommUnity ID~~~!-sk~ b Transect ID:, • -.", PlotID:~~ Stratum Indicator . -. " .... '. I . . ' .. ' I----~~-.:~. : .. -:-.~' ----." ----+-.;;.... -' ~. -.,.,+-";":-~~~':""-~~----~--4---':"---1 I. .~R()~~<: \lEGETATI~NINDICAT~f':" . _._ .'% ofdomiilants qBF,FAay.&FAC:· ,.tu"b,Y .. : '. ..' I Check ~~~~rs that"~ppIY &exp1aili belo~: '. .':" .:-.... : .... ;: .. ,.. " ...... . Region3IknowI~g~'~fp~i~~UDi~es: .. '::::'We~dp~t list<@!yrre,r!iOnaftl .. ~ " .. '1 .' .. 'Physio19gicaJorreprodu¢veadaptations . -" . -:'~orpbolog1caladaptattons .'Y '.'-- Technical'Literature" .' Wetland Plant Data Base '. :. . . . 1 1 Hydropbyticvegetation'present? .'. yes. RationalefordecisionlRemark:s: ." . . ":' . .... ' ...... , .. . ". '.' , ....... . ····~.~4~~~~#~~J~~· 'IDuROLOGY . .' . ,.~ .. -.... :-~ .. ~.--.------ .' no . Water Marks: OTHER·_'._ 1 I I I . :~=~~~:~-~~-'J~r~:: _-:l'~~r~~:_ ~~_":~~~;:;:"'jn.~,~.~ ra.:, Check all that apply' & explain below: Other: ' Stream~ L~ or gage data: . _ . Aerial hoto hs: Other: ._.,_., .. . WetIand·byc:lrologypresent?~ ,'; : . es .... -.:no .. -.~·_." ... '. ' •. -. _. . . ........ .. Rati;f:~~~t~~~_;rf~tJ,~~~ . \)'" J J-YOL W, ~ . (-.' .' . - ~ . Yes TaXonom ", .. Profile Description Depth, ,. Horizon.' ,(inches)' :., '," ' Matrix color Mottle colors . Mottle abimdance Texture, concretions,; Drawing of soil , (Muns~ll . :, '" ()1unseU , . " siZe & contraSt "." structure, etc. " profile . I-----'--'--~..."..-~+-__ " ...:;m,;;;;;o~i;;;;.st~}-,--+-' '_'.' ....;m;,;;;'.;;.;oi~st~)_-t-______ -+ ___ ~ ____ r" "tmatch description) , D-:Uf" ·'IX·Tfj~~·~.,¢O_~,~~' , ...• ~ •. ' .• ~' c· ~_,. :~ . .--:; '-, .... " ..... -.' '-", .' .... : . ~ ..... -.-., I( '2;:0-1--, OTES: 'I I I I I I ".-1 -, I, " I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Defoor Property Wetland Study, Stream Assessment, Habitat Study, Watershed Restoration and Mitigation Plan APPENDIX B City of Renton Internal Records Search Results (Renton, 2005) 3 October 2005 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 931 CAReport(30ct05).doc Appendix B I I I I I I 1 I. 1 I I I I I 1 I I I I Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor April 22, 2005 Per Johnson, Ecologist Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 15020 Bear Creek Road NE Woodinville, W A 98077 CIT~ OF RENTON Planning/BuildinglPublic Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator -' . u u; '-' -, -_-1 I ~rc: r~ 10m ~m ii', ~ APR 25 Z005, ~! SUBJECT: STORM DRAIN MAPS, RENTON AVE SOUTH. n ........... no!" T ....... l.,,'!"":-_-_ ...... • .a...;""u; .i \"tl JVllU~Vll. Please find enclosed the storm drain inventory map for the area surrounding Renton Ave South, and some old plans for Cedar Ave. The storm system in Renton Ave South was mapped from field observations, and we do not have any plans for this system. Downstream, at 1-405, the drainage converges on a 48" diameter culvert under the highway. Please refer to the enclosed fieldbook copy. If you have any questions regarding this mailing, please contact me at 425-430-7392 or by email at rvanderroest@ci.renton.wa_us. Sineerev Raymond van der Roest, PE Surface Water Utility Enclosures * This paper contains 50% recycled material, 30% post conSUmer AHEAD OF THE CUI\VE I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Storm System P!BIPW TECHNICAL IJIllVICBS 03I:UI05 , ,. j'---., I / '\:' . r '-J'./ . r----<'--'----" -, 'b.... 200 n° 1:41100 ) , , , , G4 eo.-Ja....-b O.J • 1.0 -_ HAW 1!JI8_ 20 T23N R5E W 112 5320 I~ ! . ADJUST iriON. CASf' 8 COliER CEDAR =-~--c::::J AVE. s. ~~ ® '~I Ii: Iwi;;: 1 grfle: I STA. IJ+Z7.0 CONST. ,TYPE '0' ~~g., DRIVEWAY JOIN £)nST. P.eVC.w£NT---f----\ :iID~rWXl: I~~ ~ .f.~ : o .. , ~ '\-' J I~ ~ 't, .. , ~_1L====;===~~_; --i ,-. ~~=-:UJ $TA. '.+UOO TO $TA. "+~o i f:7.ifi ?iH~}~t.K ~R ~ SHEEr,o OF 10 ... . .IT .. -~r~:::-:'-r' . ,,:", ... , . . , =t····· .... . . ~ .. zzo~~ __ z,~ . ------",.,.------------------- .T •. / ..... OJ co.ur. TYP£ ))' CONe. DRIYf'WAY w·/o· (JJ ,". 20' HOR IZ. SCALE'!". 10' vERT. . ... ".--".-.... _ .. __ ._ .. '---' -:-----'-~-" . . __ ... _-'-.-..... , .. - PROPOSED TOP OF CVRB, EAST" ..DO " PROPOSED [ GRADE Ii) ...... fIl ..•... \ I ~ \. , I~ ~ ~ ...:..l.CU I :../do. ~ - za: t , .~. -"-7 I f 'I' ,. of... r . • '.'" .. I I ~ 1.l lZO ." ... .,0 ZZ5 ... ... ~" c' J "'L' U , ", . ." L"" , Jl~ .,'. I'M' I ~. ,! R-I2.U luran.." PRDPOSED TOP OF CURB, WEST L.La. 2s.J-srReEr IMPROVEMeNTS CEDAR AVENUE sa '4)0 so. .IRa sr. ro so. srH. sr . . . ;iL". .. " ,ns . ' .. :~.~.~. ",;. Sh'cittW ~~$.--- ;-_ .. •• /0 "'."" 3-(-/1'1 m~----'·_i.l.·.'~~·· '.' ..... ~·~~.:;;""-.. ~".-I . .;;I·;;:' ". , . , t~l,~~ .. ~~'1~'c·'"! .. .' • I'ol. ~, . . '-' ~ ~ I ~ " . ':N:', . '. • .. '1 ; • .,,~ ... "l" ff: .... ::r;.~ .,: n. ':.'. .,' '" .' : !:;:~':>':"," I,. ; ..... :: .... ; ..• :;~!:~t::~.~!~~t~~~1:fr*f~JJ.~~~\~~~:.=!'t~~~~~:~il~;..:. '~'~'.::. ~:. • .;_w······· ------------------- I I I I I I I I I I I il I I I I I @ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Defoor Property 3 October 2005 Wetland Study, Stream Assessment, Habitat Study, Watershed Restoration and Mitigation Plan APPENDIX C Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitats and Species Database Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 931 CAReport(30ct05).doc Appendix C I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I WASHINGTON DEPI ENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE -HABITATS AN' ~N THE VICINITY OF T23R05E SECTION 20 Report Date: May 09, 2005 --rl\-L1s 'ECIES REPORT' -( Information About Priority Habitats and Species Polygons Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) polygons are labeled with a unique number and "+" symbol, roughly in the center of the polygon on the map. This PHS Poly number refers to a list of form numbers and species and habitat codes contained in the PHS Polygon Cross Reference Report (listed below). The form numbers refer to the attached PHS polygon Report. This report details each species or habitat depicted as a polygon on the map. For a complete description of the codes used in this report please refer to the Fish-and Wildlife Map Products document. This document may be viewed on our web site at http://www.wdfw.wa.gov/hab/release.htm. Priority Habitats and Species Polygon -Summary Habitat and Species List: This report and the accompanying maps may contain some species or habitats that are not considered priority by the agency. YES under the "PHS" column in the table below indicates that the species is considered a priority and is on the priority Habitats and Species List and/or the Species of Concern List. NO under the "PHS" column indicates the species/habitat is not considered an agency priority. State PHS Status PHS Code Common Name Species Use Species Use Description YES YES UNOS WET URBAN NATURAL OPEN SPACE WETLANDS Priority Habitats and Species Polygon Cross Reference Report: Form number 900000 indicates presence of PHS is unknown or the area was not mapped. or 909996 indicate compilation errors. PHS Poly# 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Form# 900000 902688 903661 902688 903661-903664 900000 902724 902725 902725 900000 902725 902725 902725 902522 902725 902725 902522 902538 902538 902538 902538 902723 PHS Code*Species Use *- UNOS*- UNOS*- UNOS*- UNOS*-WET*- *- WET*- WET*- WET"- *-WET"- WET"- WET"- WET"- WET*- WET"- WET"- WET"- WET"- WET"- WET*- WET*- Information About Wildlife Heritage Point Report Form numbers 909998, 909997, Wildlife Heritage points on the map can be referenced to this report by noting the quadpt number where the point occurs on the map, and then looking up the information listed below. This report is sorted by the quadpt number and provides details on each species depicted on the map. For a complete description of the codes used in this report, please refer to the Fish and Wildlife Map Products document. This document may be viewed on our web site at http://www.wdfw.wa.gov/hab/release.htm. Wildlife Heritage Point -Summary Species List: This report and the accompanying maps may contain some species or habitats that are not considered priority by the agency. YES under the "PHS" column in the table below indicates that the species is considered a priority and is on the Priority Habitats and Species List and/or the Species of Concern List. NO under the "PHS" column indicates the species/habitat is not considered an agency priority. PHS State Species Status Code Common Name Species Use Species Use Description Wildlife Heritage Point Report: Codes Used In Wildlife Heritage Point Report Quadpt# : A sequential number for a point based on a US Geological Survey 7.5-minute quadrangle. Species Code: Alphanumeric code which identifies the species. List of codes are available in the documentation. Species Use : Criteria that identifies how the area is used by the indicated species. List of codes are available in the documentation. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Priority Habitats and Species Polygo ,port Form#: 902522 PHS Code: WET Species Use: Common Name: WETLANDS Season: Definition: 4 Accuracy: 1 Scientific Name: State Status: Federal Status: Priority: YES Site Name: CEDAR RIVER WETLANDS (LOWER) General Description: VARIOUS TYPES OF WETLANDS IN THE LOWER CEDAR RIVER WATERSHED (THOSE THAT ARE ASS OCIATED WITH THE RIVER DOWNSTREAM FROM MAPLE VALLEY). MANY OF THESE ARE FORESTED AREAS. MANY OF THESE HAVE SOME OPEN WATER COMPONENT. Source: KING COUNTY SENSITIVE AREAS MAPS. Source Date: 12 90 Source Code: GSMAP Synopsis: A USGS BASED MAPPING SYSTEM ALSO USING NWI INFORMATION. Source: MULLER, ET AL; WOW, SCS, AND COUNTY. Source Date: 90 Source Code: PROF Synopsis: PERIODIC SITE VISITS TO MANY OF THESE SITES. Form#: 902538 PHS Code: WET Species Use: Season: Definition: 4 Accuracy: 1 State Status: Federal Status: Priority: YES General Description: VARIOUS WETLANDS IN THE SOOS CREEK EN WATER COMPONENT. Source: KING COUNTY SENSITIVE AREAS MAPS. Source Date: 12 90 Source Code: GSMAP Synopsis: USGS BASED MAP SYSTEM WITH NWI INFORMATION. Common Name: WETLANDS Scientific Name: Site Name: SOOS CREEK WETLANDS DRAINAGE BASIN. MANY OF THESE ALSO HAVE AN OP Form#: 902688 PHS Code: UNOS Species Use: Common Name: URBAN NATURAL OPEN SPACE Season: Definition: 4 Accuracy: 1 Scientific Name: State Status: Federal Status: Priority: YES Site Name: CEDAR RIVER VALLEY OPEN SPACE AREAS General Description: STEEP FORESTED SLOPES AND HIGH GRADIENT RIPARIAN AREAS. THESE ARE MOSTLY UNSTABL E SLOPE AREAS WHICH SHOULD BE LEFT UNCLEARED. PROVIDE HABITAT FOR MANY AVIAN AND TERRESTRIAL SPP. THESE AREAS ALSO CONTAIN RIPARIAN HABITATS. Source: MULLER, TED, WOW; PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS. Source Date: 04 91 Source Code:. PROF Synopsis: MANY DRIVE-BY VISITS TO THIS AREA OVER A PERIOD OF SIXTEEN YEARS. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Priority Habitats and Species Polygo ~port Form#: 903661 PHS Code: UNOS Species Use: Common Name: URBAN NATURAL OPEN SPACE Season: Definition: 4 Accuracy: 1 Scientific Name: State Status: Federal Status: Priority: YES Site Name: RENTON RIPARIAN FOREST General Description: URBAN DECIDUOUS RIPARIAN FOREST (COTTONWOOD; ALDER; MAPLE). GREAT BLUE HERON COLONY ON SITE. USED BY MANY WATERFOWL (BUFFLEHEAD; MALLARDS; SCAUP; WIGEON; GREEN-WINGED TEAL; GADWALL; ETC.) BALD EAGLE FEEDING AREA.A[[D Source: GOLDSMITH MARK; WDFW PERSONAL OBSERVATION Source Date: 102596 Source Code: PROF Synopsis: HIKED THROUGH AREA. Source: KROM SUZANNE; SEATTLE AUDUBON SOCIETY. Source Date: 10 96 Source Code: LOCAL Synopsis: FREQUENT VISITS TO SITE OVER SEVERAL YEARS. Form#: 903664 PHS Code: WET Species Use: Common Name: WETLANDS Season: Definition: 4 Accuracy: 1 Scientific Name: State Status: Federal Status: priority: YES Site Name: BLACK RIVER RIPARIAN WETLAND General Description: RIPARIAN FORESTED WETLAND. DECIDUOUS COVER OF COTTONWOOD; ALDER; MAPLE. SITE HAS ACTIVE GREAT BLUE HERON COLONY AND IS USED BY MANY WATERFOWL. SITE CONTAINS HISTORIC. CHANNEL OF BLACK RIVER AND IS WITHIN ITS HISTORIC FLOODPLAIN. Source: GOLDSMITH MARK; WDFW PERSONAL OBSERVATION. Source Date: 102596 Source Code: PROF Synopsis: SITE VISIT Source: KING COUNTY SENSITIVE AREA MAPS Source Date: 12 90 Source Code: GSMAP Synopsis: MAPS BASED ON NWI MAPS Source: OPPERMANN TONY; WDFW PERSONAL OBSERVATION. Source Date: 041991 Source Code: PROF Synopsis: SITE OBSERVED WHILE DOING SEPA REVIEW. Codes Used In Priority Habitat and Species Polygon Report Form# : Unique number that links the information in the reports to features on the map. PHS Code : This contains a code that identifies the fish and wildlife species found in the area or the habitat that occurs there. List of codes are available in the documentation. Species Use: Criteria that identifies how the area is used by the indicated species. List of codes are available in the documentation. This field is not used if a habitat is described. Common Name : Common name of the species or habitat. Season Season of species use. Use is indicated by the presence of a non-blank character in one or more pos- ti0ns uL 6uli-.strings of t.i·J.e field posicion. Position 1: W Winter use. position 2: S position 3: U Summer use. position 4: F position 5: S Severe winter use. Spring use. Fall use. Definition: Identifies the definitions or criteria used to classify the area as a priority. List of codes are available in the documentation. Accuracy: Mapping accuracy of the line delineation as determined by the mapper. 1 Accurate within a 1/4 mile. 3 Location known to within one mile. 2 = Accurate within a 1/2 mile. 4 Location known to general locality only. Scientific Name: Scientific name of the species. State Status: State listing status of species. SE State endangered. SC State candidate. ST State threatened. SM = State monitor. SS = State sensitive. Federal Status : Federal listing status of species. FE Federal endangered. FC = Federal candidate. FT = Federal threatened. FCo = Federal concern. Priority : Species and habitats that are considered to be priorities for conservation and management by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). For a copy of the most current Priority Habitats and Species List contact WDFW PHS section at (360)902-2543, or it is available on our web site at http://www.wdfw.wa.gov/hab/phspage.htm. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIF PRIORITY FISH REPORT FRL. .. THE WASHINGTON LAKES AND RIVERS INFORMh._ON SYSTEM (WLRIS) DATABASE FOR TOWNSHIP T23R05E, SECTION 20 Report Date: May 09, 2005 Information About The Fish Presence Report The fish information in this report only includes information that Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) maintains in a central computer database. This information only documents the location of important fish resources to the best of our knowledge. It is not a complete inventory of the fish species in the state. Fish are identified as priority by WDFW if they meet one of three criterion as listed in the Priority Habitats and Species List. The list is available by contacting WDFW Priority Habitats and Species section at (360)902- 2543, or it is available on our web site at http://www.wdfw.wa.gov/hab/phspage.htm.Toinsure appropriate use of this information users are encouraged to consult with WDFW biologists. Streams with presence of on the accompanying map. each river reach are not individual species maps, priority anadromous and resident fish species from the WLRIS database are highlighted Due to the complexity of displaying linear features individual species that utilize distinguishable. If more species specific information is needed, users should request digital data, or contact the WLRIS database manager. State status information is not available in the WLRIS database for these species. Please see WDFW Species of Concern List for current status. For a copy of this list, contact WDFW Endangered Species Section at (360)902- 2515, or it is available on our web site at http://www.wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/diversty/soc/soc.htm. "--------"...&...l;;..:lI~.l.J.'-~. Code Common Name Stream Name Stream LLID Record Date -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CHFA Fall Chinook Black River 1222505474742 04-01-23 COHO Coho Salmon Black River 1222505474742 04-01-23 STWI Winter Steelhead Black River 1222505474742 04-04-26 CHFA Fall Chinook Cedar River 1222590476452 03-10-20 CHFA Fall Chinook Cedar River 1222590476452 03-11-13 COHO Coho Salmon Cedar River 1222590476452 03-11-13 DBT Dolly Varden/Bull Trout Cedar River 1222590476452 05-01-10 SOCK Sockeye Salmon Cedar River 1222590476452 03-11-13 STWI Winter Steelhead Cedar River 1222590476452 03-11-13 STWI Winter Steelhead Cedar River 1222590476452 05-04-12 COHO Coho Salmon Molasses Creek 1221597474667 03-11-13 SOCK Sockeye Salmon Molasses Creek 1221597474667 03-11-13 CHFA Fall Chinook Stream name(s) not in database 1222287474607 04-01-23 CHFA Fall Chinook Stream name(s) not in database 1222362474538 04-01-23 COHO Coho Salmon Stream name(s) not in database 1221668474714 03-11-13 COHO Coho Salmon Stream name(s) not in database 1222263474526 04-01-23 COHO Coho Salmon Stream name(s) not in database 1222276474614 04-01-23 COHO Coho Salmon Stream name(s) not in database 1222362474538 04-01-23 STWI Winter Steelhead Stream name(s) not in database-1222362474538 04-04-26 Priority Resident Fish Presence: Code Common Name Stream Name Stream LLID Record Date CCT Resident Cutthroat Stream name(s) not in database 1221624474499 04-12-07 CCT Resident Cutthroat Stream name(s) not in database 1221668474714 04-12-07 CCT Resident Cutthroat Stream name(s) not in database 1222276474614 04-12-09 CCT Resident Cutthroat Stream name(s) not in database 1222362474538 04-12-09 CCT Resident Cutthroat Black River 1222505474742 04-12-09 CCT Resident Cutthroat Cedar River 1222590476452 04-12-07 RBT Rainbow Trout Cedar River 1222590476452 04-12-10 CCT Resident Cutthroat Molasses Creek 1221597474667 04-12-07 Codes Used In The Fish Presence Report Code: WDFW alphanumeric code that identifies the fish species. Common Name Common name of the fish species. Stream Name Stream name based on the US Geological Survey, Geographic Names Information System database. Stream LLID Unique stream identifier (ID) generated from the node latitude and longitude located at a stream's mouth. This ID is to be construed only as an ID, and not necessarily as a reference to a stream's location. Record Date : Date the information was entered into the database. I I I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. 1 i; lap Seal. -J : 24.009 CoordiDale Syslem -Slale Ploe Saulb Ioue 5626 (UDZ7) P,.daeli •• Dal. -llay 01. ZOO& Yap DesiSDed by on 1.lonaalio. S."iees CIS PlEA\! '<Oil ~: :~i :;~.:Jl~ I!~~ ~~~'~t:' ~;~ 1; ~~~;:' ~!~~~11!:~ i '~~:f:: ,: I !!~ ::~ :;i~i r IIdofflUIIOIo hc=l plilblic 'a'phll •• ,.ct copti~. aHttl~,tO" Ofp"t~ut 01 fi\h lad Q'ildillt ItUfU, (OflUOClt ua,II,'" ~P((lU ,ltd batll\11 louluiU dnpill,tll ell ,bj~ 01, .sCi lu'oqayiD9 le- $1011\ 10 Dt ..... IIdull.). \tOIW 1\ the ud .. ~,tt 01mU .. { lb.t hnli(Ut ' •• h HI' Willllih IlilofOlli •• lISe iculiul ~"aIL ito all (Upeth be lit_ita H :)lopritIHt ialon!::'::!)CI ill HtDldu,cr wilfi jll prtHdJt:H IrJUlI'iI~bl, U'CUHIJ II). plottcl Ytt)EW·~ ,.oplldllJ :i9hh Ibflein. rbis .. , -1 co.t., •• -species •• G laalJ,iI." ..... on DD' cOG.i'erc' "iorit,. c.e.,.o,io. lb" aID, ot. rQo," , •• 1 " .. ile i.'oflllDti •• !: ,::: :!C. ,:: I:~!,~ .:: O!;.r.!.pGo!f!-:' .!~~:,':r.:!~ er .:!,!=!::~ S-Ie, ... , cI.sses • .., ''''0'' DO, •• , •• pte,. ... _illti_ , .. .."c' '''0. DlSQ.alll{l ~!:i-:;t,:·:e~::t!:r:T·'~:Z ~::o~:t.~!:: tW;1C~T!~!ir. !':!O:~:, u ...... , dol.basc.· II h ••• 00 .1Ic.p1 10" ••••• ,08 .Ub •• otti .. i.' ... eet 'eSPOS' ., t ..... iaIpoc:ts •• ,aa, pnicci 00 lid. cuuI .ildli, •. I.,s •• I ..... li_ H', doc __ " , •• 'oca" ••• r lislll od .it,Ji,. u-s •• ,us to ... ,_I .f _, .... ,.~.. II is DO' 0 • ..,1., ....... '.'f ::.;' .!i !::re!it' ~:'::'i.I=.'br:,:;1.i!~·!!IT.':=Ci:, -.&.:c:.; .e._si.eo s •••• 's L.e-_, IM_ c ..... I ... SIt ..... c.fic ...... e,.. a •• hcqoull, otCCS50I, t ....... I Ilia p.esnee of plio.,', .as ... ep. ~-:::!:.!.:! ::'r:: :!!::i!!. ;1.:::;:.' .!e,~!~e:.:~. r'::,T:':'~ :; t~i:.· :::':!!'~! I :.~:::.::s .:~~.::': J:~~ !~.:~' ~:!:::,,~-:t.'S.:! s !:ib~:~ cwad di .. -.ps .'1 ,lap si. _otlt. old. !:.~:ir:i.tP,,:,i;1:1::!st! .... ;. i., • ..-li_. ose .. ar ••• coo ...... to :4. "' i , , i \ , , [r~::~~~~·;~j~~;~~~ '" -._--'._-~ :.-\ ..... ., it ,. !. J." lf J MAP w:um l'riority IbIIiIalslSpecies: OlheJ BabllilSlSpedes: @ 0 ED a ::: •••• a' 00000 C] I'riIjIy Itti:ds CIId Spsia ~1'dJ!IIII1bdIB I'IiriJ WAI!Ie Hriuge I'dnIs I'IiriJ IUJlaI I'dnIs ..... 16mIeI FolD (~5lacw,) =O;ISileCadas • 5Iafus 1-5) = CIt! Sill CIJ1!in E • SIakIs 4) ImiIr kaIianIIB filii I\"em:e I'IbiIy Residad filii I\"em:e Ifalini NnIs ....., o ~ "" Sp6d 0;I1IIIlugImmI Cird!s Csti&IIrI Tariby 0 Spo/II!II 0;I1bIagad Cides --auu&ienI IlaIa To £sIdIisb TdrJ Other Symbols: l!i:11tnp.. Tlfpttr.r;.lr/ fL~ ... WILDLIFE his CIId SInuDs at 124.11» Sate IIesIIlIin TCIIIIIIip Iiles Sedia Iiles AlEA lOCATlO~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Defoor Property 3 October 2005 Wetland Study, Stream Assessment, Habitat Study, Watershed Restoration and Mitigation Plan APPENDIX D Washington Department of Natural Resources Natural Heritage Program Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 931 CAReport(30cto5).doc Appendix D I I I I I I I I I I 'I I I I I I I I I ~. WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENTOF Natural Resources May 24,2005 Per Johnson Talasaea Consultants Inc 15020 Bear Creek Road NE Woodinville WA 98077 SUBJECT; Prupust!u Rt!siut!nLial Development, Renton -TAL 931 (T23N ROSE S20) DOUG SUTHERLAND Commissioner of Public Lands We've searched the Natural Heritage Infonnation System for infonnation on significant natural features in your project area. Currently, we have no records for rare plants or high quality native ecosystems in the vicinity of your project. The infonnation provided by the Washington Natural Heritage Program is based solely on existing infonnation in the database. In the absence of field inventories, we cannot state whether or not a given site contains high quality ecosystems or rare plant species; there may be significant natural features in your study area of which we are not aware. The Washington Natural Heritage Program is responsible for infonnation on the state's rare plants as well as high quality ecosystems. For infonnation on animal species of concern, please contact Priority Habitats and Species, Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife, 600 Capitol WayN, Olympia WA 98501-1091, or by phone (360) 902-2543. Please visit our internet website at http://www.dnr.wa.gov/nhp for more infonnation. Lists ofrare plants and their status, rare plant fact sheets, as well as rare plant survey guidelines are available for download from the site. Please feel free to call me at (360) 902-1667 if you have any questions, or bye-mail at sandra.moody@wadnr.gov. Sincerely, all>, .) i A' ,~ / i()~" (J \,}1c~~' ,) "'"\...l."v--'1 (_,...~......... )vr-~ ~ I C /. "/1 " l ! ..... ' Sandy Swope Moody, Environmental Review Coordinator Washington Natural Heritage Program Asset Management & Protection Division, PO Box 47014, Olympia W A 98504-7014 FAX 360-902-1789 1111 WASHINGTON ST SE I PO BOX 47000 I OLYMPIA. WA 98504-7000 TEL: (360) 902-1000 I FAX: (360) 902-1775 I TTY: (360) 902-1125 Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer -RECYCLED PAPER \,1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Defoor Property Wetland Study, Stream Assessment, Habitat Study, Watershed Restoration and Mitigation Plan APPENDIX E INDEX OF DRAWINGS (REDUCED PLAN SHEETS, 11" X 17") Sheet W1.0: Wetland & Stream Basin Restoration Plan -Existing Conditions & Overview Plan Sheet W1.1: Wetland & Stream Basin Restoration Plan -Proposed Site Plan Impacts & Mitigation Sheet W2.0: Wetland & Stream Basin Restoration Plan -Enhancement Planting Plan Sheet W2.1: Wetland & Stream Basin Restoration Plan -Planting Details & Notes Sheet W2.2: Wetland & Stream Basin Restoration Plan -Planting Specifications 3 October 2005 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 931 CAReport(30cto5).doc Appendix E I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- t<") >-0'1 I- 0::: W 0.... U 0 z 0::: u 0.... !!: ~ 0::: 0 0 u.. W 0 .. -0 0.-.,0 t:..Z o~ .:!·c 0 0 ~~ ;;.-.E-< E-<Z ~~ ..... ~ ~~ uP:: '-c "'0 .~ E "0. :=IU ! ~~ !!'N c ·c C'I C", 0 .. i'i:15 i ~~ Ii ~ '" ~!I 0 u '--·8 ~ -' ~ g Ii I!l I I I I z 0 Vi ~ '" ~ '" ~ " 0 z I I i / (IN FEET) GRAPHIC. sc.ALE ®NORTH GRAPHIC. sc.ALE GD (IN FEET) I I I I 015:'10 bO 5C-ALE,I'=:'IO' 15. 1TH SmEET I I ... _ .. _ .... _ i F)(ISTI~l.-. HaiSEJ DRAINASE I (C-LA55 5 5TREAH1 r-r--------=·~--tll ••• IIi.:r 1:-";"'---:-~-.:.. I.' .... I '''BUILDIN5 .,' J,-..;. ~ ~.~ -:: --~.-...c.C" -' ---: --~_--l".,..-\~>,- I ' • . , wEnANO '6' \ I • . /Iqf> 5F~'\ , I (25'~ .. \ J ... 'J "___ 71 . \ : . ,'. ~ t~ .:;,~~ ~~ 20 '-:"-' !!l"'~2 .-=/. 1f'iI;;;! I .. " _ ~22~"'" " 1:l-~ , ~--e-:M 2'1 ~&42 '" ______ ~--,,~ i'" e.. . . ~""'=-~~~'>;:: ........ : &<> '. .':-- I .' " , I ,', PROPERT"f LINEI~, I ROH'I 1'.' " . ';':'1 I 1 '" " I I' • I ~~---------------------~:=----~ S~AM61eTbAND 161ENbARSeMENT GRAPHIC SCALE GD (IN FEET) I I I I o 15 30 bO 5C-ALE,I'=:'IO' 1.e6A1.. !2ESGRIPTION PARCa A, TliAT PORTION OF mE H.H. TOBIN DONATION LAND CLAIM NO. :n, L "(INS SOlITHERL"( AND HESTERL"( OF mE PLAT OF HI6HLAND ADDITION TO mE TOHN OF RENTON. AGGORDINS TO mE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOUJHE n OF PLATS, PASE 32, IN KIN5 GOUNT"f. HASHINSTON; AND THAT PORTION OF mE NORTIiHEST GlUARiER OF mE NORTHHEST GlJARTER OF 5EC-TION 20, TOi-'l6HlP 23 NORTH, RANeE 5 EA5T, H.H. IN KIN5 c:aJNT"f, HASHIN5TON. L "(1115 NORTHERL"( OF PIJSET 50lJND POHER AND LlSHT GOHPAN"f'5 mANSHl55ION RISHT-OF-HA"( AND EAST OF PRIMARY STATE .HI5ti'IA"( NO. I, DESC-RiBED A5 FOLL0H5, BE5tNNIN5 AT mE INTER5Ec. TlON OF THE NORTH LINE OF SAID 5EC-TION 20, H1TH mE i-EST LINE OF SAID PLAT, I-IHIC.H POINT 15 NORTH b'l'5'l'21' lEST 1,3e6.e5 FEET FROM mE NORTH GlJARiER WRNER OF SAID 5EC-TION; n£Nc.E 50lI11-l 0I'~'35' i-EST AL0N5 THE HE5T LINE OF SAID PLAT AND SAID LINE PRO!:lIK.ED SOlITHERL"( <n3D4 FEET TO mE NORTHERL"( LINE OF PIJSET 5OIk<D POHER AND L1SHT WHPAN"f'5 TRAN5HI55ION RISHT-OF-HA"(, THEta: NORTH 1>1'03'41' i-EST 411b6 FEET TO mE EASTERL "( LINE OF PRIMAR"f STATE HI~"( NO. I; THENC,E NORTHERL"( ALON5 SAID HI~"( ·TO mE NORTH LINE OF SAID 5EC-TlON; THENc.E SOUTH b'l'5'l'21' EAST AL0N5 SAl!) NORTH LINE 311>.54 FEET TO mE POINT OF BE6INNIN5. pARe-a B, TliAT PORTION OF mE H.H. TOBIN DONATION LAND C-LAIM NO. :n, L "(INS 5OJ1llERL"( OF mE PLAT OF HI6HLAND ADDITION TO mE TOH-i OF RENTON, AGCORDIN6 TO mE PLAT THEREOF REWRDED IN VOI.!.HE n OF PLATS, PABE·32, IN KIN5 c;QJNT"(, HASHIN5TON. DESc-RIBED AS FOLLOHS, BE6lNNIN5 AT A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF 5E(.TION 20, TOH-ISHIP 23 NUf<.lH, t<AN6t!J ~1. ~M .• IN ~1Nf::/ ~Il. ~rr«::;lolUN., 1f'tH1l...t1 I':> NC../RIM b'l'5'l'21' HEST 1,3e6.e5 FEET FROM THE NORTH GlJARTER CORNER THEREOF; THENc.E 50lI11-l 01'2<1'35' HEST ALONS mE '-ENTERLINE OF CEDAR STREET 1>1I.b2 FEET TO mE 50lI11-l LINE OF SAID PLAT, AND mE TRUE POINT OF BE61~l"m1i5; THENC-E 50lI11-l ~'33'25' EAST 310.14 FEET TO THE HEST LINE OF RENTON STREET, THENc.E 50lI11-l01'24'21' HEST 4QI.<W FEET ALONG SAl!) i-EST LINE AND HEST LINE PRODJC.ED SOUTHERL"( TO THE NORTHERL"( LINE OF PIJSET 5OI-"ID POI-ER AND LISHT COMPAN"f'5 RISHT-OF-HA"(, THfIIC,E NORTH 1>1'03'41' i-EST AL0N5 SAID RISHT-OF-HA"( 355.51 FEET; n£Nc.E NORTH OI'~'35' EAST 31>1.12 FEET TO A POINT WINCIDENT HITH THE'SOIJ1li LINE OF SAID PLAT AND THE HEST LINE OF CEDAR STREET; THENc.E 50lI11-l ~'33'35' EAST 20.00 FEET TO mE TRUE POINT OF BE6iNNIN5. "PLAN L.Ec5ENP PROPERT"fLINE EXI5TIN6 c.ONTOUR C ; .... : ;::::] EXI5TINS HETLAND ---,. - - -STREAM I HETLAND BVFFER ..... STREAM I HETLAND FLA6 eW-" TEST PIT FLA6 := = *= = = APPROXIMATE ClI-H-1 OF 5TREAH . +-... -APPROXIMATE c.ENTER LINE OF STREAH EXI5T1NS TREES F-.-----------:--~-----:-~-~-'-t-r I ' , . . , I. I . --' 1 _-'·.1 I / I ./ --, 1/ I / I ;;;-I ./ I ./ ~ .. , I /!;lREAM 'A' ' r::' I . / (35' aJFFER) ~ ./ ...... r-:/ ,'/?~/~T"fLlNEl'1~··' I" <-<> ...... 6 ' ROH./ : .,.a.¥;~/" '././ I .~~' ./ ' ~,~ ~ ';,.-./; , 1,_ " '<..'" 1 I,' . /'y. L----___ ~~-----+---~---~L-__ ....J S~AM IAIENbAReEMENT GRAPHIC 5e.ALE ®NORlll (IN FEET ) t 1 l l 5C-ALE,I'=!lO' CONTACTS 6He., INc.. 241>33 NE 133RD ">T. DUVALL, HA 'WOlq . WNTAc-T PERSON, TRAVIS DEFOOR ENGINEER- CORE DESI6N 14111 NE ~TH PL. SUi .... !: 101 BELLEVUE. HA 'WOO', (425)6&5-1611 I c.oNTAc-T PERSON,,!"GHAcl. C-HEN, P.E. ENVIRONMENT;L CON5ULTANT T A1...ASAEA CONSIA... ,-.~1'T5. I:-t::,. 15020 BEAR '-REEK RD. NE HOODINVILl.E, HA q('aTI PHONE. (425) 1l61-155o c.ONTAc-T PERSON, JASON HALKER. A55O(.IATE SHEET INDEX 5HEET NUMBER 5HEET TITLE: HI.O EXISTING C.ONDITIONS , OVERYIEH PLAN HI.I PROPOSED SITE PLAN IMPAC.TS , MITIGATION H2.0 ENHANC.EMENT PLANTING PLAN H2.1 PLANTING t;'ETAILS , NOTES H2.2 PLANTING =PEc.lFIC.ATIONS NOTeS SITE PLAN PROVIDED B"f CORE DE5ISN, 14111 HE ~TH PL. SUITE 101, BELLE'YIJE, HA ql}OO1 (4251~-1611. 2. SOl!Rc.E DRAHIN6 HAS MODIFIED B"f TALA5AEA CONSULTANTS FOR VISUAL ENl-iANc.EHENT. 3. THIS PLAN IS AN ATTACHMENT TO THE HETLAND MITI6ATlON REPORT PREPARED B"f TALA5AEA CONSULTANTS IN .JJNE OF 2005. 4. THI5 PLAN 15 WNCEPTUAL ONL"( AND 5HOJLD NOT BE USED FOR WNSTRIJ(;TION. 5. DaINEATION OF HETLAND S' AND OHHH OF 5TREAH 'N' S' ARE FI<OH FlaD OB5ERVATION (5EPTEHBER 15.20051. LOc.ATIONS ARE [)EPIC-TED APPROXIMATE. ( I , ~ I I I I T' ;; .!I If\ • ~ Q ttl d:> N ~ Z W ~ f ~ 3 0 OJ ~ ~ .. 0: \3 • Date 281/NF05 Scale 6':1. tlQIED Designed Ik'I PI Drawn Keel Checked lid Approved AS Project , 9::11 Sheet II \.. ~I.O~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1------- ,/ ~AND/ ./ GRAPHIC 5i: S'T1U:AM IMPA ./ I I( IN FEET) ALE GD C TS 4 MITleA o ,~I I TION PbAN 5G~="'" 60 FbAN bee!: _=-_~: __ ~ND~ ________ - .. -PROPERTY LINE C ' .~: .... EXISTIN5 GONTOUR _ • '~', ;:]EXISTIN5 ____ ST I-lETLAND _ _ ANDNlD BUFFER --A = = *= _ VERA6ED BUFFER _ =APPROXIMATE -+--... _ OHHH OF STREAM ... _ ~ ~ APPROXIMATE c.ENTER __ EDGE OF LINE OF S EXISTIN5 1REAM VE6ETATION TO REHA , ~ Iq65F 256 5F --.----' .. ,. - MITI6ATION I.. ~ WETLAND e6ENC> 101 RA TIO ~REATION ll'oIET ~~_ OR FILLED LAND 'A') ~ I'oIETLAND'6' ElIJFFER REPLA(;EMENT ~I'oIETLAND R FILLED I'oIE TLAND 'A') 101 RATIO FoNGEMENT II'oIE YtRtIfI.ff+H11l STREAM TLANO '6' ENHANG~FER AND SLOPE tIl? I?~I?-rr"~ I NATIVIE 6ROWTH PROTEc.TION AREA Iq65F 256 5F Iq6 sF e,1135F NOTeS I. SITE PLAN 2'lTIl PL 5U~DED BY CORE 2 (425)e~_1el1I01, BELLEVUE. wfE'I6N, 14111 NE . ~' ,~'IeOO1 WN5l.L DRAHlN6 HA5 3. TIllS ~ANTS FOR Vl5U~IFIED BY TAL HITI5ATlo~kAN ATTAGHHENTENHANC.EHENT.ASAEA CONSULT ANT5 PORT PREP TO THE HETLAND 4, TIllS PLAN IS IN.LNE OF ~ 6'( TALASAEA 5 NOT 6E USoED WNc.EP1UAL ONLY. , ~TION~I'IE~'fRIK,TIONAND5HO\W ( 'A' • '6' Nl£ ND '6' AND 5EPTEH!lER 15 2 FROM FIELD 0HI+f OF APPROXIMATE.' (05). LOGATI0N5 065ERVATION Nl£ DEPiG TED Date ~ Scale g~ ! INE05 'i g;8lcned IW ~9TED ~ Cb~cl: d KGG! 8 A .!W • pproved AS j ~ Project , 931 I I I f'0 O'l I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i on • wi >-l-n::: w D- ei 0 z n::: c.5 D- 3: 0 n::: 0 0 i...L W 0 ~a 0._ ~o ~Z c~ ll:s 00 ~~ ;;.-.E-o u • E-o Z 7iL4 ..... ~ .ro- uP::: '-c "'0 .S E "0. =w ! "E ~E 5!'N c 'c; 01 c", o~ D:CJ i ~~ r ~ I ~ ~I c "0 ~!! '" , '- § g ~ ill I I I I 0: !; 0-Il. ... ~ ~ ~ Iii z 0 ~ 0: I o z FbAN ke6ENP EXI!'>TIN5 GONTOUR ______ PROPOSED CONTOUR -"'-+-"'-APPROXIHATO GENTORLINE OF STREAM:':' __ .. __ EXISTIN5 STORM ORAINAeE TO REMAIN - - - --;55' STREAM Blft'ER /c. ~ LAR6E ~ DEBRIS TREES SYMBOL SGIENTIFIG NAME ~ 0-A(;ER GIIWNA. 1\ko1 U-FRAXINJ5 LATIFOLIA o RHAMIVS PiJR5HIANA O ...-Pla'A SITaiENSlS .---PINJ5 GONTORTA I) THJJA PLIGATA ~ THJJA PLIGATA SHRlJ6S SYMBOL SGIENTlFIG NAME a (;ORlV5 SERIa'A ®--MAHONIA AGUIFOLIUM ......... .... , ~' . .•. .. ' ~ .', 'r , ,::' . " , '. GOMMON NAME VINE MAPLE 0REe0N ASH GASGARA SITKA 5F'RIJC-E SHORE PINE HESTIERN RED aDAR HESTIERN RED GEDAR GOMMON NAME RED-OSIER D06HOOD 0RE60N 6RAPE \ \ \ ' , I / \ \ /. \ / ------/ .---. / ( I / "'-5TA11!5 SPA(;IN6 GTT'. SIZE (l-fINJ NOTOS FA(;-AS SHOI+I 4 3' HT . I'1.I.TI-STEM (3 MIN.! FA(;H AS SHOHN 5 5-/>' HT. SIN6LE TRIA«. HELL BRANC-HED FA(; AS SHOHN 5 4' HT. B. B, FlU. • BUSH'f FA(; AS SHOHN 10 2-3' HT. B.B, FlU. • BUSH'f FA(; AS SHOHN 4 4-5' HT. B.B, FlU. • BUSH'f FA(; AS SHOHN 2 4-5' HT. B' B, FLU. • BUSH'f FA(; AS SHOHN q 2-3' HT. B. B, FlU. • BUSH'f HL 5TA11!5 SPAGIN6 GTT'. SIZE (l-fINJ NOTES F~ NL 3' O.G. I~ Ill' HT, 3' O.G. 1;55 Ill' HT, 1'1.1. TI-GANE (3 MINJ FlU. • BUSH'f '1 0 1 '1'1 1 '\ I I 1 1 I ---1/ i I / 1 --1 @ SALIX LASIANDRA PA(;IFIG /oiILLOH F~ 315YMBOL 4 4' CAJTTIN6 ~~ESOBTAINED FROM ON-5ITO GLEARiN5 0 SALIX SUlILERIANA 5GOULER HlLLOH FA(; 315YMBOL 3!l4 4' WTTlN6 HALF INCA! DIAMEreR. BARK INTAGT CD SYMPHORIGARPOS ALBUS GOMMON SNOHBERR'( FAa) 3' O.t:-. 140 Ill' HT. I"U. TI-GANE (3 MIN) EROSION C.ONTROL SEED MIX (PROVIDE AT ALL E:XP05ED SOIL AReAS) SGIENTIFIG NAME FE51l.1GA RLeRA A6R05TIS 113t!IS "'-STA11!5 SPAGIN6 FAG+ 5051; APPLIGATION RATIE PER A(;RE. GOLONIAL BENT6RA55 FA(; 40t SEED MIX 1200 WILBUR ELLIS FERTILIZER. 5-10-10 5051; IBRl, OR EGlJIV. P1..ANTINe P1..AN (IN FEET) eRAPHIC. 5c.ALE (VNOR'TH ~ IMIT rF r! 1=4PIIrJI:._ (APPROXIHA TIE EDI5E OF EXISTIt6 VE5ETATION TO REMAIN! I PRovIDE/oiILLOw FASGINES AT STREAM .BANKS (SEE DETAIL 3 'AND 3A. ON 3/iEET 2.1) '~.: ................ . . ......../ 0N-6AADE HABITAT' ........ ........ L06·(SEE DETAIL b ........ ........ • . ON SHEET H2.1) . /./ ,.....-X'< DISPERSAL TRENC.H (TYP j, SEE GIVIL PLANS . .. -----...... .. \ \ ( ... ~I I I I I ~ '" .3 ~ .. .. ~ N ~ :z UJ .. ~ CI 3 0 ] ~ " p; '0 Date 212 11Nf05 Scale AS NOTED Deaiened IH PI Drawn !C6('\ Checked IH Approved AS ProJecl , 9:l1 Sheel I ~.O '-~ I I I 1'0 (j) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I >-r- 0::: w CL u 0 z 0::: <.) CL 3: l) 0::: 0 0 I U- W 0 . -_0 ~Z !~ ~:s 00 -E >oE-< ~:lI u _ E-<Z ~w -~ ~o:. U~ "-c "'0 H ::::" ~ ~~ !!'N c .~ at c", 0" 5:(; i ~~ ~ ~ ~!I ~ q §1 ~ ill I i I I Q: ~ 0.. 'ic ~ w ~ ~ >-CD z 0 iii ~ Q: ~ ! ~ u I-II I I I 0 z BACKFILL PL...JrrHTINS HOl£ In FULL rani NA fIVE SOIL, TAMP SOIL TO STABILIZE ROOT5ALL. C.tJT ~Y 1oo{IRE. STRINe, AND euRL.,t.p. BAGKFIU-REHAINIM5 PLANTlH19 HOLE P'ER Sf'EGIPIGATIOHS. AHEtD e...a:.FlU-AS NOTED IN Tl-IE IN5T "liATION NC7T5 II NOTE. INSTAlL'TION ~ BEEHHS AT TCJP OF SLOPE ON DIASRAH -"""0 PROCEEDS DOIo'f6LOPE. FOlJ.O)o1IN5 STEP'S I nROU6H 5. I. STAKE A.l...Ott9 5B...EGTED ELEYATlON.. :2. fRENG.H ABOVE STAKES TO ,.. DEPTH OF 1/2-213 DIA. OF 5lWL.E. 3. PLAGE EUIDl..E IN TReat. •• ADD \..IVE ~IX 5GOU..ERIANA STAKES THRDU6H AND ~ et.tDLE AT 2-" SPAG.INIS (SEE DETAIL 3A). 5. GO\fER FASGINE HI'Tl-I TOPSOI\.., TAMP PIRt1.. Y. FASGll£ TO BE A5C\IT I" ABOVE eRADE H1TH 10-2055 LEFT OF FASGIHE EXPOSED. H.TS. C.ONIFER 2"x2-t-EML.~IR STA~, LOCATED OIJTSIDE Of ROOlBALL. FAS'1"&i HII. 61oU9E SALVo HIRE AM? In" tEH VINYL. HOSINB. ST Nt'.E Hln-I NO E.XPOSED HIRE aos. NEITHER STAtc:E OR HIRE MAY TOUGH TREE T'R1.N:. STAKE tElBHT H.6T BE AT LEAST 5' FROM FINl5+IED 6RADE. FI~BRADE. (;'<lI~'H1F'----5(;ARlPY" SIDES OF PLAN,TINS HOLf. MAKE SURE HOLE HAS eooo 0RAINA8E. ;:;::·1lJi;~---EXISTINi9 NATlV'E sou. OR HEH... Y Pl...JrrGED TOPSOIL . ~." PREPARE FASG-ItE. G-16AR SHAPED BIA'4OI..ES (tJ·~ .. !-10· DIAJ, OF LIVE ~IX SGaJLERIANA HI1'H BUTTS AL~TlNl9, TIED 1:2-15" Oc,. elH:'LES AIlE. tJ' IN LfH9TH. ATION DeTAI @ ~~SCINe STAKINcS "TYP:~ DEC.IDUOUS BAC.fC'FILL PLANTlH9 HOLE In RJU. HlnI NA nVE SOIL. f AMP SOIL TO ST AeILIZE ROO"IlJALL. GUT AHl'Y HIRE, SmlNS, AND '8I.RLAP. ~ILL REMAININIS PLANTlNS HOLE PER SPEGIAGA nONS. AMEND ~ILL A5 NO'Il:P IH THE IteTALLATION NOTES. FOR. 6.<'RE ROOT Pl..ANTIHe ON SLOPES. INSTAlL PLANT LPRIeHT ON L.EYa.. SOIL TO ASaIRE CCVER OF ROOTS ON DOt-f.U-fIU SIDE OF PlANT. GClfoooPAGT SOl\.. Lt4DER ROOT MASS EXtSTlN9 NA TNE SOIL 0~~filE! filOOT PbANTINcS DeTAIl.. "TYP. Sf-R.B STRAI6HT AND F\..AGE ROOTBALL SOLID SRa.H? OR ON GOHP,a.,c.TED BAGtC.FILL. 6o'GKFILL Pl...AHTIHI5 HOLE 1/2 Al.L HlTH Ml'nvE SOIL. TAto'F SOIL TO STABILIZE R.OO'TBAlJ... DO NOT DISl1.RB ROOlDAL.L. Bk.kFILL REHAlNIN19 f'UrrtHTlN9 HOLE PER SPEGIFIc;.ATlONS. N-£ND ~LL 1>6 tCTED IN T'It!: INSTAUATION NO"'I"E5. 0~.5oNTAINE!R ~e PJ..ANTINcS DeTAIl.. "TYP. NOTES, I. GUTT1H155 5tW.L ee 5PEG1E5 ,a.s NOreD IN Tl£ PLANT SGHEDIA..E. 2. GUTTI).l5S SHALL BE AT LEAST 1/2-DIA.. AND 4' (rnhJ IN L..EN5TH. 3. GUTTlHe5 ~T BE ALIVE H1TH SlOE BRAHGHES GLEARl...,.. REMOVED NO ~ INT,t,GT. GUTTlH65 5HAl..L BE F'l...ANTW HITHIN 24 HOI.R5 OF c.IJTTlHS. 4. TIE Bl1TT ENDS-SHOULD BE c..LEANL Y CUT AT :ij'~~""I-;-["'i!n_"I-II""~""--I'-~~~~~~~THeOR 1 !-i [-., 5. GUTTlN6S t1JST E5E FRESH AK:I KB'T MOIST .ilj."i=-.·.,-',L.il ~..;;m~ :",~,.ee........." b. DIP BOTTOM OF GUTTlNS IN A P1..AHT ROOTIH6 HORHOtE PRIOR TO IHSERTlON INTO THE SOIL. 0~~TTINcS PJ..ANTI~cS DeTAlb "TYP. C,EDAA OR FIR LOS, 24· DIA. t·IIN. N015, I. LOIS TO Be 2"-PIA. MIN.. GONIFER (GEDAR OR FIR 5Pf:G.IES), &-12' L..EN9lt15. 2. F'lA,C,Ef"ENT OF Ho*IBITAT LOe TO BE DE"T!:RMINED IN TtE FIELD 6"( TAlASAEA GON5U... TANTS • 3. AHGHOR L06 HlTH ouc.t::eIL.L ANc::.HGIR.. 4. DRIVE ~ A HIM. OF ,.. INTO "1"te I.9RDI.tID HlTH A HAt+1ER AND DRtVE SlEEL. ONGE ThE . ..:.J.c..HOR. IS AT ll-E PROPER DEPTH, REMOVE mE DRIVE STEEL. _ 5. ~p nIE STEEL GABLE AROI.N:> ne DRIV'E S:E'EL AND FU..L ~ A DlST ANGE SLI6HTL Y LONISER lliAH THE L.&lSTH (JF n£ ANC.HOR. BODY. THIS HILL ROTATE THE AHC.HOR INTO A PERFENDIGILAR P05ITlOM. b. NOTGH TtE BARK OF THE L.OS A MINlt1.t't OF ,6 ~ mE c;.1~ OF 'floe L.Oe 1>6 5tIOH'l 1, ~ THE STEEL GABLE OF 1Hf tJUC.KBILL AHC"lOR IN n£ HaTCH AR()l.N:) THE LOIS IN 5UGH A HAY THAT ne GABLE IS HIDDEn ON-c5RADe HABITAT J..OCS o ~!'ICHOfilINcS DeTI~IJ.. !5eNEAAl. PL.A~INcS INST&ATION NOTES 5. HoAoTER It+£DIA1B..Y AND T1-OR.OJI.9H-Y. HEAVIER. AT FIRST. :2 or 3 Tlr-ES PER ....a:a::. THROIJeH TtE DRY SEASON. THEH LE5S LHTIL ESTABLI5HED. 6. FERTlLlZE AU. TREES AND 5oHR1eS roTH ~ .APPROVED 5I...OH REL..EASE FERTILIZER APPLIED AT HAN.FAGnJRER'S SUS6e5TED RA"T'ES. ,. ALl PI...ANTlN6 PrTS SHALL BE ~ H1114 A SOIL M01S1URe R!:"1'eITION A6ENT TO ASSIST IN 1CEEPtN6 THE SOIL MOIST DURlNIS THE ORY SEASON. ( ~ ~I I I I II' , I .. '" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .Il - Date 2E1 811::1Ea!> Soale NT? Deai&ned Ii:! P! Drawn KBG! Checked Ii:! Approved A? Project ,9:l1 Sheet If Y'a,1 \... ~ I I I 1'1') ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I on >-r ~ w 0... 0 0 Z ~ c5 0... 3: 0 ~ 0 0 I L.L.. W 0 ":0 "'-~o ~Z o~ ~:E 0 0 ~~ >-oE-< ~; rZ "w _W era: uP:: '-< "'0 ~~ ~ ... I ~~ gN 'CO' <O' o~ 0:0 i ~~ S~ ! ~t I I II! I; Ii I ~:I '. ~ ~ q Ii ~ I Ii IQ I 0: a. a. "" w ... ~ >-'" z o V\ CS 0: ci z , PL.ANTIN5 SpeCIFICATIONS eM! , -e AHTIHO ",.,;.n"!C.t\lltM 6f!ERb! cam!TJQf5 In the reetOtCtron 0"" the Gontn:x.tcr lhall r~ .... dy or eXO\'" ~ ~. I • .g.. 5c.ot'a D'00ff\, I!ngIWl "" ttmclayM cn:I .w .. gr. .... blClc.ld:*'r", ....a ~::==-~~~~==~"'\ ~ _loll prior '" pow .. lallation. c..Dntt'cX.toI" If'IOII ¥e .. 1f~ U'd plant InIotGllc:ltlDn ,oncIIt~ .".. IIIJIlCi:)le wt\hln the ,...\MI2tk:Jn O".c:.. ~ loIW(it"'oc:.~ ~~ IhOII be ,~.a P"''''''' to .urt of I4ri:. i"NIn c.ont::Ulk)tla ca.trtlhetltol to pk:W. ~h QI'd ~~ ItUC.h ClIo ~ rul, ~ ~ c.ondIt.."., '9'If1C.cw. Wl9'knO\ or ~Ucnt. Gontf'CX.toI" ~I ~o ==:t::" .. ':!U:;:~' Be9"'*'4 Of ...on: ur.tftllt .. PIenta NtGUed W\ ..-dI.Wbed O"eca Mall tie ~ wrtt\ e.lIlng N:It~ ~tcIUI:It\ c:n:::I p~ 1'1 (I r~ nablr'Glatk ~ c:otmlNtmR m YfB!!IX PI NiT fK1tCA1 .. WITH Pl.AH ~~ .. ~v.:: ~.JL.lclnton "==. ~~ ... 01 piau on tNt ~tuaI pkIftt qwtd''IU'' Mat.rI on pliClN aN to "...~I over ~. ~ on N =-~:::t.~ ~~~~onolp~ willOw. ! C2C.AJrIIUMfl\l!lB'rt PI .wtJN!2 Mr"'& ~toI" IIhaII ''lltll:llOC.ate,~, cw:I YCItfII~ pll2'lt~ creca CWI ~k:Ite pt'lCI" :::::';'"'9-T_ c.or.u __ II ....... """ ~ __ pr .... '" PrapCIeed bc.atIoN of ~ crd ..,... Ihc:III be at.obld ond tcant.la.d wtth an app"CNed c.ot*'Ig ytetn Of' "Y pllXaflW'll or the oc:.&woI pir::" 1'NItet'1aI. For ~ ~ of' Q HIQIe = .... 01' ItnO. Gontrac.tor may atoka tM pk:n:'hg boIordr .... :::;::: ~~~~ ~ O'd ~ kX4tlOl-. of 011 plEna era pkrlt tt.ppRtM e N'DM' I q; A,DQIft AND ftPN;Jlft Pknftg 1OcGt..". ~ on pkWhg pkno are ~. baNd 0tI ~t(.~.rte ~ Irc.WCilI plCft1 ~ tncIIj very trom thDN ~ dwo to 'Nil de ~:wI~~~:~~~~~·tcmtM Plant IfJ'CIICong for ..,.. .. n.teCI • to De rCWltlfn (n!2turot.t!tJ. aid not en a t'89"GI" ~tMI\~=l.,~~,~.r~:i_-==~~~.r~ !I()-,""",,'. O.Go .. iodtt\ Gn ~q apcx.hg or !S6 r.c.hM. ~~~ .... '~ ... p~ Ioc.olktM O"Idllf'O'ng p"tor to pta'\l P6!IT Z -" ANT ttA'tfRIN faTNI2HIP!'t e 61fT t1AJ'fRkIo! ., ::=:=~=:=:u~~~~,.,.~~rDt~: like matettal It'at meet. the ,....,r.d 1Itandir_. PkInt rrotenCIl iltlClll mHt the =:::.:=n ~-=:. ~ r:;ct.:r:=-.= CI'd..", = ord.t'all .. ..anrtted to T~ 'flO" Gar4nxtar'a ~ ... ot ptcr4 PIcn ............ !ltG11 tie IGc.oII!f 9"O"f"I (JoIPUIM ...... ~MMn OR, Of' ~ BC'J. _~~""""""'""(f'OHrI!I_""''''''''' ___ -'''-'''''''''''''' w:r~ It tep~ of plannroteriol • ~ ca. to CDnItrwettDn :*::p: or = to~~~oI~~::;::::~CWI~1t'dI tMI =. -:1:'= ~ "II~ :!%c::,.r; ~re:::rea trom ~ or -..t1wUon Of Cftj pDU dMtIWc:IlNIIItCtiI . ..... _II ............... ~""910 ~ INU, (l.nIno _1fIod .. 1'fIoIIt.~.1I:WI the wtIltOl .,...,. W\taI:,t 12'1:1 ~ Soned c:w::I twkIpp8CI Koc.k ItIaII to.Ie t:.en root~ CIt .. t arc.e wIthi\ ttw ~ two ~ c:Wd ttw plant Iot«.t IhCIII hI:Nre bMn ~ ~ a ~ for at Iec* ONI NI~ ~~ -:t.:::!,berc:'ta.~ = ': ~~ PDnl with ~tCll'..,1I e&brrdl ~ton ttGt ~"ktd pkft .,...,.IQ. t"DWt been CIIf"'daNd ara.....-.d. A*' ot.."..,. ~ ~ ~ cnI UW ~::.*::-c!:..t ~ IIh:aII be MbI'ftI to T~ c.or-ttant. $MTtDDlC'ltO ~:;o~~~~"!'!,.~~=':'~~~I~:,,, ....-..g ........ "". Bcre I"OOt. .toet Of 8CfIOI ... to 1fHI,'.d t.Of"ItcIrW,. 01' sa B plc:w'ltll'9 'fICIIJ be __ tthlted tor _c~ ~ Of' BeB plClrt ... ~ CM2I1GbIe.lNt on" NIlh ptiOr' ~ t.j T.-...o~. ~ pieri rncJterk:d.toIl" c.cn.or.r or PART , -Pl.AHT ItftTAU.ADQN fOIl SEpepe,ItOH'At£NPtfH'I$ Prtor to IMtaliatlOn of p~, all CDMlrvc.t1rln dIrtr. CWId O'IJ ottIer nomat"-'e ;::-: ~~ :: .. ~1"OIn tNt ,. •• tc:ratlrln creca. TNe. c:n::t ItY'IA» IIhI:aIl t:. pit ::.=::. ~ r:1.~=~,=~t.;.:r: ~ ~:..,~ nil be :.= '*'.'t~ ~ "wlw plc¥ed topeon (eee Part. ,for topeoll _'IOatlor'A/. :...-=e~.~:~Ian7:I~~~O::I:::~Q 2'1*(.41 of potl-c:.DNttwctlQn perf~. end nw:anen.cn:.e ... ...,... tI!I T~ GoMuftGnte Q'w::I ~"9""""" ~ . ... "....,... of ....... ""'" bop"""''''''''''' tho -.. of ...... IIOH ...... (!6"_t'fng/ """ _ p--.g roM" _ r"9llo....-.. _......,~ """.."...... __ ~ Tre. Mull be MaUd with at. ~t one IIlc*e and OUC2lrJWd at a hllIird of appt'OIIImote'!l !11<4 the tw~ of the tNe ,... ..... t H2J), GoI'Itr'ClUM IhcIIi ~ oIGtao at tho .... of tho ... __ ~ per"'" "'_ ""*'-_led .. T~c;.or...ltanta. PARI ... -IRRItP!JIQK ""ItC A¥' II@! D§W 1 A,IClH ~ ItIoIl .~1Ie c..GII"8 to protea tt'OftI ~ to tnri:.. root.. or ~ of ~.:=,,='.:~~~~;:.:.~.-g :::====~=.~ ~7~~~~:.:arrd """""""" _II pnre _ peru... of p ... _Iy ot .... """-........ ~ pkW:e ....... 1I tie ~~ ........... CInd 0CIc:IIt»nc:d ,.,......1ihc:I1I1::Ie ~ .. "PP""P'-."'-"'~-' ~ ~=:!f~ r:c:::: !rp:!:t ~~ Ult'6tMlGtIan~ .. QftCt MErtI "!MAL I\CUPU\MrlC ~Gf~:,"~~ :.=~ -:&!:=~ Of pk:r1tGoNu=::: a ..."torottcn G"'eCII. c..ontNxtor tMJl kaep a ~let. Nt of pr.u.. GI:~ ~ .ne ~~=~o:..:' ~ ac::,~ c:T!t; =tt.~ tNt !a;= I.~r::-""'I~,.e::,,~ ~~:::rec.t.d. GClntnx.tcr" 'Ot" '"~f:t~ -"fter ~ n.t \te". hIwe been 'Dmpleted, Talalcaeo GonI&IIto\t' 1tG' .... ", .... t,M pro)l't 'or 'tna1 ou.~ of pIG\ ~"twntOUCrn. ;;:..::..of~::.. ........... ""'" ~""'" .... bogI'Mg of .... _..,.,.. p""" )1A'Kmlc'·t.Ke ~tor MelII,..vfew ~ fI'ICIWe~ te~ ""'ttl a q..oltf.d =~~:s::a ~~~ltm'lla.n:t • tGmlI~.,.tlh the .toted goolll ~ ~tOl' 1t'ICI1I1TII2tntc4n tren ana ......... c:. rwed8d, 'or a por'ocl Of QI'W !fOcr 'rom """' ........... '" _ IWIallhj!J'O'dll "'" -.oI.a-.IIj. Ino'"""'a oJ I~.n ::..:r:::::= ~= to proptr 1J"OCit. crd ~ pcMIUo" .. I7d cJ Gc:Intt'«.tor MIOII be ~ 'or" ....... "'9 pt:m. 1r'IWMdIcIt.~ YpOtI mtCItkltfGo\ CInCI =~-=~~==Dnc.:e~=: ==~~ IQI"""'9pkW,,!!"'_-......p __ ~tcr thall rtIfrGIWt tree ~ and ~ two ...... atter Nlallatlon Wle. :w:!;:.en 01:::= T~a ltd. to ~ ~ crd M ~tcrc!:~:::~=~~~~~~'='W;o~do: bIj ,...~ c.or.tn.c.tCft. ~ tM cr.a.,., tw:ni ... dIng...tttl .... rnbc c:.or.rr.t.nt ..tIh tMt t.-ad 1M _~ p~~, """""'lOr _" ........ 1TigoI ......... 2-pcn ....... pkW"'9- upon c.cwrpretton Of tI"I8 OM per ~ O"IIrWfI'r"Uron tIIj TCUa.aea GorMItcrtta thall be condYc:.tCld to conI'rm th2t the ~ c::rea Nat p"oper~~. If rtea. cre to be c.orrec.ted. Q pwrd\ Rat IhOII be ~ bf c::wd ~ to u. ~~~~~~':~~:p=-~ac!.ehcdl ".-..; ( Sheet \.. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Defoor Property Wetland Study, Stream Assessment, Habitat Study, Watershed Restoration and Mitigation Plan APPENDIX F INDEX OF DRAWINGS (FULL SIZE PLAN SHEETS, 24" X 36") Sheet W1.0: Wetland & Stream Basin Restoration Plan -Existing Conditions & Overview Plan Sheet W1.1: Wetland & Stream Basin Restoration Plan -Proposed Site Plan Impacts & Mitigation Sheet W2.0: Wetland & Stream Basin Restoration Plan -Enhancement Planting Plan Sheet W2.1: Wetland & Stream Basin Restoration Plan -Planting Details & Notes Sheet W2.2: Wetland & Stream Basin Restoration Plan -Planting Specifications 3 October 2005 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 931 CAReport(30ct05).doc Appendix F 1 'I,,', I I / 1 --(' 1 1 I I I , I I I 1 I I jeIe: t I 1--- -1-''': . , 1 \' , . de{ i \j)w ~9 . Report Coal Mine Hazard Assessment and r r-:,.. ..... Preliminary-Geotechnical Evaluation Renton Hill Property King County Parcel Nos. 2023059085 and 0007200194/196 Renton, Washington June 10,2005 Project No. 0584-001 -Prepared fQr: GWC,Inc. Prepared by: Icicle Creek Engineers, Inc. , .--,-'" '"' .~.t\~ .~ . ,"' \,... DEVELOPMENT PlANNING . CITY OfRE~ON "'" -,; JUL -26 2005 - --'''ECEIVED R . , :;-, . ,.,,' - I I I I I I I I I I I I I' I I I I I I ICICLE CREEK ENGINEERS Geot~~hnical, Geoiogic and Environmental Services June 1 0, 2005 Terry DeFoor GWC, Inc. 95 Anchor Court Marka, Florida 34145 , ) ,~;",r ' \ '/ Icicle Creek Engineers is pleased to submit two copies of our "Report, Coal Mine Hazard Assessment and :Preliminaiy' {ieotechnicai Evaluation, Renton Hill Property, King County Parcel Nos. 2023059085 and 00072001941196, Renton, Washington." Our serviCes were provided in general accordance with our Proposal dated November 2, 2004 and our Scope of Services and Fee Estimate dated January 25, 2005. -Please contact us if you require additional information. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you. Doc;ment ill: 0584.001.cvl Attachment: Report' cc: Michael Chen (six copies) Core Design, Inc. 14711 NE 29th Place, Suite 101 Bellevue, Washington 98007 Yours very truly, Icicle Creek Engineers, Inc. Brian R. Beaman, P.E., L.G. Principal Engineer/Geologist 230 NE Juniper Street, Suite 101 • Issaquah,WA 98027-2519 • www.iciciecreekengineers.com • (425) 427-8187 phone. (425) 427-6629 fax I I I I I I I I I I ! I I I I I I I I I TABLE OF CONTENTS PagelFigure Number INTRODUCTION ................................................................... 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................ 1 COALMINEHAZARDSREGULATORYISSUES ........................................ 1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION. . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. ... 1 SCOPE OF SERVICES .................. '. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2 COAL MINE HAZARD ASSESSMENT ......................... ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION ................................ 2 GEOLOGIC SETTING ............. ~ ....................•... '.' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... 2 SURF ACE CONDITIONS ............................................................ 3 GENERAL .................................................................. 3 COAL MINE FEATURES .......................................•............... 3 1936 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH REVIEW ................................................ 4 ABANDONED UNDERGROUND COAL MINES ......................................... 4 DOCUMENTED MINING. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4 UNDOCUMENTED MINING. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5 SUB SURF ACE CONDITIONS AND GROUND PROOFING PROGRAM ...................... 5 METHODOLOGY ............................................................ 5 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS ............................................... 6 RESULTS OF GROUND PROOFING ............................................ 8 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF HAZARDS ASSOCIATED WITH COAL MINES ............... 8 ANALYSIS OF COAL MINE HAZARDS .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8 HIGH COAL MINE HAZARD AREAS ............. :............................. 8 MEDIUM COAL MINE HAZARD AREAS ........................................ 8 LOW COAL MINE HAZARD AREAS ........... ~ ........................... ~ . . .. 9 MINE ROCK FILL ............................. : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. 9 COAL MINE HAZARD ASSESSMENT. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION .... ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10 EROSION CONTROL AND DRAINAGE MEASURES ............................. 16 USE OF THIS REPORT .............................................................. 17 FIGURES' Vicinity Map ......... .' ........................................................ Figure 1 Site Plan ........................... ; '.' .......................................... Figure 2 Abandoned Underground Coal Mine Map ... '. : ....... ' .... ' ....................... " ... Figure 3 Geologic Cross Sections A-A' through F-F' .................................... Figures 4 and 5 Coal Mine Hazards Map .: ....................................................... Figure 6 APPENDICES APPENDIX A -SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS Subsurface Explorations .................................................. Page A-I Explanation for Boringffest Pit Logs ....................................... Figure A-I Boring Logs ............................................... Figures A-2 through A-5 Test Pit Logs ............................................ Figures A-6 through A-13 Icicle Creek Engineers 05840011061005 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I REPORT COAL .MINE HAZARD ASSESSMENT AND PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION RENTON HILL PROPERTY KING COUNTY PARCEL NOS. 2023059085 AND 0007200194/196 RENTON, WASHINGTON INTRODUCTION 1bis report summarizes the results of Icicle Creek Engineers' (ICE's) coal mine hazard assessment and preliminary geotechnical evaluation of King County Parcel Nos. 2023059085 and 0007200194/196 in Renton, Washington. These parcels are located on about 10 acres situated southwest of the intersection of South 7th Street and Cedar Avenue South in Renton, Washington. In this report, the land parcels will be collectively referred to as the "Renton Hill Property." The location of the Renton Hill Property is shown on the Vicinity Map, Figure 1. ICE previously completed a preliminary coal mine· hazard assessment of the Renton Hill Property. The results are presented in our report to GWC, Inc. dated January 17, 2005. The results of that report were reviewed by Terry DeFoor, the project owner, and Michael Chen of Core Design, Inc., the project civil design engineer. As a result of this review, a detailed coal mine hazard assessment was requested by Mr. DeFoor to better define the hazards associated with abandoned underground coal mines at the project site. The project site, including the boundary of the Renton Hill Property, is shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION We understand that GWC, Inc~ is considering developing this property. The specific details of the development, including a grading plan or building layout, are not known at this time. We assume the development will consist of single-family residences with paved access and parking. On April 26, 2005, Mr. Chen provided ICE with a conceptual development plan for the Renton rull Property. The conceptual layout of the building lots and access road are shown on Figure 2. We expect that this conceptual layout will change significantly as more illformation is acquired for this project. Howev<::r, the general area where development is shown on Figure·2 will not likely change significantly. We further understand that the property development may be completed as two separate plats. The first plat will be an area along the west side of Renton Avenue South. The second plat will be along the west side of Cedar Avenue South .. In this report, these areas are referred to as the "Renton Avenue Area" and the "Cedar Avenue Area." We considered addressing these areas in separate reports, but because the coal mine hazard assessment involves a detailed understanding of the overall area, it was appropriate to include both areas in a single report. COAL MINE HAZARDS REGULATORY ISSUES The Renton Hill Property is located in an area of historic underground coal mining. A coal mine hazard assessment is required by the City of Renton to evaluate the potential for ground subsidence and to provide recommendations for building and road design to mitigate these hazards, if appropriate, and/or delineate areas of the Renton Hill Property to avoid when siting houses and roads (Renton Municipal Code (RMC) Title IV Development Regulations, ·Section J (Geologic Hazards), 2 (Special Studies Requirements) ). . BACKGROUND INFORMATION ICE reviewed documents and obtained historic aerial photographs of the site to aid in our geologic reconnaissance and evaluation of histonc coal mining in this area. . These documents and photographs are referenced as follows: Icicle Creek Engineers 1 05840011061005 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I • City of Renton, 1998, "Renton Municipal Code, Title IV, Development Regulations." • Morrison-Knudsen, January 1985, "Engineering Investigation for the Renton, Washington Area," prepared for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Surface Mining. • Walker & Associates, Inc., 1936, historical aerial photographs of the Renton Hill Property area, approximate scale, 1 inch = 1,600 feet. • Warren, W.C., Norbisrath, H., Grivetti, R.M., and Brown, S.P., 1945, "Preliminary Geologic Map and Brief Description of the Coal Fields of King County, Washington," United States Geological Survey, 1 plate. • Washington State Department of Natural Resources, undated, "Summary of Coal Production in King County, Washington," by mine and year from 1888 through 1967, 1 plate. • Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geology and Earth Resources, 1911, 1918, 1919, and 1932, historic maps of the Renton Mine showing surface features and underground mine workings. SCOPE OF SERVICES The purpose of our services was to complete a coal mine hazard assessment and preliminary geotechnical evaluation of the Renton Hill Property. Specifically, our services included: COAL MINE HAZARD ASSESSMENT • Evaluate subsurface soil, bedrock and the location/condition of the abandoned underground Renton Mine by drilling four test borings (Borings B-1 through B-4) to depths ranging from 60 to 190 feet. Three of the borings were completeq within the Cedar Avenue Area and one within the Renton Avenue Area. • Excavate nine test pits (Test Pits TP-2, TP-4, TP-6,"TP-8, and TP-12 through TP':16) to depths ranging from 6 to 17 feet to observe near surface conditions and evaluate the presence and character of mine rock fill in this area. • Based on the information review and subsurface exploration program, classify the mine hazards as either: 1) High Coal Mille HaZard Areas, 2) Medium Coal Mine Hazard Areas,or 3) Low Coal Mine Hazard Areas consistent with City of Renton Development Regulations. • . Evaluate the potential for regional ground subsidence in High and Medium Coal Mine Hazard· Areas (vertical ground subsidence, ground tilt and ground strain). • Provide a preliminary evaluationofriline rock fill (distribution and character) within the Renton Hill Property. • Provide recommendatio!ls for mitigation measures for development within High and Mediun;t Coal Mine Hazard Areas, including mine rock fill areas; as appropriate. PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION • Perform surface reconnaissance with particular emphasis on steep slope areas. • Explore subsurface soil and ground water conditions by excavating seven test pits (Test Pits TP-l, TP-3, TP-5, TP-7, and TP-9 through TP-ll) across the property using a track-mounted excavator. • Provide preliminary recommendations for site development, including preliminary recommendations for site preparation, grading, structural fill, shallow foundation support, erosion control and drainage. GEOLOGIC SETTING The surficial geology at the site has been mapped by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) (D. R. Mullineaux, 1965, "Geologic Map of the Renton Quadrangle, King County, Washington," Geologic Quadrangle Map GQ-405) as "undifferentiated glacial sediments" underlain by "Renton formation" bedrock. Undifferentiated glacial sediments are described by the USGS as consisting of layers of glacial till (silty sand with gravel), outwash (stream or river) sand and gravel, glaci?lacustrine (lake) clay and sand, and nonglacial sand and clay. Icicle Creek Engineers 2 0584001/061005 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Renton formation bedrock consists of interbedded (layered) sedimentary rock consisting of sandstone, siltstone, shale, claystone, carbonaceous shale and coal beds. Structurally, the bedrock has been uplifted, folded and faulted over time. This structural deformation of the bedrock has caused the "bedding" of the rock to be tilted about 10 to 14 degrees down to the east in the Renton Hill Property area. Based on our observations of native soil and bedrock exposures, primarily in incised stream cuts and road cuts along Cedar Avenue South, and subsurface explorations, it appears that the majority of the Renton Hill Property is underlain by shallow (less than 10 feet deep) bedrock. The undifferentiated glacial sediments (primarily outwash and glacial till) mantles the bedrock over much of the Renton Hill Property. In addition, the western portion of the property, though currently undeveloped and forested, has a history of extensive site use associated with rural residential development and coal mining. For this reason, local accumulations of fill, primarily related to the historic coal mining, may be present and are described in more detail later in this report. SURFACE CONDITIONS GENERAL Our surface reconnaissance of the Renton Hill Property was completed on December 15,2004 and June 1, 2005. The Renton Hill Property is bordered by South 7th and 9th Streets, Cedar Avenue South, Renton Avenue South and residential development to the north and east. The south side of the property is bordered by a Puget Sound Energy (PSE) transmission line easement and the west side by Interstate 405. The Renton Hill Property is located on a west-facing hillside overlooking the City of Renton at about Elevation 150 to 300 feet. The property is currently undeveloped and vegetated with mature second-growth evergreen and deciduous trees. The. ground surface in general has a downward slope to the west. This slope typically ranges from 5 to 20 percent grade. However, steeper slopes (more than 40 percent grade) occur in local areas such as along the sides of two stream channels in the south portion of the site. Steep slopes also occur along the east boundary of the Cedar Avenue Area and the Renton Avenue Area as a result of fill embankment construction for Cedar and Renton Avenues South. As previously mentioned, two stream channels exist in the south portion of the Renton Hill Property. The upper portion of these stream channels cross through the Renton Avenue Area. It appears that the primary source of water for these channels is uncontrolled stormwater runoff from the developed area, including roads, east of the property. A perennial stream, generally located within the PSE transmission 'line easement, flows to the northwest near the southwest property comer. The aforementioned two stream channels on the Renton Hill Property appear to drain into this stream. No stream channels cross the Cedar Avenue Area. No surface water was observed within the Renton Hill Property at the time of our rec6Imaissance with the exception of the two stream channels which contained water flowing at· a rate of about 10 gallons per minute. Slow ground water seepage was observed in the southeast portion of the Cedar Avenue Area, within designated Lot 11. COAL MINE FEATURES A concrete frame for the 1874 air shaft for the Renton Mine is present in the southwest comer of the Renton Hill Property, adjacent to the PSE transmission line easement as shown on the Abandoned Underground Coal Mine Map, Figure 3. The concrete frame measures about 30 feet square. The concrete frame walls are about 9 to 10 feet high, where they haven't crumbled. The concrete frame includes three interior concrete walls that run east-west. The southernmost room likely housed the fan that provided air circulation to the Renton Mine, as there is a large circular scrape on the south concrete wall where the moving fan apparently scraped this surface. This concrete frame containing the fan was referred to historically as the "fan house." Icicle Creek Engineers 3 0584001/061005 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The southernmost room of the fan house contains a backfilled mine entry characterized by a concrete lined rectangular opening that is filled with soil (not accessible). The main entry to the mine was situated about 100 feet north of the fan house according to the historic mine maps. Currently, the main entry is not visible and is located within a nearly flat area that has been designated a "wetland" by others. We also observed two pits roughly measuring about 15 feet in diameter and 5 or 6 feet deep in the northeast portion of the Cedar Avenue Area; roughly in the vicinity of Lot 19 as shown on Figure 3 (referenced as "Pits" on Figure 3). These pits are likely associated with surface excavations that exposed the coal bed during the Depression years when it was common for local residents to gather coal from local outcrops for home heating. We did not observe anomalous "mounds" that may indicate the presence of mine rock fill (mine rock fill is a waste by-product of the mining operation consisting of rock and coal fragments).-However, we did observe anomalous nearly level areas in the vicinity of the fan house and main entry area that may suggest the presence of mine rock fill. Mine rock fill is discussed in more detail later in this report. 1936 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH REVIEW The historical aerial photographs from 1936 (approximate scale 1 inch = 1,600 feet), were taken about 3 years after the Renton Mine was closed. In these photographs, most of the buildings, including a carpenter shop, hoist house, power house, bunkers and blacksmith shop, are visible and compare relatively well with the locations shown on the historic mine maps. Cedar Avenue South and Renton Avenue South are present in the 1936 aerial photograph along with residential development east of these streets. The Renton Hill Property is partially cleared of trees. A residential structure and driveway with access from Benson Road is situated in the moderately sloping area in the west-central portion of the property (the Cedar Avenue Area). We did not observe on the aerial photographs the "Coal Spoils" that were indicated in the MK ·1985 report. However, a linear "mound" feature of similar dimensions that· may be a mine rock fill stockpile is visible west of the reported MK 1985 Coal Spoils location. .several primitive roads cross the south portion of the Renton Hill Property. . , ABANDONED UNDERGROUND COAL MINES DOCUMENTED MINING The Renton Mine was active in the vicinity of the Renton Hill Property from about 1874 to 1933 on the No.3 Coal Seam .. Typically, coal was removed using room-and-pillar mining methods where coal "pillars" were left in place for. support of the "rooms" where the coal was removed. Eventually, most, or all, of the coal pillars were removed upon retreat of these production areas to promote collapse of the mine~-out areas. The thickness of coal mined was about 8 feet according to historical records. The total thickness of the No.3 Coal Seam is about 12 feet .. A second coal seam, referred to as the No. 2 Coal Seam, was explored along with limited production. A tunnel section from the No.2 Coal Seam mining extends under the Renton Avenue Area along with more extensive tUnneling east of the Renton Avenue Area, as shown on Figure 3. The total thickness of coal mined from the No.2 Coal Seam is not known. The total thickness of the No.2 Coal Seam is about 13 feet. Based on our review of the previously referenced available information and site observations, the original main slope entries (main entry and fan house) for the Renton Mine are located along the south- central property line as shown on Figure 3 (labeled on Figure 3 as the "Main Entry" and "Fan House"). As the mine expanded, a rock tunnel was driven from the main slope to a point along the east side of the current location of Benson Road. The rock tunnel provided an easier means for removing coal from the underground mine workings. The rock tunnel is located in the southwest portion of the Renton Hill Property and extends west under Interstate 405 to where the backfilled (currently inaccessible) mine entry is located. Icicle Creek Engineers 4 0584001/061005 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The main slope for the Renton Mine extends to the east at an approximately 10 degree angle below horizontal under the Renton Hill Property with a series of haulageways and production or room areas that were driven at right angles to the main slope. Each haulageway along with its production area was referred to as a "Level." Underlying the Renton Hill Property are the 151 and 2nd Levels of the Renton Mine (the Renton Mine ultimately contained 12 levels). The previously referenced 1985 Morrison-Knudsen (MK) report was conducted to inventory coal mines and subsidence features associated with coal mines in the general Renton area. The i 985 MK report indicates the presence of two, previously described mine entries along the south property line of the Renton Hill Property. In addition, the 1985 MK report indicates the presence of three piles of "Coal Spoils" in the south-central portion of the Cedar Avenue Area. Coal Spoils are a mining-related waste- byproduct (broken rock and coal fmes) referred to as "mine rock fill" in this report. We did not observe surface evidence of this mine rock fill at the time of our site reconnaissance in December 2004 or June 2005. However, these piles of mine rock fill may have been spread out over the site or become overgrown with vegetation. We did observe evidence of mine rock fill in our subsurface explorations (test pits) that were completed in December 2004 and June 2005, as described later in this report. The nearest known sinkhole according to the 1985 MK report is located approximately 400 feet east of the northeast property comer near the intersection of South 9th Street ~d Renton Avenue South (referred to as the "Noonan Subsidence" in the 1985 MK report) and is likely related to the collapse of the No.2 Coal Seam which is relatively shallow in this area. UNDOCUMENTED MINING The Renton Mine is in an area where undocumented mining occurred. Based on our site observations, the two previously described excavated pits, where it is likely that local residents obtained small quantities of coal during the Depression years, are the orily known occurrences of undocumented mining. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AND GROUND PROOFING PROGRAM METHODOLOGY As described in ICE's January 17, 2005 report, the historical maps of the Renton Mine allowed for a reasonably accura,te positioning of the mine features. However, because of the lack of detailed elevation information on the historic mine -maps at shallower sections of the mine, we estimated that the vertical location of the abandoned underground mine workings may vary up to 50 feet. The depth to the abandoned mine workings is a very significant factor in the evaluation of potential hazards. Based on our experience, the best direct method for evaluating the vertical position-of the near-surface (less than 200 _ feet deep) features of the Renton Mine was to drill or excavate directly into the No. -3 Coal Seam or the mine. This direct drilling or excavation method is referred to as "ground proofing" cind ICE has used this method over 100 times to evaluate the status of collapse and depth and extent of abandoned underground mine features throughout Washington. Considerable information is available through the _ Washington State Department of Natural Resources Division of Geology and Earth Resources, including engineers and geologists reports, and mine maps regarding the Renton Mine. The available information allowed ICE to characterize the rock layers or stratigraphy that includes the Renton Mine. This information was used during the subsurface exploration to assist in deciding the depth of explorations and characterizing the stratigraphy and coal mine features. According to the information available in the historical records, the No.2 Coal Seam was 85 feet above the No. 3 Coal Seam and these seams were separated by thick layers of siltstone and sandstone. The records also indicate that theNo. 2 and No.3 Coal Seams were approximately 12 to 13 feet thick. This information was used to "proof' the drilling program as it progressed and identify locations for test pit excavations to locate the No.3 Coal Seam where it approached the ground surface. Icicle Creek Engineers 5 0584001/061005 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS The ground proofing program was conducted by drilling four, 6-inch-diameter borings (Borings B-1 through B-4) at the approximate locations shown on Figure 3. We also excavated sixteen test pits (Test pits TP-l through TP-16) as part of our preliminary geotechnical evaluation and to supplement the ground proofmg program. The test pit locations are shown on Figure 3. Details of the subsurface exploration program, along with the test boring and test pit logs, are presented in Appendix A. The following is a brief summary of each boring and test pit completed for the coal mine hazard assessment and the preliminary geotechnical evaluation. Boring B-1: Boring B-1 encountered bedrock at a depth of about 7 feet. The No.3 Coal Seam was encountered from a depth of about 7 to 19 feet. Underlying the No.3 Coal Seam, Boring B-1 encountered layers of sandstone, siltstone, carbonaceous shale and thin (less than one foot thick) layers of coal to the completion depth of the boring at about 110 feet below the ground surface. Boring B-2: Boring B-2 encountered bedrock at a depth of about 8 feet. The No.3 Coal Seam was encountered from a depth of about 8 to 19.5 feet. Underlying the No.3 Coal Seam, Boring B-2 encountered layers of sandstone and siltstone to the completion depth of the boring at about 60 feet below the ground surface. . Boring B-3: Boring B-3 encountered bedrock at a depth of about 10 feet. The No.3 Coal Seam was encountered from a depth of about 10 to 23.5 feet. Underlying the No.3 Coal Seam, Boring B-3 encountered layers of sandstone and siltstone to the completion depth of the boring at about 60 feet below the ground surface. Boring B-4: Boring B-4 encountered bedrock at a depth of about 3.5 feet. From about 3.5 to 95 feet, Boring B-4 encountered siltstone and carbonaceous shale with occasional thin layers of coal. The No. 2 Coal Seam was encountered from a depth of about 95 to 108 feet. Underlying the No. 2 Coal Seam, Boring B-4 encountered siltstone with occasional thin layers of coal from about 108 to 187.5 feet. At about 187.5 feet a void in the bedrock was encountered (30-inch void -the Renton Mine) to the completion depth of the boring at about 190 feet below the ground surface. Test Pit TP-l: Test Pit TP-l encountered about 1.1 foot of forest duff and topsoil underiain by outwash consisting of medium dense fme sand with silt to a depth of about 5.5 feet. Underlying the outwash, Test Pit TP-l encountered dense, moderately weathered sandstone to the completion depth of the test pit at about 8 feet below the ground surface. Test Pit TP-2: Test Pit TP-2 encountered about 0.5 foot of forest duff and topsoil underlain by outwash consisting of medium dense silty fme sand to a depth of about 2.7 feet. Underlying the outwash, Test Pit TP-2 encountered the No. 3 Coal Seam to a depth of about 8 feet. The No. 3 Coal Seam was underlain by hard siltstone to the completion depth of the test pit at about 10 feet below the ground· surface. . Test Pit TP-3: Test Pit TP-3 encountered about 0.3 feet of forest duff and topsoil underlain by about 0.8 feet of weathered soil consisting of soft silt with occasional roots. The weathered soil was underlain by outwash consisting of loose to medium dense silty fine sand to a depth of about 6 feet. Underlying the outwash, Test Pit TP-3 encountered dense, moderately weathered sandstone to the completion depth of the test pit at about 8 feet below the ground surface. Test Pit TP-4: Test Pit TP-4 encountered about 0.3 foot of forest duff and topsoil underlain by outwash consisting of loose to medium dense silty fme sand with variable amounts of siltstone and coal fragments and cobbles to a depth of about 10.5 feet. Underlying the outwash, Test Pit TP-4 encountered the dense sandstone to the completion depth of the test pit at about 12 feet below the ground surface (the No.3 Coal Seam was not encountered in Test Pit TP-4). Test Pit TP-5: Test Pit TP-5 encountered about 0.2 feet of forest duff and topsoil underlain by about 0.8 feet of weathered soil consisting of soft silt with occasional roots. The weathered soil was underlain by very dense, slightly weathered sandstone to the completion depth of the test pit at about 4 feet below the ground surface. . Icicle Creek Engineers 6 0584001/061005 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Test Pit TP-6: Test Pit TP-6 encountered about 0.5 foot of forest duff and topsoil underlain by outwash consisting of loose silty fine sand with variable amounts of siltstone and coal fragments, and cobbles and boulders to a depth of about 5.5 feet. Underlying the outwash, Test Pit TP-6 encountered medium stiff to hard siltstone with occasional thin layers of coal to a depth of about 10.5 feet. The siltstone was underlain by the No. 3 Coal Seam to the completion depth of the test pit at about 17 feet below the ground surface. Test Pit TP-7: Test Pit TP-7 encountered about 0.6 feet of forest duff and topsoil underlain by outwash consisting of medium dense silty fine sand to a depth of about 2.5 feet. Underlying the outwash, Test Pit TP-7 encountered glacial till consisting of very dense silty sand with gravel to the completion depth of the test pit at about 4 feet below the ground surface. Test Pit TP-8: Test Pit TP-8 encountered about 0.2 feet of forest duff and topsoil underlain by mine rock fill to a depth of about 6 feet. The mine rock fill consisted of loose silty fine sand and broken rock (siltstone) fragments of coal and occasional wood fragments. Underlying the mine rock fill, Test Pit TP-8 encountered outwash consisting of medium dense silty fine sand to a depth of about 8.5 feet that was underlain by glacial till consisting of very dense silty fine sand with gravel to the completion depth of the test pit at about 10.5 feet below the ground surface. Test Pit TP-9: Test Pit TP-9 encountered about 1.2 feet of forest duff and topsoil underlain by about 1 foot of outwash consisting of medium dense silty sand with occasional cobbles and coal fragments. Underlying the outwash was weathered soil consisting of medium stiff to stiff silt with a trace of sand to a depth of about 6 feet. Underlying the weathered soil in Test Pit TP-9 encountered hard, slightly weathered siltstone to the completion depth of the test pit at about 10 feet below the ground surface. Test Pit TP-IO: Test Pit TP-1O ericountered about 1.1 feet of forest duff and topsoil underlain by weathered. soil consisting of medium stiff silt with a trace of sand to a depth of about 3.5 feeL Underlying the weathered soil, Test Pit TP-10 encountered hard, slightly weathered .siltstone to the completion depth of the test pit at about 8 feet below the ground' surface. Test Pit TP-ll: Test Pit TP-11 encountered about 1.4 feet of forest duff and topsoil underlain by weathered soil consisting of medium stiff silt with a trace of sand to the completion depth of the test pit at about 6 feet below the ground suIface. Test Pit TP-12: Test Pit TP-12encountered about 0.5 foot of forest duff and topsoil underlain by outwash consisting of loose silty fme sand to a depth of about 2.5 feet. Underlying the outwash, Test Pit TP-12 encountered the No.3 Coal Seam to the completion depth of the test pit at about 10 feet below the ground surface .. Test Pit.TP-13: Test Pit TP-13 encountered about 1 foot of forest duff and topsoil underlain by outwash consisting of loose to medium dense silty fme sand and medium dense sand with silt with variable amounts of roots to a depth of about 7.5 feet. Underlying the outwash, Test Pit TP-2 encountered the No.3 Coal Seam to the completion depth of the test pit at about 9 feet below the ground surface. Test Pit TP-14: Test Pit TP-14 encountered about 0.3 foot of forest duff and topsoil underlain by mine rock fill consisting of loose silty fme sand and coal fines with abundant roots and a rusted iron pipe to a depth of about 4 feet. Underlying the mine rock fill, Test Pit TP-14 encountered outwash consisting of medium dense silty fine sand to the completion depth of the test pit at about 7 feet below the ground surface. Test Pit TP-15: Test Pit TP-15 encountered about 0.3 foot of forest duff and topsoil underlain by outwash consisting of loose to medium dense silty fine sand with variable amounts of roots and grave to the completion depth of the test pit at about 6.5 feet below the ground surface. Test Pit TP-16: Test Pit TP-16 encountered about 0.5 foot of forest duff and topsoil underlain by mine rock fill consisting of loose coal fines to a depth of about 2 feet. Underlying the mine rock fill, Test Pit TP-16 encountered loose to mediiun dense silty fine sand with occasional gravel, cobbles and roots to the completion' depth of the test pit·at about 6 feet below the ground surface. Icicle Creek Engineers 7 05840011061005 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I RESULTS OF GROUND PROOFING Borings B-1 through B-3 were completed in the Cedar Avenue Area as a means to evaluate the location of the No.3 Coal Seam. Our initial test pit explorations (TP-2, TP-4, TP-6 and TP-8) indicated that either the No.2 or No.3 Coal Seam was near-surface in this area. Boring B-1, which was drilled adjacent to Test Pit TP-6, was extended to a total depth of 110 feet, more than 85 feet below the' known coal seam that was near-surface, and did not encounter a second coal seam. This suggested that the near- surface coal seam was the No.3 Coal Seam. Borings B-2 and B-3 were completed to obtain additional information on the elevation and extent of the No.3 Coal Seam. This information was used to project the horizontal and vertical location of the No.3 Coal Seam across the Renton Hill Property area. Boring B-4 was completed in the Renton Avenue Area as a means to further establish the location of the No.3 Coal Seam, and also to evaluate the collapse status of the Renton Mine. Because the No.3 Coal Seam was relatively deep in this area, Boring B-4 encountered the No.2 Coal Seam approximately 85 feet above the No.3 Coal Seam as expected based on the historic record. The No.3 Coal Seam was ~ncountered at a depth of about 190 feet below the ground surface. An approximately 3- foot-thick void indicating a partial collapse of the No.3 Coal Seam was encountered in B-4. The results of the Borings B-1 through B-4 compared very well with the information recorded on the historic mine maps. Using the information from the ground proofmg analysis we completed six geologic cross-sections A-A' through F-F'. The location of the cross sections is shown in Figure 3 and the geologic cross sections are presented on Figures 4 and 5. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF HAZARDS ASSOCIATED WITH COAL MINES The principal physical hazards associated with abandoned coal mines include the following: • Sinkholes (High Coal Mine Hazard Areas) • Regional ground subsidence (Medium Coal Mine Hazard Areas) • Non-affected areas (Low Coal Mine Hazard Areas) The Renton Municipal Code Title IV Development Regulations defmes coal mine hazards as , . , follows: High Coal Mine Hazards -Areas with abandoned and improperly sealed mine openings and areas underlain by mine workings shallower than two hundred feet (200? in depth for steeply dipping seams, or shallower than fifteen (15) times the .thickness of the seam or workings for gently dipping seams. These areas may be affected by collapse or other subsidence. Medium Coal Mine Hazards -Areas where the mine workings are deeper than two hundred fe?t (200 ') for steeply dipping seams, or deeper than fifteen (15) times the thickness of the seam for gently dipping seams. These areas may be affected by subsidence. Low -Coal Mine Hazards -Areas with no known mine workings and no predicted, subsidence. 'While no mines are known in these areas, undocumented mining is known to have occurred. , ANALYSIS OF COAL MINE HAZARDS IDGH COAL MINE HAZARD AREAS Based on the results of our ground proofing program, it is likely that the 151 and 2nd Levels of the Renton Mine are partially collapsed (a 30-inch void was observed in Boring B-4). Because full collapse has not occurred, there remains the potential for sinkhole development in areas where the abandoned underground mine workings for the No.2 Coal Seam or the No.3 Coal Seam (the Renton Mine) are less than 150 feet below the ground surface and should be considered a High Coal Mine HaZard Area as shown on the Coal Mine Hazards Map, Figure 6. MEDIUM COAL MINE HAZARD AREAS No ground subsidence should occur with the Cedar Avenue Area because this area is generally not underlain by abandoned underground coal mines with the exception of the southeast corner which is Icicle Creek Engineers 8 0584001/061005 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I already classified as a High Coal Mine Hazard Area as shown on Figure 6. Our analysis of regional ground subsidence suggests that up to 12 inches of regional ground subsidence could occur within the Renton Avenue Area because of the long term collapse of the approximately 30 inch void that underlies this area. However, this 12 inches of regional ground subsidence occurs regionally across most of the Renton Hill Property area and areas to the east more than a mile from the Renton Hill Property. For this reason, the vertical change due to this subsidence is even and should not involve differential settlement, including excessive ground strain (compression or tension) or ground tilt. Ground strain and tilt, which have the potential to cause property damage, are associated with the outer margins of the regional ground subsidence profile which occurs outside of the Renton Hill Property area. The Medium Coal Mine Hazard Area is shown on Figure 6. LOW COAL MINE HAZARD AREAS The only known undocumented coal mining that occurred within the Renton Hill Property are the two excavated pits located in the northeast comer of the Cedar Avenue Area. These pits are surface excavations which can be backfilled. No sinkholes or regional subsidence should occur related to these two pits provided they are properly backfilled. The Low Coal Mine Hazard Area is shown on Figure 6. MINE ROCK FILL Mine rock fill was observed in Test Pits TP-8, TP-14 and TP-16 in the Cedar Avenue Area in the vicinity of Lots 8, 9, and 10. The mine rock fill in the test pits was observed to be about 2 to 6 feet thick and consisted of loose or medium stiff broken rock and coal fragments, coal fmes and siltyfme sand. A piece of rusted pipe was observed in the fill in Test Pit TP-14. The interpreted area of mine rock fill, based on the test pit explorations and topographic anomalies (unusually level or hummocky areas) is shown on Figure 3. We did not observe the area of mine rock fill shown on the 1985 MK report. It is possible that this mine rock fill was later spread on other areas of the site, including the area where mine rock fill was observed in the test pits. . Other mine rock fill is likely to occur in other areas of the Renton Hill Property, primarily in the vicinity of the abandoned mine entry and fan house area; an area that is not planned for development. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS COAL MINE HAZARD ASSESSMENT General Based on our review of available information, site observations, ground proofmg and analysis of coal mine hazards at the Renton Hill Property, we have developed the following conclusions: • A portion of the Renton Hi~l Property is underlain by the Renton Mine (No.3 Coal Seam), including a small tunnel for the No.2 Coal Seam as shown on Figure 3. • The No.3 Coal Seam and the No.2 Coal Seam dip at a relatively gentle angle of about 10 degrees down to the east as shown on Figures 4 and 5. • The east portion of the Cedar Avenue Area is underlain by a primarily intact No.3 Coal Seam with the exception of 1 st Level workings of the Renton Mine in the southeast comer of this area as shown on Figure 3. The depth'to the Renton Mine in this area is estimated to be about 38 to 60 feet below the ground surface as shown on Figure 4. • The Renton Avenue Area is underlain by the 2nd Level workings of the Renton Mine and the northwest comer of this area is underlain by a tunnel for the No.2 Coal Seam as shown on Figure 3. The depth to the Renton Mine in this area is estimated to be about 135 to 200 feet below the ground surface as shown on Figure 5. The depth to the tunnel for the No.2 Coal Seam is estimated to be about 120 feet below the ground surface as shown on Figure 5. • Two abandoned and backfilled mine entries for the Renton Mine occur in the southwest portion of the Renton Hill Property as shown on Figure 3 (the main entry and the fan house). No other mine entries are known to occur within the Renton Hill Property. Icicle Creek Engineers 9 05840011061005 I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I • Based on the results of the ground proofing program we conclude that the Renton Mine is partially collapsed with a remaining void of about 30 inches. • No sinkholes were observed within the Renton Hill Property. • No manifestation of regional ground subsidence was observed, such as linear sags in the ground surface parallel to the underground mine workings, during our geologic reconnaissance. • A High Coal Mine Hazard area exists in the south portion of the Renton Hill Property as shown on Figure 6. The High Coal Mine Hazard Area is where the abandoned underground mine workings are less than 150 feet below the ground surface. • A Medium Coal Mine Hazard Area exists in the Renton Avenue Area as shown on Figure 6. This is an area where ~egional ground subsidence may occur. • Low Coal Mine Hazard Areas were identified within the Renton Hill Property as shown on Figure 6 . . The Low Coal Mine Hazard Areas are not affected by subsidence of abandoned underground coal mines. • Mine rock fill (2 to 6 feet thick in Test Pits TP-8, TP-14 and TP-16) occurs in the southwest portion of the Cedar Avenue Area as shown on Figure 6. The mine rock fill may be thicker or thinner. Other areas of mine rock fill may exist outside of the fill area shown on Figure 6. Mitigation • No building structures or roads should be constructed in High Coal Mine Hazard Areas. High Coal Mine Hazard Areas should remain as open space. However, stormwater detention facilities, such as detention vaults, and utility corridors may be considered on a case-by-case basis for siting in the lowest risk areas within the High Coal Mine Hazard Areas (such as where the abandoned underground coal mines are more than 100 feet below the ground surface or where the mine workings are confmed to tunnels rather than production areas (rooms). • The structural foundation elements of houses constructed in Medium Coal Mine Hazard Areas (Renton Avenue Area) should be connected to provide rigidity to the foundation. In other words, interior footings for column support should be designed as a continuous spread footing structurally tied to the exterior foundation walls rather than using an isolated colwlm f~oting. . Mine Rock Fill Mine rock fill occurs ,locally within the Renton Hill Property, at least within the area shown on Figure 3, based on our review of historical mine maps, the 1985 MK report, the 1936 aerial photographs, test pit explorations and site reconnaissance. However, some of this information, such as the 1985 MK report, conflicts' with the most probable location ofthe mine rock fill that is shown on Figure 3. This uncertainty of the location of mine rock fill is not uncommon when conducting coal mine. hazard assessments. Based on 'our experience, it is not likely that significant .quantities of mine rock fill are found in areas higher than the mine openings as this would require thatthe coal miners transport the mine rock fill uphill of its origin. For this reason, we believe that the mine rock fill is likely confined to the southwest comer of the Renton Hill Property where it was encountered in our test pit explorations. ICE should be contacted should mine rock fill be encountered during site grading. Mine rock fill may be used for structural fill provided the unoxidized carbon content is low (less than 20 percent coal by weight). Combining the mine rockfill with inorganic soil may also be used to prepare this material for use as structural fill if the coal content is high. As with any fill material, the moisture content of the mine rock fill may need to.be adjusted to achieve adequate compaction. Mine rock fill may also be used in landscape areas or removed from the site. PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION General . It is our. opinion that the Renton Hill Property can be developed satisfactorily if recommendations included herein are implemented. Generally, conventional design and construction Icicle Creek Engineers 10 0584001/061005 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I practices will be appropriate. The native soils or bedrock underlying the topsoil, weathered soillbedrock or fill should provide excellent support for buildings and roadways. Min~ rock fill locally occurs on the site as shown on Figure 3, Mine rock fill containing more than 20 percent unoxidized coal by weight will air-degrade over time causing settlement, and is therefore not suitable as structural fill. The mine rock fill is in a very loose condition and may contain appreciable amount of organic material (roots) and may not be suitable for use as structural fill. Excavation of the glacial till and bedrock, if required, will require large excavation equipment (such as a Caterpillar 235, or larger). The glacial till and bedrock that underlies the property limits vertical infiltration of water. For this reason, drainage of sub grade walls will require special design considerations to prevent ground water from entering below-grade facilities. A significant geotechnical aspect regarding project costs is related to project schedule. Construction costs will be higher if extended periods of wet weather occur during project earthwork activities. All components of the project involve soils that have a fmes (soil particle passing the U.S. Standard No. 200 sieve) content such that it will be difficult, if not impossible, to properly compact during wet periods. Also, trafficability of heavy construction equipment will'be difficult, or impossible if the site soils become wet. Site Preparation and General Earthwork We recommend that only the building sites and roadways be stripped of vegetation and significant organic material (primarily forest duff, topsoil and roots). We expect that the stripping depths will be variable and range from 1 to 2 feet m order to remove the sod, topsoil and significant surficial, root zone., Greater depths will be necessary in areas with thick vegetation and trees. This material 'should be wasted off-site or used for landscaping purposes. As mentioned previously, the site soils' contain a high fmes content and are very moisture sensitive and difficult or impossible to operate on and to compact during wet weather. Rubber-tired vehicles and even foot traffic will disturb this material when it' is above-optimum moisture. This material readily absorbs moisture and drying it out is difficult. This material also has' a hi~ erosion potential and silt fences and other measures will be necessary to control erosion and sediment transport during construction. We recommend that the mine rock fill containing more than 20 percent coal by weight be removed from areas where development or filling is planned. Mine rock fill could be reused as structural' fill provided that it is moisture conditioned for proper compaction, and that the coal content is low as previously described. Depending on the grading plans, certain areas of the property may be backfilled. If these areas are to be used to support structures, then site preparation should include stripping all organic material, topsoil and mine rock or soil fill before placing structural fill. Excavations Excavation of the glacial till and bedrock will require large excavation equipment (such as a Komatsu PC200 or larger). It is possible that zones of well-cemented bedrock may be encountered that require blasting or mechanical splitting to loosen. The walls of excavations within glacial till or Renton formation bedrock, including utility trench walls, may be cut vertical to a depth of about 4 feet. Excavations greater than 4 feet in depth generally will be self-supporting for short periods of time at inclinations of 0.5H:l V (horizontal to vertical) or shored to depths of 6 to 8 feet. Temporary cut-slope inclinations for the trench excavations should be made in accordance with applicable OSHA and WISHA regulations. The shoring system, if used, must comply with the provisions of Title 296 WAC, Part N, "Excavation, Trenching and Shoring." The earthwork contractor should be responsible for the design and installation of shoring systems. Icicle Creek Engineers 11 05840011061005 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Structural Fill General: All new fill for buildings and roadways should be placed as compacted structural fill. Structural fill should be free of debris, organic contaminants and rock fragments larger than 6 inches. The suitability of soil for use as structural fill will depend on its gradation (grain-size distribution) and moisture content. As the amount of fines increases, soil becomes increasingly sensitive to small changes in moisture content and adequate compaction becomes more difficult or impossible to achieve. Imported Unclassified Fill: We recommend that imported unclassified fill consist primarily of granular material with less than 30 percent passing the u.S. Standard No. 200 sieve. Unclassified material will be sensitive to changes in moisture content and compaction may be difficult or impossible to achieve during wet weather. We recommend that unclassified material be used as structural fill only during dry weather conditions when proper moisture conditioning can be achieved. . Imported Gravel Borrow: We recommend that gravel borrow confoimwith Section 9-03.14 (Select Borrow) of the 2004 WSDOT Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction. We recommend that structural fill consist of gravel borrow during wet weather and in wet subgrade conditions. Subbase and Drainage Layer: We recommend that subbase material for the pavement section and the drainage layer described subsequently consist of gravel borrow as described above with the further restriction that the gravel borrow contain no more than 5percent fmes (based on the fraction of 3/4-inch-minus material passing the U.S. Standard No. 200 sieve). Use of On:-Site Soil and Bedrock Material: The on-site soils and bedrock are highly sensitive to small changes in moisture content. We recommend that the on-site soils and bedrock be used for structural fill only: during extended periods of dry weather. Mine rock fill locally occurs on the site as shown on Figure 3. This material may not be suitable for reuse as structural fill because of the presence of large amounts of coal fmes and other organic matter. As the grading' of this area progresses, it is possible that some of this material could be reused as structural fill to be evaluated in the field. Compaction equipment that is suited for fme-grained soils, such as a sheepsfoot roller, may be necessary if tPe excavated bedrock is used for fill. We expect that bedrock excavated from the cut areas will consist of a mixture of soil-size particles (broken-up fragments of weathered bedrock) to larger particles of slightly weathered bedrock. We recommend that all rock particles used for structural fill be 12 inches or less in size. Where the majority of particles of excavated rock are 3inches or larger, the rock should be blended with a sufficient amount of soil containing particles that are 3 inches or less in size to eliillinate the presence of large voids in the structural fill after placement. Placement and Compaction: All fill necessary in buildings and roadways and on slopes must be placed as compacted structural fill. Structural fill should be placed in horizontal lifts not exceeding 10 inches in loose thickness and each lift must be conditioned to the proper moisture content and then uniformly compacted. All fill placed in building areas and within 2 feet of the fmished subgrade in roadways must be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density (MDD) as determined by . the ASTM D-1557 test procedure. -Fill placed in roadways at depths gr~ter than 2 feet below the fmished subgrade and at other locations should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the MDD. Fill placed on slopes steeper than 4H: I V (horizontal to vertical) should be benched or keyed into dense native soils. We recommend permanent structural fill slopes be no steeper than 2H: I V. The compaction equipment should be run over the edge of the fill to provide good compaction or the fill can be overbuilt by several feet and cut back to the required slope. Hydroseeding or other erosion protection should be applied immediately after fmal grades are achieved. We recommend that a representative from our firm observe the preparation for, placement, and compaction of structural fill. An adequate number of in-place density tests should be performed in the fill to evaluate if the desired degree of compaction is being achieved. Icicle Creek Engineers 12 05840011061005 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Cut and Fill Slopes Cut Slopes in Soil: We recommend that permanent cut slopes in soil be inclined no steeper than 2H: 1 V. This inclination assumes that adequate drainage facilities on cut slopes are installed prior to and during the grading activities. Cut Slopes in Rock: The shallow bedrock is generally highly to moderately weathered and susceptible to degradation from weathering. Under these circumstances, we suggest that the rock slopes be inclined at 1.5H: 1 V to minimize maintenance. All loose material should be removed from the rock face after the cut slopes are accomplished. It may be possible to steepen the slope inclinations once some of the rock has been exposed and the degree of weathering and other discontinuities in the bedrock can be examined in the exposure. The soil cuts above the bedrock should be inclined as recommended in the previous section. Some raveling and weathering of the exposed bedrock may occur. We recommend that a suitable ditch be provided for catchment of debris; we suggest a 5-foot minimum width. Fill Slopes: We recommend that all fill embankments be constructed with structural fill which is placed and compacted as described in the "Placement and Compaction" section. In general, we recommend that fill embankments compacted to at least 90 percent of the MDD be sloped no steeper than 2H: 1 V. It may be possible to incline fill slopes as steep as L5H: 1 V where the structural fill consists of gravel borrow. However, some raveling of the surface of these steeper slopes is likely to occur that will require periodic maintenance. Temporary Cut Slopes: Where temporary cut slopes are required, we recommend that slopes be inclined no steeper than IH: 1 V for planning purposes. These slopes should be flattened as necessary where seepage is present. on the cut face. It should be expected that the cut face will experience some sloughing and raveling. Plastic sheeting may be necessary to protect the slopes from erosion and raveling in wet weather. We recommend· that temporary excavations, including any temporary shoring, be made the responsibility of the contractor. The contractor is present at the site continuously and is best able to observe changes in site and soil conditions and monitor the performance of excavations. All shoring and . temporary slopes should conform to applicable local, state and federal safety regulations. . Erosion Protection: Cut slopes in soil and bedrock, and fill slopes in soil will be subject to erosion until a vegetative cover is established. We recoriunend that all cut and fill soil slopes be hydro seeded as soon as possible. It may be necessary to install temporary erosion protection until the permanent vegetative cover has established itself. Fill Settlements Fill will experience settlements which will be a function of the thickness of the fill materials and underlying native soils .. We expect that the· following settlements of new fill may be experienced as a function of new fill thickness: Fill Thickness (feet) 10 20 25 Estimated Fill Settlement (inches) ~ ~-% % -1 Approximately 70 to 90 percent of these settlements are expected to occur within eight weeks after placement of the fill, with the remainder occurring over an extended period of time. The estimated time of settlement to occur is approximate and will depend on the thickness of loose or medium dense soil underlying the fill, embankment construction progress and other factors. We do not expect that significant differential settlements will occur along fill embankments assuming that the fill embankments are not constructed over any localized thicknesses of organic and/or soft subgrade soils. Icicle Creek Engineers 13 0584001/061005 I 1 I I· I I I I I I I 1 I 1 I I I I I Spread Footings Conventional shallow spread footing design may be used for building support. We recommend the footings bear upon structural fill, glacial till, or the bedrock at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent finished grade. The footings should not be founded on existing