Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
LUA-05-133
\ \ \ \ \ / ~ONCEPTUAL WETLAND DELINEATION & MITIGATION REPORT SOUTH PARKING LOT 559 TO 625 RAINIER A VENUE NORTH RENTON,VVASHINGTON I July 22, 2004 I -....------------~) , f . \{ ~ \ THE RILEY GROUP, I~MENrPL . ~ OF RENT~~NING GEOTECHNICAL • ENVIRONIMENTAL • WE'ILAND SERtYefES l 8 2005 Offices located in Washington & Oregon RECEIVED Main Office: 10728 Lake City Way N.B. -Seattle, WA 98125 -Tel (206) 417-0551-Fax (206) 417-0552 http:www.Riley-Group.com I The Riley Group, Inc. Geotechnical Engineering • Environm.ental • Wetland Services CONCEPTUAL WETLAND DELINEATION & MITIGATION REPORT SOUTH PARKING LOT 559 TO 625 RAINIER AVENUE NORTH RENTON, WASHINGTON July 22, 2004 PREPARED BY: The Riley Group, Inc. 10728 Lake City Way NE Seattle, W A 98125 PREPARED FOR: IDA Group LLC 95 S. Tobin Street .' Renton, W A 98055 c/o Rich Wagner, AlA Baylis Architects 425.454.0566 RILEy PROJECT No. 2002-061c, Serving the Pacific Northwest Main Office: 10728 Lake City Way N.E.· Seattle. WA 98125· Tel (206) 417-0551 • Fax (206) 417-0552 www.Riley-Group.com !: " i, I 'i .'.' '1":" ,. ':-:: '.' .. THE RILEY GROUP, INC. 1. Executive Summary This report presents the results of our wetland delineation and critical areas study regarding the Alhadeff South Parking Lot project. The project is located on the west side of Rainier Avenue North between 559 and 625 Rainier Avenue North in Renton, Washington, Including all ofParc~19564800170 (601 Rainier Avenue N, 1.84 acres), a portion of Parcel 9564800007 (245,500 square feet total, 5.64 acres); a portion of Parcel 9564800175 (21,500 square feet total, 0.49 acres); and a portion of Parcel 9564800070 (18,752 square feet total, 0.43 acres). The objective of the study was to delineate wetlands, evaluate the functions and values of these wetlands and any streams, determine their classification and buffer requirements, determine sensitive area impacts and present a conceptual mitigation plan for proposed impacts. An approximately 16,600 square foot (0.38 acre) Class 3 wetland is located within a ravine in the vicinity of the proposed parking lot (the South Wetland) and an approximately 21,700 square foot Class 2 wetland is located within a ravine approximately 450 feet north (the North Wetland) within the same drainage basin. Class 3 wetlands are protected with a standard 25-foot buffer; Class 2 wetlands are protected with a standard 50-foot buffer. The proposed project, currently envisioned, as additional parking to support Chang's Mongolian Grill, involves creating 27 parking stalIsthrough fill of2,017square feet of the South Wetland and culverting 120 linear feet ofa watercourse west ofT-S Auto . Sales. Much of the area of proposed alterations is heavily infested with Japanese knotweed{Polygonum cuspidatum), and Himalayan blackbeIry (Rubus procerus). An additionall,574.square feet of wetla:nd is considered "paper fill'," because it will be ' de fa~toco-llvertedtowet1and' buffet for a' total wetland impact of 3,591 square, feet. :Mitigation forwetIand a:ndbufferimpactS '~sproposed toocctirWithln and adjacent to: the NorthWetl3nd at aJ:5:1mitigationratiolnvolvinga cOIPbUiation of 3,591 square ' •. ', . ..,:feet(}fwetiahd~on'aridth¢ba1an~,of,tb.e:,ratio;:1,800,sq~feet,aS;wetIalid',· :~ :[~ . ~.<,:; .:";:-,,? . -:>". . '.~ .. ~ -;'.: ~ -:", -'" ,:~>';' ::"' ", .. : .... ; '~>.: ";1 ::::.~ "' ••• ::~.:.-.:.>~ ,":: " '.' ',. ~ ," .,'. -•• j .•..•..••• "-" •. ' '. . .~ . "',' . "'~, ': .. ' .~ .. ~ '" " "," .... .. ': ' .:.' ..•.. :., .. :' .: .. :":"'. \,-. Wetland Delineation & Mitigation Report 1 July 22, 2004 South Parking Lot Project-Rainier Avenue North, Renton, WA Project#2002-061c , , ' ·1 I .". THE RILEY GROUP, INC. woody and other debris has been dumped into a ravine further to the east from upslope; and the watercourse outlet has been modified (it enters a constricted culvert). The northern-most study area is also located in a ravine, west and behind the developed portion along Rainier Avenue. This wetland is scrub shrub and forested, with a sparse understory. A watercourse flows through this area as well, but due to the mineral soils and lower base flow, there is no significant undercutting. Water was observed flowing in both watercourses during site visits in both August 2002 and February 2004, and therefore they were deemed to be perennial. The watercourses are routed through culverts beneath the commercial properties and Rainier Avenue, beneath Boeing Field and ultimately into Lake Washington. 1.2 BACKGROUND RESEARCH Prior to our wetland delineation field activities, Riley's wetland ecologist, Ms. Celeste Botha, examined available aerial photographs, drainage' inventories and sensitive areas maps regarding the study area. 2. Wetland Delineation On January 6, 2003, Ms. Celeste Botha with The Riley Group, Inc. (Riley) examined the study area for indicators ofcritica1 areas, such as fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas (including streams, areas occupied by sensitive, threatened, or endangered species) and wetlands. Wetlands were identified based on the presence of hydrophyticvegetation, hydric soil, and wetland hydrology using the method outlined in ·the 1997 . Washington .' St¢e Wetlands ''Identification .and DelineatiohManual .. (WashiilgtoIi 'State ManUal); and following City of Rentonregulations~ .The~I'outine on-.. . site determination method".w8S uSed tOnta}(e the ~etlands ~etermination.l:b.e routine '. . method is used' for areas equal to Qrless than five·acres iri.Size,or forlargerareas with .•. ' · ...relativelylI()mogeneOusv~getative,soil, and hydrc)logiCproperties .. '. ' ... " . . ' . ; . . . "''; ~ , ~ '''. . . . . ."'" " .' . ".' ........ " . . . :Durlngthe>study.areaeval'ua.oon, siX', detailed data' pOints 'were lOcated in distinct '" rePresep;tative :vegetatlonuriits,iliordet:to characteriz¢·tlie wetlandana.nori:-wedahd .' .... ''':' .. ' . . .' . " ... ' .... '. ... .,. ... ....,' ' .. ' .;(, .' ." .. ' . .'. ···./,communities~Fiel<iobseryations 'at ,each datapQint: were. ". compil.ed: .oir· .• pr~foJ:J+latted ." .' ... ,.~etlandD~.Sh~~i labeJ~T~~~6.' :. .... '. '.''' .. ; ..... , ... .. ,", \ ,' .. '.'", :' ;.,' .... , .. ...... ' -,' .. "'., ,," Wetland Delineation & Mitigation Report 2 July 22, 2004 South Parking Lot Project-Rainier Avenue North. Renton, VIA Project #2002·061c '"'., . .... ~ ". ,:t. o •• ,~ ,". ",,' I' "j' '.," I . THE RILEY GROUP, INC. Table 1. Plant Indicator Codes 67-99% 1-34% always m non-wetlands <1% * Note: FACW, FAC, and to represent species near the spectrum (+) and species near the drier end of the spectrum (-). Dominant species were recorded as species comprising more than 20 percent of the plant community in each stratum (tree, shrub, and/or herb layer). 2.2 SOILS Anaerobic (saturated) conditions cause soils to form certain characteristics that can be observed in the field. Hydric indicators include: the presence of a matrix chroma of I or less in unmottled soil or 2 or less in mottled soil, gleyed soil, organic soils (peats and mucks), and the accumulation of sulfidic materiaL . Soil pits Were dug in' each data point,using: 8.-shovelto depths of 16 to 18 inches below . .... ground, surface"'(BGS):Soils textures:w~re' characterized uSing NaturaiResources Conservation Setviceprotocol:andexamined for hydric indicators as described by the . '. \VaShlngtOnState Manua[:Soilcoiors.wete identified usilIgaMunSeUsoilcolorcharf .. (Kollmorgen c;orporation,. 1988), De,pthofsoil satUration }'V~ I:ecOlded for : each &ta .. " Point.vietlaIxdDataShe~areinclUdedm AppendiX $~'; ...•. '. " .. ':,. . '.- . .... ' .. . :--.:. . " ... : .... ',' . ' ""' . Wetland Delineation & MItigation Report 3 July 22, 2004 South Parking Lot Project-Rainier Avenue North, Renton, WA Project #2002-061c 1'.' ... : ~.,. .' , .. v , I I ' ,.- ! ., I THE RILEY GROUP, INC. deposits, drainage patterns, local soil survey data, oxidized root channels, and water- stained leaves. 3. Wetland Functions Assessment A general assessment of the functions of the wetland system was completed using the 2000 Wetland and Buffer Functions and Semi-quantitative Performance Assessment methods (Appendix C). Wetland community types were classified using Classification a/Wetlands and Deep Water Habitats in the Us. (Cowardin et aI., 1979). 4. Wetland Study Results Riley identified and delineated two wetlands within the subject project boundaries (Appendix B). A summary of the vegetation, soils, and hydrology observed in the wetlands and the adjacent on-site upland is presented below. Wetland determination data forms are provided in Appendix A. 4.1 WETLAND 4~1.1 VEGETATION Within . the southern study: area,. both the' watercourse edges and the wetland are .characterized by. the dominance of . invasive species specifically Japanese lmotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum), a Class B noxious weed in Washington State and Himalayan blackberry (Rubus procerus).The area on ,the subject site infested with knotweed is .. ,approxiiriately6,400 . square. feet . in' size, .(80';'fee1:X80~feet):Controlmeasmes .. as . . ' detaiIed in a 'letter from 'The. Riley Groupto Jennifer TothHenning, AICP anhe City of . Renton haVebeeil implemented. FUrther totb.eweSt, thewetlahd.isdomfuatedby .' '~ayan"Plack~,}>acific~ow.{sazixl~a)/gianthorsetair (EqUisetum,' '.' .,teimateia),~and;'lady.·fei:n·:.··(4thyrfiD.h·.:filix:jemin4)~· .. SIamk:'cabbage··:,(Lysichiton··· ..... , ~(!ricanumX 'deaatynigJ1tShade;',{§,olcUium-'dulcizmiua) -an4 '~emaple (4cef .' '. . '. 'cirCiniztumrare:a)so:presentThis'~ e~gentplanicoimnllD.ity is ,repr~~mtedby ... -" ...•.. ··D· P",··.S·· '., '." .' , ... " ..... :. ' ..... -.'. '.. . .. ,' " '. ' .... , ............ , ... '; ::' .. , . (", .:' :,' .. :.: ,~. ~-\~ pr~nt 'hl·the(}~~ry~ ,~e~~ti1aYer -is sp~'inpl~'brit :domit.~at~ intnltch~s,~', :;'" , , by variouS invaSiv.e.exotic sPeci~ includfug,~,·~graSs.cPh€iiariS;·~~)~ ::., . ::',',:' -. ' cnwi:ng buttercup (~1!S re~) and E.1gIi$h iyy '(Hederq ~rix), a1th~:ti.gh':nanv~:' ,-'. , sPecies. :inCludiilg.sman-frUited' bulruSh .. (Sci~ _ microc~J,' .piggy4>ack:',. plant:· :,', :;:": . \' .', ...... ,{TiJlmietimenz;es.U).andStingingnettle .. (rJrti~ :diqica):~,'alsO ,pr~f"'The~e~rJl-; ':' . ·'edgebfthe ." wetlahd.-isfilIed . With,primarili:debris:,and" doInina:ted',by, ~~y~" 'blackberry fRubUspro'cetiiS)'Which'has"a1so':mvaaedthe 'e3stein··~rid·.~f:the;1:>¢fer .. A . ' ::, .' . . ," . ': :.:" .~ . Wetland Delineation & Mitigation Report 4 July 22, 2004 South Parking Lot Project-Rainier Avenue North, Renton, WA Project #2002-061c ~ . .., . \ .. ,' i .' I. ',: " .. , . \ I I .1· \ ...... . , ... . THE RILEY GROUP, INC. small watercourse was flowing from west to east through the wetland. Data points 1, 2, and 6 represent this area. 4.1.2 SOIL The site is not mapped in the Soil Survey of King County Area Soil at DP 5 represents the southern wetland area. Soil here has a surface layer comprised of 6 inches of silt overlying gleyed sand to 16+ inches. DPs 1 and 2, which represent the northern wetland area, are located west of the property line. Soils at DP 1 have a dark organic/silt surface layer underlain by low chroma sand to 16+ inches. Soils at DP 2' further to the west are low chroma silt loam, which is mottled below 8-inches. Data sheet 6 includes a generalized description of vegetation within the on-site portion of the northern study area. 4.1.3 HYDROLOGY Direct evidence of wetland hydrology (i.e., inundation or soil saturation) was observed in DPs 1,2, and 5 at the time of .our delineation. 4.2 WETLAND FuNCTIONS AND VALUES 2000 .Wetland and Buffer Functions and Semi-quantitative Performance Assessment data forms are included as Appendix. C. 4.3 GENERAL UPLANDSCONDmONS . . . The wetland buffers on boththe~erth. a.nd south sides .of both wetland areas are dominated. by Douglas <fir (Pseudotsugif menzeisii) and big;.leafmaple (Acer maCrophYllum) .'. witha·diverse·mestlynau.ve UnderStery mcluding·Indianpluin· (Oemleriacerasifonms), .sa1motiberrjr . (Rubus'. spectabilis), Pacific .. blackberry. (RulJus .' ursinUS).andsWordfemCP'oljstichummumtum) .. ThiscoIDlD.un.itjr·isrepresentedby'DP 4.. '. . . .' '':' . '. " . ..... . ....... . . "~::: . ; -":', . -.. ' " .. ".' ': .... ';', ..... . . Both wet1~ds~~·~o~dari~ot~~'t1:te;base·ef~filied. .• ~~b~ent.1:'he· ..•. :.: ... ," ... ' filled ein:bailkmentWas created,: Iikely1nai:ty' years.ago, to create ID.ei~graveledparking :'" .. ' area ,fer: . the::respective.:~Xistii1i.·.·businesseS ... :The:.~wetlan<W ·.,eaSt~boundm1es::.:and· ••.. :.... . .. .... ···vegetated ,'portions'ef the. 'bUffers.' ;ar~d()Diinated: by,' HiriiaIayati.blaekberry{RidruS' . : •• '.' ." < ,. • ~'>:";; ..... ~.~, .. ~ .. ;... ·~,.·c:.~:... ,'" :::': .c .... :~ ... : .... , .. ': . · .. f seils .. Soils iD/tbis area Me ~ghly ~eable coarse: San~ 'appatentiy ·.d~si~ed ·thtori.@::. :.:::.. .~,' .. . . . .. ' . 'seaSorial stream flooding, Iaising the .elevation juSt'l~riougll so. as'. to appear .. not. to~nieet . " :,: :-. .. <.-' ..... thehYdr~legy Cri~a.~~gmg . nettle' (Urticcz.'d.ioica)is.dorrnnarit: bUt.otherwise'::: ::.' .': . vege,tatienm tbisarea is,spars(( ...•. . '. ".;"" .' '>"-~ .. , ~. .' ....... ~. '.:' '. ~., : .. '::: . .". ~ . : .... ': .' ........... -"., . ;," Wetland Delineation & MitigatIOn Report 5 July 22, 2004 South Parking Lot Project-Rainier Avenue North, Renton, WA Project #2002-061 c ' ..... . . ) ,' . . .... , :' ,," THE RILEY GROUP, INC. 5. Sensitive Area Identification & Classification Based upon presence of the three requisite criteria, two wetlands are present as shown in Appendix B, at the south and north ravines. The South Wetland meets the criteria as a palustrine emergent Category 3 wetland. A heron nest has been identified adjacent to the wetland on the lot to the west of the Alhadeff property; however, according to the City of Renton, a single nest does not meet the city's criteria for a rookery. The wetland classification is based upon this information, as well as the wetland size (greater than 5,000 square feet); severe disturbance, including the dominance of invasive species within the wetland, specifically Japanese knotweed and Himalayan blackberry; the presence of fill material within the wetland at the east end as well as woody debris dumping; severe under-cutting of the watercourse, and; outlet modification (the watercourse enters a constricted culvert). The North Wetland falls between classification Categories 2 and 3. It meets Category 2 criteria (c) in that it lies within the headwaters of a watercourse, e.g., the small seasonal watercourse that flows towards the east. However, this watercourse is piped several hundred feet to Lake Washington and thus has minimal stream function. It also partially . meets Category 2 (e) in that, although the eastern end of the wetland appears as though it was historically filled, the currently existing wetland area shows little evidence of human related physical· alteration such as diking, ditching or channelization. The wetland meets criteria for classification as Category 3 in that the eastern end has evidently been historically filled, is characterized in patches by invasive non-native plants in the ground layer and has a modified outlet (the watercourse enters a constricted culvert). However, the.majorityofthe remaining on-site wetland can not be.accurat~ly described as "severely disturbed" or "newly:.emerging", and thus on balance meets the .' city's criteria as. a Category 2 wetland. . . . . Accordm.g to .Renton-Mmncipaicode, the city' will notacCept.~ dualratIDg fora' Category 2wetl3:nd;sttch.as-a.'combined:c,Category 2.and3,fating,sti.thewettandis· . ··~jectto. theb~er~d·Initigation::standards,applicable to the: Cat~0l)'2' w,etland···· .. ratiIig~; ".: ," ,. .,' ...... ' "', .,.... " . . '. 'Th.e.;flowmg Waterf~es·pre$eiit-on.theAlh&ieffsitearelngwYUnlikely. to 'supPort·· salDiomdS;,The'prmulrY::$ource:ofhydr~logy'isdiSch3rge -,fromonsne·wetlmd :.and: . .... ' .. ",' . . . . ~. . . ". ". ,: " '. "".;~ ",>-,- Wetland Delineation & Mitigation Report 6 July 22, 2004 South Parking Lot Project -Rainier Avenue North, Renton, WA Project #2002-061 c ..:'", ... ' .. ', . '.' ~ j.; I ~ '~ \ J ..... :.:. ',.. ", . i ". . . . ~ . '.>: c . THE RILEY GROUP, INC. 6. Regulatory Implications Several Federal, State, and local· regulations applicable to development proposals in and/or near wetlands and streams have recently undergone significant changes. A summary of applicable regulatory implications is given below. 6.1 FEDERAL REGULATIONS 6.1.1 WETLANDS Section 404 of the Clean Water Act requires approval prior to discharging 'dredged or fill material into the waters of the United States, including special aquatic sites such as wetlands. Typical activities requiring Section 404 permits are: • Depositing fill, dredged, or excavated material in waters of the u.S. and/or adjacent wetlands. • Grading or mechanized land clearing of wetlands. • Placement of spoils from ditch excavation activities in wetlands. • Soil movement during vegetation clearing in wetlands. . .' Site development fill for residential, commercial, or recreational developments. • Construction of revetments, .groins, breakwaters, . beach enhancement, jetties, .. levees, dams~ dikes, and weirs. . .• ·Placement of riprapand road fills. ." ; . " " W:Uers·ofi~,!nited·.stateiinclooe ~fon~\VIDg:·..:.. . . . . ..a:Anwafets,'Winchart~~trirent1y .. ··~ .. or .':~~e,· .. tisediilihe:p3St,ormaYi~be suSCeptible to useininterstate'ot f6Iclgn C9Dmlerce, mcluding. aii*aters: which. : . >,.~~~~to~eeb?:.~d.tlO:'V:~f~~ti#..·.. ' .. ' ...... ,;, ..... ' :--b.,·A1JiD.~:Wat~·fuclu~iriteiStaiew~~;·/ '. :.:" .:: ~itlf&~_4i~·~/(·,· ".<: . f~hlch:' are'~i~uld:' be Used by' ~~1:~~~' ~oIeign':~~ve~~: for ". ';. '. "';":.' recreational. or other purposes; or . . ...... . 'i _. "'. . \ . . . . ~.'., .,~ . ' .. , ': .' """ ," .. ,;. '.:";;"':"', . .. " . ," ,I. ", . ..... . , Wetland Delineation & Mitigation Report 7 July 22, 2004 South Parking Lot Project-Rainier Avenue North, Renton, WA Project #2002-061c , .' : . I·' . . ~. ", . .~ . / \ , , " " J ' -,' THE RILEY GROUP, INC. 2. from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce; or 3. which are used or could be used for industrial purpose by industries in interstate commerce. d. All impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States under the definition. e. Tributaries of waters identified in paragraphs 1-4 above. f. The territorial seas. g. Wetlands adjacent to waters (other than wetlands) identified in paragraphs 1-6 above. h. EPA has clarified that waters of the United States also include the following waters: 1. which are or would be used as habitat by birds protected by Migratory Bird Treaties; or 2. which are or would be used as habitat by other migratory bir~ which cross state lines; or 3. which are orwould be used as habitat for endangered species;'or . . .4~Usedto irrigate crops sold in interstate Commerce.' , , .. ',Waste treatm~tsystems, includingtreatmentpondS'or:lagoons designed to~eet the requirements of the CW'A(oihertb,an cOOJingponds, as de~edil140CfR , ',", '. ", 'l23.1l(m)Wbicha1so,'m~ffh~;crlteria,:oft1iis·definitlon) arenot\V1iteIsofthe.,' " , • ',United states; It shouidbeno~that. wegen~ydon01:Co~d~jhefonoWing' waters to' b~ WatersoftheUnittxi States~Howev~,: theCotPs and EPA;reSerire ' ··i~r::$~~1!£~~7;Y~ . _ J. Artfficiariy ~ated ~'which wOuld:'revert 'to, p,plaild 'iiili~ irrigatiOn.' ~ '-, :-:~ • .' r :.' " .'; ",' •• '. .' ~,. • ';.- ........ ' ..... . Wetland Delineation & Mitigation Report 8 July 22, 2004 South Parking Lot Project-Rainier Avenue North, Renton, WA Project #2002-061c \ \ ' THE RILEY GROUP, INC. h. Artificial reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating and/or diking dry land to retain water for primarily aesthetic reasons. 1. Waterfilled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for the purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the definition of waters of the United States. (33 CFR 328 and Supplementary Information). The determination of applicability of Section 404 is the sole prerogative of the Corps of Engineers. Therefore it is advised that the Corps be notified of any proposed wetland alteration. 6.1.2 STREAMS Due to association with Lake Washington, a Biological Evaluation (B.E.) may be required for proposed watercQurse activities. The purpose of a BE is to establish, or identify, potential project impacts on any listed species under the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (the Services) administer the ESA and all Federal action agencies must be in compliance. 6.2 .' WASIDNGTON StATE REGULATIONS "... ~.' WETLANDS, "' . . ' .. ' · .. w~hingtonState,throllghthe·Department· ofEC()lo~,has authority to issue Section" ': 401. Water QUalitYCe.rtificationfor· projects thal'reqUiremdividuai C(;>rps,penmts under '., ·~ection404~·TheptiipoSeofth~certifiCation·pr~,WhlchiSinitiatecttbr()ugha·· ·Section404.;Publlc Notice,andpermitappliemon;istoensurethaffederalIY·permitted . :activities'~tnplywi:ththe'feder3lCle~'W ater Act, state water: qUaIitylawS,,' and. any otherapplicat,le'-staieJa~ .. : .; ,-' :: ': .. , .(.;-.... : ... < .. : .. -. , . .6~.2:;:~1jE~s.;>.,··:.·::-_ '.' _ ., .. ':::.., . ....: . .' ,TheState .• "Legislaturehas:giventheDepartIIient'ofFisharid WiidJife':theresponsibility· "-< . ~-~~j~~; ·.':.::~Wh/~::rl,le::,;"B;Y~e:qpd¢~L(RCW .. 75.~~1{)O""~t)O)~::;Al~t;tgh;·the:·Iaw·;haS~;:·\:·:i'r'i,'.:.~··.·; .' '~ended. ~ioIlal1y _~·it:-Was ori~y ~~ the baSic aUthbrltj'liaS,been-. -:. " : retained. The law'reqtiB:es,lhat aity PersQIt; orgahization, m:govemmei:¢ 3.g~ncy wiShing",' . to~~onducianYcO~Il'aCtivitYiii~or.~·State.~rsmuStcloS()under tpetermS···· .' ·.···,of a::p.erInit'{caned·th~:HydfaUIi2Proj~Approv3t-HPA)isSuedbY'the'Washington·.·: .. ...... . state l)ep~~nt()fF1shaitdvtI1dlife~' Statewaters'in~lude all marine waters;aoo~h ' ........ . :';',"- Wetland Delineation & Mitigation Report 9 July 22, 2004 South Parking Lot Project -Rainier A venue North, Renton, WA Project #2002-061 c ! . ';,,' '. THE RILEY GROUP, INC. waters of the state. The major types of activities in freshwater requiring an HP A include, but are not limited to: streambank protection; construction of bridges, piers, and docks; pile driving; channel change or realignment; conduit (pipeline) crossing; culvert installation; dredging; gravel removal; pond construction; placement of outfall structures; log, logjam, or debris removal; installation or maintenance (with equipment) of water diversions; and mineral prospecting. A Joint Aquatic Resource Protection Application (JARP A) is required to apply for the HP A. If the project as proposed will adversely affect fish habitat, it may be approved with certain conditions attached, such as timing and construction methods, to prevent damage. If the project cannot be .accomplished without· significant adverse impacts on fish, shellfish, or their habitat, it may be denied. Of the approximately 8,200 applications received per year, less than one percent are denied. Most applications are processed and mailed within 30 days of receipt of a complete application and compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA Chapter 43.12C RCW). A complete application consists of (1) general plans and specifications for the project, (2) complete plans and specifications for work within the ordinary high water line, and (3) complete plans and specifications for the proper protection of fish life. 6.3 CITYOF RENTON REGULATIONS 6.3.1 WETLANDS According to Renton Municipal' Code 4.3.050 M, "The overall goal of any compensatory project shall be no nefloss of wetland function and acreage.and to strive for a net resource gain in wetlands over present conditions. The concept of "no net loss" means to~te,resto~eandlor ~~ea wetlandsothatthere.is no reduction to total ··wetland·~~e .. andlor··function.'.; :and'''Where f~asilile, created or restored. wetl~ds' .' • shaIlbeahi~er categorythanthe8J.~d wetlan<LInno ~e shall tb.ey be Iowe~ .•. ~". . .' .... ". . -. . . . ,. . . .".. . . ' . . ~ . , . . . , . ..,' .,.. .Req~IDiiig~tibn~sfor:Category 3wetlaridsare·1~5times·the:ateaaltered.·The '" _. ...·.applicant 'proposes tomeetthis.L5:1tatiothrough'wenand c:re8.ti6n: at a l:t'ratio atthe '. : .. ',northeaSt side of the wetland' as well as: throughenhanCementPfarn'ijJirnum'of the ' .. l:······ '. .... i· ..•.. , I . I. " , ' .:: :;,; -'; . ,". ': ;,',.. . .".. . : :" -." ~, " ,'"', " ... :' _ "" ._' ' '::::, f~ .". ""' '. ;'"~'4"., .'. '; .:_ .. < .... : ... : ". ': .... ,~ The_~4.buffer.'widthf6r<::ategory2wetlandsi~;50 feet, :whicliean be reduced -by .' .. " 50~~th:buffer*y~ng~onsistentwithRMC3~20'32.f:' 'I11e.~xisting'bufferarea at " .' . tlie~side';ofthe'wetiand isnearly non-func:tionai since the area lying witmn50';;feet .' : ,...; ...... ','-, -'. ' . ,.... . --', ',-.:.--.': Wetland Delineation & Mitigation Report 10 July 22, 2004 South Parking Lot Project -Rainier Avenue North, Renton, WA Project #2002-061 c 1 • i I .• : ~ "". "' , r .. ':"'. " ,:. {' .',. THE RILEY GROUP, INC. of the wetland edge is comprised. of fill, debris piles and blackberries, as noted above. This soil material will not readily support desirable native vegetation. The effective buffer areas to the north and south, are greater than 50-feet wide and primarily comprised of mature native forest and thus provide good buffer functions and values that compensate for the reduced buffer width at the eastern end. 6.3.2 STREAMS The City of Renton is in the process of revising the municipal code sections related to streams. The City of Renton defines stream, creek, river, or water-course as, "any portion of a channel, bed, bank, or bottom waterward of the ordinary high water mark in which fish may spawn, reside, or through which they may pass, and tributary waters with defined beds or bank' which influence the· quality of fish habitat downstream. This includes watercourses which flow on an intermittent basis or which fluctuate in level during the year, and applies to the entire bed of such watercourse whether or not the water is at peak level. This definition does not include irrigation of ditches, canals, stormwater runoff devices, or other entirely artificial watercourses, except where they exist in a natural watercourse which has been altered by humans or except where there are salmonids." At this point in time, there is no stream classification system or buffer requirements in the municipal cod~. 7. Wetland & Stream Impacts . The proposal is toimpactapproximately3,591 square feet of the southern wetland and to place 120)inearfeetof the s()uthernWatercourse in a culvert. The impact and .mltigation areas are shown> on the attached' plans prepared by DietzHartlage dated July . . 22, '2004> The impact area of tbesouthein wetland. and watercourse is highly disturbed". as noted above. ' . ' . . ' . .' . ., .' . " . ' . 8~·Wetlal1d.~,Mitigatioti ,," -," . . . '. ' ...... 8.1·0UTLIN'EoFTHEPR.(j~m,tIDnGArio~ PLAN" ··;~=~t~~~~~::::;~.·plan.~~~lom~ .. i .', " ~.~~. ] . 3.:Amonitonng,pl~vybich,exp~:hOwth¢cIata ~be colleCte4t6compareagamsL theperrorinaD.ce:~ds811devahiatesuccess;aD:d,. '.'<',' .' '," .' :".,'. ,.... " 4., A cqntingencY plmi for~ma.k.inglIlid~90~e,Cprtections ~theevent of probl~.,' ..... "::, " :,:.\ ,," . ", ~ , f: ..... :"':'" . "". ',",' ." :" .; ........ "'<',,' Wetland Delineation & Mitigation Report 11 July 22, 2004 South Parking Lot Project-Rainier Avenue North, Renton, WA Project#2002-061c " '~, "', '.' ' :., ," ..... :.,. THE RILEY GROUP, INC. 8.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE MITIGATION AREA As noted above, the mitigation area is associated with the North Wetland. Most of the proposed mitigation will occur along the northeast side of the wetland in an area that, due to accretion is only slightly higher in elevation than the wetland. The buffer area is currently comprised of invasive and pioneer species capable of growing in poor soils. The proposed mitigation is illustrated on the attached plans prepared by DietzHartlage dated July 22, 2004. 8.3 DESCRIPTION AND GOALS OF THE PROPOSED MITIGATION The mitigation proposal has four components as follows: • Creation of 3,591 square feet of wetland adjacent to the North Wetland involving excavation to create wetland hydrology followed by dense planting of wetland plants. Due to steep slopes this will necessitate the use of ecology blocks. • Compensation for buffer reduction totaling 5,028 square feet through buffer increase of 5,028 square feet. . • Enhancement of a minjmum of an additional 1,800 square feet of the North Wetland through removal' of exotic invasive plants and interplanting with native speCles. • Enhancement of theaveragect wetland buffer east. of the North ,Wetland, involving removal of fill material and backfill with appropriate planting soils follOWed by de~e plan.ting of~th w:~and ,and upland vegetation. .. ·.RemovaIofinvasivespeciesjntheareawest of the proposed parkinglot witlilil . . the wetland and bUfferadjaceIlt to~the South W. etland as required by the City of .• ' . . ,Renton and replanting withDativespecies~. '.' .'.. .' " .... .', " ... ' ". . .. .~. ">.: .. :,: .. :" :. ..Remo~alof i:nY~ive'pianisln'theblrlfer to', thenOrth'~dsouth ~ftheS9~th· . '.' . Wetland ,fOllowed, ,byinterplantirigo{nativesP~i~.:·to .meettheCity's .,. ......... Thego=:~~.~ ~Iywitk~~@als ¥.miUganrin; ....• . ..... 'i ... ' ...... , ., ,.... :ratiosoftheCitji'tel@.v¢ tocompenSatorymitjgation:c#~.ab9v.e.T~·acc6nipijsh:tb,e· ..... . . ,' ...... '. '. ".' Wetland Delineation & Mitigation Report 12 July 22,2004 South Parking Lot Project-Rainier Avenue North, Renton, WA Project #2002-061c : ': ,'. THE RILEY GROUP, INC. Base Flow/Ground Water Support: low Erosion/Shoreline Protection: N/ A Water Quality Improvement: moderate Natural Biological Support: N/A Overall Habitat Functions: low Specific Habitat Functions: low Cultural/Socioeconomic: low These functions will be replaced or improved over existing conditions in the' following ways: Post-Development Conditions (North Wetland): Flood/Storm Water Control: Create additional wetland directly adjacent to a watercourse Base Flow/Ground Water Support: Maintain sheet'flows through wetland Erosion/Shoreline Protection: Significant improvement over eXisting conditions in watercourSe channel Water Quality Improvement: . 'Increase vegetatiye cover' . ' .• Natu1"al,Biologi~Support:. ,: .~vjde~ghvegetative,.strtlctuie. fu~~: p!aiitdiVemty: .' '. ' ~ .... . .'. '. . . ',> '.ReducemvaSive:sPe6ies. .~~r!: ". . .' . . ., Overall.IIabnatF~Ctions:' ~:, ~ ..... . ···· .. s~~*=~~i'· •..• ,:' .. hlcr~e~ertebtate'~damphib~ ~i~t, • ,I" -" ,.~.: . CulniraI!SoCiO~cOil()lhic: ." . . Unchange~.,. . . :.',.' '-.. ,' . Wetland Delineation & Mitigation Report 13 July 22, 2004 South Parking Lot Project-Rainier Avenue North, Renton, WA Project#2002-061c . '. " ';" ~.:.:-.. . I :.~ THE RILEY GROUP, INC. 8.4 PLANTING PLAN The planting plan is shown on the attached Conceptual Wetland Mitigation Plan sheet prepared by DietzHartlage Landscape Architecture dated July 22, 2004. 8.5 CONSTRUCTION PLAN In order to ensure that the following implementation activities occur as intended, a pre- construction meeting shall occur with the landscapers and the project biologist or landscape architect. During this meeting, the biologist shall review the planting material to ensure that it is as specified and that the crews understand the details of this planting plan. Construction (including grading, clearing and invasive species removal/spraying followed by seed dispersal) MUST occur during the dry months, from June through mid October. Planting of potted material must occur in October through November. Planting of bare root material must occur between December and February. In order to create wetland hydrology, within the wetland creation area, six inches of soil will be removed. The soil removal will not affect the suitability of the planting medium, as the top soil layer is adequately deep to support plants. Care shall be taken to prevent compaction of soils during the excavation activities. Other details of construction, will be provided with the final mitigation plan. ' 8.6 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS '. .. . ~ . . . . " When evaluated against monitoring data, performance standards are used to determine the relative ,success of the mitigatioilproj~ct. Failure to meet these general minimum , stahd3rds ,throUghout the 'monitoring p~riod,' Win result in implementation of ", .' "\ -.. -. . ,. . , contingensy measu:res . . ~ . . .: : ' " , ' .. 's.6.1'VEGErATIONSTAND,ARDs· ", _S.~dS.regarding the vegetatio~ ~riterio~ are broken 'down by"Jilonitoring year as ',' follows: . .' :' '.' ..... " ,: . ", ,-; ..... ..... : -..:: ! ,,' .-.... , ;: ...... ""';., :,. .. "'-~ .. . ....~.'. '.' Ta~I~2~ Perf~ari~Sbmdsu-ds':. ~ " .. ..". , ,>.,' yearl,., ',' ":' ,:.: ..... , . ' .. ': :'" NAnVEP~COVER(%)""':' JO~oS? · .. 45to}5 '65.to~5 ...... , . . ,~~~.~~~~~;'kiO~i91Q~j?~~-.6li·· , "'N(m~natiye;, .invasive .. plaii~oov~r'. ,(seebeloW).,'" ::(~?,:,,:i,'·:' ",:,;/;~,»,:,." ,', ,?),:-.,'<',',.' " :: ". ,Woodyplant ~uiviv~p" ,,' ','<100 ' ': 80 "," .. :. : . .', ~ :'. '. '. .' '." , .-:' .. Wetland Delineation & Mitigation Report 14 July 22, 2004 South Parking Lot Project-Rainier Avenue North, Renton, WA Project #2002-061c THE RILEY GROUP, INC. Species diversity . (see below) * for forested areas 8.6.2 SPECIES DIVERSITY The following minimwn standards apply to species diversity of plants, including both planted and volunteer species, within the various strata • trees = 4 species • shrubs = 4 species • herbaceous = 8 species 8.6.3 PLANT SURVIVORSHIP Plants are considered "dead" when more than 50% of the plant is decadent, with the exception of cottonwood, willow and red-osier dogwood, which will be considered live if any part of the plant· is living. Emergent zones will be subject to native general cover criteria only. 8.6.4 CONTROL OF INVASIVE AND NATIVE SPECIES W1T1i A TENDENCY TO . OVERWHELM Himalayan blackberry. (RubUs procefus ),reed canarygrass{Phaiaris arundinaceae),. soft . rush (Juncuseffusus),andcommon.cattail {Typha latifolia) may not exceed 30% cover . . per species~oughout the niOnitoriIig Period:" .. . . , ".,'. , 8.6.5 .. :IfYn~?LOGrST.ANDJ\lU)s. ·r., .......>, . '.,.': c,.'·. " .' Wetland. hydrology meeting the' criteria. oftheTJS .. Army .. Corps .·ofEtigineers· for <;the . , .' c.···· .~~get Lowlan&Will:beprovid~: thr6ttghoutthe 'areadeSigimtedforwetlanda-eation:···· , , ". "~ . ",,'.. ' .. " . '" '". ". '. '. ., ". 8.6.6· WA'(ERC~~EST~iLrrY . ' .. ;. ,: " .. :,', . ~.·W~cOurSe .. ~ility·,Wi}{:,pe.;e~:VisUanytC>.che~kobsetVeariy' eVi&:~ce'·of,:< ' .. erosiun.·, '. ,,;-,.: .. . , '.~ .