fill soils. If necessary, they could be founded on compacted structural fill which should extend, horizontally beyond the edge of the footings at least 12 inches and continue at a maximum 1 H: 1 V slope to suitable bearing strata. We recommend a maximum allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,500 pounds per square foot (pst) for support on structural fill or glacial till. We recommend a maximum allowable soil bearing pressure of 4,000 psf for support on the moderately to slightly weathered bedrock. These values include dead plus long-term live loads. All continuous footings should have a minimum width of 16 inches, while isolated column footings should have a minimum width of 24 inches. This allowable soil bearing pressure may be increased by up to one,.third to accommodate wind or seismic loads. The weight of the footing and any backfill over the footing may be neglected. We estimate that the total settlement of footings founded according to our recommendations may be about 'l'2 inch with less than half the total as differential settlement provided footings are founded on similar bearing conditions. However, existing fill soils' or disturbed soils not removed from footing excavations before poUring concrete will probably result in increased settlement. It should be noted that the footing subgrades will be susceptible to disturbance when wet. It may be necessary to pour a lean concrete mud mat or place a layer of rock on the exposed soil in the excavations for the footings to protect the footing subgrade from water and/or wet weather during reinforcement bar placement or construction of forms. We recommend that the condition of all footing excavations be observed by a representative from our. firm before placement of concrete to confirm that the bearing soils are undisturbed and are consistent with the recommendations contained within this report. All disturbed or softened fill or native soil must be removed and replaced with concrete or structural fill. Floor Slab Support The floor .slab subgrade should be evaluated per the recommended site preparation procedures. We recomni.end that the capillary break consist of a minimum 4-inch thickness of crushed rock or well- graded sand and gravel compacted to at least 95 percent of the MDD. The capillary break material should have a' maximum particle size of 3/4-inch, with not more than 80 percent passing the u.s. Standard No.4 sIeve and less than 5 percent fmes. A vapor retarder such as plastic sheeting between the floor slab and the capillary break c~ be used to provide an added protection against upward migration of moisture into the slab. Also, a 2-inch thick layer of sand can be placed over the vapor retarder to pro~ect the vapor retarder from damage during floor slab construction and to aid in uniform curing of the concrete, if desirable ... ' - Sub grade Walls Sub grade walls may be used for house construction. The lateral soil pressures acting on perimeter sub grade walls depend on the nature and density of the soil behind the wall and the amount of lateral wall movement which can occur as backfill is placed. For walls that are free to yield at the top at least one one-thousandth of the height of the wall, an active pressure of 40,45, and 60 pounds per cubic foot (pct) should be used for level backslopes, 4H:l V backslopes and 2H: 1 V backslopes, respectively. These values assume that the soil behind the wall is free draining. For "at rest" conditions where the wall is restrained against movement, an active pressure of 50, 55, and 60 pcf should be used for level backslopes, 4H: 1 V backslopes and 2H: 1 V backslopes,: respectively. These values assume that the soil behind the wall is free draining. Surcharge effects should . be considered as appropriate. In settlement-sensitive areas, the backfill for subgrade walls should be compacted to at least' 95 percent of the MDD. At other locations, wall backfill should be compacted to between 90 and 92 percent Icicle Creek Engineers 14 05840011061005 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I of the MDD. Backfill against the wall should consist of clean, free-draining granular material containing less than 5 percent fines for a distance of at least 18 inches from the face of the wall. Measures should be taken to prevent the buildup of excess lateral soil pressures due to overcompaction of the backfill behind the wall. Care must be exercised by the contractor to avoid overcompaction. Positive drainage behind the perimeter subgrade walls may be provided by installing the footing drains described below in the Permanent Drainage Measures section of this report. Lateral Resistance Lateral loads on footings may be resisted by passive resistance on the sides of the footings and by friction on the base of the footings and slab. Passive resistance should be evaluated using an equivalent fluid density of 300 pcf, where footing faces are poured neat in contact with undisturbed native soil or bedrock or are surrounded by structural fill compacted to at least 95 percent of MDD as recommended. Structural fill should extend laterally a minimum width of at least twice the footing depth. Resistance to passive pressure should be calculated from the bottom of adjacent floor slabs and paving or below a depth of 1 foot where the adjacent area is unpaved, as appropriate. Frictional resistance can be evaluated using 0.4 for the coefficient of base· friction against footings and the building slab. The above values incorporate a factor of safety of about 1.5. Utilities Based on our explorations, most of the utilities less than 10 feet deep (from the original ground surface) will be embedded in native soil or bedrock such that excavation with standard heavy construction equipment will be possible. There are some exceptions especially where deep cuts (more than 10 feet) are expected into the bedrock. We expect that utility excavation deeper than about 10 feet below the original ground surface will require heavy-duty excavation equipment with rippers or rock splitting capability to achieve an acceptable rate of advancement. In our opinion, normal bedding requirements should be satisfactory. Utility backfill in the roadway or in other settlement-sensitive areas should be compacted to 90 percent of the MDD except for the upper 2 feet which should be compacted to 95 percent of the MDD. Where utilities are bedded and/or backfilled with free-draining pea gravel, sand or gravel, and where the utility trench slopes more than 5 percent, we recommend that backfill "check dams" be constructed.to prevent movement of ground water through the bedding or backfill material. These dams consist of relatively impermeable soil extending from the base of the trench, surrounding the pipe and extending to the surface to impede movement of ground water. Trench dams are typically spaced 30 to 100 feet apart. Steep utility trench grades (i.e., more than 8 to 10 percent) would probably require the minimum spacing. Pavements Pavement sub grade areas should be evaluated and prepared as recommended previously in this report. We recommend that the upper 2 feet of subgrade be compacted to at least 95 percent of the MDD. The pavement section (crushed rock base and asphalt concrete) should be designed according to City of Renton standards. If the subgrade soils are soft, it may be necessary to excavate the soft soils, place a subbase layer, and/or a suitable geotextile fabric such as Mirafi 500X or other as approved by the geotechnical engineer. In that case, we expect that a minimum subbase thickness of at least 9 inches will be necessary, although a greater thickness may be required during. wet weather and poor sub grade conditions. The subbase should consist of well-graded sand and gravel with a maximum particle size of 1 Y2 inches and less than 5 percent fines. Where site grades are raised using structural fill that meets the subbase specifications, the structural fill may be considered the subbase. It is critical to pavement performance that backfill in utility line trenches be compacted to structural fill specifications. Trench backfill within 2 feet below pavement subgrade elevations should be Icicle Creek Engineers 15 05840011061005 ·1 I I I I 1 I 1 .1 ,I I I 1 I I I I I I compacted to at least 95 percent of the MDD. Trench backfill more than 2 feet below pavement sub grade elevations should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the same standard. EROSION CONTROL AND DRAINAGE MEASURES General Soine soils are particularly susceptible to erosion because of particle gradation or density. In our opinion, all of the near-surface soils at the project site have a moderate to high erosion potential where exposed on. slopes. Temporary Erosion Control The most effective methods of erosion control on construction sites include efficient surface water management, minimization of disturbed areas, erosion preventative slope covers, channel liners and energy dissipaters for trenches, and diversion ditches or levees. Temporary erosion control measures should include proper control of surface water runoff, use of straw bale or appropriate geotextile filters and temporary sedimentation basins. New cut and fill slopes must be protected during wet weather to minimize slope erosion. Temporary protection could consist of plastic or membrane covers, or seeding combined with placement of a straw mulch. If straw mulch is used for temporary protection, we recommend a minimum of 2 inches loose thickness. Erosion control programs should comply with local requirements and guidelines. Permanent Erosion Control All grading should be accomplished to avoid concentration of runoff onto or off of unprotected cut or fill slopes, roadways, or natural slopes. ' Interceptor ditches or drains may be necessary to collect and divert flow from seepage zones. The need for interceptor ditches or drains can best be evaluated during construction. We recommend that drainage ditches or swales be constructed along ~he toe of pennanent cuts to control slope runoff onto roadways. Open ditches or swales should be sloped less than five percent or should be lined with rock spalls or other suitable material to prevent erosion. Flow in ditches and swales should be routed to cross-cuJverts or into the stonnwater collection system. , All paved areas must be graded to prevent pavement runoff from flowing down adjacent slopes. We recommend that new cut and fill slopes and other areas where the vegetative cover has been removed be planted or seeded as soon as possible. " Permanent Drainage Measures General: Much of the site is underlain by relativelyimpenneable soils and bedrock. These materials' tend to prevent the do~nward infiltration of precipitation, and therefore create "perched" ground water conditions. It is very important that appropriate pennanent drainage measures be provided for the project. In our opinion, subsurface drainage measures should consist of a combination of footing drains and French drains. Footing Drains,: Footing drains should be provided for the exterior footings of the buildings. These drains should consist of a 4-inch-diameter rigid, perforated, smoot~-walled PVC pipe installed at the outside base of the perimeter footing. The perforated drainpipe should be embedded in a zone of coarse sand and gravel containing less than 3 percent fmes. The sand and gravel should be encapsulated in nonwoven filter fabric such as Mirafi 140N, or equal. At appropriate intervals such that water backup does not occur, the drainpipe should be connected to a tightline system leading to a suitable discharge. French Drains: A system of French drains may be designed and installed in landscaped areas to provide drainage. The French drain trenches should be at least 24 inches wide. Where possible, the trenches should penetrate through the upper pervious s<?ils and extend into the relatively impe~ous unweathered glacial till or bedrock. The French drain trench should be lined with nonwoven filter fabric Icicle Creek Engineers 16 0584001/061005 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I such as Mirafi 140N, or equal. It is important that the filter fabric not be placed in a muddy trench to avoid filling the pore spaces with mud and plugging the fabric. All French drains should be composed of a zone of clean free-draining coarse sand and gravel containing less than 3 percent fines. Smooth-walled perforated drainpipe having a minimum diameter of 4 inches should be embedded within this zone of coarse sand and gravel. The drainpipe should be installed with the perforations "down" and should be sloped to drain. At appropriate intervals, the perforated drainpipe should be connected to a tightline leading to the stormwater disposal system for the site. Cleanouts should be installed at appropriate intervals. French drains should not be connected to footing drains. USE OF TillS REPORT We have prepared this report for use by GWC, Inc. for their use in planning of this project. The data and report should be provided to prospective contractors for their bidding or estimating purposes, but our report, conclusions and interpretations should not be construed as a warranty of subsurface conditions. The scope of our services does not include services related to construction safety precautions and our recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor's methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, except as specifically described in our report for consideration in design. If there are significant changes in the grades, configurations or types of facilities to be constructed, the conclusions and recommendations presented in this report may not be fully applicable. When the design has been fmalized, we recommend that we be retained to review those portions of the specifications' and drawings which relate to geotechnical considerations to see that our recommendations have been interpreted and implemented as intended. There are probable variations in subsurface conditions between the explorations and also that may occur with time. A contingency for unanticipated conditions should be included in the budget and schedule. Sufficient monitoring,' testing and consultation by our firm should be provided during construction to evaluate that the conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by the explorations, to provide recommendations for design changes if the conditions revealed during . construction differ from those anticipated, and to evaluate whether earthwork and foundation installation activities comply with contract plans and specifications. WithID the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, oUr services have been executed in accordance with generally accepted practices in this area at the' time the report. was prepared. No warranty or other conditions, express or implied, should be understood. ******************** Icicle Creek Engineers 17 0584001/061005 I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I We trust this information meets your present needs. If you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance to you, please call. Document ID: 058400l.REP Attachments: Figures 1-6 Appendix A Icicle Creek Engineers .. \ I very truly, Engineers, Inc. Princioal Engineer/Geologist IEXPIRES 1IJ-~D..(J6 W -J. ~ jy S. Killman, L.E.G. Principal Geologist 18 0584001/061005 1IIl.ir----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~--------------------------------------------------~-----------------------------------------------------------------, it; CD CD ~ ! i' I :.!;" · ~~; !~;~ a > Us \~~ ~~~. :s.~ .-----------.------'-.-:~J~~o"rittj~C-~;R;rit~;;~~4;"bt~i~ir: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I~ o q v I~ z -:::; : =·~(f ~ :::~i· '.! ~~ ~; _~:.' J;' ::: ------'----~ ,._---- \-_ 'h~-, ·rr;,:.: ~_.. , ____ ---4 -,,: -----" .. ~-:-; r. ~·~-,~--~'~==~c~w~S=~~~~~~~~~ t, " I~., ... -.- ·::.1 •... -< ,', .' ..... ,... ,-:.;<:>: ." ~<.~::.~":' Hill Property / ,I ;.;} --: / I o 100 200 ---~======::::J Scale in Feet I~LI __ Cl __ ·c __ le ___ c __ r __ ee __ k ___ E __ n~g __ in_e __ e __ rs ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ~-------------------------S __ it __ e __ P __ la __ n ____ -_F~ig~u_r __ e~2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I~ o o I~ z ~ NOTES: 1) Base map provided by Core undated. 2) Location of abandoned underground coal mine based on historic mine maps obtained at the Washington State Department of Natural Resources and subsurface exploration. I~ Icicle Creek Engineers • J r· :,. ., .. ,. ,--: '. ' , . surface opening for the rock tunnel is near Benson Road· about 300 feet west) . -. (backfilled mine opening· Renton Mine) " F' EXPLANATION ~ ~'. ~ "... . :.' .:..-" . . ~ § 8-4 ~ $TP-1 Renton Mine (No.3 Coal Seam) No.2 Coal Seam Mine Rock Fill Boring Location Test Pit Location Backfilled Mine Opening Geologic Cross-Section Location (see Figures 4 and 5) o ________ K1o=o======~2po Scale in Feet Abandoned Underground Coal Mine Map -Figure 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I o o ~ o ci z ~ A (west) 250 ..... Q) Q) u. c: § 200 :0:; co ~ w B (west) 250 ..... Q) Q) u. c: § 200 :0:; co > Q) w 150 C (west) 250 ..... Q) Q) u. c: § 200 :0:; co > Q) w 150 D (west) 250 ..... Q) Q) u. c: § 200 :0:; co ~ W ~ Lot 2 -~»>k'-I<-Road ~( Lot19----~ Weathered Soill/Bedroll:k Lot 5 --)~~~Road---+Lot 17~)~IE----Lot 16--~ ...:;:;:.::;:;:,.~:.::;:,., Weathered Soil/Bedrock CUI-de-sac--~+~Lot 14·""")~I<=--------Lot 13s---~ Lot 9----~)I<-I<-Lot·11~ ~~~'I Seam (unmined) Al 250 (east) m CD < III ...... (;- 200 ::J ::J ." CD CD ...... 150 B' 250 (east) m CD < III ...... 0" 200 ::J S" ." CD CD ...... C' 250 (east) m CD < III ...... 0" 200 ::J ::J ." CD CD ...... 150 D' 250 (east) ~ Icicle Creek Engineers Geologic Cross-Sections A-A', B-B', C-C' and D-D' -Figure 4 I ~ E ~ west) 300 CD I ffi I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .!!! .... Q) Q) LL c: 250 6200 +=' ro > Q) W 150 F (west) 300 .... Q) Q) LL c: 250 6200 +=' ro > Q) W 150 ~ Icicle Creek Engineers Weathered Soi II'l",rtrnl'l< f-Vault'~)~I<---Lot 3----)!o>!<E--Lot 4~ r~----Lot~--~-~ F' 300 (east) 250 m ro < Q) -o· 200 ~. 150 :::J "T1 CD CD - 250 m CD < Q) -(,- 200 ~. 150 100 :::J "T1 CD CD. - Geolo ic Cross-Section E-E' and F-F' -Fi re 5 I I I I I I +-.I!'.4-.H--.----·----.. ·--r I I I ---" ',: -~-~ .. : .. -:-p. . I I I I I I ,. lL. I~ o q ~ I~ z ~ I ~ Icicle Creek Engineers m D EXPLANATION High Coal Mine Hazard Area Areas with abandoned and improperly sealed mine openings and areas underlain by mine workings Shallower then 150 feet in depth. No building or road development should be planned in this area. Medium Coal Mine Hazard Area Areas underlain by mine workings deeper then 150 feet in depth. Building and road development should be allowed. but with mitigation as described in the report text . Low Coal Mine Hazard Area Areas with no known mine workings and no predicted subsidence. Building and road development should be allowed; no mitigation recommended. Coal mine hazards mapping based on definitions described in Renton Municipal Code Title IV, Chapter 3 o 100 200 ----=======:::::. Scale in Feet Coal Mine Hazards Map -Figure 6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 'I I I I I APPENDIX A SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS Subsurface conditions at the site were explored by excavating 16 test pits (Test Pits TP-I through TP-16) to depths ranging from 4 to 17 feet and drilling four test borings (Borings B-1 through B-4) to depths ranging from 60 to 190 feet. The test pits were excavated on April 12, 2005 (Test Pits TP-I through TP-II) using a Komatsu PC-120 track-mounted excavator, and on June I, 2005 (Test Pits TP-12 through TP-16) using a Case 580K rubber-tired backhoe. Both excavator and backhoe were owned and operated by Kelly's Excavating, of Tacoma, Washington. The test borings were drilled between May 3 and 12, 2005 using hollow-stemlmud-rotary drill equipment owned and operated by Holt Drilling of Redmond, Washington. The test pits and test borings were located in the field by measuring from known surface features. The locations of the explorations are shown on Figure 2. The explorations were continuously monitored by an engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer from ICE who classified the soils or bedrock encountered, obtained representative soil and bedrock samples, observed ground water conditions and prepared a detailed log of each exploration. The soil consistencies noted on the exploration logs are based on the conditions observed, our experience and judgement, and blow count data obtained during drilling. Representative samples were obtained at 5-foot depth intervals using a 1.5-inch diameter split-spoon standard penetration test (SPT) for samples obtained in the upper 20 feet or the test borings. The sampler was driven 18 inches, if possible, with a 140-pound weight falling a vertical distance of approximately 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler the last 12 inches, or other indicated distance, is recorded on the boring logs. Representative samples were obtained at 5-foot intervals by screening soil cuttings from the discharge pipe below a depth of 20 feet. The drilling rate was monitored for relative bedrock hardness, soft drilling and voids when loss of drill circulation was encountered. Soils encountered were classified in general accordance with the classification system described in Figure A-I. Bedrock was classified using standard geological methods. The boring logs are presented in Figures A-2 through A-5. The test pit logs are presented in Figures A-6 through A-13. The exploration logs are based on our interpretation of the field data and indicate the various types of soil and bedrock encountered. They also indicate the depths at which these soil and rock types or their characteristics change, although the change might actually be gradual. If the change occurred between samples in the borings, it was interpreted. Ground water conditions were observed as the test pits were excavated and are noted on the test pit logs. Ground water was not monitored in the borings below a depth of 20 feet because the drilling method generally used introduced water for circulation. Icicle Creek Engineers A-I 0584001/061005 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I '" 1§ <D f-0 I t? u.j 2 ...., Q. t!) ;; CO'! I '" co '" 0 M .. (fJ f-a: I f-(fJ W f-+ (fJ t? 0 ...J I (fJ u (fJ :::J CUENT GWC, Inc. PROJECT NAME Renton Hill Property PROJECT NUMBER 0584-001 PROJECT LOCATION 8W of 87th 8t and Cedar Ave 8, Renton, WA UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM MAJOR DIVISIONS COARSE GRAINED SOILS MORE THAN 50% OF MATERIAL IS LARGER THAN NO. 200 SIEVE SIZE FINE GRAINED SOILS MORE THAN 50% OF MATERIAL IS SMALLER THAN NO. 200 SIEVE SIZE MORE THAN 50% OF COARSE FRACTION RETAINED ON NO.4 SIEVE MORE THAN 50% OF COARSE FRACTION PASSING NO.4 SIEVE SILTS AND CLAYS SILTS AND CLAYS HIGHL Y ORGANIC SOILS GRA VELS WITH FINES (APPRECIABLE AMOUNT OF FINES) CLEAN SANDS (LITTLE OR NO FINES) SANDS WITH FINES (APPRECIABLE AMOUNT OF FINES) LlaulD LIMIT LESS THAN 50 LlaulDLIMIT GREATER THAN 50 SYMBOLS GM GC SW SP SM sc ML CL OL MH CH OH PT TYPICAL DESCRIPTIONS SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL· SAND· SILT MIXTURES CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL -SAND -ClAY MIXTURES WELL-GRADED SANDS, UTILE OR NO FINES POORLY GRADED SANDS. UTILE OR NO FINES SILTY SANDS. SAND-SILT MIXTURES CLAYEy SANDS, SAND -ClAY MIXTURES ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS OF LOW PlASTICITY INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR [)(ATOMACEOUS FINE SANDY OR SlL TV SOILS, ELASTIC SilTS INORGANIC ClAYS OF HIGH PlASTICITY ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO HIGH PLASTICITY, ORGANIC SILTS PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS WITH HIGH ORGANIC CONTENTS NOTES: 110ual symbolS are used to indicate gravels or sand with 5-12% fines and soils with fines classifying as CL-ML. 2 SymbOls separated by a dash indicate borderline soil classifications. 3 The lines separating soil types on the logs represents approximate boundaries only. The actual boundaries may' vary or De gradual. 4lSoil ClaSSification based on visual classification of soil is based on ASTM 02488-90. 5 Soil Classification using laboratory tests is based on ASTM 02487-90. 6 DeSCription of soil denSity or consistency is based on interpretation of blow count data and/or test data. Soil Particle Size Definitions Component Size Range Boulders Coarser than 12 inch Cobbles 3 inch to 12 inch Gravel 3 inch to No.4 (4.78 mm) Coarse 3 inch to 3/4 inch Fine 3/4 inch to No.4 (4.78 mm) Sand No.4 (4.78 mm) to No. 200 (0.074mm) Coarse No.4 (4.78 mm) to No. 10 (2.0mm) Medium No. 10 (2.0 mm) to No. 40 (0.42 mm) Fine No. 40 (0.42 mm) to No. 200 (0.074 mm) Si~ and Clay Finer than No. 200 (0.074 mm) Moisture Content Dry Absence of moisture Moist Damp but no visible water Wet Visible water Sampler and Symbol DeSCriptions Relative Density or Consistency Location of relatively undisturbed sample Blows required to drive a 2.4 inch I.D. split-barrel sampler 12-inches or other indicated distance using a 300-pound hammer falling 30 inches Coarse-Grained Soils Fine-Grained Soils Location of disturbed sample Location of sample with no recovery f ........................... , .................................. ".".,",., .... , ... . ~ Location of sample obtained Blows required to drive a 1.5 .! [J in general accordance with inch I.D. split-barrel sampler g Standard Penetration Test (Standard Penetration Test) ~ (ASTM D-1586) procedures. 12-inches or other indicated ~ rn Location of SPT sampling distance using a 140-pound ~ attempt with no recovery hammer falling 30 inches I ................................................................................. . P[2] Location of Pushed Sample G~ Location of Grab Sample Sampler pushed with the weight of the hammer or against weight of the drilling rig Sample obtained from drill cuttings "Sl Approximate depth of ground water observed or measured during drillingl excavation Relative Density N,SPT Relative Blows 1ft Consistency Very loose 0-4 Very soft Loose 4 -10 Soft Medium dense 10 -30 Medium stiff Dense 30 -50 Stiff Very dense Over 50 Very stiff Hard ~ Fill _ Asphalt TEST PIT NOTE: The depths on the test pit logs are shown in 0.1 foot increments, however these depths are based on approximate measurements across the length of the test pit and should be considered accurate to 0.5 foot. The depths are relative to the adjacent ground surface. N,SPT Blows 1ft <2 2-4 4-8 8 -16 16 -32 Over 32 Icicle Creek Engineers Explanation For Boring/Test Pit Logs -Figure A-I Boring B-1 I g ~ I i:X:i APJ.1IVA;llJal<O Ground Surface Elevation: 190 feet Q) Soil/Rock Profile I I I I I I I I VJ L!.J ~ III 0:: III 1 -' I :I: c Q) u. .!: £i 0. Q) o f-o r- r- r- - -5 --- i""" r-IO .... r- r- r- r-15 r- .8_ e 0::_ i_ Description Forest duff, topsoil and roots (drill cuttings) Brown fine SAND with silt (loose, moist) (drill cuttings) ------._-----------_._--------------------- Black COAL (medium dense, moist) (Renton formation) (INTACT COAL -NO.3 COAL SEAM -NOT MINED) occasional thin layers of carbonaceous shale grades to very dense I ~ -20 ,,-E I E I I I I I I I r-25 r- '"'" r- -30 ---- .............................. . ................................ . Brownish-gray ,fine-grained SILTSTONE with thin layers of coal (Renton formation) Gray SILTSTONE (Renton formation) ~ 35 8r-.,;. ~ r-.......................................... . o COAL (Renton formation) ~r- " ii:r- ................ -........... . Grey SILTSTONE (Renton formation) ~r-40 Sec Figure A-I for explanallon of symbols Icicle Creek Engineers 0 0.0 Q) C ~c _0 :c ::l.£:l o.~ 0. o E o ::l E ~ roO) ~>-_0 ro 0 ~ 0 C>cn mu cn-l C>-l ~ SM 1:---: S'p~SMf""I"" 1= -----. 1-_ --- ....,'.-: 1---- 1= ----I-_ --~ I~ ~~~- ~'--=-""""'''I'''''''''' Rock 20 ~ Rock 63 ~ ........... ..... ... .... .... Rock 50/6" ~ Rock ~ Rock Rock • Page I of 3 Piezometer Installation - Ground Water Data Bentonite s- Surface ~ Sea 1---+ i:::..-= r g~- #~ - Soil-B", "VII"., ~. BaCkf~~~ #~ - fJ_ ~l f~ - t':;, . ~- i~, _ ..... .... =:1-~ f~- f~ '-S:- ==' ~- :=:~ "':~ #~ - ~.' ~~ 1=-·. _ F~ ~: -~~ 8:,: - ~-~'7 ~- Boring Log -Figure A-2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I er-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~ § Boring B-1 co c:r: co Q) Q) LL .S .c. C. Q) o rn -40 Ll.l fe-co ~- i- "0 ~­g1 .....J -45 - ~ ~ ~ ~50 ---€-0-o ~ -55 ~-c E-O) a:-u -=-c.5 ~ -60 o 0;- E z- U .~"" 2 c.~ -65 -- ~ --70 ~ r- - r- r-75 8-.J. ~-o i.- ,g-tl.. ~ -80 Soil Profile Description Gray SILTSTONE (Renton formation) Gray SILTSTONE with thin layers of coal (Renton formation) See Figure A-I for explanation of symbols Icicle Creek Engineers Sample Data Penetration Resistance (Blows/foot -.) ~ ~ § 1-_....I.~IO...,..,....,..~J.,;IO_."lq~O-.... ~IO;..-._I~ Cl a.:;:: Moisture Content 0 .S E rl (Percent __ ) .0 en SJ.3 20 0 6,0 &0 ~~ Rock Rock Rock Rock Rock Rock Rock Rock Page 2 of3 Piezometer Installation - Ground Water Data ~-".' . 3 t~ - t.~ - ~'1 ?~- Lt"1 _ Soil-Bentonite tt.: . Backr~~:. tt~ - ~'7 #. - ::: - ¥~ lfh-==' ~- .:::'" ~.' .'..-:, =":'-~l t.~ - ~;;, ~-.:..~ ,if:.; - ".' . .- =..:. - ~:d if~ , . '-S: - ==" ~T:·;_ .-=~. , ... - Boring Log -Figure A-2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Qi Q) u.. £ .c a. Q) o Soil Profile Description VJ t-80 Ll.l Gray SILTSTONE with thin layers of coal ~ t-(Renton formation) gst-it- 1:85 Boring B-1 Sample Data Penetration Resistance .,,.. (BI~~S/f~~ -.~,.. ~ 0.0 :;:)..0 o E .... >-(9U) Rock Rock ~ 5 1-_-'-: .:;V,.,....,-+-1V---.q~v.,...-q..l.,;.,.v----l.9 0.:;= U";~ .. oro ('"n+on+ ~ g> E rl '.'~~""u'v vv",,,,"', B'iii ~ .3 ".0 (I-'~~centt:O liO ~ ~ ~ I--G-~~y -siLTsi-ONE(R~~i~~-f~;~-ati~~-)------------------r·:·:·:·:·:·:·:.:·:.:.:.: -------- 1:95 :i~ c .9~ § ~t-u -=t-c.5 ~ t-IOO o ut-E i: J: ,-I:':':':':":':':':':': t-JUn~,L------------------J22i--L-1-J t- t- t- t-t-I( t-t- t- ~ ~1I5 g~ .;- ~~ o .g~ " ~~ ~H20 Boring completed at 110 feet on May 4.2005 Sec Figure A-I for explanallon of symbols Page 3 of3 Piezometer Installation - Ground Water Data Icicle Creek Engineers Boring Log -Figure A-2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ ~ i Boring B-2 Approximate Ground Surface Elevation: 190 feet Soil/Rock Profile Description Forest duff, topsoil and roots (drill cuttings) Brown fine to medium SAND with silt and gravel (medium dense, moist) tl i: a. CIIOl '-0 C)~ 0.0 Q) e: ::c _0 :::JD Q.:;J o E .Q5 E ~ '->-CII 0 C)cn coo cn~ Penetration Resistance (Blows/foot -.) ~ 1--_~~O..,..4;-+--O..."q.......,.O_-+-&O~ ~ Ole: MOJsture Content 0 (Percent D ti !O' 10 60 0 ~~ Page 1 of 2 Piezometer Installation - Ground Water Data Bentonite F:- Surface ~ Seal--+I=_-= ~- ~'­'::-;7 I······· ................................................................................. . ............. ······-1-········-1--1---1---1;---+--1 c>. ~~ - -)0 ---1:1, ~..- c ~~ ~f- <> -=f- U ~ f-20 o 0-E z-u 1= -25 ~ ~ ~ ~ f-30 ---- ~35 g~ ..1-~~ o ~~ ,g~ u. ~ f-40 Black COAL (medium dense, moist) (Renton formation) (INTACT COAL -NO.3 COAL SEAM -NOT MINED) occasional thin layers of carbonaceous shale grades to dense Rock 26 Rock 34 ............... Light gray fine-grained SANDSTONE (very dense, moist) •. . •..•.• (R.,ton fo~'tioo) ~ Ro", S015" • R_ 7~" : ........................................................................................ . Gray SILTSTONE (Renton formation) Rock Rock Rock Sce Figurc A-I lor explanation ot symbOlS Icicle Creek Engineers • • • uv"-u.,, nv, "'., t::.: Backf!!!........=;7 _r.:. i~ -..0. .:::'" ;~ - '0° • ;'" - ¥;; 7<- =t:,:, - .:::'" fo.; - ct~ - t.", ~- Boring Log -Figure A-3 I on ~ ~ on '? CII I cr: CII Qi Soil Profile CI> I u- .s .r::. Description C. CI> 0 I CIl r-40 Gray SILTSTONE (Renton formation) Ul ~ r- CII cr: r-CII I i' - -0 ~ .... 0 .....l -45 I ----------------- I ~ Gray SILTSTONE with thin layers of coal r-(Renton formation) r-50 I ... r- r- I £' r-" P-et r-55 £ l- I c .9 -c " cr: -u ..: -I u ~ -60 0 Boring completed at 60 feet on May 5, 2005 u-S '" -I z g -.~ Q,. l- I ~65 -- I I- - -70 I r- r- ~ I r- -75 g- I ..} 00 -on 0 ~- " I ii:- Sj-80 See FIgure A-I for ex.planation of symbols I Icicle Creek Engineers Boring B-2 Penetration Resistance (Blows/foot -.) ~ -CI> c J-_4;J,,;10~~410.....,,;ql,,;;10...,.....~&(0:.....-~~ Cl g-2 ~ C -Ea.~ Moisture Content '-C o E 0 ~ U (Percent __ ) 2 ~ '->--0 ,')l ...J0 til CI> C)C/) lIlt) woo 6,0 EO ...JI-'" Sample Data Rock Rock Rock Rock Page 2 of2 Piezometer I nstaUation - Ground Water Data ~­ "3 t~ - ~: - t~ ~~- ~'1 _ Soil-Bentonite '-S: - Backf'!!..........::-:" "_F.-'-!~- ~'-- t=;; , . !""--:-'. ~- - - - - - - - - - - Boring Log -Figure A-3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~r-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~ >2 C!l Boring B-3 Approximate Ground Surface Elevation: 200 feet Qj Q) u. .!: .c C. Q) o Description Forest duff. topsoil and roots (drill cuttings) Brown silty fine SAND (medium dense. moist) drill action indicates gravel from 7 to 10 feet 10 ------------------------ Black COAL (medium dense. moist) (Renton formation) (INTACT COAL -NO.3 COAL SEAM -NOT MINED) 15 20 occasional thin layers of carbonaceous shale Light gray fine-grained SANDSTONE (very dense. moist) 25 (Renton formation) 30 Gray SILTSTONE (Renton formation) 35 Icicle Creek Engineers SM SM Rock 27 Rock 25 Rock 19 Rock 51 Rock Rock Rock ~-- Penetration Resistance (Blows/foot -.) • • Page I of 2 Piezometer Installation - Ground Water Data Bentonite Surface Boring Log -Figure A-4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~r-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~ ~ Boring B-3 cO ~ ill Qi Q) u... .S: .r: 0.. ~ r/l -40 L.Ll fe- ill g3- ~- ." ~-o ..J -45 ---- -50 ---;>.. 13-0-o cl: ~55 :1:- c ~r- () ~--u "::r-u ~-60 Soil Profile Description Gray SILTSTONE (Renton formation) Brownish-gray SILTSTONE with thin layers of coal (Renton formation) o Boring completed at 60 feet on May 6, 2005 ur-E z~ U .~~ Q..r- r-65 r- r- r- r- r-70 r- r- r- r- r-75 :Sr-.J. ~r-o ~­ ,g- Uo ~ -80 See Figure A-I for explanation of symbols Icicle Creek Engineers Penetration Resistance (Blows/foot -.) ~ Q) c:~0 40 60 ~O 0 a.,g t---~M:-o"'is+tu-r-e"'C:"o-n~te-n~t ----I '§ l? § ~ (Percent -_) 2 ~ U) .3 0 ~ 0 60 5 0 ~ ~ Sample Data Rock Rock Rock Rock Page 2 of2 Piezometer Installation - Ground Water Data ~-.. ' . . -..:..> ;~ - f: - #~ ~­ ==" ~~ - Soil-Bentonite ~. Backf~r=: -~:. ~~, - ~:., -." . f: - ¥~ "i'-.:..=" ~­ t l8,_ - - - - - - - - - - Boring Log -Figure A-4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~~----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~ f2 ~ ~ '? C!:l 0: C!:l Boring B-4 Approximate Ground Surface Elevation: 278 feet Qi Soil/Rock Profile OJ u. .!: trJ~O Ll.l ~r­C!:l ~- 1- "0 §i-§ .....l-5 --- ~ ~IO r- r- r- €~ 0-J: ~ 15 J:~ c ~-~-<> .:- r.j ~ -20 o 0;- E z- U .;;f- 2 0..- ~25 r- r- I- ~ ~30 ---- I-35 gl-~ ~~ o :i~ ,g~ "'-~~40 Description Forest duff, topsoil and roots (drill cuttings) ---.------------.----- Light brown silty fine SAND ( loose, moist) (drill cuttings) Light brown SILTSTONE (very dense, moist) (Renton formation) See Figure A-I for explanatIon of symbols Icicle Creek Engineers U 0.0 OJ C ~c _0 E :::l.o c.+' 0. o E o :::l E ~ COOl ~>-_0 co 0 ~ 0 Cl(J) me..> (J)-l Cl-l --. - - ...... Rock 53 ~ Rock 86/9" Rock Rock Rock Rock Rock Rock ............ Penetration Resistance (Blows/foot -.) i::' ~O ~O 60 80 0 t---"'M:-:-o"'is~tu-re-"'C,l-o-nt"'e-n~t ---I ~ g> (Percent -_) ~ ~ o 0 60 0 -l ~ • • Page I of 5 Piezometer Installation - Ground Water Data senton,'te _ -Surface ~ Seal -= ~. - .: . t.~;­ =t~ ?'- ~'1_ ~~ ~~ -.. " . ..... Boring Log -Figure A-5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I g ~ ~ a; Q) l.L .!: .c 0. Q) 0 <:Ill-4O u.l f!:i l- CC ~f- j f- f- f-45 t- f- l- I- I-50 t- t- - J - .... 55 :I: -c: ~I"'" " 0: ~ i I- c5 ~ I-60 0 "f-E ~f- j f- l- I-65 t- t- §Sf- -.:i-~f-o -if- " ii:f- ~ f-80 Soil Profile Description Light brown SILTSTONE (Renton formation) Dark brown carbonaceous SHALE with thin layers of coal (Renton formation) Brownish-gray SILTSTONE with thin layers of coal (Renton formation) Gray SILTSTONE (Renton formation) Sce Figurc A·I for cxplanallon of symbols Icicle Creek Engineers Boring B-4 u E 0. roo> ~ 0 (9....J f:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·: Sdllll..llt: Data Penetration Resistance c ~O (BI~~S/fO~6 -• ~O § 0. "0 ~ 0 I-_....,..,...,...!-....";L,;....,,.....;J.;....~ ro 0> ::> .0 == C 0. ~ Moisture Content 5 c oE 05 ~B .o~ C!J ~ iD u (/) .3 -:0 'fO ~,OO ~ ~ Rock Rock .......... E ROCk E == Rock Ii Rock ············f···········I··· ... Rock ~ ................... Rock Page 2 of5 Piezometer Installation - Ground Water Data &-; !."-I- Boring Log -Figure A-5 I V) e Boring B-4 ~ V) 0 I co 0:: CIl Q) Soil Profile Sample Data I Q) l.L £ () 0.0 Q) C E ~c _0 .c Description a. ::J.o a.:;::; i5.. roOl o E 0::J E ~ Q) ~ 0 ~>-_0 ro 0 0 <9-1 <900 !D{) 00-1 I '" I-80 Gray SILTSTONE (Renton formation) UJ Ee I- CIl I ~~ i ~ 1--------.------------------------------------.-----------j------ Brownish-gray SILTSTONE with thin layers of coal ~ (Renton formation) ~ Rock I -' f-85 f-- I ~ ~ Rock ~90 I ~ ~ f- I I f-I---~---Rock f-95 . ----------.----------------------------+.--.-------------.. ---------------------------------------- Black COAL (Renton formation) :I: f-(INTACT COAL -NO.2 COAL SEAM -NOT MINED) I c ~~ " 0:: ~ u occasional thin layers of carbonaceous shale I ~ ~ -100 Rock 0-E I z- J - ~ Rock ~\O: I I- ~ I ~ -_._.-_.--------------------.--.---------.-.--------------_._------------+.--.---------_._---------------- Gray SILTSTONE (Renton formation) I-~ 10 Rock l- I l- I- l- I ~ ~ Rock ~1I5 8f---.-.--------------.----------------.-------------------------------.--+--- I ..;. Gray SILTSTONE with thin layers of coal ~f-(Renton formation) 0 ,gf-=== ,gf-I "-Rock ~H20 ~ Sec Figure A-I tor explanation of symbols I Icicle Creek Engineers Penetrati~~/.:,,,'''')\~) '"'' 40 40"It~O &0 ~ 1----.,;J.:,-,,....,....~.....,,;l.:...,......:;I.:....__I ~ 01 Moisture Content 5,S: .0 in "P fO 6,0 liO j~ Page 3 of5 Piezometer Installation - Ground Water Data ~- Soil-Bentonite £] -BaCkr~f·; 1;-- Eto,:, ~-- ~'1_ E:"' ~N- ~ ~~ - E:~ - ~ f;"- t-o ;':':'." =';, - ~o,:; ~';­=~ 'i,:' - k; .. " . ?, =::-lf~" , . .. " . =-; - :t -~~ ~- Boring Log -Figure A-5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~r-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~ e ~ ~ '? co ~ co Qi Ql U. ,S .I:: 15. Ql o C/J~120 u..J co~ 00 ~~ i:~ .", ~~ o ....l ~125 ~ ~ ~ ~ H30 ~ ~ ~ €~ 0-J: ~135 ~~ c ~-~-u -=-U ;:: -140 o OJ-E z- u .~~ Q..~ 1-145 l- I- t- ~ ~15C ~ I- ~ ~ 1-155 8~ ..J. ~~ o .g~ ,g~ "'- ~H60 Soil Profile Description Gray SILTSTONE with thin layers of coal (Renton formation) Gray SILTSTONE (Renton formation) Grayish-brown SILTSTONE with thin layers of coal (Renton formation) See FIgure A-J for explanation of symbols Icicle Creek Engineers Boring B-4 Penetration Resistance (Blows/foot -.) ~ ~ § 1-_,;J~10~ ... 4+10~.,;6~0..,-,;;J.&'0;;""-I"* Ol c.;;::; Moisture Content ~ c E~ 2~ III 0 (Percent --) III Ql CI)~ "0 0 60 ~O ~~ Sample Data Rock Rock Rock Rock Rock Rock Rock ....• Rock Page 4 of5 Piezometer I nstaliation - Ground Water Data ~' -±.: § Soil-Bentonite :,:.-' - BaCkf~!, ~- ~;;; 7;"1- 7.; - .~ #;:;- ~' ~"- ?" - ~~ ~: - f~ _ ;~ #~ - ~.-~: - Sl-~~ ~~, ";:;:'1-.:..~ Boring Log -Figure A-5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~.-------------------------------------------------------------~ S2 Q) Q) LL. £ .r: a. Q) o r/J -160 UJ e::-CO g3- ~- -0 ~-o ...J -165 >. - f- f- f- f-170 f- f- - E-o. o ~ -175 x-c B_ § IX. _ U -=-U ~ -180 o 0-E ~- -185 - f- Boring B-4 Soil Profile Description Penetration Resistance (Blows/foot -.) ~ ~ ~ :> -co -a.Q) ._§ 1-.....;~J.10~.,.4~(0:;.......,,6;J.0:..,.._.:;l.~(0:....~ ~o .Ol£: ~ ~ :> Moisture Content -e ~ .Q 5 ~ ~ (Percent -_) .0 iii (!) en []) t.) en .3 0 0 60 80 ~ ~ Sample Data Grayish-brown SILTSTONE with thin layers of coal . {8~Ilt()nJo.IJl1Clti()11 L. . ............. . .~ .......................... . Gray SILTSTONE (Renton formation) ............ Rock Rock Rock Rock Rock ............ f-VOID (PARTIALLY COLLAPSED RENTON MINE) X ~19C'-------------------------------~~--~--~--~--~--+-~---+--~~ f- f- i"'" f- -195 8-.;. ;::;-o ~- <> ii:- ~ -200 Boring completed at 190 feet on May 11, 2005 See FIgure A-I for explanation of symbols Page 5 of5 Piezometer Installation - Ground Water Data - - - - - Icicle Creek Engineers Boring Log -Figure A-5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Test Pit TP-1 CUENT GWC. Inc. PROJECT NAME Renton Hill Pro~erty PROJECT NUMBER 0584-001 PROJECT LOCATION 8W of 87th 8t and Cedar Ave 8. Renton. WA DATE EXCAVATED 4/12/05 TOTAL DEPTH 8.0 ft GROUND ELEVATION 179 ft (aQQrox.) LOGGED BY CBT EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR Kelly's Excavating. Inc. GROUNDWATER None observed CHECKED BY BRB EXCAVATION EQUIPMENT Komatsu PC 120 track-mounted excavator NOTES LOT 1 -SW of 629 Cedar Avenue South UJ z () a. 0 o....J >-0:: I i=~ I(9 =>0 f-UJ f-~ Oal UJal o.~ MATERIAL DESCRIPTION «~ 0.0 UJ~ >~ ~...J o::~ ...J~ 0 UJ (9~ a.=> ...J (9 ~z UJ « 0 m 1 . .!_D~~~o~_SJ1.L~tt!...a.Qul!d~rll.rQO~.ll>Qft,-m...QigUfQ.r~!.9l!.ffJ!I}Q!QQ§Q!!L _!lS_ I~ -~-Mottled orange and gray fine SAND with silt (medium dense, moist) r,:::::::: ." (outwash) Wh" SP- SM :8II: 5~ ________________________________ r--J74 L Mottled orange and gray fine-grained SANDSTONE (dense, moist) ~ Rock s.o (moderately weathered bedrock) 171 ~ Test pit completed at 8.0 feet on 4/12/05 No ground water seepage observed CUENT GWC. Inc. PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT NAME Renton Hill Property 1 PROJECT LOCATION 8W 8t m f-m UJ REMARKS f- al :5 Test Pit TP-2 DATE EXCAVATED 4/12105 TOTAL DEPTH 10.0 ft GROUND ELEVATION 214 ft (aQQrox.) LOGGED BY _C::.;B=-T.:..-__ _ EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR Kelly's Excavating. Inc. GROUND WATER 8.0 ft IElev 206.0 ft '5l CHECKED BY BRB --=--=---- EXCAVATION EQUIPMENT excavator NOTES Area - UJ Z () a. m 0 o....J >-0:: f-~2 I(9 =>0 f-UJ m 0.0 Oal UJal UJ REMARKS >~ ~...J o::~ ...J~ f- UJ (9~ a.=> al ...J (9 ~z :5 UJ « MATERIAL DESCRIPTION m _ DJ!~ 12r0.Y!'rl_ SJ..L 1. '!Yitt!... C!Q~~IJ!. rQO~ J§;Q..ft .. _m9i.§!UfQr~sL -E1}9 .!9m>Q.iI)-W~-!=:=:l'-'''JJ... Mottled orange and gray silty fine SAND (medium dense, moist) (outwash) 2!... _____ Qf~s19!:@LP<>s~~ Q! ~ f@9..m~lJ!.sJrQ..m-.?J...o.1 . .z. f~e!.. ___ - Black COAL with thin layers of carbonaceous shale (medium dense, moist) (highly weathered bedrock) ----------------------------~ SILTSTONE with thin layers of coal (hard, moist) (slightly weathered ~~-~-------------------------~--L-~L-~--L--L----------~ f-w ~L_ ________________________________________________________________________________________________ ~ Icicle Creek Engineers Test Pit Logs -Figure A-6 I 1 1 I I I 1 I I I I 'I I I I I I I I '" o a <0 b t? ~ t? Test Pit TP-3 CUENT GWC, Inc. PROJECT NAME Renton Hill ProQertv PROJECT NUMBER 0584-001 PROJECT LOCATION SW of S 7th St and Cedar Ave S, Renton, WA DATE EXCAVATED 4/12105 TOTAL DEPTH 8.0 ft GROUND ELEVATION 180 ft (a(2(2rox.) LOGGED BY CBT EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR Kelly's Excavating, Inc. GROUND WATER None observed CHECKED BY BRB EXCAVATION EQUIPMENT Komatsu PC120 track-mounted excavator NOTES LOT 4 -SW of 629 Cedar Avenue South w z () a.. en 0 o.....J i:ffi l-I i=~ Ie> =>0 en I-~ Om w m w o..~ MATERIAL DESCRIPTION «~ 0..0 REMARKS w~ >~ ~...J o:::~ ...J~ I- 0 W e>~ o..=> m ...J e> ~z « w « ...J 0 en to,a _!:§r:!s. ~~S.lLI. ~t!!.@lill@r:!! ~.lSJ.sQ.tt.....r1J9~tL(!Qr~s!..d.!!ff..En9.!.om>9ilr 180 ~ Me, ... ~ t"1>l. ~Q9ds QrQ..W!l~L.I ~t.b. Qf~~o.!lal.!Q9~ ~o.f!,J!1Q!s.!) J.w...!1;&h~~~ol!)_./"'-_lZL ". ~ '--.ML. Mottled orange and gray silty fine SAND (loose to medium dense, moist) ~ -:-,.~ (outwash) . ..:..---SM t8II -:--~. ~~ -'--6.0 ~74 ~ ---Orange and gray fine~rained SANDSTONE" (dense,-nioiSt) (moderately -Rock Ix'r2 8.0 weathered bedrock) 172 Test pit completed at 8.0 feet on 4/12/05 No ground water seepage observed Test Pit TP-4 CUENT GWC, Inc. PROJECT NAME Renton Hill ProQertv PROJECT NUMBER 0584-001 PROJECT LOCATION SW of S 7th St and Cedar Ave S, Renton, WA DATE EXCAVATED 4/12105 TOTAL DEPTH 12.0 ft EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR Kelly's Excavating, Inc. GROUND ELEVATION 206 ft (a@rox.) GROUND WATER None observed LOGGEDBY~C=B~T~ __ __ CHECKED BY ....:Bo..;.R=B~ __ _ EXCAVATION EQUIPMENT Komatsu PC120 track-mounted excavator NOTES LOTS 13/14 -SW of 629 Cedar Avenue South I I-~ o..~ w~ o o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION to,a _!:§r:!s. ~o~_ S.lL I. ~t!!. @lill@r:!! ~.!.s J.sQ.ft.l...r1J9igL(!Qr~s!..d.!!ff..En9 .!9m>9ilr , .... 1.00_..1' ~'~ ML: Mo!lled orange and gray fine SAND with silt and occasional cobbles (loose, ......• ~.., SP-t8II 2!. _m~I~UQ..u~3'!Jl ________________________ 1-.2Q~_~.:::::_I--SM_ Mottled orange and gray silly fine SAND with occasional fragments of _~. ___ siltstone and coal (medium dense, moist) (outwash) I>--~_": SM 6,.1 ________________________________ ~oo ~!£.I-__ Mottled orange and gray silly fine SAND (medium dense, mOist) (outwash) -~ . ~ SM en I-en w I- m ::i REMARKS g 10 --. ~ I--'-"-1~5 -Gray tlne-gralned SANDSTONE (dense ,moist) (moderately weathered - -f-;!. ~~~kro= ~ ~.o bedrock) -+~~F=--+~--+--I--I-----------l t? Test pit completed at 12.0 feet on 4/12105 g No ground water seepage observed ~ '" o '" .. ~r-_....L ____________________________ ~_....L_....L_....L __ L...._L.... ___________ ~ f- w (.) Icicle Creek Engineers Test Pit Logs -Figure A-7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Test Pit TP-5 CUENT GWC,lnc. PROJECT NAME Renton Hill Pro~ertv PROJECT NUMBER 0584-001 PROJECT LOCATION SW of S 7th St and Cedar Ave S, Renton, WA DATE EXCAVATED 4/12/05 TOTAL DEPTH 4.0 ft GROUND ELEVATION 168 ft (a(;mrox.) LOGGED BY CBT EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR Kellts Excavating, Inc. GROUND WATER None observed CHECKED BY BRB EXCAVATION EQUIPMENT Komatsu PC120 track-mounted excavator NOTES LOTS 7/8 -SW of 629 Cedar Avenue South w z U 11. (J) 0 n.....J >-0:: l-I i=~ Ie> ::>0 I-w (J) I-~ OlD WID W n.~ MATERIAL DESCRIPTION «~ 11.0 I-REMARKS w~ >~ ~....J o::~ ....J~ a w e>1/; 11.::> ID ....J e> ~z :s w « 0 (J) ~ ~ ~ds. !2r~W!l. ~ L.I ~t!l @llDlliIn! !:QO..!s J.sQfL r1l9!§.tUfQr~s!.. dj!ff...!'!!l.d ..!o.Q.s9i1t 168 .....::: ML ~,o ~ l2.ans QrQ...WD.. ~lJ: ~ttl ~~~i.o.!!.al!Q9!§. (§o..f! • ...ITI.Qi~ .l\@<llh~r~~oj!L ./" _1§L ~ ...M.L. ~ Brown fine-grained SANDSTONE (very dense. moist) (slightly weathered ~ Rock 4.0 bedrock) 164 Test pit completed at 4.0 feet on 4/12/05 No ground water seepage observed Test Pit TP-6 CUENT GWC, Inc. PROJECT NUMBER 0584-001 PROJECT LOCATION DATE EXCAVATED 4/12105 TOTAL DEPTH 17.0 ft GROUND ELEVATION 190 ft (approx.) LOGGED BY _C=.;B=-T-'--__ _ EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR Kelly's Excavating, Inc. GROUND WATER 16.5 ft IElev 173.5 ft~ CHECKED BY BRB -=...:.::;;...--- EXCAVATION EQUIPMENT NOTES w z U 11. (J) 0 n.....J >-0:: l-I i=~ Ie> ::>0 I-w (J) I-~ OlD WID W n.~ MATERIAL DESCRIPTION «~ 11.0 REMARKS w~ >~ ~....J o::~ ....J~ I- a w e>1/; 11.::> ID ....J e> ~z :s w « (J) _ D.J!r:!5. ~~_ S.lL 1. ytitt!.. ~lill@Q!. r:QO.£; .ll;Q.ft.L m..Qi.§!Uf.Qr~sLd!!.ff..ilr:!9 .!9ru>giI)-P--'-><><---Ir-.. -; .·t-·--L_--' Mottled orange and gray silty fine SAND with occasional cobbles and boulders (loose. moist) (outwash) occasional fragments of siltstone and coal below 1.8 feet =G!"ay ~tifi:DtLS~@JiQ9~~~L~~~b1 = = = = = = = = = = =::: .0 Gray SILTSTONE with coal fragments (medium stiff. moist) (highly ,~~~~~~~~~--------------------_./" Gray SILTSTONE with thin layers of coal (hard. moist) (slightly weathered 10.5 bedrock) --BlaCk COAL (dense.IT10lstj (slightly weathered bedroCk) - - - - - --- Icicle Creek Engineers Test Pit Logs -Figure A-8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I '" § iO >-0 (!) ~ (!) 0 ...J W ~ ~ (!) C; 0 ~ '" 0 ~ >-w U Test Pit TP-7 CUENT GWC, Inc. PROJECT NAME Renton Hill Property PROJECT NUMBER 0584-001 PROJECT LOCATION SW of S 7th St and Cedar Ave S, Renton, WA DATE EXCAVATED 4/12105 TOTAL DEPTH ....:4::..:..0"-.!!.ft __ _ EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR Kelly's Excavating, Inc. GROUND ELEVATION 146 ft (approx.) GROUND WATER None observed LOGGED BY -,C::..:B::..:T __ _ CHECKED BY --=B=-:R..:.:B=---__ EXCAVATION EQUIPMENT Komatsu PC120 track-mounted excavator NOTES Storm Vault Area -SW of 629 Cedar Avenue South o w MATERIAL DESCRIPTION z U 0. 0 o.~ >-0:: ~~ I(9 =:JO t-w «~ 0.0 o III will >~ ~~ 0::::2: ~::2: w (9~ 0.=:J ~ (9 ::2:z w « C/) -0.6, _ Dl!r.!s..tl!:o~_ SJ!... 1. ~t!l.. a..Qlill<t!Q!. r:Q:O.ll> ~Q..ft,_m2i~UfQr~Ld!!.ff ..!IIJ9 .!9~giJ)-J..4§...:::=:~ ~M1--, 25 Mottled orange and gray silty fine SAND (medium dense, mOist) (outwash) 144 __ . SM ~--------------------------------....... --.-.---40 Gray silty fine to medium SAND with fine gravel (very dense, moist) (glacial 142 ;-~=...:.. SM I><rT ......:.. till) Test pit completed at 4.0 feet on 4/12/05 No ground water seepage observed CUENT GWC,lnc. PROJECT NAME Renton Hill Property C/) t-C/) w REMARKS t- III :5 Test Pit TP-8 PROJECT NUMBER 0584-001 PROJECT LOCATION SW of S 7th St and Cedar Ave S, Renton, WA DATE EXCAVATED 4/12105 TOTAL DEPTH 10.5 ft GROUND ELEVATION 179 ft (approx.) LOGGED BY CBT EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR Kelly's Excavating, Inc. GROUNDWATER None observed CHECKED BY BRB EXCAVATION EQUIPMENT Komatsu PC120 track-mounted excavator NOTES LOTS 11/12 -SW of 629 Cedar Avenue South w z U 0. C/) 0 o.~ >-0:: t-I ~~ I(9 =:JO t-w C/) t-~ o III Will W o.~ MATERIAL DESCRIPTION «~ 0.0 REMARKS w~ >~ ~~ 0::::2: ~::2: t- o w (9~ 0.=:J III ~ (9 ::2:z :5 w « 0 C/) ~ _Iko~_ Sl.L 1. ~t!l.. ~lill<t!Q!. r:Q:O~ ~Q..ft,-m.9i~UfQr~sLd!!.ff.l!1JQ .!9~Q!lL ./ .., ~ ::..:..~ . ..:.--:: ML. 2:£. _B.!9~~i!!Y..fj~ ~~Q. (Loo~~ !!!~!l. f!illl _____________ -.. m .. c.::::,·v"" f-S~ Gray broken rock (siltstone) with coal fragments (medium stiff, moist) (mine ~-ML :8II rock fill) -.!.7:'L --5& ________________________________ ~...f7.:<:: f-~ 6.0 Gray broken rock (siltstone) with coal and occasional wood fragments -...:173 ,~@~~~~~~!l.~~~~~ill _______________ J/ _._-.--SM zu:: 8.5 Orange and brown silty fine SAND (medium dense, moist) (outwash) _1~. ~:~. t-- r-1Q---Gray SIItYfine-SANDWiu, fine gravel (very dense, mOist) (giacTaitill) ---SM ~ 10.5 169 -'=--... ; Test pit completed at 10.5 feet on 4/12105 No ground water seepage observed Icicle Creek Engineers Test Pit Logs -Figure A-9 I Test Pit TP-9 I CUENT GWC, Inc. PROJECT NAME Renton Hill Pro~ertv PROJECT NUMBER 0584-001 PROJECT LOCATION SW of S 7th St and Cedar Ave S, Renton, WA DATE EXCAVATED 4/12/05 TOTAL DEPTH 10.0 ft GROUND ELEVATION 280 ft (a[![!rox.) LOGGED BY CBT I EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR Keills Excavating, Inc. GROUND WATER None observed CHECKED BY BRB EXCAVATION EQUIPMENT Komatsu PC120 track-mounted excavator NOTES LOTS 2/3 -West of Renton Avenue South w I I I z ~ Q. en I 0 Q.-l >-0:: I- ~£ It9 ::::>0 I-w en I-~ Oco Wco W Q.~ MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Q.O REMARKS w~ >~ ~-l o::~ -l~ I- 0 w t9~ Q.::::> co -l t9 ~z :5 w <{ 0 en ~ _I:§~ Qro~_ Sl.LI ~t!l. ~~Q9Q1 r:QO.!.s J.sQ.ft., . .rIJ9~tL(fQr~s!..d.J!ff..l'lQfl J9Q.s9iIY 280 ~ f>4L... ~ '-Q.a~ QrQ..W!!.!i!lJ ~!!:! Q.cglgolla.!..rQ9~ {§qf!,..LJ1.Qi~ .JtQP§..0ill ____ .../"-,....~.l.9_ '=~~= ...ML. 12,2 Brown silty fine SAND with occasional cobbles and coal fragments (mediup1" .. n!! .. .sM.. ~ '..9~~,..LJ1Qi~.JQ!!~a~hl. ___________________ / -ML Mottled orange and gray SILT with a trace of sand (medium stiff to stiff, 6:£. _m...9i'§!UYie.