-' :',: ... ".;: .' ...... .., "." ," .'" .' Wetland Delineation & Mitigation Report 15 July 22, 2004 South Parking Lot Project-Rainier Avenue North, Renton, WA Project #2002-061c ;' -," . \. , :',. THE RILEY GROUP, INC. Table 3. Monitoring schedule Biannual Maintenance Visits Monitoring Visit Report due to City by: Year 1 Between June 1 and July 15 AND Between August I and November 30 Between September I and October 30 September 30 Year 2 Between June I and July 15 AND Between August 1 and November 30 Between September I and October 30 September 30 Year 3 Between June I and July 15 AND Between August I and November 30 Between September I and October 30 September 30 The vegetation sampling methodology will consist of inspection of the planted material to determine the overall health and vigor of the installation. Secondly. the line intercept method (Canfield 1941). will be used. Randomly spaced permanent data points will be established along the transect. A table documenting linear density index, relative density, frequency, relative frequency, linear coverage, relative coverage and importance value for each species in t;he shrub/tree strata will be produced. Photographs will also be taken of each data point during each monitoring period so that progress can be tracked from year to year. The herb strata will be monitored for frequency, relative frequeIlcy, coverage, relative coverage and importance value for each species. Sampling within each data point along the transect will occur within a one square meter area. Hydrology will be evaluated by digging soil pits at several points throughout the · wetland creation area to' assess soil saturation on the first spring wet season after stream flows have been reestablished through the wetland creation areas. Stream,stability will consist 6f 'visual . ev~uationof the channel to-document any cfuumelization. .' . . . ", '. . . . Evide:o.ce ofwildllfeusewill ~'\1:isuallyassessed ap.d recOrded.' ".', '8.8 .. ,·~cEPLAN .. ·. , . . . '. ",' :., . . . ~i : . . -.' . ()vetthe"three-year#lohltorlDg '~6~.arigQrotis .serirlanrillaI·ni3interiarice·prognUn.· ~i .. ' beimplerilentedas ileed~, t9.~)ifninateundesitableplants,andto .. protectshnibsand: .smau,trees,froDloompetition;by "grasses" aItd.herbac~us, 'plants .. ,theinf0r.m.ation . · obtaineddtlrlng· .thebiaIJIiuaI'~enaIlCeYisits:will·.··be'· piovid.edtothe maintenance" · . ere"Ys tc>direct the ;maHiienanceactions.A:·qUalifioo·wetl,and .. sCienti~ WiIlbe· o,nhandt<i "" •....... . ·,:s~~:m3mte~ i:tCti,vities,~~~,' . .. .. . .. .. '. ::' <-... ,. . .. ", ,::_~.9:,;·._,'.~O~~~~CX~;':;::·:··':~' ... ,'.:;:.. ;,:.i.:';. ..,,; .. ' .' . .'. InOJ;d~to,pro~4e;for~',ooiltingeri<~Y that· per:thrmance.~qaxds .• IllaY.not .. ~.:tp.et. "duritig:<the', ··three_Yeari • impI¢menmtiOri:peno~'jtmay~:neces~" tO~provrde . . , .' , . ·.··.· •..• StipplemeD.tar.planting~:';Plantattritioncaii· be. ~m~ed bY)evaiuating the 'caUSe"arid .,... . '. 'repl'3ritipg' ;wi~:thesam.e . or,'a.mor¢ appropriate approved species: "The laiidscapmg·. 'coIltractoisholil&g~tee l()()' percent survivorsbj.pJor 6ne year from initial planting ': Wetland Delineation & Mitigation Report 16 July 22, 2004 South Parking Lot Project -Rainier Avenue North, Renton, WA Project #2002-061 c I r .' ...... '. i·'., . .• <. " .; .... I, ; THE RILEY GROUP, INC. for losses due to defects in materials or workmanship. All plants that are used for replacement must meet the standards of the initial plantings. The causes of any mortality will be evaluated, and based upon the results of this evaluation, alternate species selection may occur. Thereafter, for the remainder of the monitoring period, 20 percent tree or shrub attrition will be allowed without triggering the contingency plan. Replacement will be subject to the same conditions and be made in the same manner as specified for the original planting. 9. Limitations The Riley Group, Inc. warrants that this study and the mitigation plan are ill accordance with generally accepted environmental science practices, including the technical guidelines and criteria in effect at the time this study was performed. The results and conclusions of this report represent the author's best professional judgment, based upon information provided by the project proponent in addition to that obtained during the course of this study. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. Please call us at (206) 417-055f, or contact us by fax (206) 417-0552, if you have any questions. or need additional information. Sincerely, .. -t-"~" "" .-,' '," ':. .. :." .. . ,',,,' ", . : " . .... " . . :.'.. ,..: ••••••••• •••••• Wetland Delineation & Mitigation Report 17 July 22, 2004 South Parking Lot Project-Rainier Avenue North, Renton, WA Project #2002-061c ~.': '. : ,",:, . " ...... .. ,,",,: . THE RILEY GROUP, INC. REFERENCES Hitchcock, C.L., and A. Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. Univ. of . Washington Press, Seattle. King CountyDDES website, http://www.metrokc.gov/ddes/gis/parceV Munsell Color. 1992. Munsell Soil Color Charts. Kollmorgen Instruments Corp., Baltimore, MD. Reed, P .B.~ Jr. 1988. National List. of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: National Summary. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. BioI. Rpt. 88(24). 244 p. 1993 Northwest Supplement, Region 9, December 1993. Snyder, D.E.,P.S~Gale, and R.F .. Pringle. 1973 . .soil Survey of King County Area, Washington. U.S. Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C. . Soil ConserVation: 8ervice~1985.· Hydric'Soils of theStateofWashington~U.S. Soil . Conserv®Qn Service,W~gton,I};C.. . '.' . ". :":" .': . . , ~ ... ," ' . Soil ConservationSerVice~ '1987. Hydric Soils of the:Umted States.lnco6perationwith . . the National Technical co1llIIlitteeforHydricSoils .. tLS;D.A. Soil Conservation . ·:Service,Wasbingtoil,n.c.:: .. , ':'..,',' . .' .. ,... . . .'. '. .....: .,. "',;' ...... '<.>' .'<' .. .':. ~ U$.FishandWil<llife.· smice; 1993:~~()I1:h:westSUpplemeIlti():N~ti9iial Li~ of Pl~t . . '.' Species that <?ccurinWetlanc#:RegioiI9. ·Bipt.Rpi $8(24).' ...... .. . ..... ' .". .:" . '. :'~".", < .. /" '~';" .:. '.. ..' ."' . :'/ .:-. '", .. "';"-.' .,' '.' Wetland Delineation & Mitigation Report 18 July 22, 2004 South Parking Lot Project-Rainier Avenue North, Renton, WA Project #2002-061c I I I I.'" I I:"~ 1.< ~ -0 CD ::s a. )(" » ----------------- __ ujectlSite: hpc/efJL pplic:mtlowner: AI ~ £.1 efr c. iW1 DATA FORM 1 (Revised) Routine Wetland Detennination (WA State \\"etland Delineation Manual or 1987 \" Manual) County: Selte: srrlR: . o Normal CircumstimCes exist on the site: . the site signific:mtly disturbed (atypic:u situiltion r~ Is the:area a polcnti.lI Problem Area? yes no @ @ Communit'.' 10: T~nsect 10:. D P -I Plot 10.: ~:f/~-V~"'-<l'~~ yes of . area: 'EGETATION (For strata. indicate T = U'ee~ S = shrub~ H = herb: V = v~ne) . J . I '1 Stratum Ck co\'er beck :ulindlcmors .that :lpply&e .. (p~n below: .' : ..... ' . isU3J o~rv.won of pl:lrl1 sped~ gro\\;ng in:. .' ' .• areas' of pr:olongedinund:ltionlsaruration: . ~.·MCxpllCl·fAogiC·:t:I ~t:ltions::" . ..,. .. :; .... v etland:hyd~logypreseDt?· ...•... 1·~ad?rialerordCcisionIRe~ ., , .' ~ ~ ','., ,.:, ..-. " :-: .. : '" .... ~.- " " Plant "'",~II·" «1C cover 1 ' .•..... - . ", .~ , " .. ~ ... .' : " ' .. <PhYsiOi~CaJI~Cti"~·~tatio~ . .. W~and 'pWJt database " '. ...... '. ,.... " .'P~:~~+ of,regionaiplant cotrununitiCs.· .... '. '.6ther .' .' .' ....; l,:' '~. -' j":> I I DATA FORM 1 (Revised) Routine \Vetland Detennination (\VA State \\"etland Delineation Manual or i)jectlSite: 'pi ic:lntlown~r. s): ) Nurmal Circumstances exist on th~ .site? w site signific:uttly disturbed (atypic31 sittmtion r~ is the Mea a potential Problem Area"? of area: \V Manual) yes yes no & e3 EGET A TION (For strata. indicate T = tree: S = shrub: H = berb; V = v~ne) Str:ltum .~ cover / ,--ar YDROPHYl1C \,EGETAnO~ L'1>ICATORS: %of dominantsOBL. FAcW.&<F.~c100~'.~ .•..• .. : .... ".. .' . ~.. Indic:ltor '. " Dat~: County: State: 8'//'1/ t;2- /Gtn 7 -2- Stratum 10 /0 ----' .... J ... .'~ -WsaI~·ati6~;Of pbntspec~~o~;ngin.· rea$'of . .. inun.:btjonlSOltur.ltion . PhYsiol~cii~·e:id.3ptations < W etlOlJldpl~t database '.. . . . . . . '.- :'. ' .. ····Persorial~ledge:Of rep~·pt:lntcclmmurijtie$ .•... ···omer ....... ; .. "... '. ," ," .. ' .... " '", .,,' " \ .~. '" ; . t I I DATA FORM 1 (Revised) Routine Wetland Detennination (WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or 1981 Co s Wetland Delineation Manual) __ ;)ject/Site: ~ r~ Date: County: . State: srrlR: ??-/17'/02-- [~ ) Nurmal CircumsGlnces exist on the site? the ~ite si~nific:mtly disturbed (atypical sittmtion r~ Community 10: D D 3' T~nsect 10:. . t .". Is the ~ea a potenti:li Problem Area? yes Plot 10: N~~ A/IV -L:5 ; larultion of atv iQI or roblem area: EGET A TION (For Strata. indicate T = tree: S = shrub: H = herb: V = v~ne) . Stratum ~ CO\Oer Indicator Dominant Plant S ecies Stratum ~ cover o Indicator Pro) (r/-" I' . ;-1-P:/O/ l (AX ~(o" 1-/ /c;~~ {tIM' ---= J 5 'Af!1u £2,1, , I-f- ./ '0 ~ /lNvfr-5 -yaee I ') ~Yi oM g or YDROPHl"11CVEGETATION L''DICATORS: Ck of domina~OBl..FACW.<&FAC Ib!):' .. " . ,; .:.": . ... :"PhysiJI~~c:tive':ldaptatiOns g-;) T T • 0 • ... ,:."'.&. . iSuaI o~-atiOn oofpl:mis~ieS·gro\\i~ ~ treaS ;of prol~ged 'inun~tionJsMur;uion' . °MOiPboJOgia1ad3p~onS: .... ..' .. ' ..... '. 'Wc:tland plaril dUlibaSe . '." .... ". •.. ' .. .' . ·P~naiknowledge·ofrcgiori;UpjantcOmm\i.njties OtherCex lain)· .. . . . .,. < • -eCbDICaI Lileriwre'· ..•... ydr'OphYticveaetatiOD ·preSent!.·· . trioaate:fOr.<iecisiOOlRematkS: ;~',:.':;.:.; ',:.: :;.;: ,'~~ . 'edaDd hydi-ologypreseftt? '. :yes ",'. ." l~oDate f~~decisiorilRe~~ .' "': .. :,>";;:;<~":::r;/i.'.' ......... :. .... ~: .'. '." .... . . .. ">;'.* ,ida~}<:~·.We:f ··.·ihitl··:~;j.-':f?i:-:R;~ lJtU1'~'Q:!7;,j{0 . p,';'" ' .. ,;.j.; .. .'....... .:1) '. '.' .' '. , . I )/ . ". . .... ,' "', . ", '. . ,:,,":':,', ," F1t6 0 I· I JJL- Me . .., . . - ! I DATA FORM 1 (Revised) Routine \Vetland Detennination (WA State \Vetland Delineation Manual or 1987 Co s \Vetland Delineation Manuan -1 jectiSite: plic3ntlov .. 'ner: In\'eSli~:1tor( s): Nurmal Circumstances exist on the site? he site signific:mtly disturbed (atypical situation r~ Is the :lrea a potential Problem Area? ,lanation of ical or roblem area: yes yes ~GETATION (For strata. indicate T = tree: S = shrub: H = herb: V = v~ne) minanl Plant S des . Str.:uum Ck co\'er Indicator Dominant Plant S ecies rDROPH\'TIC,\"EGETAnO~ L'"DICATORS: . . % of dominams'OBLfACW. &; i~c ,',DO . leck all indic::iun-s,ttiat'~I'y& cXpl3in.below: Date: County: State: srrlR: Community 10: DI D _ L! Tr:lnsecl 10: r I Plot 10: A. Str:ltum . 'iC co\'er 'Indicator 1-/, 40 /0 .O~L sua! ~·ation ~f pbnt spe~es gro~~gin reas of prolonged. inund3tionlS:1tur:ltiQn .' .. MorpbolOgi~3hdapt:liions>," , ,.,. , , '. ~ literatUre'::' ,,~,':':: ···········5~~C<>~ ~ifl~:!I:~~~~J~~;i;t~~:=j~~~~~~;f;~;.;;;;,··· . . ··~~slt]~~~giJSl=~I!!.~I~l~;~; Is;..E:e::Ioin~Ji2ll:·'~{ j ' •• ~{~ ..... TetiandliydrologypreseDt? ! ,~tioDale for deCisiOO/R7~:' , .. ' . '-. . . ~', ".' " .. ' ':.' . , ..... ; '-' I DATA FORM 1 (Revised) Routine 'Vettand Detennination <,,'A State "'etland Delineation M~nual or 1987 Co 5 'Vedand Delineation Manual) I jectlSitc: Date: County: 'St:1tc: 7/;Z~ /c;;z- K/ae; NunnaJ Circ:umstolnc:cs exist on the site:' be site signific::mtlydisturbcd (atypic~ situationr~ Is the ;area a potenti:tl Problem Area? ,lan:tion of atv iC:ll or roblem area: no ® ~ SITIR: Community 10: T~nsect 10: Plot ID: :GET A TION (For strata. indicate T = tree: S = shrub: H = herb: V = v~nc). min:nt PI:tnt S ics Stratum ~ CO\'er Indicator Dominant Plant S ccies Stratum :.. d..L/" m./> !Af:+O p/}c);/ Ali~ U' rt-. i~ l- I. h::tUl II . -/zJJ')L. /J~ V' I ~ go rA-W Sl a~JA.-/· tI I /~/ CA./vf'/ . ~ -r .~ s: )f} (6-'Mc-, ·V -r' vp ~' 5_ ~, I1C cO\'cr . Indicator '}fJ ~O / k"DROPHYl1C\"EGETA110S INDICATORS: . '. ~o(dorriinan~6~t.: FA~~ &'~ ~cW (p: ... .. -~;tt;{)t-....... *.. .. ;?£H ...... '-.... h ... .uT.... ~ .... ~ . ........ W, ... i1(... /)J! L .A-< ~ ... ~t).l/ ... ' . 'I .. ~ .. _. ,: .' '-','" ','. ," .',.;" •.. " •• • ". ,.: " ., .... J ' " . i, lec:k.aU indiCttOrs.that~ply.&cXpl~~,below:~ -" " ·~ob~atiOn:oipl3D~.·~iro"i:ng in.-, .:.'~ysiolo~e~pQti~;. reaSofprOlo~gCdinu~t~onl~turiuion·,· :.:....:..... ./Wetland plant.cfaIabase' ... - : ... :~~ogie31:adapt;ltio~ ... '/ .' . .~, :: __ ~_:.,:::;:;·.,)'m.oDal.knoMedgeofregioia:lipWucOrnnUmities -·'"'":c:tmic:allJterature··!··· ';, .. . " ,'/~<~~(la1n) > :'.: . .;. ',. ..... ' .. .~.' Vetland hydrology praellt? : ..• ' ,. ~ona1eJor: d~cisionlRe~: •.•. . . . ~ '. ' .". , . ',. -.... ',. .'.: \'." ,,' . ' .. ~ " " .:,": .. .' . . .' ',-, ." . . "',' . . ~ ' .. -''' •. , ,'. : .~ .#1' '. " ~'.' . '. ', ... : . . > ." . , : ',' i . I I I . . ' ~ . "." ..... .: : .. ', '. : .. ' ,". t -,' i i . . , ProjecllS ite: Applir::mllo\lo-ner': DATA 1"-U&\1 1 (Revised) Routine \Vetland Determination (\VA State \\"etland Delineafion Manual or r-_. __ ,," W/L-Oat.:: 2-/ / 2f C i~-t:~ " '., r t~i~ County" /<j t:t:,;·" S~te:' I/L. if(:~ /" .. ~~~~~~~~~~~------~~~~ Do ~nrma.\ Cin:ums~nces e.-ust on the site? no CommuniryID: A / Is the site siptific:mtly disturbed (atypic:1l sit~on r~ yes Cn07 T~nsect 10: IV . Is the ~ea a potentiAlI Problem An:a? yes ® Plot 10' of or area: \'EGET A nON (For Strata. indicAlIe T = tree: 5 = shrub: H = berb: V = vine) .tA.,~ ~~ Str.1tum Inl8ic::lt~r Plant WetlaDdhydrologypl"eseDt'! y~. Radoria1e for deeiSion/Rern3rl.s:.·' .:' '.", " .-~: .... ·~q·t-~'C{··rA1 ', ...... : - DATA FOR~11 (Revised) . Routine \Vetland Determination, ('VA State.·Wetland Delineation Manual 0)-. .19s7Co~s·\\·etland Delineation MmiWd) i :t:lISite: Dati:: Z-//21 Off ::7~.! ....... )0 Normal CitCUmst'olnceswst on the site: ~ : Site Sipii.fi~t1y ciilOturbeci (ai)-pic::1I situation 1-:' :s ~:zrea. a'po'teiltilll Problem Area? ExtJl:m:uion of m'Di'Q} or roblem area: f0~. County: St:llc: SITIR: \i :;EtA TION (For Strata.. indic:ue T = tree: S = shrub: H = herb: V = vine) . • - . '.,~ .. ~.~ ~~ .. W,'- )omin:mt Plant Soec:ies Str;ttum itt co\"er It{!:h:~~r Dominant Plant SDecles St~tum' 'K co\'er. 1-~ -r ~() .' ~" 70 1.~· r£Vl.r--r 10 V ·L.lo f-./-:. ~lO t "DROPHYTI. VEGETAnONINDlCATORS: ~Ofdomi~·OBt...i.'\CW.&:F.~t:···rOQ·· .. ; .. . . . . . . :", -: . .~ , :".; :. . " .'., ' " '.' ". .. .. ., .. cluillindiatorsth:lt:!pPJy &.<exPWn beloW:.: .' ..... . .. : . "," ,"", ., .. ··Ph~.siolo~~v:~ons·. -', /0 .r T :,: ", . lndk:UOT OBL .- ,'~ .. (l::dam)m;i~. ·~P~~u.'~.~'·· ~;:;=~~=~:---~ __ ~~~ ...... ~=-=---__ '-A==;;;';"V~=-___________ ~_~+~~_~==;11!111"""'''"I' .' ,. h:it:~P.owiDj·~?:\·:·'.:·<,>·:~~·,.~.:'@.> ./:'.: ". .!~~~.Yes".> ... ~ . j ~ on: ~soil ~ (~.~' .\/ ... ",,;' L :." .. > ' . .' 1-. Diift::="·=LlI=j=~=· .=,=-, ~,-, yes';";, ;,.;.;.;..,..:'~~~,;,,-~~~~~~~~ ,,,,,: ;,;' .•.... "" . • :other.(exiJ1iiiil~':·;·::'>:~;;,,:,i.:';:':,' ""~>:;:> .:.:: ,':.':,;!.:'.:::.: ' .' " . . .. ' ~,~~.iiniDd:i!i,pn:,'::':;·~;<:;:' '.A" . >.':~".~/ , . . -'," , .. '. ~~'., ... : ; ., .. :: .. ~ .. -~.;'<' '::' : ~:=!fi~\(>; . d ill that 2pp1Y:~explainbdow: ~'~Or~'d,ata: ...• :.. . dal hotouaDhS:" &Dd hydrolo:ypresellC. ' _ _ :iOria1e· for decision/Remarts: " --" \ .. ' Ml~ c..~.vJl'~.~~'~>·;"'·· .'. o*' . 'i" ".: ,. "." .. '" ... - I I » "0 "0 CD ::s a. >< OJ I ..• I. ". f WETLAND BOUNDARY MAP " . ..-;-~ d .. :{.·.~:.;. : .. ~:~<{;~.~;~:' ~:c:/~~~<r:~~). >~.:" ... . ~ .~.... ".<: .. -:.~) ... ",~:. '~ .•.. ".";\ i:-.... : .~~ ,'" ',.; : ... :' .... ~: : 2000 Wetland and Buffer Functions and Semi-quantitative Performance Assessment Wetland # JJ~ LV,:i'LAM../J Staff c.. 8m~ Date 5(/ I q 10:2.; Location SIR NlA = Not Applicable, Nil = No information available Table 1: Determi . Absolute Size Wetland Loss in Basin Size Relative to Other Wetlands in Basin (on .' NWI Buffer Size Buffer Condition Relative Size Function Flood! .< 75 feet > 60% disturbed Total 5-10 acres > 10 acres I 20 -600/0 <200/0 I . > 200 feet ... ~. < 20% disturbed score/5 -tIs- Storm Water . . ~_C&I'I1UIahe scant (see Table 1) ~1iYedne. or shrdowdePreaalcn . .~waaaIld ..... _size C&I1UdIIa score (see Table 1) _lak8.depra I alans,headwa.s. bogs Control .. -: < 10 %~ CCMII" ~1Sb.tedoullel ... . ..... :.cicatadJn Iow8r 1IJof1h8~ .' 10.30%~~··· -. ..". '. 'eenHloIislralilBCf outlet ...... . :JocidedIn'rnidcIe'1fJof1hedniinage , '. ..' ,". ~.' ~::::CXMr. ouIIat .... ." ". ·~IocaIBdi.H~1IJofihe~ . .' .......... q, ... ~QgI~ • :";",." ' ...... ~~accie' ( .. Table 1) . ___ :~score(seeTablet)";;';"SlzecunulallY8score.(seeT~1)· Gr:;~:!I.r~:=::~··=ZZ .. ~··==:::;!== _ ten~ IOOdec"~~,': . ~~ar~. '.,' ._ .. _ .. ~.~~or:SaIlnIBcf.. _ ..... ',.;' '. .;' .' ,/ . . ' ' : . . .-", ':' .. , IOodad oraalli8led . ~'-'" or 1mBimIDenIyexpOsed . VwWIiI' ~20.,(.~ ,,'.' .::,e .. : . m ic,·..o%oBt· -. -.', .. .... >~%oBi.' '. . .. ,:ShC>ittli.,e{.;·; ". :Pr.otectlo Ii·; " ' ... :'. '. . ," '. . ~:.::"'" .:, .. ; ~:: .' ........ " ',' '. &~·~~ot~.~~:: ; ;' ~ .... ; ': . ,.' ." .... ' .. ," ... ",.' .. ~. . -.: ; :. ',.' ": ..•. ~: .~ ...•. ". . ... : " .-:~' . . ' '. ~."'. -. . \' .: .:.-~ . f'. .'. ',,':'.':. ···:,·%::-f: .•. ··,:. L, ... L.t.".C.· •. ', ••. ,: .. ·,: .••. '.r.L .. ·.· .. irr ..... ~ .•.. :.~ •.• , •. toai.; .....• ,· .....• ,: ...••. ~ ..•.••.• :.,:.~ .•. : .••..• ~ •.• ; ..•.. ' .••. , •....••.. , .......• , ... :,: •••. :.: •. :.,., .. ·;~8:¥·~0:~:~:·,\-<.:" -:':;"':~" -.'" ~----. .... . " -. ,'., 2000 Wetland and Buffer Functions and Semi-quantitative Performance Assessment Netland #' ________________ Staff. ______ Date ________ _ Table 2: Attribute Configutation Basin Size Outlet Input Unconstrained , Groundwater o Basin Condition <20% ·im ervious Plow Contained. Natural Biological Support _ sIze,C&IIIUIaIiVe score (see Table 1) _low ,C01ul8CNty '10 veg'd buIJeIs _agt8nd, lOw vag sIiuCtan : ~88IISOI111 surface water , , one habltattp . . ~. ,-...... " -PAS POW PEMPSS PfO EST : ," ' . . "~Iow plant diversity « 6 sp8cIes) 'fewhabllltteallns, ' -',;"" .. , ~"""',:,,;:: .......... . ,', ,'.' . ,"' ~.'., ",~,,' . :," ',,, . ','-. " . " . . un ervlOUS amuIative score (see Table 1) _ mod conn8ctMtyto veg'd buIrers _. £~ofvagetaaon . ~I8f1tUtace water . ~habIIat~ ',' ".pAaPOl(,~ Lmoderal8~dIYeIslty (1-15 spp)' ~ sO%inva!IIYe sPecIes , ~rnodendB~'~ . : .... tF:"": __ -. rssllghllydlslUltied· Total I score/5 ,/0 /t;-- ~~ cwnUaIhescore,' ' (see Table 1) ~ connec:IvIlyto veg'd buIIers _~ vegstnlClln .... open walBrpools through ammer ~3 habftattypes PAS POW PEMPSSPFO EST . ,;,.,;,.high plant cIY8ISIly (> 1Sspp) ~< 1O%~ species .. _hlghor9anic~ _high OIDancexport' . ...... ~0 I I 2000 Wetland and Buffer Functions and Semi-quantitative Performance Assessment 'Wetland # ~cv.:r.A J UJdf.AAA..A.· Staff C?~ ~ Date 87 (q /05- .. Location S T R Table 1: Detennini Absolute Size Wetbnd Loss in Basin Size Relative to Other· WetbndsinBasin (on NWI s Buffer Size Buffer Condition NlA =Not Applicable, NIl = No information available 20-60%< 20 % 100-200 % oft .> 200%0£ size > 200 feet. < 20% disturbed 1 Ifscore is ~1 then give th,e question a 1 Ifscore is 1.5 to 2 then give the question a2 . scorelS Relative Size Function Flood! . . Storm Water . Control .. If score is 25 to ~3 then the tiestion a .3 ~"'=.:=;_l) ~__ ::=_~Ta*~ ~<10% toressed co\w . ;, •• ' . ~ 10-30" besSed CO\W--.>30'" faresied CCMIf '. ~'9"'"'* .. iBdouliet .":, .......... ..... . ~lSbal .. edc.det~~~.·. ~~lnbwer1IJof'~~ •. ' . '. :1ocaIed1n;mIddIe~~.oJ"~.· ~Ioc:IdeclInUpper1IJof1heaaiJage .. ~ .. " ," . " 'SIZ8c:unUalNe8CC118(seeTable1)' ~~L~il,,':';~_"IyQr_!Iiilem1~~r ... '_Slze'~'scOra(seeTabIe 1) -::" ..... ' '" .':'" ;. -,' ~:.)~:.-;, i l-"'j~;.: I I I 2000 Wetland and Buffer Functions and Semi-quantitative Performance Assessment Wetland # ____ .-~;..;;;;..;.;., ... -'_1-.-:,;-j..:.,,;:<,~IJJe_~;...;;.;;;;_V~'iV'r.l-;;:;;.....-_ Staff t,&~ Date Table 2: Overland Flow Contained in Wetland Attribute Configuration ....... Basin Size Outlet Input Basin Condition Flow Contained .. Natural Biological Support '"., Low (lpt.) I ~late-shap"&I_ < 2 acres . Unconstrained Groundwater only <20% impervious ,:.,': ".:-,:: ' .. '.,:'" ., ',' Medium (2 pts.) High (3 pts.) Total ;Shallow bowl=-" Deep Bowl- sha~ . shaped {2-5 acres--I\ > 5 acres Setnk oed v Consttained ...... ~ .. Surrace flow and \.. ... ~ ,- 20-40 %. . impervious Surface How C;40%-~ impervious score/S _size curnuIaIIve score (see Table 1) '_ high conrHicIIvItyID wg'd.bufters _hIgl wg structure _open water pools hough amrner ~3habllattypes PAS PON PEM PSS PfO EST .;,..hIgh plait cIiY8ISIty (> 15 spp) ". _~10%~species .• _~ OIgIInicCUlUallon '-~ organc.export . '. · .. ··.·_-,~~;\:Z.;.'.b.·.· ... · •. : ..•.•.. ' .. ~.~ .. _ ....•.. : ...•.. ~.'faaIIns. * ...........•. ~ ......... :.: ..... ,.:. m~". _ ... ' ....•.. :::'7= Wi-~..Lwelcu ..... ~~~ . , .. :,~., ... .. .... ,".' .: ','; , ~o3~(~ ./v The Riley Group, Inc. Geotechnical Engineering • Environmental • Wetland Services GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project 559 to 625 Rainier Ave. North Renton, Washington Project No. 2002-062B Prepared By: The Riley Group, Inc. 10728 Lake City Way NE Seattle, W A 98125 Prepared for: IDA Group, LLC 95 South Tobin Street Renton, Washington 98055 June 2, 2003 Offices located in Washington and Oregon DEVELOPME _ CITY OF ~f.t;}~~NtNG OCT 28 2005 RECEIVED 10728 Lake City Way N.E.· Seattle. WA 98125 • Tel (206) 417-0551 • Fax (206) 417-0552 http:vvwW'.Riley-Group.com I· The Riley Group, Inc. Geotechnical Engineering • Environmental· Wetland Services June 2,2003 IDA Group, LLC 95 South Tobin Street Renton, Washington 98055 Attn: Subject: Mr. Jack Alhadeff Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project 559 to 625 Rainier Ave. North Renton, Washington Project No. 2002-062B The Riley Group, Inc. (Riley) has completed a geotechnical engineering study for the above referenced project. This report summarizes our findings and recommendations for the geotechnical aspects anticipated for the project design and construction. We previously completed an evaluation of the nature and origin of the steep slopes on the site, and summarized the results of our work in our letter dated October 29, 2002; and we completed a preliminary evaluation of slope stability and summarized the results of our work in our letter dated June 8, 2001. PROJECT DESCRIPTION In preparation of this report, we reviewed site plans provided by Rich Wagner of Baylis Architects on February 13 and April 1,2003, and discussed the project with him several times. We have reviewed several E-mails (sent in February 2003) from the City of Renton to Rich Wagner and/or Jack Alhadeff. Our understanding of the project is based on that information. Offices located in Washington and Oregon , " 10728 Lake City Way N.E.· Seattle. WA 98125· Tel (206) 417-0551 • Fax (206) 417-0552 http:'WVV'W.Riley-Group.colD. Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington Project Understanding June 2,2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 20f45 The site is located at 559 to 625 Rainier Ave. North in Renton, Washington, as shown on the Site Vicinity Map, Figure 1. Existing buildings and proposed buildings are shown on the Site and Exploration Plan, Figure 2. Existing topography and existing buildings are shown on the Topographic Site Plan, Figure 3. We understand it is proposed to construct a mixed-use project that will include commercial development and private housing. These are considered to be 2 separate projects. Commercial Development Project The commercial development project will be in the level area adjacent to (on the west side of) Rainier Ave., and will include the following elements. 1. Building 1 (north side of site) 100 feet by 80 feet footprint, 3 story 2. Building 2 (center of site) 100 feet by 75 feet footprint, 2 story 3. Building 3 (south side of site) 130 feet by 70 feet footprint, 2 story 4. Parking Structure (west side of site) 250 feet by 60 feet, 2 levels, 1 below grade 5. Retaining wall (between Bldg. 2 & 3) about 12 feet tall by 170 feet long All of these are currently located such that they cut into the toes of existing steep slopes. We assume that foundation loads for the commercial buildings will not exceed about 5 kips per linear foot for continuous wall footings and 200 kips for isolated column footings. Housing Project The housing project will be located on the west side of the site, east of the cul-de-sac at NW 6th Street, at the top of a steep slope down to the commercial area. There are 16 dwelling units planned, in a configuration of either 6 or 4 buildings. The units will require cuts into the existing top of slope of up to 9 or 10 feet. Also, some fill will be THE RILEY GROUP, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington June 2,2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 3 of 45 placed on the east-facing slope (in a topographic trough along a utility easement), and will require retaining structures. We assume that foundation loads for the residential structures will not exceed about 2 kips per linear foot for continuous wall footings and 50 kips for isolated column footings. The recommendations in the following sections of this report are based on our understanding of the design features described above. If actual features vary or changes are made, we should review them in order to modify our recommendations as required. In addition, we recommend that we be retained to review the final design drawings and specifications to verify that our project understanding is correct, and that our recommendations have been properly interpreted and incorporated into project design and construction. BACKGROUND The City of Renton Development Services Division expressed concern about the project with regard to slope stability. Specifically, there have been landslides north of the site, at NW 7th Street and Taylor Ave. NW. The City requested a geotechnical report for this project that meets the following requirements (based on an E-mail from Gregg Zimmerman [City of Renton] , to Rich Wagner, dated 06 Feb 2003, at 09: 10). 1. Incorporates a complete historical perspective of slide activity in the vicinity of this site 2. Incorporates the information from previous geotechnical analyses done for this vicinity by the City 3. Specifically addresses features of the current development proposal 4. Identifies and characterizes the types of geotechnical problems that exist on the site and how these problems might be impacted by the proposed development 5. Analyzes the aforesaid geotechnical conditions and the development proposal and makes specific recommendations regarding how such a development could be constructed in a safe manner both for the development itself and for uphill THE RILEY GROUP, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington June 2, 2003 Project No. 2oo2-062B Page 40f45 and downhill properties (such recommendations to include such design features as construction methods, set backs, foundation systems, stabilizing/retaining structures that would be needed, drainage requirements, etc.) We also understand that the City would like the report to address the slopes to the north and south of the site, as well as the "central" slope (based on an E-mail from Lesley Nishihira [City of Renton), to Bill Klick, dated 14 February 2003, at 12: 18). ReferenceslInformation Provided by the City of Renton The City of Renton (Lesley Nishihira) provided us the following reports of previous geotechnical analyses done for this vicinity. Reports 1,2, and 3 were done for the City; reports 4 and 5 were done for private individuals. 1. GeoEngineers; May 16, 1991; "Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation, Landslide and Broken Sewer Lines, Slope West of Rainier Avenue North, Renton, Washington"; for City of Renton 2. GeoEngineers; October 4, 1991; "Report, Supplemental Geotechnical Engineering Services, Sewer Line Reconstruction and Slope Stabilization, Slope West of Rainier Avenue North, Renton, Washington"; for City of Renton 3. GeoEngineers; November 6, 1997; "Report, Geotechnical Engineering Services, Sewer Line Reconstruction, Rainier Avenue North and NW 7th Street, Renton, Washington"; for City of Renton 4. Geo Consultants; May 8, 1991; "Slope Failure Study, Mr. Chester Rindfuss' Residence, 676 Taylor Avenue Northwest, Renton, Washington"; for Mr. Chester Rindfuss 5. Geo Group Northwest; February 18, 1993; "Slope Stability Analysis and Landslide Stabilization Design, 676 Taylor Avenue NW, Renton, Washington"; for Mr. John McFarland THE RILEY GROUP, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington ReferenceslInformation From Previous Work by Riley June 2, 2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 50f45 We also used information from previous work completed by Riley for the project site. This information included the foHowing letters. 6. The Riley Group; June 8, 2001; "Preliminary Slope Stability Study, Meyer Property, 559 to 625 Rainier Avenue North, Renton, Washington"; for Mr. Jack Alhadeff 7. The Riley Group; October 29,2002; "Slope Evaluation, Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project, 559 to 625 Rainier Ave. North, Renton, Washington"; for :Mr. Jack Alhadeff SCOPE OF SERVICES The purpose of our work was to explore and characterize the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions, and develop geotechnical recommendations for design and construction of the proposed project This included complying with the requirements of the City of Renton listed above. Based on the project understanding and background discussed above, our scope of services included the following tasks. 1. Collect and review readily available information on historical slide activity in the area. 2. Research and review readily available geotechnical studies done by the City in the area. 3. Identify features of the currently proposed development that have geotechnical significance. 4. Complete a subsurface exploration program with borings and test pits to characterize subsurface soil and groundwater conditions 5. Identify and characterize types of geotechnical problems that exist on site, and evaluate how these problems might be affected by the proposed development. THE RILEY GROUP, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington June 2, 2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 6of45 6. Perform engineering analyses and/or develop recommendations regarding the items listed below. a) Slope stability for those slopes directly affected by the project, and for adjacent slopes. b) Construction methods. c) Setbacks from top and toe of slopes. d) Retaining structures. e) Foundations for buildings. f) Drainage. g) Seismic design considerations, including site seismicity, Uniform Building Code (UBC) Soil Profile Type, liquefaction potential, and potential liquefaction-induced settlement. h) Site preparation and earthwork, including excavation, subgrade preparation, suitability of onsite soils for use as construction materials, fill placement, allowable cut and fill slopes, and potential necessity for dewatering during construction. i) Design pavement section. 7. Prepare a report summarizing the results of our work. SURFACE CONDITIONS Existing conditions are shown on Figure 3. The site extends about 750 feet north-south along the west shoulder of Rainier Ave. North. At the NW 6th Street cul-de-sac, the site extends about 370 feet to the west of Rainier Ave. North. There are 3 slopes in the project vicinity, defined as follows for the purpose of this report. • The "north slope" starts at the north end of the site and continues north; its south- facing portion is adjacent to Building 1. THE RILEY GROUP, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington June 2, 2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 70f45 • The "central slope" surrounds the cul-de-sac at NW 6th Street; its east-facing portion is adjacent to Buildings 2 and 3 and the retaining wall in between them. • The "south slope" is south of the central slope, and is off of the project site; its north-facing portion is over 100 feet away from the proposed development. At the time of our field explorations, there were 3 buildings in the proposed commercial development area of the site. The ground surface was relatively level and flat, at about Elevation 50 feet (NA VD '88 Datum). Most of the site along Rainier Ave was paved with asphalt. Farther to the west there was some gravel surfacing with sparse grass, and some grassed areas. Between the level area and the NW 6th Street cul-de-sac was a steep slope ("central slope") up to the west that rose from Elevation 50 feet to Elevation 80 or 90 feet at average inclinations ranging from about l.3 horizontal to 1 vertical (1.3H: 1 V) to 1. 7H: 1 V. There was a gully down the face of this east-facing slope associated with a utility easement where there apparently were 12-inch and 4-inch diameter water lines and an 8-inch diameter sanitary sewer. From the top of slope there was a gentle slope up to the west to about Elevation 105 feet at about a 10H:IV slope. North and south of this upper area were slopes down to the north and south (respectively) at about 1.7H:IV. These slopes led to partially filled in ravines that trended west to east, sloping down to the east. The slopes were well vegetated with trees and brush. The slope south of the site ("south slope") sloped down to the north at about 1.5H:IV. The slope was well vegetated with trees and brush. The slope on the north side of the site ("north slope") had south-facing and east-facing slopes. Top of slope was about Elevation 100 feet. The south-facing slope sloped down to the commercial development area at about 1.5H: 1 V. The slope was well vegetated with trees and brush. The east-facing slope sloped down to Rainier Ave. at THE RILEY GROUP, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington June 2, 2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 8 of 45 about 1.3H: 1 V to 1. 7H: 1 V. The northern part of this east-facing slope was where there have been stability problems in the past. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Field Explorations Subsurface conditions were explored with 4 borings and 12 test pits completed in April 2003. We also considered 2 monitoring wells that were installed by Riley on March 19, 2001. The approximate locations of all the explorations we considered are shown on the Site and Exploration Plan in Figure 2. The test pits (TP-l through TP-12) were excavated April 7 to 11, 2003, to depths of about 4 to 14 feet below the existing ground surface, with a rubber-tired Case 580E backhoe equipped with an extendahoe. TP-l through TP-5 were located on the central slope, and TP-6 through TP-12 were located in the lower, level area. The borings (B-1 through B-4) were drilled to depths of about 18 to 54 feet below the existing ground surface by a subcontractor using a track-mounted Mobile B-53 drill rig (B-1, B-2, B-3) or a truck-mounted Mobile B-61 drill rig (B-4). All borings were advanced with hollow stem auger, and samples were taken at 2-112 to 5-foot depth intervals in conjunction with performing Standard Penetration Tests (SPT). After completion, B-2, B-3 and B-4 were backfilled with bentonite. At B-1, a I-inch diameter standpipe groundwater observation well was installed, and a protective surface monument was placed. B-1 was located at the northeast comer of the housing area. It was about 48 feet deep, and was intended to explore soil and groundwater conditions for the full depth of the slope. The standpipe groundwater observation well was installed in it to allow long term monitoring of groundwater levels. B-2 was located at the southeast corner of the housing area, was about 18 feet deep, and was intended to check for consistent THE RILEY GROUP, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington June 2, 2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 90f45 conditions across the slope. B-3 and B-4 were drilled to about 50 feet deep in the commercial development lower level area in locations where fill extended deeper than the bottom of the test pits. Soil Conditions -Central Siope/ Housing Proi eet On the central slope, soil conditions were explored with 2 borings (B-1 and B-2) and 5 test pits (TP-I through TP-5). B-1 was 48 feet deep and encountered mostly silty sand with some gravel that was very dense at and below depth 3 feet. There was a thin layer of sand and sandy gravel from depth 7 to 12 feet that was also very dense. At 41 feet, we encountered sandy silt with some gravel that was very dense and continued to the termination depth of 48 feet. B-2 was 18 feet deep, and had conditions similar to those at B-1. Most of the soil was silty sand with some gravel that was very dense at and below 3 feet. TP-l through TP-4 were similar to the borings, and typically had silty sand that was very dense by depth 6 feet, and medium dense above that. At TP-5, the soil was medium dense sand with some silt to its full depth of 13 feet. Groundwater Conditions -Central Slope! Housing Project Only 1 sample (in B-1 at 43 feet) was noted to be wet in the test pits and borings. A standpipe groundwater observation well was installed in it to allow long term monitoring of groundwater levels. The following measurements of depth to groundwater have been made to date. Table 1. Groundwater Levels -Central Slope! Housing Project Depth to Groundwater (feet) Date Boring B-1 installed 17 APRIL 2003 17APR2003 38.2 installed 17 April; not yet stabilized 30MAY2003 dry dry at 45.8 feet THE RILEY GROUP, INC. , .. " ,,' Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington Soil Conditions -Commercial Development June 2, 2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 10 of45 In the commercial development area, soil conditions were explored with 2 borings (B-3 and B-4) and 7 test pits (TP-6 through TP-12). We also considered 2 monitoring wells (MW-l and MW-2) that were installed by Riley on March 19,2001. TP-7, TP-I0, TP-ll, and TP-12 were located at the base of slopes (north and central), and encountered denselhard sandy silt or dense silty sand by depth 2 feet. At TP-6 (excavated in conjunction with removing a hydraulic hoist), silty sand fill was noted. From 0 to 4 feet, the fill contained occasional wood debris, and was medium dense. From 4 to 14 feet deep no wood was noted, and the fill was medium dense to dense. We suspect the fill was associated with the hoist. In TP-8 and TP-9, fill was encountered to beyond the termination depths of 12 and 13 feet. In TP-9, the fill contained wood and auto debris from depth 5 to 13 feet. Because these test pits did not get through the fill, 2 borings were drilled in the general vicinity of the test pits. At B-3 (near TP-9), there was loose to medium dense silty sand and sandy silt fill down to depth 17 feet, and an "obstruction zone" from depth 11 to 17 feet (this may have represented auto debris, as was observed in TP-9). From 17 to 35 feet, there was medium dense silty sand with wood fragments and peat pockets, and 6-inch thick layers of peat were noted at depth 23 and 28 feet. Medium dense silty sand was encountered at about 35 feet deep, and from 41 to 49 feet there was very dense silty sand. In B-4 (near TP-8), there was silty sand fill down to depth 15 feet that was dense down to about 10 feet and then was medium dense. From 15 to 26 feet, there was medium dense sandy silt and silty sand. Between depth 26 and 37 feet we encountered mostly THE RILEY GROUP, INC. , , ... .' Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington June 2,2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 11 of 45 peat with some layers of silt. There was medium dense to dense sandy silt from 37 to 45 feet, and from 45 to 54 feet there was very dense silty sand. Monitoring well MW-I was located northeast of building 2. It encountered layers of silty sand and silty clay that ranged from about 5 to 10 feet thick. Although nothing material noted on the log definitely indicated fill (for example, man-made debris), the decreasing density/stiffness from about 15 to 25 feet may indicate fill. The soil was then dense from 25 feet to the termination depth of 3 5 feet. Monitoring well MW-2 was located on the north side of building 3. There was medium dense gravelly silty sand down to depth 10 feet. Below that, it encountered layers of gravelly silty sand, silt, and sand, all of which were very dense. As with MW-l, nothing material noted on the log definitely indicated fill versus native soil. However, based on the consistent high density from 10 feet to the termination depth of 30 feet, we suspect this was native soil. Groundwater Conditions -Commercial Development In the test pits in the commercial development area, there was moderate seepage in TP-6 at depth 4 feet, and minor seepage in TP-7 at depth 6 feet. We interpret this to be perched water. It is common for near-surface water to percolate through the upper, more permeable soil, and stop on the underlying, less permeable soil. This is referred to as "perched water". Volumes of perched water typically are greatest during the wet winter months, and they decrease (or disappear) during the drier parts of the year. No seepage was noted in TP-8 through TP-12. Water levels were measured in the current borings after each boring was completed and before the auger was pulled from the hole. At the end of drilling, the depth to water in B-3 was measured at about 17 feet, and the depth to water in B-4 was measured at about 31 feet. Because the water level was measured at the end of drilling, and did not have THE RILEY GROUP, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington June 2, 2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 12 of 45 time to stabilize (as it would in a standpipe groundwater observation well), it probably did not represent the static water level. At MW-1 and MW-2, standpipe groundwater observation wells were installed to allow long term monitoring of groundwater levels. The measured levels should represent stabilized, static groundwater levels. Recent dates and depths to water are presented below. Table 2. Groundwater Levels -Commercial Development Depth to Groundwater (feet) Date BoringMW-1 BoringMW-2 both installed 19 MARCH 2001 19MAR2001 27 23 at time of drilling; not yet stabilized 03APR2003 17.3 21.3 More detailed descriptions of the subsurface conditions encountered are presented on the Boring and Test Pit Logs, Figures A-2 through A-20. A description of terms used for soil classification is presented on Figure A-I. Laboratory Testing Laboratory testing included detennination of natural moisture content and grain size analyses. Moisture contents are presented on the boring and test pit logs adjacent to sample notation, and the results of grain size analyses are presented on Figures A-21 through A-24. THE RILEY GROUP, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS Whole Site June 2,2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 13 of 45 The site is located within Zone 3 of the Seismic Zone Map shown as Figure 16-2 of the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC). This corresponds to a Seismic Zone Factor, Z, of 0.30. This, in turn, corresponds to an effective peak horizontal ground acceleration of O.3g. We assumed the design seismic event was a Magnitude 7-112 earthquake with a peak horizontal ground acceleration ofO.3g. Central Slope/ Housing Project It is our opinion that site conditions for the Central Slope/ Housing Project best fit the UBC description for Soil Profile Type Sc, "Very Dense Soil and Soft Rock". Liquefaction is typically associated with loose, saturated fine to medium sand. Considering that the silty sand on the central slope is very dense, it is our opinion that there is not the potential for liquefaction. Commercial Development It is our opinion that site conditions for the Commercial Development best fit the UBC description for Soil Profile Type SD, "Stiff Soil Profile". Based on average soil density in the 4 borings considered, the potential for liquefaction is low. However, local areas of looser, saturated soil could liquefy. Consider~ng the conditions observed in the borings (soil type, density, silt content; water table), it is our opinion that if there were liquefaction, it would be localized, of limited vertical and areal extent, and discontinuous. As a result, its effect would not be significant. Accordingly, the potential for liquefaction-induced settlement is also considered not to be significant. THE RILEY GROUP, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington HISTORICAL SLIDE ACTIVITY IN THE SITE VICINITY North Slope June 2, 2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 14 of 45 There is a history of slide activity in the project site vicinity. Numerous slides have occurred on the east-facing portion of the north slope, typically in the area starting at the right-of-way for NW 7th Street and extending to the north to as far as S 117th Place. These are described in the referenced GeoEngineers reports. A slide in April 1991, located along the eastward extension of NW 7th Street, sent slide debris onto Rainier Ave. and severed a sewer line. The line was reconstructed, but was damaged again in February 1996 by another slide. This slide activity was limited to the east-facing portion of the north slope, and located about 200 feet north of the project site. On the south-facing portion of the north slope, some sliding reportedly occurred in the late 1980's. This was located south of Taylor Ave, and was attributed to a road cut across the toe of the slope. Central Slope Our historical information for the central slope is based on review of aerial photos discussed in the Riley letter of June 8, 2001 (reference 6). There were no obvious features indicating a major landslide in the past. The central slope also is not shown on the Renton Slide Sensitive Areas map as "Very High Landslide Hazards", indicating it historically did not have known mappable landslide deposits. South Slope The south slope also did not have obvious features indicating a major landslide in the past, and it was not shown on the Renton Slide Sensitive Areas map as "Very High Landslide Hazards". THE RILEY GROUP, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington June 2,2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 15 of 45 PREVIOUS GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSES DONE FOR THIS VICINITY BY THE CITY OF RENTON The GeoEngineers work for the City of Renton concluded that soil conditions in the slide area that damaged the sewer consisted of silty sand over silt. Water would perch on the silt and saturate the silty sand. When there had been a large enough volume of water, the silty sand became unstable, and there were slides. GeoEngineers completed slope stability analyses for a slope section along the sewer line, as well as for slope sections south of the sewer line. Their analyses indicated the sewer line section would indeed become unstable when saturated, and their recommended slope repair included drainage measures (in combination with removal and replacement of slope debris). They also concluded that the sections south of the sewer line were stable, even when saturated. Further, they had the opinion that the slope south of the sewer slide area would likely remain stable, provided it was not destabilized by activities such as removal of vegetation, excavation, filling, or concentration of runoff. EVALUATION OF STABILITY OF NORTH, CENTRAL, & SOUTH SLOPES North Slope Based on the work by GeoEngineers, the south-facing portion of the north slope should remain stable, provided it was not destabilized by activities such removal of vegetation, excavation, filling, or concentration of runoff. Also, it was Riley's conclusion (reference 6), based on observation of apparent creep, that potential landslide activities would likely be limited to surficial failures. It is our conclusion that the south-facing portion of the north slope should remain stable with regard to deep failures, provided it was not destabilized by construction activities associated with the proposed development. THE RILEY GROUP, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington Central Slope June 2, 2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 16 of 45 Based on our borings, it appears that the central slope is comprised of very dense granular soil (silty sand or non-plastic sandy silt, but not clav or clayey silt) to its full depth of 50 feet. The soil and perched groundwater conditIons that are linked to the slides along the sewer on the north slope are not present in the central slope. Also, there are not surficial indications of large-scale landslides. We conclude that the central slope is stable with regard to large-scale instability, in its current configuration. Over time, weathering of near-surface soil could result in shallow, surficial ravelling of soil. This is supported by the current geometry of the east-facing portion of the central slope. It appears that it was the result of grading by man in about 1956 [Ref 7], and with the exception of subsequent modifications (access road, utility installation), it has maintained what was likely the original cut slope inclination. This represents a period of about 50 years, which is a normal design life for the proposed structures. South Slope The south slope historically is not considered to have a significant potential for a major landslide. Even if it did, it is far enough away from our subject site that it does not need to be considered, with regard to setbacks. We conclude that the south slope will not have an impact on either the commercial development or the housing project, and that neither of these will have an impact on the south slope. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS The proposed mixed-use project will include commercial development and private housing. These are considered to be 2 separate projects. Considering that the soil conditions and geotechnical concerns for each project are different, recommendations are presented separately for each project. This is intended to avoid intermingling recommendations for the separate projects in order to reduce confusion regarding which THE RILEY GROUP, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington June 2, 2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 17 of 45 recommendations apply to which project. repetition. However, it will also result 10 some General -Central Siope/ Housing Project Based on our study, it is our opinion that the site is suitable for the proposed housing project construction from a geotechnical standpoint. The buildings can be supported on conventional shallow spread footings bearing on medium dense to dense native soil. Setbacks from top of slope are recommended to reduce the impact of the structures on slope stability. Careful collection and disposal of surface water are necessary so this water does not flow over the face of the steep slopes or infiltrate into the core of the slope. Potential Impacts of Project -Central Siope/ Housing Project Potential impacts of the proposed project include those stemming from grading, surcharges from structures, and drainage. Cutting at the top of the slope would reduce the soil surcharge on the slope, and increase stability. Filling at the top of the slope, on the other hand, would increase the soil surcharge on the slope, and reduce stability. Filling on the face of the slope could reduce stability. The surcharge of structures near the top of slope could reduce slope stability. If the project resulted in additional water infiltrating the slope or flowing over the top of the slope, this could decrease stability. Measures to decrease the potential reductions in slope stability include limiting fill on the face or top of slope, providing setbacks from top of slope for structure foundations, and providing proper drainage. Setbacks from Top of Slope -Central Slope! Housing Project We recommend that structure foundations for the housing project be set back at least 15 feet from the top of the steep slopes. This can be done by placing a normal depth footing about 15 feet back from the top of the slope. It can also be done by placing the THE RILEY GROUP, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington June 2, 2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 18 of 45 footings deep enough so that the bottom of the footing is a horizontal distance of at least 15 feet from the face of the slope, and thus providing an "effective setback". This is often done by deepening conventional spread footings, or by using drilled piers. Site Preparation and Grading -Central Slope! Housing Project Site Preparation The first step of construction should be to log and grub the site. Any utilities that are in the proposed building footprint should be relocated to outside of the building footprint, to facilitate future repair of the utility, if required. Topsoil and vegetation should be stripped. At our test pits, duff and topsoil typically were up to about 1/2 foot thick. However, TP-4 had roots and branches down to depth 2 feet. The near-surface soil exposed after stripping should be silty sand. The silty sand is moisture sensitive, and will be difficult, if not impossible, to work with if it is not near optimum moisture content. Grading may involve cut and fill. In areas to receive fill or to remain at existing grade, we recommend proofrolling all exposed surfaces with a heavy piece of rubber-tired construction equipment (such as a loaded dump truck) to evaluate if any soft and yielding areas are present. If yielding areas are observed, they should be cut to firm bearing soil and filled to grade with structural fill. After cut areas are brought to final grade, they also should be proofrolled and repaired. As discussed above, the excavated silty sand is moisture sensitive, and will be difficult, if not impossible, to work in wet weather andlor if it is not near optimum moisture content. Fill Material It may be feasible to use the silty sand from excavation as fill in dry weather, if it is free of organics and debris, and properly moisture conditioned. If the site grading occurs in THE RILEY GROUP, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington June 2, 2003. Project No. 2002-062B Page 19 of 45 the wet season or if additional structural fill material is required, we recommend importing material that meets the following grading requirements. Table 3. u.s. Standard Sieve Size Percent Passing 3 inches 100 percent No.4 sieve a -75 percent No. 200 sieve a -5 percent * *Based on the minus 3/4-inch fraction. Prior to use, Riley should examine and test all materials imported to the site for use as structural fill. A geotechnical engineer should be on site to monitor the site grading and verify soil compaction. Structural Fill Placement For the purpose of this report, structural fill is defined as fill that will support buildings, slabs-on-grade, pavement, and other settlement sensitive elements. Structural fill should be placed in uniform loose layers not more than 12 inches thick and compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density. Maximum dry density, in this report, refers to that density as determined by the ASTM D 1557 compaction test procedure (Modified Proctor). The moisture content of the soil at the time of compaction should be within about 2 percent of its optimum. Temporary Cut Slopes We expect that unsupported temporary cut slopes will be used for basements and utility trenches, and we expect that the cuts will be made mostly in dense silty sand. For these soil conditions, we recommend temporary cut slopes up to 10 feet tall that are not subjected to seepage forces be no steeper than 1 horizontal to 1 vertical (lR: 1 V). If THE RILEY GROUP, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington June 2, 2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 20 of 45 there were seepage, such as due to perched water, slopes at this inclination should be expected to be unstable. They might need to be made less steep. Permanent Cut and Fill Slopes If permanent cut or fill slopes are incorporated into design, they should not be steeper than 2H:IV. Foundation Support -Central Slope! Housing Project We expect that soil at footing bearing elevation will consist of medium dense to dense silty sand. If undisturbed, this soil will be suitable to provide moderate to high design bearing pressures for conventional shallow spread footings. If the footing bearing surface is disturbed, it should be overexcavated to expose competent medium dense to dense native soil, and replaced with compacted, well- graded, granular, structural fill. The term "granular" refers to soil that is predominantly sand and/or gravel, and that is not predominantly silt or clay. The exposed subgrade should be cleaned of loose or soft soil before placing the structural fill. If it is not feasible to place and compact structural fill of the type described above (such as if there is water in the footing excavation), rock spalls or crushed rock could be used instead. Perimeter footings should bear at least 1.5 feet below final exterior grade for frost protection. Interior footings should bear at least 1 foot below the floor slab. We recommend footing widths of at least 18 and 24 inches for continuous strip footings and isolated column footings, respectively. As discussed previously, the footings should be set back at least 15 feet horizontally from the top of the steep slope. This can be done by placing a normal depth footing about 15 feet back from the top of the slope. Alternatively, an "effective setback" can be achieved by deepening the footing so that its bottom is 15 feet horizontally from the THE RILEY GROUP, INC. , I·. Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton. Washington June 2, 2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 21 of 45 face of the slope at the same elevation. This can be done by conventional spread footings in trenches, or with drilled piers. We recommend that a geotechnical engineer be present on site to inspect the foundation subgrade preparation before pouring concrete. The foundation subgrade should be undisturbed and medium dense to dense. If loose or disturbed soil is observed, it should be removed and replaced with structural fill or crushed rock. If prepared footing subgrades are to remain exposed during the winter season or periods of wet weather, it is recommended that they be covered with a lean concrete "mud mat" to help protect the subgrades after they have been inspected and until the footings are poured. For footings constructed as recommended, and bearing on undisturbed, competent (medium dense to dense) native soil, we recommend a design allowable bearing pressure of not more than 3000 pounds per square foot (ps£). For short-term loads, such as wind and seismic, a 1/3 increase in this allowable bearing pressure can be used, as long as this conforms with the appropriate current UBC loading combinations. With the expected structural loading and the recommended foundation bearing pressure, total settlement of footings should not be more than 1 inch, and differential settlement between adjacent footings or across a distance of about 20 feet should not be more than 112 inch. We expect that most of the settlement will occur by the end of construction. Lateral forces may be resisted by friction at the base of foundations and by passive soil resistance acting against the buried portion of foundations. To compute passive resistance, we recommend using an equivalent fluid density of 200 pounds per cubic foot (pc£). This value is based on the foundations being constructed neat against undisturbed competent soil or backfilled with structural fill, and assumes that the ground surface on the resisting side is level for a distance of at least 3 times the depth of the foundation. The upper 1 foot of soil should not be included in the passive resistance THE RILEY GROUP, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington June 2, 2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 22 of 45 calculation because it can become disturbed by erosion or future grading activity. For base friction, a factor of 0.4 may be used between concrete and soil. The coefficient of friction should be applied to the vertical dead load only. These values include a safety factor of about 1.5 and 2 applied to the estimated ultimate values for frictional and passive resistance, respectively. We recommend that footing drains be installed on the outside of perimeter footings. The footing drains should consist of 4-inch-minimum diameter, perforated or slotted, smooth wall, rigid, PVC pipe, laid at the bottom of the footing. The drain line should be surrounded with free draining pea gravel or washed rock that is wrapped in filter fabric. The top 1 foot of backfill should consist of relatively impermeable material to limit surface water infiltration into the perimeter drain. A typical footing drain detail is shown on Figure 4. The footing drains and roof downspouts should be tightlined separately to an approved discharge facility. Siabs-oo-Grade -Central Slope! Housing Project SUbgrades for slabs-on-grade should be proofrolled and repaired as necessary, as described in the Site Preparation and Grading section of this report. If the on site soil can not be compacted to provide a dense and unyielding surface, it should be replaced with 1 foot of compacted structural fill. Immediately below the floor slab, we recommend placing a 6-inch thick capillary break layer consisting of clean, free- draining gravel or sand and gravel that has less than 5 percent fines (material passing a U.S. No. 200 sieve). This material will reduce the potential for upward capillary movement of water from the underlying soil and subsequent wetting of the floor slab. A suitable vapor barrier should be placed on top of the capillary break. The vapor barrier may be covered with 2 inches of clean, moist sand to guard against damage to the vapor barrier during construction and to aid in curing of the concrete. THE RILEY GROUP, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington Subsurface Walls -Central Siope/ Housing Project Basement walls should be waterproofed and fully drained. June 2, 2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 23 of 45 Wall drains should be" similar to those recommended for perimeter footing drains. There should be a zone of free draining material at least 1 foot wide next to the wall. The top 1 foot of backfill should consist of relatively impermeable material to limit surface water infiltration into the wall drain. The perforated pipe should drain to daylight. A typical retaining wall drainage detail is shown on Figure S. As an alternative to a layer of gravel, a pre- fabricated drainage panel, such as Miradrain, could be used. The lateral pressure acting on the wall is dependent on the nature and density of the soil behind the wall, the amount of lateral wall movement which can occur as backfill is placed, wall drainage conditions, and the inclination of the backfill. Subsurface walls " should be provided with wall drains, as described above. For walls that are free to yield at the top at least 0.001 times the height of the wall (active condition), soil pressures will be less than if movement is limited by such factors as wall stiffness or bracing (at- rest condition). We recommend that walls supporting horizontal backfill and not subjected to hydrostatic forces be designed using a triangular earth pressure distribution equivalent to that exerted by a fluid with a density of 35 pcf for yielding (active condition) walls, and 55 pcffor non-yielding (at-rest condition) walls. These recommended lateral earth pressures are based on the assumption of a horizontal ground surface adjacent to the wall for a distance of at least the subsurface height of the wall, and do not account for surcharges. Additional lateral earth pressures should be considered for surcharge loads acting adjacent to subsurface walls and within a distance equal to the subsurface height of the wall. This would include the effects of surcharges such as traffic loads, floor slab loads, or other surface loads. Increased lateral earth pressure due to adjacent areal vertical surcharge pressures (such as uniform floor slab loads) can be taken as a uniform pressure equal to 0.3 times the vertical surcharge pressure for active conditions, and o.s times the vertical surcharge pressure for at-rest THE RILEY GROUP, INC. I Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington June 2, 2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 24 of 45 conditions. Traffic surcharges are often accounted for by assummg a surcharge equivalent to 2 feet of soil, which corresponds to about 250 psf vertical pressure. Lateral forces on subsurface retaining walls can be resisted by friction and passive resistance, as described for footings, as well as by structural elements of the building. Retaining Structures-Central Slope! Housing Project Current plans call for building some retaining structures and placing some fill in the gully along the utility easement on the east-facing portion of the central slope. Considering that this filling would tend to reestablish the slope grade that existed before the gully was dug, it should not have a negative impact on the stability of adjacent slopes. We expect the structures would not be more than 10 feet tall. They could be conventional concrete retaining walls, mechanically stabilized earth walls (such as Keystone walls or similar), or ecology block walls. The subgrade for the walls should be excavated to provide a level base for the wall. Utilities in the gully should be located and potholed first so they do not get damaged. The subgrade should be medium dense to dense. If not, it should be repaired. Backfill behind the wall should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density. For a manufacturer's design, the following soil parameters can be used . • 120 pcf dry density .35 degrees internal friction angle .2000 psf design allowable bearing pressure .0.4 frictional lateral resistance factor (includes safety factor of about 1.5) .35 pcf equivalent fluid for active pressure .200 pcf equivalent fluid for passive resistance (includes safety factor of about 2) THE RILEY GROUP, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington Drainage -Central Slope! Housing Project Construction June 2, 2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 250f45 We expect that water encountered during construction could come from shallow perched water, depending on the time of year. If minor water seepage is encountered or if rainfall collects in excavations during construction, we recommend that the contractor slope the bottom of excavations and collect the water into ditches and sump pits from which the water can be pumped and discharged into a storm drain. Surface Final exterior grades should promote free and positive drainage away from the building. Water should not pond or collect adjacent to the immediate building area. We recommend providing a drainage gradient of at least 3 percent for a distance of at least 10 feet from the building perimeter. All runoff water from paved areas, roofs, and other impervious surfaces should be collected and discharged to the storm drain system. If there are yards between the house and the slope, yard drains should be installed to collect water and discharge it to the storm drain system. Water should not be allowed to flow over the slope, or to pond in yards and infiltrate into the ground. Subsurface We recommend that waIl drains be installed for all subsurface walls. This is discussed in the Subsurface WaIls section of this report. We also recommend that perimeter foot~g drains be installed. This is discussed in the Foundation Support section of this report. Footing drains and roof downspouts should be tightlined separately to the storm drain. THE RILEY GROUP, INC. ('" Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington Utilities -Central Slope! Housing Project June 2, 2003 Project No. 2002-06213 Page 260f45 We expect that any new utilities will be relatively shallow (say 5 feet deep or less). The soil within this depth can be excavated with a backhoe. Significant groundwater is not , expected within this depth. Utility pipes should be bedded and backfilled in accordance with American Public Works Association (APWA) specifications. If local codes supercede APW A specifications, bedding and backfill should be completed in accordance with those codes. As a minimum, trench backfill should be placed and compacted as structural fill, as described in the Site Preparation and Grading section of this report. Where utilities are located below unimproved areas where some settlement of trench· backfill is acceptable, the degree of compaction can be reduced to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by the referenced ASTM D-1557 standard. Pavement -Central Slope! Housing Project Pavement subgrades should be proofrolled and repaired as necessary, as described in the Site Preparation and Grading section of this report. R~k-dless;~f the relative , . compaction achieved, the subgrade should be firm and unyielding before paving. As recommended for slab-on-grade subgrades, if the on site soil can not be compacted to provide a dense and unyielding surface, it should be replaced with 1 foot of compacted structural fill. The final subgrade should be proofrolled before paving. For residential passenger vehicle driveway and parking areas, we recommend a pavement section consisting of 2 inches of asphalt concrete over 4 inches of crushed rock base. As an alternative, the 4 inches of crushed rock base could be replaced with 3 inches of asphalt treated base. THE RILEY GROUP, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington General -Commercial Development June 2, 2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 27 of 45 Based on our study, it is our opinion that the site is suitable for the proposed commercial development construction from a geotechnical standpoint. It appears that Buildings 2 and 3 can probably be supported on conventional shallow spread footings bearing on medium dense to dense or hard native soil. Building 1 and the parking structure are at least partially underlain by up to 40 feet of soil that is not suitable to provide shallow foundation support, and will therefore require pile support (at least partially). We recommend against the proposed cut into the toe of the north slope for Building 1 and the parking structure. The proposed cut into the toe of the central slope for Buildings 2 and 3 appears feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. However, it