£t!!!l~d-l>QiIL _____________________ ....].74 ~.::-: --Gray SILTSTONE with thin layers of coal (hard, moist) (slightly weathered I bedrock) Rock ~ 10 10.0 270 ... Test pit completed at 10.0 feet on 4/12/05 No ground water seepage observed I I I Test Pit TP-10 I CUENT GWC,lnc. PROJECT NAME Renton Hill Pro~ertv PROJECT NUMBER 0584-001 PROJECT LOCATION SW of S 7th St and Cedar Ave S, Renton, WA DATE EXCAVATED 4/12105 TOTAL DEPTH 8.0 ft GROUND ELEVATION 274 ft (a[![!rox.) LOGGED BY CBT I EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR Keills Excavating, Inc. GROUND WATER None observed CHECKED BY BRB EXCAVATION EQUIPMENT Komatsu PC120 track-mounted excavator NOTES LOT 4 -West of Renton Avenue South w I I "' I 1§ u; I-0 z () Q. en 0 Q.-l >-0:: l-I ~£ It9 ::::>0 I-w en I-~ Oco Wco W Q.~ MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Q.O REMARKS w~ >~ ~-l o::~ -l~ I- 0 w t9~ Q.::::> co -l t9 ~z :5 w <{ 0 en tp,l_I:§~ Qro~ S..!.L 1. ~t!l. ~~Q9Q1 r:QO.!.s J.sQ.ft_.rIJ9~L(fQr~s!..d.J!ff.-aQfl .!.oQ.s9ilr. 274 ~ f>4~ r&.i,-Q.a~.QrQ.W!!.!i!IJ~!!:! Q.Cglgo..!!al.rQ9!§ 1?qf.t,-mQi~.JtQP§..oill ____ .../"-_ll3_ ...MI.. ~ 35 Mottled orange and gray SILT with a trace of sand (medium stiff, moist) .~7...1 .. ML :... _(Yie.£t!!!l~d-l>QiIL ________________________ --.:;::-:" 1-- Orange and gray SILTSTONE with thin layers of coal (hard, moist) (slightly ~ weathered bedrock) Rock (!) I ~ (!) 0 ...J W ~ 8.0 266 Test pit completed at 8.0 feet on 4/12/05 No ground water seepage observed ...., Il. I (!) ;; 0 ... CO "' 0 "' .. I N X Il. I- W () I Icicle Creek Engineers Test Pit Logs -Figure A-IO I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Test Pit TP-11 CUENT GWC, Inc. PROJECT NAME Renton Hill Pro~ertv PROJECT NUMBER 0584-001 PROJECT LOCATION SW of S 7th St and Cedar Ave S, Renton, WA DATE EXCAVATED 4/12/05 TOTAL DEPTH 6.0 ft GROUND ELEVATION 278 ft (al2l2rox.) LOGGED BY CBT EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR Kell:{s Excavating, Inc. GROUND WATER None observed CHECKED BY BRB EXCAVATION EQUIPMENT Komatsu PC120 track-mounted excavator NOTES LOT 7 -West of Renton Avenue South w z () (L 0 (L...J ~ffi I i=~ Ie> ::JO I-~ OlD wID (L~ MATERIAL DESCRIPTION «~ (LO w~ >~ ~...J 0:::::2: ...J:::2: 0 w e>in (L::J ...J e> :::2:z w « 0 (/) ~_~~~~~~g~~@~~m~~~~~~~L®~~~~~~~~~ 278 li~ ML.. "1 ~ _ ~~ ~~~ ~ L.I ~t!l. Qf~~Ollil!.!qgt.§. @.o.f!,J!lQ!s.!l J.tQP§9i!1. ____ ./ / ...:1.1.2 ~= ML.. Orange and gray SILT with a trace of sand (medium stiff, moist) (weathered -- soil) -ML ---txJT 6.0 272 - Test pit completed at 6.0 feet on 4/12105 due to steep slopes causing difficult access conditions No ground water seepage observed CUENT GWC, Inc. PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT NAME Renton Hill Pro~ertv PROJECT LOCATION DATE EXCAVATED ....:6:<!./1.!.C/oe.:05"--__ TOTAL DEPTH 10.0 ft EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR Kelly's Excavating, Inc. GROUND ELEVATION 206 ft (al2l2rox.) GROUND WATER None observed EXCAVATION EQUIPMENT NOTES I I-~ (L~ w~ o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION z o ~£ >~ w ...J W _ ~it!:L a...Ql!I:!~1J!. r:QO.£; J?Q.ft,-m...9i.§!UfQr~sLd.!!.ff -.91]9 .!9~giJ}-I---<'''''--I:'c--,--1'- ht brown and brown silty fine SAND (loose, moist) (outwash) 204 -BlaCk COAL (medium densetodense-;-moiSt)(mOderciteiY weaihered-- -...... . bedrock) Test pit completed at 10.0 feet on 6/1/05 No ground water seepage observed w (L >-0:: I-w wID ...J:::2: (L::J :::2:z « (/) (/) l-(/) W I- ID :5 (/) l-(/) W I- ID :5 REMARKS Test Pit TP-12 LOGGED BY -=B::..:.R=B'--__ CHECKED BY CBT/KSK REMARKS Icicle Creek Engineers Test Pit Logs -Figure A-II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I g ~ o "' ~ a. f-w U CUENT GWC, Inc. PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT NAME Renton Hill Property PROJECT LOCATION St DATE EXCAVATED --,6~/.:..:.1/=.:05,,--__ TOTAL DEPTH --,9"".0"--'.!.ft __ _ EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR Kelly's Excavating, Inc. GROUND ELEVATION 198 ft (approx.) GROUND WATER None observed EXCAVATION EQUIPMENT NOTES I I-~ o..~ w~ o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION .0 Dark brown SILT with abundant roots==.!.",-, .. =.:=_J..= --Mottledl19hfbro"Wn-andbrown siltY fine moist) (outwash) -BroWn-medium to coarse SAND with SiiCgravelarld cobbles(medium--- dense, moist) (outwash) B~CkCO~~~~m~M~O~M~~~)~~er~~~~~red-- 9.0 on 6/1/05 No ground water seepage observed CUENT GWC,lnc. PROJECT NAME Renton Hill Property en I-en w I- III ~ Test Pit TP-13 LOGGED BY ...:B=:;..:R...:;B=--__ _ CHECKED BY CBT/KSK REMARKS Test Pit TP-14 PROJECT NUMBER 0584-001 PROJECT LOCATION SW of S 7th St and Cedar Ave S, Renton, WA DATE EXCAVATED 6/1/05 TOTAL DEPTH 7.0 ft GROUND ELEVATION 178 ft (approx.) LOGGED BY BRB EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR Kelly's Excavating, Inc. GROUND WATER None observed CHECKED BY CBT/KSK EXCAVATION EQUIPMENT Case 580K rubber-tired backhoe NOTES South of LOT 10 -SW of 629 Cedar Avenue South w z () 0.. en 0 0..-1 >-0::: l-I ~2 Ie> =>0 I-w en I-~ o III will W o..~ MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 0..0 REMARKS w~ >~ ~-1 0:::::2: -1::2: I- 0 W e>~ o..=> III -1 e> ::2:z ~ w <X: 0 en ~ _ Q£lds. !2!:o~_ S.lL.I ~t!!. @lM.l~Q! rQO.!.s -.tsQ.fL IT)9\§.tL(fQr.ltsLd.!!ff.JI!:!9 J9m;gilr ......1llL ~ ML..... Brown silty fine SAND with abundant roots and a rusted iron pipe (loose, SM -"--3.5 moist) (mine rock fill) .1.7.§ .. ~:;.z -ML 4;[ =B~~ g,~ Knis]iQQ~,~~§!)Jrlli~ fQ~ miL = = = = = = = = = = = = .1.1~ .. _.- Ught brown silty fine SAND (medium dense, moist) (outwash) ------SM 7.0 1.71 --- Test pit completed at 7.0 feet on 6/1/05 No ground water seepage observed Icicle Creek Engineers Test Pit Logs -Figure A-12 I Test Pit TP-15 I CUENT GWC,lnc. PROJECT NAME Renton Hill ProQertv PROJECT NUMBER 0584-001 PROJECT LOCATION SW of S 7th St and Cedar Ave S, Renton, WA DATE EXCAVATED 6/1/05 TOTAL DEPTH 6.5 ft GROUND ELEVATION 196 ft (al2l2rox.) LOGGED BY BRB I EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR Kellis Excavating, Inc. GROUND WATER None observed CHECKED BY CBT/KSK EXCAVATION EQUIPMENT Case 580K rubber-tired backhoe NOTES LOT 9 -SW of 629 Cedar Avenue South w I I z U £1. en 0 £1.-1 ~ffi f-I i=~ Ie> :::JO en f-~ £1.~ MATERIAL DESCRIPTION «~ £1.0 Oco Wco w REMARKS w~ >~ ~-1 o::~ -1~ f- 0 w e>in £1.:::J co -1 e> ~z ::5 w « 0 en ~ _I:@r:!s. i2!:0~_ SJq ~t!l. ~1Kl<lilill !:QO.!.s J.sQ.ft.....r1}9!.§.tUfQr~s!..d.!!ff.il1}9 .!9Q.s9ilr ~ Ic.:'.·,-"' MLJ Brown silty fine SAND with occasional roots (loose, moist) (outwash) ~-:-" .. SM I 4& ________________________________ .1.91 .. C::.:''''::::' ---Light brown silty fine SAND with a trace of fine gravel and occasional ~'-SM cobbles (medium dense, moist) (outwash) .. 6.5 190 .- Test pit completed at 6.5 feet on 6/1/05 I No ground water seepage observed I I I Test Pit TP-16 I CUENT GWC,lnc. PROJECT NAME Renton Hill ProQertv PROJECT NUMBER 0584-001 PROJECT LOCATION SW of S 7th St and Cedar Ave S, Renton, WA DATE EXCAVATED 6/1/05 TOTAL DEPTH 6.0 ft GROUND ELEVATION 188 ft (al2l2rox.) LOGGED BY BRB I EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR Kellis Excavating, Inc. GROUND WATER None observed CHECKED BY CBT/KSK EXCAVATION EQUIPMENT Case 580K rubber-tired backhoe NOTES LOT 8 -SW of 629 Cedar Avenue South w I I on I i§ (0 f-a (!) I ~ (!) 0 ...J W ~ z U £1. en 0 £1.-1 >-0:: f-I i=~ Ie> :::Jo f-w en f-~ Oco Wco W £1.~ MATERIAL DESCRIPTION «~ £1.0 REMARKS w~ >~ ~-1 o::~ -1~ f- 0 w e>in £1.:::J co -1 e> ~z ::5 w « 0 en fO.!i _ D.1!r:!s. i2!:0~_ S.!.L 1. ~t!l. a~lKl<lilill !:QO~ J.sQ.ftJ_m~i§!UfQr~sLd!!ff.1!1}9 .!9ru>giJ)-~ ~ .~ 2:Q. _B'@95 g>~ !ifI~sJlQQ~,..!)1.Qi§!LJrn!~ £995 !i!lL ___________ -.. ~~ .. f---Brown silty fine SAND with occasional gravel and cobbles (loose, moist) --(outw?c:h\ -~-.. SM occasional roots to 4.5 feet ----. -~-- grades to medium dense at 4.5 feet ---6.0 182 ----- Test pit completed at 6.0 feet on 6/1/05 No ground water seepage observed ~ (!) I 0 0 ... <0 on 0 on .. '" I x <l. f- W u I Icicle Creek Engineers Test Pit Logs -Figure A-I3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I WETLAND STUDY, STREAM ASSESSEMENT, HABITAT STUDY, WATERSHED RESTORATION AND MITIGIATON PLAN DEFOOR SHORTPLAT (GWC, INC.) -RENTON, WA Prepared For: MR. TERRY DEFOOR Duvall, Washington Prepared By: TALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC Woodinville, Washington 3 October 2005 (Revised 28 August 2006) DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CiTY OF RFNTON AUG 2 8 2006 R~CEIVED I !I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Wetland Study, Stream Assessment, Habitat Study, Watershed Restoration and Mitigation Plan Defoor Shortplat (GWC, Inc.) -Renton, Washington Prepared for: Mr. Terry Defoor GWC, Inc. 24633 NE 133rd Street Duvall, WA 99019 Prepared by: Talasaea Consultants, Inc 15020 Bear Creek Road N.E. Woodinville, WA 98077 3 October 2005 (Revised 28 August 2006) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Defoor Property SITE NAME: SITE LOCATION: CLIENT: PROJECT STAFF: FIELD SURVEY: Wetland Study, Stream Assessment, Habitat Study, Watershed Restoration and Mitigation Plan EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Defoor Property The project site (10.13 acres) is comprised of three contiguous parcels located in Renton, Washington. The project site is located west of Cedar Avenue South and Renton Avenue South and east of Interstate 405. The legal description is the NW % of Section 20 of Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M. Mr. Terry Defoor, GWC, Inc. Bill Shiels, Principal; Jason Walker, Project Manager; and Per Johnson; Ecologist Conducted on 21 March 2005 and 15 September 2005 DETERMINATION: Four streams (Streams A, B, C and Drainage 1) and two wetlands (Wetlands A and B) have been identified and/or determined by the City to exist within the project site. The streams are located on the southern portion of the project site and flow from east to west before exiting the site to the southwest. Hydrology within all streams appears to be stormwater runoff from surface streets, which is released at the eastern extent of the property at four separate discharge locations. In reviewing historical aerial photographs, Stream A existed on the project site prior to the surrounding development and continued northwest where its headwaters were found at Philip Arnold Park. Drainage 1 and Streams B and C were not evident in historical aerial photographs. These streams, we believe, were created by the subsequent conveyance and release of stormwater onto the subject property, following the paving of Cedar Avenue South, Renton Avenue South and other streets in the vicinity around 1950. Wetland A, approximately 3,374 sf, is a palustrine emergent wetland located at the southwest corner of the property, a topographically flat area. Wetland A appears to be a newly forming feature upon the backfill of a historic coal mine entrance. Soils within Wetland A include outwash material deposited from upstream erosion within Stream B. Wetland B is a very small wetland, approximately 196 sf, located at the southeastern portion of the project site within a braid of Stream B. A determination has been issued by the City to classify Stream A as a Class 4 stream, Stream B as a Class 3 stream, Stream C as a Class 4 stream, Drainage 1 as a Class 4 stream, and Wetlands A and B as Category 3 wetlands. Stream A is regulated by the City of Renton as a Class 4 stream due to its non- salmon bearing intermittent flow within a preexisting channel; Class 4 streams require a 35-foot buffer. Stream B has been classified by the City's environmental consultant as a Class 3 stream due to observed perennial flow; Class 3 streams require a 75-foot buffer. Stream B, Stream C and Drainage 1 have channels that are apparently the result of erosive stormwater discharge, but are considered "natural" by the City. The professional opinion of these features by the project team's geotechnical engineer, fluvial geomorphologist, and the area Habitat Biologist WDFW disagrees with the City's definition of point- discharge erosion as a natural process resulting in natural streams. Historical aerial photographs suggest that no naturally defined channels had previously existed other than that of Stream A. Wetlands A and B are Category 3 wetlands as they are characterized by emergent vegetation of low species richness. Category 3 wetlands require a 25-foot buffer. HYDROLOGY: Surface water from Streams A and B was observed flowing through and off site during our March 2005 and May 2006 site visits; however, flow within Stream A had ceased by our September 2005 and August 2006 site visits. Flow within Stream C infiltrates into the surrounding sandy soil present throughout the site. Hydrology within Wetlands A and B was present during our site investigation with saturation to the surface. All streams and drainages, except for Stream B, have been determined to be seasonally intermittent, supported by stormwater runoff. Stream B has been determined to have some minimal perennial flow resulting from groundwater discharge; however, we believe this drainage to be primarily supported by stormwater, and created by erosion due to stormwater discharge. SOILS: The Natural Resources Conservation Service has mapped the site as Alderwood and Kitsap soils, very steep (AkF), on the southwest corner of the property; Arents, Everett material (An) on the northeast corner of the southeastern portion of the project area; and Beausite gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 28 August 2006 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 931 CAReport(28Aug06).doc Page i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Defoor Property Wetland Study, Stream Assessment, Habitat Study, Watershed Restoration and Mitigation Plan 30% slopes (BeD) throughout the remainder of the property. Soils within the upland areas corresponded to those mapped; however, soils within the wetland did not correspond to those mapped and exhibited characteristics of sandy outwash material. Soils identified within the wetland include deep horizon of dark course sand. VEGETATION: Vegetation throughout the properties includes a native deciduous forest canopy adjacent to Cedar Avenue South, and a mixed deciduous and coniferous forest canopy throughout the remainder of the properties. The understory is comprised of both native and non-native shrubs and herbs, including Indian plum, bittercherry, hazelnut, snowberry, Himalayan blackberry, reed canarygrass, evergreen huckleberry, colonial bentgrass, lady fern, and sword fern. Vegetation within the wetland is dominated by reed canarygrass, though snowberry and Himalayan blackberry occupy the perimeter. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: GWC, Inc., has proposed the development of five residential lots within the project area adjacent to Renton Avenue South with associated stormwater management and dispersal facilities. The proposed action involves clearing and grading of approximately 1.1 acres. SENSITIVE AREA IMPACTS: Impacts to regulated sensitive areas were avoided where possible; however, unavoidable alterations include approximately 4,750 sf of steam buffer associated with Stream A and 5,400 sf of stream buffer reduction associated with Stream B. Drainage 1 is also proposed to be relocated to access Lot 4, and to provide hydrologic augmentation to Stream A. PROPOSED MITIGATION: Mitigation will occur through buffer averaging and replacement. Buffer averaging is proposed to occur through replacement of 10,150 sf of stream buffer within remaining forested areas associated with the buffers of Streams A and B. Stream channel enhancement, wetland enhancement and buffer restoration/enhancement is also proposed to mitigate for development impacts and the relocation of Drainage 1, and is expected to achieve a net increase of stream functions while providing improved site stability. 28 August 2006 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 931 CAReport(28Aug06).doc Page ii I I I I I I I I I I 1 .1 1 I I I I 1 I Defoor Short Plat Wetland Study, Stream Assessment, Habitat Study, Watershed Restoration and Mitigation Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS Page i. Executive Summary ii. Table of Contents iii. List of Figures iv. List of Tables v. List of Appendices 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 GENERAL PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LAND USE 1 3.0 METHODOLOGy ................................................................................................................... 1 3.1 Background Data Reviewed ......................................................................................... 2 3.2 Field Investigation ......................................................................................................... 2 4.0 RESULTS ............................................................................................................................... 3 4.1 Analysis of Existing Information ................................................................................... 3 4.1.1 Natural Resource Conservation Service ........................................................ 3 4.1.2 National Wetland Inventory ............................................................................ .3 4.1.3 1990 King County Wetlands Inventory Map ................................................. .3 4.1.4 City of Renton Sensitive Area Map ................................................................ 3 4.1.5 City of Renton S20 T23N R5E W'Y2 Storm System Map .............................. .4 4.1.6 WDNR FPARS-ArciMS Mapping System ...................................................... 4 4.1.7. WDFW Priority Habitats and Species and WDNR Natural Heritage Databases ......................................................................................... 4 4.2 Analysis of Field Conditions ................................................................................. 5 4.2.1 Wetland A ................................................................................................ 5 4.2.2 Wetland B ................................................................................................ 5 4.2.3 Drainage 1 ............................................................................................... 6 4.2.4 Stream A .................................................................................................. 6 4.2.5 Stream B .................................................................................................. 7 4.2.6 Stream C ................................................................................................. 8 4.2.7 Uplands ................................................................................................... 9 4.2.8 Wildlife ..................................................................................................... 9 5.0 PROPOSED PROJECT ........................................................................................................ 9 5.1 Project Description ........................................................................................................ 9 5.2 Sensitive Area Impacts ............................................................................................... 10 6.0 WATERSHED BASIN RESTORATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES ..................... 10 6.1 Goals, Objectives, and Performance Standards .................................................... ..11 6.2 Plantings ...................................................................................................................... 12 6.3 Habitat Features ......................................................................................................... 12 6.4 Irrigation ....................................................................................................................... 12 7.0 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT ............................................................................ 12 28 August 2006 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 931 CAReport(28Aug06).doc Page iii I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Defoor Short Plat Wetland Study, Stream Assessment, Habitat Study, Watershed Restoration and Mitigation Plan 8.0 MONITORING METHODOLOGy ....................................................................................... 13 8.1 Vegetation ................................................................................................................... 13 8.2 Water Quality, Hydrology, and Bank Stability. .......................................................... 14 8.3 Wildlife 14 9.0 SUCCESS CRITERIA ................................................................................................ 14 10.0 MAINTENANCE (M) AND CONTINGENCY (C) ......................................................... 14 11.0 PERFORMANCE BOND ............................................................................................ 15 12.0 AS-BUILT PLAN ........................................................................................................ 15 13.0 SUMMARy ........................................................................................................................... 15 14.0 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................... 17 28 August 2006 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 931 CAReport(28Aug06).doc Page iv I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Defoor Short Plat Wetland Study, Stream Assessment, Habitat Study, Watershed Restoration and Mitigation Plan Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Photo 1 Photo 2 Photo 3 Photo 4 Photo 5 Table 1. Vicinity Map NRCS Soils Map LIST OF FIGURES National Wetlands Inventory Map City of Renton Draft Water Class Map City of Renton Storm Drainage Map Conceptual Cross-Section of Stream A Conceptual Cross-Section of Stream B Stream A Corridor Stream B Corridor LIST OF PHOTOS Incised Stream B Channel Maple Tree in Stream B Stream B Channel LIST OF TABLES Calendar for Performance Monitoring and Maintenance Events LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX A: Wetland Delineation Data Sheets (Talasaea, 2005) APPENDIX B: APPENDIX c: City of Renton Internal Records Search Results (Renton, 2005) Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitats and Species Database APPENDIX D: Washington Department of Natural Resources Natural Heritage Program APPENDIX E Letter from Brian Beaman, Geotechinical Engineer/Geologist with Icicle Creek Engineers APPENDIX F Letter from Mary Ann Reinhart, Fluvial Geomorphologist with GeoEngineers APPENDIX G Affidavit from Larry Fisher, WDFW Area Habitat Biologist APPENDIX H: Index of Drawings (Reduced Plan Sheets) Sheet W1.0: Wetland & Stream Basin Restoration Plan -Existing Conditions & Overview Plan Sheet W1.1 : Wetland & Stream Basin Restoration Plan -Proposed Site Plan Impacts Sheet W2.0: Sheet W2.1: Sheet W2.2: & Mitigation Wetland & Stream Basin Restoration Plan -Enhancement Planting Plan Wetland & Stream Basin Restoration Plan -Planting Details & Notes Wetland & Stream Basin Restoration Plan -Planting Specifications APPENDIX I: Index of Drawings (Full Size Plan Sheets) Sheet W1.0: Wetland & Stream Basin Restoration Plan -Existing Conditions & Overview Plan Sheet W1.1 : Wetland & Stream Basin Restoration Plan -Proposed Site Plan Impacts Sheet W2.0: Sheet W2.1: Sheet W2.2: 28 August 2006 931 CAReport(28Aug06).doc & Mitigation Wetland & Stream Basin Restoration Plan -Enhancement Planting Plan Wetland & Stream Basin Restoration Plan -Planting Details & Notes Wetland & Stream Basin Restoration Plan -Planting Specifications Talasaea Consultants, Inc. Page v I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Defoor Short Plat Wetland Study, Stream Assessment, Habitat Study, Watershed Restoration and Mitigation Plan 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report is the result of a wetland delineation, stream assessment, and habitat study on an approximately 1 0.13-acre site located in Renton, Washington (Figure 1). The site is the location of historical coal mining activities. The property owner is proposing development of the property into residential lots and open space. Four regulated streams and two regulated wetlands have been determined by the City to exist on the southern portion of the property. The objective of this report is to: 1) describe the critical areas identified and delineated on the site, 2) describe wildlife use and habitat, 3) identify proposed impacts to sensitive areas and mitigation requirements for the proposed development, and 4) provide sufficient description of the proposed development and mitigation activities. This report is prepared in accordance with Section 4.3.050.F.8 of the Renton Municipal Code (RMC). 2.0 GENERAL PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LAND USE The proposed property is located within the city limits of Renton. The property is comprised of three separate but adjacent parcels, which includes parcels 0007200194, 0007200196, and 2023059085. Development is currently proposed at the eastern extent of parcel 0007200196, adjacent to Renton Avenue South and hereafter referred to as the "project area." The project area is bordered to the north by a 30-foot wide utility easement, to the south by a Puget Sound Energy utility easement, to the east by Renton Avenue South, and Interstate 405 to the west (Figure 1). The legal description is the NW Y4 of Section 20 of Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M. Currently, the property is undeveloped, though it contains an abandoned concrete foundation near the southern portion of the western parcel where coal-mining activities historically occurred in the late 1800's and early 1900's. The site slopes down from east to west with a defined ravine containing Stream A; most of the property consists of relatively steep slopes. An undeveloped upland mixed forest canopy dominates the site, with an understory of native and non-native shrubs. Surrounding land uses include: multifamily and single-family residences to the north, single family residences to the east, an undeveloped utility easement to the south, and Interstate 405 (1-405) to the west. 3.0 METHODOLOGY The wetland and stream analysis of the site involved a five-part effort. The first part consisted of a preliminary assessment of the site (and its immediate surroundings) and involved reviewing published resource information relating to local environmental conditions. This information included: 1) wetland and soil maps from resource agencies, 2) sensitive areas maps from King County and the City of Renton, and 3) relevant studies completed or on-going in the vicinity of the project site. The second part involved a field survey in which direct observations and measurements of soils, hydrology, and vegetation were made to determine whether wetlands were present, the type of wetlands present, and the extent of their boundaries (see Section 3.2 Field Investigation). The third part involved an information request regarding on site features, such as stormdrain outfalls, to the City of Renton. The fourth part of our study involved a review of historical aerial photographs, both mono and stereo-pairs, circa 1936, 1946, 1960, 1968, 1974, 1980, 1985, 1990, 1995, 2000, 2002, and 2004. This historical aerial photographic review was performed to observe the documented pre-development conditions and changes to the site and its immediate vicinity over time. The fifth part of our study involved third party review and consultation with geotechnical, geomorphological and biological experts to more thoroughly understand the processes that created Stream S, Stream C and Drainage 1. 28 August 2006 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 931 CAReport(28Aug06).doc Page 1 I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I ..... ,._-'"-c--o---":. i.~ - . .1. 1,. ~ j ~'~';-!~'.J'.-=-~' ~ • SW 19TH si FS ·1 l ;:~ 'N ~CiJ~~~~_~_ ""'" ~ - SOURCE THE THOMAS GUIDE 2005; METROPOLITAN PUGET SOUND. TALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. Resource & Environmental Planning 150:20 Bear Creek ROHd Norlhea~t Wnodinville, Washingtoll 08077 Bus (.!25 )SG 1-7550 -Fax (4:25 )U61-75..J!J FIGURE #1 VICINITY MAP DEFOOR PROPERTY RENTON, HA .~ -(.. . DESIGN PJ SCALE NTS DATE 28 JUNE 05 REVISED 25 Au 06 TH' ,~ " NORTH CD PROJECT CJ31 © Copyright. -TaInsaea CUllsllit.anl.s. iNC. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Defoor Short Plat Wetland Study, Stream Assessment, Habitat Study, Watershed Restoration and Mitigation Plan 3.1 Background Data Review Background information reviewed prior to and following the field investigations included the following documents: • King County Soil Survey, Natural Resource Conservation Service, 1973, • National Wetlands Inventory Map (Renton Quad), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USGS, 1988), • King County Sensitive Area Folio and Wetland Inventory, King County, 1990, • City of Renton Sensitive Area Maps, • City of Renton S20 T23N R5E W'Y2 Storm System Map, • WDNR FPARS-ArciMS Mapping System, • Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) Database, and • Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) Natural Heritage Database. 3.2 Field Investigation A general site reconnaissance was conducted on 21 March 2005 to gain an overall impression of the existing environment and current land uses. Observations were made of the general plant communities, wildlife habitats, and the locations of obvious and probable wetland areas and streams. Present and past land use practices were noted, as were significant geological and hydrological features. Additional site reconnaissance was conducted on 30 May 2006 and 27 August 2006. Wetland Delineation: Once likely or potential wetland areas were located, the routine on-site determination method was used to delineate the wetland using the procedures outlined in: 1) the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987) and 2) the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (1997). The wetland delineation was also conducted on 21 March 2005. Plant species were identified according to the taxonomy of Hitchcock and Cronquist (1973) and the wetland status of plant species was assigned according to the list of plant species that occur in wetlands for Region 9, published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Reed 1988, 1993). Wetland classes were determined on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's system of wetland classification (Cowardin, et al., 1979). Vegetation was considered hydrophytic if greater than 50% of the dominant plant species had a wetland indicator status of facultative or wetter (i.e., facultative, facultative wetland, or obligate wetland). Soil on the site was considered hydric if one or more of the following characteristics were present: • organic soils or soils with a histic epipedon (i.e., organic surface layer), • matrix chroma just below the A-horizon (or 10 inches, whichever is less) of 1 or less in unmottled soils, or 2 or less if mottles were present, or • gleying immediately below the A-horizon. Indicators of wetland hydrology may include, but are not necessarily limited to: drainage patterns, drift lines, sediment deposition, watermarks, stream gauge data and flood predictions, historic records, visual observation of saturated soils, and visual observation of inundation. 28 August 2006 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 931 CAReport(28Aug06).doc Page 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .3 'No ~ LEGEND AkF BeD ALDERHOOD AND KITSAP SOILS, VERY STEEP BEAUSITE GRAVELLY SANDY LOAM, 15-30% SLOPES ARENTS, EVERETT MATERIAL An SOURCE: U.s. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION SERVICE, KING COUNTY AREA SOIL SURVEY, 1G{13 STALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. Resource & Environmental Planning 1 ~o~o 8car Creek Road Northeast Woodinville, Wa~hingLon DR077 HilS (·125I!\fil-75~O --Fox (·1251IJfil-75~9 FIGURE #2 NRCS SOILS MAP DEFOOR PROPERTY RENTON, HA DESIGN PJ SCALE NTS DATE 28 JUNE 05 REVISED 25 Auq 06 NORTH CD PROJECT G{31 © Copyright -Talasaea ('OI1SIIII."III.S, INC'. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Defoor Short Plat Wetland Study, Stream Assessment, Habitat Study, Watershed Restoration and Mitigation Plan An evaluation of the vegetation, soils, and hydrology was made at various locations along the interface of wetland and upland. Wetland boundary points were then determined from this information, and marked with flagging and surveyed. Data forms for representative locations in both the upland and wetland were prepared by Talasaea Consultants and are presented in Appendix A. These data forms document the vegetation, soils, and hydrology information that aided in the wetland boundary determination. Ordinary High Water Mark Delineation: After all streams and drainages were identified and classified per Renton Municipal Code (RMC), the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) was delineated within the vicinity of the project area. The OHWM was then field approximated and included in the site plan for design purposes. The OHWM delineation was completed on 15 September 2005. 4.0 RESULTS 4.1 Analysis of Existing Information 4.1.1 Natural Resources Conservation Service The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has mapped the site as Alderwood and Kitsap soils, very steep (AkF), on the southwest corner of the property; Arents, Everett material (An) on the northeast corner of the southeastern portion of the project area; and Beausite gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30% slopes (BeD) throughout the remainder of the project area (Figure 2). AkF soils have variable rates of permeability and are comprised of approximately 50% Alderwood gravelly sandy loam and 25% Kitsap silt loam. Neither of these components (Alderwood or Kitsap soils) are considered hydric according to the 2001 NRCS King County soils list. The An soil type is an excessively drained soil that is similar to Everett gravelly sandy loam, although has been disturbed by urban development. Neither An soil or Everett gravelly sandy loam are considered hydric (NRCS, 2001). The Beausite Series is a well-drained soil type typically underlain by sandstone at a depth of 20 to 40 inches. The BeD soil in specific is known to include up to 20% Alderwood soils and are underlain by andesite. This also is not considered to be a hydric soil (NRCS, 2001). 4.1.2 National Wetlands Inventory The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS, 1988) identified no wetlands or streams on the project area (Figure 3). A small riverine, intermittent streambed, seasonally flooded wetland (R4SBC) is identified to the south (downstream) of the project area. The wetland is long and narrow, extending from approximately ~ mile to the south-southeast of the project area to approximately 100-feet southwest of the project area. This small, riverine wetland corresponds to the ilocation of the unnamed tributary to Rolling Hills Creek, located off site of the property to the south. 4.1.3 1990 King County Wetlands Inventory Map The 1990 King County Wetlands Inventory Map (King County, 1990) depicts no wetlands on or near the project area. 4.1.4 City of Renton Sensitive Area Maps The City of Renton Sensitive Area Maps was reviewed prior to visiting the site to determine the extent of known sensitive areas on the project area. Though the proposed Renton Water Class Map (Renton, 2005) depicts a small, Class 3 stream, tributary to Rolling Hills Creek, immediately off site to the southwest of the proposed project area (Figure 4), no streams or drainages are identified on the subject parcels. The classification of the off site tributary to 28 August 2006 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 931 CAReport(28Aug06).doc Page 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I :"":.:.. .. ~.'J • ...... .~-! ;=.-~ '-. :::;::::;..:::::;: :r-;"- NORTH SOURCE: U.s. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, FISH AND HILDLIFE SERVICE, NATIONAL HETLANDS INVENTORY MAP, RENTON QUADRANGLE, ICl88 CD WTALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. Resource & Environmental Planning 15020 Benf Creel.;: Road Norlheasl Woodinville, Washin,gt.oIl DBD,7 nus (·125)861-75:10 -fax 1·125)86j-i";j·ID FIGURE #3 NATIONAL HETLANDS INVENTORY MAP DEFOOR PROPERTY RENTON, HA DESIGN PJ SCALE NTS DATE 28 JUNE 05 REVISED 25 Au 06 PROJECT Cl31 © Copvl"ighl. -Talasaea ConslIIL<lIli.s. INC. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I WATER CLASSES (DTALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. Resource & Environmental Planning 15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast Woodinville. Washington 9a077 Bu. (425)861-7550 -Fax (425)861-7549 ...,. 1 : 24000 FIGURE *1:4 GITY OF RENTON DRAFT ViA TER GLASS MAP DEFOOR PROPERTY RENTON, ViA LEGEND: Class I Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Piped or culvcrted (dots) City Limil' Potential Annexation Area DESIGN PJ SCALE NTS DATE 28 JUNE 05 REVISED 25 Au 06 PROJECT Cl31 © Copyright -Talasaea Consultants, INC. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Defoor Short Plat Wetland Study, Stream Assessment, Habitat Study, Watershed Restoration and Mitigation Plan Rolling Hills Creek is based on a revised stream classification system that defines Class 3 streams as non-salmonid bearing with perennial flow. The Greenbelt Sensitive Areas Map (Renton 2002) illustrates a narrow band of greenbelt that extends along the southern edge of the project area. This area corresponds to the Puget Sound Energy utility easement to the south of the project area, which the unnamed tributary of Rolling Hills Creek flows through. The Renton Wetland Inventory Map (Renton, 1992) is the most current citywide wetland inventory map available. This map depicts no wetlands in the vicinity of the project area, according to City-personnel (Kinast, 2005). Other sensitive area maps were reviewed and illustrate other sensitive and hazard areas on the project area. According to the Sensitive Area Slide Map (Renton, 2002), the project area is comprised of both Moderate and High Slide Hazard areas. The Seismic Hazard Areas Map (Renton, 2003) depicts a small pocket of High Seismic Hazard along the southwest extent of the project area. The entire project area is classified as an Erosion Hazard area according to the Erosion Hazard Areas Map (Renton, 2003). In addition, the southern portion of the project area is illustrated as both Moderate and High Coal Mine Hazard areas based on the Coal Mine Hazard Map (Renton, 2003). This area corresponds to the location of the relic concrete structure and unnamed drainages. Please refer to the Coal Mine Hazard Assessment and Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation Report, prepared by Icicle Creek Engineers and dated 17 January 2005. 4.1.5 City of Renton S20 T23N R5E W% Storm System Map The City of Renton S20 T23N R5E W"h Storm System Map (Storm System Map), dated 22 March 2005, was obtained from the City of Renton following their internal records search for related drawings and inventories of the storm drain system in the vicinity of the project area. The results of this search are presented in Appendix B and Figure 5. Two mapped storm drain release points onto the subject parcels are identified on the Storm System Map. One stormwater release point is located at the southwest corner of Renton Avenue South and South 9th Street. The second release point is located at the southern terminus of Cedar Avenue ~South. These two release points are depicted as creating drainage channels on the subject parcels, which is illustrated flowing in a westerly direction before exiting the site through a piped stormwater conveyance across 1-405 and into Rolling Hills Creek. According to personal communication with Raymond van der Roest of the City of Renton on 14 June 2005, the location of these drainages and their conveyance under 1-405 are based of old field drawings, prior to electronic capabilities, and are approximate. 4.1.6 WDNR FPARS-ArcIMS Mapping System The Washington State Department of Natural Resources (WONR) Forest Practice Application Review System (FPARS) ArciMS Mapping Application was reviewed to determine the location and WDNR typing of identified drainages on the project area and immediately off-site. According to the ArclMS Mapping Application, the unnamed tributary to Rolling Hills Creek is classified as a Type N stream (non-fish habitat according to Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 222-16-030 (3) and (4)) exists immediately off-site of the project area to the south. In addition, a portion of Stream A, identified on the site, upstream of its confluence with the Type N tributary to Rolling Hills Creek, is classified as a Type U stream (Unknown, unmodeled mapped hydrographic feature). 4.1.7 WDFW Priority Habitats and Species and WDNR Natural Heritage Databases The WDFW Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) database was searched for sensitive species and habitats on and near the subject property. The results of this search indicated that no priority habitats or species were present on the subject property. The unnamed tributary of Rolling Hills Creek, located approximately 300 to 400 feet southwest of the project area, is not listed as a priority habitat. However, priority habitats and species were identified within the surrounding area. 28 August 2006 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 931 CAReport(28Aug06) .doc Page 4 ------------------- (./) , '< /< (/) 0./-' " \ f J' I '-. ' ( 'I' " < / ~ " , < < < I I < <.' ,< OJ: / <l: 'Is () I t: l ' /' < < < I', I I I, \ < I., i ,< >', .. -'-'-, -IJ I ~~Jt,;~-W \ \ \ \ . t:h. i .. " I' \. '. . /1 ~ ;. \ 1 t<')! ' '«< 22,~ (Ill. ' fIji ' I /, / \ \ \; I, ( 'I" \ I <lJ .' ' < , 1 < < < , < _, <, ' <; I < 1 I OJ <,:. 'I ~, 1.;' I '< c-: 2i Jil : i' 'I / /\ \ \ , \ \. >, ~: \ " ( '/ 1. '\ \ ~ :f ('. :.~ I J ~S;; :' " i J '. " \ \ \ <t 1 e D2-\8 ' \".!' I 'I \ ::r: .. J I I , 1< 1 < 'J', '< ... ,c ; !. <" I 1 I < 'l. ' '.' , )1 '. I ( _L~ > I " "i" < I, < "lL, <, , ~ < , I '« 22,ce-l~/ <: I 1 1;'0) ,\ <I ,I Ii : I, J 5 < \ 22£3-6 '2E.E3-5 2~3-9 J I I ~ <, I < I 1 -0 I \ \ < I 'i < , 't. < I M ~ i ~. ,C3-E I Ii <'< < I 1 I '~: i " . \ "\J ' \.l.. .l...:). '. ' \ ~-h'>"~-~ > ! 22 , E3 ... '" I <> ' I I I 'I I .f-. , I ,l··' , .. ~ 1 1 <~, 0 ~ ~ < : '. '< <, 1 ' I I I < < , \ < c<:,)..,.", < _ ,_ 'J " '-~I i I \' ( < 223-3>\ ~ _ &;-"8' I/, './ I . c/), ?:'-\' i .-/ I Cl '--\t l' I' 'f< ~ , 0 ~. < < , : I ',-£3--1 /22£3-1. I. , ',/, " '7<, I . . ." ". \ , .... ' ,\ ~~ ~ \ \~1\1~ ~>' '.~~ •• J J ... ,' 00 6-7 22'(~3"'13, J ' 22.£3;"'3' , (/') I '/ < ".' ""'I I!I! " < "I i \ ,=, < < ! I I: / .' < \<, \, "';S . ..x , , 1 " < , '1!I!,D3-<,22,D3 I ,: 22 : _1. '"3.'-'/ " , «< , <,<", 'I "",", " < <;<:~ Q] .' 'Ie . <, '0\:'. -'), <--r-, , ., """ } 1 <:, I \ <,"«1 "/ < ,~,<-1 I , " < I Ill" /"v '>, ' .' I J \ < '/'~;<-l'---'" ! < . \::: j, li < < \ I' ' ; I!l!,E~11 '(] , < '-<r < <I '\ ," \ < '\. ., , .1 1 +' ~, ;"," \! I I ) --' 111< .. '<'L! , ',<"\'. >!< 1'0-' \ \ I ;/ '<ri I \ '" \ <, ", , , 1 ' " ~ I' --«I ...... \ " '. 1-I 'I'. <,< , ~ ',« , , < ' ..... ~.: : ? \ '. ; .' ,..... :'. '. ( W'I ~ i:''-t " I' I' I ' \ --I " QJ < , r ' J <.~ " .£!> • C. i V"<'.' < , . ' __ 1,< " , 0, I ,/.l,ii~i1 \ ~/: i --I. ·.1..... \<'."~ ·'/Q(.~.! ) Is '10~h St;\;\ Ee.t!t:\~ Il __ ! "')) ~ .. ''''.'' '\.'\ \ . '-, -.. " " I, ,'. ~, I I /' f:: . '.. . '"'' \ '.. ( r .' .,,' '\ "'I < '<, _ ,< " , j"\I, ),', ! I , "'' 'I I' «1 ,-, «"( ;<'! I \ ' • , \ ,I " \ , "l« " , " < . x'. t.' . \".\ '. " , '. . I I / , < I " I ,(.. .' ' ' <, <, " < \ 'I , • \'. '/" "</ ' < ,< <,,)',-, -I ,I < I ", I I "I I I I ~ .! , I 7 •• \ ,I < ,Ii 1 J , '<', / , '. , I I, < < t I, i J / I I', < .,:, < <",:1 I ' /.' ',; \ I l , ;' ,,< i < <!i\\~"l"" '< .' 1'< , , \"... I ,1< 11th S '", '\<V" /, , < 1 ' ..... ' , I < I ' ' ./ . · .... ·,11'. ' " \" \, -. . . I . ) __ '\ " " 'j Vi', '-''',,< / J ' I, < \, '< It:" "'~i * ;',. .... j <" I < I , i i ". ,<: ' • '''''.. "'<, " " , <, <, , I! "A" < " <, 1 I ,. \ ... , . J \ \ v" '''<, , < \ ' ',/ '\ < \ \ '\ \." I <, <, I , \ "<,I' ',' I < \''< _, 1 I , '~"\ '<1< I I,! , I 1< I \<~,'-I" I I ,. I 1 I , '~~'....... \'" '-. I 1 ' 'I , r "\\' \ :'\, '\ .. \' E~ 3/22/05. :OURCE: CITY OF RENTION \ \ "-,, .. " STORM SYST , eTALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. Resource & Environmental Planning 15020 Oea,' Creck Hoad NOI-I.heasi Wondill\'ille. Washing! 011 !J1::W77 Blls (4~;;ltltil-7550 -Fa, (.125)Btil-75.IU SCALE FIGURE #5, RENTON STORM DRAINAGE MAF/ AS NOTED DEFOOR PROPERTY RENTON, ViA /' PROJECT q31 © CIJ]!Vl'igIJl -Talas;tca (,'0 II SII 1 1 all Is. INC I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Defoor Short Plat Wetland Study, Stream Assessment, Habitat Study, Watershed Restoration and Mitigation Plan The priority habitats identified include wetlands, streams, and urban natural open spaces. Of these priority habitats, a long, narrow stretch of urban natural open space along the southern bank of the Cedar River is located approximately X-mile to the northeast of the project area. The Cedar River is identified approximately ~-mile to the northeast of the project area. Approximately %-miles to the southwest of the project area is a long, narrow stretch of palustrine scrub-shrub and palustrine-emergent wetlands associated with Panther Creek. Cedar River is identified as a priority habitat for multiple priority anadromous and resident species, including Chinook, coho, bull trout, sockeye, steel head, cutthroat, and rainbow trout. An unnamed tributary to the Black River (presumably Panther Creek) is located approximately 1 X-mile to the southwest of the project area and flows through the wetlands associated with Panther Creek. This unnamed creek is listed as priority habitat for anadromous coho salmon and resident cutthroat trout. The WDNR Natural Heritage Program database search did not reveal any sensitive habitats on or near the subject property. Results from the WDFW and WDNR database searches are presented in Appendices C and D. 4.2 Analysis of Field Conditions Two wetlands (Wetlands A and B), and four unnamed streams (Streams A, B, C and Drainage 1) were identified and/or determined to exist on the project area (Sheet W1.0). These features are described in the following sections. 4.2.1 Wetland A Wetland A, approximately 3,374 sf, is a palustrine emergent wetland (Cowardin, et. al. 1979) located at the southern extent of the western parcel (Sheet W1.0). Wetland A has one dominant class of vegetation (herbaceous) with a second class of vegetation (scrub-shrub) along its perimeter. Vegetation within Wetland A is dominated by reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea) with salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis) and Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor) along its perimeter. Soils within Wetland A do not correspondto those identified by the NRCS (Figure 2). Soils observed consisted of a thick horizon of sand, which appear to be erosive outwash material from Stream B (See Section 4.2.3 below). Wetland A exists in a topographically flat area adjacent to a relic concrete structure and slope cuts from historic grading activities, creating a closed depression. Behind and up-slope of the wetland are the remains a large concrete structure previously used for mining activities. This structure is described as the "fan house" in the Coal Mine Hazard Assessment and Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation Report, prepared by Icicle Creek Engineers and dated 17 January 2005. Soils in the wetland area consist of a horizon of very dark brown (10YR2/2) sand with redoximorphic features (mottles) present above a horizon of dark gray (10YR4/1) sand with mottles present. Wetland hydrology was present during our site visit. Soils were saturated to the surface around the wetland edge and surface flow from Stream B was observed flowing through the wetland. According to the RMC Section 4.3.050.M.1, Wetland A is classified as Category 3 wetland, since the wetland is newly emerging with emergent vegetation with low species richness. Under the RMC, Category 3 wetlands require a 25-foot buffer. 4.2.2 Wetland 8 Wetland B, approximately 196 sf, is a very small palustrine scrub shrub wetland (Cowardin, et. al. 1979) located at the eastern end of a small braid in the Stream B channel, on the eastern most parcel (Sheet W1.0). Wetland B has two dominant classes of vegetation (scrub-shrub and emergent). Vegetation within Wetland B is dominated by Pacific willow (Salix lasiandra), Himalayan blackberry, giant horsetail (Equisetum telmateia), and hedge bindweed (Calystegia sepium). Soils within Wetland B (Arents and Everett Material (An» correspond to soils identified by the NRCS (Figure 2). Soils observed consisted of a thick horizon of very dark brown (10YR 2/2) gravelly sandy loam with redoximorphic features (mottles) present. As An 28 August 2006 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 931 CAReport(28Aug06) .doc Page 5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Defoor Short Plat Wetland Study, Stream Assessment, Habitat Study, Watershed Restoration and Mitigation Plan soils are classified as a somewhat excessively drained, observed wetland hydrology is believed to be solely supported from flow within Stream S, which defines the wetland's northern, eastern, and southern limits. According to the RMC, Wetland S is classified as Category 3 wetland and requires a 25-foot buffer. 4.2.3 Drainage 1 Drainage 1 is an eroded stormwater channel that has been determined to be artificial by WDFW (Appendix G). This drainage exhibits a defined bed and banks that have developed through the apparent sluicing of erodible soils from the release of undetained stormwater, originating from catchbasins within Renton Avenue South. Stormwater from the catch basins is piped to an outfall location at the origin of the drainage (Sheet W1.0). Drainage 1 flows down a steep gradient west of Renton Avenue South. The channel of Drainage 1 has become increasingly incised and littered with debris (e.g., used tires, garbage bins, and metal barrels). Stormwater from this drainage flows downstream to the west where it converges with Stream A in a wide, historic ravine. The outfall invert for Drainage 1 is located approximately eight feet above the outfall invert for stream A. If the stormwater conveyances supporting Drainage 1 were removed, the stormwater would continue a natural flow path to Stream A, as surfacewater flowed historically. The banks of Drainage 1 include native and non-native plant species. Adjacent to Renton Avenue South, where the drainage originates, vegetation is dominated by Himalayan blackberry and other non-native species. Along the banks of the drainage further downstream, vegetation becomes increasingly more native, with big-leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), salmonberry, vine maple, sword-fern, and lady-fern. Drainage 1 has been determined by the City of Renton to be a "natural" stream channel, meeting the criteria for a Class 4 stream under the RMC, and requires a 35-foot standard buffer. 