will require a shoring system. Potential Impact of Project -Commercial Development Potential impacts of the proposed commercial development are associated primarily with the proposed cutting into the toe of slopes. The north and central slopes appear to be stable in their current condition with regard to deep-seated soil movement. However, due to their steepness, they are prone to surficial creep and surficial ravelling over time. To cut into the toe of these slopes without providing support would reduce their stability. Also, other modifications to these slopes could reduce their stability. Measures to maintain slope stability and protect the structures include providing support to the toe of slope and providing a structure setback from the toe. For the central slope, it is our opinion that for limited heights of cut (up to about 10 feet), cantilever soldier pile shoring will provide adequate support to the slope, and allow the buildings to be set into the slope. For the north slope, it is our opinion that it is best not to cut into the toe of slope, but instead to provide a structure setback. Any work "incidental" to the project (for example, landscaping) should not remove vegetation from steep slopes, or alter (increase) water on the slopes. THE RILEY GROUP, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington Setbacks from Toe of Slope -Commercial Development June 2, 2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 28 of 45 For the central slope, we recommend a building setback of 10 feet from the toe of slope. As an alternative, the slope could be shored, and Buildings 2 and 3 could be set into the slope. For the north slope, we recommend against cutting into the toe of the slope for Building 1 and the parking structure, and instead recommend a building setback 25 feet from the toe of slope. If a debris wall were constructed at the toe of slope, the setback could be reduced to 10 feet. Excavation -Commercial Development The proposed construction will have 2 potential areas of excavation. Excavation may take place at the toe of the central slope. This would require shoring. Excavation in the level area of the site will be required for the parking structure for its below grade level. This would probably be done with laid back, unsupported, open cuts. Temporcuy Cut Slopes The existing steep north and central slopes typically are at about 1-1I2H:IV inclination. It is advisable not to cut them any steeper, even on a temporary basis. Accordingly, temporary cut slopes do not apply to the north and central slopes. We expect that unsupported temporary cut slopes will be used mostly for the excavation for the parking structure. It is our understanding that the excavation will be relatively shallow, and we assume it will not exceed 10 feet. We expect soil conditions in the depth of excavation to range from uncontrolled, loose silty sand fill with debris; to dense or hard sandy silt. For these soil conditions, we recommend temporary cut slopes up to 10 feet tall that are not subjected to seepage forces be no steeper than 1-1I2H: 1 V. If there were seepage, such as due to perched water, slopes at this inclination should be THE RILEY GROUP, INC. , I Geoteclmical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington June 2, 2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 29 of 45 expected to be unstable. They could require some support, or might need to be made less steep. Shoring If it is decided to cut into the toe of the central slope, we recommend that it be shored. We expect cut heights will not be more than about 10 feet. Cantilever soldier piles and lagging seems appropriate for these heights. The shoring will be against steep backslopes (typically about 1-1I2H: 1 V), and lateral earth pressures will be high. Our recommended earth pressures, parameters, and assumptions for design of a cantilever soldier pile wall with a 1-1I2H:IV backslope are presented on Figure 6. The pressures are presented in terms of equivalent fluid density; i.e., a triangular earth pressure distribution equivalent to that which would be exerted by a fluid with the density noted. The following assumptions and recommendations apply to the figure. • The water table was assumed to be at the base of the excavation, on both sides of the soldier pile wall. • Active pressure above the base of the excavation acts on the full center-to- center pile spacing. • Below the base of the excavation, active pressure acts on 1 pile diameter, and passive resistance acts on 2 pile diameters. • Any nearby surcharges (within a horizontal distance equal to the height of the wall) should be considered on an individual basis. Lagging can be designed for pressures equal to 50 percent of those shown for design of piles, due to arching effects. THE RILEY GROUP, INC. (, ,:" Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington June 2, 2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 30of45 A monitoring program should be implemented to verify the performance of the shoring system. The first step in this program should consist of setting reference points for horizontal and vertical control, and setting monitoring points on the piles after they are installed and before any excavation is done. The documentation should include a photographic record. Monitoring of the shoring system should be done daily as the excavation proceeds, and then weekly once the excavation is completed. A registered land surveyor should be retained to establish the baseline data, and to complete a survey every 2 weeks to check the contractor's readings. Daily monitoring can be done by the contractor. Monitoring should continue until the permanent building walls are adequately braced. Monitoring should include surveying the vertical and horizontal alignment of the top of each soldier pile. Monitoring points should also be established at the middle height of the shoring at 25-foot horizontal intervals. These mid-level points should also be surveyed to record horizontal and vertical movements. The project's structural and geotechnical engineers should review the monitoring data weekly, and at any time there is unexpected movement. Site Preparation and Grading -Commercial Development Site Preparation The fIrst step of construction should be to demolish existing structures. Any utilities that are in the proposed building footprints should be relocated to outside of the building footprint. Pavement should be stripped. From a geotechnical standpoint, the concrete rubble and/or stripped asphalt could be used as fill if it were placed at the bottom of deeper fills in pavement (non building) areas, and at least 2 feet below final grade. If the rubble is to be used as fill, it should be broken up into pieces no larger than 6 inches, laid flat, and not "nested", and mixed with soil to avoid creating voids. Concrete debris that is placed as recommended should THE RILEY GROUP, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington June 2, 2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 31 of 45 perform adequately as structural fill; however, it could result in obstructions that would complicate trenching for utility installation. The near-surface soil exposed after stripping is expected to be silty sand or sandy silt. The silty sand is moisture sensitive, and will be difficult, ifnot impossible, to work with if it is not near optimum moisture content.: The sandy silt is even more moisture sensitive, and generally is not suitable for reuse as fill. We suspect grading may involve cut and fill, but we expect it will be of limited height. Prior to placing fill, we recommend proofrolling all exposed surfaces with a heavy piece of rubber-tired construction equipment (such as a loaded dump truck) to evaluate if any soft and yielding areas are present. If yielding areas are observed, they should be cut to firm bearing soil and filled to grade with structural fill. After cut areas are brought to final grade, they also should be proofrolled and repaired. As discussed above, the silty sand is moisture sensitive, and will be difficult, if not impossible, to work in wet weather and/or if it is not near optimum moisture content. Fill Material It may be feasible to use the silty sand from excavation as fill in dry weather, if it is free of organics and debris, and properly moisture conditioned. If it is decided not to reuse it, and structural fill material is required, we recommend importing material that meets the following gradation requirements. Table 4. u.s. Standard Sieve Size Percent Passing 3 inches 100 percent No.4 sieve o -75 percent No. 200 sieve o -5 percent * *Based on the minus 3/4-inch fraction. THE RILEY GROUP, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington June 2, 2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 320f45 Prior to use, Riley should examine and test all materials imported to the site for use as structural fill. A geotechnical engineer should be on site to monitor the site grading and verify soil compaction. Structural Fill Placement For the purpose of this report, structural fill is defined as fill that will support buildings, slabs-on-grade, pavement, and other settlement sensitive elements. Structural fill should be placed in uniform loose layers not more than 12 inches thick and compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density. Maximum dry density, in this report, refers to that density as determined by the ASTM D 1557 compaction test procedure (Modified Proctor). The moisture content of the soil at the time of compaction should be within about 2 percent of its optimum. Permanent Cut and Fill Slopes If permanent cut or fill slopes are incorporated into design, they should not be steeper than2H:IV. Foundation Support -Commercial Development Based on our exploration, it appears that Buildings 2 and 3 can probably be supported on conventional shallow spread footings bearing on medium dense to dense or hard native soil. Building 1 and the parking structure are at least partially underlain by up to 40 feet of fill and organic soil that is not suitable to provided shallow foundation support. They will require pile support in the areas of deep unsuitable soil. In other parts of the buildings,competent soil is at shallow depth. If the depth to competent native soil decreases enough across the building footprint, it may be desirable to switch back to spread footings. A depth of 5 to 10 feet (to suitable bearing soil) is commonly. considered the depth at which one switches from shallow foundations to deep foundations. THE RILEY GROUP, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington Shallow Spread Footings June 2, 2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 33 of 45 Based on the available soil information in the vicinity of Buildings 3 and 2, it appears that there is suitable bearing soil (medium dense to dense silty sand or sandy silt) within a depth of about 5 feet below existing grade. Accordingly, it appears that shallow spread footings are appropriate for Buildings 3 and 2. Footings should bear on undisturbed, medium dense to dense native silty sand or sandy silt. If the planned footing bearing surface is disturbed or consists of fill, it should be overexcavated to expose competent medium dense to dense native soil, and replaced with compacted, well-graded, granular, structural fill. The term "granular" refers to soil that is predominantly sand and/or gravel, and that is not predominantly silt or clay. The exposed subgrade should be cleaned of loose or soft soil before placing the structural fill. If it is not feasible to place and compact structural fill of the type described above (such as if there is water in the footing excavation from seepage or rain), rock spalls or crushed rock could be us~nstead. Perimeter footings should bear at least 1.5 feet below final exterior grade for frost protection. Interior footings should bear at least 1 foot below the floor slab. We recommend footing widths of at least 18 and 24 inches for continuous strip footings and isolated column footings, respectively. We recommend that a geotechnical engineer be present on site to inspect the foundation subgrade preparation before pouring concrete. The foundation subgrade should be undisturbed and medium dense to dense. If loose or disturbed soil is observed, it should be removed and replaced with structural fill or crushed rock. If prepared footing subgrades are to remain exposed during the winter season or periods of wet weather, it is recommended that they be covered with a lean concrete "mud mat" to help protect the subgrades after they have been inspected and until the footings are poured. THE RILEY GROUP, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington June 2,2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 34 of 45 For footings constructed as recommended, and bearing on undisturbed, competent (medium dense to dense) native soil, we recommend a design allowable bearing pressure of not more than 3000 pounds per square foot (pst). For short-term loads, such as wind and seismic, a 1/3 increase in this allowable bearing pressure can be used, as long as this conforms with the appropriate current UBC loading combinations. With the expected structural loading and the recommended foundation bearing pressure, total settlement of footings should not be more than 1 inch, and differential settlement between adjacent footings or across a distance of about 20 feet should not be more than 112 inch. We expect that most of the settlement·will occur by the end of construction. Lateral forces may be resisted by friction at the base of foundations and by passive soil resistance acting against the buried portion of foundations. To compute passive resistance, we recommend using an equivalent fluid density of 200 pounds per cubic foot (pet). 'This value is based on the foundations being constructed neat against undisturbed competent soil or backfilled with structural fill, and assumes that the ground surface on the resisting side is level for a distance of at least 3 times the depth of the foundation. The upper 1 foot of soil should not be included in the passive resistance calculation because it can become disturbed by erosion or future grading activity. For base friction, a factor of 0.4 may be used between concrete and soil. The coefficient of friction should be applied to the vertical dead load only. These values include a safety factor of about 1.5 and 2 applied to the estimated ultimate values for frictional and passive resistance, respectively. We recommend that footing drains be installed on the outside of perimeter footings. The footing drains should consist of 4-inch-minimum diameter, perforated or slotted, smooth wall, rigid, PVC pipe, laid at the bottom of the footing. The drain line should be surrounded with free draining pea gravel or washed rock that is wrapped in filter THE RILEY GROUP, INC. i, Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington June 2, 2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 35 of 45 fabric. The top 1 foot of backfill should consist of relatively impermeable material to· limit surface water infiltration into the perimeter drain. A typical footing drain detail is shown on Figure 4. The footing drains and roof downspouts should be tightlined separately to an approved discharge facility. Pile Foundations General Building 1 and the parking structure are at least partially underlain by up to about 40 feet of fill and organic soil that is not suitable to provided shallow foundation support. They will require pile support in the areas of deep unsuitable soil. If the deptlt to competent native soil decreases enough across the building footprint, it may be desirable to switch back to spread footings. A depth of 5 to 10 feet (to suitable bearing soU) is commonly considered the depth at which one switches from shallow foundations to deep foundations. Pile Type We expect subsurface conditions include dense near-surface fill, deeper looser fill that contains obstructions (either natural or man-made), and· suitable bearing soil at depths that will be highly variable. Drilled and cast-in-place piles (augercast piles) are not considered appropriate for the site subsurface conditions. These piles could be subject to loss of grout in debris (such as car parts) or oversized material, such as a pocket of cobbles and boulders. In addition, augercast pile equipment typically does not have the ability to crowd (exert downward pressure on) the auger, which could result in inadequate penetration into bearing soil. Driven piles appear to be the most appropriate type of deep foundation support. For this particular project, timber piles do not appear to be appropriate, due to their relatively THE RILEY GROUP, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington June 2, 2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 360f45 low structural capacity, and the potential for damage to the pile during hard driving. Considering the anticipated variable depths of pile penetration, precast concrete piles also appear inappropriate due to their poor length flexibility (difficult cutting or splicing to adjust to changing field conditions). Accordingly, we recommend steel piles, due to their good length flexibility as well as their ability to withstand hard driving. Driven steel piles could consist of pipe piles or H-piles. It is our opinion that H-piles would probably be more successful in getting through or around debris and obstructions, and also more effective at penetrating into very dense bearing material. However, once driven, they could not be inspected for damage. Pipe piles would require harder driving to get past obstructions and into very dense bearing material, but they could be checked for damage after they were driven. We assumed that pipe piles would be used, and that they would have design capacities in the range of 100 kip per pile. We recommend that pipe piles be seamless pipc;.:Jnot spiral welded), with a wall thickness of at least 3/8 inch. The piles should -be-driven to practical refusal with an appropriately sized pile driving hammer. (pile installation criteria are discussed in a later section of this report.) We recommend that the piles be driven closed-end and reinforced with a conical tip. The reinforcement is intended to aid in penetrating into very dense soil, as well as to advance through -debris, boulders, or other obstructions that may be encountered. Piles should _ be placed at least 3 diameters apart (center to center) to avoid reduction in capacity due to group action. Allowable Design Capacity Piles should be driven through loose/soft compressible soil to refusal in the very dense silty sand unit that was encountered at about depths of 40 to 45 feet at the boring locations. The piles should be considered to act completely in end bearing. For undamaged piles that are driven to practical refusal with properly sized equipment, we THE RILEY GROUP, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington June 2, 2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 37 of 45 recommend an allowable design end bearing stress of 100 kips per square foot (ksf). For a 12-inch diameter pile, this bearing stress corresponds to an allowable axial downward (compressive) design load of 80 kips, and for a 14-inch diameter pile it corresponds to an allowable load of 110 kips. The recommended capacity is based on estimated soil characteristics only. Pile capacities based on the strength of pile materials should be determined by the structural engineer. Settlements of pile foundations that are designed and constructed as recommended are expected not to exceed about 112 inch under compressive loading. The majority of this should take place quickly after pile loading. The 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC) allows a 113 increase in allowable soil stresses for wind and seismic loads, for· certain load combinations. If the appropriate load combinations are used, the allowable axial pile capacity recommended above can be increased by 113 when considering wind and seismic loads. Estimated Pile Penetration Depths Pile penetration depths will be a function of the depth to the top of the dense silty sand unit and the pile penetration into the dense soil. It is difficult to assess the depth of pile penetration, as it is dependent on the soil conditions and the driving equipment used. It is estimated that pipe piles may penetrate up to about S to 10 feet into the dense sand. At the exploration locations, the depth to dense sand was about 40 to 4S feet. Based on this, it is estimated that pile penetration depths could range from about 4S to 55 feet below the existing ground surface at the exploration locations. Preliminary Pile Driving Recommendations Piles should be installed by driving continuously to virtual refusal with an appropriately sized air or diesel hammer. "Virtual refusal" is typically defined as a driving resistance on the order of 6 to 8 blows per inch. For preliminary planning purposes, we THE RILEY GROUP, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington June 2, 2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 38 of 45 recommend that the hammer should deliver at least 30,000 foot-pounds of driving energy per blow for the recommended pile type and capacity. It is noted that diesel hammers may experience difficulty in firing when driving through the loose/soft soil deposits. Specific driving criteria required to attain the recommended allowable capacity presented above can be established only after the actual pile size and driving equipment are chosen. We recommend that once the pile size and driving equipment have been selected, that a wave equation analysis (WEAP) be completed to evaluate better the driving requirements and compatibility of the pile and hammer. For this project and pile support conditions, we recommend that a safety factor of 3 be applied to ultimate dynamic driving resistance to evaluate driving criteria for the pile design capacity. To aid in the evaluation of the proposed driving equipment, we recommend that the contractor furnish the information requested to the geotechnical engineer for review at least three weeks before mobilizing pile driving equipment to the site. The results of the wave equation analysis should be checked at the start of actual pile driving operations. This will help confirm driving criteria, and provide better estimates of pile penetration. We recommend that the first piles be installed at design locations near the existing borings to act as test piles. Depending on the results of these test piles, additional test piles may be advisable. The test piles should be driven at design locations with the hammer that will be used for production driving. After being properly driven, test piles will serve as production piles. The test program should confirm driving criteria and give a better estimate of actual required pile lengths. Obstructions, in the form of boulders, debris, or possibly logs or stumps, could be encountered. This could prevent piles from penetrating to the necessary depth. If deep obstructions are encountered, it may be necessary to modify pile locations. If THE RILEY GROUP, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington June 2, 2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 39 of 45 obstructions are shallow, it may be possible to dig them out and maintain the planned pile location. After driving, the pipe piles should be "lamped" to check for damage. It is also advisable to carefully monitor piles for potential heave, or for potential degradation of bearing soil due to pile driving operations. Accordingly, it is recommended that the top elevation of each pile be recorded immediately after the pile is driven, and that top of pile elevations be checked periodically to check for potential heave. In addition, after pile installation has been completed, a number of piles should be redriven to refusal to check for potential heave and/or degradation of bearing soil. Siabs-oo-Grade -Commercial Development Although soil conditions at B-3 and B-4 are not considered suitable for shallow foundation support, they probably are adequate to support a lightly loaded slab-on- grade. Uncontrolled fill is unpredictable, and a slab-on-grade supported on uncontrolled fill would have a greater potential to settle than if it were supported on competent native soil. However, to avoid settlement would require supporting the slab on piles, which would be difficult to justify from a cost perspective. Subgrades for slabs-on-grade should be proofrolled and repaired as necessary, as described in the Site Preparation and Grading section of this report If the on site soil can not be compacted to provide a dense and unyielding surface, it should be replaced with I foot of compacted structural fill. Immediately below the floor slab, we recommend placing a 6-inch thick capillary break layer consisting of clean, free- draining gravel or sand and gravel that has less than 5 percent fines (material passing a U.S. No. 200 sieve). This material will reduce the potential for upward capillary movement of water from the underlying soil and subsequent wetting of the floor slab. A suitable vapor barrier should be placed on top of the capillary break. The vapor THE RILEY GROUP, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington June 2,2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 40of45 barrier may be covered with 2 inches-of clean, moist sand to guard against damage to the vapor barrier during construction and to aid in curing of the concrete. Subsurface Walls -Commercial Development If building walls are cast directly against soldier pile shoring, they can be considered to be subsurface walls. Proper drainage of walls: cast against shoring is important both for the wall and the stability of the retained soil. These walls should be waterproofed and fully drained. We recommend a drainage system consisting of pre-fabricated drainage panels, such as Miradrain, that are attached to the lagging face and connected to a pipe at the base of the wall. The pipe should then be tightlined through the footing to collector pipes that lead to a sump for discharge of collected water. A typical wall drainage detail is shown on Figure 7. If walls are constructed against the shoring, they can be designed for the same pressures that were recommended for the shoring. If basement walls are constructed, and then backfilled (such as in temporary cut slope areas for the parking structure), different design wall pressures apply. The lateral pressure aCting on the wall is dependent on the nature and density of the soil behind the wall, the amount· of lateral wall movement which can occur as backfill is placed, wall drainage conditions, and the inclination of the backfill. Subsurface walls should be provided with wall drains, as described above. For walls that are free to yield at the top at least 0.001 times the height of the wall (active condition), soil pressures will be less than if movement is limited by such factors as wall stiffness or bracing (at-rest condition). We recommend that walls supporting horizontal backfill and not subjected to hydrostatic forces be designed using a triangular earth pressure distribution equivalent to that exerted by a fluid with a density of 35 pcf for yielding (active condition) walls, and 55 pcffor non-yielding (at-rest condition) walls. THE RILEY GROUP, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington June 2, 2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 41of45 These recommended lateral earth pressures are based on the assumption of a horizontal ground surface adjacent to the wall for a distance of at least the subsurface height of the wall, and do not account for surcharges. Additional lateral earth pressures should be considered for surcharge loads acting adjacent to subsurface walls and within a distance equal to the subsurface height of the wall. This would include the effects of surcharges such as traffic loads, floor slab loads, or oth~r surface loads. Increased lateral earth pressure due to adjacent areal vertical surcharge pressures (such as uniform floor slab loads) can be taken as a uniform pressure equal to 0.3 times the vertical surcharge pressure for active conditions, and 0.5 times the vertical surcharge pressure for at-rest conditions. Traffic surcharges are often accounted for by assuming a surcharge equivalent to 2 feet of soil, which corresponds to about 250 psf vertical pressure. Lateral forces on subsurface retaining walls can be resisted by friction and passive resistance, as described for footings, as well as by structural elements of the building. Drainage -Commercial Development Construction We expect that water from shallow perched water could be encountered during construction. If it is, we expect it will be limited, and that the excavation could be dewatered with sumps and pumps. Surface Final exterior grades should promote free and positive drainage away from the building. Water should not pond or collect adjacent to the immediate building area. We recommend providing a drainage gradient of at least 3 percent for a distance of at least 10 feet from the building perimeter. THE RILEY GROUP, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington Subsurface June 2,2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 42 of 45 We recommend that wall drains be installed for all subsurface walls. This is discussed in the Subsurface Walls section of this report. We also recommend that perimeter footing drains be installed. This is discussed in the Shallow Spread Footings section of this report. In pile-supported sections there should also be a drain by the grade beams, similar to perimeter footing drains. Footing drains and roof downspouts should be tightlined separately to the storm drain. Utilities -Commercial Development We expect that any new utilities will be relatively shallow (say 5 feet deep or less). The soil within this depth can be excavated easily with a backhoe. Significant groundwater is not expected within this depth. Utility pipes should be bedded and backfilled in accordance with American Public Works Association (APWA) specifications. If local codes supercede APW A specifications, bedding and backfill should be completed in accordance with those codes. As a minimum, trench backfill should be placed and compacted as structural fill, as described in the Site Preparation and Grading section of this report. Where utilities are located below unimproved areas where some settlement of trench backfill is acceptable, the degree of compaction can be reduced to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by the referenced ASTM D-1557 standard . . Pavement -Commercial Development Pavement subgrades should be proof roIled and repaired as necessary, as described in the Site Preparation and Grading section of this report. Regardless of the relative compaction achieved, the subgrade should be firm and unyielding before paving. As recommended for slab-on-grade subgrades, if the on site soil can not be compacted to provide a dense and unyielding surface, it should be replaced with 1 foot of compacted structural fill. The final subgrade should be proofrolled before paving. This THE RILEY GROUP, INC. :-.' Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington June 2, 2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 43 of 45 preparation should provide adequate support for flexible pavement. However, in areas where fill andlor peat are left in place, there could be some settlement of the pavement surface over time. For passenger vehicle parking lot areas, we recommend a pavement section consisting of 2 inches of asphalt concrete over 5 inches of crushed rock base. For passenger vehicle parking lot entrances and traffic lanes used by heavy trucks, we recommend a pavement section consisting of 3 inches of asphalt concrete over 8 inches of crushed rock base. As an alternative, the 5 and 8 inches of crushed rock base could be replaced with 3-112 and 5-1/2 inches of asphalt treated base, respectively. LIMITATIONS This report has been prepared for IDA Group, LLC. . It is intended for specific application to the proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project in Renton, Washington, and for the exclusive use of IDA Group, LLC and their authorized representatives. The analyses and recommendations presented in this report are based on data obtained from the explorations on site. Variations in soil conditions can occur, the nature and extent of which may not become evident until construction. If variations appear evident, The Riley Group should be requested to reevaluate the recommendations in this report prior to proceeding further with construction. Within the limitations of scope, schedule, and budget for our services, we have attempted to complete our work in accordance with generally accepted professional principles and practices in the field of geotechnical' engineering followed in this area at the time this report was prepared. No warranty, express or implied, is made. THE RILEY GROUP, INC. ,. 1< Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington June 2, 2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 44of45 We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you., If there are any questions or comments concerning this report, or if we can provide additional services, please call. THE RILEY GROUP, INc. William M. Klick, P .E. Senior Engineer Report Distribution IDA Group, LLC Baylis Architects Attachments Figure I Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure A-I Figures A-2 to A-II Figures A-I2 to A-I6 Figures A-I7 to A-20 Figures A-2I to A-24 Site Vicinity Map Site and Exploration Plan Topographic Site Plan Typical Footing Drain Detail Retaining Wall Drainage Detail Shoring Pressure Diagram (I-1I2H: I V Backslope) Typical Wall Drainage Detail Unified Soil Classification System Boring Logs (B-1 through B-4) Test Pit Logs (TP-I through TP-I2) Monitoring Well Logs (MW-l and MW-2) Grain Size Analyses THE RILEY GROUP, INC. , Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project Renton, Washington June 2, 2003 Project No. 2002-062B Page 45 of 45 ! References: ReferenceslInformation Provided by the City of Renton 1. GeoEngineers; May 16, 1991; "Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation, Landslide and Broken Sewer Lines, Slope West of Rainier Avenue North, Renton, Washington, for City of Renton" 2. GeoEngineers; October 4, 1991; "Report, Supplemental Geotechnical Engineering Services, Sewer Line Reconstruction and Slope Stabilization, Slope West of Rainier Avenue North, Renton, Washington, for City of Renton" 3. GeoEngineers; November 6, 1997; "Report, Geotechnical Engineering Services, Sewer Line Reconstruction, Rainier Avenue North and NW 7th Street, Renton, Washington", for City of Renton 4. 5. Geo Consultants; May 8, 1991; "Slope Failure Study, Mr. Chester Rindfuss' Residence, 676 Taylor Avenue Northwest, Renton, Washington", for Mr. Chester Rindfuss Geo Group Northwest; February 18, 1993; "Slope St~bility Analysis and Landslide Stabilization Design, 676 Taylor Avenue NW, Renton, Washington", for Mr. John McFarland ReferenceslInformation from Previous Work by Riley ·6. The Riley Group; June 8, 2001; "Preliminary Slope Stability Study, Meyer Property, 559 to 625 Rainier Avenue North, Renton, Washington"~ for Mr. Jack Alhadeff 7. The Riley Group; October 29,2002; "Slope Evaluation, Rainier Ave. Mixed Use Project, 559 to 625 Rainier Ave. North, Renton, Washington"; for Mr. Jack Alhadeff THE RILEY GROUP, INC. ; : ;"-. \" ; o~' ------~~~~~ 112 Imile approximate graphical scale SCALE 1: 24 000 CONTOUR INTERVAL 25 FEET . The Riley Group, Inc. l0728 LAKE CITY WAY NE SEATTLE, WASHlNGTON98l25 USGS 7.5 MINUTE QUADRANGLE RENTON, WA-REVlSED 1994 N + Rainier Avenue Mixed Use Project Site Vicinity Map Figure 1 Site Address: 559 -625 Rainier Avenue N., Renton, Washington. I I ,~ ~~."t=; Si""7/ ,;-.,"," "". TP-4 -$- -$- B-2 TP-5 -$- -$-TP-1 601 Rainier -$- TP-9 -$-TP'{; BUFfER ZONE. tI II _"_:!L'IlIiOYJ .. b I " RAINIER AVENUE N. Reference: Survey & Site Plan (for Rainier Avenue Mixed Use), by Baylis Architects, dated 01 April 2003 The Riley Group, Inc. . 10728 LAKE CITY WAYNE SEATILE. WASHINGTON 98}25 -$- -$-.. Legend Test pit locations by Riley 7-11 April 2003 (TP-1 through TP-12) Boring locations by Riley 17-19 April 2003 (B-1 through B-4) Monitoring well location by Riley 19 March 2001 (MW-1 and MW-2) +N y 1j Graphical S<::ale: 1R = W Rainier Avenue Mixed Use Project Site and Exploration Plan Figure 2 Site Address: 559 -625 Rainier Avenue N., Renlon, Washing10n • ,0 J • .... \-.J~ ~ ""I ~ ~ ... ~ .... 'f "" '\ ' ·r :\ ..... III ill ill ,. t 'n .. , . Reference: Boundaty & Topographic Survey "Rainier Avenue Mixed Use", by Triad Associates, dated 26 September 2002 .:. '\ \ The Riley Group, Inc. 10728 LAKE CITY WAY NE SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98125 .~ I I I I • ! • ;,Vt~ <J ~ ~ Y i 'i Graphical Scale: 1~ = 8CJ +N Rainier Avenue Mixed Use Project Topographic Site Plan Figure 3 SilO Address: 559· I I BUILDING SLAB 4" PERFORATED PIPE 3/4" WASHED ROCK OR PEA GRAVEL NOT TO SCALE ... :':, FILTER FABRIC Rainier Avenue Mixed Use Project :-:. • The Riley Group, Inc. 10728 LAKE CITY WAY NE SEATILE, WASHINGTON 98125 Typical Footing Drain Detail Figure 4 Site Address: 559 -625 Rainier Avenue N., Renton, WashlIigton . i !. " i', . I 12· MINIMUM WIDE FREE-DRAINING GRAVEL FILTER FABRIC MATERIAL SLOPE TO DRAIN .' . " .. ..~ . . ' .-.. " ..... . . ' .. ' ...... .. ... ~ ....... ,,: ............. ".. .. ... .. . . ...... ." ...... .. . .' .. .. i"".. v· .. ~." .. .... ..: ." " . ".. . ....... . " .. "':" .. ' ~. .. .: " .. : .. . ..... ., . , .~',. EXCAVATED SLOPE (SEE REPORT FOR APPROPRIATE INCUNATIONS) COMPACTED STRUCTURAL BACKFILL (NATIVE OR IMPORT) ~ 128 OVER THE PIPE 48 DIAMETER PVC 38 BROW THE PIPE PERFORATED PIPE NOT TO SCALE Rainier Avenue Mixed Use Project I __ The Riley Group, Inc. . 10728 LAKE CITY WAYNE SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98125 Retaining Wall Drainage Detail Figure 5 Site Address: 559 -625 Rainier,Avenue N., Renton, Washiitgton. ,~' . " I::: EARTH PRESSURE DESIGN PARAMETERS FOR SOLDIER PILE CANTILEVER WALL -1-1/2H:IV BACKSLOPE ~ ~J'7'I:77J;;77]I;77'J~7'S7':l~I:77SlO"7'J:T."...-....l.-...::-MF:I...fh----~ -,~ - -12" Passive Earth Pressure = 200 pcf taken over 2 pile diameters T II 111-------1 15 pcf over 1 pile diameter II 1It-------\/ below base of excavation Note: Value includes Safety Factor of 1.5. f--I" 111-----"' I Passive I Active I NOT TO SCALE Note -Active pressure taken over fuJI center-to-center pile spacing above base of excavation Active pressure taken over 1 pile diameter below base of excavation Passive pressure taken over 2 pile diameters below base of excavation The Riley Group, Inc. 10728 LAKE CITY WAYNE SEAlTLE, WASHINGTON 98125 Rainier Avenue Mixed Use Project Shoring Pressure Diagram Figure 6 Site Address: 559 -625 Rainier Avenue N., Renton, Washirigton , I DRAIN GRATE . ' .. CONCRETE FACING CONTINUOUS MIRADRAIN 6000 OR EQUIVALENT SLAB-ON-GRADE FLOOR : ..... : .,"',.., ~ ... ". .. ~ . .. .. '. "'. ." .. ... ...• .. . .s '. .~ .. " .. ".. .. ... A •• . .. . •... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .... .. ........ .. '.. . .................... . . ... . .. . '::::STRUCTURAL::: ~. :.; : ~.' 2. : . t ~ .. './ c ;:: ~{{: :::::.: D':':':':: ::£? :::::{~ :~~ .o' . ., FOUNDATION· . • • • . . • • • • • • • . •. • ••.•• ' .. :' ~.. ..'~ .. '~. ~" : i ::::::::::::::::::::::.;.:.:.::::::::::::::: :.:.:.:.:.:.: ., .. ..,. ................................ . o ~... : .. • .. • .. ........................................ .. ... . '. : A·· . .o ••••. ... .. .. NOTE: DRAIN THROUGH WALL SHOULD BE INSTALLED AT MIDDLE OF LAGGING. The Riley Group, Inc. . Rainier Avenue Mixed Use Project ; 10728 LAKE CITY WAYNE I--=--:--:~ __ ----------r---=-----"":"'---l SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98125 Typical Wall Drainage Detail Figure 7 Site Address: SS9 -625 Rainier Avenue N., Renton, Washington ! f I I 1° W Z I ~ CI) :9.....J I~g ~ ::( 10 () ::l I~ -CI) «.....J I rt:: 0 C)CI) lJ I~ L.. 1 0 >-::i::5 J.iU . I MAJOR DIVISIONS LETTER BOL TYPICAL DESCRIPTION GRAVELS CLEAN GW "-GRAVELS Q) More than 50 % E> <5% fines GP co of coarse or no fines. -Q) fraction is .~ > GM "-Q) GRAVELS Q) .-larger than No. .... fI) with fines COo 4 sieve GC Eo o N ():::: . SANDS CLEAN SW o 0 It)Z SANDS c: c: More than 50 % SP co co <5% fines .c:.c: of coarse .... -~ fraction is SANDS SM 0 ~ smaller than with fines No.4 sieve SC Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures, non-plastic fines. Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures, plastic fines. Q) ML co > SILTS AND CLAYS .-Q) "-.-Q) fI) .... 0 Liquid limits CL COo EN less than 50 % ~ . OL o 0 oz It) c: c: co MH ct!.c: SIL TS AND CLAYS .c: - Organic silts and organic clays of low plasticity. Inorganic silts, elastic. ..... '-CH Q) Q) Liquid limits greater L.. -0-~ ~ than 50% OH U) Inorganic clays of high plasticity, (fat clays). Organic clays of high plasticity. HIGHL Y ORGANIC SOILS PT Peat. DEFINITION OF TERMS AND SYMBOLS Density SPT{BlowsiFoot} 2" Outside diameter split spoon VerY loose 0-4 I sampler Loose 4-10 Medium dense 10-30 I 2.4" Inside diameter ring sampler or Dense 30-50 Shelby tube Very dense >50 ~ . Water level (date) SPT (BlowsIFoot} Tr Torvane reading, tsf Very soft 0-2 Pp Penetrometer reading, tsf Soft 2-4 DO Dry density, pet Medium stiff 4-8 LL Uquid limit, percent Stiff 8-16 PI Plasticity index Very stiff 16-32 N Standard penetration, blows per foot Hard >32 Rainier Avenue Mixed Use Project The Riley Group, Inc. 10728 LAKE CITY WAY NE SEA TILE, WASHINGTON 98125 Unified Soil Classification System FigureA-l Site Address: 559 -625 Rainier Avenue N., Renton, Wasbington" i: i I I ·. I Boring No. B-1 I Logged by : GJ K I Date: 4/17/03 Approximate Elev.: 97' Consistencyl Q) (N) Moisture c.. I Soil Description Relative Depth E Blows Content Density (feet) co 1ft (%) C/) I Brush, topsoil -- - - I Silty sand, grey-brown, fine to I coarse, with some gravel, Very Dense -l-SS moist, very dense, (SM), TILL -l- I -,.... 5 I I -I-82 12.3 i. I Sand, grey, fine to coarse, -l-I trace gravel, moist, very Very Dense 50/6" dense, (SP) -l- I 10 Sandy travel, grey, fine I gravel, fine to coarse sand, Very Dense -I-S0/6" I moist, very dense, _(GPl I Very Dense -l-I 5015" -l- I Silty sand, grey, fine to -I-15 coarse, with some gravel, -,- moist. very dense, (SM) I -- --I 50/4" I -l- I I • The Riley Group, Inc. Rainier Avenue Mixed Use Project 10728 LAKECITV WAYNE Test Boring Log B-1 I FigureA-2 SEA TILE, WASHINGTON 98125 Site Address: 559 -625 Rainier Avenue N., Renton, Washington I - I I Boring No. B-1 (Cont.) Logged by : GJ K I Date: 4/17/03 Approximate Elev.: 97' Consistencyl Q) (N) Moisture C. I Soil Description Relative Depth E Blows Content Density (feet) co 1ft (%) C/) I -l- I -l- I Very Dense --SOlS" 10.4 I -- i . --25 ~ " I - - -- I Silty sand, grey, fine to -l-I coarse, with some gravel, 50/3" moist to wet, very dense, (SM) -l- I I-30 - -l-I -l- I -l-I SOlS" -l- I -I-35 -l- I -I- -l-I 50/4" ... (4/18/03) I -l- I I _ The Riley Group, Inc. Rainier Avenue Mixed Use Project 10728 LAKE CITY WAY NE Test Boring Log B-1 I FigureA-3 SEA TILE, WASHINGTON 98125 Site Address: 559 -625 Rainier Avenue N., Renton, WashiIigton . I Boring No. B-1 (Cont.) Logged by : GJ K Date: 4/17/03 Approximate Elev.: 97' I -------------------.--------~--~--~--~------~--------I Soil Description Consistencyl ~ Relative Depth E Density (feet) ~ I --------------------r--------+ I Sandy silt, grey, with red-brown mottling, fine sand, I with some gravel, wet, very dense, (ML) I Bottom of boring at 48 feet Depth of water at 38.2 feet on I 18 Apr. 2003 I Observation well installed to 48 feet I screened from 48 to 43 feet sand from 48 to 38 feet bentonite seal at 38 feet I I I - Very Dense - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ...., - f- ~ I - f-45 '- - I f- I-50 I- f- f- - -55 '- '- I- f- (N) Moisture Blows Content 1ft (0/0) 50/5" 17.8 50/5" • The Riley Group, Inc. 10728 LAKE CITY WAYNE SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98125 Rainier Avenue Mixed Use Project Test BOring Log B-1 I FigureA-4 Site Address: 559 -625 Rainier Avenue N., Renton, Washington : ", ,'. I -i I I Boring No. B-2 Logged by : GJ K I Date: 4/18/03 Approximate Elev.: 93' Consistencyl CD (N) Moisture 0.. 1 Soil Description Relative Depth E Blows Content Density (feet) co 1ft (%) C/) I I Brush - - Sand, grey, fine to medium, -- I with some silt, with some I gravel, moist, very dense, Very Dense --50/6" (SP/8M) - -I 5 I I Very Dense _ -5016" 12.1 - - 1 --I 50/6" -- 1 Silty sand, grey-brown, fine to 10 coarse, with some gravel, - -I ' moist, very dense, (SM) -"-50/4" I --- 1 - -I 50/3" -f- I -~ 15 -~ I -f- I 50/3" 1 Bottom of boring at 18 feet i No groundwater encountered -f- I .1 • The Riley Group, Inc. Rainier Avenue Mixed Use Project 10728 LAKE CITY WAYNE Test Boring Log B-2 I FigureA-5 _I SEATILE, WASHINGTON 98125 Site Address: 559 -625 Rainier Avenue N., Renton, Washington I I I I Boring No. B-3 Logged by : GJK I Date: 4/18/03 Approximate Elev.: 48' Consistencyl Q) (N) Moisture a. I Soil Description I ' Gravel fill I Silty sand, dark brown, fine to coarse, with some gravel, pieces of charcoal, moist-wet, I medium dense, (SM), FILL I I I Sandy silt, grey, fine sand, with wood fragments, wet, loose, (ML), FILL I I Obstruction zone starting -11 ft Silty sand, grey, fine to coarse, with some gravel, wet, (SM),FILL I Sampled on obstruction 1 Blow count not valid, possible auto debris or wood No recovery 1 Sampled on I obstruction blow count not valid Silty sand, grey-brown, fiDe to medium, with organics (roots, I wood fragments, peat pockets), : wet, medium dense, (SM) , I • The Riley Group, Inc. 10728 LAKE CITY WAY NE SEA TILE, WASHINGTON 98125 Relative Density Medium Dense Loose Medium Dense Depth (feet) -t- -I- -l- -I- -t-5 -I- -t- -I- -I-10 -I- -I- -- --15 -- -- -f- E co C/) I I I I I Blows Content 1ft (%) 15 7 50/4" 50/4" T (4/18/03) 1- 16 Rainier Avenue Mixed Use Project Test Boring Log B-3 1 FigureA-6 Site Address: 559 -625 Rainier Avenue N., Renton, Washington , \ I I , Boring No. I B-3 (Cont.) Logged by : GJ K I Date: 4/18/03 Approximate Elev.: 48' Consistencyl Q) (N) . Moisture a. I Soil Description Relative Depth E Blows Content Density (feet) C\l CI) 1ft (0/0) I (Silty sand -continued) I 30 -l- I , -'-- -l- I , -6 inch peat layer at 23 ft Medium I - -22 : Dense - -I -with peat layers up to 3 inch - -25 I thick - - - - I - 6 inch peat layer at 28 ft ---I 20 88.1 - - I ---30 -r- I -f--fine to coarse sand, with I some gravel Dense -r-35 I -r- . 35 I -I- I Silty sand, grey, fine to -I-medium, with some gravel, I moist, medium dense, (8M) Medium - -23 I Dense - - I ~ Rainier Avenue Mixed Use Project • The Riley Group, Inc. 10728 LAKE CITY WAY NE I SEATrLE. WASHINGTON 98125 Test Boring Log B-3 I FigureA-7 ~ . Site Address: SS9 -62S Rainier A venue No, Renton, Washington ~ 1'-. -, l{::f I-:,~ n~; I t:::; . - i .... ! I ... ~.:~ '~9 I.:': : .';. !':"':", : J":~'~; I ;:>-;;; ~,,~: WI " ~ - r7)~: ~ I I I I Boring No. B-3 (Cont.) Logged by : GJK Date: 4/18/03 Approximate Elev.: 48' I-------------------.--------~--~--.---~----~---------I Soil Description I I Silty sand, grey-brown, fine, moist to wet, very dense, (SM) I Bottom of boring at 49 feet Depth of water at 17 feet at I time of drilling I , , Consistency/ ~ Relative Depth E Density (feet) ~ -l- Very Dense -"-I -I- -I-45 -I- -"- -l-I -"-50 -I- -I- -I- -I- -I-55 -"- -I- -I- -"- (N) Moisture Blows Content /ft (%,) 50/6" 93 '- The Riley Group, Inc. 10728 LAKE CITY WAYNE SEA TILE. WASHINGTON 98125 Rainier Avenue Mixed Use Project Test Boring Log B-3 I Site Address: 559 -625 Rainier Avenue N .• Renton. Washington FigureA-8 ~ .' -----.. -------------------------------------------------------------~ I I I Boring No. B-4 Logged by: GJK I Date: 4/19/03 Approximate Elev.: 50' Consistencyl CD (N) Moisture c.. I Soil Description Relative Depth E Blows Content Density (feet) ro 1ft (%») (J) I Asphalt -f- I , -f- I Silty sand, grey, fine to I -I-44 medium, with some gravel, Dense I I moist, dense, (SM), FILL -f- -I-5 I I -f-47 -l- I -l-I 46 -l- I -I-10 I Medium 15 I ' Silty sand, mottled grey and Dense -I- brown, fine to medium, with -I- some gravel, moist, medium I I dense, (8M), FILL -I-13 -- I 15 Sandy silt, grey with brown -- I mottling, fine sand, with some gravel, moist, medium dense, - - (ML) Medium - -I 50/3" ? I Sampled on gravel, blow count Dense not valid -l- I I • The Riley Group, Inc. Rainier Avenue Mixed Use Project 10728 LAKE CITY WAYNE Test Boring Log B-4 I FigureA-9 SEATILE, WASHINGTON 98125 Site Address: 559 -625 Rainier Avenue N., Renton, Washington I -' I Boring No. 8-4 (Cant.) I Logged by: GJK I Date: 4/19/03 Approximate Elev.: 50' Consistencyl CD (N) Moisture 0. I Soil Description Relative Depth E Blows Content Density (feet) co en 1ft (%) I I Silty sand, grey, fine to -r- I medium, with some gravel, Medium I occasional layer cleaner sand, -r-25 Dense I occasional layer sandy silt, -r-I very moist, medium dense, 25 (SM) -r- I -- I Peat, dark brown, fibrous, with Stiff - -I 22 167.3 non fibrous layers, with silty -peat layers, moist, (Pt) - I -:-30 , -:-Y (4/19/03) I -..... -with some layers silt to sandy I silt -:-21 I i -r- I i 35 I -f-- -r- I I Sandy silt, grey, fine sand, Medium --I 26 trace wood fragments, moist, Dense I medium dense, (ML) -- I The Riley Group, Inc. Rainier Avenue Mixed Use Project 10728 LAKE CITY WAY NE Test Boring Log B-4 I FigureA-IO SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98125 Site Address: 559 -625 Rainier Avenue N., Renton, Washington I I I 1 Boring No. B-4 (Cont.) Logged by : GJK I Date: 4/19/03 Approximate Elev.: 50' Consistencyl Q) (N) Moisture a. I Soil Description Relative Depth E Blows Content Density (feet) co 1ft (%) C/) I -I- -l- I -wet, dense I Dense --40 I -- 45 I -I- -l- I Silty sand, grey-brown, fine, Very Dense -l-I 78 moist, very dense, (SM) -l- I -I-50 -l- I -I- -fine to medium sand, wet -l-I I 70 I . Bottom of boring at 54 feet -I-55 Depth of water at 31 feet at time of drilling -l- I -I- -l- I -l- I I I - The Riley Group, Inc. Rainier Avenue Mixed Use Project 10728 LAKE CITY WAYNE Test Boring Log B-4 I Figure A-II SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98125 Site Address: 559 -625 Rainier Avenue N., Renton, WashiIigton I I I I, Logged By: GJK Date: 417103 I Test Pit No. Depth (tt) Soil Description Sample TP-1 0.0 -0.3 Duff, topsoil depth (moisture) I 0.3 -2.5 Silty sand, light brown, fine to coarse, with 1 ft (14%) some gravel, moist, medium dense, (SM) I 2.5 -6.0 Silty sand, grey, fine to medium, with some 5 ft. gravel, mOist, medium dense to very dense, I (SM), TILL I Bottom of test pit at 6 feet No seepage encountered I TP-2 No cavi'l9 0.0 -0.5 Duff, topsoil 0.5 -4.0 Silty sand, light brown, fine to coarse, with 2 ft (12%) I some gravel, moist, medium dense, (SM) / 4.0 -6.0 Silty sand, grey, fine to medium, trace 5ft I gravel, moist, medium dense to very dense, (SM), TILL I Bottom of test pit at 6 feet I No seepage encountered No caving TP-3 0.0-0.2 Duff, topsoil . .. I 0.2 -4.0 Silty sand, brown, fine, mOist, very dense, 3ft (SM) I , Bottom of test pit at 4 feet I No seepage encountered No caving ': -I . I :-The Riley Group, Inc. 10728 LAKE CI1Y WAY NE SEA TILE, WASHINGTON 98125 Rainier Avenue Mixed Use Project Test Pit Logs Figure A-J2 Site Address: 559 -625 Rainier Avenue N., Renton, WA I"." .. I :." ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I .1 Logged By: GJK Date: 417103 Test Pit No. Depth (ft) Soil Description Sample TP-4 0.0 -2.0 Silty sand, dark brown, fine to medium, depth (moisture) 1ft TP-5 TP-6 (4/9/03) trace gravel, with roots and branch pieces, moist, loose. (SM) 2.0 -4.0 Silty sand, light brown, fine to medium, with 3 ft some gravel, trace roots, moist, medium dense. (SM) 4.0 -6.0 Silty sand, grey, fine to medium. with some 5 ft gravel, moist, very dense, (SM). TILL Bottom of test pit at 6 feet No seepage encountered No caving 0.0 -0.2 Duff 0.2 -5.0 Sand, light brown, fine to medium, with some silt, mOist, medium dense, (SP/SM) 3ft 5 -13 Sand, light grey-brown, fine to medium, with some silt, moist, medium dense, (SP/SM) 6 ft (11%) Bottom of test pit at 13. feet No seepage encountered No caving 0.0 -4.0 Silty sand with gravel, mottled grey, fine to coarse, .occasional wood debris,moist, medium dense, (SM), FILL' 4 -14 Silty sand with gravel, mottled grey, fine to coarse, moist, medium dense to dense, (SM) , FILL Bottom of test pit at 14 feet Moderate seepage at 4 feet caving below 4 feet 2 ft 14 ft " "':,,: :'- ,', ,. .. " ' .. " ",' I, ":,' .- I The Riley Group, Inc. 10728 LAKE CITY WAY NE SEAITLE, WASHINGTON 98125 Rainier Avenue Mixed Use Project,· Test Pit Logs Figure,A·a 3 Site Address: 559 -625 Rainier Avenue N., ~ WA , " I, I" !"'" '<" R ~~ ~!'. " '"" I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I logged By: GJK Date: 4/11/03 Test Pit N~. Depth (tt) Soil Description Sample TP-7 TP-8 0.0 -1.5 Sandy silt, dark brown, fine sand, with some depth (mOisture) gravel, with roots and organics, moist, 1ft loose, (ML) 1.5 - 6 Sandy silt, light brown, fine sand, moist, 3 ft (25%) hard I very dense, (ML) 6-7 Sandy silt, grey, fine sand, moist, hard I 7 ft (25%) very dense, (ML) Bottom of test pit at 7 feet Minor seepage at 6 feet No caving 0.0 -0.2 Gravel 0.2 - 4 Silty sand, brown, fine to coarse, with some 2 ft gravel, with brick fragments, moist, medium dense; (SM), FILL ' 4 -12 Silty gravelly sand, brown and grey, fine to 12 ft coarse, occasional roots, mOist, dense, (SMfGM), fiLL .. '::":·:!f?~~~f.~i/\{:~··«·"·:·-:: .. : Bottom ottest pit at 12 teet No Seepage encountered Nocaving '. The RUey Group, Inc. Rainier Avenue Mixed Use Project Test Pit Logs Figw-e A-14 ". •• I .. 10728 LAKE CITY WAY NE SEATILE, WASHINGTON 98125 . Site Address: 559 -625 Rainier Avenue N .,Renton, WA . .. . . • ,".> ' •. ~ ! .. -:' 1 : ~ .,"'~ . I I I I I I I I I I I I :-The Riley Group, Inc. 10728 LAKE CIlY WAY NE SEAITLE, WASHINGTON 98125 Rainier Avenue Mixed Use Project Test Pit Logs Figure A-:15 Site Address: 559 -625 Rainier Avenue N.,Renton, WA I I I I I I I I I I I Logged By: GJK Date: 4/11/03 Test Pit No. Depth (tt) Soil Description Sample TP-12 0.0 -0.2 Topsoil depth (moisture) 0.2 -4 Silty sand, light brown, fine to medium, with 3 ft (11%) some gravel, moist, dense, (SM) Bottom of test pit at 4 feet No seepage encountered No caving ." 'J: , . . ;: ' . " ,.< I .' '.' I ' . '" '. The Riley Group, Inc. Rainier Avenue Mixed Use Project. 10728 LAKE CITY WAY NE SEAITLE, WASHINGTON 98125 TestPit¥Jgs>:: '." FigufeA-16 Site Address:'SS9 -'625Ra:inier Avenue N., Renton, WA -. " .... " "" .~:. '.;.: .... , ... ':: ... ". I I I I I 1 I Boring No. MW-1 \ I Logged by : TF I Date: 3/19/01 Approximate Elev.: 50' Consistencyl Q) (N) Moisture 0.. I Soil Description Relative Depth E Blows Content Density (feet) m 1ft (%) en I Asphalt o· -- --" I Silty sand, grey, fine, with I some gravel, dry, very dense, Very Dense -f-58 I (SM) -- 5 1 -- -- I Silty clay, grey, moist, stiff, Stiff -l-I (CL) 16 -f- 1 10 -f- I -- 1 SiltY sand, grey, fine, with --I some gravel, dry, dense, (SM) Very Dense 50/1" Sampled on. a rock -l- I -f-15 0 1 -f-T (4/3/03) Silty clay, grey, moist, stiff, Stiff -l-I I (CL) 14 -f- 1 I I • The Riley Group, Inc. Rainier Avenue Mixed Use Project o 10728 LAKE CITY WAYNE Monitoring Well Log MW-I I Figure A-I 7 I . SEATILE, WASHINGTON 98125 Site Address: 559 -625 Rainier Avenue N., Renton, Washington - ! I Boring No. MW-1 (Cont.) Logged by : TF Date: 3/19/01 Approximate Elev.: 50' Consistencyl ~ Relative Depth E (N) Moisture Blows Content Soil Description Density (feet) ~ 1ft (Ofc,) No recovery, sampled on a I 24 rock 25 T (3/19/01) Silty clayey sand, grey, wet, Dense I 37 dense, (SM) 30 V!3ry Dense I 5016" Bottom of bOring at 35 feet Monitoring well installed to 35 feet Depth to water. 27 ft on 19 Mar. 2001 . 17.3 ft on 03 Apr. 2003 The Riley Group, Inc. 10728 LAKE CITY WAYNE SEAITLE, WASHINGTON 98125 35 Rainier Avenue Mixed Use Project Monitoring Well Log MW-I Figure A ... 18 . Site Address: 559 ... 625 Rainier Avenue N., Renton, WashingtOn " ~ .. '. ; .. ,- r: , I .. ·; I I :~.~~. t:-ir;.~ :.::.. ;""~.? I " I I Boring No. MW-2 Logged by : TF I Date: 3/19/01 Approximate Elev.: 48' Consistencyl Q) (N) Moisture C. I Soil Description Relative Depth E Blows Content Density (feet) co 1ft (%) C/) I Asphalt -r- -r-'" I Medium I Gravelly silty sand, grey, -r-18 damp, medium dense, (GM) Dense I -r- -r-5 i' I -r- -r- I -r-I 26 -r- I 10 .... -r- I Gravelly.silty sand, -I-grey-brown, damp, very I I dense, (GM) VeryDense -:--50/5- ."-r- -15 I -r- I Silt, grey-brown, dry, hard, -r- (ML) Hard -r-I 50/5" I -r- I I _ The Riley Group, Inc. Rainier Avenue Mixed Use Project· 10728 LAKE CITY WAYNE . Monitoring Well Log MW-2 I FigureA-19 . SEA TILE, WASHINGTON 98.125 .' Site Address: SS9 -625 Rainier Avenue N., Renton, Washirigton - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I Boring No. MW-2 (Cont.) Logged by : TF Date: 3/19/01 Approximate Elev.: 48' Consistencyl CI) (N) Moisture C. Soil Description Relative Depth E Blows Content Density (feet) to 1ft (%) Cf) --T (4/3/03) - - I T (3/19/01) SOlS" !- Very Dense - - --25 Sand, grey, fine, wet, very dense, (SP) - - -- --I 50/6" -- 30 Bottom of boring at 30 feet Monitoring well installed to 30 . -r- fe~t -r Depth to water: -r- 23 ft on 19 Mar. 2001 -r-21.3 ft on 03 Apr. 2003 -r-35 -f- -r- -f- -r- , The Riley Group, "Inc. Rainier Avenue Mixed Use Project 10728 LAKE CITY WAYNE Monitoring Well Log MW-2 ~ FigureA-20 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98125 Site Address: 559 -625 Rainier Avenue N., Renton, 't~:. _1..:.:. _ ... i·. !. I, L . ~ . I I ,. ~ i PERCENT COARSER BY WEIGHT ...J .001 0 <:) <:) 0 ~ <:) 0 0.. ...... N .., II') 0 0 0 0 0 co ,... ao g) -.001 r0- t (/) .002 -l .002 -l l: (/) ~ .003 " i' 4: :::E .004 .003 -i· N Z :::E .004 ~-i' 4: ~ . 006 :::I .... ex) N [~ "tnt: ,.,; N a:::: ~ .008 .006 .-CD N 0-.-.- w en .01 .008 (I') ::::lEt: W W 0 I" z: .01 z: u :::E ~ L.L.. 0 t!' a:::: .02 : .02 0 >-.03 .03 i :c .04 .04 '. .06 .06 f 200 II .08 I-r- I 100 ~ .1 (/) a:::: , w ~ 1--.... W ~ ~ 60 .-.... .2 :::E t: 50 .2 .3 ::j - . ~ ........ ~ .... c.. 40 ·c .4 :::E () -en Q; ~ 30 CD CD 1/ 1/ ~ c > > .6 ~ 0 E 20 1/ ~ ~ 01 01 , 16 I I .8 w ~ CD CD 1N ~ () E I (/) E 0 Ul~ .... en : .10 ~ ~ .~~ Uli 8 22 ~ ~ ", ~ I II -. ~ ~ <-;: ",;. ~ ......... I 4:~ / •. y " r C c :z 3c.!) ~ z: 4 .. ,' C1i 4:- I" ~. 4 . c;,;I w 1/4 I-~ ~ ~. .. ; 6 en en Gj 3/8 8 !i! . Ulf3 1/2 10 I ~ ::z: ~~ (I) U .U ::::IE ::::IE ~ ~I (I) ~ :::;) (I') (I') ~ 1 ~ 20 e 1 1/.4 z:. 1 f/2 30 :5- i5 ~ c.....: ...-N ~ 2 40 .cp-0- i&.. 0 3 60 ~ ~ o~ 4 80 I-' .... 0.. .-N N en I en 100 c .... 0.. I ~ .-rn 0.. 6 ~CI) t-t-~~ CD CD 200 0 12 (.) <:) <:) <:) ~ 0 300 ~ 0 0 CD III <:) <:) ~ 0 ......... ~ • .... co II') 0 0 .., N .... PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT • The Riley Group, Inc. Rainier Avenue Mzxed Use Project 10728 LAKE CITY WAY NE GrainSiZe,t1.nalysis I figureA-21 SEATI'LE, WASHINGTON 98125 Site AddreSs: 559 ,;. 62sRaiirier Avenue N., Renton;washington . 00 0 1 002 003 004 006 008 .01 .02 .03 .04- .06 2 00 00 60 50 0 6 40 30 2 1 0 8 4 4 " 12 8 o I.- II V ·11 0 PERCENT COARSER BY WEIGHT ~ 0 000 0 I") ..,.. 10 co " I) 0 10- II I) Ii U 0 0 1111 l.- 0 : o ..., I-- PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT 0 0 co en '" 10-1.- .. o -- g --.001 · · .02 03 04- · · 06 08 len a:::: w · 2 W ~ · · 3=1 4~ · · 6~ 8 W 1 2 3 4 6 8 10 20 30 40 t:::! en z <: 0::: (!) I-60 80 1 00 200 0 300 .... z: c: V) ~ m m 0 (.) ....J a.. c: 0 ~ .g- U (II CP C (I) (;.) en :::l :5-0..' CP== C. ... O~ a.. C1 c-.-fII a~ m ~ ~ Rainier Avenue Mixed Use Project Q) > c ... C1 CP U E Q) -> 'C E c: C1 c CP -'c;; E 0 (II CP E .c: 0 ~ ,ID. ~ ~--C Z -'.~ < --(I) C'- ~.~ ~ = (1)-(I) .... ::E ';:E --(I) (I) co LO 10 .... I I 1= m 0 • The Riley Group, Inc. 10728 LAKE CITY WAY NE SEATfLE, WASHINGTON 98125 Grain Size Analysis F:igure A-22 . Site Address: 559 -625 Rainier Avenue N., Renton, washington i.: i (J) (J) ~ «::E Z::E .001 0 002 003 004 « ~ .00 6 O:::I.&J 008 w~ . W~ ::E~ Qc.!) 0::: o >-I (J) (J) ~ « Z « . 01 .02 2 03 04 06 00 00 60 50 40 3D 2 0 6 1 0 8 4 1/4 3/8 1/2 U2 1 (!) 1 114 ~ 1 "/2 o 2 .. ;r: ·3 4 6 12 8 • PERCENT COARSER BY WEIGHT o o o o o V 10 CD ,.... : ~~ ~~ ;I ~ I-'i.; 1/ ,; I" V ~ 1/ II ~ / II Ij ~ I 17' I) II If IJ 'I 0 0 CD GO 0 0 0 o o CD en o o 0 ... .02 03 04 · 06 08 1(J) 0:: W · 2 W ::E .3::] 4::E · · 6~ 8 W · 1 2 3 4 6 8 10 20 30 40 60 80 N (J) Z « .. '. ~':-' 1 00 200 0 300 c: 0 :oJ c.. ·c (J en cu 0 '", "; (I) (.) (I) :::l :5--. ~~ o- .... O:!: c.. cn c:-(I) e.:: en I.&J O~ ...J CD. CD CD 0 (.) t' ~ PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT The Riley Group, Inc. 10728 LAKE CITY WAY NE SEATILE, WASHINGTON 98125 Rainier Avenue MIXed Use Project Grain Size Anaiysis figure A-23 Site Address: SS9 -625 Rainier Avenue N., Renton, Washington [. -.' t: .. :·~~{ ~ ; . 'iii cu > > I E 0 .... en en Q) cu E (J 0 E rn .... I ~,-<.: . ' ..... .c: .c: ...... :!: .~ ~ ~ c :z en ~ >.. .b "0 c: en 0 en ::E ...J en ::::e it) an N N N oot" .-..- I I CD en 0 • I PERCENT COARSER BY WEIGHT -I .001 0 0 0 c 0 0 0 0- -I"""" ..... N ,.., ~ c 0 0 0 0 10 U) ,.... CD en ...... 001 r-- I .002 n -I .002 -I n ~ .003 l<f ::IE .004 .003 ...-.. ~ Z ::IE .004 E- « ~ • 006 :::l ... ..... 1nc:: N I~ ..... .008 .006 .-CD ..... ~ 0'" .01 .008 en ~c:: en W 0 .01 :z: u G: .u z ~ ~ ::> (!) Ig§ .02 : .02 >-.03 .03 :::c .04 .04 I .06 .06 -f-200 II' • 08 ~ .... I I 1.;1.; .1 V> 100 0:::: W !-of" W ~ ~ 60 .2 ~ L:i: c:: I 50 .2 . 3 ::i ... ; 40 "" .g- .4~ (J II -en 30 CD CD I ~ b c > 20 II .6 Z ~~ e 1\ !--en ~ 16 .8 w CD IN fiiil E V> 0 IV) ~ en 10 ..c I~I 8 2 Z ~ -~ - < I 0:::: c !-3 (!)' ~ <I-'-4 4 .LI-1/4 !--I-~ IGj II 6 en 3/8 ~ 8 ~ ~ffi 1/2 1/ 10 ::a: ~8 V en -u _ 74 (.) -~ I 3!: I.; ~I en en . 1 20 :;:) iii: ~ 1·1/.4 , Fz 1 f/2 30 I :5~ I ...... 2 40. filS U') a.. 0 C . a... 3 !-60 ... 0 o~ ..... 4 80 --0-N N en I en 100 c:: ... 1 . ~ • c:: en a:I I 6 cB~ -I al al !-200 L 0 12 u I ~ 0 0 0 ~ 0 300 i..........I 0 .0 cn CD 0 0 0 ~ 0 :!Ic:: ..... U) 10 ~ 0 N ..... L PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT I II The Riley Group, Inc. Rainier Avenue MIXed Use Project 10728 LAKE CITY WAY NE Grain Size Analysis I SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98125 F.igure A-24 L Site Address: 559 -625 Rainier Avenue N., Renton, Washington I I I I I I I I I TACOMA 2215 North 30th Street Surte 300 Tacoma, WA 98403-3350 253.383.2422 TEl 253.383.2572 FAX SEATTLE 316 Occidental Avenue South Surte 320 Seattle, WA 98104-4421 206.267.2425 TEl 206.267.2429 FAX www.ahbl.com -------"-~.--~~. .......-~----;:':::::::===~r.;==.=:~-"~"'" _. _.. . .... ' ~~----' 1I.L31lLS.L~ "'-'''' __ L SJb4th sJO ~-= [5th St. , CJ h-5th PI'D UU I b~ ~ :~CiJ£:6th St.JO D~' f] ~ CJ D7th StJO d \ :::- ; CJG7th P!TI G , -.::t< r----l r lr--l r ~ ~ ~~18th st.IU c=;]~;]O ~tl c=;] GOth Sao , bJ l~l;;;;L ~lJ ~ (21st sao 14' +w~uu uy [~ 122n~ I st. 1 S 123rd SU [s 123r~ S 123rd PI] [S 123r~ I Pl. i 124th Stl [S 124t~ L St. ------.. IMCP) IMCP) .~~ e ...:I ~ ~ ~ s 1/ r .. '""' ',.,. .. /lOLl L;~ I ,a:.flRM-d I I I -~ T 28 tods F3 -18 T23N R5E W 112 'f-.-to..;!90 tf:I.EC~~ ----Rento" ell.., Uml~ 1:4800 &;, 7 T23N R5E W 1'~ ~ 6 0 ZONING +~+ ~ TBCllNlCAL SBllVlCBS DATA NORTH PARCEL TOTAL PARCEL V'<ORK AREA IMPERVIOUS AREA, EXISTIN6 PROPOSED 96 OF TOTAL SITE LANDSCAPED AREA 96 OF TOTAL SITE EXISTIN6 AND PROPOSED STRUCTURES TOTAL EXISTING> V'lETLAND V'lETLAND FILL, ACTUAL FILL PAPER FILL TOTAL FILL TREE COUNT, EXISTING> TO BE REMOVED LlKITO' FUTVRE BLDb. CONSTRUCTION FINISH I FINAL GRAD~ 2FT.GLEA~ TOPSOIL EXC,AYATIOf>.1.--------. EXISTIN, UNCONTROLLED FILL 24b,131 SF Q,200 SF 00 SF 00 SF 1596 51,bOO SF 096 NONE 21,100 SF 3,5QI SF 5,0217 SF 5,0217 SF >50 4 i"IETLAND BUFFER 0\ BUFFER DETAIL ~ NTS. , " -- ...... ---------- ---// ENHANCED I'IETLAND BLl'FER ,,~. 0_ ~~~ ~ B~ REBAR/CAP '~~~"~~NK ITNCE: f1.1<GSCONT W '~> NORTH V"{ETLAND ENLARGHENT AND ENHANGHENT III 201 $ ''c, ( / / \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ FNDI/2"R£BAR!CAP LS ,"566' ~ PRELIMINARY-NOT fOR CONSTRUC770N E:vE~~Wi~>KO..oAAT>D ~1,~~i"s]2W§t~:,~~;':£ z LU 0 :> (; Z LU ~ LU Vl V'l >:J ~ « 0 > a:~ LU--L z Z 0 -f-~ ~ ]"ly2),2004 ~ I-Z O~ LU IZI: I: I-:5 LU 0 LU ~ I-~Z~ Z LU:5 «« ~Z I UJ Z UJ ~ '--,,,>I:~;s~:~': .... SITE PLAN APPROVAL APPLICATION AD03 ~~ OCT 282115 RECEIVED I z :5 CL " Ow ~~ z(!) :5< '" W;;!; « -!l.z ~~ wi'" 0 VlZ ~og =>w 0 '" O(!) w Zz X Ci ,. < 0:: '" W (!) Z ~ ii 2 '~~ ~$ ~ ~I ~ ~a ~!l ~I ~I ~, , ! 1111 ~ BENCHMARK GRAPHIC SCALE OTY(scRENR'M 9JR\[YCCW1TRCI. NETlKlRI( ~-.w--; i 1""00-.-_-_ wM RAINIER MIXED USE PARKING EXPANSION -oneAL OA1\IIooNORTH MI~ \OTICAL DAMI 1988 IIE1ERS (NAW 88~ COI\£RTED TO us FEET THE SOUTHWEST OUARTER OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, WlLLAMETTE MERIDIAN alY IF '''''''' ""'" 00""'-PaN, "" CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON 1 Fe,,,, ," """ "'" ,,, .... ~C+2 ,,.,. 01 EAST IF .." "'" IF aJN<mE """AU< '" lHE lEST SIlE rs RAHER A~E SOOTH. lOCAtED IN FRONT CF U-HAU.. RENTAl COllER AT 453 RAIlER ( DUEl') liDch _ 20 It. r---__ OUTLINE OF PROP05ED---'Jj ~::0t:!£~F~_J I '''''''''''''' -,/ " / ./ k .. \ II \ \' \ ijlElLV"lI(1j, ... 54.OJt /,_:/ .--"'>/ /' I') II ,,'\\\ if~\-·. " "." _ / / / ~/ .. ' '0 / < -y i i \;\\\\~~ ,\ --;1 \ CHSaiDSouARfINNalTH'llESTcalNER OFCOICRmPAO Of'POYIER YAU.TLOCAtEDINSIOAUC II ""'.'.>.7fT!":".'.: . .. '. // ."u .--~ "'." ~ .'~;J~~ ~\ I'RCWTCFIUDIfG AT AOlII£SSNO. 51SOt THE IESTSIlE OFRANER A\£NI.E. _____ .. ~~:~ _. ,,:~C~":'.-:'?f~;:?';:·>//:lccJ= ./j ~ / ~\'h;~~ \",",,"=46.12' -------............... 70--',.' <"/ ?""""./ .-' /' l' r:1f1ltt., ;r;:/ , J. ~"\~'\.'!I~ __ '-. I, .' / / . ~~jc,(JIIII'I~ ,'0 1\ ' 1\ --7-~ ~"-. I .. / ;:. \ •. I "1'" .,." .' .\ . -. \ ... /' .. / / 1',,(:' 1:1" '" \ '}\ \;\ \ ; . -' .' ,j<l]I', II flo ' ~"'\ ~ ': ~ . '" ~~~ _/ /Q_-~_-_j\9~ /----/' ;-J-j '"~ I :. ';II~l1 ""'" "'\ \:.\ ::;:'. I '<.,~"i,,2.-----:... A:'''',',') l' ,~ . n~ ,,\\\~ .. '\:: . \\ ) __ I _-'><.-.-\"6:>'"' ~ %,' ~"'I' \\\~\ \"~. I .. t\-\ );".'C::" , . I" 'III:) \.1~~:i \ \. -' :-<J-\ \ ,./ ill" Y l" .. ~\ /,', '"", '\\1). ~~ " ..... ) '(I~ \ .'-~ \ \ ' . .....<. .~ I' \ \\ 'i"' . '\ --/ \, Y\ :1 Y ,,/ .\\ \~" '1>, i _ ' ~ ~_ \NoTE-mAIlED gJft AM;! IfUfI! 'l~ II / / ~' _ *~ \' ;c~ ~-Wn~~~AS~\~__ j~ \~~~:\ l '\\W/////////A \ \'\\\\m\\ \ C,,'oo, \r;/ ,,~\i~ ~\~~\I \.\~ I.\ __ .~ \ T~/:8i:'E II (em STUCTIJ ~'t..~;_'\fj. ________ I'). \ 6" PVC IE 4635 (IN-S) "'~' ________ 1 12" CMP IE 4351 (IN/OUT W) E 'l THESAMEIISEXIS1I«i~' .. 9:> I 24"CONCIE2493(OJTW) \ EXIS1WGS1RIJCnR:w.YIE~ ~ \ NOTE WEND24"NOTFNO 1O"~""""'F"""~" '\ 1<"""""\:::> \., :' \ \ '\ \ \ "\ ~:" I' ,wew,,, ~\' "" \ \ TOIr 4765(±2'A-::tVE CROUND) ") \ \ \ 2,,\CMP IE 461S (O\ITE) ,/ \ \ IO,-W KNOCKOUT\CREENED}....ji \ \ __ _ ~ \ "lj/ \ \~, . .,,-r0T.'7,77 \ \ )..j \ ,rrrTTTfi1f{i111"" '.1, ", \ ~--..., \ \ 11///' ,i ,. '/r, \ h' ii! .. , ',,,-,, \~~' ~. \ . '''\ \ ." ''''q Vi, '1//,1 " '\\~ \ l' U Vi/, III;) I \ J l , 'I I! ~ " .". , . ;, \ l\ / 'ill ',IIi .. ' '", ,',,-I' I \ VI /,? , , ' "" , .. ~IMIT OF • tJ/: /A , ss.... ~. ,'.' -, , _ . \ ....J.'FUTVRE SLD6 " ':" "" ;;; :, ~),)~ .' \ . \ \ }:.ON5mx;TIO~ _; \ Vi; 'IIA ~ ..... , ,-:\ \. ". \ \1 ..( \', \-\'!//, ji). m ~ r~)" ~"-){.~ ",""'\', .. \', '\ j _( ~ / _ 1',1/11 ill" , "" \'\ ,v"' \ / . I / / \ A~ \(//, ',it' () Wid' '<c5 " ," , \ t"" {4 \ I / I, 1;:( ':'/1) , .. " " "" '., '., \ \ / y , \ ,-I. \ Vlf, 'f/' "", \' \ r--v /\--'" ' \'1" '/\ ~ \ @~I'- :C\~ 'f " " '., "/\ \ / I-.. \ WI. '/11, llitJE'" " ~'" '., '., ,,~ / \ ,_/ \" \V!!I 1~1fe" Cl ~ .......'" " " \, \.-. / _ -\ _________________ 'j\l _ _ "\ " \,/, 1;\ lLi!l~ , " .... ..... ~LL, ,-', \:: ... -..... c-'~ L ____________ ..I ','I'll '.',/ ?c ~~ "" '," --~: ...:::...-~, r &5-_ ~ \ v//, Il/\ ~! - -~ - -~r$·w-> ~ __ :: ....... "_<:,_ '--:]'" "-"," '" "___ ____ -------~ --_ \_~=~ __ ~ \,\~:)( '/~:.\ ~\ • " ....." -!'I') • ., \ 'iJjf. IIII ....... ". ~ ~'-\;\''''j \ \ Vi,' .'/,', ' ....... "'--.......~.,-"_,,_> , \ '\\ \'{;,;,;, 'I~?;" '-. 1'-\ . '\ I. \ \ I VI; ,", ~ z p ~i .~~ ·5 c "'0 s~ :it 0 ~ (J 0 ..J Z j II.. ~ z ~ 0 ~ " ~ 0 z ~ ~ w z g 5 '" 11> ~i ~c limO ~-g:eP a.~ f-j ilij~~ 13.. Ii ~~~l ..,:::;m'" Ii': w ~ ti Ci5 ~ ~ w " ~ ~ II.. ~ 0 ~ !Ii z ~ .. "j" f5t34 ! ~ z~:Q i':~ ~~~ i~ji ro::~ ~~!I. 4 «~ ;~j" .... '" ...... \ P~,""\ \', I V/.l/' /1-------·'1 "'" €f-~,.__ \' ' __ ,.};m: , \\ ", ~, nY,;,; l/f\~~~:' • .:"" ~ SITE PLAN ~ CHECKED Fill CDMPLIANCE CITY OF ~ SCALE, ,",20" TO CITY STANDARDS DEPARTMENT OF ______ DA,,_ ------""- PUBLIC WORKS i • I I I I I I T1I!8! IIIA_ ARI! IIOT TO II _ FOR COII8T1IUC1IOIII1U11 CALL 48 HOURS BEFORE YOU DIG D/lU,6/07/a-. GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN C4.0 I ~ FLEN,VoIE,20J615_C40 - DRAWN, GCH _ BY TIt! __ AIIEIICY 1-800-424-5555 CM!CI<ED-S1.IC ISCAlE= 1" .. 20' St\ef:T,7 OF,7 if I .. ~AENr~ OCT 21_ RECEIVED DATA SOUTH PARCEL TOTAL PARCEL "'ORK AREA IMPERVIOUS AREA, EXISTIN6 PROPOSED % OF TOTAL SITE LANDSCAPED AREA % OF TOTAL SITE "-- EXISTIN6 AND PROPOSED STRUC11JRE5 TOTAL EXI5TIN6 "'ETLAND i"IETLAND FILL AC11JAL FILL PAPER FILL TOTAL FILL TREE COUNT, EXISTIN6 TO BE REMOVED 61,486 SF 13,200 00 SF Q,850 SF 15% 51,600 SF 85% NONE 16,600 SF 2Pll SF 1,514 SF 3,5QI SF >25 I tUiJ/ ~~~, r:!i --',,\ ~IO:/ ,,.., v 18· ... \ @) i l2"WA I T I I 01 _"J TYPE V LIGHT FIXTURE ON 1;1' H L.I~ POLE 3t>" H X 24" DIA. CONCRETE eASE (2f'LAC.E5) l'\A.TER GlUALITY SYSTEM sa: C.IVIL CRra , , , , , , '1/11111"" , u' \\\ : \ \ 1\\\\~ ';\ \ \ 101-\ \ " " I I[ I, ~~,\~\\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ I \ 14'\1\11\\\. \ \ \ \ \ \ ""Po' ,,~ \ \ \ ~~\~\ \ I' \ ~ \ \ 'I \ '0\14~1\\1\\\\! 1\ 1',1 \ () \ . \ ,,1"'\\) \ \ \ I : ~ \'''' \ "i''',','' I'" '\ ,'01 " ',' I I I I I I 10 ' l'o"W,I I I I ----------- ~ ~I\\\<\'>\\ " 10"'lIl\ 'I '-, \ 1~\ I"I\\\\\\~','\ I \ '" " '<. 1\ 1'1"\ III, I I'" "0 ! "\\'\"\,,,'\ r" I 18'\1 'I \ \\~\\\>\~ 'I \\\\~><\\\, I O ~ \\\'\\\'\\>, ' \ "" '\\ ( ViI,,,,,,,u,,,"IJjjJJJJUJ' I 1o"'Y 1 'rdO\I\\\'\'1 '\\\~~ I, --'(1)\ "".\. I ,I .. I'IU /I!"i~\( /'V''''' IIII':.~ ,1\\\,: -/7' \~<\~~ :~>\,\:: .\'\;~:( / \\\\ <\.\.