4.2.4 Stream A Stream A is the southernmost stream identified on the project area. Similar to Drainage 1, the hydrology of Stream A originates at an existing stormwater outfall along the west side of Renton Avenue South (Sheet W1.0). Stream A flows southwest through a wide natural ravine (Figure 6, Photo 1) before exiting the site to the southwest. Flow continues off site to the southwest for approximately 400-feet before entering an unnamed tributary to Rolling Hills Creek. Due to the source of hydrology to Stream A (e.g., undetained stormwater), flow within the channel is intermittent. The undetained release of stormwater into the existing channel has created a minor incensement in the extent and depth of the stream through flashy flows characteristic of stormwater runoff. Our review of historical aerial photographs suggests that this stream was created by natural geomorphologic processes. This feature exhibits a wide ravine, which can be seen in aerial photos continuing towards the northeast in areas where topography has not been Significantly altered by development. Prior to the development in the vicinity of the site, and installation of stormwater conveyances, the headwaters of Stream A were likely located where Phillip Arnold Park exists today. Additional information regarding the apparent natural geomorphology of Stream A is included in Appendix F. The slope of the surrounding riparian area is relatively steep as the channel is confined within a ravine. Vegetation throughout the ravine and riparian area is comprised of three classes including: forested, shrub, and herbaceous vegetation. Species composition along the riparian corridor include big-leaf maple, black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa), western red cedar 28 August 2006 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 931 CAReport(28Aug06).doc Page 6 ------------------- ~, / / I ~ ! r,~ \, 't11: , '\;'11 '" ; .~ r "'-. ,\" i \) If '\ Ifl,' '\1" " \r} ,-~' I' I. ,II $--rJ} : ~, •• _t ~ ";1 ~,f >' ~" , ,,\'I' -\' , ?,) ;!i'-.J ""' ~}vJ' L " ~"'~--··--~--,L].,'\: A STREAM A GRAPHIC, SC,ALE ( IN FEET) CD j" !: '. if; '1' \;1 1l '; i fj I.~ 1& I' i -"., r / '1/ j! ~.'( ~ , "S , I , -,I C,_r 'I;' f'7 , .. ( I' r",,-cr"'" /' • .,:.", I~ . ~>..t.- , \ .L \L~I '-"~I' Y;7 Or' eTALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. Resource & Environmental Planning J5U20 Ikill' Creek Hoad Northeast Woodill\'ille, \\'asltillgtoH OB077 HIl.s (·'2;")jlWI-7550 -Fax (·1::5)8GI-75-lD \, \ ... , ", FIGURE #6, STREAM A SECTION DEFOOR PROPERTY RENTON, HA I" (" , £/' DESIGN SCALE AS NOTED PROJECT '131 © COI'.'Tigili -Talasa"" COlislillallls, INC'. ------------------- El9TALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. Resource & Environmental Planning I ;,)O:lO lJear Creek Huad Northeast Wondill\-ille, Wdsllillgloll 911077 Hils (·I:.!;,)HGl-75;)O --Fax (-1::'!~)861-7~)-1!J PHOTO #1, STREAM A CORRIDOR DEFOOR PROPERTY RENTON, HA SCALE N.T5. © C()pyriglll -Tal::ls<lL'ct "Illlsllitallls, INC. I I I I I I I I I I I ,.1 I I I I I I I Defoor Short Plat Wetland Study, Stream Assessment, Habitat Study, Watershed Restoration and Mitigation Plan (Thuja p/icata), Pacific willow, bittercherry (Prunus emarginata), Indian plum (Oem/eria cerasiformis), snowberry (Symphoricarpos a/bus), Himalayan blackberry, reed canarygrass, evergreen huckleberry (Rubus /aciniatus), perennial ryegrass (Lo/ium perenne), lady-fern, and sword fern. Flow within Stream A is conveyed through a naturally-defined channel, it is regulated as a Class 4 stream under the RMC, and requires a 35-foot buffer. 4.2.5 Stream B Stream B exhibits eroded stormwater channels that have been determined to be artificial by WDFW (Appendix G). Stream B begins along the northeast corner of the eastern parcel, adjacent to Renton Avenue South (Sheet W1.0). Similar to Drainage 1 and Stream A, the primary source of hydrology within Stream B occurs from the point-discharge of undetained stormwater at an outfall along the western edge of Renton Avenue South, near the intersection with South 9th Street. Stormwater is collected in a series of catch basins and open roadside ditches along surface roads (Jones Avenue South, High Avenue South, Grant Avenue South, and South 9th Street) upslope of the project area and is piped and released at this location (Figure 5). After stormwater is released, flow within the shallow channel bifurcates to the south and north, creating a narrow island of Himalayan blackberry and alders whereupon Wetland B occurs (Photo 2). As stormwater flows west around this narrow island, where the channel becomes increasingly incised to a depth of 3-feet to 6-feet (Photo 3). Prior to its confluence with the southern fork, the northern fork flows under the roots of a mature big-leaf maple (Photo 4). Once the two forks of Stream B rejoin, flow continues downstream to the west. As the stream approaches the southern terminus of Cedar Avenue South, flow within the channel appears to be actively eroding the right bank (north bank) as it turns in a southwest direction and approaches Wetland A (Photo 5). As Stream B approaches Wetland A, the slope of the surrounding topography decreases, as does the depth of the channel. Once the stream enters Wetland A, the channel looses well-defined banks and surface flows are displaced with rills created in the deposited sandy outwash material that comprises the wetland. Flow exiting the wetland resumes within a defined channel that conveys flow abruptly to the south before exiting the site and presumably entering an unnamed tributary of Rolling Hills Creek, approximately 300-feet off site. The slope of the surrounding hillside in the vicinity of Stream B is relatively steep and uniformly sloped to the west (Sheet W1.0, Figure 7), though the gradient becomes more gradual as Stream B approaches Wetland A. No natural ravine is present in this location, as exhibited with Stream A. The outfall invert for Stream B is located approximately ten feet above the outfall invert for stream A. If the stormwater conveyances supporting stream B were removed, the stormwater would continue a natural flow path to Stream A, as surfacewater flowed historically. Vegetation throughout the riparian area is comprised of three classes including: forested, shrub, and herbaceous vegetation. Plant species composition along the riparian corridor of the stream include big-leaf maple, black cottonwood, western red cedar, Pacific willow, Indian plum, bittercherry, snowberry, Himalayan blackberry, reed canarygrass, evergreen huckleberry, colonial bentgrass, lady fern, and sword fern. Vegetation composition adjacent to Stream B, as it flows through Wetland A, becomes predominantly comprised of those species adapted to wet conditions, as described in Section 4.2.1. As Stream B exits Wetland A, vegetation along the right and left bank becomes monotypically dominated by Himalayan blackberry. In the letter to the City from the City's environmental consultant, Stream B is described as occurring in a "historical channel" and having perennial flow with summer baseflow supported by 28 August 2006 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 931 CAReport(28Aug06).doc Page 7 - \ ~ --- \"~ r " \ '. t\~/ \~//" ~V' , 1\ I~" 6 Ii \r l! ~ ~'1 :~';1 \\'\ -.,' , ~. A~ , i , \ ! . ~ , ... STREAM 6 GRAPHIC SCALE ( 'N FEET) CD ------------- -- , ... /" ./ I .,_ .... <. 1\ / \. .. '- ,,' ( ". / j \ '. ''''\ I, I; \\ I 'i'\ '/ ~, .' ( ( \~ \\~ 'i . J' . . ' ~, , II,-• ; ~ " .', "" . :.~', . ' , '\~: .. ~ .. 1:\ . \\\\\ ' . " '" W , ""'> '\.\'~\l\ "'. , .. (i '\ . ".~ "'. '\ ,. \i,\ h~ I', ,., \~ ~\ \~ .I ': \' / \j\1 \'\\\ I .\ ji .! . i\''/ , ~ " '\ I' I :' . : / '\ \,:,:\ . \1 J i i~ ',.\ . 1'\, ..r .\; / .:~\ " \ \',\1 ..... ", I 1'\' " .\ 1'." -\~":~y1 \~ ; i~ 1\' t,: I\~l., , i. h~ i1 , ~\~~! . .'\, '.' , ,J' \ ~! l\\' I, \ \ , ,~\ 1,4 ~\' \:\ ,/\ \\ r,.:'. i. "' .. '.. \.' .~. " , ~ L t~~ l>: : ' ;~ ~ \< t~~ .kv·:; \\i\\ l~ '~ " .. j i. ':'. '. " ". ' . \~ \'} I,', . \' \\ ,:. i\ ", " , I.' ~< :,:;,: '" \ ~~t. t>. \. ' .,", AL...l ,,~\t eTALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. Resource & Environmental Planning I ~)()::!U Heal" Creek HOHd NOI-theast Woodill\'ille, W<lSilillgtuH Otl077 FIGURE **1, STREAM B SECTION DEFOOR PROPERTY RENTON, HA /Jus (~25)801-755n -Fax (,'~5IBtil-75·'D c"-- / DESIGN SCALE AS NOTED ! . -,;//, t/ . { , , / 6' PROJECT '131 © Copyright -TaJasilci:I COIlsllltitlltS, INC. ----- ---- eTALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. Resource & Environmental Planning I :"i(}~U Bear Creek Hoad Nor-thea!:;!. WuodillVilll', Washillglon UB077 UII' (.1:25)eOI-7550 -Fax (~:25W61-75.IU --- -- PHOTO #2, STREAM B CORRIDOR DEFOOR PROPERTY RENTON, !AlA -- DESIGN SCALE N.T5. -- © Copyright -Tala"" .. " COllsultallts, INC'. - ------------------- E9TALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. Resource & Environmental Planning I F10~O Bear Creek Hoau Northeast Wuudili\'ille, WashillgluJI !IU077 Hils (.I:!:1)HfiJ-7550 -Fax {·I:!fl)Hfii-7:")·IU PHOTO #3, INCISED STREAM B CHANNEL DEFOOR PROPERTY RENTON, riA DESIGN SCALE N.T5. PROJECT Cf31 © Copyright -T"I"s""" CIJIl~llltilllls, INC'. --------- STALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. Resource & Environmental Planning 1 ;)020 Hellr Creek Hu,HI NtH"' heast Wt1odill\·ille, Wasilillgttlll UlI077 IJu, (1~~)ll!jl-(,5,,() -Fa, (·1:':5)HOI-ICJIU ------ PHOTO #4, MAPLE TREE IN STREAM B DEfOOR PROPERTY RENTON, HA - SCALE NT.5. -- © CopyrigiJt -Tala,a<,,, COIl~lIlt"llts, INC. - --------- STALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. Resource & Environmental Planning I ;;U~() Hear Crl!ck Ruad Nod.hea~;I WondiJlyille, Wasliillgtoll !HHJ77 1i1ls (·'~'dllU'-75c)() -F", (.,C'5)B(iI-75·'0 ----- PHOTO #5, STREAM B CHANNEL DEFOOR PROPERTY RENTON, HA -- SCALE N.T5. -- © C0l'vrigltl -'),;das",.'a ('ol~l1l1""ls, INC - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Defoor Short Plat Wetland Study, Stream Assessment, Habitat Study, Watershed Restoration and Mitigation Plan groundwater. We acknowledge that some groundwater is being intercepted due to the depth of the incised channel, providing a conveyance for the discharge of surrounding groundwater; however, groundwater is not present in sufficient quantities to have defined the resultant channel of this stream. Prolonged seasonal groundwater interflow toward the site may be present due to summer irrigation of the residential lots to the east of the site. Irrigated lawns east of the site were apparent during our 27 August 2006 site visit. Also during this site visit, no flow was observed in the upper-gradient reach at of Stream B near Renton Avenue South; however, a negligible flow was observed in the lower reach adjacent to Cedar Avenue South. It is the belief of City's environmental consultant that the channel for Stream B existed prior to the construction of the stormwater discharge location. After reviewing historical aerial photographs dating back to 1936, we believe that an alternate description more accurately portrays this stream channel. In 1936, the ravine in which Stream A is confined extended to the northeast beyond Renton Avenue South, across South 9th Street, and to the east to Phillip Arnold Park. There does not appear to be any visible channel present where Stream B is currently, in either the 1936 and 1946 aerial photos. In the 1960 aerial photo, a channel is visible in the approximate location of Stream B with an area of disturbance, believed to be outwash deposition, located in the vicinity of Wetland A. According to the City's environmental consultant, there are two plausible explanations for the absence of a visible Stream B channel in either of the 1936 or 1946 aerial photographs: 1) the channel is narrow and could be obscured by vegetation or 2) the quality and resolution of the photo is such that a small channel could not be discernable. We contest that there is a third plausible explanation that correlates with observed changes and development in the vicinity of the project area, as depicted in the historical aerial photos and with personal communication with Raymond van der Roest of the City of Renton's Surface Water Utility. Under this third plausible explanation, Stream B formed as a consequence of the provision of stormwater conveyances and pavement of the surrounding surface roads. The installation of the stormwater conveyances on Renton Avenue occurred around 1950. Surface roads in the vicinity of project area were being paved during the 1946 aerial photo, although that portion of Renton Avenue South or Cedar Avenue South, adjacent to the project area, was not paved. According to Mr. van der Roest, the catchbasins and storm water outfalls were installed in the 1950's, although no records could be located. Following the installation of the catch basins and stormwater outfalls, undetained release of flashy stormwater began occurring. As previously mentioned, the project area has been classified as an erosion hazard area and a moderate to high slide hazard area. As a result, a channel has formed and has eroded through the soft gravelly sandy loam soils and soft sandstone bedrock (Renton Formation), creating a channel that is very narrow and deep. As previously mentioned, this drainage flows under a mature big- leaf maple, which is a feature that apparently pre-dates the establishment of the drainage channel. It is our opinion that Stream B is the result of approximately 50 years of undetained stormwater discharge onto the subject site, resulting in highly incised, sluiced, channels and the formation of geomorphologic characteristics identical to that of excavated ditches. Due to the artificial conveyance of stormwater to the origin of the drainage, we do not believe that Stream B was naturally-defined or that the channel previously existed prior to the catchbasins and placement of the outfall adjacent to Renton Avenue South. Further information regarding the geomorphology of Stream B and the regulatory consideration of Stream B by WDFW is included in Appendices E, F, and G. Stream B has been determined by the City of Renton to be a "natural" stream channel, meeting the criteria for a Class 3 stream. Class 3 streams require a 75 foot standard buffer projected from the ordinary high water mark. 28 August 2006 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 931 CAReport(28Aug06).doc Page 8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Defoor Short Plat Wetland Study, Stream Assessment, Habitat Study, Watershed Restoration and Mitigation Plan 4.2.6 Stream C Stream C begins in the vicinity of the southwest corner of Cedar Avenue South (Sheet W1.0), where stormwater collected along Cedar Avenue South is released through a 4-inch pipe, perched approximately 5 feet above ground, and onto broken concrete and debris, such as an old shopping cart and mobile camper. Stormwater released from this outfall location has also created a relatively incised channel, which flows to the west. Stream C is a comparatively small drainage feature and most of its flow infiltrates during normal rainfall events. However, it appears that during significant rainfall events, flow continues west before abruptly turning to the south where it converges with Stream B downstream of Wetland A and upstream of its presumed confluence with an unnamed tributary of Rolling Hills Creek. The slope of the surrounding riparian area is relatively steep, although it becomes more gradual as Stream C flows west. Vegetation throughout the riparian area is similar to the other riparian areas adjacent to the other streams, which is comprised of three classes including: forested, shrub, and herbaceous vegetation. Plant species composition along the riparian corridor of the stream include big-leaf maple, black cottonwood, western red cedar, Pacific willow, Indian plum, bittercherry, snowberry, Himalayan blackberry, reed canarygrass, evergreen huckleberry, colonial bentgrass, lady fern, and sword fern. Our review of historical aerial photographs suggests that this stream did not exist prior to the completion of paving and installation of catch basins along Renton Avenue South and Cedar Avenue South. The release of undetained stormwater onto the subject parcel is believed to be solely responsible for the creation of the incised channel associated with Stream C, as similarly described for Drainage 1 and Stream B. Stream C has been determined by the City of Renton to be a "natural" stream channel, meeting the criteria for a Class 4 stream under RMC, and requires a 35-foot standard buffer. 4.2.7 Uplands The upland areas are undeveloped and are dominated by native and non-native vegetation. There is evidence of an existing old roadrunning north to south through the upland area, paralleling Cedar Avenue South. This road was visible in historic aerial photos circa 1980. In addition, evidence of another road exists extending west from Renton Avenue South to the area of abandoned coal mining activities. Along the northern portion of the project area, adjacent to Cedar Avenue South, the upland areas are dominated by a native deciduous forest canopy comprised of big-leaf maple with an understory of Indian plum, Himalayan blackberry, hazelnut (Cory/us corn uta) , soft rush (Juncus effusus) and sword fern. Throughout the southern portion of the project area, adjacent to Renton Avenue South and south of the southern terminus of Cedar Avenue South, the upland areas are dominated by a mixed deciduous and conifers forest canopy with an understory comprised of both native and non-native vegetation previously characterized in Sections 4.2.2, 4.2.3, and 4.2.4. Soils throughout the upland area are primarily bright, brittle sandy loam. Two test plot locations established adjacent to Cedar Avenue South (where evidence exists of an abandoned road demonstrates sandy soil with a presence of redoximorphic features (mottles) with dark brown (7.5YR4/6) chroma. However, soil chroma observed at these two locations was dark yellowish brown (10YR4/4) and brown (10YR4/3). 4.2.8 Wildlife Wildlife observations on the site were limited to birds (primarily songbirds and red-tailed hawk); however, due to the time of year of our visit and the secretive nature of most wildlife, the probability of additional unobserved species is high. Numerous songbird species, including 28 August 2006 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 931 CAReport(28Aug06).doc Page 9 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Defoor Short Plat Wetland Study, Stream Assessment, Habitat Study, Watershed Restoration and Mitigation Plan spotted towhee, black-capped chickadee, dark-eyed junco, American robin, and American crow, were observed on site. In addition to songbirds, a red-tailed hawk was observed flying over the site from east to west. No nests were observed on the project area, however, large deciduous and coniferous trees on-site could provide suitable perching habitat. The red-tailed hawk is not State-listed, Federally-listed, or listed as a priority species by the State. Therefore, the presence of a red-tailed hawk should not be a regulatory constraint. 5.0 PROPOSED PROJECT 5.1 Project Description GWC, Inc., proposes development of five residential lots within the project area adjacent to Renton Avenue South with associated stormwater management and dispersal facilities (see Sheet W2.0, enclosed). The proposed action involves clearing and grading of approximately 1.1 acres, including approximately 4,750 sf of steam buffer reduction associated with Stream A and 5,400 sf of stream buffer reduction associated with Stream B. Drainage 1 is also proposed to be relocated to access Lot 4, and to provide hydrologic augmentation to Stream A. All applicable standard best management practices (BMPs) will be implemented to reduce the opportunity of unanticipated adverse impacts to all on site critical areas, including streams and wetlands. Mitigation for required alterations to critical areas and their buffers will occur in conjunction with the proposed development. Stormwater that is presently being directed to Drainage 1 from the southernmost area of Renton Avenue South will be redirected to the existing stormwater outfall at the headwaters of Stream A. Stormwater will be released at this location through and improved energy dissipation outfall. The release of stormwater will augment the existing hydrologic support to Stream A while reducing the erosive energy of existing undetained stormwater flows through the installation of rock spalls, woody debris and native plantings. Stormwater collected from the five lots will be released through three infiltration/dispersal trenches into the vegetated hillside west of the lots, which will also maintain existing baseflow conditions of the existing streams. 5.2 Sensitive Area Impacts Avoiding impacts to critical areas and buffers Significantly influenced the design of the Defoor Short Plat. The project has been designed to avoid impacts to Wetlands A and B and to minimize impacts to the buffers of Stream A and Stream B. Drainage 1, an eroded stormwater channel, is proposed to be relocated to Stream A. The proposed alterations to Drainage 1 and the stream buffers represent the least damaging practicable alternative, as determined by applying the following criteria: 1) physical availability, 2) technical feasibility, 3) cost, 4) environmental impacts, and 5) ability of the project to perform its intended purpose. The proposed impacts are unavoidable in order to provide reasonable use of the project site and will provide improved stabilization to the existing and relocated stormwater outfall locations and ultimately improve ecological stability throughout the basin containing Streams A and Band Wetlands A and B. 6.0 WATERSHED BASIN RESTORATION AND MITIGATION PLAN Presently, the Stream A, B, and C basin experiences flashy releases of stormwater from upstream development. As a result, flows within these stream channels are extremely erosive. The project site is classified as Erosion Hazard Area and Moderate to High Slide Hazard Area. The site stability is further emphasized due to its additional classifications as Moderate to High Coal Mine Hazard area, High Seismic Hazard area, and its proximity to Interstate 405. Water quality within the streams is assumed to be poor, as the flow within the channels is in large part, if not solely, the result of undetained and untreated stormwater from existing 28 August 2006 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 931 CAReport(28Aug06).doc Page 10 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Defoor Short Plat Wetland Study, Stream Assessment, Habitat Study, Watershed Restoration and Mitigation Plan upstream residences and surface roads with no apparent treatment for pollutants. In general, stormwater from these types of developments contain elevated temperatures and increased concentrations of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), dissolved heavy metals, increased nutrient concentrations (i.e., Total Nitrogen (TN), Total Phosphorus (TP), total suspended solids (TSS), and pesticides (A.C. Kindig & Company et al. 2003). All of these water quality pollutants/toxicants negatively effect salmonids behaviorally, biophysically, and biochemically. Erosion and further incising of the stream channels through sandy loam soils and sandstone bedrock reduces the water quality within the streams by increasing concentrations of TSS and TP. Mitigation measures (Sheet 2.0 enclosed) will be implemented to improve the functions and values of the natural systems on the site through stabilization, restoration and enhancement measures. Reduction of the stream buffers for Streams A and B will occur through 10,150 sf of buffer replacement (4,750 for Stream A and 5,400 sffor Stream B). In addition, mitigation for tight-lining Drainage 1 into the headwaters of Stream A will occur through the installation of native vegetation, woody material (e.g., root wads), and live fascines, resulting in an increase in the biologic, hydrologic and water quality function of Stream A. Similar enhancement measures will be provided within the complex of Stream B and Wetland B to provide a net gain in biological function and to promote stabilization of the eroded stream channels. An open-rail fence with appropriate signage will be installed along the periphery of the proposed lots to deter human access and alterations to the protected and mitigated areas. Together, these mitigation measures will have a net-benefit to the stability and condition of the watershed basin and overall ecosystem. 6.1 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS Goal 1: Restore, enhance, and protect the watershed basin associated with Streams A and B and Wetlands A and B. Objective 1: As mitigation for unavoidable stream channel and buffer alterations, restore and enhance the structural diversity of approximately 29,595 sf stream channel, wetland, buffer and open space by diversifying the plant community through planting native herbaceous, shrub, and tree species. Performance Standard: Plant survival will be 100% after one year. Any plant mortality within the restoration areas at the end of first year will be replaced per a one-year plant guarantee. Plant survivability will be 85% for all planted trees and shrubs, or at least 80% cover of equivalent recolonized native species, by the end of the five-year monitoring period. Goal 2: Provide increased soil binding and channel stability within the channels of Streams A and B from the erosive forces that result from undetained off-site stormwater discharge through the installation of native plantings, woody material, live fascines, and riprap revetment. Objective 2: Reduce incising and other erosion within the existing channels by installing soil binding and channel stabilizing features, such as native plantings, woody material, live fascines, and riprap revetment. Performance Standard: Quarterly visits during the first year following construction will be completed to inspect the installation of native plantings, channel enhancement features, and note any erosion that may occur. Any noted erosion occurring on the project site within channels Stream A or B will be corrected as needed. Goal 3: Provide increased opportunity for sequestering of pollutants/toxicants within released stormwater through the attenuation of flows and the installation of native plantings, woody material, and live fascines. 28 August 2006 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 931 CAReport(28Aug06).doc Page 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Defoor Short Plat Wetland Study, Stream Assessment, Habitat Study, Watershed Restoration and Mitigation Plan Objective 3: Through the installation of native plantings, woody material, and live fascines, provide the opportunity for sequestering of pollutants/toxicants and therefore, improve water quality within Streams A and B and Wetlands A and B. Performance Standard: Quarterly visits during the first year following construction will be completed. Analysis of turbidity levels at upstream and downstream locations, within Streams A and B, will be performed using a Hach 21 OOP field turbidimeter to show, at a minimum, a no net increase in turbidity leaving the site. 6.2 Plantings The plant species used in the mitigation plan (Sheet W2.0) were chosen for a variety of qualities, including: adaptation to specific water regimes, value to wildlife, value as a physical or visual barrier, growth habit (structural diversity), and aesthetic values. Native tree, shrub and herbaceous species were chosen to increase both the structural and species diversity of the riparian and upland areas, thereby increasing the area's value to wildlife for food and cover. Plant materials will consist of a combination of bare-root specimens, container plants, cuttings, and seed. 6.3 Habitat Features Down logs, stumps, and brush piles from existing significant conifer and deciduous trees will be incorporated into the on-site portion of channel enhancement and riparian restoration to provide ecologically important habitat features for wildlife. These habitat features will be relocated from areas on the project site that will be cleared for development. Down logs, stumps, and brush piles provide the slow release of nutrients as the wood decays, while also providing cover for amphibians, small mammals, and other wildlife. Boulders recovered from the site excavation will be placed in small piles throughout the restoration area. These piles provide habitat for reptiles and small mammals. 6.4 Irrigation A temporary above-ground irrigation system will be designed and installed by the landscape contractor for the restoration area. To minimize the potential for plant desiccation in the restoration area, a soil moisture retention agent will be incorporated into the backfill of all planting pits. 7.0 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT A pre-construction meeting will be held on site to review and discuss all aspects of the proposed restoration project prior to any construction activity. The owner, as well as a City representative, will attend the meeting. Prior to commencement of any work by contractors adjacent to the critical areas, the clearing limits will be staked and fenced. Silt fences will be installed at the clearing limits and significant habitat features and vegetation to be retained will be clearly marked in the field. A wetland biologist or landscape architect will regularly supervise plan implementation during construction to ensure that the restoration plan is completed as designed. Any significant modifications to the design that may occur as a result of unforeseen circumstances will be approved by the owner, the City, and Talasaea Consultants prior to their implementation. Stormwater containment and erosion control will adhere to King County's Erosion and Sediment Control Standards as stated in King County Municipal Code (KMC) 15.25.090. This will occur through the use of King County approved Best Management Practices (BMPs) during construction to protect the water quality of Wetland A and Streams A and B from possible 28 August 2006 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 931 CAReport(28Aug06).doc Page 12 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Defoor Short Plat Wetland Study, Stream Assessment, Habitat Study, Watershed Restoration and Mitigation Plan impacts. Implementing BMPs will act to minimize erosion and sedimentation and protect water quality within the wetlands and stream during storm events. Silt fences, straw bales, and other structures will be installed to slow runoff and remove suspended sediments during construction. BMPs to be implemented may include, but will not be limited to: • Street sweeping, • Rocked road entries, • Silt fencing, • Catch basin inserts, • Temporary cover, • Interceptor swales, • Rock-lined swales, • Rock check dams or triangle silt dikes, and • Site runoff containment. Street sweeping will be implemented to clean construction sediments from roads to minimize sediment-laden runoff into storm drains. Rocked road entries will minimize mud and sediment collection on roadways. Catch basin inserts will act as sediment control during construction by removing sediment and other pollutants adsorbed to sediments from stormwater. Silt fencing at the clearing limits will reduce over-ground stormwater sediment transport. Temporary cover (i.e., straw or plastic sheeting) to exposed soils and stockpiles will reduce the availability of exposed sediments to over-ground stormwater sediment transport. Interceptor swales will divert construction runoff from sensitive areas to treatment facilities. Rock-lined swales will reduce the sediment loads in stormwater runoff. Rock check dams or triangle silt dikes will be placed in the interceptor swales to reduce the velocity and sediment loads of stormwater runoff. Site runoff containment will detain and treat stormwater prior to release to ensure water quality within State surface water quality standards under WAC 173.201A. Other BMPs will be implemented, as appropriate. 8.0 MONITORING METHODOLOGY Performance monitoring of the wetland and stream buffer mitigation areas will be conducted for a period of five years, with reports submitted annually to the City of Renton according to the schedule presented in Table 1. Reports will include: a) photo-documentation, b) estimates of percent vegetative cover, plant survival and undesirable species, c) water quality and hydrology, d) wildlife usage, and e) an overall qualitative assessment of project success for the wetland mitigation. T bl 1 C I d f P rf a e a en ar or e ormance M 't . Onl Orlng an d M . t aln enance E t ven s Year 1 Year 2 Baseline Conditions PM-2 PM-3 PM-4 PM-5 AssessmentlPM-1 MR MR R, MR MR R, MR R, MR Winter Spring Summer Fall Spring Fall Year 3 Year 4 YearS MR PM-6 MR PM-7 MR PM-8* R, MR R, MR R, MR Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall *Obtam final approval to get release of bond from City of Renton (presumes performance criteria are met). PM = Performance Monitoring R = Report MR = Maintenance Memo and Review 8.1. Vegetation 28 August 2006 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 931 CAReport(28Aug06).doc Page 13 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Defoor Short Plat Wetland Study. Stream Assessment. Habitat Study. Watershed Restoration and Mitigation Plan Permanent vegetation sampling points or transects will be established to incorporate all of the representative plant communities. The same monitoring locations will be re-visited each year with a record kept of all plant species found. Vegetation will be recorded on the basis of relative percent cover of the dominant species within the vegetative strata. All monitoring will be conducted by a qualified biologist. Photo-points will be established from which photographs will be taken throughout the monitoring period. These photographs will document general appearance and progress in plant community establishment in the mitigation area. Review of the photos over time will provide a semi- quantitative representation of success of the planting plan. Monitoring and photo-point locations will be shown and described in the baseline assessment report. 8.2 Water Quality, Hydrology, and Bank Stability During each monitoring event, the water regime within the mitigation area will be assessed to ensure that proper hydrological conditions exist within both the wetland and its buffer. Water quality will be assessed qualitatively; unless it is evident there is a serious problem. In such an event, water quality samples will be taken and analyzed in a laboratory for suspected pollutants. Qualitative assessments of water quality may include: • Oil sheen or other surface films, • Abnormal color or odor of water, • Stressed or dead vegetation or aquatic fauna, • Turbidity, and • Absence of aquatic fauna. In addition, bank stability of on-site streams banks will be noted and any areas of potential erosion or bank undercutting will be described. In the event that erosion or bank instability is observed, the source of erosion will be determined immediately and corrective actions will occur as necessary. 8.3 Wildlife Birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians and invertebrates, which are readily observable (either by direct or indirect means) will be identified and recorded in the wetland and buffer areas. Direct observations include actual sightings, while indirect observations include tracks, scat, nests, song, or other indicative signs. The kinds and locations of habitat with greatest use by each species will be noted, as will any breeding or nesting activities. 9.0 SUCCESS CRITERIA Success of plant establishment within the mitigation area will be evaluated on the basis of both percent survival and percent cover. For woody planted species, success will be based on at least an 85% survival rate of all planted trees and shrubs, or at least 80% cover of equivalent recolonized native species, by the end of the five-year monitoring period. Noxious plant species will be maintained at levels below 20% total cover, except in the wetland mitigation area, where reed canarygrass is currently the dominant herbaceous species. Noxious weed species will be defined as those identified on the most current King County Noxious Weed List and may include Scot's broom, Himalayan and evergreen blackberry, purple loosestrife, hedge bindweed, Japanese knotweed, English ivy, and creeping nightshade. Removal and control of these invasive plant species will be achieved through routine maintenance in the mitigation areas. Such maintenance is necessary to achieve successful 28 August 2006 Talasaea Consultants. Inc. 931 CAReport(28Aug06).doc Page 14 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Defoor Short Plat Wetland Study, Stream Assessment, Habitat Study, Watershed Restoration and Mitigation Plan plant establishment and compliance with the 20% threshold for the listed exotic/invasive species. Removal of undesirable species will occur by hand whenever possible. No chemical treatment will be employed without prior approval by the City. 10.0 MAINTENANCE (M) and CONTINGENCY (C) Established performance standards for the project will be compared to the monitoring results in order to judge the success of the mitigation project. Contingency will include the items listed below and would be implemented if these performance standards are not met. Maintenance and remedial action on the site will be implemented immediately upon completion of the monitoring event (unless otherwise specifically indicated below). 1. Replace dead plants with the same species or a sUbstitute species that meets the goal and objectives of the mitigation plan (C) 2. Re-plant areas after reason for failure has been identified (e.g., moisture regime, poor plant stock, disease, shade/sun conditions, wildlife damage, etc.) (C) 3. Perform corrective measures, as necessary, to provide adequate hydrology to support the desired wetland plant community (C) 4. Irrigate all planted areas with a temporary above ground system for a minimum of 2 years following plant installation (M) 5. Excavate, as needed, to correct alterations of surface drainage patterns (C) 6. Remove/control weedy or exotic invasive plants twice yearly by manual or chemical means approved by the City of Renton. Use of herbicides or pesticides within the mitigation area would only be implemented if other measures failed or were considered unlikely to be successful, and would require prior agency approval (C & M) 7. Clean-up trash and other debris within the mitigation areas on a twice-yearly basis (M) 8. Selectively thin and prune woody plants to meet the mitigation plan's goal and objectives (e.g., removal of dead or diseased portions of trees/shrubs and thinning of volunteer trees such as red alder) (M) 11.0 PERFORMANCE BOND A performance bond will be posted with the City of Renton by the property owner for the cost of replacement of plantings and the five-year monitoring plan to assure the success of the mitigation plan. The bond may be released in partial amounts in proportion to work successfully completed over the monitoring period as the applicant demonstrates performance for implementing the conditions of the plan. 12.0 AS-BUILT PLAN Following completion of construction activities, an as-built plan for the wetland mitigation area will be provided to the City of Renton. The plans will identify and describe any changes in grading, planting or other constructed features such as open rail fence in relation to the original approved plan. 13.0 SUMMARY A critical areas and wildlife study was conducted on a 1 0.13-acre (approximate) property, located in the City of Renton, Washington. This study was conducted to document and characterize existing sensitive areas, including wetlands, streams, and wildlife habitat for a proposed five lot residential development. 28 August 2006 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 931 CAReport(28Aug06).doc Page 15 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Defoor Short Plat Wetland Study, Stream Assessment, Habitat Study, Watershed Restoration and Mitigation Plan Four streams and two wetlands were identified and/or determined by the City to exist within the project site. All critical areas identified on the property are hydrologically supported by undetained point discharges of stormwater from adjacent surface streets. Three of the streams (Streams Band C and Drainage 1) show no evidence of previous existence prior to the release of stormwater onto the property around 1950. Stream C and Drainage 1 are regulated by the City as Class 4 streams. Stream B, although apparently identical to Stream C and Drainage 1 in origin, has been classified as a Class 3 stream based on the presence of apparent perennial flow by the City's environmental consultant. Stream A, also hydrologically supported by undetained stormwater, appears to have existed prior to the release of stormwater and therefore is classified as a Class 4 stream, requiring a 35-foot buffer. Wetlands A and Bare classified as a Class 3 wetlands and require 25-foot buffers. The proposed project has been designed to minimize impacts to critical areas by avoiding Stream A, Stream B, Wetland A, and Wetland B. However, alterations to the buffer of Stream A, Stream B, and to the channel of Drainage 1 are unavoidable to support the development goals of the project. To mitigate for impacts to buffer and stream alterations, a watershed basin restoration and mitigation plan has been developed. Through the implementation of this plan, no net loss of wetland area, wetland functions, or stream functions will occur. 28 August 2006 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 931 CAReport(28Aug06) .doc Page 16 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Defoor Short Plat Wetland Study, Stream Assessment, Habitat Study, Watershed Restoration and Mitigation Plan 14.0 REFERENCES AC. Kindig & Co, Cedarock Consultants Inc. 27 February 2003. City of Renton: Best Available Science Literature Review and Stream Buffer Recommendations. City of Renton. Online: http://www.ci.renton.wa.us/ednsp/images/caostrea.pdf Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior. FWSOBS-70/31. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss. Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation. 1989. Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S.D.A Soil Conversation Service, Washington, D.C. Hitchcock, C. L., and A Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press. 730 pp. Icicle Creek Engineers. 17 January 2005. Coal Mine Hazard Assessment and Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation Report. King County. Dec.1990. King County Sensitive Area Folio and Wetland Inventory. Munsell Color. 1988. Munsell Soil Color Charts. Kollmorgen Instruments Corp., Baltimore, Maryland. Reed, P.B. Jr. 1988. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Northwest (Region 9). USF&WS BioI. Report 88. Reed, P.B. Jr. 1993. Supplement to: National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Northwest (Region 9). USF&WS BioI. Report 88. Renton, City of. 25 April 2005. Renton Municipal Code. Washington State Department of Natural Resources Forest Practice Application Review System (FPARS), "ArclMS". < http://www3.wadnr.gov/dnrapp5/website/fpars/viewer.htm> June 2005 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, King County Area Soil Survey. 1973. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1988. National Wetlands Inventory Map, Renton Quadrangle. 28 August 2006 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 931 CAReport(28Aug06).doc Page 17 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Defoor Short Plat Wetland Study, Stream Assessment, Habitat Study, Watershed Restoration and Mitigation Plan APPENDIX A Wetland Delineation Data Sheets (Talasaea, 2005) 28 August 2006 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 931 CAReport(28Aug06).doc Appendix A I I I I I I I I I . , , , DATA FORM 1 "" . " Routine Wetl;mdDeternrlnation '", , (WA State ,Wetland Delineation Manual or '1987 Co s WetIilDd Delineation Manual) Project/Site:j.)~&'f2--f~12J ~ ,~~ ~~' Date: ~I , Applicant/owner: -re-ri-~ ~~ -~IJ\lCc/I~. , Investiaator(s): ':WV L-wt'~ 6J.'t Do Nonmu Circurns ces exist OD the ,site? ' ~ no Is the site sigriificantlydisrurbed (atypical situation)?: yes Is the,areaa otential Problem Area?'" , , VEGETATION Stratum li-,n '~, Indicator Dominant Plant S ecies' HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: , ,,' I % of dominants OBL,FAC\\l"& FAC:' 0~r/6 " Check all ,indicators that apply & explaiiI below: ,.: '" .. . '. Stratum Indicator Regionalknowledgeof'plantcommuiJities "WetiandPI~tli~, ~, OTIfER Physiol9gical or reproductive adaptations _' _' '_, MorphologIcal adaptatlons ", " Technical Literature Wetland PlantData Base Hydrophytic vegetation present? no I Rationale for decisionIRemarks: ' ,,'," " , ' ' ~o,.r-&2S .. ~ .. v,eg#~~;~~ . 1-:--:' :HYDROE()GY:-'~.::-:-~-:-::,,-··~~::-·,-~-,· c_, •• -.-~-, ~--•• -+ ----.+-._,-" Is it the growingseason? " ~, I~:~~~~:~~::~d . on-: --~~:'-N-~-'--'-Oxidized Root (live roots) , " , " , : of ~ ~ t-:C=-h:-ann::-:-e::-l_s _<-:12_m'7' -' ,,-e_s~n::::o~, +::::--;..,--------1 I Depth to free water in pit: _ . ~L&inches ,',' " ' II. FAC Neutral: I, ,Ye:s® Water-stained , .---.--.---.. --------___ .~ ____ ~-----.....tcTJ~---. --.'---.. -..---__ ... Leaves: Depth to saturated'soil:::--' "N A-incheSV' " ""--~--"--. I Check all that apply & explain below: 1\[1 . ./:¥, Other: Stream, Lake or gage data: Aerial hotolITa hs: Other: ' __ I Wetland hyqrologypresent?' . ,yes" '., .. ~ .. RatiO .. nale for dec.iiiiOnlRemr.:k.t: Q", i.~~j ;., n t A I I 1 ' . I ~r..+ ~--r:J-r~ v£:t'r""1"J ,(~' " '--.,. c/I ~. I Profile Description Matrix color Mottle colors ,MattIe abundance. Texture, concretions, 'Drawingofsoil" (Muns~ll . (Munsell .' size &. contraSt structure,etc. profile Depth HoriZon (inches) I-_--'-~I--.....,_--+-~m::.:o::.:is:.:t)i--_r-...:.m::.;o:.:i.:;;st~) --t--~-----+--------I "(match description) -_ ... , .1 '~.' ~r~ . '~oYL,f~ .... { Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) .. ~ Ctf}.Il P. Ae-~-A ."~t'-\ . . ,,~ " t5 "::-i/ "-:,_ ~ . , I I I ._-, 1 Histosol . -Concretions . .' .' . .. . I·· .. . HisticEpip~_ctQ.!1 __ -:.-___ -:-_~ __ -n_ --High-OrgankContent.in_Surface-Layer of-SandyoSoils---. c'--'-'-- . sulfidic Odor .. , ." __ . _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils , .' . _. _. _. Aquic Moisture Regime _'. __ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List" .. :._. _._ReducingConditions ' .. __ .ListedonNationalHYdric$oilsList" Gle ed or Low-Chroma Col . _' _._ Other (ex lain in remarks) .. , . . ·1 Hydric soils present? yes Rationale fordecisionlRemarks: .~ <\,<)}5'th~f7 ,~"'&~l (.~;~~. 1 Wetland Determiilation(circle) ~ -~--~-------~-------~ ---~-----------.~--~---.---~--------.~---.--------.-.. --"-----_..:. __ ._---- ----.: -=----:..--------------------'--. ~ -' -_.-----_. raTES: --······ __ .. _······_··--·---1 I . ~. I I I 1 1 1 I I I I I . .. ,DATAFORMI ........ Routine WetIandDetemrlnation' '.' cwA StateWetl~d Deiineatio~MaIiuai or' -'1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual) ProjectlSite: -r)~~~r~1LJ ~ ... ~.~ ~ ~. Applicantlowner:1't91Z-~ J)~ ,-~.vJC/I~. . Investigator(s):-:P.e-v· \cku ~ 0Vt. County: ~N tl State: 'N~M,~Pt. SfflR: NWV4-~ '~I'{ ~ Do Normal Circumsla:I1~es exist on the .site? • ~ no . Is the sitesigilific~tly disturbed (atypical situation)? ·yes ,~ Is the area a potentIal Problem Area?' . .. ....•. yes -,(" no "') VEGETATION ~ • V Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species' Stratum Indicator 'p '. .' HYDROPHYTICVEGETATION INDICATORS: I. . ~t":'- % of dominants OBL, FACW, & FAC:'VfY'!~ ~~~~~~~~~======~~~=-~~~d-- 1 I I Check all indicators that apply & expJ~ below: RegionalknowIedge'~fpIantcommunities .' .... ,', Wetl~dPI~tlist(tlat'I)r~) ~ •. Physiolggical or reproductive adaptations . , -, MorplIoJogIcal adap't.at(ons : .. Technical Literature . Wetland Plant Data Base Hydrophytic vegetation present? Rationale. for decisionIRemarks: OTHER __ 1-_---HYDROLOGY.--=-:.=~,~:..:~'·-__ " .... ----.-~-,---.-~.-=--.--.--===-:============::--~-=-_:._::-::. -::_'::''':'-===-::-:-======--=::.=-=--=-::=:-..:::: Is, it the growin~ season? ~ ',. 'no Water Marks: . yes (ijo:;> Sediment Deposits: 'yes (110 1:--:-' . -B;;~don;~~ =-~""t=~ '. ~ r-DriftLines: ---yes-4!o-_). -Drainage::Eatterns: _. yes-:..~ ~~=- Dept. of inundation: ,,~ Mi'nches., Oxidized Root. (live rootS[ Local Soil Survey: : yes--€,' - I~. I 1 I '7 .' No1\Q.. '. Channels <12 ill. yes ~ ?-=p~~_~ f~~~_~~~.e~.~~ ~it: __ .~_ ... ~~~~~~c_~e.~_lr;:;t. _ ~ ~_C_~~~~~ ___ ~~~_~_ ~:~;~~taiJIe~_ Deiithto satriratefi soil: _. . "'~mchesc~.-. ..-.----'" Check all that appiy . & e. xplain below: rf / k.' Other: Stream, Lake or gage data: __ / Aerialphotmrraphs: Other: Wetland byd,rology present?· .. yes -.. (no'),. Rationale for decisionlRemarks: '-....,,/' ~ .·~t-~h'4f1 'We~ ~J~(~JCI~'cn.t, .. : '-.-' .... -... _ .. SOILS M~HnitName~yik ~·Ov~"~.·.·· .••..•....•... -.• ~.J.~ .. · •.. · ... ·.1 .. Drnin~.g~. c .•. ~as. s t1€.~ -col ~;J.v&/ (Senes & Phase) .... '. C.7~# -? Co 6g\~ -".: ' " __ ." :' . .'- 'Taxonom .' (S~b" ~u J' '. :". . ,.: ..... ". ' .•.. ', '(:'. '" ." ...•.•. , -.. ' ~~ld ::ser:;tion~ conrmn@ Nb Prome Description Depth Horizon Matrix color Mottle colors . Mottle abundance Texture, concretions, . Drawing of soil (inches) (Munsell . (Munsell size & contraSt structure, etc. profile I-_-'-...........,I--~ __ +-,...-.::m:.:o:.:;:is:..:.t)'---+_~m:.:o..::.:is:..:<t'----l~------t----~-.....:...-l "(match description) .. ~' <: ~ ' .. Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) .' . I -I I Histosol ". ----. Concretions . .. . . I Histic Epi'p~oQ ,_~_' . ~~ ______ --~~'.:High~OrganicCbntent-in-Surface-Layer0t.sandy-Soils·-----::-- Sulfidic Odor . . ..... _-_ .. _. Organic Streaking ill Sandy Soils . . __ Aquic MoistUre Regime __ 'Listed on Local Hydric Soils LiSt ._. _. _.RedutingConditions·. _. __ :ListedonNatibIiaIHydric Soils-List - Gle ed or Low-Chroma Colors __ .. _., Other (ex lain iiI remarks) ., .- I fIydric soils preSent? .. ' . yes , " ~ationale for declsion/Remarks: I ....... . ~~. IkOt ~~yVl~~1t:K1~~. I Vetland· Determination . (circle) .. =~~~Phyti~"-ve-g-etation present? . CJeQ. ". ho-.' . '. .--.----~-==:=:-.-~-~-==-:~--==J ydric s~ils present? . eyes: ~~ Istbesampliog point yes 9· . ;::~:me:~kS:~S~?~-u .·tlrin-a-wetI:n;aniil. (J!~-.• r:1 ============== --.. -----~-~~ ~~--~~-=I . .. ;" .~~~~~,~-p~n ~~ .. ~~~-.• -~---c--~--~~~--------~-----------------1 •• -•• "'."-;-;':--T.---.'-. --:--'-~--.' )TES: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,I I I '. DATA FORM 1 ~~Routine Wetland Detennination .. cWAStateWeti~d Deli~eationMaIi~~ ~~ "1987 Co sWetland Delineation Manual) project/Site:l)~p~ f~1"lJ~ .. ~.~. ~ .. yPr-' Date: ~I· ~* "UJ75T3 Applicant/owner.~E?1'L~ ~~ -~'AfC-/I~. hlvestiaator(s):, . 1W l.u.t. ~ 6V1.. Do Normal Circwns ces exist OD the site?· .. ~ no Is the site significantly ~sturbed (atypical situation)? '.' yes. Is the area a otential Problem Area?" .~--- VEGETATION Stratum . Indicator Dominant Plant S eCles Stratum Indicator '-r::. r HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: '. r .. ' %of dominants OBL, FACW. & FAC:' .. l 'JDIn' Check all indic~tors that apply & explain· belo~: -' . .. Regional knowledge~f'plantcomIDunities Physiol9gicaI or reproductive adaptations Technical Literature' Hydrophytic vegetation present? Rationale for decisionlRemarks: ,HYDROLOGY .' Wetl~d'plant list~r r@ '~. < Morphological ada~s •. " ". . . .,. Wetland Plant Data Base no ... ; --=..::::._--_. .~. O'T"'D"1:1R ,r: . .1 IJ...J::., -. Is it the growing season Z .. no . F.:.:W;".::a~te~r:::M~ar:::;=:k~s:=~::=~~±::.::.:::~=~:c~~l.<~~ F-'&;d~n~~ ---~--'-.-~+--'-'-~-.-. -::--~~-:Di:lliriries:==-' Dept. of inundation: ~lDches I I I Depth ~o free water in pit: . "._ ... ~ inches .. , .. . ... ~e~~~~::~~~-~:~~··~~~'--~~·O--~ih;s~;~·-' '~-. ,,-,--~".--.-::~.~.~~ ~~~:-; .. -' Check all that apply & explain below: Stream, Lake or gage data: Aerial hotoQTIl hs: Wetland hyd,rology present? Rationale for decisionlRemarks:. . .~~ Other: ,. ",'no , yes 8· . 8 OILS ~apun1tNameAkf~t~~2f('3'":rl""pi"ainageoass.~V:m\"I~ , (Se ... ries&P, has e) ,'.' ~,~.'( '., $~", .... t' ..•. "' .. ',." .,.",':'.' ' ... ' ·c,'. ':.-. :() ','·.1 ' .. ',' Field~bse~ationsconfrrm Yes.' ~,., .' N fP-ed e? ~ Profile Description Dt?pth Horizon Matrix color MattIe colors Mottle abundance . Texture,concretions, Drawing of soil (inches) (Munsell . (Munsell . size & contraSt structure, etc. profile I-_---"-~f'--___,_---f-~m=oi:=..st~) _+----=m=o~i:=..st='-)_-+ ______ --I-__ ~_:..._..._~·· "(match description) 6-1yiF;\~~o/~~-prf~---~~~, '~. :-,' ---.. '--.-.---':~~~~ .--:;.-::::~~::'~"'-:?·~:E~:~.~~ ~'.: ... ~ __ -_. ,-0 ••.. ~ .; .". :.>i;'=':~_.:,-; .. '~~:.~': . •... ----;-:.-::-:::~-:~;:::;-:=::--.­ : __ .,"-_.;:.:..o:::=--=':-~i-.'--'~ . .' , ...... ;. .~ .... :;-.::-~---.. . -::-,c ~:.~,:~-:c:: :.~" .. ~'(~' I I I 1 ,I Hydric Soil Indicators: (checkallthatapply) __ ._ Histosol . ..' , Concretions ", . . - . . . Histic Epip_~don ',-=-:-:,-~~ .. '---:lfi~h~erganid~on~e~t.'in-Surfa~e--Layeref SandycSoils-~:--I . _:_._ Suifi~ic Odor ..•.. ,. ". ", ' . , :. _. _' _ OrganIc StreakiiIg m Sandy Soils: '. _. __ Aquic Moisture' Regime . _. _ ListedonLocal Hydric Soils List '. . ~ ReducingConditions\,:" ., __ :Listed on National Hydric Soils. List" .' 'I _ GleedorLow-ChromaCo}ors " _"'_'_Other(eilamiiIremarks)" " .. Hydric soils preSent? yes DO "'" Rationale for deCisionIRernID: :'i , . , ~t,s.p~~& .$",\\ ~'~'Th" Wetland. Determination (circle) I I no 1 no Is the sampling point /f€S) no rOTES: -no--==witliin:----a=wetranfr?---------~-==-------------.::=====- 1 , . Ar~" -]v ~ .(e>-~fe,,! OX ~~lJv--~<--1 ~""'-~_~f·c.e-.\A-~~~c; ".' , .. 1 I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I ··· .. -,. I I 1 I '" DATAFORM 1 .. ··Routine Wetland Detennination ' (WA StateWetl~dDeIineation MaJiu~ ~r orps· e an e ea on anu 1987 C W tI d D lin ti M a1) Project/Site: 1:> ~l7f2-f~12J ..:.-. ~~ ,'-V¢r (O.v-J C-, I~ Applicant/owner: -rE?fL~ l;;>~ -. Date:p.-I ~*,.~ county~~ . III vestigator( s) :-:p.w r:.ku· ~ 6l.-t State: 1Ite; •. ~pt SITIR: NW ~ S ~~ rJ 1z .. :t; E:.' Do Noi:mal Circumshdl,ces exist on the site? ~ no. . Community ID:~I-1.!-sk~ b Is the site sigriific~tly disturbed (atypical situation)? "yes ~. Transect ID: . '..., Is the area Ii potentIal Problem Area?' .' . . yes . r no '1 Plot ID:-r€-~PI6t 4:/N L~ VEGETATION ~ L ' O. \ Dominant Plant Species Stnrtum ··Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator ~~> d~b-t~-, S ~l1- \ , .. . .. ,' " - HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: I. , .. -t;,: -rub/o ( % of dominants OBL, FACW,& FAC: ,--l , . . , -+- Check all indicators that apply & explain below: ,. ,. Regional knowledge of'plant communities' Wetland plant list C@:pr r~~ ~ OTIfER --• Physiol9gicalor reproductiyeaCIapt3tions --Morpbological adaptatlons ' " '. --Technical Literature Wetland Plimt Data Base . . Hydropbytic. vegetation present? yes V Rationale for decisionlRemarks: . " .~ '~t~~~ ~~.' , .. ~~., \t€j.. ,znt ~vT~~1 IDvROLOGY " , ~~~~~:;~tlse;~.~~~=,.' . no _~J:::S:·. :~d.~1.·~::~~ ~=~~:;::t: D .... . ----- Dept. of inundation: ~ii;ghes Oxidized Root (live'ro~ Local Soii Survey: :yes'-'~.' , .. Channels < 12 in. yes no Depth to free w~er in pit: ~inches_. FAC Neutral: ,yes,~. Water-stained . --~.-.-..... -.-~.-~-.. -.. -----.-.. --..... _-----._--V~~6~es~~k-_ .• _ .• ___ .1-___ .• --.--,--_ .. _._: .•. --Leaves; . .-.... -.~-.yes·e . -"--~--:-----. . -" .. Depth to sariIraiedsoil: --'. -.-..... Check all that apply & explain below: I Other:' \ Stream, Lake or gage data: -- Aerial photo!mlphs: -Other: Wetland hyqrology present? '.:: ~ . 'no . ...-. '. _. . .... , .' .. Ratio~ fordecisiOnJRe~t~ ~~ 't!~ ~tl) "lJ~ ·~(,Vj m!!+a-'.~ ~ w-:e-~ .. ~I ~f;'~ .. . ~. YO[~l-1 W' ~.. ". U UJ f"SOILS ·.1 MaP~nitNameA[~ .; .~~ ~rS) (Series & Phase) . \J~ ~~ .' ..... .. . .'.'.' . I 'ttn~.·~L,e .. <Drainage Class _. ---'v"--'-:---'--_'------'----'_ -. . . Fieldobservations COnIInTI Yes. Ko). ed 'e? ~ Taxonom Profile Description Depth Horizon Matrix: color ,Mottle colors . Mottle abundance Texture, concretions, . Dra wing of soil (inches) (Munsell (Munsell . size & contraSt . strucWre,etc. profile 1--_---'-___ 1----,--__ -+-....... ...::m=:;.o~i.::..;st;<....) ---'+-~m=:;.o""is.::..;t;<....) --+-------+----------1 "(match description) . D-~;/A·· t~(L%' ~~'~~l'(;~~· '- I( Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) I I I I I I I I I Histosol -Concretions I' ____ ~Histic Epjp~gQn_. _'_" ._. _:--, _, ... _., ~~, __ --:::-:_ .. --....... .Bigh~Organi~Contentin-SurfaGe-Layer of-Sandy-Soils-· --:-::.--- _' __ Sulfidic Odor _'_ Organic StreakiiIgin Sandy Soils _. _. _ Aquic :Mojsture Regime __ ' _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List' . '_. __ ReducingConditioDs,' __ :Listed on National Hydric $oils.List- GleyedorLow.,~aCoIOrS .' Other, (explain in reJIlarks) , . .. . Hy~ric soilspr~e~t? ,., .0.!:YJlO' .- RatIOnale for dec~;r;~ ~ckl-~ 1vVl~~> Wetland Determination (circle) .... . . ... ::---.~--.... ~--.---:,;;-:.---------- OTES: I I 1 I ···1 .1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Defoor Short Plat Wetland Study, Stream Assessment, Habitat Study, Watershed Restoration and Mitigation Plan APPENDIX 8 City of Renton Internal Records Search Results (Renton, 2005) 28 August 2006 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 931 CAReport(28Aug06).doc Appendix B I I I I . I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Kathy Keolker-Wheeler. Mayor April 22,2005 Per Johnson, Ecologist Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 15020 Bear Creek Road NE Woodinville, WA 98077 CIT"\ OF RENTON PlanningIBuildingIPublic Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator C'~'l~~ I,' I I 'By SUBJECT: STORM DRAIN MAPS, RENTON AVE SOUTH. Please find enclosed the storm drain inventory map [or the area surrounding Renton Ave South, and some old plans for Cedar Ave. The storm system in Renton Ave South was mapped from field observations, and we do not have any plans for this system. Downstream, at 1-405, the drainage converges on a 48" diameter culvert under the highway. Please refer to the enclosed fieldbook copy. If you have any questions regarding this mailing, please contact me at 425-430-7392 or by email at rvanderroest(ci)ci .renton. wa.lIs. s;nce",c; Raymond van der Roest, PE Surface Water Utility Enclosures ® This paper contains 50% recycled malerial. 30% post consumer flHE:\J) Ill' THE ClIHVE ... zzo ZlS ZlO ~~i;~p~5Ll' CONe. DRIVEWAY .,-Iti' ~ 1 ~ SHEET 10 OF 10 .4DJUST iriON. CASC a coveR CEDAR =---<2---<===1 AVE. s. ~NCAT.c @ '~I i' If..~h!; I i;IE STA, 19~Z'O CONST rYP(, '0' CONe. DRIVEWAY ... ·/0' JOIN EXIST. p~ VEM£NT :~;::,s: iox~,g:~~ Rf:OUJRCD ---------------------------:------~----------------------=-=--I·If'-~--~~-:;,~~-.. --.-If .,' . ~.c._. ________________________ __ STA, ' ... :1-0 TO $TA./7.,O CONSr: Q:WC SIO('WALK ~R OETAIL jl', SHEET 2 "-,--"'-:--' " . _____________ IG"u srA.I6 ... oJ c::DNST. TYPE 0' CONe. ORN&AY w-/O' e SCALE,!:· 20' HDRIZ I • 10' VERT: .. if. __ .. .. -~ .. Ii) ."2 .• , . ~ PROPOSED TOP OF CURB, CAST" no ~ . .. . ~~ _, -I ,.. ~ 220 ':!!: ".00 ". m PROPOSED £ GRADE / . "'C T ---,---. DII"r., ..... tJC.L PR,JPOSED ~ u Jll L t .Lt--' ,. ,~~'" ..... ~ .. .... e' .. " ' " ,-' .. . ., . " +.+(J " f41D a . , ~ '\-! I I~ ~ ~ ~- :...uu_ R-I2.26 L .1.0. 2 !JJ-STREET IMPROVEMENTS CEDAR AVENUE sa so. JRo. ST. TO so. 5TH. ST. ,,'i. •.. ", ",. ,.;; i . A". SHOtlt'N ~c!.~~. AI '0 iiiiiii\i~M~~~~~~!r,t1~J;~~~~~("%$~~~tG.:::··· "f'" .. ;c 3-1-/03 '" ~'. <-; ': ;~~!~~·:t·::-}~~·~~7~~t~t~·'-1Ef:~ ~!:~X;·~~1.t:':~~;~::.fi~~!~].~~:~·.~·.~~·~;-;~~ ------------------- I I I I I I I I I ',I I I I I I I I I I Storm System PIB/PW TECHNICAL SEllVlCES OJll2l05 F4 -17 T23N R5E W 1/2 / I r--: I I ~~~~~.( , , , , , , , il!) , .. ~ -~ . • I ._ J I I , ___ "~,, ,~-... ~o .yo 1:4800 G4 20 T23N R5E W 1/2 5320 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 Defoor Short Plat 28 August 2006 Wetland Study, Stream Assessment, Habitat Study, Watershed Restoration and Mitigation Plan APPENDIX C Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitats and Species Database Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 931 CAReport(28Aug06).doc Appendix C I 1 1 1 I I I. I. I. 1- I· I I I I I I I I ~ .. ,{-.: '; .:',' .. --: . 7t~~:~~;:. " ~ . 0:.,":" .;~: ~.~\:~\:. "' . .' -. ~ ... -:;-.•. :::....-::; ':-:: . .. ' l "'.~ -;.:... .: . ,at .;~:~._ ~ IN THE VICINITY Of YZ311SE SECTION 28 lap Sule -I: Z •• 1IfIIl Coerdiul, S,slall -Slale .1_ Soatll lou HZ6 (1LIIItJ) 'rod""li ... Dale -la, ag. 1085 llep Deslpd bJ 1IllPJ lalo .... lin Seni •• s CIS 11 ••• -. aD, ~o.l.i • ...-!pHi .... t ..... 1.15 tlUll ... _, ~ideJ'ed :;:;!:I;,nac:mm;,.::i::: ·'i '~ISI= ::::: ::'::'-I!:i .. i.f~I'_ ... 'i~.-rco ~11:r\Nrr::. a:or .. d ..... c, .. .u:Df'CIICC •• s.... Ie .... dnNS .q .Jl!l6ctI. t::or .. , IN pineal .iI,t ..... ." •• 01 ••• DISCLlI •• :!:i::t':~"::imi:z ::r*!:.n:: t=r.!f!t:r.!IC ~"J.I:I CCl9lrfIU .,. .... IlIt.. II is ............. ,_ ~"'. r!'! .Ub _ .u ic;DI qa"f 1'~:lE .. 'e ._ .... 1$ •• , ... "oiut __ UsA OllIS .i1"iI~_ 1_h, 1.1.'CIOt;_ ""~" IDc '«ali ... , Ii ..... .i,.Il'e Ie-_ccs k , .. ton •• t .... _'~. II ...... U::I9ld. ; ....... , ... il is. ~'_I I ......... , I ........ ilIiU ... ~Cft -:E: ~ ;. :!!:!.~:! ~:!~=1L..a..:.1~'::::~~1s5;:! !~~:: !:-.!,!,~ 'U:,-.'" .. cnu", , ....... _, lie p.C$ftf;C .t .. ; .. iI, , ..... ccs .. ~-::!:-!.:!::'I:: ~~;!:. 6!':=;::t.!crlU~e!:~. r::i'~ :;t~i:.· rwtd .' •• '''e 'es0.4cd DIe _iec, '0 'fltt'i.U_ conacll .,. .isluta.cc. dI ... n i. sc-.oa" _ .. ,.c,. Mel' _"C'I '.d.rs. 1iDf1I' .... _t "ecc;,.. ....... iq ~ .... I ... si. _lias ald. ~:.;:nr:i;:"ia.i.!~.::t.i!_I.;. ;.'.rpa,. __ dC'. au ...... ...,. to PrJIIdIy IlUitalslSpecIes: ~IHifdsGIII~ O'HS) I'dp 8anIn @ Mdr WMl&I/dagI ftmIs o I'riIriIJ IWiIaI r..ms :: Ibf6II Mm!eI ftmIs (I/Qqm:y liIIs &If) ~ lid !iIe fs1!as (iII&id 5lI6a f-3) ~ ~ o " \ \ ...... :: .., lid...,..... Gd!s IlfdG60d ltnkr SpalIId Il0l ........ Gd!s UmIIiziad IIGa to ~ TlriIy !jpdIrII tid 5iIe I'8dIn (OIfiIiISIa 4) 0tIIeI SymIIoJs: Priarir ~ rBhI'lisalz Priarir I1IsiId fisII "- r -1 IWiaf 1MJak luriuy r' ~f.\. >""'-t-'<-')l--\ .-,.' ''', ~,~ B'U •• , -', -,j IHWl1FF. lim l1li S!nuns III l7f,IIlI Sate I!estM!n TomIip IDs SocIiu lie I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I __ .... __ •• __ .~ ............ ><0 ..................... J....o -J.I.Il.U.LJ.n.L,:) J'1.l" ~N THE VICINITY OF T23R05E SECTION 20 Report Date: May 09, 2005 Information About Priority Habitats and Species Polygons Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) polygons are labeled with a unique number and "+" symbol, roughly in the center of the polygon on the map. This PHS Poly number refers to a list of form numbers and species and habitat codes contained in the PHS Polygon Cross Reference Report (listed below). The form numbers refer to the attached PHS Polygon Report. This report details each species or habitat depicted as a polygon on the map. For a complete description of the codes used in this report please refer to the Fish and Wildlife Map Products document. This document may be viewed on our web site at http://www.wdfw.wa.gov/hab/release.htm. Priority Habitats and Species Polygon -Summary Habitat and Species List: This report and the accompanying maps may contain some species or habitats that are not considered priority by the agency. YES under the "PHS" column in the table below indicates that the species is considered a priority and is on the Priority Habitats and Species List and/or the Species of Concern List. NO under the "PHS" column indicates the species/habitat is not considered an agency priority. State PHS Status PHS Code Common Name Species Use Species Use Description YES YES UNOS WET URBAN NATURAL OPEN SPACE WETLANDS Priorit}' Habitats and Species Polygon Cross Reference Report: Form number 900000 indicates presence of PHS is unknown or the area was not mapped. or 909996 indicate compilation errors. PHS Poly# 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Form# 900000 902688 903661 902688 903661-903664 900000 902724 902725 902725 900000 902725 902725 902725 902522 902725 902725 902522 902538 902538 902538 902538 902723 PHS Code*Species Use *- UNOS*- UNOS*- UNOS*- UNOS*-WET*- *- WET*- WET*- WET*- *- WET*- WET*- WET*- WET*- WET*- WET*- WET*- WET*- WET*- WET*- WET*- WET*- Information About Wildlife Heritage Point Report Form numbers 909998, 909997, Wildlife Heritage points on the map can be referenced to this report by noting the quadpt number where the point occurs on the map, and then looking up the information listed below. This report is sorted by the quadpt number and provides details on each species depicted on the map. For a complete description of the codes used in this report, please refer to the Fish and Wildlife Map Products document. This document may be viewed on our web site at http://www.wdfw.wa.gov/hab/release.htm. Wildlife Heritage Point -Summary Species List: This report and the accompanying maps may contain some species or habitats that are not considered priority by the agency. YES under the "PHS" column in the table below indicates that the species is considered a priority and is on the Priority Habitats and Species List and/or the Species of Concern List. NO under the 'PHS" column indicates the species/habitat is not considered an agency priority. PHS State Species Status Code Common Name Species Use Species Use Description Wildlife Heritage Point Report: Codes Used In Wildlife Heritage Point Report Quadpt# : A sequential number for a point based on a US Geological Survey 7.5-minute quadrangle. Species Code: Alphanumeric code which identifies the species. List of codes are available in the documentation. Species Use: Criteria that identifies how the area is used by the indicated species. in the documentation. List of codes are available I I I I I I I I I . 1 I I I I I I I I I -------J ..................... u. .... .::> QUU U1:JeC.le.s .PO.lygo ,port Form#: 902522 PHS Code: WET Species Use: Common Name: WE'fLANDS Season: Definition: 4 Accuracy: 1 scientific Name: State Status: Federal Status: Priority: YES Site Name: CEDAR RIVER WETLANDS (LOWER) General Description: VARIOUS TYPES OF WETLANDS IN THE LOWER CEDAR RIVER WATERSHED (THOSE THAT ARE ASS OCIATED WITH THE RIVER DOWNSTREAM FROM MAPLE VALLEY). MANY OF THESE ARE FORESTED AREAS. MANY OF THESE HAVE SOME OPEN WATER COMPONENT. Source: KING COUNTY SENSITIVE AREAS MAPS. Source Date: 12 90 Source Code: GSMAP Synopsis: A USGS BASED MAPPING SYSTEM ALSO USING NWI INFORMATION. Source: MULLER, ET AL; WDW, SCS, AND COUNTY. Source Date: 90 Source Code: PROF Synopsis: PERIODIC SITE VISITS TO MANY OF THESE SITES. Form#: 902538 PHS Code: WET Species Use: Common Name: WETLANDS Scientific Name: Form#: Season: Definition: 4 Accuracy: 1 State Status: Federal Status: Priority: YES General Description: VARIOUS WETLANDS IN THE SOOS CREEK EN WATER COMPONENT. Source: KING COUNTY SENSITIVE AREAS MAPS. Source Date: 12 90 Source Code: GSMAP Synopsis: USGS BASED MAP SYSTEM WITH NWI INFORMATION. site Name: SOOS CREEK WETLANDS DRAINAGE BASIN. MANY OF THESE ALSO HAVE AN OP 902688 PHS Code: UNOS Species Use: Common Name: URBAN NATURAL OPEN SPACE Season: Definition: 4 Accuracy: 1 Scientific Name: State Status: Federal Status: Priority: YES Site Name: CEDAR RIVER VALLEY OPEN SPACE AREAS General Description: STEEP FORESTED SLOPES AND HIGH GRADIENT RIPARIAN AREAS. THESE ARE MOSTLY UNSTABL E SLOPE AREAS WHICH SHOULD BE LEFT UNCLEARED. PROVIDE HABITAT FOR MANY AVIAN AND TERRESTRIAL SPP. THESE AREAS ALSO CONTAIN RIPARIAN HABITATS . Source: MULLER, TED, WDW; PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS. Source Date: 04 91 Source Code: PROF Synopsis: MANY DRIVE-BY VISITS TO THIS AREA OVER A PERIOD OF SIXTEEN YEARS. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -----~ .... .:J ~ ...... J...,I_I_LC1L.:;) dna ~peCles Polygo lport F'orm#: 903661 PHS Code: UNOS Specie:; Use: Common Name: URBAN NATUR".L OPEN SPACE Season: Definition: 4 Accuracy: 1 Scientific Name: State Status: Federal Status: Priority: YES Site Name: RENTON RIPARIAN FOREST General Description: URBAN DECIDUOUS RIPARIAN FOREST (COTTONWOOD; ALDER; MAPLE). GREAT BLUE HERON COLONY ON SITE. USED BY MANY WATERFOWL (BUFFLEHEAD; K".LLARDS; SCAUP; WIGEON; GREEN-WINGED TEAL; GADWALL; ETC.) BALD EAGLE FEEDING AREA.~[[D Source: GOLDSMITH MARK; WDFW PERSONAL OBSERVATION Source Date: 102596 Source Code: PROF Synopsis: HIKED THROUGH AREA. Source: KRml SUZANNE; SEATTLE AUDUBON SOCIETY. Source Date: 10 96 Source Code: LOCAL Synopsis: FREQUENT VISITS TO SITE OVER SEVERAL YEARS. Form#: 903664 PHS Code: WET Species Use: Common Name: WETLANDS Season: Definition: 4 Accuracy: 1 Scientific Name: State Status: Federal Status: Priority: YES Site Name: BLACK RIVER RIPARIAN WETLAND General Description: RIPARIAN FORESTED WETLAND. DECIDUOUS COVER OF COTTONWOOD; ALDER; MAPLE. SITE HAS ACTIVE GREAT BLUE HERON COLONY AND IS USED BY MANY WATERFOWL. SITE CONTAINS HISTORIC CHANNEL OF BLACK RIVER AND IS WITHIN ITS HISTORIC FLOODPLAIN. Source: GOLDSMITH MARK; WDFW PERSONAL OBSERVATION. Source Date: 102596 Source Code: PROF Synopsis: SITE VISIT Source: KING COUNTY SENSITIVE AREA MAPS Source Date: 12 90 Source Code: GSMAP Synopsis: MAPS BASED ON NWI MAPS Source: OPPERMANN TONY; WDFW PERSONAL OBSERVATION. Source Date: 041991 Source Code: PROF Synopsis: SITE OBSERVED WHILE DOING SEPA REVIEW. Codes Used In Priority Habitat and Species Polygon Report Form# : Unique number that links the information in the reports to features on the map. PHS Code : This contains a code that identifies the fish and wildlife species found in the area or the habitat that occurs there. List of codes are available in the documentation. Species Use: Criteria that identifies how the area is used by the indicated species. List of codes are available in the documentation. This field is not used if a habitat is described. Common Name: Common name of the species or habitat. Season Season of species use. Use is indicated by the presence of a non-blank character in one or more pos- ';:,~0j:,';; ul. .::>uL-6ti..-.L.(!ys u[ LiH~ L.it;!~U posicion. Position 1: W Winter use. position 2: S position 3: U Summer use. Position 4: F Position 5: S Severe winter use. Spring use. Fall use. Definition: Identifies the definitions or criteria used to classify the area as a priority. available in the documentation. Accuracy: Mapping accuracy of the line delineation as determined by the mapper. 1 Accurate within a 1/4 mile. 3 Location known to within one mile. 2 = Accurate within a 1/2 mile. 4 Location known to general locality only. Scientific Name: Scientific name of the species. State Status: State listing status of species. SE State endangered. SC State candidate. ST State threatened. SM = State monitor. SS State sensitive. Federal Status: Federal listing status of species. FE = Federal endangered. FC = Federal candidate. List of codes are 1FT = Federal threatened. FCo = Federal concern. Priority: Species and habitats that are considered to be priorities for conservation and management by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). For a copy of the most current Priority Habitats and Species List contact IIWDFW PHS Section at (360)902-2543, or it is available on our web site at http://www.wdfw.wa.gov/hab/phspage.htm. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I n.lM.'·'U," ur.J:'}\.i{"j·l"IJ:;N·j· UJ-' FISH AND WILDLIF PRIORITY FISH REPORT FRL .• THE WASHINGTON LAKES AND RIVERS INFORMA._ON SYSTEM (WLRIS) DATABASE FOR TOWNSHIP T23R05E, SECTION 20 Report Date: May 09, 2005 Information About The Fish Presence Report The fish information in this report only includes information that vlashington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) maintains in a central computer database. This information only documents the location of important fish resources to the best of our knowledge. It is not a complete inventory of the fish species in the state. Fish are identified as priority by WDFW if they meet one of three criterion as listed in the Priority Habitats and Species List. The list is available by contacting WDFW Priority Habitats and Species section at (360)902- 2543, or it is available on our web site at http://www.wdfw.wa.gov/hab/phspage.htm. To insure appropriate use of this information users are encouraged to consult with WDFW biologists. Streams with presence of on the accompanying map. each river reach are not individual species maps, priority anadromous and resident fish species from the WLRIS database are highlighted Due to the complexity of displaying linear features individual species that utilize distinguishable. If more species specific information is needed, users should request digital data, or contact the WLRIS database manager. State status information is not available in the WLRIS database for these species. Please see WDFW Species of Concern List for current status. For a copy of this list, contact WDFW Endangered Species Section at (360)902- 2515, or it is available on our web site at http://www.wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/diversty/soc/soc.htm. r. _______ _ ......... <;;;.;)<;;::.l.J"-t=:. Code Common Name Stream Name Stream LLID Record Date -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CHFA COHO STWI CHFA CHFA COHO DBT SOCK STWI STWI COHO SOCK CHFA CHFA COHO COHO COHO COHO STWI Fall Chinook Coho Salmon Winter Steelhead Fall Chinook Fall Chinook Coho Salmon Dolly Varden/Bull Trout Sockeye Salmon Winter Steelhead Winter Steelhead coho Salmon Sockeye Salmon Fall Chinook Fall Chinook Coho Salmon Coho Salmon Coho Salmon Coho Salmon Winter Steelhead Priority Resident Fish Presence: Code Common Name Black River Black River Black River Cedar River Cedar River Cedar River Cedar River Cedar River Cedar River Cedar River Molasses Creek Molasses Creek Stream name(s) Stream name(s) Stream name(s) Stream name(s) Stream name(s) Stream name(s) Stream name(s) Stream Name not in not in not in not in not in not in not in database database database database database database database 1222505474742 1222505474742 1222505474742 1222590476452 1222590476452 1222590476452 1222590476452 1222590476452 1222590476452 1222590476452 1221597474667 1221597474667 1222287474607 1222362474538 1221668474714 1222263474526 1222276474614 1222362474538 1222362474538 Stream LLID 04-01-23 04-01-23 04-04-26 03-10-20 03-11-13 03-11-13 05-01-10 03-11-13 03-11-13 05-04-12 03-11-13 03-11-13 04-01-23 04-01-23 03-11-13 04-01-23 04-01-23 04-01-23 04-04-26 Record Date -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CCT CCT CCT CCT CCT CCT RBT CCT Resident Cutthroat Resident Cutthroat Resident Cutthroat Resident Cutthroat Resident Cutthroat Resident Cutthroat Rainbow Trout Resident Cutthroat Stream name (s) Stream name(s) Stream name(s) Stream name(s) Black River Cedar River Cedar River Molasses Creek not in database not in database not in database not in database Codes Used In The Fish Presence Report Code: WDFW alphanumeric code that identifies the fish species. Common Name Common name of the fish species. 1221624474499 04-12-07 1221668474714 04-12-07 1222276474614 04-12-09 1222362474538 04-12-09 1222505474742 04-12-09 1222590476452 04-12-07 1222590476452 04-12-10 1221597474667 04-12-07 Stream Name Stream name based on the US Geological Survey, Geographic Names Information System database. Stream LLID Unique stream identifier (10) generated from the node latitude and longitude located at a stream's mouth. This ID is to be construed only as an ID, and not necessarily as a reference to a stream's location. Record Date : Date the information was entered into the database. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Defoor Short Plat Wetland Study, Stream Assessment, Habitat Study, Watershed Restoration and Mitigation Plan APPENDIX D Washington Department of Natural Resources Natural Heritage Program 28 August 2006 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 931 CAReport(28Aug06). doc Appendix D I I I I I" I I I I I I I WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTfIIlEf\jT OF Natural Resources May 24,2005 Perlohnson Talasaea Consultants Inc 15020 Bear Creek Road NE 'Woodinville WA 98077 (T23N ROSE S20) DOUG SUTHERLCl.ND Commissioner of Public Lands We've searched the Natural Heritage Information System for information on significant natural features in your project area. Currently, we have no records for rare plants or high quality native ecosystems in the vicinity of your project. The information provided by the Washington Natural Heritage Program is based solely on existing information in the database. In the absence offield inventories, we cannot state whether or not a given site contains high quality ecosystems or rare plant species; there may be significant natural features in your study area of which we are not aware. The Washington Natural Heritage Program is responsible for information on the state's rare plants as well as high quality ecosystems. For infonnation on animal species of concern, please contact Priority Habitats and Species, Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife, 600 Capitol Way N, Olympia WA 98501-1091, or by phone (360) 902-2543. Please visit our internet website at http://www.dnr.wa.£ov/nhp for more inforn1ation. Lists ofrare plants and their status, rare plant fact sheets, as well as rare plant survey guidelines are available for download from the site. Please feel free to call me at (360) 902-1667 if you have any questions, or bye-mail at sandra.moody@wadnr.gov. Sincerely, " -'j/) /J .-fJ /~,.. L( ," "1' :. Il 11 ///'( '.~ r~ /' X-.L,.,] ~"':, ,.\,r, L.p· . ~';,1 il//i t: '-'(/ ~ i ).. .• ~ * /1 (_,~,-, (iv--;J. I , '--" .J ~' \ Sandy Swope Moody, Environmental Review Coordinator Washington Natural Heritage Program Asset Management & Protection Division, PO Box 47014, Olympia IV.A. 98504-7014 FAX 360-902 -1789 1111 WASHINGTON ST SE I PO BOX 47000 I OLYMPIA, WA 98504-7000 TEL: (360) 902-7000 I FAX: (360) 902-7775 I TTY: (360) 902-7 725 Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer RECYCLED PAPER 0 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Defoor Short Plat 28 August 2006 Wetland Study, Stream Assessment, Habitat Study, Watershed Restoration and Mitigation Plan APPENDIX E Letter from Brian Beaman (Geotechnical Engineer/Geologist with Icicle Creek Engineers) Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 931 CAReport(28Aug06).doc Appendix E I I I I I I I I I 'I I I I I I I I I I March 24, 2006 Terry DeFoor GWC, Inc. 95 Anchor Court Marco Island, Florida 34145 ICICLE CREEK ENGINEERS Geotechnical, Geologic and Environmental Services INTRODUCTION Report Hydrogeological Consultation Stream B Corridor Renton Hill Property Renton, Washington File No. 0584-001 This report presents the results of Icicle Creek Engineers (ICE's) hydrogeologic evaluation of the "Stream B" corridor at the DeFoor property (referred to in this report as the "Renton Hill Property") in Renton, Washington. ICE previously completed a preliminary geotechnical evaluation and coal mine hazard assessment of the Renton Hill Property; the results were presented in ICE's report dated June 10, 2005. ICE also completed an evaluation of Protected and Sensitive Slope areas; the results were presented in ICE's report dated September 30,2005. We understand that a question has been raised by Jason Walker of Talasaea Consultants, LLC (the wetland and stream consultant for the project) as to whether or not Stream B is a naturally-formed stream. ICE has been requested by Terry DeFoor the project owner, to assist in this evaluation of Stream B from a geomorphological (landform genesis) and hydrogeological perspective. The morphology of this stream is important in identifying its proper sensitive area classification and buffer requirements. To accomplish this evaluation, ICE reviewed historic mine maps dating back to 1911 and historic aerial photographs dated 1936, and completed a detailed surface reconnaissance of the Stream B corridor. STREAM B OVERVIEW We understand that Stream B was identified by Talasaea. Stream B is located in the south portion of the Renton Hill Property, and flows from east to west through an undeveloped forested area. A second stream, referred to as "Stream A" exists to the south of Stream B. Stream B is bordered by Renton A venue South and residential development to the east residential development to the north, and undeveloped forested land to the south and west. The Stream B corridor and surrounding area have a relatively long history of site use, including residential development (Renton Hill is one of the oldest residential neighborhoods in the City of Renton) and underground coal mining. The site is located at the historical location of the Renton Mine that was active from about 1874 through 1933. HISTORICAL MINE MAP REVIEW We reviewed historic mine maps of the Renton Mine dated 1911, 1918, 1919 and 1932. These historic maps show the underground mine workings and, to a limited extent, surface features such as 230 i'lE Juniper Street, Suite 101 • Issaquah, WA 98027-2519 • wW'Nlciciecreekenglneers.com • (425) 427-8187 phone· (425) J.27-r)629 fax I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Terry DeFoor GWC, Inc. March 24, 2006 Page 2 mining-related buildings, ground surface topography (in local areas), primary roads and streams. No stream is indicated on the historic mine maps at the Stream B location. The mine maps indicate that main entries for the Renton Mine are located in the area currently designated as Wetland A. Stream B flows into Wetland A. Based on our previous coal mine hazard assessment of this area, it appeared that the mine entries, including the main mine entry, were covered and regraded which, in our opinion, created the depression where Wetland A is located. HISTORICAL AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH REVIEW We reviewed historic 1936 stereo image (three-dimensional) aerial photographs of the Stream B area. When viewing these photographs in stereo pairs, the vertical dimension is greatly exaggerated, making it easier to observe and identify valleys, swales or ravines. The current development in the surrounding area, including Renton Avenue South and the existing residential development, is consistent with the developed area in the 1936 aerial photographs. In the 1936 aerial photograph, the upland area east of Wetland A is forested and ground surface appears to be relatively planar (no defined swale). For the purpose of this report, a "swale" is defined as a low-relief topographic feature where water may concentrate along the longitudinal axis of the flow path. The area currently occupied by Wetland B is partially cleared with scattered trees. No definitive stream path is visible on the aerial photographs through the Wetland B area. However, we observed a subtle indication of a relatively broad swale taking shape about 50 feet east of the south end of Cedar A venue South in the Stream B area. Stream A is visible within a defined swale in the 1936 aerial photographs. SURFACE RECONNAISSANCE Brian Beaman of ICE completed a surface reconnaissance of the Stream B corridor on March 17, 2006. Stream B "originates" at a 12-inch diameter concrete pipe that is buried under Renton Avenue South. The area upgradient (east) of this location is fully developed with residential housing and roads. No swale feature was observed upgradient (east) of this storm water pipe outfall. At the time of our reconnaissance, water was flowing from this pipe at a rate of about two to three gallons per minute. The ground surface down gradient of the 12-inch diameter pipe outfall is nearly level and covered with dense brush and blackberry vines for a distance of about ISO feet to the west. A network of eroded gullies, some containing water and some not (the dry gullies are referred to as "orphaned gullies"), cross this area in a braided manner. The gullies are consistently 1-to 3-feet deep (near-vertically sided) and I- to 2-feet across. Bedrock (sandstone) is exposed in the walls and base of these gullies. At a distance of about 150 feet downgradient (west) of the 12-inch diameter pipe outfall, the ground surface steepens and the network of braided gullies join to form a single gully for a distance of about 100 feet. The single gully crosses a smooth-surfaced area, with a slight definition of a swale beginning to form, much like several other subtle swale features across the Renton Hill Property. The gully through this area averages about 6-to 8-feet deep (near vertically sided) and 3-to 5-teet across. Bedrock (sandstone) is exposed in the walls and base of this gully. The ground surface continues to steepen until it reaches a wide swale feature (at least 100-feet wide). A gully, 2-to 6-feet deep and is 3-to 5-feet wide is incised within the swale feature. This wide swale appears to be the same feature noted on the 1936 aerial photographs. The base of this wide swale is roughly coincident with the south end of Cedar Avenue South. At this location, Stream B flow across a gently sloping to nearly level area and bends slightly to the Icicle Creek Engineers 0584001/032406 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Terry DeFoor GWC, Inc. March 24, 2006 Page 3 southwest where it enters the Wetland A area. Stream B is deeply incised into this gently sloping area in a gully that is 4-to 6-feet deep and 2-to 4-feet wide. A second deeply incised gully, referred to as Stream C, with similar physical characteristics, flows toward Stream B from the northeast, but does not connect with Stream B. Stream C originates from a 12-inch diameter storm water pipe outfall at the south end of Cedar Avenue South. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on our information review and site reconnaissance, it is our opinion that Stream B is not a naturally-occurring stream. The geomorphological and hydrogeological characteristics of Stream B indicate that the "stream" was created by stormwater discharge from the 12-inch diameter pipe that flows from the downhill (west) side of Renton Avenue South. Our opinion is based on the following observations: • No evidence of an existing stream channel was observed on the historic mine maps. • It is unlikely that the mine operators would have maintained a mine entry area in-line with a stream discharge. • No evidence of a defined swale or stream channel was observed in the 1936 aerial photographs. • No visible "watershed" (a natural topographic basin of water flow) exists in the area upgradient (east) of the 12-inch diameter pipe discharge point at Renton Avenue South. • The braided gullies in the area below the discharge point are more consistent with unmanaged stormwater runoff being released from the 12-inch diameter stormwater pipe in Renton Avenue South. • The depth of incisement of the Stream B gullies throughout its reach indicates unmanaged stormwater runoff; agam originating at the 12-inch diameter storm water pipe in Renton Avenue South. The physical characteristics of Stream B more resemble an adversely eroding "ditch" rather than a stream. As noted above, the best physical description is "gully" rather than using a more common term for streams such as channel. During our reconnaissance, we observed a broad swale-like feature in the lower portion of the Stream B corridor. This feature is less pronounced than other depression or swale-like features across the Renton Hill Property that are fully vegetated with no stream incisement, and do not receive stormwater discharge. In our opinion, the Stream B corridor would be forested with no defined stream channel if the 12- inch diameter stormwater pipe discharge originating at Renton A venue South was not present. In our opinion, the gullying of Stream B has created a safety hazard. The City of Renton should be notified of these safety hazard conditions along with appropriate corrective measures to reduce this hazard. USE OF THIS REPORT We have prepared this report for use by GWC, Inc. and their associates and engineers for their use in planning development of the Renton Hill Property. The data and report should be provided to permitting agencies for their information, but our report conclusions and interpretations should not be construed as a warranty ofthe subsurface conditions. Icicle Creek Engineers 05840011032406 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Terry DeFoor GWC, Inc. March 24, 2006 Page 4 Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been ex.ecuted in accordance with generally accepted practices in this area at the time the report was prepared. No warranty or other conditions, express or implied, should be understood. ******************** We trust this infonnation meets your present needs. If you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance. please call. Document ID: 058400 I.RepoI14 Three copies submitted cc: Jason Walker (one copy) / Talasaea Consultants. LLC 15020 Bear Creek Road NE Woodinville. Washington 98072 Rob Stevens (one copy) Core Design 14711 NE 29th Place. Suite 101 Belluvue. Washington 98007 Ricci Grube AlTA. PLLC (two copies) 1080 Broadacres Building 160 I Second Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101 Icicle Creek Engineers Yours very truly, Icicle Creek Engineers, Inc. Brian R. Beaman, P.L L.H.G. Principal EngineeriHydrogeologist 0584001/032406 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Defoor Short Plat 28 August 2006 931 CAReport(28Aug06).doc Wetland Study, Stream Assessment, Habitat Study, Watershed Restoration and Mitigation Plan APPENDIX F Letter from Mary Ann Reinhart (Fluvial Geomorphologist with GeoEngineers) Talasaea Consultants, Inc. Appendix F I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I May 1,2006 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 15020 Bear Creek Road NW Woodinville, Washington 98077 Attention: Jason Walker Subject: Defoor Property Geomorphic Assessment Renton, Washington File No. 13495-001-00 GEoENGINEERS CJ INTRODUCTION GeoEngineers, Inc is pleased to provide this letter report summarizing the results of a geomorphic assessment regarding drainage channels located on the Defoor Property, in Renton, Washington. This report was requested by Jason Walker of Talasaea Consultants on April 26, 2006. The purpose of the requested services is to qualitatively assess the geomorphic character and origin for two streams, Stream Band Stream A, on the Property. The project work scope consists of reviewing reports and maps provided by Talasaea Consultants, and visiting the Defoor Property to observe the streams. The Reports reviewed by GeoEngineers include: Hydrogeological Consultation; Stream B Corridor, dated March 24, 2006 and prepared by Icicle Creek Engineers (ICE); Coal Mine Hazard Assessment and Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation, Renton Hill Property, dated June 10, 2005, prepared by ICE; and a section of a report entitled Defoor Property - Wetland Study, Stream Assessment, Habitat Study, Watershed Restoration and Mitigation Plan, dated October 3,2005, prepared by Talasaea Consultants. GeoEngineers also reviewed the Wetland and Stream Basin Restoration Plan, Existing Conditions and Overview Plan, dated 28 June, 2005, prepared by Talasaea Consultants. OBSERVED CHANNEL CONDITIONS The site visit was conducted on April 28, 2005. The reconnaissance included walking the length of Streams A and B from Renton Ave So to the base of the slope just east of wetland B. Stream A originates up-gradient of Renton Ave S, passes through a culvert beneath the road and flows downstream in a well defined swale with side slopes inclined from 20 to 50 percent. The swale is reflected as a dip in Renton Ave So. The Stream A cross section display a u-shaped floor with side walls inclined to the angle of repose of the soils. Stream B conditions are well described in the ICE March 24 2006 report. The "stream" originates at a culvert outfall at Renton Ave S. No observable expression of a drainage appears to extend upslope from Renton Ave So. The culvert is situated on a topographic high point on the right limb of the Stream A swale. Immediately down gradient of the culvert outfall, the stream consists of two or three deeply incised channels with nearly vertical side walls. The channels do not reside in a topographic swale. '~-,-'~'::' , • _ .. ' ::' 'i'". ~ :':_',-~~, _::j , ' , 'telephone ,:425.861;6000 ':'/ 'j Redmond, ,WA,9805,2 ' :, facsimile' 425.861.'6050 .",,:':i _' website . :~ww.geoenginee.rs.-com I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Talasaea Consultants, Inc. May 1,2006 Page 2 Roughly 125 to 150 feet down gradient from the culvert the channels merge to form a single channel. The dimension of the single channel is uncharacteristically narrow and deep, with entire sections measuring 2 to 3 wide (top of channel) by 5 or 6 feet deep. The side walls of the single channel are generally vertical to overhanging, giving the channel cross section a tear drop shape, narrow at the top and wide at the base. CONCLUSIONS STREAM A The morphologic character of Stream A channel and swale features indicates that it has evolved over several thousand years. The cross sectional form of this swale is consistent with the long term adjustment of other Puget Sound drainage systems to climate, discharge, regional gradient, hillslope soils. The long term development of the drainage is particularly apparent from the stability and inclination of the swale sidewalls. These slopes are inclined back to the apparent angle of repose and well stabilized by the growth of moderately dense deciduous trees and understory vegetation. STREAM B In contrast, the morphologic character of Stream B indicates that it is not a naturally formed stream. We agree with the conclusion of the Mary 24th ICE report that Stream B is an erosional gully formed in direct response to storm water runoff (from residential development upslope of Renton Ave So) discharging from the culvert over the period of several decades. The morphologic character of the gully is consistent with numerous other gullies and ditches in the Puget Sound area that have formed similar gullies in similar soils and urbanized settings. The location of the gully is not consistent with the long term development of natural drainage channels, which otherwise form swales. In addition, the configuration of multiple gullies extending downstream from the culvert is typical of the dispersion of unmitigated storm water dispersing from the culvert. The depth of the single stem gully and cross sectional shape is a direct result of the high volumes of unmitigated (undetained) storm water runoff generated by urban development. The gully walls appear to be highly unstable and subject to failure. The faces of the walls are near vertical to overhanging and bear no vegetation. This characteristic indicates that the floor of the gully may still be undergoing incision, and the channel is still adjusting to storm discharge from the point source. We also agree with ICE that the gully represents a public health and safety risk. The gully is obscured by the local topography, in that there is no observable swale, and by ground cover vegetation, both of which make it difficult to see and easy to fall into. In our opinion, the physical condition of this gully should be modified to minimize or eliminate the risk of public injury. LIMITATIONS GeoEngineers has developed this report to support the geomorphic evaluation in general accordance with the scope and limitations of our proposal. Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with the generally accepted practices for slope stability evaluations in this area at the time this report was prepared. File Nu. /3495-00/-00 GEOENGINEERsg I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I _Jasaea Consultants, Inc. May 1,2006 Page 3 This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Talasaea Consultant, Inc and their authorized agents. No other party may rely on the product of our services unless we agree in advance to such reliance in writing. The information contained herein should not be applied for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated. Any alteration, deletion or editing of this document without explicit written permIssion from GeoEngineers is strictly prohibited. Any other unauthorized use of this document is prohibited. This document is intended to be used in its entirety. If an excerpt is quoted or paraphrased, it must be properly referenced. Any electronic form, facsimile or hard copy of the original document (email, text, table, and/or figure), if provided, and any attachments are only a copy of the original document. The original document is stored by GeoEngineers and will serve as the official document of record. Sincerely, .. Ge~:ngine~ers, In~~ ~,···2 / e /q{t~ /" / ~---.--fy ~. '--'{~/t Mary Ann Reinhart, LG, LHG Associate MAR:ja Redm:\OO\Finals\ 1349500 1 OOLR.doc File No. /3-195-00/-00 GEOENGINEER~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Defoor Short Plat 28 August 2006 931 CAReport(28Aug06).doc Wetland Study, Stream Assessment, Habitat Study, Watershed Restoration and Mitigation Plan APPENDIX G Affidavit from Larry Fisher (WDFW Area Habitat Biologist) Talasaea Consultants, Inc. Appendix G I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 2 " .J 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ')" _.J 24 25 ;!-- APPEAL OF JUNE 8, 2006 HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISIONIRECOMMENDATION TO RENTON CITY COUNCIL RE: DEFOOR APPEAL FILE 'NO. LUA 05-089, SHPL-H DECLARATION OF LARRY FISHER I, Larry Fisher, certify and declare as follows: 1. I am an Area Habitat Biologist with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2. I have reviewed the features on the Defoor property located in the City of Renton referred to as Stream B and Drainage 1. 3. My review of Stream B and Drainage 1 took place on Friday May 30, 2006, at the property site at issue. I was accompanied by William Shiels, Principal of Talasaea Consultants. 4. Based on the geomorphologic characteristics of Stream B and Drainage 1, it is my opinion that Stream B and Drainage 1 are the result of erosion due to the discharge of storm water along Renton A venue South, and are therefore artificial watercourses. DATED at 6{./ {~,,tu"t , Washington this Z.2.. 0 day of -S 1...'; ..... '1.. , 2006. Larry Fisher Area Habitat Biologist Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife DECLARATION OF LARRY FISHER RE: DEFOOR APPEAL TO RENTON CITY COUNCIL -Page 1 of 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Defoor Short Plat Wetland Study, Stream Assessment, Habitat Study, Watershed Restoration and Mitigation Plan APPENDIX H INDEX OF DRAWINGS (REDUCED PLAN SHEETS, 11" X 17") Sheet W1.0: Wetland & Stream Basin Restoration Plan -Existing Conditions & Overview Plan Sheet W1.1: Wetland & Stream Basin Restoration Plan -Proposed Site Plan Impacts & Mitigation Sheet W2.0: Wetland & Stream Basin Restoration Plan -Enhancement Planting Plan Sheet W2.1 : Wetland & Stream Basin Restoration Plan -Planting Details & Notes Sheet W2.2: Wetland & Stream Basin Restoration Plan -Planting Specifications 28 August 2006 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 931 CAReport(28Aug06).doc Appendix H I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Defoor Short Plat Wetland Study, Stream Assessment, Habitat Study, Watershed Restoration and Mitigation Plan APPENDIX i INDEX OF DRAWINGS (FULL SIZE PLAN SHEETS, 24" X 36") Sheet W1.0: Wetland & Stream Basin Restoration Plan -Existing Conditions & Overview Plan Sheet W1.1 : Wetland & Stream Basin Restoration Plan -Proposed Site Plan Impacts & Mitigation Sheet W2.0: Wetland & Stream Basin Restoration Plan -Enhancement Planting Plan Sheet W2.1 : Wetland & Stream Basin Restoration Plan -Planting Details & Notes Sheet W2.2: Wetland & Stream Basin Restoration Plan -Planting Specifications 28 August 2006 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 931 CAReport(28Aug06).doc Appendix I I 8 on C! • '" i i z i~ i -i ;;; ~ i I ~ f'l) (j) I >---l-e::: I W 0.... <3 0 z a::: -I <,5 0.... 3: <.:) a::: 0 I 0 l.L W 0 I -i..§ .0 ~Z O~ ]:S 00 :;E >--E--~~ u _ E--Z ~w -~ a:cL uP:; '-c "'0 .S E -"c I I ~q,.o I ~~ . rN " '" C", £tj I i ~~ -i Ii ~ ~i ~ I b ~:I .., " 8 -~ '-, .. ~ ~ I I a:. ~ I!J I!J lB I . i I i I • I "" !SKI ~ "-< J~ '" !;( c I I!JI!J )0-lD I I Z 0 Vi GS '" I ~I ~~ 0; I cj I --z fS. 1TH STREET i I ,. . , .. f·t:: .. :: " ':':":-1 I ---I ',' . ~ .. ":.~·· .. ·•.·· .. ·,bll': 11,+--~ '.' .... ;, =< .. , J :>11 / ~ STREAH'C' ••. /::' ~1-~'<': (ClAS54) / •.... , . I I '. .-.. ., . i ._1- EXlSTlN6: HClU5E I I<ETLAHD I STREAH 11----"7'-"" .. ....:·-·--:;r==·l~· ~-§-~~~-;;--~-~-~~~=~=~=~~~O IHPACl'3 • HIT16ATlOH I ," ::. . . .. '. .. S. c=rTH STREET AREA~SHEEnl.l) Ip "A :''.,.:t .• '. PAI<CEL 6 .1.' ...... ~ ;-H!-tr--'-'-------- I I ~~L5P ;('. j" LI40~2t 51' ,l':' -...-.'(-~I!':tifl':f.r------,-----~-- I I _ -J .' /' -----" ~ ---+:-:1 .~-I ./ t, ... -" Y' ~ -...-----STREAM '5' '. L·. . .C. • .' Ilr--"7"'~-VEif'ANo' 'A' (ClASS3) • I. :: ..... :" II I(~ . I rGL =+ -__ -.J.;,.~~-=:. 'II -)< / I .. ' ' .. '. II ) . ~. EXI~TI CONSmucTlONSmucTI.RE .r,""''----:--... J.. II ,""';./ /li1~OIfJCAL MINE ENTRANGEJ ~ • ': • '. • '-I. I . :.' /"". II -.r Jj{' STREAM 'A' '1 ,/ _.,~_ ..... II ...... I (ClAS54) 1'./. .. I --_~_..J - - ---r/,' :j" .. ' ... /' J': r.· I SEEt-ETLAHD'A' I ~ ... ----. ~ ... ,.;/. : I \ / SEE 5TREAM ,:." ~T (THIS SHEET) , -I- I ~ I ~~/SS!,o _____ - --: ,t.-;.-. -~~'7' : !THIS SHEET) I 'IV I..lh~......... '" .'. :., I 'Y~ ~ StREET .... " rlRGV>MED SlFfAM \ ~ ....... ..' '. ~:l=-~~~=.:...l-~ . ./ ~:~ /"' LSmE."M'A~ . '.' \. I / GONTlItJES ~ I OFF-SITE • " ~-7------------------------------ OVERVleY'i P1..AN SRAPHIC SCALE mNORTH (IN FEET) I I I I o 50 100 200 SCALE. 1"=100' ,----------------------------7--' I .' --_ STREAM '6' .' I I I -'/i-'lETLAND 'A'3:-. ...lClASS.!, I I / 3,"451' 15~ / I I ( (GLASS 3. • _ I I U-~~ '\.1 I ... ~ .. ;_ ~ I (----r'.:r ...... '-""':': ~; ~ I '. . . . . . . . . . . . I I ) , ...... · .... i I I 1\' ....................... '. I I ' ......... ';;" I I ~ ': ..... ,;, ............. j /1 I "-' .... /. . . I I \ \:. " ... ,:.;........... / I r-I----------~~ .... t=------ I --------~--- I BUlLDIN6 I I I. I I I I PARGEI.. A. THAT F'ORTION OF THe H.H. TCielN OONATIOII.ANO CLAIM NO.:n. Ll'IN6 SQJl\IERL l' /IoHO IoESTBIL l' OF TIE I'UIT OF Hl8If.NO AOCIInOi TO TIE ~ OF RENTON, ~1N6 TO THE I'UIT TlERECF ~ IN VOUJMI! n OF I'UITS. P_ 32. IN KlN6 GGUIlY. io'IA5HIH5TON, AND THAT PORnON OF THE NOIllMEST GlUART6l OF THE NORntlEST GlUART6l OF 5EGnOI:2O, ~P 23 NORTH. RNI5I! 5 I!A!IT. H.H .• IN KINe caJN1Y • ~IHeTON. L l'IHe NG'RTl6Il.. l' OF I'I.I!IEI' SOJND f"OI,ER AND LI8IIT GOMPAHY'S TRAH5Hl5SION _-oI'-wo.y /IoHO eAST C1F F'RlMAR'r' STATE HIeHHA Y NO. I. C'ESGRlSED AS FOl.LOI'6 BE6lNNlHe AT THE I~TION OF TIE HOR"I'H LINE OF SAID SECTION 20, HlTlI THE IoEST UNE OF SAID I'UIT, ~ POINT' IS NG'RTli &<I~'21" ~T 1.3a6.!l5 FEET FRiOI'1 THE NG'RTli CIlARTER ~ OF SAID SEGT1a't, THENGe SOUTH 01'2<1"" "lEST Ai..ONI5 TIE "lEST LINE OF SAID I'UIT AND SAID LINE ~ ~Y <1'7304 FEET TO THe NG'RT1e'ILY LINE OF FV6ET!lCUO f"OI,ER AND LI6HT GOMPA111"5 TRAN5MI!l5ION RJ6HT<lF-wo.y, THENGe NORTH 61'03'41' "lEST 411.66 FEET TO THE EASTBIL l' LINE OF F'RlMAR'r' STATE _1' NO. I, THEMc;E NG'RnERLY Al.ON6 SAID Hl6ItrIAy TO THE NORTli LINE OF SAID SECTION, ~ SOIITH &<I~'2'1' EAST ALONe SAID NORTH LINE 316.54 FEET TO TIE POINT OF see_He. THAT F'ORTION OF THe H.H. TOBIN OONATlOII.ANO CLAIM NO. :no L 1'IN6 SOUTHER!.. l' OF THE I'UI T OF HleIl.AND ADDITION TO Tl!E TOIo't4 OF RENTON. ACCoRDIHe TO THE I'UIT ~ RfGOIlDED IN va..tJME 11 OF I'UITS. P_ 3:1, IN KIN6 caJNTY. ~1N6TON, DESCRteeD AS FOlJ.Ct6, !lE61NN1N6 AT A POINT ON THe NORTH LINE C1F SECTION 20. TOI'I'EHIP 23 NG'RTH. RNI5I! 5 eAST, KM .• IN KlN6 c.aJK1'Y, I'IASHIN6TON. HHfGH 15 NORTli &<I~'2'1' "lEST 1.386.!l5 FEET ~ THe HORTlI GlUART6l GORIER ~, THEI4Ge SOIITH 01':2"'95' IoEST ALOH6 THe cerrewNE C1F CEDAR STREET 611.&2 FEET TO THE SOIITH LINE OF SAID I'UIT. AND THE TRl.E POINT OF BE6lNNlNe, nENGE SOJTlI _"'':25' EAST 3IOJ4 FEET TO THE IoEST LINE OF REN'TOH Sma:r, THENCe SOUTH 01'24':21' ilEST 4<11.<16 FEET Al.ON6 SAID "lEST LINE /IoHO IoEST LINE ~ 5CIJTHERI.. l' TO THE NORTHER!. l' LINE OF FV6ET 50IW ~ AND LI8IIT GOI'1PAHY'S RkSHT-(lF-IotAy, THENGe KORTH 61'03'41' "lEST Ai..ONI5 SAID Rl6HT~Y 35551 FEET, THENGe NOIrnl 01'2<1"" EAST 361,1:1 FEET TO A POINT GOINGIOENT ~TlI THE SOIITH LINE OF SAID I'UIT /IoHO THE IoEST LINE OF CEDAR STREET, THENGe SOUTH &e'3''95' EAST 2000 FEET TO THE TRIJE POINT OF eestNNlN6. FLAN LecSeND PROPER:TY LINE f)(fS TlN6 GOIIl'ClUR C ; .... :. =:J f)(fSTlN6 WETLAND - - - - -STREAM I t.En..AND ElJFF6{ ..... STREAH I t-ETL.AND FLA6 eW-O TE5T PIT FLA6 = = *= = = I\F'F'PQXIHAl:E OHt+1 OF STREAH +--I\F'F'PQXIHATE cane:t LINE OF STREAH f)(fSTlN6 TREES ~-----------~-~-----7----~--1--; I I I. ./ ,/ ,/ ,/ --- (CLAS54. .,/./ tidFERJ '/./' / . ../ ........ I I I I I I I I II I \" / I I, I I . -"""' EX6STlN5. ./ I Si-REAM~ ~./ ,.-~ t-........ . ........ /......... . I I I I I I I I I I I I ........ ........ I ................ ./ I /'/' ./ L. ~< ./~ I ~ './ I ............ ./ I.' ./ ~ I ./ . 1... ________ -------'0..----.---- +-..... -.....s '!RUC. T\.RE ........ I I"'~ -..... -I I ...' "-5~~C.~ _ -......... I I -_1' : ) ...... .,........., -~--: I/-... I I ~ ............... I : ----PROPERTY LINE (/~ ... ... I ~---------------------~-------~ J II I...~-----------------------~ ---~ jJJ ~TLAND IA'eNLA~eMENT STReAM/veT1..AND '6' eNl..AR6eMeNT STReAM 'A' eNbAR6eMeNT (IN FEET) c5RAPHIC SCALE mNORTrl c5RAPHIC SCALE ~ l\JLJ c5RAPHIC SC.ALE ~ l\JLJ VICINIi'r" MAF SCALE. NTS . 'n" ;-- ~ THE 'tlO'IAS etllDE 2005, t-1ETROI'OI..ITNI F'\leET 5CU'ID CONTACTS AppLiCANVOrtlER.; 6I<4G.ING. 24639 NE I~ ST. c;w ALL. ~ <16014 GOIIl'ACT PERSON. TRAVIS DEFOOR. ENGINeeR· GORE OE5IEiN 14111 HE :2<ITlI PL. !':UITE 101 ~~CI6OO1 (425Ja65-1&11 GOIIl'AC T PERSON> HIGHAEL CHEN. P.E. eNVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT TALASAEA GON!':UI..TAHT5. INC . 15020 ElEAR ~ RD. HE ~INVILLE. """ 'lOOT! PHOIE. (425) &61-1550 CONTACT PERSON, JA50N t-lALKS<. ASSoCIATE SHEET INDEX SHEET NUMBER. SHEET TITLE v-lI.O EXISTINc5 CONOITIONS 4 OVERVIEv-l PLAN v-l1.1 PROPOSED SITE PLAN IMPACTS 4 MITIc5ATION I;oQ.O ENHANCEMENT PLANTINc5 PLAN v-l:2.1 PLANTINcS OETAILS 4 NOTES 1;oQ.:2 PLANTINcS SPECIFICATIONS NOTeS I. SITE PLNI PROVIDED BY GORE DESlEiN, 14111 HE :2<ITH PL. SUITE 101, flELLEVI.e. ~ "&001 (425J&&5-1&11. ~. SG1JRGE ~1H5.w; HODIFIED ey TALASAEA GONSULTANTS FOR VlSJAL ENHANGe'IENT. 3. ntiS PLAN 15 AN ATTACHMENT TO THE toeTLAIID MtnEiATlOH REPOR.T PRS'AAED BY TALASAEA GON5UL TANTS IN AlJi5U5T OF 2006. 4. ntiS I'UIN 15 GONGEPlUAl OILY AND 5i-ICQO NOT BE U5fD FOR COH5muc.TlON. S. DELINEATION OF t-ETI.NID 'e' AND OHt-t1 OF S~AH 'A' • 'S' ARe FROH AELD oesERVATION (5E!'TEMeER IS, 2005). LOCATIONS ARe DE!'lC TED ApPRoXIMATE. r '" ~~I I I I I '" .! ;1 ~ Q I~ ] ~ ~ I!: ~ \.l ij; Date ~~ Scale De!lil'ned Drawn ~"I Checked Approved 65: Project fI 931 I Sheet fI ~I,O o \.. .-J I on on 8 -: & ~ i i ;; OJ I '" " iN E i X ..- f'I') I 0"> >- -f-I a:::: W Cl. u 0 I z a::: - u Cl. 3: <.) a:::: I 0 0 LL W I 0 I -E.2 .0 r...Z a~ ]:s 00 H ;;...~ u _ ~~ E-<~ 6:"-U~ "-c "'0 EE ;:git ! o E .g:E g'N 'c 0-CO' [~ i ~* i' 2 ~; ~ .~ :Sl ~:I " d~ ~ ,.~ § I I I I I ~ ~ ~ 8! I I I ~ i • ~ I '" :gill 0-~ 1~ w '< 1;1 ~ 0 I ~~ >-CD I I Z 0 Vi ~ "" I I ~I !~ u d --Z I 1 j,' 7 ) 1 ) /1 --./ I-lETLAND 'A' 1----....... r --, _-.//-I ./ 1/ ....... /, // / / I ___ / 5~~~\ /' , "'-: ) -------1 - !/ !/ /' C ... ~~ // 125'/ (~,~" ,: /,' j I I I / I ............ I .................. I ... ...J...... I / -~3 / - - - -J.. l'15'aJFFER.I ~/ . . ~ -I; . .--/.-.. --."."':" -J " (}-c--: :.::;; ...... ' .~ : -:--, \ ) i' ................. ~ i ) 1\ .:-:-:.:.:-:-:-:-:-:~:;: ... / ) ........ : .... ~ ............. ./ / ...... ' .... /"" / " \ .......... .:.,;........... / ~ ................ .,// ....... -........................... / YleTl.ANl' / S~AM IMPACTS 4 MITI6ATION Pl.AN SRAFHIC SCALE mNCRTH 1 IN FEET) I I' I o 15 30 60 PLAN Lf:ef:NP --- -PRO~TY LINE C : .... :. ::J EXISTINS HETLAND - - - - -5TIREAM I HETLAND aJFFER = = ~ = = APPROXIMATE 0_ Of' STREAM -}--APPROXIMATE CENT8'< LINE Of' STREAM '--ED6E OF EXISTlN6 VBSeTATION TO REMAIN 1 .J..-- ........ /' L "-.. / ... ~ / IMPACT Lf:Sf:NP L-___ -...JI SUFFER REDUCTION - 10)50 SF ----+- STREAM 'A' CV6!;4 135' IlUFFERi ./ ,----------1 , I , I , 5 I , I , I \................... I ............ I ...... ............ 1 ...... ....J MITISATION Lf:Sf:NP Nores 10)50 SF 23,15<1 SF 33,<l00 SF I. SITE PLAN PROVIDED BY CORE ClESleN, 14111 NE 2'lTH I'L 5Urre 101, 6B.LEVl.E ~ qaocn 1425ie1t>S-1tJT7. 2. 50JRCE DR.AI-\INS ~S MODIFIED 6Y T Al..A5AEA CONSULTANTS FOR VISUAl. ENHANCEMENT. 3, THIS PLAN IS AN ... TTACHMENT TO THE WE1I.AHD MITI6ATlON REPORT PREPARED 6Y TALA5AEA CONSULTANTS IN AU6U5T OF 2006. 4 THf 5 PLAN 15 CONCEPTUAl. ONLY AND '!>HaJLD . NOT BE USED FOR CONS'Tl<lJGTlON. 5. DELINEATION Of' ~AND '6' AND 0ItI+t OF STREAM ' ... ' • '6' ARE FROM FIELD OBSERII ... TlON (SEPTEHBER 15, 2005). LOC' ... TlONS ARE DEPICTED APPROXIMATE. , ~~I I I I ~ ?1 . Ii .. '" . ~! c 0 ';; " ~ '" Date ~~ Scale Desirned I~ Drawn ~ Checked Approved BS Project II g~1 Sheet II HI.I r 8 o I .... • . , i .., I Ll i 0~E~~ j) I >-I- 0:::: W 0.... 0 0 I z 0:::: <.5 0.... :;!: <.:) 0:::: I 0 0 lL. W I 0 -':0 0.-.0 I ~5 o~ ~:~ H ~~ ~~ ~~ d:"-UO:: -""c "'0 • E "O~ ~'" I =e .e:e .~N Coo Co' [5 I I i F.~ -. r :::I ~! ~ ' . . ~ " ~:I ,., d l u '-,.~ I I I a: d II li II II I i f I "" ~ I!! "-"-< I I I --cj z: FLAN LE6END EXlSnNe CONTOUR -----f'RO~ c.oNTClI.R -'" __ .,. -N'PROXiMATE cetTERLlNE OF STREAM L ~ LAA6E ~ DEBRIS YETLAND 'A' GA~3 3",4 !T 125' aJFFERJ 7' / - STREAM 'G') a.A554 / 135' EU"FERJ , ( / ~~·-+-F-..J/~~~ i " "'''; .--'\ : ~:;: :,0 / ...., / ./ , , I ,/ , I - , , I - ~F~L~A~N~T~SC~H~E~D~U2L~E~----------------------------------------/ TREES SYMBOL SCIENTIFIC; NAME COMMON NAME ..... STAl1IS SP.<eINe GT'(. SIZE /MIN) NOTES o ~ ClRlCIHATUM \lINE MAPLE F.<e-AS 5HOWN ;2q 3' HT. I"lJI. n-5TB-1(3 MIN) @-=-c;RATAEaJ5DOJ6LASlI E!I.JIGI( HAWTHORN F.<e AS5HOWN .:14 3' HT. SIN6I..E TRIJHK, t-ELl 8RANGHED • Plc.EA 5ITOENSIS 5ITKA 5PRUC.E F.<e AS5HOWN 43 2-3' HT, B. B. R..l.L , BlJSH'( 0-PINUS CONTORTA 5HORE PINE F.<e AS5HOWN 12 4-5' HT, Bt B. R..l.L • BlJSH'( I> THJJA PLIc;A TA WESTERN RED CEDAR F.<e AS5HOWN Iq 4-5' HT, B.B. R..l.L • BlJSH'( ~ THJJA PUc;A T A WESTERN RED CEDAR F.<e AS SHOWN 31 2-3' HT. B.B. RA..L • BlJSH'( SHRUBS SYMBOL Sc;lENnFIC; NAME COMMON NAME ..... STA l1IS SF.<eINc5 GT'(. SIZE /MIN) NClTES 0 c;oRI(J5 SERJc;EA RED-QSIS< D06IrOOD F"""" ,'O,C;. ~ It>' HT, I"lJI. TI-<;A/E (3 MIN) @--MAHONIA AGlJIFOLllH ORE6ON 6RAPE NL 3'0,C;. 103 It>' HT. RJLl. • ClJSHY @ SALIX LA5IANDRA ".<eIFIC; WILLOW F"""" 3/sYHBOL ISO 4' curnNc5 CVTT1NeS cerAINED FRoM ON-SITE C;LEARINe 0 SAL I X 5GOULERI AHA SGo\A..S< WILLOW F.<e '/SYMBOL 100 4' aJrnNc5 HALF INc;H DIAMETER. BARK IHTAc;T I!r--S'f1o-tPHORIC;ARP05 AL8U5 CO"IMOI SNOweERRY FAc;V ,. 0,C;, t>t> It>' HT, I"lJI.n-<;A/E (3 MIN) EROSION C.ONTROL SEED MIX (p~IDe ATA~!!.><P= !!OIL MeA5) 5(;IENnFIC; NAME FESTUC-A IUlRA Io6R05ns TENUIS c.ot.ONIAL BENT5RA55 F.<e A"PUc;AnOH RATE PER ACRE, 4QO SEED MIX 1200 HlLaJR aLI5 Fs<nUZER. 5-10-10 5O!II1ePU. OR EQjIV, 1(lOOtI ~IBER WOOD M.Jl.CH OR EGllJIV. FL.ANTI N6 FL.AN 6RAPHIC. SCALE GDNClRTH 1 IN FEET) ! I I I o 15 30 60 5(;ALE,I":30' UMiT OF Gl.EAAINe IAPPAOXIMATE ED6E OF !!XIsnNe VE6eTAnOi TO REMAIN) S_A, --.. '---* ~~~---:---- - ---, ;-, II I APPRQX, l.O(;A nO! , I I OF EXlsnN6 PAGlF~ II HI~I5ALVA6f II FOR 0JTT1~ __ ----, _____ ~---:..-1 j ---~---...--'---_. STREAM 'A' ClASS 4 135' aJFFER) I f'RGPB'!Tl' , LINEJRCIo'I T---l I , DRAINA6E ,F '\ ,: J J ' TO BE Ra.DGA TED L __________ ~/~ liill!!r----/ I ,---------- \ I T \ ' \ ' \ , \ , " ' ............ I .......... I I ...... -....j 1 ! r ~;!~e ~ Hm$ Desiened -e!JaH __ Drawn Jc;:JS Checked JH' Approved as ~Pr::!!oJ!!e~ct:..#!=:93~! ==-1 J o ~4'O Sheet II \... ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I .., .,., :;J z i => ! ~ I .... i~ >-I- ~ w 0.... u 0 z 0::: u' 0.... ~ <.:l ~ 0 0 I.J.... W 0 -0 0.-.0 ~Z O~ !Q:~ 00 (; E >-~ !<Ji u . :Ow E-o~ ~ci U~ '-0 "'0 ~§ :: V I ' E ~E .~N o '" o '" £25 i ~~ 'i Ij ~ ~.. « ~~ c ~ ~ll g -~ '.~ 0:. q II: ~ I I II 8! '" "-"-« w ~ 0-co z o Vi ~ '" 6 z CONIFE~ 2"1C~·~R5T~. l..CiIGA~ ~Ioe OP ROO'I"BALL. FASTEN H/l4 ~6AL." . ...aRe .AND 1/2" N&4 vtNYL HO!WNe. ~T,t,kJ! HI,.,. Hc;:I ~ ~Re ~ NeI'JloI!R ~rHCe OR ~Re MAY' n:::uc:.H TREE T'RLfCI(.. STAKE' I-SeHT I"lJ5T BE AT LEAST ,. FRC:t1F1_","""", £-::.:; :a:HA~r: =: TO HCl.l) ...... TI!R. t=lNPrL eRH:E. ~~~~~~~ :J.!.io~+i=--5(;ARIFY 51r::ES OF ........ nNe ~ ""'""ESI.RI!""'-E>w.;I 600DDAA""""E. "",,,"'---EXlSnNe .... n..e 50IL OR ....... .,.~~L. 0~ .... ~B TReE DETAIL.S TYP. SCAR..,.. 51C>E5 OF F'I.HIT1Ne HOLE. MIII<E SI.RI! HClI....e HAS 600D 0RAIKA6e. 0:7.tflte ~OT PL.ANTINc5 OETAIL. "N"P. !leT 5tA.e ~1'RAI6HT AH) Pl....AGe ~ ON!IGlLI[;) eROJHO OR ON GOHPAGT'EO ~LL SJlGKFfLL PL.N'4nNe HOL..E 112 R.U. HI".. NAnve 5OIL. TAMP !IOfL TO '5TAelLllI! ~ DO I'tOTDI5n.RS~. ~ILL ~""NlN6 P\../IrHTIN6 tt::Jll! FJ5:t 5PEGIFIGAnON&. .........eo SAGlCFILl. -'S ~D IN n-e IHSTAa..LATlON ~ 0S';'NTAINER SHFW6 PL.ANTINe OETAIL. TYP. DECIDUOUS e.tocI'ILL fILJtImNI5 HOL..e 112 I'\LL .... TN NATIVe SOIL. rN'P ~LTO~TAef~ ~. GUT ....... yHlRE, ~_ NO EIIOLN". e.tc..KRLL ~AlHIMS ........"...~­SPec;lFICoAnQN9. .....ac> _u. A& N<>1e> IN ne IleTAU.AT1OH HC>Te. ~Vuee,., 24° '51'E!!..I!SM:OR MARLIN .: 5Pl1CE AT t..EN5oT 1J:2° DlA. A5 A PILOT """'" PL..AN1'1HEIiGUT'T1N66 IN CEN5E OR 6RAva..T' 5OtLS. 1Pf5SU 5PIICS TO ... MIN. OF 16", INSBlT GUTTlNS NO TN4PI SOIL """"-""- 1N5BtT GUTT1He!; HNl.WJ.:r --- INTO PILOT HOLE TO A DEPTM ~_""";IFAT l.SA5oT Ie", L..EAVI:! A ~mf:~~~':e ":! ! Iii != TO ~ FCR SIOGI!S5RL -=:1 I =11 OPROUnNe ""..eAve. '-=11 0:-~TTIN6 PkANTINc5 DETAIL. TYP. NOT5 I. LOS TO !!Ie 24-01". MIN.. GONf'II!R f'C.eDNIl OR ~R. ~le.I, &-12' t..eH6ne. 2. ~ OF ~T"'T t.oe TO BE DE1'StMIIED IN nE FIELD 8T' T~ CONSll..TANTS. '0 ~ I..Oe Hln-I t::UGIC:SILl. ~I 4. ORNE ~ A M1N. OP 4' IN'1'O THE eROJ'tCD """. " .......-""" "",VI! 5-.-. ~ ntI! AN<:HOR 15 "T _ f'RClP!!R o&1H, REt-OVE TIE DRIVE STEa.. 5. ~neS'l'e..~,troRQIC;JneDAl~5189..Jl<NDF'l.U.~"" Df5TAN(;.E SUeHTL y ~ fNNiI THE L..eIelN OF T1E ~ ec;:oY. 1NtS HILL ROT' .... ~ ne ~ INTO A ~ POSITlON. 6. NO'J'aoI T'H!! SARK cr ne l..O6 A I'1NI'1JH Of' I-NfO.#lJ ne GI~ ()II lIE"""AS_ 7. HR.AP ~ S'T"E!!. ~ CP "I'1-e ~u. ~ N ne NOTCH AROI.JrV ne Lore IN SJCH ... HAY n4.AT ne c:;a.e I'S HOCeH. ON-c5AADE HABITAT I..Oc5 0~~CHORINe DETAIL. eENEAAl.. PI..ANTINe INSTAl..I..ATION NOTES , ~~I I I I~ >, '" ~ ~! Q ~~ . 0 ~ ~ : \J \i\ Date ~Q~ ScaJe Desirned Drawn ~"I Checked Approved 65 Project # g~1 J Sheet /I ~~.I \.. o I , "" '" '" P1..ANTIN6 SPECIFICATIONS 8 • z .. i ::::l ~ I '" PM! , ~ f\.,ytt INSt,ft4L:t,DqN ~~ ii PART J ~ pi NITlN!!i :e=qe'MOOtm 6NAb tcGerw.e E ! X :ell PWPARADQNI~ ::" .. ~~~~ .. ':"::O'.' .--== .. fiPNI'2W (QNQ!Date "....,... tD __ .. p __ ."""'-"-' ___ ~ ___ __ ~_, ....... ___ eet .. ~I:._ In the ~ CII"'OCI8. tho GontrcXtor Moll ~ ~ or ~ II'IYCIONe mator1cd .'1 be ~ Pt-om I:tIo ~ CF'OOII. 'T'r'eea cn::::t ......... etICIll bo pit _"'(·4"""'''-.~''''''''Jo-Iapo-~~''''''' ~ 010 thotorI 1ft detcdfe. ~~-""' .... "::':;;::O eo: :-::.::::t ... .;::..~:::::---.... ~:.o.~~~~~~:r:.!::'i:~ ~~~.r~......:::"~~.=":.~:::.~--~ Tok:lNocl GO"IIUttcna thatl appPO¥II p~~. IP ..... CII'W to be ~ ""'lU"''''''I c>gonoIOeJ prtcr to pion' ...... """". _" tao _, ..... -'J __ ".I p_ topood (_ ...... s't:""'"-' o ~ IfIt. IhatI be prwpcred tIJ T~ ~ CI"d ~ to the , >-~.nall ~ ~ plc:lrlt ~~ ~tIorIt c:re ouItcII:;:IIe wltI'IM the --. GooIr ....... ""'........-. __ ... ---_T.-__ ......... ""J~ __ ,tao~pnortD-. .. ........ ----.... projOOt "'" --..--." """'.....--. , I-.....,.-Ie. """'~~I topk;wtt~a-e~ec:I.MGftQl~fm. ~-=O:-~~~,f"~~'~.:.O:2·~oI ::.=..oI~ __ '_ ... ~oI ... ..---"""" -~.:.:..""r.--=:--~-::.-=~~~-II 0:::: poot_~--"""-!ojr-~_ _ ....... 01_ ............ ""'1. ~ ............. pM! 6 -car-reM MAIHTr",!W',lII W PlOI'ItI metcUed h IoI"IdIeturtIe ~ thall be ~ I4tt ex~ I'ICJtt¥e, SOIL MC2!Ml.RE REmmQt MEN! MAINJ'lIHANGe ll. --.-..-..... __ .. ""---. Sol_or _ ...... _, be _ to .... topsOIl_" .. "', p-..g po.. "'" """*""""_"....----.. __ .. ""' ....... SoIIMollH. .,..,., t. ~ bePcre t.1ng Qdded to ~I bQdd'1Il. ~ =-~~~~-...... -............ -qcoc>Ie-0 GOtf1BAG.TQ8 m \lllBJPr P' NIT =em I e HllH ev.N ~ oppI1c.otb'I f'CJtes ond I15C1CJ1'thall be Fct'owecS. 0 ~~~~~'~QIId ~of pIonta on the ~ -=--:...~ -;:::.':.."": ~~ ..I; z 0::: AeWoI ptO'It q,att1t1eO ~ on pIGr'e ere to ~I CNOI' ~ ~ Oft t:fte -EmIIlJZIB ~::;..~~to~ ___ IV'If* ___ t.J U ll. =~a::'_~~~~:~WHJI~1 """'"l~ _" tao ...... 'zecI ..... -..... ~ • ...,,""""9"" "'" lQC~n;t5!AKgNEB'f! e HmNO -pee, ~~GnlIa-fertlllZar 01-'-'), HIttI c:llplpl1eGtIDf'I t"Gtee cw tlp8CJPIod .., ;;:: =':":"~'::;~' .. -!W-=,:'....~·-~ CorItraGIc>r "'" ''''''' ,...,... -. .... -"'.I pIant>og ....... -~ pnor Cl 0::: to plc:rttng. T'Closaeo GO""SU:CIfttS theIIl ,....,.. (MCI ~ ~ pr1cr to =~~...:...be..:r'~::;~.":.~ =.= =.. to __ .. =;~=.;:::.::;= .. =.:~~-9""""9-p--.g. 0 Pr-opoMd 10CGt1anl of tr-... atd 1Ihr'\b tltGi be etGkod and ld-*JF1ed witt! an t:U.WI:I ~.II ~ u... ..... and ~ I:No ~ ofbIir ftKollcd:fon 1.1'1 .... 0 "PP'<"""'~;,.:;~~~=~..=-. ... ""1c>jor .. "" ....... 11 tao pIooed"""""" .... -.. .. __ n.1l!6._mgI ~;:.-" oe:== T'Giatoea tc.u to ~ .... ~ 1M ro= GonMItt:cra thcdl ,......... and ~ I~ 01 all pt.cn. and pfcft """_p""""",, r.:!4' d ... rl>ogJ Per ......... __ . ____ lL. ~pnortDp~ ~ """*""""_" __ -......... ,.-.. --- W .app!!CM fIhS'!OM , ",",,"em eND 5f'ACd1lt!' Treee IIhcdI t» etaked wlth at *-t. ono ... en::! ~ '* CI ~ 01-GcIrIIrOotOf' "'" _ SlIt '->wi! ""'" ~...-_ '" do eo !oj PlCWtthg \oc.GtIc;Inf...,.... c-'1 pk:Int;IhcJ p~ ere ClppI"'O"""" ~ 01 ~ .ate ~ 5/4 the hoI9*"p tho treo (..,., 5heei H2JJ. GCJntn:IG.I:c;r tIhQIl ~ ,..-GooIu_._~ .... __ ... ___ "PP'<"""'''' 0 __ . _P"'"'..,' __ ""'J~'-___ to, ........ ~f:..~ ... ..-------poMod .... ---.... -bJ -...........-. ~ ........ bJ-.-..g-----GOndltIona and I~ •• ~. ~ ...... 0'Ij w:not""" ""'om the .... that UNd an od~ ~ arerGI. plalt>lg".... "" __ pnor !oj r_ """""'_. GooIr ....... _" __ ""'JO'IO" ...-l.,..... ....... pIcoIttog. PIal. _ ""' ......... ,....., .. to ... ....-.1notora1loOloJ. __ ~ .. ~ PABT 41. -!R8!MTlgN. fEtICE cn;t 9faN tNStALLADQN ~,;.".":==-:.~;t~~~=:..~:"'9 "I"ftB8tt.BT AlIJ'Ct::rIADG U!8h:JATIQN srsTB=! :t;;........-......... __ a.~!oj T._ GooIu'_ "":0 Gonb'<I<tor _" """""" a._ 9""""" ~ """"""'"" IIJO-"""""'" 01 "" Ibe~to~t:trw:¢tht~c:reCI~~~ I' 0.-","-42" o.G.. _ a. """""9" _ .. :!6 _. ~ to Iwad ~ of on plc:ried CIt""ItGe p"'1Cr to rnet:Gllatfcn 01 plcft:lrlgl todttcfI _ .... tobe_._ ... _lltao~!oj __ to .... .0 ... ..----...... ...-. ""'_crlJ~_-, GcIrIIrOotOf''''''_ ,*","_01 ,......., ... _ ... projOOt_, o~ TalatO«l Gc:InMIttan1:8 IIhotI ~ p~ toc.cJt1are. and IpCX.ng F""cr to F"O"II: ~Z ~:~ -""., .... :.~,~:-::"'~ ~ :a~: ~ =::. ~~~~ ... _!ojr ........ .--_ .... _._ .. """' .... _. 0 0 1; E PM! :l -f'LANI MA1JS! ..... 9TAHQMQ!t ;~~=:=oP~~====-~~MI >--z 3:;( u " A.MI MATmtAbS -..n or ehQcio and a~ '" • ___ of 'Ii. :0"' E1erGtr'onIc:. ""CINee IIhaII t. acIN ~brW oa the ~ ~ ~ cr.tIczU be E-<W a=:ci ::=::..==~~~~"::a~~wtt;: RMI etr'd Pee ~ IP t4J8teM Ie !'lOt GCIfttI9.IOW ttIe an. ~ vat¥ee uO:: '-0 Ilko ~I ttIat ~ the ~ ~ Pb* 1IICItoMo11lhol1 m&ot. the! .noll be;::';:.,. InatoIIed ~ or:c=:., ~== ~ "'0 ~.:::.~:,;=., ~~.'="'';'!,'~or::.:.r.=.=..= _ ~ ~lrIeI.IIGtedf'll'lJltf~.~I'IIOrICll:6'~ ....... Q.tc.ktape~. .!: E ;g~ ~ md IIhcJII be IMDnItktd to Totcmc:aeo ~~ .. ,.eco!pt 01 pieri OI-q"'Ode Matt and IGtaroI I .... iIhaIl be GJoee 200 PVG bell p;:te ... 1I:ft eol¥ent toteIded I o E _I. "::rt" ~ ~ WIth iootdr'e atoploe wheIre ~ 0lIl a'oped 0I"eIIt;1a. lJrIoe ~E Moll p~ 12" bctfoM C': ~ 04-pcv~...,. ~ Yehlt:ulcr or ~ g'N "'_ ................ II ........ 'Ilj_<-.. ....... _CR. ... -.BeJ. oc.c;.oea f8 MeC:iod QGI"On to tho ~ crea. ~ mc:WI I..., _lID ahcdl "Cat Na'ttlj.~~~..=r~~k~~ze,ncJIfte,~ ~:;t;, ~..,,~ ~ .. =. ~ ;;::--~....;--...=.':;: o 0' a ~ ~ ........ .-~ .. __ ... _. _._ ~.Ioo":r ... __ ....... 11 tao '14 •• _-, .... _or"'-'bJ>O_, ....... · 0::.0 ........ tD -"""" ... __ ...... p_. CIbo .. ~ 9"'CI"o en WQCJd tree MoXee. ~ ehcdl bet eetCIoF'e 1ft this ~ ~ to 0 '""""""' ~th of 24-...... ~~. PVC r'1Nt"'8 tftcaIl b8 ~ to ii "' ..... _, be~ -. ... 11 raotod. .. __ ~ ___ ........... ~ ~::-r: ~ = 1Ihat1 be UMd. Heode Gnd,.,zz&ee ~@ dIMoIe tr ~k:In. To~ GcIr'-.IitDrItI ~ the,.. to ~ -i .........-or_ .. CRjp ..... __ . "' __ 'pr'CMde __ ~ Per_,,-, ~ .. ~_ r ::0 d ~ ,..... -, ..... ..-.. ~ oIng'" oIrcOgIIt......". -.............. the ,.~ cree ror CIt IeoIIt bolo 9"'0"*'9 ~ '0I1owng p~ to ........ ""'. __ ... _, _ ...... _..-..oqod. 60' ..... _ ..... iq>poId ---_ .. _--" --, ..... -..,.,.~ .. ----_ ... pr.-.... !I"""'.-.",.,_~_,tao_"'to ........... -_.-.~ the plant ~ Moll hc:I\IW bNft ~ In (I c;.ontQlnlir Per at leaK CILW full ~ .. -'J-"J~ -""",,01'" =:J~"" ~ ~~~~berc:\;~=~~. PIatl~ wfth ~1OrI~~IoGI ... and~narP\nc:. MQnbe~Por-~~ .:'::'~~. oP,o~~~~~c.~";: = The *:i ~trees-'OllberwT'Nf"":lgt""Ot4",fVlICI'1db..IshJ,cw::I ... IttIUI'IIFc:InI'I~anc:I o <'IGt&ra1 ~ Ft:Ir'M, 01IIpKI1 ~I ~".".t be NaI:&",Ottd..-..oqod. .",., __ '''''''''-!oj ...... ', .... __ !ojOWJbor '5. " .......... _9"P_~_, .............. ·.-"'"'PoI _-" ~ ~ ~'" not eXGOed 12-. ~~~~Gr~~~~~(J'~-:,~ '.~ 9W"Ut» _" hcYO 0 "..,.,..,. Of t:tree ..,. Ottd stIoll be 0 "**"""" hefqIt of 16 ~" :..~~-..... ~.t~..'!~ ....... ~~ .. ~ =:=1~=U:~~GO~~~::==~~~o ~~~ ...... _to,.....-""""""",,Iloj. """""3 .... --.. ~.~ ......... -.. ----~--';t -:...~~I~OI .. ·~lIp~~to~~~c:tr.: :t: 0QGh GUttIng tholl bo Q trdnftU'n of I-~ Q I.." ~ the boUoM GUt be""" _ at ......... .1\ .......... ~ ....... <:bjo ""' .... _ ..... " "'" _ ........... wiOIr>gO _, ... GUt at • "5 doqee ~_....--"'9_""'. 0: d == ~ ~'9:~O: e:: ~ ~::::c.mcre ~ ~~ !::t:b:=0t!!.:,tQI~ ~ =-~:""~ ~ li ~ 8! ==,:-_~::"~p=b"!:'~":".!l=--r.l:=-.......-.-. i I g i """"go or _"'90 _" tao -. j "The ~ bid aholl nc:. .. CI CI'tO"1JI'O'" ~Nt dofed::e .. 1hC2lcIriot. 0'1:1 ~ ~-'---""""""p----~ '=::=:":1::-1:',.... _....;, '!'" ~'= DC ~_-. ...... 01....." .... __ "............-.._ ... "'JO'-' ~ .. __ to tao .... ,~ 0.. ~loc.otIc;Inolthernct:er1oht.tlbe~toT'ota.c:aeoc:.c:r.uftoott:. :gill 0.. -...". ... .-.....~. sCftP p.:mezrp MeM « "'fllltjDnmG'tt!a ~"""_ (_Iftcrough~ _J .......................... __ III w ~~~T:cn":~~~=1t=~~~',::to ~ ..... -~ 1o''''''''''Jp-"'9 ..... , ... - " R§IQRE fJC!!iTIH§: ty.n.RAI OR '-tYiPf€d'PFP ABfM '" Of"c:Ier"Iftg~1. e.letMg~ or ~ crees I:hct dI"e ~~~Mall t» acre root. at.odt of eq,ICII a," to aprecm.cI c.c:ricmc!w' 01' ate p~ mcIj bet ~ to their' Qr1gWICII ~,un .... ....".~ or ~ ere.-.rFIed >-II.IbN:ttut:odPordec;.~~Q/If"e.ep~~~. ori~pr-tor For-t:tIoM tree». Il ~ <Il Clpp"'oYOI by Tcnc::ec:.eo c.on.vftQrlta.. ~ pl_ rJIOtoo'foi tnc;IIl be """ cr-... e. ~ tihall ,,~ .. c:c:re "' prot:.crc.t ~ "J.rtJ to tnri:, r""OCJt:a, 17 tronc.hft. of <>"J tr_ or _ '""' .... to remain. ""J IMng """'"I pial. -.. __ '*""9 'tf'BI" ttBXBt !tIQ'1K; «7!I2IDQN ~t:r'\Ic.UcIf'I shaJl be b'"eoted ...ntm 2~ oF~. TCJIcJIoI,CI GQr!tU!tmta , ra'_ G<>nouI-. _" _ pieri -..-. at ... 1"" _ .... Udto>g p>"OYlOUO~ =:-;:::.~~~ ~~~~...:~~~~ ~~n!:'"~~ ;~~ ~ ~~ -::'''::=''~t Gontr'o<tor .... 11 P""'O ___ ~ oF p ...... _ ... ~ ....... -.go ......... , ~.~ '" "'MGts,IOI:efIt .,,~ I7'd defet.ts, l"r"'eeJI. m..t be untied aoId I~ pIc:a'It:e ehcJIl be ~~ ~ <h:t oddrtI<:InCIII'ftOQIl.r'"OB tholl be t.czk.Gn. 011 '1 YpCW'OtOd For~. TolosalllO ~Itcnte ,.....,...... trw t'1cj1t to ... FuM '"¥oil approprlCate, to otd Il'I F'1c:ri ~1. pb'It IPICter"ICII ~ tlme p!"'iOt" to F\OtoI oc.upt.c:Jt"C.e III It r. do~ t:f1ot: euciI fftCItrlQl ~ ~~~~o:.~~. ~.Jeeted moterlCli thall be ~ II ya;uEX 5JX!!Mf ffim AHP t1m!QD ~~.,~ ~Iw~ ~= !rp=: :::"'V:I:" ~tndlon rrQer-1oi. one; detr!. z Plante .nail bo MOred In 0 mcmer ~ to -."port tn.r hortJc;;ulb.w"CII PART" ! -elNfi. 6<tGCf'TANU" I:i 0 requr8lt'Nll"ltl, filM I'I'IOter1oI ltor'«t C1t'1ltt.o shall be ~ from wec::li:her dcItIc:Igo, Vi c.DI'IIt:f"UC,tlOn = en; !:he. F'W'Ie. Boiled and ~ ~ ..rtICit GO'WIOt be PLMT 1dH!.RANTT' Ii GS ""'tolled ~ !hoI1 be ~ec::I-.,. to ~t QnIc.c.otfQl'l pr-tcr to plontftg. GorI~" ltO'Tont:f:j aholl nc.1udo rep~ oF "Iorttl (.oNJ aIlo GI'Id .... _ il RcIoti:JaIII ehoIl b8 pt"'OtOGted ~ ~ ""Itt! ~ aoIl, rMdI or ~t aid wctorecI ii '" .. ~ ahotoorI gn l:tw ~ hK pt'"OYe either-to be dfelOGClt.ed cr-umtuItcIble CJII to iCIh:ri il _10"_, e.a:..,x ""'..,.. -to .~~...--.. .. ~ il~ I PtQftt ~ sholl !:Ie IrAIpt IftCIfM ( .... Iond ~ .. ta:tur'OtecI) 0I'Id tharded "" the ==~~to~O~~=tMr==::aIottt_ cae.t:a.lal Utone 01 plait. ~IIC1tIOr'l. ~~ Of*' ~'"90 !tOft1 ." the plO'It.tng creo ............. ""'Iq-oo.< ..... """Pt ~ •• _,-r::;-""""'''''_!oj tftoll be IoOW"CJtecI to pre~ ","11onJ etreee. ......... "' ..... ~ ... I1 ... _'""""plalt~_ _i~~ ~~ or "'OdfP1c.ot~ to tn .. 1'10'1 "Wi ~ prfOl"" ~I ~0fII To~ :i ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I < .... Uc Z·· ~ = • ~ ..... = ~ CII ! -.. < .. a. .::. 00 -~ Eo-CII -.. I 7Jl z ~ ! < < e Eo-= ...Jf ~ :J .~ < oorrl Z~ ! ~O ~ ej r '" '; ~~I I I II' ! ii . Q ~ !~ § ". .. ~ ~ '" • Date ~ f ScaJe Desianed Drawn ~GL j Checked Approved 85 I gal -Project : a --z \.. ~ ~ Sheet * ~.~ \... o o o ~ II , n::: o o LL W o .. Ul ..., m a:: a.. a.. « w !;;: o z o Ul (;j a:: o z if l 7 I I 1 I I 17 j,7 !/ /,' j . ------- / I / / / WET1.AND / STfC.EAM IMPACTS 4 MITI6ATION P1.AN GRAPHIC SCALE NORm ( IN FEET ) CD I $ i I PL..AN L.E6END o 15 30 60 PROPERTY' LINE 5GALE.I"=BO' " .., --'" -EXISTINe WNTOUR C ~ .... : ::::::J EXISTINe HETLAND - - - --STANDARD BUffER - - - - -AVERAGED BUFFER = = ~ = = APPROXIMATE OHWM OF STREAM -+-' -APPROXIMATE CENTER LINE OF STREAM ~ EDeE OF EXISTINe VEeETATION TO REMAIN \ \ IMPACT L..E6END FILLED WETLAND (WETLAND '6') 1<T6 SF 256 SF \. , \ / / / /' \ '-' I '.<:< , -,~ \ 0 / ./' / ,I I / I J i ) MITI6ATION L..E6END V717?777/7///////1 ~TLAND CREATION (WETLAND 'A') 1'////////U"L/-7-LL'Zi 1:1 RATIO FOR FILLED V£TLAND 'B' ( \ ~ BUFfER REPLACEMENT ~ WETLAND ENHANCEMENT (WETLAND 'A') 122222222222222 1:1 RATIO fOR FILLED ~TLAND 'B' m1fttl+tfflttR STREAM, BUFFER AND SLOPE ENHANCEMENT P 2 2 2 r-cJl NATIVE GROWTH PROTECTION AREA , \ I, I \ \ \ \ I , i I ! i <1 -; L.l , , , I. < / / / \ '\ I . ! .. \ \ \ ~ / Wi > <C I / \ • " p " ~'. --.. --' )---- \ '\ / \ \ I , I ! J / /' I / / / \ \ i PROPOSED TIGHTLINE WNVEY ANCE OF DRAINAeE (SEE CIVIL PLANS) , \ l.::,~j \ \ • (j \ \ i \ \ \ \ \ ,.'\ \ \ \ \, I I I , , \ \ \ 1<T6 SF 256 SF 1'16 SF 8,IIB SF 60pBB SF NOTES L SITE PLAN PROVIDED BY WRE DESleN, 14111 NE 2'1m PL. SUITE 101, BELLEVUE, WA '18001 (425)8b5-18TI. 2. 50URGE DRAWINe WAS MODifiED BY TALA5AEA WNSUL T ANTS fOR VISUAL ENHANCEMENT. B. rnlS PLAN 15 AN ATTACHMENT TO mE HETLAND MITleATION REPORT PREPARED BY TALA5AEA WNSULTANTS IN -lINE Of 2005. 4. mls PLAN 15 WNGEPl1JAL ONLY AND SHOULD NOT BE IJ5ED fOR WNSTRlJGTION. 5. DELINEATION OF HETLAND '8' AND OHWM Of STREAM 'A' 4 '8' ARE fROM fiELD OBSERVATION (SEPTEMBER 15, 2005). LOCATIONS ARE DEPICTED APPROXIMATE. ( ~I I I I I ~ III Q) II) ... 8 oj ~ D- tH <l:l N ~ ILl X III X i:l 0 0 \) .... III ~ 'f> Q) Cl:: \) Date 2f2, II!I:::IF05 Scale AS NOIED Designed ,Iv.! 8.1 Drawn KA,c,1 Checked , llel Approved 55 Project I 9~1 Sheet II ~I.I \. ~ • • j {'. ..- \"f) 0) L() 0 w z ~ ..., .. 00 ~'" i b o ~ II , (J) OJ 0 Ii: w (J) .l!:l ~ .., q ~ 3: hi >-~ a:::: w D-. 0 u z a:::: --D-u 3: C') a:::: 0 0 l.L.. W 0 ~ -' q ?i '" ~ .., :.: .., ~ I I I L() ~ ~ i (J) OJ ~ ~ ~ a:: 0.. 0.. «( w ~ 0 ~ z o Ul GJ a:: o z STREAM 'c' (CLASS 5 STREAM) EXISTINe , I • j , , , ' , II i I I . ' !: ! EXISTINe HOUSE 1TH STREET ROHTYP. SEE STREAMMETLAND 'B' ENLARl5EMENT (THIS SHEET) ~~~S~._~~THS~_E_T ______ __ I \ . . STREAM 'c' CONTINUES OfF-SITE SEE WETLAND 'N ENLARGEMENT (THIS SHEET) : I ." r UNNAMED SlFfAM ,,(TRIBUTARYITO / '. ROLLINe CFtEEKJ . STREAM 'A' , '\ ...Ai CONTINUES I' , I . /' OfF-5ITE \\ I, I !-;'1'~. pl·' " . " .... -7---------------------------.,;;"" .. -,..;;..L. OYERVIE~ FJ..AN GRAPHic SCALE mNORTH (IN FEET) I $ t I o 50 100 200 SCALE,I"=IOO' DRAINAeE I (CLASS 5 STREAM) ~TJ..AND IAIENJ..AReeMENT STREAM/~TJ..AN£:) 161 ENJ..AReEMENT GRAPHiC SCALE (IN FEET) 1--1 1---66 SCALE,I"=3O' GRAPHiC SCALE NORTH (INFEET) ~ -l-lt 1 66 \JLJ SCALE,I"=3O' J..E6AJ... £:)E5GRIFTION PARCEL A THAT PORTION OF THE H.H. TOBIN DONATION LAND CLAIM NO.:n, LYING SOUTHERLY AND WESTERLY OF THE PLAT OF HIGHLAND ADDITION TO THE TOWN OF RENTON. ACCORDIN6 TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 11 OF PLATS, PA6E 32, IN KiNe COUNTY, WASHINeTON; AND THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST GlJARTER OF THE NORTHWEST GlJARTER OF SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANeE 5 EAST, H.M., IN KIN6 COUNTY, WASHINeTON, L YIN6 NORTHERLY OF PU6ET SOUND POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY'S TRANSMISSION RIGHT-of-WAY AND EAST OF PRIMARY STATE HIGHWAY NO. I, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BE6INNINe AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 20, HITH THE f'lEST LINE OF SAID PLAT, WHICH POINT IS NORTH 8Gf°5<f'21' WEST 1,386175 FEET FROM THE NORTH GlJARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE SOUTH 01°2<1'35" WEST ALONe THE WEST LINE OF SAID PLAT AND SAID LINE PRODUCED SOUTHERLY crB.o4 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF PU6ET SOUND POHER AND Ll6HT COMPANY'S TRANSMISSION RIGHT-OF-WAY; THENCE NORTH 61°03'41" WEST 411.06 FEET TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF PRIMARY STATE HIGHWAY NO. I; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID HIGHWAY TO THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION; THENCE SOUTH 8Gf°5<f'21" EAST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE 31654 FEET TO THE POINT OF BE6INNINe. PARCEL [\: THAT PQfo'nON OF THE H.H. TOBIN DONATION LAND CLAIM NO.:n, LYINe SOUTHERLY OF THE PLAT OF HIGHLAND ADDITION TO THE TOWN OF RarrON, ACCORDIN6 TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 11 OF PLATS, PA6E 32, IN KIN6 COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS, BE61NNINfI AT A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANeE 5 EAST, H.M., IN KiNe COUNTY, WASHIN6TON, WHICH IS NORTH 8Gf°5<f'21" WEST 1,386,85 FEET FROM THE NORTH GlJARTER CORNER THEREOF; THENCE SOUTH 0102q'35" HEST ALON6 THE CENTERLINE OF CEDAR STREET 611,82 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID PLAT, AND THE TRUE POINT OF BE6INNINe; THENCE SOUTH 88°33'25' EAST 310.14 FEET TO THE HEST LINE OF pENTON STREET; THENCE SOUTH 01°24'21" WEST ~l.q8 FEET ALON6 SAID WES r LINE AND WEST LINE PRODUCED SOUTHERLY TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF P1J6ET SOUND POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY'S RIGHT-OF-WAY; THENCE N/JRTH 61°03'41" f'lEST ALONe SAID RI6HT-oF-HAY 35551 FEET; THENCE N/JRTH 01°2<1'35" EAST 361.12 FEET TO A POINT COINCIDENT HITH THE 5OIJTI1 LINE OF SAID PLAT AND THE WE5T LINE OF CEDAR STREET; THENCE s.JUTH 88°33'35" EAST 20.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BE61NNINc '. PROPERTY LINE ... ~~---~ .. EXISTINe CONTOUR C ; .... :. :::J EXISTIN6 WETLAND -- - --STREAM / HETLAND BUFFER eTP-# STREAM / HETLAND FLA6 TEST PIT FLA6 = ~ = = APPROXIMATE OHWM OF STREAM . +-. -APPROXIMATE CENTER LINE OF STREAM EXISTING TREES STREAM IAIENJ..AReEMENT GRAPHIC. SCALE mNORTH (IN PeET ) I $ t I o 15 30 60 SCALE: 1"=30' VICINI'r( MAP SCALE, NTS SOURCE: THE THOMAS 6UIDE 2005; METROPOLITAN PU6ET SOUND CONTACTS APPLlC.ANT/OHNER: 6WC, INC. 24653 NE 133RD ST. DUVALL, WA Q80lq CON1ACT PERSON, TRAVIS DEFOOR ENGINEER; COR! DESI6N 14111 NE 2QTH PL. SUITE 101 BELLEVUE, WA Q8001 (425)885-1811 CONTACT PER5Qtj, MICHAEL CHEN, P.E . ENVIRONMENTAL GON5VLIANT TALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. 15020 BEAR CREEK RD. NE WOODINVILLE, WA Q8011 PHONE, (425) 861-1550 CONTACT PERSON, JASON WALKER, ASSOCIATE SHEET INDEX SHEET NUM6ER SHEET TITLE lI'tl.O EXISTING CONDITIONS 4 OVERVIEiI'I PLAN lI'tl.l PROPOSED SITE PLAN IMPACTS 4 MITIGATION ]1112.0 ENHANCEMENT PLANTING PLAN ]1112.1 PLANTING DETAILS 4 NOTES ]1112.2 PLANTING SPECIFICATIONS NOTES I. SITE PLAN PROVIDED BY CORE DESI6N, 14111 NE 2QTH PL. SUITE 101, BELLE\I1JE, WA Q8001 (425)885-1811. 2. SOURCE DRAWINe WAS MODIFIED BY TALASAEA CONSULTANTS FOR VISUAL ENHANCEMENT. 3. THIS PLAN IS AN ATTACHMENT TO THE HETLAND MITI6ATION REPORT PREPARED BY TALASAEA CONSULTANTS IN JUNE OF 2005. 4. THIS PLAN 15 CONCEPTUAL ONLY AND SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION. 5. DELINEATION OF HETLAND '6' AND OHWM OF STREAM 'A' , '6' ARE FROM FIELD OBSERVATION (SEPTEMBER 15,2005). LOCATIONS ARE DEPICTED APPROXIMATE. r r ~I I I I I I' ~ Q) ~ .... oj Q ~ d) N ~ III ! d 0 0 \) .... III ~ .... ~ Q) ~ \) Date 212. RlbIEa5 Scale AS ~OTED Designed .Iv..! P·I Drawn K.s.c.1 Checked • Iv..! Approved RC, Project # 9:21 Sheet # ~I.Q \. ~ u i!i 1 u • • • ~ I f. ~ Q U @ a CD II • . u z >-r- 0:::: w 0.. o 0:::: 0.. 0:::: o o LL W o a:: a.. a.. « z o If) GJ a:: o z PL.AN L.Ec5ENr:> -~-~------------EXISTINe CONTOUR -------PROPOSED CONTOUR ! / _ ... __ t-··· -APPROXIMATE CENTERLINE OF STREAM ___ EXISnNe STORM DRAINAeE TO REMAIN - - - - -35' STREAM BUFFER L ~ LAReE HOODY DEBRIS PL.ANT SCHEr:>UbE TREES SYMl30L SCIENTIFIC NAME ~ ~ ---ACERCIRCINAlVM ~--FRAXINUS LATIFOLIA ~----~---. RHAMNUS PUR5I-IIANA • PICEA SITCHEN5IS o ' PINUS CONTORTA I> ----THUJA PLiCATA <W-----THUJA PLICATA SHRUBS SYMBOL SCIENTIFIC NAME 0-------C0RNU5 SERICEA ®--MAHONIA AGlIJIFOLIUM @e-------SALIXLASIANORA 0-------SALIX 5COULERIANA .... COMMON NAME VINE MAPLE ORE60N A51-1 CASCARA SITKA 5PRlJCE 5I-IORE PINE .... WESTERN RED CEDAR WESTERN RED CEDAR COMMON NAME RED-05IER DOGWOOD ORE6ON GRAPE PACIFIC WILLOW 5COULER WILLOW ----SYMPHORICARPOS ALBUS COMMON SNOW6ERRY \ \ \.- \ \, \ \ I \ \ 1 , \ \ j \ " \ \ , \ \ \ \ \ '\ \ \ \. I ' I \ , , \, \.\,,,,,'.\\ 1 \ ,\" i \ '\ \ \ \ "\ \. \. \ \ , -, \. \ '., \ \ I, '\ \\,\.,'\'\ , \ \ \ , \, -\ \ ' \ \ \ '\ '\ \ \ .... \ \ , , - \ I \ \ \ \ ' \ \ '. \ \ , \ , , , ... \, ' --, \\\\ <", \ \ \ . I / I ) \ \ \ \. \ I \ , , ' , \ \. "\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ._ ... --... - \ \ \ \ \ \. \ \ \. , , , \ \. \ \. , , / \ \ WL STAl1J5 SPACINe GlTY. SIZE (MIN) NOTES \ \ , , \. \ , , / \ \ \ \. \ \. \ \ \ ( / , , \ \ MULTI-STEM (3 MINJ \ \ FAG- FACW FAC FAC FAC FAC FAC AS 5I-IOHN 4 AS SHOWN 5 AS SHOWN 5 AS SHOWN 10 ASSHOWN 4 AS 5I-IOHN 2 ASSHOWN 'I 3' HT. 5-6' HT. 4' HT. SINeLE TRUNK, WELL BRANCHED B~B, FULL 4 BU5I-IY WL STAl1J5 SPACINe 3' o.c. 3' O.C. GlTY. 15'1 135 2-3' HT. 4-5' HT. 4-5' HT. 2-3' Hr. B4 B, FULL 4 BU5I-IY B4 B, FULL 4 BU5I-IY B4B, FULL 4 BU5I-IY B4 B, FULL 4 BU5I-IY SIZE (MIN) NOTES Ie." HT. Ie." HT. MUL TI-CANE (3 MINJ FULL 4 BU5I-IY \ , I I i , ' , , FACW NL FACW FAC FACt) 315YMBOL 4 315YMBOL 3b4 3' O.C. 140 4' CUTTINO ClJITIN65 OBTAINED FROM ON-SITE CLEARINe ACTIVITIES 4' ClJITINe HALF INCH DIAMETER, BARK INTACT Ie." HT. MULTI-CANE (3 MIN) EROSION C.ONTROL SEED MIX (PRoVIDE AT AU. EXPOSED SOIL AREAS) SCIENTIFIC NAME FESTUCA RVBRA AGROSTIS TENUIS COMMON NAME RED FE5CUE COLONIAL BENTGRA55 WL STAl1J5 SPACINe FAc+ 50% APPLICATION RATE PER ACRE, FAC 50% 40# SEED MIX 12011 WILBUR ELLIS FERTILIZER, 5-10-10 50% IBPI), OR EGlUIV. I I I I I I / I I I PL.ANTINc5 PL.AN o -"I~ 60 \jLJ SCALE,I"=30' \ , \. .... \. \ \ \ \ / \ \ \ " ,/ I \. , \ ! I \ I \ ' \ i -~.J \ \ "0' \ " 0 '. \ \ i i ! , ' i I, \ \ \ \ \, \ \ \ \ \ \\\\\ '" ." \ .. / \. \ . \ " "" "-\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ) \, / / . ) \ , ' , \ , \ \ \ \ ! I \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ i=VI'C,Tl''''.c. PACIFIC : FOR; ClJITINe5) 'v ,I ; \ \ " , , , _._-+ ,-" i 0' . c~ I \ ..... I, I I , , I \ \ , , \ ' \ \ \ , \ ) I / I ( \ \ \ 1 I \ \ / \ , /1 ! ! /' J \ ./ I /' / / r ~I 1 1 1 1 ~ I» ~ !l U"I ., ~ t:I n.. llJ tSl dJ N ~ ., ~ 1:1 8 0 .... ., ~ .... ;> cu ~ \) Date 212. RlNF()5 Scale 85. NOTED Designed ,I~ E.I Drawn 1:;;12.(;:1 Checked .IW Approved RS Project II g~1 Sheet /I ~.G2 ""--~ Ii) Ii) 0 ~ ~ w . 0 z ~ o ~ ::J I ~ z ~ I N ~N !li ~ ~ ..- 1'0 01 >-I- et: W D-. 0 U z et: - ~ D-u 5: G et: 0 0 LL W 0 .L. ~o a.~ .,0 a!:; ~Z '" ",'- .::£ .~ 00 DE ~E--~~ o • E--Z :Ow "n: ~~ D.. U~ "-e 0'0 SE "OL. ==Q) I "E ~E 0"-eN 'c 01 eO' 0., -L. D.." iii !~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~I ~ -- ~ 0 ~ ~~I -~/; t') ~ ~~ 1/ , ~ .. ~ ~ ~ -'- 0 .. (!) .. (J) --, '" --, m i Iii z (;j I ~ ~ ~ f.l z ~ 0 u 0:: (J)(J) D.. D.. mOl <{ l:g to w 1;:8 ~ w:> f3~ 0 ~ .... fD --, --, Z 0 Ul G'i n:: '" z 0 ~~ w'" ~~ 8n. ~~ O(J) ci ~ ~ Z 1 ~I / 1 Y 1 1 1 ;, 17 /,1 /1 !/ /,, j _ .. /' YETL.AND I STREAM IMPACTS 4 MITI6ATION PL.AN GRAPHIC. SC.ALE mNORTH (IN FEET) I $ t I o 15 30 60 SGALE,I"=3O' P1...AN 1...ec5eND - -PROPERTY LINE L ~ .... : d EXISTINe HETLAND - - - --S1REAM / WETLAND BUFFER = = ~ = = APPROXIMATE OHWM OF S1REAM -+-... -APPROXIMATE CENTER LINE OF S1REAM " ~ _.# EDGE OF EXISTING VEGETATION TO REMAIN -.... ~ / / EXISTINe ---11-1 4· .--1" BUILDINe - - - - -...----_ ..... <----- 1-----------, I ~I I II 2 ~ /; ---;: L_-----~---11 ~-J --_______ ---.,--~!I;; __ ----r-- I \ STREAM 'A' CLASS 4 (35' BUFFER) \ , I I I STREAM '8' CLA553 (15' BUFFER) • x HETLAND '6' CATEGORY 3 1% SF (25' BUFFER) p "' t··.........--. - ------.... -. ·~~~~Tlrl"""-'_ , I PROPERTY I LlNEJROW I---J '~-<J / I MPAC T 1...ec5eND ~ BUFFER REDUCTION 10,ISO SF , I DRAINAGE If .. '" ,: , TO BE RELOCATED· / ~~:-L-----------~// I . ~I· / _. -\-----------, \ , \ I \ 5 I \ I I \.................. I I ............ , ........ ........ ........ , ........ ....J MITIc5ATION 1...ec5eND NOTeS PROPOSED TIGHTLINE CONVEY ANGE OF DRAINAeE I ~~ BUFFER REPLACEMENT 10,150 SF I. SITE PLAN PROVIDED BY GORE DESleN, 14111 NE 2<lTH PL. SUITE 101, BELLEVUE, WA GJ8OO1 (425)f}85-1f}11. p-T//// 77 /J" STREAM, WETLAND, BUFFER AND 23,15GJ SF iLL. _ / LL -SLOPE ENHANCEMENT IR+ll+HI+FlI+Hl STREAM, WETLAND, BUFFER AND SLOPE 5,EJ36 SF a...J1!::il:ttil±t!JL.L.Li..LLL.LLL.LL.LL.J.J RESTORATION p:,r ,r ,r ,rdl OPEN SPACE 33,GJOO SF f=)( 'ru'bii IS 2. 5OlJRC.E DRAWINe WAS MODIFIED BY TALASAEA CONSULTANTS FOR VISUAL ENHANCEMENT. 3. THIS PLAN IS AN ATTACHMENT TO THE WETLAND MITIGATION REPORT PREPARED BY TALASAEA CONSULTANTS IN AUGUST OF 2006. 4. THIS PLAN IS CONCEPTUAL ONLY AND SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR CONSTRlJGTION. 5. DELINEATION OF WETLAND '6' AND OHWM OF S1REAM 'A' 4 '6' ARE FROM FIELD OBSERVATION (SEPTEMBER 15,2005). LOCATIONS ARE DEPICTED APPROXIMATE. '; ~I ~I I I I ~ ., 1!) .... I i OS ~ N r- ~ >- ~ ~ '" ~ ~ 0 ..... '" ~ .~ \!:! ., d ~ () \I) i!i Date 25,IJNF()'j Ir Scale AS NOTED Designed , llel ~ Drawn 1:;;f2 • Checked , llel ~ Approved RS Project # g~1 ~ ~ 0 u @ Sheet /I ~I.I , ~ It) It) 0 ~ w z ~ ~ ~ ; "<t-~ § l! ('oj ~ ~ I x w ..- 1'0 >-(J) r- 0:: w D-. 0 u z 0:: - ~ D-u 5 <..? 0:: 0 0 LL W 0 ..... +'0 0. .... .,0 Cl!:; ~Z "' OO"c 00 -'" .-6E ~~ 3"0 « u • ~Z :=L.J .0. ::Jo.. -~ 0.. U~ '-e "'0 .S E "0 .... ==Q) fIG ::JE ~E "'.-eN 'c 0'1 eo> 0., -.... 0..0 iii !a--~ :::;; ii ::J II !:i Cl !l x -- ~ ~2i ~h is .. 5 ~ ~zi ~~ ~ _L ..., ..J Q. (j ;i c5 ~ (I) ..., '" m ~ Iii I ~ I z ~ iii Ii 0< 0.. ;: 0.. ..., « 1:3 w I;: ~ W III IgJ ;: fu ..., z 0 (f) '> w n:: ~ z w :::l! :::l! 0 ~ (3 0 -Z SET 1REE STRAISHT AND PLACE ROOTeALL ON SOLID 5ROUND OR ON COMPACTED BACKFILL. BACKFILL PLANTINe HOLE 112 RJLL r-IITH NATIVE SOIL, TAMP SOIL TO STABILIZE ROOTBALL. CUT AYlAY WIRE. STI'tlNe, AND BURLAP. BACKFILL REMAININe PLANTINe HOLE PER SPECIFICATIONS. AMEND BACKFILL AS NOTED IN THE INSTALLATION NOTES. NOTE, INSTALLATION 5EGUENCE BEeINS AT TOP OF SLOPE ON DIAeRAM AND PROCEEDS DOWNSLOPE, FOLLOr-liNe STEPS I THROUGH 5. I. STAKE ALONe SELECTED ELEVATION. 2. TRENCH ABOVE STAKES TO A DEPTH OF 112-213 DIA. OF 1lUNDLE. 3. PLACE atlDLE IN TRENCH. 4. ADD LIVE SALIX SGOULERIANA STAKES THROUGH AND BELOW BUNDLE AT 2-3' SPACINe (SEE DETAIL 3N. 5. COVER FA5CINE WITH TOPSOIL, TAMP FIRMLY. FA5ClNE TO BE ABOUT I'" ABOVE <9RADE WITH 10-20% LEFT OF FA5ClNE EXPOSED. N.T.5. SECURE FA5CINE IDIDLl3-""""" WITH PACIFIC WILLOW CUTTlNe5 @~~SCINE STAKINcS TYP. CONIFER 2"><2" HEMLOGKlFIR STAKES, LOCATED 0UT51DE OF ROOTBALL • FASTEN wll4 eAUeE eALY. WIRE AND 112" NEW YINYL HOSINe. STAKE WITH NO EXPOSED WIRE ENDS. NEITHER STAKE OR WIRE MAY TOUCH 1REE TRUNK. STAKE HEISHT MUST BE AT LEAST 5' FROM FINISHED <9RADE. PLACE 3' OF MlA...CH IN SAlJCER-..... TO WITHIN 3' OF THE TRUNK. REMOVE CONTAINER OR PULL-..... BACK TOP PORTION OF BURLAP FROM ROOTBALL PRIOR TO PLACEMENT IN PLANTlNe PIT. FORM 5" HT. WATER DAM AROUND 1REE r-IITH SOIL TO HOLD WATER. FINAL <9RADE. ~~~1~~~~t=---SCARIFY SIDES OF PLANTINe ti HOLE. MAKE 5URE HOLE HAS eooo DRAINAeE. ~~~';:;:lHp~~--EXISTlNe NATIVE SOIL OR NEWLY PLACED TOPSOIL • PREPARE FA5ClNE, CleAR SHAPED BUNDLES W'- 10" DIA), OF LIVE SALIX 5COULERIANA WITH 6lJTT5 ALTERNATlNe, TIED 12-15" o.c. BUNDLE5 ARE 8' IN LENeTH. ROOT BALL DIAMETER DECIDUOUS SET 1REE STRAISHT AND PLACE ROOTBALL. ON 50LID 5ROUND OR ON coMPACTED BACKFILL. BACKFILL PLANTINe HOLE 1/2 FULL WITH NATIVE SOIL, TAMP SOIL TO STABILIZE ROOTBALL. GUT AYlAY WIRE, STRiNe, AND BURLAP. BACKFILL REMAlNINe PLANTINe HOLE PER 5PECIFICATIONS. AMEND BACKFILL AS NOTED IN THE INSTALLATION NOTES. BACKFILL PLANTlNe HOLE 112 FULL WITH NATIVE SOIL, LleHTlY COMPACT SOIL AROUND ROOTS AND ALLOW WATER TO SETTLE. DO NOT LEAVE AIR POCKETS. BACKFILL REMAININe PLANTiNe HOLE PER 5PECIFICATIONS. AMEND BACKFILL AS NOTED IN THE INSTALLATION NOTES. FINAL <9RADE. 5CARIFY SIDES OF PLANTINe HOLE. MAKE 5URE HOLE HAS eooo DRAlNAeE. ,,----FOR BARE ROOT PLANTlNe ON SLOPES, INSTALL PLANT UPRIGHT ON LEVEL SOIL TO A55URE COVER OF ROOTS ON DOWNHILL SIDE OF PLANT. ~ COMPACT SOIL UNDER ROOT MASS ---EXISTINe NATIVE SOIL. 0~!,RE ROOT PLANTINcS DETAIL "N"P . MULCH 3" DEEP 24" DIARINe SET 5HRUB STRAIGHT AND PLACE ROOTBALL ON SOLID 5ROUND OR ON COMPACTED BACKFILL. BACKFILL PLANTlNe HOLE 1/2 FULL WITH NATIVE SOIL, TAMP SOIL TO STABILIZE ROOTBALL. DO NOT DlS1IJRB ROOTBALL BACKFILL REMAlNINe PLANTINe HOLE PER SPECIFICATIONS. AMEND BACKFILL AS NOTED IN THE INSTALLATION NOTES. ~~~~m;---'5C~AI<:IFY SIDES OF PLANTINe HOLE. MAKE 5URE HOLE HAS eDOD DRAlNAeE. ROOT BALL DIAMETER 0:?.5~NTAINER SHRUB PLANTINtS DETAIL "'"VP. ov USE A 24" S1EEL BAR OR MARLIN SPIKE AT LEAsT 112' DIA. AS A PILOT WHEN PLANTINe CUTTlNe5 IN DENSE OR eRAYEL Y SOILS. INSERT SPIKE TO A MIN. OF Ib'. INSERT CUTnNe AND TAMP SOIL AROUND BASE • INSERT CUTTlNe5 MANUALLY ----~) INTO PILOT HOLE TO A DEPTH NOTES, I. CUTTINe5 SHALL BE SPECIES AS NOTED IN THE PLANT SCHEDULE. 2. CUTTlNe5 SHALL BE AT LEAST 112" DIA. AND 4' (min) IN LENeTH. 3. CUTTlNe5 MUST BE ALIVE WITH SIDE BRANCHES CLEARLY REMOVED AND BARK INTACT. CUTTlNe5 SHALL BE PLANTED WITHIN 24 HOUR5 OF CUTTINe. ""'1""''IT1~'H,..,.,.''''''I'T1''OF AT LEAST Ib". LEAVE A 4. THE BUTT ENDS SHOULD BE CLEANLY GUT AT AN ANeLE FOR EASY INSERTION INTO THE SOIL. THE TOP 5HOULD BE CUT 5GUARE OR -=TTT I TIT:-~~ ~:~ -=111 III TO ALLOW FOR SlJGC.E55FUL . -' I II SPROUTlNe OF LEAVES. 1fT -III -III TT BLUNT. -1T I I P' 5. CUTTlNe5 MUST BE FRESH AND KEPT MOIST -I II -111= AFTER CUTTlNe. THEY 5HOlJLD BE PRUNED 1-=1 110 _ AND INSTALLED THE SAME DAY. -:11 L-' b. DIP BOTTOM OF CUTTINe IN A PLANT ROOTINe HORMONE PRIOR TO INSERTION INTO THE SOIL. o :-.5~TTINcS PLANTINcS OETAIL T'fp, CEDAR OR FIR LOe, 24" DIA MIN. NOTCH I' NOTES. I. LDe TO BE 24' DIA. MIN.. CONIFER (CEDAR OR FIR SPECIES), 8-12' LENeTH5. 2. PLACEMENT OF HABITAT LOe TO BE DETERMINED IN THE FIELD BY TALA5AEA CONSULTANTS. 3. ANCHOR LOe WITH DUCKBILL ANcHOR, 4. DRIVE ANCHOR A MIN. OF 4' INTO THE 5ROUND r-IITH A HAMMER AND DRIVE S1EEL. ONcE THE ANCHOR IS AT THE PROPER DEPTH, REMOVE THE DRIVE S1EEL. 5. WRAP THE S1EEL CAI3LE AROUND THE DRIVE S1EEL AND PULL UPWARD A DISTANCE SLleHTlY LONeER THAN THE LENeTH OF THE ANCHOR BODY. THIS WILL ROTATE THE ANCHOR INTO A F'ERPENDIGULAR POSITION. b. NOTCH THE BARK OF THE LDe A MINIMJM OF I' AROUND THE CIRCUMFERENCE OF THE LOe AS SHOWN. "1. WRAP THE STEEL CAI3LE OF THE D\JC.KBILL ANCHOR IN THE NOTCH AROUND THE LOe IN SUCH A WAY THAT THE CABLE IS HIDDEN. ON-tSRAOE HABITAT LOcS 0!,~CHORIN5 DETAIL 4' eENERAL FLANTINe INSTALLATION NOTES I. PLANT 1REE t/OR 5HRlJB 112" HleHER THAN DEPTH ElROWN AT tVRSERY. 2. FOR CONTAINER TREES 4/OR 5HRUB5, SCORE FOUR SIDES OF ROOTBALL PRIOR TO PLANTINe. BUTTERFLY ROOTBALL IF ROOT ClRe-LlNe IS EVIDENT. 3. AFTER PLANTINe, STAKE TREES ONLY IF ~ (leming or drooping! OR IN EXPOSED 4. 1REE STAKES TO BE VERTICAL, PARALLEL, EVEN-TOPPED, UN5CARRED AND DRIVEN INTO UNDISTURBED 5tSeRADE. REMOVE AFTER ONE YEAR. 5. WATER IMMEDIATELY AND 11-IOROU<5HLY, HEAVIER AT FIRST, 2 or 3 TIMES PER WEEK THROUGH THE DRY 5EA5ON, THEN LE55 UNTIL ESTABLISHED. €>. FERTILIZE ALL TREES AND 5HRIJB5 WITH AN APPROVED SLOW RELEASE FERTILIZER APPLIED AT MAtlJFACTURER'5 5Uel9E5TED RATES. 1. ALL PLANTlNe PITS SHALL BE AMENDED WITH A SOIL MOIS1lJRE RETENTION AeENT TO ASSIST IN KEEPINe THE SOIL MOIST DURINe THE DRY 5EA5ON. '; ~I I I I I I' ., lfI ..., ~ oj Q UJ If) OJ N II \f) ~ r= 0 0 0 .~ II f: .~ ., c:.:; 0 Date 212.UJNFQ5 Scale 1::11:2 Designed .I~ E,I Drawn K6,G1 Checked , I~ Approved RC, Project # g~1 Sheet II ~.I \. ..J lO lO a i!i w z .. !i :::J ...., id lO IX) ~ 8<'1 Ii ..- 1'0 >-0'> J- 0::: W (L . 0 U z 0::: - ~ (L u 5: (? 0::: 0 0 LL W 0 .L ....,0 a....., ",0 a~ ~Z CJl 00'-xS 00 oE ~E-4 :s:~ o _ E-4 Z ~w :::J • Jooooo4~ 0..0.. u~ '-..e 010 .S E "OL ==v: " :::JE ~E 0>:-eN ·c 0'1 COl 0", 0..(5 i~ ~ I~ II C3 !f -- ~ ~!! ~ ~li~ o ii'g ,. .. ~ ~ -- .., -' Q. <..> ~ <5 ;0: (Jl .., '" .., OJ I I I ~ i ~ ~ % 0 C<: If) 0.. OJ 0.. « I~ w Ii: w !;{ VI a '" '" ;0: ~ .., z a Vi ~ C<: ~ w :::! :::! 0 ~ 0 a -z FJ...ANTIN6 SFE:ClrICATIONS PARI I -Pl-ANI!NG SPEGIFIGAII9N5 !9ENERAL GONRITI9N5 In til .. r""toratlon areas, the GontraGtor shall remove weedy or Bxotlc Invasive ""BGles (e.g. 5c.ot's broom, EngII9h IVy, Himalayan and eVBr9""en b1acl:bemj. re"'" canarygrass, purplB l""""strIfB, hedge blnd>l""'" (morning glory), ..tapanBse I:notw<O<Od, Ganada thistle, and «""PIng ntg>tshad8) b!f marval or chemical means (as approv"'" by regulatory a9"""I85) prIOr to plant installation. Gontractor shall vBrlfy that plant installation conditions are 5tl1tab1e within the r85toratlon areas. Ary unsai:I!>factory conditions shall be CDrrBGt<Od prior to start of woN:. »>en conditions detrimental to plant grOWtll arB BncountBr""', 5tlch as rvbI:>le fill, advers8 drainage condltt0n5, significant vegBtatlon, or obstrUGtlons, Contractor shall notify Talasaea Gon5tIltants prior to plantlng. Beginning of ~ constltut85 QGG<>ptance of conditions as satisfactory. Plants Install"'" In undiSturbed areas shall be IntBgrat<Od with existing native VegBtatlon, and plant<Od In a random, natt.rallstlc pattern. CONJEAGI08. TO VERIFY PLANT SCHEpIII E HlTH PLAN Gontractor I!> r85ponslbl .. to VBrlfy plant locations and quantities of plants on the Plant SChedJI .. Hith thos8 rBpresentBd on the plan. htual plant quantltl"s shaHn on plans are to prevail over quantities shOHn on the Plant 5c.hedlle In the event of a dl5GrBpanGy, eXGBpt In the case of 5c.ouler HIiIOH, where there arB to be tIrBB cuttings planted pBr symbol shaHn on plan. l..<X,ATEI$TAKENERIFY f>l.ANTING AREAS Gontractor shall field locate, stake, and verify planting areas and confIgUrations prior to planting. I alasaea Gon5tIltants shall review and apprOVB locations prior to planting. A-oposed locations of tre85 and strtb& shall be staked and !dentlfl"'" HltIl an apprOVBd coding system or by placement of the actual plant material. For large grouptngs of a slnglB 5p8Gles of shrtb, GontraGtor may stake the planting boundaries. Talasaea Gon5tIltants shall revl"H and approve locations of all plants and plant grouptngs prior to planting. APPROVE FLANIlN<5 LOGATl9N5 AND 5f>AC,1N6 Planting locations shaHn on planting plans are approximate, bas8d on antlclpat<Od site condltt0n5. htual planttnq locations may vary from tho58 shaHn due to final site conditions and locations at "xII>trng v"getatlon. NevBrl:heIess, any variations from the planting plan ... 111 reqUire prior approval by Talasaea Gonsultants. Plant spacing for 5p8G1es Ilst<Od 15 to be random (natt.rallstlc), and not In a regular grid pattern. On-centBr spacing callBd out on plant list indicates an average !>paGIng dimension. For .. xample, Hhen the plan calls for 36" 0'«. !>paGIng shall vary from :lO"-42' 0'«., wltll an avBrage !>paGIng of 36 tnc.hes. I alasaea Gon5tIltants shall revl ..... planting locations and spacing prior to plant installation. PARI 2 -f>l.ANT MAJEB!AL STANDARD5 f>l.ANT MATERIALS Taiasaea shall examine plant material prior to planting. Any material not meeting the rBq!llr .. d Sf""'lflcatlons shall be immediately removBd from the site and rBplac<Od HltIl like material that meets the rBq!lIrBd standardS. Plant material shall me .. t the requirements of State and F<OdBral 1QH5 Hlth reSf""'t to plant dl58QS6 and inf85tatlons. InspBGtlon certificates, requlrBd by laH, shall accompany each and ev .. ry shipment and shall be submltt<Od to Talasaea upon Gontractor's receipt of plant material. Plant materials shall be locally graHn ("'85tern HA, .. estern OR, or H .. Stern SC), healtl'y, bushj, In vtgorous growing condition, and be guaranteed true to sIZe, name, and varlet<!. If replacement or plant material 15 "",,"ssay due to constrUGtlon damage or plant fall ...... ",ltIlln one year of installation, the SIZ85, 5p8Gles, and quantltl .. s shall be equal to specified plants, as Indlcat<Od on the plans. Plants shall be ""'"""'"Y graHn, ..... 11 root<Od, of normal grOHth and habit, and free from disease or infestation. Talasaea consultants reserv85 the right to requlr .. rBplacement or 5tlbstltutlon of any plants deemed unsuitable. TrB85 shall have IKllform branching, single straight tnri:s, (unless speelflBd as multl-stemmed), and the central leader Intact and undamaged. Elalled and burlapp"'" "toek shall hav .. been root-pnmed at least once .. Ithln the prevtous two years, and the plant stoek shall have been grown In a container for at least one full gro ... tnq 5<Oason. Gontalner stoe!< shall be fully rooted but not root-bound. Plant materlar HltIl danaged root ZOt185 or broken root ball" Hili not be aGG8pt<Od. Gonlfarcus tre85 shall be ""'"""'"Y grOHn, full and bushj, and ""th uniform branching and a natural non-shearBd form. Original central leader must be healtl'y and undamaged. Maximum gap betHeen branching shall not .. x""'"'" q', and length of top leader shall not exceed 12-. Shn.t>s shall have a minimum of tIrBB stems and shall be a minimum height of I~ Inches. NatIV .. plant cuttings shall be grOHn and colleet<Od In the maritime PacifiC North ........ t. cuttings shall be of 008-to tHo-year-old ... aod, 112' dla. mlnfmum. c.uttlngs shall be a minImUm of 4' In length with 4 lateral buds .. xposed above ground after planting. 1he top of each cutting shall be a minimum of I' c/oove a leaf bud, the bottom cut 2' belOH a bud. Th" basal ends of the cuttings shall be cut at a 4e; degr"'" angl .. and marked clBarly 50 that the rooting .. nd 15 plantBd In the soli. Guttlnqs must be kept GOYBr"'" and moist dicing storage and transport, and no cuttings shan be stor"'" more than thr"" days from date of cutting. Yvttlngs shall only be used If planting occurs betHeen DBGember 1st and April 1st. For planting betH .. en AprIl h.t and December I"t, rooted cutttngs or saplings shall be 119Bd. Contractor shall 5tlbmlt doGoxnentatlon that 5p8GiflBd plant materials have been orderBd and .... cur .. d. A list of supplier names, addresses, phone numbers and the storage/gro ... lng location of til .. materials shall be submltt<Od to Ialasaea Gon5tIltants ... lthln :lO days of contract QHard. 5' ffiTIMIQNS 5t.t>stltuttons of 5p8G1f1 .. d plant species, slz .. , or condition Hili be allow<Od only If prior Hrltten approval 15 obtained by ialasaea Gon5tIltants and regulatory agencl .. " prior to ordering material. Bare root stoel:. of equal size to Sf""'lfled container or 6.6 plantings may be 5tlbstttuted for ct.ocl'*""'" container or 64B planttngs Hhen available, but only Hlth prior approval by Talasaea Gon5tIItants. EvBrgreen plant material shall be contalnBr or B4B. VERiEr NURSERX STOCK GONpITION Ialasaea Gonsultants shall rnspect plant material at the Job site, including prevfously tags"'" tree", for complrance Hlth required standards for plant size and quality prior to planting. This Includ85, but Is not limited to, size and condition of rootbolls and root systems, pre""""" of In5ects, latent In}!rles and ct.ofects. Tr685 must be untl"'" and SBparat<Od for In9p8Gtlons. Talasaea Gon,,"ltants r"58rv8S the right to r .. f""" CI'ljIall plant material any time prior to final aGGBptance If It 15 determined that 5tIch material does not meet the 5pBGlflcatt0n5 as descrlb<Od herein. Re pt<Od material shall be IrmIedlately removed from pro JBGt site. \lERfEX 5TORA§E SITE AND METHOD Plants shall be "tored In a maYler ~ to support their horticultural requirements. Plant material stbr<Od on-5lte shall be protBGt<Od from .....athBr damage, constrUGtlon actlVlhl and the public. Balled and burlappBd material which cannot be InstallBd Immedlatefy shall be ""' .. IBd-In· to prevent desiccation prior to planting. Rootbolls shall be protBGtBd by COVBrlng ... ,tIl moist 5011, mulch or "aHdIst and Hatered as necessary. Plant "" .. Clmens shall be kept moist (H .. tland spBGles saturated) and shaded until the actual tim .. of plant Installation. Immedlately atter planting, solis In the planting area shall be saturated to prevent capillary str .. ss. PART" -PLANT INSTALLAIION SOiL PBEPARATIONIAMENDMEtlI5 Prior to Installation of plantings, all constrUGtlon debris and any other nortIOtlVe material shall be removed from the r .. storatlon areas. Tre .... and shrubs shall be pit plant<Od as shaHn In detail". In planting areas, Flantlng pits shall be bacld'lIled .. Ith a 'S015O mixture of trrporl:ed, .."""'-free topsol and tIie natlV .. soli from the planting pit. In graded areas, planttngs shall be Install"'" directly Into neHly plac<Od topsoil ( ...... Part S for topsotl speCificatiOns). In enhanc."'" "Xlstlng far85t<Od areas only. Gontractor shall loosely tie a 2' piece of pin!< flagging to the top portion of all plant<Od vegBtatlon to facilitate post-constrUGtlon performance and maintenance revl"H by Talasaea Consultants and regulatory agencies. SOiL MOISJJJRE RETENTION A6ENI SoIiMolst, or eqUIValent, shall be added to the topsoil backfill of all planting pits. 1he SoIiMoist shall be ¥at<Od before beIng addBd to topsoil backfill. Manufacturers rBGommendBd application rates and usage shall be followBd. FERTILIZER J.ioody plantings shall be f .. rtlllz"'" ... ltIl a sloH-rel"aSB (1Hnonth), high nitrogen low phosphoros granular fertlllZBr (21-:1-1), with application rates as 5p8Glfled b!f inanufacturer. Fertilizer shall be appll"'" after planting pit 15 bocld'lIIed, and prior to application of mulch. FertlllZBr shall not be applied betHeen Nov"mber and March. I:1IJl..Qi A S' layer of mulch shall be plaG"d around the baee of each n ..... tr .... (36' dla. rtng.l and shrtb planting (24' dla. ring) for erosion, """"'" control, and molstur .. retention. STAKING IrB85 shall be stal<ed HltIl at least one stake and attach<Od at a height of approximately 3/4 the height of the tree (5"" Sheet I<-I2J). Contractor shall remove "takes at the end of the one-year guarantee period, unle"s 01hBr .. 1 .... dlrBGt<Od b!f Talasaea Consultants. PART 4 -1R8l6ATION. fENC.E and :2!GN IN5TAI ! AnON TEMPORARY AUTOMATIC< IRRlebTlON SYSTEM Contractor shall prOVide an above ground temporary Irrigation system capabl .. of full head to head coverage of all plant<Od areas prior to installation of plantings within the cr .. at<Od ..... tland and restorBd buffer areas. 1he temporary irrigation system shall .. 11hBr utilize c.ontroliBr and point of conne<-tlon (Poc.) form til .. site Irrigation system or shall Include a separate FOG and controller HltIl a bac!:flo .. prevention device pBr water ]t,rlsdlctlon ln5p8Gtlon and approval. Th .. system shall be zoned to provide optlma~sur .. and IKllformlty of cov .. rage, as ..... 11 as SBparation for areas of full 5tIn or and slopes In "XG85S of 5S1>. EIBGtronic valvo" shall be same manufacturBr as the site Irrlqatlon system, or shall be Rain Bird PE6 Series or equal If system 15 not contrguous ... Ith til .. site system. Valv85 shall be sized to accommodate pr ............ and zan .. consumption requirements of the system and shall be InStallBd belOH grad .. In Garson (or equal) valv .. boxes. HIring shall be Insulated multl-strand, taped to the main at 6' Interval" with duek tape wraps. On-grade Main and latBral lines shall be Glass 200 PVC bell pipe Hlth solvent ..... ldBd fittings, s .. cured In-place HIth ""r .. stoples Hhere nBGessary on slopBd areas. LlnBS shall be plac<Od 12' beloH gract.o In 4' PGV sleeves wher .. vehicular or maintenance aGG855 I!> ne8d<Od across IIn85 to the restoration area. Maximum main line Size shall be I-¥..' and mQlj be looped bael:. to the FOG to r,"",""" pr:es5tlr .. loss. Lateral IInBS shall be sized iii decreasing dOHnstream order pBr Rain BIrd deSign standardS; the mlnlm.m latBral slZ .. shall be *'. Heads shall be rotor or ImpaGt type Install"'" 4' above fInIsh<Od grade on wood tree stakes. StaI:e5 shall be SBGUr .. In til .. ground, embedded to a minImUm depth of 24'. Heacls and *" PVG risers shall be secur"'" to stakes Hith constricting hoSe clamps; no ft.my pipe shall be usBd. Heads and nozzles shall be matched preCipitatIOn rate for .. ach zone. Gllent shall prOVIde HatBr and .. Iectrlclty for the system. Irrigation Is requlrBd ... ,thln the restoration area for at least two o/OHlng seasons foliOHIng planting to """",""e adequate establlslvnent of plant material. 1he MalntBnance c.ontractor shall be responsible to actIVate, Hlnterlze, malntoln, and to contInUally VBrIfy ac:teqJate OpBratlon of the temporary Irrigation system. system flWlGtlon (rncludlng .. Iectronlc valve and controller flKlCtlon) shall be InspBGt<Od for OpBratlon and full COVBrage of all plant<Od areas dicing Bach malntBnance VIsit. 1he sy.tem shall be repalrBd Irrltnedlately If found to be danaged or malflWlGtlonlng. The system shall be actlVat<Od by ..lJne Ie; and ... Interlzed by October 15. If hat dry HeaIhBr occurs ellhBr before or after these dates, the Irrlqatlon system shall be actlVat<Od earlier In the 58QSOI'I or remain actlv .. later Into the fall. During the first year after installation, the Irrigation system shall be programmed to provide J!," of Hater every thr"" dQIj&. Irrigation rates may be lncr .. aSed as n~ dicing prolong"'" pBrlods of hot, dry HealhBr to prevent plant mortality. During til" second year after Installation, Irrlqatlon shall be programm<Od to provide J!," of water once a Heel<. HowevBr, If more tfian IOSI> of plant replacement DCC ...... , watBrlng rates w1ll be malntal","", at a rate of J!,' of watBr ev"ry thr .... days for the dlratlon of til .. monitoring pBrlod. A chart describing the location of all InstallBd or open ZOt185 and correspond~ cantroller nut'I1ber5 shall be plaGBd inside the contraller and gIVen to the 0Hner s reprBSentatlVe. The irrigation bid shall Include a one-year """",anty against defBGts In materials and Horl:manshlp from the date of final project aGGBptanc ... 1he """",anty shall Includ .. system activation and winterization for the first year and immediate repair of the system If It Is observed to be malfunctioning. RETfP DI5TVReR? AREAS GontraGtor shall r85B8d (and thoroughly Hater) "xpos"'" solis wltll the ...... d mixes 5p8G1f1"'" In the Plant 5c.hedul .. following planting installation. 8F5TOBE EXISTING NAT\J8AL 08 LAND5GAPED AREAS Existing natural or IandsGapBd areas that are damag"'" dicing constrUGtlon shall be restor"'" to their original condition, unl855 Improvements or modifications ar .. 5p8G1fI"'" for tho~ Q"'eGl5. Contractor shall .. xerclse care to protBGt from injUry to trunt<. roots, or branches, of any tr885 or shrubs that ar .. to remain. Ary lIVIng HOody plant that Is damaged dicing construction shall be treat8d Hlthln 24-hotw-s of occurrence. Talasaea Gon5tIltants .hall be notified immediately of Incident. "Wound shaping' to Include evenly cutting bro",," branches and damaged tr .... baric. Tal""""" Gon5tIltants shall be notlfl""', and Gontractor shall pru1" HOuncI<Od portt0n5 of plant Immedlatel~ after damage OGGIK"S. InJUrBd plants shall be thoroughly watBrBd and additional m<>a5tIres shall be taI:en, as approprfate, to aid In plant survival. C!.EAN!JP Contractor shall be responslbl .. for the removal of constrUGtlon materials and debris on the site folloHlng installation of plant materials. PART 5 -FINAL AC.C£PTAN0f PI.ANT HA8RANTY Contractor's Harranty shall Include replacement of plants (sam .. size and 5p8G1es shown on the drawings) that prov .. either to be dl!>locat<Od or t.n9U1tab1 .. as to plant material standards. ExGBpt for loss die to excesslVBly sever .. climatological conditions (5tlbstantlated bq 10-year recordBd ..... ather charts), Install"'" plant materials are required to be guarante8d for one year against ct.ofBGts and unsai:lsfactorll growth, eXGBpt tor GQS85 of neglect b!f 0Hner or _/damage by others. PlanEs rBplac<Od shall be relnltlated under plant guarante .. conditions. Ary changes or modifications to thl!> plan must rBGelVe prIOr approval from Talasaea Gonsultants. FINJt:,L AC<ff'IANyf Upon completion of planting, the Contractor shall prOVIde Talasaea Gon5tIltants With a 58t of cl .. arly marI<ed prints deSignating the actual locations of plantings Hlthln the restoration areas. Gontractor shall Keep a compl .. te set af prints at the .Job site dicing construction for the purpose of 'rBdllnlng" changes or modifications to the approvBd pl<ros and shall update said information on a dally basI!>. Talasaea Gonsultants shall approv .. planting locations. If Items are to be corrected, a punch list shall be prBpOr"'" by I alasaea Gonsultants and 5tlbmltt<Od to the GontraGtor for COmpletion. After punch list Items have been completed, I alasaea Gon5tl1tants shall revl ..... the proJect for final aGGBptance of plan Implementation. The date of final ac.ceptance shall constitute the beginning of the one-year plant guarantee p8r1od. PART 6 -ONE-YEAR MA'trn=NAt!C.E MAINrENANGE ContraGtor shall revl"H landscape maintenance rBGommendatlons with a qualified ..... tland biologist from Ialasaea Gon5tIltants who I!> familiar with the .tat8d goals and ob Jectlv ... of the r"storatlon plan. GontraGtor shall maintain tre .... and shrubs, as needed, for a period of one year from final QGGBptance, to maintain healthy gro ... th and habitat diversity, Including a) tighten and repair tree stake", b) reset plants to proper grades and upright pOSitions, and c) correct drainage problems "" requlrBd. Gontractor shall be r89ponslbl .. for HatBrlng plants lmm""'lately upon installation, and again over the entlr .. planting area upon compl .. tlon of tandsGape Installation. Irrigation '" requlrBd within the r<>storatlon area for at least tHo graHlng seasons following planting to "n5tIre adequate plant 85tabllshment. GontraGtor shall r .. move tree stakes and guy wires tHo years after Installation IKlIeSS receIVing witten permiSSion from Iaiasaea Consultants to remove stal:es and guy wires one year after installation. Contractor shall corrBGt erosion and drainage problems as reqUired. GontraGtor shall r .. move slit fencing upon rBGelvlng Hrltten permission to do so by Ialasaea Gon5tIltants, usually one year after the Agencies have approv"'" til .. restoration construction. Restore the area by hand SBBdIng "'Ith """'" mix consistent with that !I58d on ad.J=ent plantBd areas. Contractor shall remove irrigation system 2-ye<rs after planting. Upon completion of the one year malntBnanc .. , an Inspection by Ialasaea Gonsultants shall be GOI'lducted to confirm that the restoration area was properly maintained. If Items are to be corrBGt<Od, a punch lI!>t shall be pr"pared by and 5tlbmltted to the COntractor for corr .. ctlon. Upon correction of til .. punch list Items, the pro J",ct shall be revlew8d b!f Ialasaea Gonsultants for final close-out af plan Impletl'letltatlon. ( It! '" .... 01 A ID d 0 .... ID 'p: Q) !l:: ~ ...J It. ~I II) 8 Il.. ~ N ~ III t 0 0 ~ 0 Date Scale I Designed Drawn Checked Approved I I I ~ 2l2. Oll::lFn::,; IH5 .IW E.I /:;;;!.2(,1 • It:! Ae, Project II 931 Sheet # Ya,:2 tt... ~ I ._"'i.£ttr' __ ]!:; U;C:Ot.C& -_""£1:;;:_ /;r , -~!.~C~~· ~I-f:_~--"" ~ ~ v --",'--. ----------._-(~. 1.:aJ --:l 'W j&~f~ s r (1£'" tr _ .. ¥ V 0." ( 2 NO v w, Ap'llg II izo '1 a... 4>'~~ If.-----, """4-'O..r-\ \/ ' ....... "'--9 O~/ '-.--.....-..... <1-1t~ (". Y ...... , 0.; \;1/ ..... ~ l " 11 ~ , , ~~I s ,~~ ~~'1 ~s .~"-r'-.3 ::';}S'jf! , , PLY'- J!N_1J '1- ~ .,,~ JRO 7 .IEJ B ~D I [ill] ro . llill II ------.~ ifi 1 "4"'~" ..j l "'i -s I 'ZD5 It' I. ..... _ ... l~lJ .. 6 5 ~. ~4' "-40~. 'i--:'31fl-l-l· ~ \ , ~ , __ ,,,,,, :1 ..: '?.: ST. 1'kJ4t'IL-I"d'k j 44·r #1 60 ~ t" fia :J ~~$ JO Ctj . -''']'1 2 , LLI~"'i'-"l'r>"_ .,J 12 " ~6' 1'1' ~ • 5 . ~ 'To 1 ,; , , -, " >t 209 ' , 3 p,~~J(I~G3 I~ l.OS r Z('9' 4 .I~213 214 T n ~ 2.13 '1:17 ' U. ~~~, • • ~ft BS ~k< . ~ " ~ -t ~ 7 14 225, . , . 5 ~/!-Inrlr.", " ~. to :::.,.... Z13 1 IT.:. ., : 7 14-(,7.25 , ;:, 't-rn-~ ';;8 .3 ~,.' , 8 13 , 2."3~ '" "9 ~' . J.e. (;: , • 0 ~,,"::fP, ,T 7!' Ii ,~ 9' 11 13' ~ 2 .010 I.ljll ' 237~1 ( '" D 'S! Ig~. >II e ii' 321 m (i". !is .I 20 1'!.~ "1 ~ . gjl 'W "-~ . r.; "'2 19 gQij • .4; 19 tml . @f!;> 18@j] ~ .IID 3 IS 4!MN~37 I GOV·t:Lotl6 --. ~~ 40.22 Acres ' 4~~ ~~--11-4 4i :"6 ~~ weM(:;e;'fj-:+~, '#'----d • J'~ j, . . . • 5 Il.I6 gj] : 9,blk ;'1..118 40 "'> ~ ~ "" • ~l~ 151m! • • 1 14!illl. ~8 131illl. .,,' ) I 1!m6 !lm7 .l§l 8 ~ . ~ ". ..-...... ST. S ~ . [i!] , i:~ . ~ EliIlrrslO '11 fil . !f~ .1illI ~ c= ~ I :/0 "," [@Z ~, "1 IS ..J:'+ 1_ 14~l-~ I !:J? ~.: IZ @l,11 II ~~ .. ~ • F,ffi 2 ,19'· ;0:' • ::1 ~ i5i3I 3 18 " • '" fro. . • 3 I IS 1iQj]' ®l ,. ". 1.55', ~' .. '-'fdLJ I-~ I~~~ ",. " .. lI...133 60.,''? 'l,U .10 .rs."O,Mu! Jr ~i 60 1§g2 II.'N'd8 J! -~21 t{; " S " -po '-::J.;;; ._. ;_ ._._._. 7TH.'-._.-'-"ST.-' _._. -'l..~ _. -.-........... • , ..•. '" , ~ .~ • 22-'1./0 I 1 0 -1 ~~ ~ ~ 30r I T.L.32 ~I \. ~, 1 U.39 \~ " " • T.L42 "60 , ~ i/.' 3 l:Jj.tJ u <: co "' ~ ''1';;J.~ , U « '" ~ \ \'Ie ~ " "" T~l/ \ ~ O~c ~'1 ~u [(z< / ~ --.. '---...... ;-' /' I/EHTOtl ...... l...SS"qlJ~1/ -AJW-7'GlIr " / k:l1' I, 1-~ CASTAGNO BROS IINC , '; 1.1~ Ac t.' 1'.\ G ",'I , "=1 T.L.25 Qt ~ 1>-'" o c c· ?' ?/-( 1jVP- ,,:2· '" 0.· <3 .L----"'1',o \'l 1.-\ \'l~ \3UB ~ NQR'I\'I 'C.I'.N GRAOYOO ::;1 ~,. I' ~ ,J \ \ U"-' , , , '... _____ .J \ ~ " ~ , , , :0 I , ~ , , r!,..), I ! , , , , , ' , ' , , , , , I I I I I I ! I ,. , I 1 I II . 1 t\ : I I : 1 'I I, '7 l 1 I' _ -------."'::'~-----, . ---------1 , , , 0" s" >10 jlS~'" " " PUGET SOUND POWER & I LIGHT co {Il S,P. 009-87 "\.-?-'" ~ 3 4 5 6 ---- (\) '" ~., ~ II . .iI;.a NEIGl-lBORl-lOOD DETAIL MAP " ...... -. ~ " al . Ii'§! 4 ~!6~tLlW!5 .. t1I"'-I~C-1 "'" • mIl b lim 7 • Il?!l 8 ;: 9 ~ > ~ ~ , , 11 Il!lJ • 16 1illI. P.5 P. & -------- , .. ----.. ~. DEFOORPROPERTYSHORTPLAT RENTON, CORE DESIGN INC., ENGINEERING • CORE NO. 0413~A WA5~INGTON FLANNING • SURVEYING JUNE 21, 200:;' No~+'- -....... , "''-.. " L. CO. O.~18 Ac. " I I \ I 1.1; At:.. T.L.6 I I, I I II I I " I I I \ \\ " " 'I' I I ~II I I \ I -' "' > '" a « " 0: w :2 '" '" z "" or I- 5.35 Ac T.L.B5 ,0 Ir..... .S'~ II '-... . 'ti< II ~ . c: II ..£ Q!r: Wl/~I ~ .-94?:, ""<: ;s-'. . I·~"'O . < :.0 ~ \, ~ -, ".s:,o ~ ~ I I -1'0. ,. I ..p /.,. \ .q,( .............. \ 1 '\--.....'~ I <"<'t'~~ 00 , 101 AC. .7:/..187 C. CAROW! ~ I.07Ae .............. o.c,· T.I..I!}} ~ , " Ir/v~~ '" t:::;; 0 :::e ~I til I INTER PACE C.ORP. ~l ~I gl 'll~ ~I~ c~ .... :il "-I ~1 :0::1 ~I ,I il I 1 '" o C> L·~L.co. 00 °0 £:!. ~3B ------- T.I../G TJJ.c' r.t.. I -------_ .... - 39 ~ t , • "~t~~ .70~ ~ ~?> * . 9J-~%'-:.-~ " , ..... t::S ~-- J~ Wl.JTH t...IN£ OF. H,H, TOBIN DONArlON CLAIM N~ 37 ..... -.. a __ ~ --:--.---------~ ~ ~ GO\M Lot S-- --~-<-I ~ \f~(J.~~ --'.L.. " -----38.80 Acres --.. ,'" ___ r;;;;;;;;-~''''''~ __ _ , " ~..:--.......... 3.SBAc.. L.BB . co. ~ V '4J~' LINE R/W -7Z.ili~ ~ " , \ / \ \ ""~'~I-1_--r .... :;,.) ... ~< ------1 ... ::.°.:.; I ".,,/01'" ! I (./)""" ! )~-- ~ 7:L. J3 r / ~ ~ h ~ P,S.P,& L.CO. II. 50! Ae. 1.L...TZ --,- ------"::::.-:.. ::.::::.. --1;. ~ r:::J1"" HILL ST flT.T.L./3 'I "1 80 62534 uj ~ mml '~ I 25 UNI,S ~ ., > . UV leT CJR 1 A <"sF: ~6~~ Sil « A CONDOMINIUM ot "V> 'V' LJ 6" .... 53 0" .. '~'lli~' . ;'~',,"' "'Yi" .. ... ~ G RANi T R E"~iE-N C Y ~ ~ A B fl:!\ C toll i I E I ~! A CONQ()::;-\ oZS7 U~L~tiJZ,S--____ r-"" --, ~ ... pARk/Nfl ~r- .z.~ , "'... ~ 1\X: a:: ~! I F G l Ll I L "f--"------u--.W---U "L U 1 <Po "\. \, ~v ~ 2.t L_S' ____ .J ... I __ --.J;:. [} ____ ~-.rI_--Jrj 1 'l'-~~' \ ~ « ~ nr1.f'1 I ~ I I ""<'c ,«', (!) R 0 L U:-dJ N'H I L_U"SJ 1 . I I \ 1\ \ \\T'~'c\ \\\ '0.: ') \, \ \ (2) ___ -. ________ ~ __ ~~~----------------------------------~~----~--~~::~~~~----------"'~r<~----~ __ ~~ __ ~,_~~~~~~~~~~~--~~--~~~--~'~ .. --.-~~~\~I~~~-e~~\~I;;~~,~.;~~.~------~\.~ .. ~'~~;~~~--~~--;.~------,----~----------1" = 200' , ,-" . " '" . .., __ .,_" ___ ~_t __ .( .. o r<) II , . u z >-~ 0:::: W (L o 0:::: (L er:: o o LL W o -'- w ~ o z o (f) ~ 0:: o z FLAN LEc5END ,-EXISTINe CONTOlJR -------PROPOSED CONTOUR -... -t.~ ... -APPROXIMATE CENTERLINE OF STREAM LAReE WOODY DEBRIS ! ..... ! , "I \ " \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \' I \ ' I, ~ " 'c \ \ \ " \ " \ \ \ \ , i \ \ f , ' \ \ \, \ \ \ HETLAND 'A' GATEeORY 3 3P14 SF (25' BUFFER) ,,' 7 I , , / \ ..... --,~ )\ PROPERTY LINE \ ' ", '" \ \ j \ ... \ \ \ \, EXISTING, STRUG TlJRE \, , ! \ \ " \ \ / , , \, \ \ \, \ \ , , \ \. \, ! I I I I I I I i ! " I \ I " I I I I I I I i : Ell ~F~L~A~N~T~S~C~H=E~D~UL=E~ _______________________________________ / TREES SYMBOL SCIENTIFIC NAME ACER CIRCINA11JM @----CRA T AE<3US DOlJeLASIl • 'PICEA SITCHENSIS , 0-PINUS CONTORTA I) THUJA PLiCATA @'-'-THUJA PLiCATA SHRUBS SYMBOL SCIENTIFIG NAME --GORNUS SERIGEA @------MAHONIA AGlUIFOLIUM @---SALIX LASIANDRA 0------SALIX SCOULERIANA GOMMON NAME VINE MAPLE BLAGK HAWTHORN SITKA SPRUCE SHORE PINE HESTERN RED CEDAR WESTERN RED GEDAR GaMMON NAME RED-OSIER DOGWOOD OREOON GRAPE PAGIFIG WILLOW SCOULER WILLOW (0--SYMPHORIGARPOS ALBUS COMMON SNOWBERRY WL STATUS SPAGINe QTY. FAG-AS SHOWN 2<1 FAG FAG FAG FAC FAG AS SHOWN 24 AS SHOWN 43 AS SHOHN 12 AS SHOWN 1<1 AS SHOHN 31 WL STATUS SPAGING QTY. FAGW NL FAGW FAC FAGU 3' O.G. 3' O.G, €><1 103 3/SYMBOL 150 3/SYMBOL 100 3' o.c., 88 SIZE (MIN) 3' HT. 3' HT. 2-3' HT. 4-5' HT. 4-5' HT, 2-3' HT. NOTES MULTI-STEM (3 MIN,) SINGLE TRUNK, WELL BRANGHED B4B, FULL 4 BUSHY B4B, FULL t BUSHY BW, FULL 4 BUSHY B4B, FULL ~ BUSHY SIZE (MIN) NOTES 18" HT. 18" HT. MULTI-GANE (3 MIN,) FULL t BUSHY 4' GUTTING GlJTTINGS OBTAINED FROM ON-SITE GLEARING 4' GUTTING 18" HT, HALF INGH DIAMETER, BARK INTACT MUL TI-CANE (3 MIN,) EROSION C.ONTROL SEED MIX (PROVIDE AT ALL EXPOSED SOIL AREAS) SCIENTIFIC NAME FEsruGA RUBRA AGROSTIS TENUIS COMMON NAME WL STATUS SPAGIN6 RED FESOUE FAG+ WLONIAL BENTGRASS FAG 50% 50% APPLIGATION RATE PER AGRE, 4011 SEED MIX 12011 WILBUR ELLIS FERTILIZER, 5-10-10 50% IBPU, OR EQUIV. 100011 ERO-FIBER WOOD MULGH OR EQUIV. FL..ANTIN6 FLAN GRAPHIC. SC.ALE NORTH (INFEET) CD o·,-j 1 I 15 30 60 SCALE,I"=30' , , \ \ \ , ' , ' '. \ \ , , , \ 1 LIMIT OF GLEARING (APPROXIMATE EDeE OF EXISTING VEGETATION TO REMAIN) /' /" // ./' /' /' "./ -1..,,) ./ // (1/ /" /' _ // ./ .--/ /" / /' /' ./ / ~~r ~/' ! / /./- / i ( i I EXISTINe WALL , STREAM '6' CLASS 3 (15' BUFFER) HETLAND '6' GATEOORY 3 'j 1% SF " (25' BUFFER) \ \ \1)\ ill- > \ i ON,-EI!'(AL)E HABITAT LOG STREAM ,--'...-: ; Ii / SEE ..,t='r 1\.11 5 ON , f f , i' r if; SHf'Elr W2.1) '\ / / II i t' ;' / ,,: 1 I I " / ,I I I / 'i iilrlf! / ! ( , Ifiil!, II / , I iii 1/ " I, / i l !~~R~~,~\, .I , ,-/ --~~,: L1NEIROW \ I, ;; .",.:.., /' /~ // / -! II! !',/ " ./., I ,J , " <' / ~ __ -. ! I, 'I Ii /// / ///!II.',! ,/ / / / / --, 'I" i .--__ J E / ..' ! I ' i j' / /1 . " I .' 'l, / / / I ( / , I ' I ,. / / / iii DISPERSAL TR,ENCfH (TYFjJ, ~EE . \ ',CIVIL fLANS '" 1// / ,~! \:I,II'i-) / ,/ 'I / /,' , / / . >\ I \ \ \ I \ I I / ' / ORAl' i AGE I' / I \", \ ' I / N:f'\. /,1 / 1'1 \ \ i .. l' {CZ BE RELOCATEP I / I / . 'Ii \y / /1 " "\' "I j < / / I / i \ '. \ \ ,'., i" / ! " / -!)c' \ \ \' ~ \ \ \. , \ ' , , \ \ ' \ \ , \ ! / , i I, G\ " '. : ii, / ! / ! '~'I I \ x\ t ----'--' -...;..,.-...', - - / , , ,-/" Y" '. ri;:::::"",':" -:-"-' .:;... -' \, \~! i '): ;--r-;-/ ""?-/'j' ~I/ .. '... \"."'.\ \\', \ ,j~1 7./,".-- . \; ~ ~ -', ~ '-, -\ --, '.J.. -/' I /I~i 7x~~;t;:i~~~ \ \ '\. \ "~, \ \ \. \ \ \, " \ \ \ / , ',:?; \ -o / ,/ / / \ \ \ \ ,\ \ \ \. \ \ " ... \ \ " \ '\ ' ' , \ \ \ \ \ \ C.) >.-J / C'.j ,/ / / I , , , I // / ) , , , , , "'il'\'\''. 'I' 71//' \ '\"'" '\" 1 'I 'Ii i \ , 'I ' \ \ ,\ ( / f '( ,,/ ': \ \ \ \. ". , "i \ I' I ! ,I t ! i',\" " \ I Iii I ; I i \ I c I I I: 1 I , I " I ': ,I ! I, i I I : ! I I 1\ 1 'I I ! i l ; i ! l 1\ 1 I I { i i j I ,: ii,' f I' I i i '~ I ' " ! I ~: !"Il , I; I :, I I, I \ \, I \ \ " \ ] , I I ' I I ' , 'i--., i ! :; i I <'-1\ "-\ I" I r;p ~ \ \, ~I , , \ \ \ \ \, \. \ \ ............ \.J '0 \\\\ \ . \'. \ '. \ / ,/ / ,/ PROPOSED TIGHTLINE CONVEYANCE OF DRAINAeE 1 .... " r· ~"It" :.. ,',' ;:, .. ){) , I ," _ J. .. ~ •• 'J , ~I ~I I I I I' >. p:j <1l Jl) '" ~ ~ os I::!l <J) « dJ If) N N ~ --;. lit III Y ~ 1:1 C) 0 \,) 0: .... III ?:~ .~ <1l Ill; \,) <J) . Date 25.1I!~E()5 Scale 85. NOIED Designed , 1LA! Drawn 1:;;(2 Checked , Ik::! Approved RC, , Project # g~1 Sheet # ~.O '-. ~ >-I-ex:: w 0.... . 0 u z ex:: -0.... u S G ex:: 0 0 LL W 0 ,. '" ,. '" ..., :.: ..., !D I 8 • 8 ~ z ~ S ~ ~ ~ ~ , t 0 0 0 0:: 0.. "'''' 0.. mm « 0'" w >-0 "-" ~ W::J (f)< OJ .... ~ ,. ,. >-m ..., ..., c:i z ff J: J ~ /' 1 t 17 l' !/ /" j ....... ... ... ............... , ----------- .---- / YETLAND / S~AM IMPACTS $ MITleATION PLAN GRAPHIC SCALE NORTH ( IN FEET) (f) I $ t I PLAN L..ECSEND o 15 30 60 PROFERTY LINE SCALE, 1"=30' C-~ .... : :=J EXISTING I-'lETLAND - - - - -STREAM I i"IETLAND BUFFER = = ~ = = APPROXIMATE OHWM OF STREAM -+-. . -APPROXIMATE CENTER LINE OF STREAM ~ EDGE OF EXISTING VEGETATION TO REMAIN CLASS 5 (15' BUFFER) IMPACT L..ECSEND BUFFER REDUCTION I I I I I ,- 10,150 SF EXISTING ~--I BUILDING ______ :0--""'-----__ STREAM 'B' GLASS 3 / / / / / / / / / ;----=----------, I II I II 2 .J /;1 _-~ L _-~----_::::...____--1 I I I ---------" I r-=-------=---~-2:'R/':'4 " I STREAM 'A' -, CLASS 4 \ (55'BUFFER) \ (15' BUFFER) • WETLAND 'B' CATEGORY 5 1<16 SF (25' BUFFER) x p m --v '_ ... _ -'''-''-".-.#. ~1l!l:~~ I I ~~~I--I I I DRAINN3E I P .. ", i I TO BE RELOCATED . / L __________ ~// I J~~::---/~ ,----------, \ I \ I MITICSATION L..ECSEND ~ BUFFER REPLACEMENT 1 // / / /~7 r-/71 STREAM, WETLAND, BUFFER AND // L / / U-------Ll SLOPE ENHANCEMENT \ '5 I \ I I "-............ I I PROPOSED TIGHTLINE CONVEYANCE OF DRAINAGE I ............ I '-............ I 10,150 SF 23,15q SF ...... ....J NOTES I. SITE PLAN PROVIDED BY GORE DESIGN, 14111 NE 2<1TH PL. SUITE 101, BELLEVUE, WA <18001 (425)885-1811. 2. SOURCE DRAWING WAS MODIFIED BY TALASAEA CONSULTANTS FOR VISUAL ENHANCEMENT. rr+-RI+RI++1R+n STREAM, WETLAND, BUFFER AND SLOPE lLJlt:Ll±::!::1J±t..LLl.LLL.LLLLLLLlJ RESTORATION 5,f:>36 SF 3. THIS PLAN IS AN ATTAcHMENT TO THE I-'lETLAND MITIGATION REPORT PREPARED BY TALASAEA CONSULTANTS IN AUGUST OF 2006. kCriJ--.J [J [J 2J OPEN SPACE 53,qOO SF 4. Tl-IIS PLAN IS CONCEPTUAL ONLY AND SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION. 5. DELINEATION OF i"IETLAND 'B' AND OHHM OF STREAM 'A' 4 '6' ARE FROM FIELD OBSERVATION (SEPTEMBER 15, 2005). LOCATIONS ARE DEPICTED APPROXIMATE. ~ ~I ~I I I I ~ f;Q " If) ..., 2 i 01 0 ~ <l:l 01 r- ~ ~ z OJ 8 ~ ):l 0 .~ fIl ~ .~ I!:! " ~ \) \f) Date 28.,II!l::JEQ5 Scale AS NOTED Designed ,Iv-.! Drawn J:;G Checked • Iv-.! Approved RS Project #; 93:1 Sheet # Y't1.1 " ~ If) If) 0 C! ~ w ~ z ;; ;;: :::> ~ z -, ~ ~ i ~ I'! <Xl ~ ~N 0: !. ~ ~ ..- t'l) (J) >-l- et: W D-. 0 U z et: --D-u s 0 et: 0 0 LL W 0 -, o r<) II = -'- -" ...J "-() ;i <5 ;;: rJ) -" '" -" '" ; Iii z i.i ~ z S 0 ~ ~ m r ~ ~ 0 u n:: rJ)UJ 0.. 0.. 1Il0) « 0<0 w 1-0 "-'" '.;( W::l UJ« 0 g::(:: ;;:;;: >- -" -" m z a Ul GJ n:: rJ) z 0 rJ)<n I-G'i i'5 '" ~~ o "-~ UJ -to U (f) a ~ ~ z / EXISTINe BUILOINe +---1 STREAM 'e.'--.!. (CLASS 4) I" / I ' ...... -. " I I <i" I" 1TH STREET ;o:I:L;JjI~::;r- , ! , • , 1, , : I EXISTIN6 HOUSE Ul ill ----/ ~I Z ~ ill OC I ROW TYP. SEE STREAMMETLAND '8' ENLAReEMENT WETLAND / STREAM n"-""""""-H-~,~,,j.'''':' ,:~~~;; IMPACTS * MITI6ATION : / Ii \ :, AREA (SEE SHEET WI.I) I ' ' P , (THIS SHEET) \rY.,~~~~~~~~~~~~~lr~sC.~~THSTRE_E_T ______ __ STREAM 'C' CONTINUES OFF-SITE " : -',> t~ ~~ --" ,~' '~' ~~ y../ ~" , , ~' I I L STREAM 'B: I ,iifi,,'l 4',::: WETLAND "13" I lr--:--::;::--=:::'::---' WEifANDllAI (CLASS 3) , (CLASS 3) l \ I \~'-'. ""'1 (CL ---, SEE STREAM' , II 'f. "'-,, I 1- I:: l~(t;~t>~:~i:';' i r f ',;~,~:.f;:;';L~i~'~$~~~U ENLAReEMENT .... 1 II !f.'1 , ) \"\~:>G'" I EX~~TI CONSTRUCTION STRUCllJRE (THIS SHEET) .c.. ~ :~:<~"-.. "C/ 1(H17101f.1CAL M!NE ENTRANCE) 1'[-----_ II ' I I ':, ~,_ ,i.v I I STREAM 'A' II -\\'\,~//'_-,/ I (CLASS 4) ___ ~_-l ~ ........ /' ""---,,~\~i~~ SEE WETLAND 'A' ~NSA1," ' ENLARGEMENT ISS/, __ - -~t~:\tf.;~l~lf:jI~i~j*'·.p~ j! (THIS SHEET) 0", ........... ", ~F-t~=r?ffi~~;;;e;;:;:::::=::!~-<> ., r UNNAMED S1JREAM ,,' \ 'V L./Nt; ~;;; .... ~~::\: I", ' ,,' ' T '" (TRIBUTARY ITO / L ! \" ' ". ROLLINe CFjEEK) ~"" STREAM 'A' '\.. I ./' CONTINUES \ ,'" ' """;0,-, ,", '\.. I ",,' OFF-5ITE,.,,,', ,', I iI'. '-... _~ ___________________________ ~ .... ';-_I DRAINAeE I (CLASS 4) OVERVIE~ PLAN GRAPHIC SCALE NORTH (IN FEET) GD -1-$ t-~I o 50 100 200 SCALE,I"=IOO' ~T1..AND IAIEN1..A~EMENT GRAPHIC SCALE NORTH (IN FEET) ~ 0.1 -1 3t---ol \jl) SCALE,I"=30' S~AM/vt:T1..AND 161 GRAPHIC SCALE CUNORTH (IN FEET) 1ft I o 15 30 00 SCALE, 1"=30' ,... '-, --~ 7;' 1..E($A1.. DESCRIPTION PARCEL A, THAT PORTION OF THE H.H. TOBIN DONATION LAND CLAIM NO. '31, LYINe SOUTHERLY AND WESTERLY OF THE PLAT OF HleHLAND ADDITION TO THE TOWN OF RENTON, ACCORDINe TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 11 OF PLATS, PAeE 32, IN KIN6 COUNTY, WASHINeTON; AND THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANeE 5 EAST, W.M., IN KINe COUNTY, WASHIN6TON, L YINe NORTHERLY OF POOET SOUND POWER AND LleHT COMPANY'S TRANSMISSION RleHT-oF-WAY AND EAST OF PRIMARY STATE HleHWAY NO. I, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS, BEeiNNIN6 AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 20, WITH THE WEST LINE OF SAID PLAT, WHICH POINT 15 NORTH M'5q'21" WEST 1,386.85 fEET FROM THE NORTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE SOUTH 0I'2q"35" WEST ALONe THE WEST LINE OF SAID PLAT AND SAID LINE PRODUCED SOUTHERLY <173.04 FEET TO THE NORTHER!.. Y LINE OF PlJ6ET SOUND POWER AND LleHT COMPANY'S TRANSMISSION RleHT--GF-WAY; THENCE NORTH 61'03'41" WEST 411.66 FEET TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF PRIMARY STATE HleHWAY NO. I; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONe SAID HleHWAY TO THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION; THENCE SOUTH M'5q'21" EAST ALONe SAID NORTH LINE 31654 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEeINNINe. PARCEL e, THAT PORTION OF THE H.H, TOBIN DONATION LAND CLAIM NO. 31, LYIN6 SOUTHERLY OF THE PLAT OF HleHLAND ADDITION TO THE TOWN OF RENTON, ACCORDINe TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 11 OF PLATS, PAeE 32, IN KINe COUNTY, WASHINeTON, DESCRIBED As FOLLOWS: BEelNNINe AT A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANeE 5 EAST, W.M., IN KINe COUNTY, WASHIN6TON, WHICH IS NORTH 8Q'5Q'21" WEST 1,386.85 FEET FROM THE NORTH QUARTER CORNER THEREOF; THENCE SOUTH 0I'2Q"35" WEST ALONe THE CENTERLINE OF CEDAR STREET 611.82 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID PLAT, AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEeINNINe; THENCE SOUTH 88'33'25" EAST 310.14 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF RENTON STREET; THENCE SOUTH 01'24'21" WEST ·4'II.Q8 FEET ALONe SAID WEST LINE AND WEST LINE PRODUCED SOUTHERLY TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF PUeET SOUND POWER AND LleHT COMPANY'S RleHT-OF-WAY; THENCE NORTH 61'03'41" WEST ALONe SAID RleHT-oF-WAY 35551 FEET; THENCE NORTH 0I'2Q"35" EAST '361.12 FEET TO A POINT COINCIDENT WITH THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID PLAT AND THE WEST LINE OF CEDAR STREET; THENCE SOUTH 88'33'35" EAST 20.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEeINNING. PLAN L.ecSF::ND PROPERTY LINE -EXISTINe CONTOUR c ~ 0/ .. 0/: ;::::] EXISTIN6 WETLAND - - - - -STREAM / WETLAND BUFFER AM STREAM / WETLAND FLA6 OTP-II TEST PIT FLAe = *= = = APPROXIMATE OHWM OF STREAM +--APPROXIMATE CENTER LINE OF STREAM EXISTINe TREES S~AM IA I EN1..AR6EMENT GRAPHIC. SCALE CUNORTH (IN fEET) I $ t I o 15 ,:$0 00 SCALE, 1"=30' -------------'---~-- VICINITY' MAF SC.ALE, NTS J SOURCE, THE THOMAS OUIDE 2005; METROPOLITAN PUeET SOUND CONTACTS APPLICANT/Ok'!NER: eWG, INC. 24633 NE 133RD ST. DUVALL, WA QOOIQ CONTACT PERSON, TRAVIS DEFOOR ENeINEER: CORE DESleN 14111 NE 2QTH PL. SUITE 101 BELLEVUE, WA Q8001 (425)885-1811 CONTACT PERSON, MICHAEL CHEN, PE. ENViRONMENTAL CONSULTANT TALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. 15020 BEAR CREEK RD. NE WOODINVILLE, WA Q80TI PHONE, (425) 861-1550 CONTACT PERSON, JASON WALKER, ASSOCIATE SHEET INDEX SHEET NUMBER SHEET TI TLE WI.O EXISTING CONDITIONS ~ OVERVIEW PLAN 11'11.1 PROPOSED SITE PLAN IMPACTS ~ MITIGATION !Al2.0 ENHANCEMENT PLANTING PLAN JtII2.1 PLANTING DETAILS $ NOTES 11'12.2 PLANTING SPECIFICATIONS NOTeS I. SITE PLAN PROVIDED BY CORE DESleN, 14111 NE 2QTH PL. SUITE 101, BELLEVUE, WA Q8001 (425)885-1811. 2. SOURCE DRAWINe WAS MODIFIED BY TALASAEA CONSULTANTS FOR VisuAL ENHANCEMENT. 3. THIS PLAN IS AN ATTACHMENT TO THE WETLAND MITleATION REPORT PREPARED BY TALASAEA CONSULTANTS IN AU6UST OF 2006. 4. THIS PLAN 15 CONCEPTUAL ONLY AND SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION. 5. DELINEATION OF WETLAND 'B' AND OHWM OF STREAM 'A' ~ 'B' ARE FROM FIELD OBSERVATION (SEPTEMBER 15, 2005). LOCATIONS ARE DEPICTED APPROXIMATE. r '" z -( -J L Zz ~-( I--J -(Il iiI: ~~ m~ z (} Itru I- Z> \I) \riO z -:::t: -(-4& \0 11l\J) -( l:Z~ I: -( () ~ ~i=ItZ -ru(} I-QLI-\OZ(}Z -ttl-(}It~ OIL .. Q\I)It\l ~ZOZ -JI-(} ... I-\J)ILO ~xru~ ruQ\I) \. ~ ( ~I ~I I I I ~ J:Il " I.£) ..., 2 @ oj A Q.. lU \f) ~ dJ N t- I ~ fIl ~ ~ 8 0 .~ ., ~ .~ j:':! " ~ \.) \f) Date 21?,RJNEQ5 Scale AS f:::lQTED Designed ,IW, P_I Drawn i;;;(2 GI Checked ,IW Approved RS Project # 9;21 Sheet # lAll.O \. ~ ..-- to (j) U) 0 w z ::J ..., elOXJ ",'" ; w ~ W ~ . U Z -u 3: o ~Z 00 ~~ ~Z ~~ uP::: U) " 0 g .;-~ i ~ >-I-cr:: W D- O 0::: D- cr:: o o LL W o w T ID .... ~o o..~ "'::: o~ 00 00'-...:ll.~ 5E 5:~ o " :'=L.J .0. ::>0.. Q "-c "'0 .S E -0 ... ::::Q) ~ "E ~E ""-C N "~111 Co> Co> 0., -... 0..C) ..., ..J n. u 'ii <5 3: en ..., "" ..., <D I ~ j ~ I ~ ~ T 0 0 " !Y en Q 3: Q ..., <D « ~<O W ... 0 n. (') !;;: w:::> en« 0 ~~ ~ ~ fri ..., ..., z 0 (f) ~ !Y (j) z 0 f!! Vi z ~ w '" ::;; ~ ::;; 0 ~ a. ~ (3 0 ~ -Z SET TREE STRAI6HT AND PLACE ROOTBALL ON SOLID eROUND OR ON COMPACTED BACKFILL. BACKFILL PLANTING HOLE 1/2 AJLL ~IITH NATIVE SOIL, TAMP SOIL TO STABILIZE ROOTBALL. CUT AHAY HIRE, STRING, AND BURLAP. BACKFILL REMAINING PLANTING HOLE PER SPECIFICATIONS. AMEND BACKFILL AS NOTED IN THE INSTALLATION NOTES. ROOT BALL C.ONIFER 2"x2' HEMLOCK/FIR STAKES, LOCATED OUTSIDE OF ROOTBALL. FASTEN w/14 GAlJ6E GALV. HIRE AND 1/2" N&I VINYL HOSING. STAKE HITH NO EXPOSED HIRE ENDS. NEITHER STAKE OR HIRE MAY TOUCH TREE lFUNK. STAKE HEIGHT MUST BE AT LEAST 5' FROM FINISHED GRADE. PLACE 3" OF MULCH IN SAlJCER--, TO HITHIN B' OF THE TlWNK. REMOVE CONTAINER OR '-UI-I--, BACK TOP PORTION OF BURLAP FROM ROOTBALL PRIOR TO PLACEMENT IN PLANTING PIT. FORM 5" HT. HATER DAM AROUND TREE HITH SOIL TO HOLD HATER. FINAL GRADE. ~~m=---SCARIFY SIDE5 OF PLANTING HOLE. MAKE SURE HOLE HAS eooD DRAINAGE . 0~S~6 TREe DeTAll..S TYP. BACKFILL PLANTING HOLE 1/2 AJLL HITH NATIVE SOIL, LIGHTLY COMPACT SOIL AROUND ROOTS AND ALLOH HATER TO SETTLE. DO NOT LEAVE AIR POCKETS. BACKFILL REMAINING Pl.ANTING HOLE PER SPECIFICATIONS. AMEND BACKFILL AS NOTED IN THE INSTALLATION NOTES. FINAL GRADE. SCARIFY SIDE5 OF PLANTING HOLE. MAKE SURE HOLE HAS 600D DRAINAGE. ---FOR BARE ROOT PLANTING ON SLOPES, INSTALL PLANT lIPRl6HT ON LEVEL SOIL TO ASSURE COVER OF ROOTS ON DOHNHILL SIDE OF PLANT. ''Tf~~grml~TI1~m~~~mf~~~~::::::::=-COMPACT SOIL UNDER ROOT MASS EXISTING NATIVE SOIL. 0::t'~e ~OOT Pl..ANTINcS l:'eTAll.. TYP. MULCH B" DR=!'·--... 24" DIARING ~"SE'T SHRUB STRAIGHT AND PLACE ROOTBALL ON SOLID eROUND OR ON COMPACTED BACKFILL. BACKFILL PLANTING HOLE 1/2 AJLL HITH NATIVE SOIL, TAMP SOIL TO STABILIZE ROOTBALL. DO NOT DISllJRB ROOTBALL. BACKFILL REMAINING PLANTING HOLE PER SPECIFICATIONS. AMEND BACKFILL AS NOTED IN THE INSTALLATION NOTES. .. FINAL GRADE. ~~~m!---SCARIFY SIDE5 OF PLANTING HoLE. MAKE SURE HOLE HAS 600D DRAINAGE. L 2 TIMES • ROOT BALL DIAMETER 0:-.soNTAINe~ SH~U6 Pl..ANTINcS DeTAIL.. TYP. ROOT BALL DIAMETER DEC.IDUOUS SET TREI" STRAIGHT AND PLACE ROOTBAI.L ON SOLID eROUND OR ON COMPACTED BACKFILL. J3ACKFILL PLANTING HOLE 1/2 fUL-L HITH NATIVE SOIL, TAMP SOIL TO STABIUZE ROOTBALL. CUT AHAY HIRE, STRING, AND BURLAP. BACKFILL REMAINING PLANTING HOLE PER SPECIFICATIONS. AMEND BACKFILL AS NOTED IN THE INSTALLATION NOTES. ~v USE A 24' SrEEL BAR OR MARLIN ': SPIKE AT LE, 'AST 1/2' DIA. AS A PILOT HHEN PLANTING CUTTINGS IN DENSE OR GRAVELY SOILS. INSERT SPIKE TO A MIN. OF 18'. INSERT CUTTING AND TAMP SOIL AROUND BASE. INSERT CVHINGS MANUALLY ---- INTO PILOT HOLE TO A DEPTH NOTES, I. CUTTINGS SHALL BE SPECIES AS NOTED IN THE PLANT SCHEDULE. 2. CUTTINGS SHALL BE AT LEAST 1/2" DIA. AND 4' (min) IN LENGTH. B. CUTTINGS MUST BE ALIVE HITH SIDE BRANCHES C.LEARL Y REMOVED AND BARK INTACT. CUTTINGS SHALL BE PLANTED HITHIN 24 HOURS OF CUTTING, 4. THE BUTT ENDS SHOULD BE CLEANLY CUT AT AN ANGLE FOR EASY INSERTION INTO THE -rT""''l'TI,.j~,.,.,.~"'T"rOF AT LEAST 18'. LEAVE A -=111 I -111-' MIN. OF BO' OF CUTTING - --ABOVE eROUND SURFACE -=111 III TO ALLOH FOR 5IJCCESSAJL 'If -ITT ITT ]I ~JtT. THE TOP SHOULD BE CUT SQUARE OR 'II-I I-II' 5. CUTTINGS MUST BE FRESH AND KEPT MOIST , J I II SPROUTING OF LEAVES. '"=1 1'• _111 __ 111=_ AFTER CUTTING. THEY SHOULD BE PRUNED AND INSTALLED THE SAME DAY. -:1 11--' b. DIP BOTTOM OF CUTTING IN A PLANT ROOTINe HoRMONE PRIOR TO INSERTION INTO THE SOIL. o :-~TTI Ne Pl..ANTI NcS l:'E:T All.. iYP. CEDAR OR FIR LOa, 24" DIA. MIN. NOTCH I" NOTES, I. we TO BE 24' DIA. MIN., CONIFER (CEDAR OR FIR SPECIES), 8-12' LENeTHS. 2, PLACEMENT OF HABITAT LOI5 TO BE DETERMINED IN THE FIELD BY TALASAEA CONSULTANTS. 3. ANCHOR LOI5 HITH DUCKBILL ANCHOR, 4, DRIVE ANCHOR A MIN. OF 4' INTO THE eROUND HITH A HAMMER AND DRIVE STEEL. ONCE THE ANCHOR IS AT THE PROPER DEPTH, REMOVE THE DRIVE STEEL, 5. HRAP THE STEEL CABLE AROUND THE DRIVE STEEL AND PULL iJPHARD A DISTANCE SLIGHTLY LONGER THAN THE LENeTH OF THE ANCHOR BODY, THIS HILL ROTATE THE ANCHOR INTO A PERPENDICULAR POSITION. b. NOTCH THE BARK OF THE LOI5 A MINIMUM OF I' AROUND THE CIRCUMFERENCE OF THE LOI5 AS SHOYIN. 1. HRAP THE STEEL CABLE OF THE DUCKBILL ANCHOR IN THE NOTCH AROUND THE LOI5 IN SUCH A HAY THAT THE CABLE 15 HIDDEN. ON-cS~ADe HABITAT J...O<S 0~~CHO~INcS DeTAIl.. 4' , . , eENERAL. FL.ANTINS INSTALL.ATION NOTES I. PLANT TREE ~/OR SHRUB 112" HIGHER THAN DEPTH BROHM AT N.JR5ERY. 2. FOR CONTAINER TREES 4iOR SHRUBS, SCORE FOUR SIDES OF ROOTBALL PRIOR TO PLANTING. flUTfERFL Y ROOTBALL IF ROOT CIRCLING 15 EVIDENT. 3, AFTER PLANTING, STAKE TREES OWLY IF NECESSARY (1"'''''lng or drooping! OR IN EXPOSED AREAS. 4. TREE STAKES TO BE VERTICAL, PARALLEL, EVEN-TOPPED, UN5CARRED AND DRIVEN INTO UNDISl1JRBED SUBeRADE, REMOVE AFTER ONE YEAR. 5, HATER IMMEDIATELY AND THOROUeHLY, HEAVIER AT FIRST, 2 or 3 TIMES PER HEEK THROUeH THE DRY SEASON, THEN LESS UNTIL ESTABLISHED. b. FERTILIZE ALL TREES AND SHRUBS HITH AN APPROVED SLOH RELEASE FERTILIZER APPLIED AT MANUFAC11JRER'S SUGGESTED RATES. 1. ALL PLANTING PITS SHALL BE AMENDED HITH A SOIL MOIS11JRE RETENTION AGENT TO ASSIST IN KEEPING THE SOIL MOIST DURING THE DRY SEASON. ~ ~I ~I I I I I' Date 28,IIJNf05 Scale NTS Designed -IH, P, I Drawn ~K~6~G~I~ __ Checked ,IH Approved ..JBJ,S"'-__ _ Sheet If V'tl:2 .1 "'- to to 0 " w 0 Z a :::> ~ z ..., 0 ~ to •. <Xl g " ~ ~N ::I ~ ~ II r ~ ~ ..- I'f) >-m ~ n:::: w 0.... . 0 U z n::: --0.... u 3: (;) n::: 0 0 LL W 0 .~ +'0 o..+' 0)0 0';' ~Z en "'.-...:L.~ 00 t;E ~~ 'i<:'jl () -~Z ~~ -~ "0.. 0.. U~ "-..c 0'0 .S E "D~ :::(]) ;V "E ~E 0"-.~N ~'-'I 11 Co> "4 Co> 00) -~ 0..(9 ;;; . '~ w;:;' ~: ~ ~~ « ~~ a ~ -- ~ \(~ ~z r -c ~ ~w~ w ~6§ z ~b~ 0 ~zil <", ~ ~ -- ~ ., -' "-u ;i c5 ;; (f) ., '" ., !D ~ a ::i I z £ ~ 0 ~ l;l 0 &! r ~ ~ 0 0 u n:: (f) (J) 0.. !D III 0.. « ~ '" 0 w "-'"' ~ w :;) (f) .. 0 to .... '" ~ ;; ;; >--..., ..., m z 0 if) G'i n:: (I) z 0 ~ in z ~ W 0:: ::; Z " :5 0 ~ "- ~ () c5 --z FJ...ANTINe SFeCIFICATIONS PART I -PLANTINe Sf'EGIFIYATIONS GENERAL CONDITIONS In the restoration areas, the Contractor shall remove weedy or exatlc Invasive species (e.g., Scot's broom, English Ivy, Himalayan and evergreen bICIGkbeN'lj, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, hedge bindweed (morning glory), Japanese knotweed, Ganada thistle, and creeping nightshade) by manual or chemical means (as approved by regUlatory agenCies) prior to plant Instollatlon. Contractor shall verify that plant Installation conditions are SUitable "'Ithln the re5toratlon areas. Any vnsatlsTac.Wry conditions shall be c.orrec.ted pr'lor to start of work. Yi'len concUttons detrimental to plant growth are en.countered, such as rubble ftll, adverse-drainage condItions, Significant vegetal:lon, or obeotruG-ttons, contractor 5hall notify T alasaea Consultants prior to planting. Beginning of work constitutes acceptance of concl1tlons as sat15fac.tory. Plants Installed In undisturbed areas shall be Integrated Hlth existing native vegetation, and planted In a .... andom, natural1stic pattern. CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY PLANT SCHEDULE WITH PIAN Contractor Is responsible to verify plant locations and quantities of plants on the Plant Schedule with those represented on the plan. Actual plant quantities shOHn on plans are to prevail over quantities shoHn on the Plant Schedule In the event of a discrepancy, except In the case of Scouler .... 1110 ... , where there are to be three cuttings planted per symbol shoHn on plan. LQcATEfSTAi;ENERIp( PlANTINe AREAS Contractor shall field locate, stake, and verify planting areas and configurations prior to planting. Talasaea Consultants shall revle ... and approve locations prior ta planting. Proposed locations or trees and shrubs shall be staked and Identified Hlth an approved coding system or by placement of the actual plant material. For large groupings of a Sing-Ie species of shrub, Contractar may stake the planting boundaries. Talasaea Consultants shall revle", and approve locations of all plants and plant groupings prior to planting. APPROVE PLANTING LOCATIONS AND SPACINe Planting locations shoHn on planting plans are approximate, based on antiCipated site conditions. Actual planting locations may vary from those shown due to final site conditions and locations of eXisting vegetation. Nevertheless, any variations from the planting plan HIli reqUire prior approval by Talasaea Consultants. Plant spCIGlng for species listed Is to be random (naturalistic), and not In a regUlar grid pattern, On-center spaCing called out on plant list Indicates an average spacing dimensIon. Fo .... example. when the plan calls for 36" O.C., spac.lng shall vary from 50"-42" O.C., .... Ith an average spacing of 36 Inches. Talasaea Consultants shall review planting locations and spacing prior to plant Installation. PART 2 -PLANT MAIERIAL STANDARR5 PLANT MATERIA! S Talasaea shall examine plant material prior to planting. Any material not meeting the reqUired specifications shall be Immediately removed from the site and replaced with like material that meets the reqUired standards. Plant material shall meet the reqUirements of state and Federal laws with respect to plant disease and Infestations. Inspection certificates, reqUired by laH, shall ClGcompany each and every shipment and shall be submitted to Talasaea upon Contractor's receipt or plant material. Plant materials shall be locally grOHn (Hestem !-lA, westem OR, or western BG), healthy, bushy, In vigorous 'lrOHlng condition, and be guaranteed true to size, name, and varlei;4. If replClGement of plant material Is necessary due to construction damage or plant failure within one year of Installation, the sizes, speCies, and quantities shall be equal to specified plants, as Indicated on the plans. Plants .hall be nursery grown, w,,11 rooted, of normal growth and habit, and free from disease or Infestation. Talasaea Consultan1:5 reserves the right to reqUire replacement or substitution of any plants deemed unSUitable. Trees shall have unlfonn branching, single straight trunks, (unless specified as multl-stemmed), and the central leader Intact and unclamaged. Balled and burlapped stock shall have be,," root-pruned at least once Hlthln the previous t .... o years, and the plant stock shall have been grOHn In a container for at least one full groHlng season. Container stock shall be fUlly rooted but not root-bound. Plant materlaf with damaged root ZGOOS or broken root ball. Hili not be accepted. Coniferous trees shall be nursery groHn, fUll and bUshy, and Hlth unlfonn branching and a natural non-sheared form. original central leader must be healthy and undamaged. MaXimum gap betHeen branching shall not exceed "', and length of top leader shall not exceed 1211. Shrubs shall have a minimum of thre" stems and shall be a minimum height of 18 Inches. NatIVe plant cuttings shall be grOHn and collected In the maritime Pacific Northwest. Cuttings shall be of one-to tHo-year-old Hood, 1/2" dla. minimum. Cuttings shall be a minimum of 4' In length with 4 lateral buds exposed above ground after planting. The top of each cutting shall be a minimum of I" above a leaf bud, the bottom cut :2' belOH a bud. The basal ends of the cuttings shall be cut at a 45 degree angle and marked clearly 50 that the roatlng end 15 planted In the 5011. cuttings must be kept covered and moist during storage and transport, and no cuttings shall be stored more than three days from date of cutting. Cuttings shall only be used If planting occurs betHeen December 1st and April 1st, For planting bet .... e"" April 1st and December 1st, rooted cuttings or saplings shall be used. Contractor shall submit documentation that specified plant materials have been ordered and secured. A list of supplier names, addresses, phane numbers and the storage/grOWing location of the materials shall be submitted to Talasaea COnsultants Hlthln 50 days of contract award. SUB5T111lTIONS Substitutions of specified plant species, size, or condition .. IJI be alioHed only If prior written approval Is obtained by Talasaea Consultants and regulatory agencies prior to ordering material . Bare root stoc.k of e~)al size to specified container or 64'-6 plantlnas may be substituted for deciduous container or BHl plantings when available, but only .... Ith prior approval by Talasaea Consultants. Evergreen plant material shall be container or 13'13. VERIFY N!JR5ERY STOCK CONDITION Talasaea Consultants shall Inspect plant material at the Job site, Including previously tagged trees, for compliance with required standards for plant size and quality prior to planting. This Includes, but Is not limited to, size and condition of rootballs and root systems, presence of Insects, latent Injuries and defects. Trees must be untied and separated for Inspections .. Talasaea COnsultants reserves the right to refuse anyIall plant material any time prior to final acceptance If It Is determined that such material does not meet the speCifications as described herein. ReJected material shall be immediately removed from project site. VERIFY STORAGE SITE AND METHOD Plants shall be stared In a manner necessary to support their horticultural reqUirements. Plant material stored on-5lte shall be protected from Heather damage, construction activit!! and the pvblJc. Balled and burlapped material Hhlch cannot be Installed Immediately shall be 'heeled-In' to prevent desluatlon prior to planting. Rootballs shall be protected by covering Hlth moist 5011, mulch or sa .. dust and Hatered as necessary. Plant specimens shall be kept mOist (wetland species saturated) and shaded until the actual time of plant Installation. Immediately otter planting, 50115 In the planting area shall be saturated ta prevent capillary stress. PART 3 -PLAt~r INSTALLATION SOIL PBEPARA nON/AMENDMENTS Prior to Instalk,tJon or plantings, all construction debris and any other nonnatIVe material shall toe removed from the restoration areas, Trees and shrubs shall be pit planted as shoi.-tn In details. In planting are,lS, planting pits shall be backfilled .... Ith a SOISO mixture of Imported, weed-free toP'>OIl and the natIVe 5011 from the planting pit, In graded areas, plantings shall be InstalJ<'ld directly Into neHly placed topSOil (see Port 3 for topsoil specifications). In enhanced eXI;:;,tlng forested ClJ"eas only, COntractor shall loosely tie a 2' plec.e of pink flagging tc, the top portion of all planted vegetation to facilitate post-construction performance and maintenance revleH by T alasaea Consultants and regulatory age! lGles. SOIL MOISllJRf REJENTION A6ENT SoIlMolst, or equivalent, shall be added to the topsoil backfill of all planting pits. The SoIlMoist shall be hydrated before being added to topsOil backfill. Manufacturers recommended ,.'ppllcatlon rates and usage shall be folloHed. FERTILIZER Woody plant~lo shall be fertilized Hlth a sloH-release (8-month), high nltragen 10 .... phosphorus gr«lUlar fertilizer (21-3-1), Hlth application rates as specified by manvfacwrer. Fertilizer shali be applied after planting pit 15 backfilled, and prior to application of mulch. Fertillzor shaJi not be applied betHeen November and March. &Qi A 3" layer of mulch shall be plCIGed around the base of eOGh new tree (Bb" dla. ring! and shrub planting (24' diG!. ring! Tor erosion, weed control, and moisture retention. 5TAKINe Trees shall be staked .... Ith at least one stake and attached at a height of apprOXimately 3/4 the height of the tre" (see Sh"et 1d2.1). Contractor shall remove stakes at the end of the one-year guarantee period, unless other .... lse directed by Talasa"a COrmvltants. PART 4 -IRRIGATION. FENGE and SIGN INSTALLATION TEMPORARY fW[OJvlNIG IRRleNION SYSTEM Contractor sh'.,11 provide an above grolRld temporary Irrigation system capabl" of full head to head coverage of all planted areas prior to Installation of plantings within the created hetland and restored buffer areas. The temporary Irrigation system shall either utilize Controller and point of connection (POC) form the site Irrigation system or shall Inc.lucl", a separate Poe. and c.ontroller y.jlth Q backflow prevention device per water Jurlsdl~llon Inspection and approval, The system shall be zoned to prOVide optimal press,",,, and unlfonnlty of coverage, as ",ell as separation for areas or fUll sun or shade ::md slopes In excess of 5%. Electronic valves shall be same manufacturer as the site Irrigation system, or shall be Rain Bird PEEl Series or equal If system I. not ~ontlguous with the site system. Valves shall be sized to accommodate pressure and zone consumption reqUirements of the system and sh(11i be Installed belOH grade In Carson (or equal) valve boxes. Wiring shall be InsulCiled multl-strand, taped to the main at 6' Intervals with duck tape wraps. On-grade Mal" and lateral lines shall be Class 2QQ PVC bell pipe with solvent welded fittings, 5ecur~d In-place Hlth wire stapleSo Hhe;:re nec8ssOr"Y on sloped areas. Lines shall be plaCed 12' beloH grade In 4' PCV sleeves where vehicular or maintenance ac..c.e56 Is ne.5tled across lines to the restoration area. Maximum main line size shall be 1-)2" and mCly be looped bock to the POC to reduce pr:essure loss. Lateral lines shall be sized In decreasing dOHnstream order per Rain Bird deSign standards, the minimum laterc,l size shall be %". Heads shall be rotor or Impact type Installed 4' above flnlshe(1 grade on HOod tree stakes. Stakes shall be secure In the grOlJnd, embedded to a minimum depth of 24". Head. and %' PVC risers shall be secured to stakes Hlth Ccmstrlctlng hose clamps, no funny pipe shall be used. Heads and nozzles shall be matched preCipitation rate For each zone . Client shall prOVide Hater and electricity ror the system. Irrigation Is required within the restoratlc,,, area for at least tHo groHlng seasons following planting to ensure adequate est"bllshment of plant material. The Malntenan"e Contractor shall be responsible to activate, winterIZe, maintain, and to continually verify adequate operation of the temporary Irrigation system. system function (JncluCllng electronic valve and controller function) shall be Inspected for operation anq full coverage of all planted areas during each maintenance viSit. The system shall be repaired Immediately If found to be damaged or malfunctioning. The system 51,011 be actIVated by June 15 and Winterized by October 15. If hot dry weather OC-CUI '6 either before or after these dates, the Irrlgatron system shall be actIVated e<.'lIee In the season or remain active later Into the fall. During the first year after Inntallation, the Irrigation _tem shall be programmed to provide J2' of water every three days. Irrigation rates may be Increased as necessary during prolonged P"wlods of hat, dry Heather to pre>vent plant mortality. During the second year after ln~tallatlon. Ifflgatlon shall be: prograrrmed to provlde~" of warer once a week. However, If more tnan 10% of plant replacement oc.cvI"5, watering rates wIll be maintained CJl a rate of J2" of Hater every three days ror the duration of the monitoring p"r'lod. A chart describing the location of all Installed or open zones and correspond~ contrOller numbers shall be placed In~lde the controller and gIVen to the Owner 5 representative. The Irrigation bid shall Include a one-year Harranty against defe"ts In materials and Horkmanshlp from the date of final prOject acceptance. The Harranty shall Include system activation and Hlnterlzatlon for the first ~ear and Immediate repair of the system If It Is observed to be malfunctioning. Rf<2FFt? DI5JJJRBEP AREAS contractor shall reseed (and thoroughly Hater) exposed 50115 with the seed mixes speCified In the Plant Schedule following planting Installation. RESTORE EXISTINg NATURAL OR LAN!25CAPER AREAS Existing natural or landscaped areas that are damaged during construction shall be restored to their original condition, unless-Improvements. or modifications are Spec.lfled f01" those areas. ContrCIGtor shall exercise care to protect from Injury to trunk, roots, or branches, of any trees or shrubs that are to remain. Any living .... oody plant that Is damaged during construction shall be treated Hlthln :24-hours of occurrence. Talasaea Consultants shall be notified Immediately of Incident. 'Hound shaping' to Include evenly cutting broken branches and damaged tree oork. Talasaea Consultants shall be notified, and COntrCIGtor shall prune Hounded portions of plant Immedlatel~ after damage occurs. Injured plants shall be thoroughly .... atered and additional measures shall be taken, as appropriate, to aid In plant survival. CLEANUp Contractor shall be r-esponslble for' the r'emoval Of c.onstroctlon marer-Ials and debriS on the site folloHlng Installation of plant materials. PART 5 -FINAL ACCEPTANCE PI ANT H6RRANrf Contractor's warranty shall Include replacement of plants (same size and species shawn on the drawings) that prove either to be dislocated or unsuitable as to plant material standards. Except for 1055 due to exceSSively seVere climatological conditions (substantiated k:>.j IO-year recorded .... eother charts), Installed plant materials are reqUIred to be guaranteed for one year against defects and unsatisfactory grOHth, except for cases of neglect by OHner or abuse/damage by others, Plants replaced shall be relnltlated under plant guarantee conditions. Any changes or modiFications to this plan must receIVe prior approval Irom Talasaea Consultants. = FINAL ACCEPTANCE Upon completion of planting, th'" Contractor shall prOVide Talasaea Consultants Hlth a set of clearly marked prints cW.lgnatlng the actual locations of plantings "'Ithln the restoration areas. Contractor' shall keep a complete set of prints at the Job site during construction for the PurFlOse of 'redllnlng' changes or modlTlcatlons to the approved plans and shaH updol:" said Information on a dally basis, Talasaea Consultants sholl apr,'ove planting locations. If Items are to be corrected, a punch list shall be prepared by Talasa"" Consultants and submitted ta the ContrCIGtor for completion. API"r punch list Items have been completed, Talasaea COnsultants shall review the prPJect for final acceptance of plan Implementation. The date of final acceptance ,hall constitute the beginning of the one-year plant guarantee period. PART 6 -ONE-YEAR MAINTEH.".ll(g MAINTENANCE Contractor shall reVleH landscc'pe maintenance recommendations Hlth a qualified Hetland biologist from Talasaetl Consultants who Is familiar With the stated goals and objectIVes of the restoration Vlan. Gontrac.tor shall maintaIn tr8e~ and shrui?s, as needed, for a period of one year from final au.eptonce, to maintain h"althy grOHth and habitat dIVersity, Including a) tighten and repair tree stakes, b) reset plants to proper grades and upright pOSitions, and c) correct drainage problems as reqUired. COntractor shall be responsible for watering plants Immediately upon Installation, and again over the entire planting <rea upon completion of landscape Installation. ITflgatlon 15 r~!}lred HlthTn the restoratIon area for' at least two grOWing seasons folloHlng planting to ensure ,,<I"'quate plant establishment. Contractor shall remove tree .takes and guy Hires tHo years after installation unless receIVIng Hrltten pennlsslon from Talasaea Consultants to remove stakes and guy wires one year after Installation. COntractor shall correct erosion and drainage problems as reqUired. Contractor shall remove slit fencing upon receiving .... rltten pennis$lon to do so by Talasaea Consultants, usually one year after the Agencies have approved the restoration construc;tlon. Restore the area by hand seeding with seed mix consistent Hlth that used on adjacent planted areas. Contractor shall remove Irrigation system 2-years after planting. Upon completion of the GOO ye(i~ maintenance, an Inspection by Talasaea COnsultants shaJl be conducted ta confirm Lhat the restoration area HaS properly maintained. If Items are to be corrected, a I lunch list shaJl be prepared by and submitted to the COntractor for correction. Upon correction of the punch JIst Items, the proJect shaJl be revleHed by Talasaea COrl~ultants for final close-out of plan Implementation. - , ~I ~I I I II' :>, III '" ~ ..., 2 oj 1=1 l-n... ill ~ ~ N r- ~ -> :z &! ~ w ~ .: 0 0::: .... OJ ~\!:! '~ 0) Il:: ()\f) Date 2f?IIJNE()5 Scale J:H5 Designed .1I0-0I, Eol Drawn KGCI Checked .I~ Approved Be, , Project # 931 Sheet # ~~.~ \... ~