~;;\\l,l I \\ I'~~I\\\\'I,I,\\,I,\ S I ) / // I, ))}I' / " llIli)/ / ~J) --:' ~«.~//:;\~ \ //!/<~/f~, \ \ ' t..\~ , \~ ) S{lI1AGNAll'N ASPHALT PM~ING lOT HID 1/2-REBA.R/C~P ~Sof~6; 0.02 S XI5TIN6 IMIT Of PARKING AREA 1,Q"l4 5 F. EXISTING RESTAURANT SITE \ \ UNABLEro~ VERIFY ENOOFP!PE '0-:- SOUTH LOT AND SOUTH V'lETLAND FILL III ~ 20 I o~~~~~~~~~~~~~----------~~~-$ PRELlt1INARY-NOT fOR CONSTRUG70N ~:~;:£E~"':()APOAATTO ~g~~i:ia&fu~:~:=~ z UJ 0 :::> t; Z UJ ~ UJ III til >:J ~ <3:: c > ~~ UJ--I: z Z 0 -f-~ ~ July21,2004 ...J I-I::::! Ol-LL ...J:::>O IOZ I-Vl~ :::>01-OZUJ Vl«~ 'W DW ~ .. '. l\ch" -'''''C04 f42'15'O' •• ...:;,,,,,,,,,,,,:,.,, ." SITE PLAN APPROVAL APPLICATION A002 OCT 21_ RECEIVED /' /' /----- " '-,-. Y"',,::-:-'Z< -. '-,< '-~--"'-----'-::-- -.-.~--:~~-.~.--,--.-l! --- -"/; NORTH Y'lETLAND PLANTING PLAN SOUTH V'J.ETLAND PLANTING PLAN '/ "-" ~' <-:----~/ ~ // '/-:-/ "" -----------\,,"~--7"- @ @ BlFFER GENERAL NOTES: '-IT IS PREfERA8LE lHAT lHE DESIGN OF lHlS PLANTING PLAN SEEK TO REPLICATE NATURAL PLANT COMMUNITIES IN SPECIES COMPOSITION AND ARRANGEMENT EVEN SPACING AND STRAIGHT-ROW PLANTING ARE NOT DESIRED. 2. A TEMPORARY IRRIGATION SYSTEM SHALL BE INSTALLED WITHIN THE ENHANCED WETLAND BUFFER AREAS. 3. ADO TWO PIECES OF LARGE WOODY DEBRIS (LWO) FOR EACH 1,000 SQ. FT. LYtV IS 1 STUMP OR 1 LOG (GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 6" DIA~mR) AND 8-11' LONG. WETLAND CREATION/EIIIANCEllENT AREAS PLANT SCHEDULE 4, BAREROOT PLANT STOCK MAY BE USED WrlERE SEASONALLY AVAILABLE AND GENERALLY MUST BE INSTALLED DURING THE DORMANT SEASON (APPROXIMATELY OCTOBER 31ST THROUGH FEB 1ST). 8ARERDDT PLANT STOCK SHALL 8E EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN THAT OF THE SPECIFIED CONTAINER SIZE. s_ Ol. SYlliooCITY 8OTAllCAL_ --SIZE AEllAJll(S -5. MULCH SHALL BE INSTALLED AROUND ALL TREES AND SHRUBS TO ASSIST PLANT SURVWAL THE MULCH SHALL BE MEDIUM GRADE @ CORNUS SERIC£A REDSTE~ DOGWOOD 2 GAL 5' D.C. WOOD CHIPS OR BETTER. LONICERA INVOLUCRATA BLACK TWlNBERRY 2 GAL 3' D.C. ::,. SALIX LASIANDRA PACIFIC WILLOW STAKES 5 DC. SALIX HOOKERIANA HOOKERS WiLLOW STAKES 5 D.C. muJI)_ CAREXOBNUPTA SLOUGH SEDGE BAREROOT toe -j GLYC£RIA STRIATA FOYlt MANNAGRASS BAREROOT 2 D.C. LYSICHITON Af.4ERICANUM SKUNK CABBAGE BAREROOT 2 D.C. SCiRPUS WICROCARPuS SMAli FRUITED BULRUSH BAREROOT l' D.C. TELUf.4A GRANDIFLORA FRINGECUP BAREROOT l' D.C. TOLMIEAMENZIESII PIGGY-BACK PLANT 8ARERDDT l' D.C. ** QUANTITIES TO BE DETERWINED IN FINAL MITIGATION PLAN IITERPLANTING NOTES NATIVE TREES, SHRUBS AND HERBS BASED ON MASTER PLANT SCHEDULE SPECIES AND QUANTITIES SHALL BE DETERMINED BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OR ~TLAND BIOLOGIST POST NON-NATIVE VEGETA~DN RE~DVAL. WEnAII) IIII'fEII RUM 8E!D III """ IREroITOSP£CSFCR AOO'LWCRIIATOI REGREEN STERILE SEED MIX SEED MIXTURE 30lB/ACRE ALL NON-NATIVE VEGETATION SHALL BE REMOVED WITHIN THE Yl£TLAND BumR. THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OR WETLAND BIOLOGIST SHALL FLAG AREAS PRIOR TO REMOVAL. AREAS WrlERE PLANTS HAVE BEEN REMOVED SHALL BE REPLANTED WITH THE NATIVE PLANTS LISTED IN THE MASTER PLANT LEGEND. THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OR WETLAND BIOLOGIST SHALL FIELD LOCATE PLANTS WITHIN THESE AREAS, HYDROSEED MIX APPLICA nON RATES PER ACRE; 2000 L8 ERO-FiBER WOODFIBER MULCH L8 SEED MIX AS NOTED 200 L8 25-0-10 40 LB TACKIFIER TO PREVENT RIPPLING AlL POSTS, CA~S. RAILS ANO RTnNGS TO BE ElICTROSTATlCPAlNTEO-COLCIlTOt.lATCHFENCE CO.I.llNGASAmIQ\{/l8YO'IIIf£RSR£PRESENTAll'o{ t.lAlNl[NANCEACCESS, DCMJBl..EGATE-lo'OPENING S' 'o1N'I1.. COATEO -cv.ss 2JI (lILAoQ """'" "Xl"" UNEP{lSTANDBRACEPOSTS2"I.D,END, calI£R AND PUll POSTS 2 1/2" 1.0. ~'~ ~ fNS> .. "" WETLAND a BUFFER 'I BOUNDARY ()IE~ E\£RY 2S TO so FrET, PLACED 'MllfIN 1HE FINC£D ARE .... ATTACHffi TO A tCrN..CIl "MXXlf!HCtPOST.4FrETT06FID"A9O'o£IllAOCCtlTHE'I{Tl.AN)BIJfTEllSlO£OF1l£ '""'. (7) ~?~~INER PLANTING DET An. o CHAit LII( FENCE DETAI. NOT TO SCAlE (3) :~": BOUNDARY SIONAIlE PRfLlMINARY -NOT fOR CONSTRUCTION W :::J Z WW >~ «0 W 0:::::: W:2 z « 0::: mmsm 204177.40 RW JULY 23, 2004 10l101 __ -~~ , --F"42l\4e38013 ...... 10<1)01,_1_""", CONCEPTUAL PLANTING PLAN W1 OCT 21_ RECEIVED :" .. NORTH V'lETLAND //J~-~-f~:~_ ~=,,-------==--=-:.:.~ ---' \". -*' -a51F'..::=--....... SOUTH LOT A-OO'2----\ SITE PLAN @ ~la~~"o :s:E,~~E-~~~~:E: """"'''''''''''''_''''''''--=--''0 z UJ 0 :J t; Z W ~ UJ VI Vl >:J ~ « 0 > a::w UJ~ -:r z Z 0 -I-~ ~ July 15.2004 Z ~ c.. ~ ~ CH ~ ~ '--,,,,I~~~ SITE PLAN APPROVAL APPLICATION PRELI/1INARY-NOTfORCONSTRUalON I AOO I Matt Weber AHBL, Inc. PARTIES OF RECORD RAINIER AVE VARIANCE LUA05-133, V-H Jack Alhadeff JDA Group, LLC 2215 N 30th Street ste: #300 Tacoma, WA 98403 95 S Tobin Street ste: #201 Renton, WA 98055 Bruce & Sue Gregg 207 NW 5th Street Renton, WA 98055 tel: 206-772-0811 (party of record) tel: 253-383-2422 eml: mweber@ahbl.com (contact) Sherondia Renee Otis 211 NW 5th Street Renton, WA 98055 tel: 206-772-8885 (party of record) Updated: 11/08/05 tel: 425-891-1002 (owner) Lee & Peggy Christopherson 503 Rainier Avenue N Renton, WA 98055 (party of record) Ronnie & Roberta McDonald 216 NW 5th Street Renton, WA 98055 tel: 206-772-4977 (party of record) Carl P. Burns 213 NW 6th Street Renton, WA 98055 tel: 206-772-6903 eml: cpburns99@yahoo.cin (party of record) Rolland Dewing 210 NW 5th Street Renton, WA 98055 tel: (206) 772-6528 (party of record) (Page 1 of 1) August 31, 2006 JDA Group 95 South Tobin Renton, W A 98055 Richard Wagner Baylis Architects 10801 Main Street, Ste 110 Bellevue, W A 98004 CITY. Re: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated 4/25/2006; F RENTON City Clerk Bonnie I. Walton Rainier Avenue Mixed Use, South Parking Lot -LUA-04-093, SA and LUA-05-133, V Dear Appellant and Representative: At the regular Council meeting of August 21, 2006, the Renton City Council took action on the referenced appeal by adopting the recommendation of the Planning and Development Committee to reverse the decision of the Hearing Examiner and modified the decision by adding a mitigation measure. A copy of the Planning and Development Committee report is enclosed. Unless the appropriate land use appeal from the decision of the City Council is filed with King County Superior Court as indicated in Renton Municipal Code, the decision of the City Council will be final. For information regarding continuation of the land use application process, please call the Development Services Division at 425-430-7200. Please feel free to contact me if I can provide further information or assistance. Sincerely, Bonnie 1. Walton City Clerk Enclosure cc: Mayor Kathy Keolker Council President Randy Corman Jennifer Henning, Principal Planner Andrea Pretzel, Development Services Div. Parties of Record (9) -1-0S-S-S-0u-th-Gr-ad-y-W-a-y---R-en-to-n,-W-'-as-hln-gt-o-n-9-S-0S-S---(4-2-S)-4-30--6S-1-0'-P-AX-(-42-S-) 4-3-0--6-S1-6-~ (i) This paper contains 50% recycled material, 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE COMMITTEE REPORT August 21,2006 APln~alby JDA Gronp,J;LC File LUA,;.,O$:"13l:; V:attd LUA 04-0893, SA _~chlWi1e 12, 2006 APPROVED BY > > 1 CITY COUNCIL ' Date f -;./-;l..~~ The Planning and Development Committee ("P&D") heard this appeal on August 17,2006. Applicant IDA Group, LLC, appealed the Hearing Examiner's denial of its Variance Request and Site Plan. The P&D Committee reviewed the record, the written appeal, and the presentation and oral argument by Development Director Neil Watts and Rich Wagner, Baylis Architects on behalfofthe Applicant/Appellant. Havipgf,<ioneso, the P&D Committee found that a substantial error in law exists, and accordingly7 I"evOrseS'tbe decision of the Hearing Examiner and modifies the decision by adding a mitigationmeasu£e. The subject parcels are located west QfRainier Avenue South,and north of an existing restaurant, Chang's Mongolian Grill. This site is zone~,CQlllqlercial Arterial (CA). Applicant seeks to construct a 27~sta11 surface parking lot4irt,a ,"~;Q~atel)! 20,000 square feet ofa 1.55 acre parcel on the west side of Rainie( Avenue ~sl > ~~ to Chll4lg'sexisting parking lot. In order to create this parking lot, Applicant * '.e to fill a smitty mrea of wetland and wetland buffer. The lot with a Category 3 wetlll8drelmtains'apartially culve~d drainage stream. APplicant seeks to further $lIven ~ dihlrtage in order to accommodate the parking lot. In order to do so, the Applicant~eA to,femove the trees andvegetafon within 25 feet of this watercourse area. (RMC 4-4-l30:, This r~ui(ed a, variance. ' Under the City Code, the Hearing f!~lUlliner (''HEX'') reviews the variance request. Accordingly, the site plan application was'aise;put~bef6re the Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner held a hearing on March 14, 2006. He issued his decision on April 25, 2006, denying both 1) the variance; and 2) the site plan application. The HEX found that the applicant's property failed to meet the four criteria necessary for a variance. The HEX further concluded that the "[t]heproposal is not compatible with the environmental objectives of the comprehensive plan" in that the HEX did not find that culverting the creek would mitigate impacts. Pursuant to RMC 4-8-110F(5) and (6), the P&D Committee's decision and recommendation is limited to the record, which consists of, but is not limited to the Hearing Examiner's Report, the Notice of Appeal and the submissions by the parties. Having done so, the P&D Committee hereby fmds substantial error in the HEX's denial of the varian-ce request. The P&D Committee finds that Applicant's request meets the standard for a variance, is a reasonable use of the property, and benefits the public interest Further, extending the existing culvert over the drainage stream will not harm the environment, and the proposed remediation measures are adequate. Iiowever, the P&D Conunittee modifies the decision to'incIude a mitigation measure' Planning and Developm ... ":ommittee Report August 21,2006 p.2 to build a rockery, rather than to fill a portion of the wetland area. This rockerystructure will eliminate the need to fill the portion of wetland area and further justify the variance request. The placement and structure of the rockery will be subject to the approval of Development Services. Dan Clawson, Vice Chair Marcie Palmer, Member . cc: Neil Watts Jennifer Henning Lawrence J. Warren Frt!d Kau(nttln Bonnie Walton -Parties of Record LUA 0 , and 04-093 From: Andrea Petzel To: Date: Bonnie Walton 8/28/2006 12:56:26 PM Subject: Parties of Record LUA 05-133 and 04-093 Bonnie, Here are the two parties of record lists for LUA 05-133 and 04-093 so they can receive the Planning and Development Committee decision. There may be some overlap between the two. Thanks for your help. Andrea Andrea Petzel City of Renton -Development Services Division Renton City Hall -6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 425-430-7289 apetzel@ci.renton.wa.us Page 1 PARTIES OF RECORD RAINIER AVE MIXED-USE PARKING Richard Wagner I Baylis Architects 10801 Main Street ste: #110 Bellevue, WA 98004 tel: (425) 454-0566 eml: wagnerr@baylisarchitects.com (contact) / Mary Jo Carlson 215 NW 5th Street Renton, WA 98055 tel: (206) 772-4271 (party of record) I Sherondia Renee Otis 211 NW 5th Street Renton, WA 98055 tel: (206) 772-8885 (party of record) Updated: 09/01/06 LUAO~-/ SA-A, ECF JDA Group, LLCjID Kline Corp. 95 S Tobin Street Renton, WA 98055 tel: (425) 891-1002 (owner) / Ronnie & Roberta McDonald 216 NW 5th Street Renton, WA 98055 tel: (206) 772-4977 (party of record) / Lee & Peggy Christopherson 503 Rainier Avenue N Renton, WA 98055 (party of record) Rolland Dewing 210 NW 5th Street Renton, WA 98055 tel: (206) 772-6528 (party of record) // Bruce & Sue Gregg 207 NW 5th Street Renton, WA 98055 tel: (206) 772-0811 (party of record) V Carl P. Burns 213 NW 6th Street Renton, WA 98055 tel: (206) 772-6903 eml: cpburns99@yahoo.cin (party of record) (Page 1 of 1) PARTIES OF RECORD RAINIER AVE VARIANCE / Matt Weber AHBL, Inc. 2215 N 30th Street ste: #300 Tacoma, WA 98403 tel: 253-383-2422 eml: mweber@ahbl.com (contact) She ndia Renee Otis 211 N 5th Street Renton, 98055 tel: 206-77 -8885 (party of reco ) Mar Jo Carlson 215 5th Street A 98055 tel: 206-2-4271 (party of re rd) Updated: 09/01/06 LU~5-133, V-H Jack Alhadeff JDA Group, LLC 95 S Tobin Street ste: #201 Renton, WA 98055 tel: 425-891-1002 (owner) Lee eggy Christopherson 503 Rai . r Avenue N Renton, W 98055 (party of reco ) Ronni & Roberta McDonald 216 N th Street Renton, 98055 tel: 206-77 4977 (party of reco ) Bruce Sue Gregg 207 NW th Street Renton, 98055 tel: 206-77 -0811 (party of record) rl P. Burns 21 NW 6th Street Rent ,WA 98055 tel: 20 772-6903 eml: cpbu s99@yahoo.cin (party of rec rd) Ro nd Dewing 210 W 5th Street Renton WA 98055 tel: (20 772-6528 (party of r ord) (Page 1 of 1) 1 August 21, 2006 prc}fnfn~i~~~of~Ml-t ~Il,tfe, Appeal: itaImer Mixed Use South Parking Lot, JDA Group, V-05-133 & SA-04- 093 . Renton City Council Minutes Page 280 in the workplace; and increase the number of bachelor and advanced degrees awarded in Washington, with emphasis on applied sciences and engineering. He noted that the Partnership will go before the legislature in 2007 asking for an increase in college enrollments to fill capacity in high demand fields such as computer specialists, engineers, life scientists, medical researchers, nurses, and secondary teachers. Mr. Drewel commented on the importance of technical and community colleges, noting that the Partnership wants 40 percent of the students who attend four- year institutions to come from these types of colleges. He pointed out that the region will need well-educated workers to replace retiring workers and to meet the demands of the new economy. In conclusion, Mr. Drewel encouraged attendance at the Prosperity Partnership luncheon on November 1. In response to Councilwoman Briere's inquiry, Mr. McSherry stated that the marketing pilot project is aimed at middle and high school students. Planning and Development Committee Chair Briere presented a report regarding the appeal filed by JDA Group, LLC. The Committee heard this appeal on 8117/2006. The applicant, JDA Group, LLC, appealed the Hearing Examiner's denial of its variance request and site plan. The Committee reviewed the record, the written appeal, and the presentation and oral argument by Neil Watts, Development Services Director, and Rich Wagner, Baylis Architects, on behalf of the applicant/appellant. Having done so, the Committee found that a substantial error in law exists, and accordingly, reverses the decision of the Hearing Examiner and modifies the decision by adding a mitigation measure. The subject parcels are located west of Rainier Ave. S. and north of an existing restaurant, Chang's Mongolian Grill. This site is zoned Commercial Arterial. The applicant seeks to construct a 27 -stall surface parking lot on approximately 20,000 square feet of a I.SS-acre parcel on the west side of Rainier Ave. N., which connects to Chang's existing parking lot. In order to create this parking lot, the applicant would have to fill a small area of wetland and wetland buffer. The lot with a Category 3 wetland contains a partially culverted drainage stream. The applicant seeks to further culvert this drainage in order to accommodate the parking lot. In order to do so, the applicant needed to remove the trees and vegetation within 25 feet of this water course area (City Code 4-4- 130). This required a variance. Under the City Code, the Hearing Examiner reviews the variance request. Accordingly, the site plan application was also put before the Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner held a hearing on 3114/2006. He issued his decision on 4/25/2006 denying both 1) the variance; and 2) the site plan application. The Hearing Examiner found that the applicant's property failed to meet the four criteria necessary for a variance. The Hearing Examiner further concluded that the "[t]he proposal is not compatible with the environment objectives of the comprehensive plan" in that the Hearing Examiner did not find that culverting the creek would mitigate impacts. Pursuant to City Code 4-8-11 OF(5) and (6), the Committee's decision and recommendation is limited to the record, which consists of, but is not limited to the Hearing Examiner's report, the notice of appeal, and the submissions by the parties. Having done so, the Committee hereby finds substantial error in the Hearing Examiner's denial of the variance request. The Committee finds that the applicant's request meets the standard for a variance, is a reasonable use of the property, and benefits the public interest. Further, extending the existing \ August 21, 2006 PUBLIC HEARINGS Annexation: Leitch, SE 136th St & 140th Ave SE Renton City Council Minutes Page 281 culvert over the drainage stream will not harm the environment, and the proposed remediation measures are adequate. However, the Committee modifies the decision to include a mitigation measure to build a rockery, rather than to fill a portion of the wetland area. This rockery structure will eliminate the need to fill the portion of wetland area and further justify the variance request. The placement and structure of the rockery will be subject to the approval of the Development Services Division. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published in accordance with local and State laws, Mayor Keolker opened the public hearing to consider the 60% Direct Petition to Annex and R-4 zoning for the proposed Leitch Annexation; 14.59 acres (including the abutting street right-of-way) bounded generally by l40th Ave. SE, if extended, on the west, 143rd Ave. SE, if extended, on the east, SE l36th St., if extended, on the north, and SE 138th St., if extended on the south. Senior Planner Don Erickson reported that eight single-family dwellings exist on the site, and noted that future development will most likely occur on the larger under-developed parcels. He pointed out that Maplewood Creek flows through the eastern portion of site, and except for the ravine on the eastern most parcel, the site is relatively flat. Mr. Erickson indicated that public services for the site are provided by Fire District #25, Water District #90, Renton sewer, and the Renton School District. Mr. Erickson stated that current King County zoning is R-4 (four dwelling units per gross acre). Renton's Comprehensive Plan designates the site as Residential Low Density, for which R-4 (four dwelling units per net acre) zoning is proposed. He relayed issues raised by City staff as follows: I) Transportation Division noted that portions ofSE 136th St., 140th Ave. SE, and 143rd Ave. SE will need to be widened and improved to meet City standards; 2) Utilities Division recommended the use of King County's 2005 Surface Water Manual, Level 2 for future development; and 3) Parks Division estimated a one-time parks development cost of $20,984. Reviewing the fiscal impact of the proposed annexation, Mr. Erickson reported that the City will realize a surplus of $13,773 at full development, assuming an increase to 46 single-family homes and an average assessed home value of $450,000. He stated that the annexation proposal is consistent with City policies and Boundary Review Board criteria, and serves the best interests and general welfare of the City, particularly if it facilitates potential annexation of the unincorporated area to the southwest. Public comment was invited. William Sweezey, 13636 143rd Ave. SE, Renton, 98059, opposed the annexation, expressing concerns regarding the increase in density in the area, the wildlife that use and inhabit the Maplewood Creek ravine, the environmental impact of development on the ravine, and the close proximity of homes to each other in nearby developments. Councilwoman Briere noted that if the property is annexed, the zoning will be less dense than it is now in King County. Councilman Clawson pointed out that development must undergo a planning process, and environmental constraints will be addressed. PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE COMMITTEE REPORT August 21, 2006 Appeal by JDA Group, LLC File LUA-OS-133, V and LUA 04-0~3, SA Referred June 12, 2006 AfPROVED BY CiT"1 COUNCIL Date f -;./ -;(~t1c:' The Planning and Development Committee ("P&D") heard this appeal on August 17,2006. Applicant JDA Group, LLC, appealed the Hearing Examiner's denial of its Variance Request and Site Plan. The P&D Committee reviewed the record, the written appeal, and the presentation and oral argument by Development Director Neil Watts and Rich Wagner, Baylis Architects on behalf ofthe Applicant! Appellant. Having done so, the P&D Committee found that a substantial error in law exists, and accordingly, reverses the decision of the Hearing Examiner and modifies the decision by adding a mitigation measure. IJO(#t The subject parcels are located west of Rainier Avenue SetHhand north of an existing restaurant, Chang's Mongolian Grill. This site is zoned Commercial Arterial (CA). Applicant seeks to construct a 27-stall surface parking lot on approximately 20,000 square feet of a 1.55 acre parcel on the west side of Rainier Avenue North, which connects to Chang's existing parking lot. In order to create this parking lot, Applicant would have to fill a small area of wetland and wetland buffer. The lot with a Category 3 wetland contains a partially culverted drainage stream. Applicant seeks to further culvert this drainage in order to accommodate the parking lot. In order to do so, the Applicant needed to remove the trees and vegetation within 25 feet of this watercourse area. (RMC 4-4-130) This required a variance. Under the City Code, the Hearing Examiner ("HEX") reviews the variance request. Accordingly, the site plan application was also put before the Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner held a hearing on March 14,2006. He issued his decision on April 25, 2006, denying both 1) the variance; and 2) the site plan application. The HEX found that the applicant's property failed to meet the four criteria necessary for a variance. The HEX further concluded that the "[t]he proposal is not compatible with the environmental objectives of the comprehensive plan" in that the HEX did not find that culverting the creek would mitigate impacts. Pursuant to RMC 4-8-11OF(5) and (6), the P&D Committee's decision and recommendation is limited to the record, which consists of, but is not limited to the Hearing Examiner's Report, the Notice of Appeal and the submissions by the parties. Having done so, the P&D Committee hereby finds substantial error in the HEX's denial of the variance request. The P&D Committee finds that Applicant's request meets the standard for a variance, is a reasonable use of the property, and benefits the public interest. Further, extending the existing culvert over the drainage stream will not harm the environment, and the proposed remediation measures are adequate. However, the P&D Committee modifies the decision to include a mitigation measure 1 a Planning and Development C ittee Report August 21,2006 p.2 to build a rockery, rather than to fill a portion ofthe wetland area. This rockery structure will eliminate the need to fill the portion of wetland area and further justify the variance request. The placement and structure ofthe rockery will be subject to the approval of Development Services. Dan Clawson, Vice Chair Marcie Palmer, Member cc: Neil Watts Jennifer Henning LaWTenceJ. Warren Frt!d Kautft1an ................. ----.>. ...,. .~~fie CITY OF RENTON :! Office of the City Clerk 1055 South Grady Way -Renton Washington 98055 ADDRESS SERVICE Bl=QUESTED ~ f.rl6'lzDC'~) ~ (Jr'St-d'/-Ie S ~\i,,' C'IY) I(A tf! 1-1<' (' cl ( 5 '-f L I .J Z Z :> C"jr (t1.(-..A"c>1 sf- '5etj NIt I "vi A 1 'fllr' If?: Z C7 f?\ Sherondia Renee Otis 211 NW 5th St Renton, W A 98055 :1 .. 'I ~ (J , ,- H: ...... ~--.~t:~:-. ~ .. rf!' "-;;(" ..... ~.. -~. ! w ~ J'U;, > (, r'" j, r) , .. ~ l\ _.,y.:V ; MY OF RENTON JUN 06 2006 Cf1Y~&AOE II ~ :.* x geo N 1. :1. 305 CO;!.. OE'",' 02/ OS FORWARD TIME EXP RTN TO SENO OTIS S12~ S ORCHARO ST SEATTLE WA 90110-4~~9 t-Vi rl-(J .:; -\ ~ 3 C)-r CSt·iP 96CI55 9805..5 ?S23.:2 RETVRN TO SENO~R 11,1 J J I" 1,11",,1 J I J ,I ,/ II J JI " ,I JIll JlII,/,I, ) J / , , 1,1" ,1111 1 i , CIT-~ OF RENTON Kathy Keolker, Mayor August 16, 2006 M. J. Carlson 215 N.W. 5th St. Renton, WA 98055-1016 Re: Appeal; JDA Group, LLC; Rainier Mixed Use South Parking Lot Dear Ms. Carlson: City Clerk Bonnie I. Walton Thank you for your letter to the Renton City Council dated August 13, 2006, signed by you and four other parties. Although the deadline for submission of additional letters on the referenced appeal was June 9, 2006, copy of the letter is being forwarded to all Councilmembers, including the Planning and Development Committee members. As you know, the appeal hearing will take place on Thursday, August 17,2006, at 3:00 pm in the Council Chambers, t h floor, Renton City Hall. If I can provide further information or assistance, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Bonnie I. Walton City Clerk cc: Councilmembers Ann Neilson, Assistant City Attorney Jennifer Henning, Principal Planner -10-' s-S-S-ou-th-Gr-ad-y-W-a-y--'-Re-n-to-n,-W-ashln-· ,-gt-on-98-0-55'---~(-42-5-) 4-3-0-~65-1-Q-/ F-AX-, -'-(-42-5-)4-3-0;..-65'--1-6-~ * This papercontains 50% recycled m"""rial; 30%JlQst consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE Aug. 13, 2006 City of Renton Council Members CJTY OF RENTON AUG f 5 2006 OITY~~,CE Re: Appeal Hearing JDA Group, LLC's application for 27 parking spaces at Chang's Restaurant. The Renton residents listed below would very much appreciate it if each of you would uphold the Hearing Examiner's decision not to allow extra parking spaces in this area. The reasons the Hearing Examiner stated regarding the environmental impact and the water drainage problem were substantial and should be respected. Much digging out of this area along Rainier has already taken place and we in this neighborhood are becoming concerned. Thank you. Ronald and Roberta McDonald }/tA..-J ~, ~ Vul ~ c( 216 NW 5th St. Renton, WA 98057 206-772-4977 Mary Jo Carlson 215NW 5th ST Renton, W A 98057 /YIorJ~~ 206-772-4271 Sue & Bruce Gregg 207 NW 5TH ST 0 c;: Renton, WA98057 206-772-0811 ~ ~ ~ Delores & Roland Dewing 2h... JJt", ?! .. -/J /J I ~ • 210 NW 5th St. rv I /l~ cC1~ Renton, W A 98057 206-772-6528 Lee and Peggy Christopherson 503 Rainier Ave. N Renton, W A 98057 26-7722544 ~p \,.,. J c tv;ie fa. tSo-- CIT~F RENTON August 8, 2006 APPEAL FILED BY: JDA Group, LLC Renton City Council CITY OF RENTON AUG 1 5 2006 RECEIVED OfTY CLERK'S OFFICE RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated 4/25/2006 regarding JDA Group, LLC's application to construct 27 parking spaces within a surface lot associated with Chang's Mongolian Grill restaurant, involving Administrative Site Plan review (File No. LUA- 04-093, SA) and Variance review (File No. LUA-05-133, V) To Interested Parties: The Renton City Council's Planning & Development Committee will meet to deliberate the above-referenced item on the following date: Thursday, August 17, 2006 3:00 p.m. 7th Floor/Council Chambers City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington This Council Committee meeting is open to the public, but it is not a public hearing. It is a working session of the Planning & Development Committee. No new testimony or evidence will be taken. However, the parties are expected to attend and be prepared to explain why the Council Committee should uphold or overturn the decision of the Hearing Examiner. If you have questions regarding these meetings, please phone Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison, at 425-430-6555. Sincerely, ~.~ Terri Briere, Chair Planning & Development Committee Renton City Council ----1-0S-S-S-ou-th-a-ra-dy-W-ay---R-e-nt-o-n,-W-a-shl-·n-gt-o-n-9-8-0S-S---(4-2-S-) 4-3-0--6-S0-1----~ * This paper contains 50% recycled material, 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE JDA Group, LLC J.D. Kline Corporation 95 South Tobin Street Renton, W A 98057 Ryan Jeffries 2215 North 30th Street Tacoma, W A 98403-3350 Mary Jo Carlson 215 NW 5th St. Renton, WA 98057-3416 Sherondia Renee Otis 211 NW 5th St. Renton, WA 98057-3416 Mike Dotson Development Services • Richard Wagner Baylis Architects 10801 Main Street, Ste. 110 Bellevue, W A 98004 Rolland Dewing 210 NW 5th St. Renton, WA 98057-3415 Ronnie & Roberta McDonald 216 NW 5th St. Renton, WA 98057-3415 Lee & Peggy Christopherson 503 Rainier Ave. N Renton, WA 98057-5318 Jennifer Henning Development Services Celeste Botha 2025 S. Norman Street Seattle, WA 98144 Carl P. Bums 213 NW 6th St. Renton, WA 98057-3408 Bruce & Sue Gregg 207 NW 5th St. Renton, WA 98057-3416 Keri Weaver Development Services Ann Nielsen City Attorney's Office June 12,2006 CAG: 06-025, Airport Security Gate Replacement, CA Carey Corporation, FAA Grant Appeal: Rainier Mixed Use South Parking Lot, IDA Group, V-05-133 & SA-04- 093 CAG: 06-068, South Lake W A Roadway Improvements Community Services: Henry Moses Aquatic Center, 1 % for Art Project Renton City Council Minutes Page 199 City Clerk reported bid opening on 411112006 for CAG-06-025, Airport AirsidelLandside Separation Improvement Project Phase 2 (Security Gate Replacement); one bid; engineer's estimate $186,195.92; and submitted staff recommendation to award the contract to bidder, C.A. Carey Corporation, in the amount of$478,186.88. Approval was also sought to accept a Federal Aviation Administration grant in the amount of $150,000 for this project. Refer to Transportation (Aviation) Committee. City Clerk reported appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision on the Rainier Mixed Use South Parking Lot project; appeal filed by Baylis Architects, 10801 Main St., Bellevue, 98004, representing JDA Group, LLC, accompanied by required fee. Refer to Planning and Development Committee. City Clerk reported bid opening to occur 6/12/2006 for CAG-06-068, South Lake Washington Roadway Improvements. Refer to Committee of the Whole. Community Services Department recommended approval of the following: an etched stainless steel mural as a 1 % for Art project at Henry Moses Aquatic Center, the use of $1 0,887 in Fund 125 reserves for the project, the total project budget of $23,261.08, and a contract with Doug Kyes in the amount of$1,500 for final design drawings and installation supervision. Refer to Community Services Committee. Development Services: Baxter Development Services Division recommended acceptance of a deed of Meadows II, ROW Dedication, dedication for additional right-of-way at NE 18th Circle to fulfill a requirement NE 18th Circle, SHP-05-075 of the Baxter Meadows II Short Plat. Council concur. Finance: Public Safety Technology Infrastructure Interlocal Agreement Fire: Chief Appointment (David Daniels), Hire at Step E Human Resources: 2006 Group Health Cooperative Medical Coverage Contracts Transportation: Airport Maintenance Dredging & Shoreline Mitigation, Parametrix Transportation: Lake W A Trail South Lake Connector, WSDOTGrant Utility: Springbrook Creek Wetland & Habitat Mitigation Bank Instrument, WSDOT Finance and Information Services Department recommended approval of an interlocal agreement with Valley cities for a technology grant to enable the cities to work together on public safety needs utilizing fiber and wireless media for communications. Council concur. (See page 202 for resolution.) Human Resources and Risk Management Department recommended confirmation of the appointment of David Daniels as the new Fire Chief at pay grade m49, Step E, effective 7/7/2006. Council concur. Human Resources and Risk Management Department recommended approval of the 2006 Group Health Cooperative medical coverage agreements for LEOFF I Employees, LEOFF I Retirees, and all other active employees. Refer to Finance Committee. Transportation Systems Division recommended approval of a contract with Parametrix, Inc. in the amount of$139,500 for the Airport Maintenance Dredging and Shoreline Mitigation Project Phase 1. Refer to Transportation (Aviation) Committee. Transportation Systems Division recommended approval of an agreement with Washington State Department of Transportation for a $500,000 grant for the Lake Washington Trail South Lake Connector Project. Refer to Community Services Committee. Utility Systems Division recommended approval of the Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Instrument with Washington State Department of Transportation in the estimated amount of $450,000 over the initial ten years after construction. Refer to Utilities Committee. 'Y OF RENTON COUNCIL AGEN BILL I AI #: t/;. -b, Submitting Data: For Agenda of: 06/12/2006 Dept/Div /Board .. AILS/City Clerk Staff Contact. ..... Bonnie I. Walton Agenda Status Consent. ............. Subject: Public Hearing .. Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated 4/25/2006 Correspondence .. Ordinance ............. regarding Rainier Mixed Use South Parking Lot (Administrative Site Plan review File No. LUA-04-093 Resolution ............ Old Business ........ SA and Variance review File No. LUA-05-133 V) Exhibits: New Business ....... A. City Clerk's letter (5/30/2006) Study Sessions ...... B. Appeal -JDA Group, LLC (5/8/2006) Information ......... C. Hearing Examiner's Report & Decision (4/25/2006) Recommended Action: Approvals: Refer to Planning and Development Committee Legal Dept ........ . Finance Dept. .... . Other .............. . Fiscal Impact: N/A Expenditure Required .. . Transfer/Amendment. ..... . Amount Budgeted ...... . Revenue Generated ........ . Total Project Budget City Share Total Project.. SUMMARY OF ACTION: Appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision on the Rainier Mixed Use South Parking Lot was filed on 5/8/2006 by Baylis Architects, Representative for JDA Group, LLC, accompanied by the required $75 fee. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Take action on the Rainier Mixed Use South Parking Lot appeal. Rentonnetlagnbilll bh X CI'I May 30, 2006 APPEAL FILED BY: JDA Group, LLC OF RENTON City Clerk Bonnie I. Walton RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated 4/2512006 regarding JDA Group, LLC's application to construct 27 parking spaces within a surface lot associated with Chang's Mongolian Grill restaurant, involving Administrative Site Plan review (File No. LUA-04- 093, SA) and Variance review (File No. LUA-05-133, V) To Parties of Record: Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Renton City Code of Ordinances, written appeal of the hearing examiner's decision on the Rainier Avenue Mixed-Use South Parking Lot project has been filed with the City Clerk. In accordance with Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-I 1 OF, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. Other parties of record may submit letters in support of their positions within ten (10) days of the date of mailing of the notification of the filing of the appeal. The deadline for submission of additional letters is June 9, 2006. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the written appeal and other pertinent documents will be reviewed by the Council's Planning and Development Committee. The Council liaison will notify all parties of record of the date and time of the Planning and Development Committee meeting. If you are not listed in local telephone directories and wish to attend the meeting, please call the Council liaison at 425-430-6501 for information. The recommendation of the Committee will be presented for consideration by the full Council at a subsequent Council meeting. Attached is a copy of the Renton Municipal Code regarding appeals of Hearing Examiner decisions or recommendations. Please note that the City Council will be considering the merits of the appeal based upon the written record previously established. Unless a showing can be made that additional evidence could not reasonably have been available at the prior hearing held by the Hearing Examiner, no further evidence or testimony on' this matter will be accepted by the City Council. For additional information or assistance, please feel free to call me at 425-430-6502. Sincerely, Bonnie I. Walton City Clerk/Cable Manager Attachments cc: Council Liaison -lO-S-S-So-u-th-Gra-d-y-W-a-y---R-en-to-n-, W-as-hin-gt-o-n-9S-0-SS---(4-2-S)-4-30--6S-1-0 -, P-AX-(-4-2S-)-43-0--6-S-16-R E N TON * This paper contains 50% recycled material, 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE APPEAL OF I RING EXAMINER'S DECISIONJ :OMMENDATION TO RENTON CITY COUNCIL FILENO. Lb'/l &>4093/ 4/A 0:5-/.73 MXEP t/i..r ~>VrH AF?e&%>¥4-tt-,~ 7 7 The undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the decision oFi~~IfiW1 of the Land Use Hearing Examiner, dated ~,k'/L Z5 , 20~ MAY 082006 .1,·$0 RECEIVED 1. IDENTIFICATION OF PARTY APPELLANT: Name: 71?A ~1?~P REPRESENTATIVE (IP'A.'f.AlptK'S OFFICE Name: ~L/5 &Cd/TE0:5- Address: 5(-'7 seV;>"H .:0.6"/.IV Address: @J1?/ a'W,v ~E4T ffNL?N, kJA 9&05_5' &Z/EI/VE« WA reCJ~"4 7 2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Attach additional sheets, if necessary) Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is based: /' FINDING OF FACT: (please designate number as denoted in the Examiner's Report) /' No. Erro~ ..... ________________________________________ ~~ ____________ _ Correction: ____________________________ ~---------------------- CONCLUSIONS: No. Error: _________________ -rl~~----------------------------------- Correction: ..... ________ ~------------------------------------------- OTHER: No. Error: ..... ~~------------------------------------------------------ C ection: ..... ____________________________________________________ _ 3. SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED The City Council is requested to grant the following relief: (Attach explanation, if desired) Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relief: Modify the decision or recommendation as follows: Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows: Other ~ ~#'rlEP NOTE: Please refer to Title IV, Chapter 8, of the Renton Municipal Code, and Section 4-8-110F, for specific appeal procedures. t..~: L~"'l Wt1.rren, CI~Y A+f.cr1'1 f..y tJ e; I Wa..tl-s I "D -t..v .s VC.S -0 tl'fL(. ~r H:\CITY CLERK\APPEAL\APPEAL to Council.doc F " ~ I I .... e..Ci. t'II a.t,.......(l 'tlU1. f"t c.a..r; 1"1 C; Ex CL m-i t1 ~,.... City of Renton Munic Code; Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110 -eals 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-i fop: 'Appeals to City Council -Procedures 1. rime 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 aggifeve'd. by the Examiner's written decision or recommendation may submit a notice of appeal to the City~uncil, upon a form furnished by the City Clerk, within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the Examiner's written report. 2. Notice to Parties of Record: Within five (5) days of receipt of the notice of appeal, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. 3. Opportunity to Provide Comments: Other parties of record may submit letters in support of their positions within ten (10) days of the dates of mailing of the notification of the filing of the notice of appeal. 4. Transmittal of Record to Council: Thereupon the Clerk shall forward to the members of the City Council all of the pertinent documents, including the written decision or recommendation, findings and conclusions contained in the Examiner's report, the notice of appeal, and additional letters submitted by the parties. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-1982) 5. Council Review Procedures: No public hearing shall be held by the City Council. No new or additional evidence or testimony shall be accepted by the City Council unless a showing is made by the party offering the evidence that the evidence could not reasonably have been available at the time of the hearing before the Examiner. If the Council determines that additional evidence is required, the Council shall remand the matter to the Examiner for reconsideration and receipt of additional evidence. The cost of transcription of the hearing record shall be borne by the applicant. In the absence of an entry upon the record of an order by the City Council authorizing new or additional evidence or testimony, and a remand to the Hearing Examiner for receipt of such evidence or testimony, it shall be presumed that no new or additional evidence or testimony has been accepted by the City Council, and that the record before the City Council is identical to the hearing record before the Hearing Examiner. (Ord. 4389, 1-25-1993) 6. Council Evaluation Criteria: The consideration by the City Council shall be based solely upon the record, the Hearing Examiner's report, the notice of appeal and additional submissions by parties. 7. Findings and Conclusions Required: If, upon appeal of a decision of the Hearing Examiner on an application submitted pursuant to RMC 4-1-050Fl, and after examination of the record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, it may remand the proceeding to Examiner for reconsideration, or modify, or reverse the decision of the Examiner accordingly. 8. Council Action: If, upon appeal from a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner upon an application submitted pursuant to RMC 4-1-050F2 and F3, and after examination of the record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, or that a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner should be disregarded or modified, the City Council may remand the proceeding to the Examiner for reconsideration, or enter its own decision upon the application. 9. Decision Documentation: In any event, the decision of the City Council shall be in writing and shall specify any modified or amended findings and conclusions other than those set forth in the report of the Hearing Examiner. Each material finding shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. The burden of proof shall rest with the appellant. (Ord 3658, 9-13-1982) 10. Council Action Final: The action of the Council approving, modifying or rejecting a decision of the Examiner shall be final and conclusive, unless appealed within the time frames established under subsection 05 of this Section. (Ord. 4660, 3-17-1997) May 8, 2006 City Council Members c/o City Clerk City of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way Renton W A 98055 RE: JOB NO.: FILENO.: Subject: Rainier Ave Mixed Use M2-0589 LUA 04-093, ECF, SA-A, LUA 05-133, V-H Appeal of Examiner's Decision Dear Council Members: BAYLIS ARCHITECTS 10801 Main Street Bellevue, WA 98004 T 425 454 0566 www.baylisarchitects.com OITY Of RENTON MAY 082006 "\~ RECEIVED ~ •.. ClERK'S OFFICe On behalf of the JDA Group, LLC, we submit this appeal of the hearing examiner's decision of the referenced application. We request that, after examination of the record, Council determine that substantial errors in fact and in law exist in the record, that the Council reverse the decision of the Examiner accordingly, and that Council enter its own decision upon the application. This application is for Site Plan Approval and for a Tree Cutting and Clearing Variance related to the installation of a surface parking lot in a Commercial Arterial Zone. The existing area of the proposed parking lot contains a small, low class wetland, which at the time of application, was highly contaminated with neighborhood trash, tires and noxious weeds. The site also contains steep slopes which will not be touched by the proposed improvements, and a small, intermittent watercourse in a shallow ditch fully contained within the wetland area. History as included in the record. Because of the underlying CA zoning and the poor condition of the wetland area, the applicant and city staff have worked diligently for the last four years to find an environmentally and economically responsible solution for the productive use of this property. In 2004, the owner retained the services of a wetlands consultant, Celeste Botha, regionally recognized for her work, including working directly for other Eastside municipalities. She conducted an on-site delineation, prepared a wetland report and became an integral part of the owner's design team, working for a solution with the city staff. Her leadership developed the concept that enlarging, enhancing and protecting an adjacent, higher and more productive wetland was environmentally far better than trying to salvage the subject small, low class and contaminated wetland. Thus the concept for re-development of the site was initiated. In early 2004, with city staff's conceptual agreement, the owner authorized the wetlands consultant and the landscape architect to proceed with the preparation of the detailed staging, mitigation and landscaping plan, Renton City Council-Appeal May 8th, 2006 Page 2 which was completed in July 2004. This report was reviewed by city staff, and with their concurrence of the reasonableness of its conclusions, the owner then authorized the civil engineer to proceed with all the construction documents, including analysis of the drainage courses and existing culverted outflows, and to proceed with the construction permits application. During the permit review process, it was identified that the Renton Municipal Code requires that a Tree Cutting and Clearing Variance must be granted before any wetland can be filled ... no matter the quality of the wetland being filled nor the wisdom and strength of the proposed mitigation enhancements. This variance can only be granted by the examiner. And, since the project was now to go the examiner, so also must go the Site Plan Approval application, which up to this time was being reviewed by the administration. Thus, what was thought for four years to be a straight forward administrative application, resulting in an environmental and economic win-win, now fell into the cogs of municipal processing. Errors in the Findings of Fact and in Law During the course of the hearing, the examiner questioned the classification of the wetland, the enhancement plan for the adjacent higher category wetland, the value of the increased buffers of the adjacent wetland, the existing lack of surface water storage capacity of the wetland, and the relationship of the watercourse to the wetland; all issues which, as advanced in the examiner's report, he did not understand that led to substantial errors in fact and in law. Wetland Classification. Adjacent Enhancement and Fill The classification of the wetland has clearly become a pivotal issue for the examiner and clearly impacts his decision. On this point, it remains most important to note that, as demonstrated in its decision, the independent Environmental Review Committee accepted the wetland classification as Class 3, agreed with the value of the enhancements proposed for the adjacent Class 2 wetland, supported the buffer enhancements proposed and agreed with the proposal to fill the small Class 3 wetland The ERC put 5 mitigation measures into its revised determination, all of which are common mitigations in our city and to all of which the applicant has agreed. Further, it is important to note that, although there are many parties of record, no appeals of the ERC's revised determination were f1led, and no other members of the public attended the examiner's hearing. Thus, the matter of wetland classification, which is the preview only of the ERC as point of law, is and should not have been before the examiner. Further, as a follow-up to the hearing, and at the examiner's request, the Development Services Director again issued the decision "that the wetland is a Class 3 wetland". Yet the examiner remains un-extricated from this issue. As demonstrated in finding 14, the examiner, in noting receipt of the Development Services Director's decision, purposefully uses a disjunctive which clearly belies the fact that the examiner remains unconvinced. This opinion tainted the hearing as well as the report (pp. 3, 4 & 5). It overshadowed the value of the proposed mitigation measures and led to the dramatic, yet false, Conclusion 10: "Asp halting a wetland and culverting a creek does not do much to mitigate impacts to the subject site." Even Finding 6 recognizes only that the "second wetland would be enhanced to offset filling", which is factually in error as it totally misses that the second wetland would be substantially enlarged, the eastern buffer would be totally rebuilt after the decades of tires and garbage are removed, and the Renton City Council-Appeal May 8th, 2006 Page 3 renewed wetland would be fenced along the eastern edge where it is most vulnerable to the impacts of human trespass. Storage Capacity of the Wetland During the hearing, the examiner questioned "if the wetland is filled, will it displace water around it" (p 4, Para. 1). AHBL, the project civil engineer, addressed this concern in its testimony. Further, as demonstrated in the construction documents, which are and have been on flle with the city, and are part of the record, the engineer shows that the existing wetland has no existing surface water storage capacity, since the outflow of the wetland equals the inflow elevation of the existing culvert drainage pipe. Thus, no surface water storage capacity is being displaced. Yet the examiner notes, after the engineer's testimony, that he remains concerned "the first flush won't be swept off into the lake" (p 5, Para. 6). On this issue, city staff noted that it "did not know for sure", ... a most unfortunate statement, since the plans had been under review for more than a year. Staff's statement led the examiner to conclude that "he would need to know this infonnation prior to doing any work." Perhaps a factual statement, given staff's testimony, but certainly not a conclusion based on the actual facts. Relationship of the Wetland and the Watercourse Finding 15 notes that ''There is an onsite watercourse that drains the wetland area ... " This fmding is not correct. As shown in the drawings of the application, the wetland connects directly to a culvert, which is the drain for the wetland. Finding 15 infers that the wetland precedes the watercourse and contributes to the water quality of the watercourse. In fact, the uplands seepage and city controlled roadway culvert drainage flow into the watercourse, which, in tum drains to the wetland area and then immediately into the culvert. This water remains in a culvert as it passes under the adjacent paved car lot, under Rainier Ave. and under the airport ... all the way to the final daylight at Lake Washington. As a final note, although not a finding of fact or law, the examiner expressed concern as to the length of culvert being proposed. As proposed in the application, the culvert ends west of the parking lot edge, extending under the full length of the westerly sloped grades. It should be noted that this length can be reduced by constructing an ecology block retaining wall at the edge of the new parking lot pavement and shortening the culvert. Finally, we would like to draw the Council's attention to the testimony of the staff on this application. After years of analysis and scrutiny by staff and the many technical consultants, staff concluded that ''The applicant has justified the variance request ... " (p 2, Para. 5). We encourage and look forward to your favorable consideration, and again, ask the Council to fmd that there are substantial errors in fact and in law in the record, that the Council reverse the decision of the Examiner accordingly, and that Council enter its own decision upon the application by approving the application as presented by the staff report. Renton City Council-Appeal May 8th, 2006 Page 4 Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, BAYLIS ARCHITECTS Meredith Everist for Richard L. Wagner, AlA cc: JDA Group-Jack Alhadeff AHBL-Matt Weber Riley Group-Celeste Botha Fred Kaufmann, City of Renton Hearing Jennifer Toth Henning, City of Renton, Senior Planner RLW: jlc TO City of Renton, City Council Members 1055 South Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 ATTENTION o Enclosed o Original COPIES DATED 00 Copy of Letter o Shop Drawing CrrY OF RENTON MAY 082006 ';J~ .......... ,." ........ o Mail o FAX o Courier 00 Delv. o Prints o Disk DESCRIPTION 1 5/8/2006 Request for Appeal of Examiner's Decision These are transmitted as checked below o For approval o As requested o Approval as noted o For your use o For review and comment o Approval as submitted Remarks Copy to: Jack Alhadef,JDA Group, 95 South Tobin, Suite 201, Renton, WA 98055 1 080 1 Main Street Bellevue, WA 98004 T 425 454 0566 IF 425 453 8013 www.ooylisarchitects.com JOB NO M5-0106 RE Rainier Station FILE DATE 5/8/2006 FAX PAGES o Correct and re-submit o Forwarded without review Jennifer Toth Henning, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055 Matt Weber, AHBL, 2215 North 30th Street, Suite 300, Tacoma, WA 98403 Fred Kaufman, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, W A 98055 Celeste Botha, Riley Group, 2025 S. Norman Street, Seattle, WA 98144 00 Mail OFAX Signed Thank You, o Courier Meredith April 25, 2006 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON Minutes APPLICANT/OWNER: LOCATION: SUMMARY OF REQUEST: SUMMARY OF ACTION: DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT: PUBLIC HEARING: IDA Group, LLC I.D. Kline Corporation 95 S Tobin Street Renton, W A 98055 Rainier Mixed Use South Parking Lot File No.: LUA 04-093, ECF, SA-A And LUA 05-133, V-H West of Rainier Avenue North and north of Chang's Mongolian Grill. Southeast ofNW 6th Street. South Parcel, 20.012 square feet and a north parcel 59,951 square feet. Administrative Site Plan and Variance review for the construction of27 parking spaces within a surface lot associated with Chang's Mongolian Grill restaurant. Development Services Recommendation: Approve with conditions The Development Services Report was received by the Examiner on March 7, 2006. After reviewing the Development Services Report, examining available information on file with the application, field checking the property and surrounding area; the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The following minutes are a summary of the March 14, 2006 hearing. The legal record is recorded on CD. The hearing opened on Tuesday, March 14,2006, at 9:03 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affIrmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No.1: Yellow file containing the original Exhibit No.2: Neighborhood Map application, proof of posting, proof of publication and other documentation pertinent to this request. Exhibit No.3: Overall Site Plan Exhibit No.4: South Lot and South Wetland Fill Plan Exhibit No.5: North Wetland Enlargement and Exhibit No.6: Conceptual Planting Plan Enhancement Plan Rainier Mixed Use South P; 19 Lot File No.: LUA-04-093, ECF, SA-A and LUA-05-133, V-H April 25, 2006 Page 2 Exhibit No.7: Demolition and TESC Plan Exhibit No.9: North Wetland Grading and Drainage Plan Exhibit No 11: ERC Mitigation Measures Exhibit No 13: Letter from Hugh Mortensen, The Watershed Company, dated December 13,2005 Exhibit No.8: Parking Lot Grading and Drainage Plan Exhibit No. 10: Zoning Map Exhibit No. 12: Letter from Kathy Curry, The Watershed Company, dated August 3 1,2004 The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by Keri Weaver, Senior Planner, Development Services, City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98055. The proposal would create a 27 stall parking lot on approximately 20,000 square feet of a 1.55 acre parcel located on the west side of Rainier Avenue North with a driveway connection from the existing Chang's Mongolian Grill parking lot located off of Rainier. This is proposed to provide overflow parking for the restaurant and to accommodate the current rush hour parking shortages on the existing parking lot. The site of the south wetland area has significant areas of steep slopes with ravines and wetlands located at the bottom of those slopes and are largely wooded at this time. The site is bounded by residential properties to the west, the large change in grade does provide a natural separation buffer. The site is zoned Commercial Arterial (CA) and the parking lot is a pennitted use within that zone. The proposed design of the parking lot drainage and access points does comply with the zone requirements. In order to construct a parking lot on this location, it will be necessary to fill a small area of wetland and wetland buffer on a wetland that has been identified by the applicant as meeting the requirements of a Category 3 wetland classification. This wetland is located on the south side of the property between two areas of steep slopes. The applicant proposed to mitigate this impact to the wetland by offsite creation and enhancement at a ratio of 1.5: 1 on what is referred to as the north wetland, a Category 2 wetland on a non-contiguous property under the same ownership. The applicant also proposed buffer averaging for the north wetland with a 25-foot buffer instead of 50-feet on the east side, which is currently under review as Rainier Station. There is an onsite watercourse extending from the Category 3 wetland that is proposed to be culverted to accommodate the parking lot. In order to remove trees and vegetation within 25-feet of this watercourse area, a variance will be required. The project is not subject to the current critical areas regulations. The applicant has justified the variance request by demonstrating hardship caused by the topographical limitations of the property including steep slopes, wetlands and the on-site watercourse that does prevent the majority of the site from being used for commercial development as allowed by zoning without significant alteration of the terrain and removal of sensitive areas. The project represents a minimal disturbance of the property. Mitigation conditions will be imposed through the SEPA DNS-M and the site plan conditions to prevent erosion and runoff and disturbance to wetland areas and to enhance an off-site wetland of a higher category. Prior to final approval, additional information will be necessary to finalize the category determination of the south wetland. Consultants have indicated that it may meet the requirements for a Category 2 wetland. This Rainier Mixed Use South Panung Lot File No.: LUA-04-093, ECF, SA-A and LUA-05-133, V-H April 25, 2006 Page 3 does not impact the applicant's vested ability to undertake the proposed partial fill or to place the parking lot in the desired location. The Examiner stated that we should know what the category of the wetland actually is before proceeding any further. Ms. Weaver stated she had been informed that they could proceed with preliminary approval, as the location of the parking lot would not need to be altered, it was the off-site mitigation that could be required to increase on the north wetland without having an effect on the south wetland. If it is determined that the south wetland meets the requirements of a Category 2 wetland the applicant would be required to undertake additional off-site mitigation that would occur on the north wetland by increasing wetland creation, enhancements or buffers. A Category 3 wetland normally requires a 25-foot buffer and a Category 2 would require 50-feet. The modification to the parking was requested because currently Chang's has sufficient parking under code to serve the size of the restaurant. They requested a modification in order to provide additional parking off-site. It was determined, after review, that there is sufficient traffic and need to justify this modification. There was discussion regarding the removal of the natural detention provided by the wetland and whether or not that would contribute to future downstream problems or flooding. Rich Wagner, Baylis Architects, 10801 Main Street, Ste. 110, Bellevue, WA 98004 stated that the goals of the project were to make a commercially zoned property productive. There is an existing restaurant that could be much more productive, there are not a lot of alternative uses for a site like this and in this particular area given the boulevard that it is on, there is an immense amount of traffic but not a lot of transit. The City does try to keep the amount of asphalt low and yet access high. The City parking cap is not necessarily applicable here and that is why they have asked for the modification. This site is separated from the residential and the residential people have been advised about this potential rezone. There have been no comments from these people concerning this application. The parking lot is going to be an important aspect to the existing restaurant, it is also believed that as this area continues to redevelop that parking lot will be in the right location. The quality of this wetland, based on research, is not the same quality as the Class 2 that is to the north. By enhancing the Class 2 the neighborhood is getting a better environment from this change. The Examiner stated that there is dispute over the wetland. The Category of that wetland has been undecided. Mr. Wagner stated that experts had been brought in to make a determination. Last year the City did invite an opinion from the Watershed Company, they did an independent investigation. Those findings were never seen until just a couple of months ago. Last year Watershed did another analysis. There seems to be two professional opinions that do not agree. The Examiner stated that that may be the case, but at this point he does not have the information that is needed to make a decision on this property. The City and applicant can resolve it and find it is a Category 2, or the City can decide that it is a Category 3 and then go ahead and expend the north wetland further. A third option is that the applicant can appeal the determination of the category of the wetland. Rainier Mixed Use South Pa g Lot File No.: LUA-04-093, ECF, SA-A and LUA-05-133, V-H April 25, 2006 Page 4 He would like to know the category of the wetland that is proposed to be buried, along with the stream course that feeds it and beyond. Also, according to the report, it is not known if the wetland is filled will it displace water around it. Mr. Wagner stated that HBL has taken this project all the way to a building permit application and so it is known that it does accommodate a displacement. What he does not have is the documentation, but that can be presented to staff to make sure that that question is addressed and removed from the table. If for some unknown reason it were determined to be a Class 2 wetland, the actual work on this particular site would likely not change. The fill mitigation that is proposed on the north wetland is an expansion of a Class 2 wetland to mitigate the fill of the Class 3. The wetland itself continues up into the valley and there would be plenty of opportunity to buffer average in that area. HBL was brought in two years ago for the examination of this site, basically the intent is to clean up the trash and continue to clean up any noxious weeds that show up. The wetland area is fairly well cleaned up currently and that is because when the applicant took over ownership of the property they went in and cleaned the area. This site is owned by IDA Group. Because the site is so close to the Lake Washington basin, it was inappropriate to have retention/detention here, however, they were striving for water quality and that is why the biofiltering is being proposed. The Examiner stated that he would probably not close the hearing, Ms. Weaver is not at liberty to make that kind of decision at this hearing. The record would be held open until the matter is clarified. The City has environmental amenities that they try to protect, wetlands get moved, creeks can be put underground in a ditch or pipe and that may not be appropriate. The drainage course may be rerouted. Celeste Botha, 2025 S Norman Street, Seattle, WA 98144 stated that it might not be appropriate at this time for her to make a case for her determination. She went through the letter from the Watershed Company dated August 31, 2004 and explained the issues covered therein. The hydrology patterns have been addressed by the hydrologists and the engineers and require no further interpretation. Permits from the state and federal government are also standard and will be handled at the appropriate time. The minimum buffer that is required is regulated by the ordinary high water mark of the stream and that is included in the wetland so that the stream buffer is inside the wetland itself. The stream flows from the west towards the east and comes from offsite to the west and then goes into a series of pipes into the lake. As far as disturbance to native buffer areas, that will be addressed in the next phase and refers to the north wetland area where the mitigation is going to occur. The delineation report explains why this area, although the water is very close to the surface, the Watershed Company accepted the delineation and therefore agreed that it did not meet the wetland criteria. The performance standards have been changed in the most recent revisions to the wetland report will be submitted soon. The request was to put in the parking lot prior to the mitigation measures on the north wetland being in place for 12 months. The mitigation measures on the north would be in place and completed before any work was started on the south lot, they just would not have been monitored for 12 months. Item 10 in the Watershed letter has been revised for future submittal. A five-year monitoring schedule will be provided. Rainier Mixed Use South ParlUng Lot File No.: LUA-04-093, ECF, SA-A and LUA-05-133, V-H April 25, 2006 Page 5 The next letter from Watershed dated December 13,2005 was the first time that the applicant became aware that Watershed was involved. This was the first that they became aware that the categorization of the south wetland was accurately delineated but there was some trouble with the categorization. The watercourses classification is difficult, the City did not originally classify watercourses. She discussed with the City and as she understood it, those sections of the Code were reserved. As far as buffers being increased where the slopes exceed 15% there is ample space on the project for this to occur, the drawings can be revised to show the increased buffer area. Mr. Wagner stated that in both letters from Watershed they talk about exploring different options, many options were explored although Watershed was not a part of that teamwork. The options are, you continue to add more parking or you reduce parking because of the topographic layout, this was the only option to develop the site in any usable way. One idea that Watershed did have was to not do a paper fill, but to do an ecology wall and that appeared to be a great idea. Ryan Jeffries, 2215 North 30th Street, Tacoma, WA stated that he was here to speak about the drainage on the property, the existing watercourse flows from the west into the site through the wetland via the stream and is currently collected in a catch basin in the middle of the site. That flow from the stream is adequately conveyed through the existing City storm system. The proposal is to add 128 linear feet of culvert at the west edge of the parking lot and convey that into the existing system basically at its current locations. Approximately 120 feet of pipe will be added. The parking lot will be collected in a bio-infiltration facility at the south edge of the parking lot where it will be treated and also a measure of water quantity will be provided via the infiltration facility there, water quality and quantity will be provided in this proposed facility. That facility will overflow into a catch basin and drain into the City system at its current location on the site, which has adequate capacity. The surface water runoff flow rates will be increased slightly, however they will be mitigated via the infiltration facility that will be provided on-site so that the downstream system will not be significantly altered in terms of its flow rates. The water quality portion of the facility will meet the requirements in terms of removal of total suspended solids, oils, and grease which will all be treated in the bioswale. The Examiner stated that it is very difficult to rectify existing conditions along Rainier with all the facilities that are present but this facility should be designed so that the first flush won't be swept off into the lake. A wetland and a stream course are being buried to create a parking lot, which is not necessarily an environmental amenity. Mike Dotson, Development Services stated that the engineer addressed most of the Examiner's issues. They would need to demonstrate that the downstream system is sized to convey any future condition flows and that would be a requirement of their engineering design, if it did not they would be responsible to increase the system so that it would adequately convey flows. It was also mentioned that on-site detention would be provided to meet the design storm standards in order to mitigate their on-site runoff from the new impervious area they are creating. As to how much water storage capacity is being replaced by paving the wetland and the area adjacent to the wetland, he had not seen the report and so he did not know for sure. The Examiner stated that it would seem that the applicant would need to know this information prior to doing any work. In this area the water table is not that low and so it is impossible to just carve out a potential holding pond, you might not have the storage capacity there. Rainier Mixed Use South Parl ~ Lot File No.: LUA-04-093, ECF, SA-A and LUA-05-133, V-H April 25, 2006 Page 6 Mr. Wagner stated that one of the things that has happened on this application is HBL, on behalf of the applicant, has actually filed for construction pennits. It was a review of those construction pennits that triggered a couple of the things that needed to be revised for the tree cutting ordinance, which brought forth the variances today. The application that had been filed with the City was suspended because of the processing of that construction pennit pending this hearing. The infonnation can be gathered and given to the Examiner ifhe wishes. The Examiner stated that he would close this session, but not the hearing. In order to go forward, he wants to know the Category or Classification of this wetland. If the parties wish to agree to the greater standard so it is final and done, that will be acceptable. The record will be open until that infonnation is received. The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak, and no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at 10: 16 am. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The applicant, IDA Group, LLC, and ID. Kline Corp., filed a request for a Variance from the Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Regulations, as well as a Site Plan approvaL 2. The yellow file containing the staff report, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) documentation and other pertinent materials was entered into the record as Exhibit #1. 3. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC), the City's responsible official issued a Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M). 4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter. 5. The primary subject site is located west of 505 Rainier Avenue North and southeast ofNW 6th Street if that street were extended to the east. The site is located north of Chang's Mongolian Grill, a restaurant. If the variance allowing vegetation removal is approved, a parking lot would be developed to serve that restaurant. The applicant would also fill a portion of a wetland on this primary site to enable the construction of the parking lot. 6. A second parcel involved in the application is north of the first. It also contains a wetland. This second wetland would be enhanced to offset filling wetlands on the proposed parking lot parceL 7. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as suitable for the development of employment generating uses, but does not mandate such development without consideration of other policies of the Plan. 8. The subject site is currently zoned CA (Commercial Arterial). 9. The subject site was annexed to the City with the adoption of Ordinance 1461 enacted in November 1963. Rainier Mixed Use South Par, ... ug Lot File No.: LUA-04-093, ECF, SA-A and LUA-05-133, V-H April 25, 2006 Page 7 10. The parcel is approximately 20,012 square feet. The applicant would develop approximately 9,200 square feet for the parking lot. 11. The south parcel contains approximately 16,600 square feet of wetlands while the north parcel contains approximately 21,700 square feet of wetland. 12. The applicant proposes filling approximately 2,017 square feet of wetland and 1,574 square feet of required buffer for total fill of 3,591 square feet to create the parking lot. 13. The parking lot would be northwest of the existing restaurant site. It would be to the rear of an auto repair business. It would be connected by an approximately 80-foot long aisle way to the existing restaurant. The parking lot aisle would be aligned in an east to west direction with the parking stalls oriented in two tiers with cars parked in a north to south orientation. The lot would accommodate 27 vehicles. 14. As noted, there is a wetland on the subject site. The wetland is at the base ofa ravine in the slopes above Rainier Avenue. The wetland was categorized by the applicant's wetland consultant as a Category 3 Wetland. The City's wetland consultant categorized it was a Category 2 Wetland. The status was unresolved at the time of the public hearing. Subsequent to the hearing, on April 6, 2006, the Development Services Director issued a decision that the wetland is a Category 3 wetland but noted in that decision that it appeared to be a close call. 15. There is an onsite watercourse that drains the wetland area and flows toward Rainer Avenue. The applicant proposes clearing vegetation within the 25-foot buffer and culverting the watercourse to develop the parking lot. 16. Chang's Restaurant has 43 on-site parking stalls. Staff reports Chang's Restaurant has 3,500 net square feet of floor area. Code requires 1 parking stall per 100 square feet for eating and drinking establishments or 35 stalls for the restaurant. Currently the restaurant has eight (8) more stalls than required by code. The applicant proposes developing 27 additional stalls for a total of 70 stalls. A modification to develop the excess parking is required. It was approved by the Administrator. 17. The restaurant seats 140 patrons. The applicant maintains that during lunch and some dinner hours the existing parking lot is full and patrons leave since they cannot find parking. 18. Access to the new lot would be via a 22-foot wide driveway from Chang'S existing lot and its driveway on Rainier. CONCLUSIONS: Variance 1. Variances may be granted when the property generally satisfies all the conditions described in part below: a. The applicant suffers undue hardship caused by special circumstances such as: the size, shape, topography, or location where code enforcement would deprive the owner of rights and privileges enjoyed by others similarly situated; Rainier Mixed Use South Par Lot File No.: LUA-04-093, ECF, SA-A and LUA-05-133, V-H April 25, 2006 Page 8 b. The granting of the variance would not materially hann either the public welfare or other property in the vicinity; c. The approval will not constitute a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other property in the vicinity; and d. The variance is the minimum variance necessary to allow reasonable development of the subject site. The applicant's property is not ripe for the variance requested. 2. An analysis of the requested variance involves not only the direct impact of approving the variance but the additional ramifications. In this case, the applicant seeks a variance to cut down trees or vegetation along a stream corridor but in fact granting the variance will result in the culverting of a surface water feature. So while it appears that only vegetation in the required 25-foot buffer would be removed if the variance is approved, the approval actually grants the applicant pennission to remove a creek, a natural, if not critical feature, that is fed by a wetland, another critical feature, located at the base of steep slopes, yet another critical feature. The issue really comes down to whether or not an applicant who purchases or owns a severely constrained site, one with steep slopes, wetlands and a stream suffers a unique hardship that justifies clearing vegetation in the stream's buffer and then culverting the stream, effectively eliminating that stream. The entire request is driven by a request for more parking for a use that already has more than adequate parking according to code standards. The variance cannot be justified under these circumstances. Creating an enlarged parking lot over a portion of a wetland and eliminating a stream is contrary to City goals to maintain environmentally sensitive areas. Of course, as with any Comprehensive Plan policy, one can find a countervailing one. In this case economic development would be the other side of the coin. But using a need for more parking than required by code to eliminate a portion of a wetland and pave over a creek is untenable and does not strike a reasonable balance. 3. While neither the wetland nor creek are pristine, removing them from the inventory of environmentally sensitive site does not serve the public interest. The fact is that they were allowed to be degraded over the years because there was little interest in such natural features. But big rivers are fed by such little streams. The wetland and even this small drainage channel provide biofiltrationjust like the artificial swales created in many new developments only this one is natural, already exists and serves to filter water that eventually flows into Lake Washington. 4. Approving this variance would create an unjustified precedent. The steep hillside above Rainier Avenue is the source of many seeps. Many businesses can claim that they need more parking than code specifies. This would particularly be the case along Rainier Avenue where there are a number of restaurants and other businesses and no access to on-street parking. This office can completely sympathize with the restaurant. All businesses would want a larger customer base than they can support. The City, in adopting its parking standards, has relied on numerous factors and created a reasonable predictor -the square footage of the business. Economics have generally not been an acceptable basis for establishing a hardship. There must be a physical constraint and trading off a parking lot for a wetland and stream course is not appropriate. 5. There is no justification for approving this variance. Rainier Mixed Use South Par.~ .. g Lot File No.: LUA-04-093, ECF, SA-A and LUA-05-133, V-H April 25, 2006 Page 9 Site Plan 6. The site plan ordinance provides a number of specific criteria for reviewing a site plan. Those criteria are generally represented in part by the following enumeration: a. Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; b. Conformance with the Building and Zoning Codes; c. Mitigation of impacts on surrounding properties and uses; d. Mitigation of the impacts of the proposal on the subject site itself; e. Conservation of property values; f. Provision for safe and efficient vehicle and pedestrian circulation; g. Provision of adequate light and air; h. Adequacy of public services to accommodate the propose 7. The proposal is not compatible with the environmental objectives ofthe comprehensive plan. The applicant proposes filling in a portion of a wetland and while the applicant proposes enhancing a separate wetland, a surface stream will be eliminated and placed in a culvert. Natural features should be protected and enhanced. While enhancement is proposed it is not for this wetland but at an off-site location. This wetland is at the base of a steep hillside and drains into a creek. The creek, even as short as it is and as shallow as it is deserves to be protected. 8. Compliance with building code would be determined at a later date. The proposal involves exceeding the normal complement of required parking. While the modification was approved, it would result in sacrificing a surface creek. 9. The creation of additional parking probably would not have a significant impact on adjacent properties but it could result in additional air pollution and engine noise reaching properties upslope from the site. 10. Asphalting a wetland and culverting a creek does not do much to mitigate impacts to the subject site. It is not appropriate to convert sensitive or environmental amenities to asphalt. 11. The development should not affect property values. 12. It would appear that pedestrian and vehicular circulation are adequate. DECISION: The Site Plan and Variance to allow tree cutting and vegetation clearing are not approved. Rainier Mixed Use South Pa g Lot File No.: LUA-04-093, ECF, SA-A and LUA-05-133, V-H April 25, 2006 Page 10 ORDERED THIS 25th day of April 2006. ~ 4/(w~ FRED J. KA1dJ II """" HEARING EXAMINER TRANSMITTED THIS 25th day of April 2006 to the parties of record: Keri Weaver 1055 S Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 Richard Wagner Baylis Architects 10801 Main Street, Ste. 110 Bellevue, W A 98004 Rolland Dewing 210 NW 5th Street Renton, W A 98055 Ronnie & Roberta McDonald 216 NW 5th Street Renton, W A 98055 Lee & Peggy Christopherson 503 Rainier Avenue N Renton, W A 98055 Mike Dotson Development Services Renton, W A 98055 Celeste Botha 2025 S Norman Street Seattle, WA 98144 Carl P. Burns 213 NW 6th Street Renton, W A 98055 Bruce & Sue Gregg 207 NW 5th Street Renton, W A 98055 TRANSMITTED THIS 25th day of April 2006 to the following: Mayor Kathy Keolker Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison Stan Engler, Fire Larry Meckling, Building Official Planning Commission Transportation Division Utilities Division IDA Group, LLC I.D. Kline Corporation 95 South Tobin Street Renton, W A 98055 Ryan Jeffries 2215 North 30th Street Tacoma, WA Mary Jo Carlson 215 NW 5th Street Renton, W A 98055 Sherondia Renee Otis 211 NW 5th Street Renton, W A 98055 Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator Alex Pietsch, Economic Development Jennifer Henning, Development Services Stacy Tucker, Development Services King County Journal Neil Watts, Development Services Janet Conklin, Development Services Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 100Gofthe City's Code, request for reconsideration must be fIled in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., May 8, 2006. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth Rainier Mixed Use South Pa g Lot File No.: LUA-04-093, ECF, SA-A and LUA-05-133, V-H Apri125,2006 Page 11 the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title 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., May 8, 2006. If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants, the executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or final processing ofthe 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 pennits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. SltePLNJPt.doc , • 1 d\ , , \ 'G\ ~\. \ ~ , , J \ , \ \ :lJ\ \ P,\ -\ 'Z,\ -\ rt\' ').)' TII:I aNVl.1.3M' 1; ~~;I I HJ.flOS aNY I • H Ii .1.0' HmOS : • t ; I · · · · " · · ~ · · • • ~ • • • 1-I :~z :z:~ 1-4:~ U) --1-\1) XU) WRt ! $ 0 N " = - -S' t}: Q :z ~ I If -1 Iv lL D z Exhibit 4 ..- i· -• J l! ~1 0 \ \ \ \ ..... --\,,< ' {, : ' ""'--/ ' , , .~ . .J;...,' I ,... , I I I I I I ' I r ,< ,,' /: / ': I / /' I ( I I \ \ ~\ ~ \ \ \ ) / I / / ./ --,--- IJJC1;;:;~:f1 r---~ , ~ , I , h , r1 ~ &:. , .. , I I I I I I I I Exhibit 9 CITY OF RENTON REVISED DETERMINATION OF NON .. SIGNIFICANCE .. MITIGA TED MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA04-093, SA-A, ECF/LUA05-133, V-H APPLICANT: JDA Group, LLC& 10 Kline Corp. PROJECT NAME: Rainier Avenue Mixed-Use South Parking Lot DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and Administrative Site Plan review for the construction of 27 parking spaces within a surface lot associated with the adjacent Chang's Mongolian Grill restaurant The proposal includes portions of two large parcels containing Category 2 and 3 wetlands. The Category 3 wetland would be filled to accommodate the parking lot, with wet/and compensation proposed off-site that would include wetland creation, enhancement and buffer averaging. A variance from the Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Regulations is required for proposed vegetation removal and work within the 25-ft. buffer of the onsite watercourse/stream. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: LEAD AGENCY: MfTIGA nON MEASURES: West ot 505 Ranier Avenue N & southeast of NW 6th Street The City of Renton Department of Planning/BuHamglPublic Works Development Planning Section 1. The project shaH be required to be designed and comply with the Department of Ecology's (DOE) Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements, outlined in Volume" of the 2001 Stormwater Management Manual. 2. During site preparation and construction, the applicant shall install silt fencing with brightly colored construction flags to indicate the boundaries of the North and South wetlands and buffer areas adjacent to the proposed construction areas. The sa·tisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the review and approval of the DeveJopment Services Division and be completed prior to the issuance of construction/utility pennits. 3. After the development of parking lot and associated site improvements, the applicant shan install permanent fencing (i.e. split-rail fence or. other approved barrier) and signage along the entire eastern edge of the North and South wetland buffers. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division. 4. The applicant shall provide the total buffer fill square footage and an update landscape ptan illustrating the exact locations of where interplanting was installed on the South Parcel as part of the Wetfand Mitigation Plan. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division. 5. In the event that archaeological deposits are found during construction, work shall stop and the contractor(s) shall contact the State Archaeologist at the State of Washington Office of Archaeology and HistoriC PreservaUon, phone (360) 586-3065. Exhibit 11 oRe Mitigation Measures Page 1 of 1 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: PLANNINGIBUILDINGI PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM April 6, 2006 Fred Kaufman, Hearing Examiner Neil Watts, Development Services Director Wetland Classification -Chang's Parking Lot Expansion This memo is in response to your inquiry of the appropriate classification for the wetland area associated with the Chang's Parking Lot Expansion west of Rainier A venue N. I concur with the applicant's conclusion that this wetland area is most appropriately classified as a Category 3 wetland. The specific characteristics of this wetland do not neatly fall into any of the available definitions for either a Category 2 or Category 3 wetland. Our recommendation is based on our review of the definitions for these two categories, and of the characteristics of this particular wetland. This wetland is a section of sloped area, which is subject to seeps and ground water flow, which results in a continually wet condition. It is not a pond or typical wetland with any accumulation of surface water. The area is vegetated with noxious weeds, and has been subject to remediation efforts to remove the undesired plant species. The wet area is adjacent to a drainage course, which is classified as a stream. The stream begins upstream from this location, draining a small basin area consisting of homes, yards, undeveloped slopes and public streets. This wetland is not located at the headwaters of this drainage course. The wetland has very limited value in tenns of nonnal wetland values and functions. It is clear that this wetland is not a Category 1 wetland. The decision is whether it is appropriately treated as a Category 2 or Category 3 wetland. Renton's wetland regulations list out various potential definitions for qualifying as either of these categories. This wetland does not meet any of these definitions, although it most closely meets definition "a" (severely disturbed) of the definitions for a Category 3 wetland. We are left with the last definition for these two categories. A wetland can be classified as a Category 2 if it is not a Category 1 or 3 wetland, or it can be classified a Category 3 if it not a Category 1 or 2. As the wetland fails to completely fit into any of the other definitions for either a Category 2 or 3 wetland, we are left with having to decide where it best fits based on its wetland values and functions. This wetland does not meet the values and functions of a Category 2 wetland as it provides little in the way of hydrological value, limited habitat value and has been severely disturbed with invasive plant species. Therefore, it complies with definition "c" for a Category 3 wetland and is treated as a Category 3 wetland, with associated buffer requirements and replacement ratio requirements. May 30,2006 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) § COUNTY OF KING ) BONNIE 1. WALTON, City Clerk for the City of Renton, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says that she is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Washington, over the age of21 and not a party to nor interested in this matter. That on the 30th day of May, 2006, at the hour of 5:00 p.m your affiant duly mailed and placed in the United States Post Office at Renton, King County, Washington, by first class mail to all parties of record, notice of appeal filed by JDA Group, LLC of the Hearing Examiner's recommendation on the construction of27 parking spaces within a surface lot associated with Chang's Mongolian Grill restaurant, involving Administrative Site Plan review (File No. LUA-04-093, SA) and Variance review (File No. LUA-05-133, V). Bonnie 1. Walton, City Clerk SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE me this 30th day of May, 2006. Deborah 1. Evans Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing in Bothell May 30, 2006 CIT~F RENTON City Clerk Bonnie I. Walton APPEAL FILED BY: JDA Group, LLC RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated 4/25/2006 regarding JDA Group, LLC's application to construct 27 parking spaces within a surface lot associated with Chang's Mongolian Grill restaurant, involving Administrative Site Plan review (File No. LUA-04- 093, SA) and Variance review (File No. LUA-05-133, V) To Parties of Record: Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Renton City Code of Ordinances, written appeal of the hearing examiner's decision on the Rainier A venue Mixed-Use South Parking Lot project has been filed with the City Clerk. In accordance with Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11 OF, the City Clerk shall notifY all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. Other parties of record may submit letters in support of their positions within ten (10) days of the date of mailing of the notification of the filing of the appeal. The deadline for submission of additional letters is June 9,2006. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the written appeal and other pertinent documents will be reviewed by the Council's Planning and Development Committee. The Council liaison will notifY all parties of record of the date and time of the Planning and Development Committee meeting. If you are not listed in local telephone directories and wish to attend the meeting, please call the Council liaison at 425-430-6501 for information. The recommendation of the Committee will be presented for consideration by the full Council at a subsequent Council meeting. Attached is a copy of the Renton Municipal Code regarding appeals of Hearing Examiner decisions or recommendations. Please note that the City Council will be considering the merits of the appeal based upon the written record previously established. Unless a showing can be made that additional evidence could not reasonably have been available at the prior hearing held by the Hearing Examiner, no further evidence or testimony on this matter will be accepted by the City Council. For additional information or assistance, please feel free to call me at 425-430-6502. Sincerely, Bonnie 1. Walton City Clerk/Cable Manager Attachments cc: Council Liaison -lO-S-S-S-ou-th-Gr-ad-y-W-a-y---R-en-to-n-, W-as-hin-gt-o-n-9-8-0S-S---(4-2S-)-4-30--6-S-10-/-F-AX-(-42-S-) 4-3-0--6-S1-6-~ * This paper contains 50% recycled matenal. 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE • Jack Alhadeff JDA Group, LLC/JD Kline Corp. 95 S Tobin St, Suite #201 Renton, W A 98055 Lee & Peggy Christopherson 503 Rainier A v N Renton, W A 98055 Ronnie & Roberta McDonald 216 NW 5th St Renton, W A 98055 Matt Weber AHBL, Inc. 2215 N 30th St, Suite #300 Tacoma, W A 98403 Carl P. Bums 213 NW 6th St Renton, W A 98055 Rolland Dewing 210 NW 5th St Renton, W A 98055 Sherondia Renee Otis 211 NW 5th St Renton, W A 98055 Mary J 0 Carlson 215 NW 5th St Renton, W A 98055 Bruce & Sue Gregg 207 NW 5th St Renton, W A 98055 Richard Wagner Baylis Architects 10801 Main St, Suite #110 Bellevue, W A 98004 Parties of Record LUA-04-093 & LUA-05-133 Appeal to Council Mailing Labels APPEAL OF Hl ING EXAMINER'S DECISIONIR )MMENDATION TO RENTON CITY COUNCIL FILE NO. LU/1 &>4 09.3/ Lt/A 0:5-/...?3 MXEP t./~r ~Vr/-/ M-<#«v4-c-~.or-j 7 The undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the decision oRlY~I~ of the Land Use Hearing Examiner, dated ~//P/<'/L 25 , 20 c~ 1. IDENTIFICATION OF PARTY MAY 082006 .I:~O RECEIVED APPELLANT: ~ Name: JQ/4 G1:?tJP REPRESENT A TIVE (lplAf.!¥.f.RK'S OFFICE Name: ~L/5 d'1::<'?'lTEc::75' Address: 5("'7 sO~rH .a>£".hV Address: /afl;?/ 4W-v .::::e£~ ~Z?N, LuA 9&05_5' &Z/EI,/VE! ?VA '7eO~?4 7 2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Attach additional sheets, if necessary) Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is based: . FINDING OF FACT: (Please designate number as denoted in the Examiner's Report)./~/ . /. No. Error: ____________________________________________ ~--------------- Correction: ------------------------------"-7'---------------------- CONCLUSIONS: No. Error: __________________ ~~~~----------------------------------- OTHER: Correction: -----------r~-----------------------------------------~/ No. ~ Error: __ ~£~--------------------------------------------------------/7 ~tion:--------------------------------------------------------- ..,./ 3. SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED The City Council is requested to grant the following relief: (Attach explanation, if desired) Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relief: Modify the decision or recommendation as follows: Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows: Other y-Z:-,4rr/KW £D ~L-., /~----/ ~YL/S /~LH/7Ca5~' _--=>6:~:4~@fo __ CJ.....:.....~ _____ __ p ~epresentative Signatutf Date " NOTE: Please refer to Title IV, Chapter 8, of the Renton Municipal Code, and Section 4·8-110F, for specific appeal procedures. ! ~: L (M-r'l W 4.r ren, C J ty .A-+l&r11 Co. y tJ e; I W 4A·l-s J D -e.\I oS vc:.~ 1) t ('~I!-J.,r H:\CITYCLERK\APPEAL\APPEALtoCounciLdoc Fr-e...d. k'tU.o.-.f"'-UI, f./f!A.rit1S EX<l.m;I1~'- City of Renton Municip ode; Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110 -APl'--als 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-~-i lOP: 'Appeals to City Council -Procedures 1. T.ime 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 aggfleve'd by the Examiner's written decision or recommendation may submit a notice of appeal to the Ci~y 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 shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. 3. Opportunity to Provide Comments: Other parties of record may submit letters in support of their positions within ten (10) days of the dates of mailing of the notification of the filing of the notice of appeal. 4. Transmittal of Record to Council: Thereupon the Clerk shall forward to the members of the City Council all of the pertinent documents, including the written decision or recommendation, findings and conclusions contained in the Examiner's report, the notice of appeal, and additional letters submitted by the parties. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-1982) 5. Council Review Procedures: No public hearing shall be held by the City Council. No new or additional evidence or testimony shall be accepted by the City Council unless a showing is made by the party offering the evidence that the evidence could not reasonably have been available at the time of the hearing before the Examiner. If the Council determines that additional evidence is required, the Council shall remand the matter to the Examiner for reconsideration and receipt of additional evidence. The cost of transcription of the hearing record shall be borne by the applicant. In the absence of an entry upon the record of an order by the City Council authorizing new or additional evidence or testimony, and a remand to the Hearing Examiner for receipt of such evidence or testimony, it shall be presumed that no new or additional evidence or testimony has been accepted by the City Council, and that the record before the City Council is identical to the hearing record before the Hearing Examiner. (Ord. 4389, 1-25-1993) 6. Council Evaluation Criteria: The consideration by the City Council shall be based solely upon the record, the Hearing Examiner's report, the notice of appeal and additional submissions by parties. 7. Findings and Conclusions Required: If, upon appeal of a decision of the Hearing Examiner on an application submitted pursuant to RMC 4-1-050Fl, and after examination of the record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, it may remand the proceeding to Examiner for reconsideration, or modify, or reverse the decision of the Examiner accordingly. 8. Council Action: If, upon appeal from a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner upon an application submitted pursuant to RMC 4-1-050F2 and F3, and after examination of the record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, or that a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner should be disregarded or modified, the City Council may remand the proceeding to the Examiner for reconsideration, or enter its own decision upon the application. 9. Decision Documentation: In any event, the decision of the City Council shall be in writing and shall specify any modified or amended findings and conclusions other than those set forth in the report of the Hearing Examiner. Each material finding shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. The burden of proof shall rest with the appellant. (Ord 3658, 9-13-1982) 10. Council Action Final: The action of the Council approving, modifying or rejecting a decision of the Examiner shall be final and conclusive, unless appealed within the time frames established under subsection 05 of this Section. (Ord. 4660, 3-17-1997) May 8,2006 City Council Members c/o City Clerk City of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way Renton WA 98055 RE: ]OBNO.: FILENO.: Subject: Rainier Ave Mixed Use M2-0589 LUA 04-093, ECF, SA-A, LUA 05-133, V-H Appeal of Examiner's Decision Dear Council Members: BAYLIS ARCHITECTS 10801 Main Street Bellevue, WA 98004 T 425 454 0566 www.baylisarchitects.com CITY OF RENTON MAY 082006 "'I'U RECEIVED Ql ~ f ClERK'S OFFICE On behalf of the JDA Group, LLC, we submit this appeal of the hearing examiner's decision of the referenced application. We request that, after examination of the record, Council determine that substantial errors in fact and in law exist in the record, that the Council reverse the decision of the Examiner accordingly, and that Council enter its own decision upon the application. This application is for Site Plan Approval and for a Tree Cutting and Clearing Variance related to the installation of a surface parking lot in a Commercial Arterial Zone. The existing area of the proposed parking lot contains a small, low class wetland, which at the time of application, was highly contaminated with neighborhood trash, tires and noxious weeds. The site also contains steep slopes which will not be touched by the proposed improvements, and a small, intermittent watercourse in a shallow ditch fully contained within the wetland area. History as included in the record. Because of the underlying CA zoning and the poor condition of the wetland area, the applicant and city staff have worked diligently for the last four years to fmd an environmentally and economically responsible solution for the productive use of this property. In 2004, the owner retained the services of a wetlands consultant, Celeste Botha, regionally recognized for her work, including working directly for other Eastside municipalities. She conducted an on-site delineation, prepared a wetland report and became an integral part of the owner's design team, working for a solution with the city staff. Her leadership developed the concept that enlarging, enhancing and protecting an adjacent, higher and more productive wetland was environmentally far better than trying to salvage the subject small, low class and contaminated wetland. Thus the concept for re-development of the site was initiated. In early 2004, with city staffs conceptual agreement, the owner authorized the wetlands consultant and the landscape architect to proceed with the preparation of the detailed staging, mitigation and landscaping plan, Renton City Council-Appeal May 8th, 2006 Page 2 which was completed in July 2004. This report was reviewed by city staff, and with their concurrence of the reasonableness of its conclusions, the owner then authorized the civil engineer to proceed with all the construction documents, including analysis of the drainage courses and existing culverted outflows, and to proceed with the construction permits application. During the permit review process, it was identified that the Renton Municipal Code requires that a Tree Cutting and Clearing Variance must be granted before any wetland can be filled ... no matter the quality of the wetland being filled nor the wisdom and strength of the proposed mitigation enhancements. This variance can only be granted by the examiner. And, since the project was now to go the examiner, so also must go the Site Plan Approval application, which up to this time was being reviewed by the administration. Thus, what was thought for four years to be a straight forward administrative application, resulting in an environmental and economic win-win, now fell into the cogs of municipal processing. Errors in the Findings of Fact and in Law During the course of the hearing, the examiner questioned the classification of the wetland, the enhancement plan for the adjacent higher category wetland, the value of the increased buffers of the adjacent wetland, the existing lack of surface water storage capacity of the wetland, and the relationship of the watercourse to the wetland; all issues which, as advanced in the examiner's report, he did not understand that led to substantial errors in fact and in law. Wetland Classification. Adjacent Enhancement and Fill The classification of the wetland has clearly become a pivotal issue for the examiner and clearly impacts his decision. On this point, it remains most important to note that, as demonstrated in its decision, the independent Environmental Review Committee accepted the wetland classification as Class 3, agreed with the value of the enhancements proposed for the adjacent Class 2 wetland, supported the buffer enhancements proposed and agreed with the proposal to fill the small Class 3 wetland. The ERC put 5 mitigation measures into its revised determination, all of which are common mitigations in our city and to all of which the applicant has agreed. Further, it is important to note that, although there are many parties of record, no appeals of the ERC's revised determination were filed, and no other members of the public attended the examiner's hearing. Thus, the matter of wetland classification, which is the preview only of the ERC as point of law, is and should not have been before the examiner. Further, as a follow-up to the hearing, and at the examiner's request, the Development Services Director again issued the decision "that the wetland is a Class 3 wetland". Yet the examiner remains un-extricated from this issue. As demonstrated in finding 14, the examiner, in noting receipt of the Development Services Director's decision, purposefully uses a disjunctive which clearly belies the fact that the examiner remains unconvinced. This opinion tainted the hearing as well as the report (pp. 3, 4 & 5). It overshadowed the value of the proposed mitigation measures and led to the dramatic, yet false, Conclusion 10: "Asphalting a wetland and culverting a creek does not do much to mitigate impacts to the subject site." Even Finding 6 recognizes only that the "second wetland would be enhanced to offset filling", which is factually in error as it totally misses that the second wetland would be substantially enlarged, the eastern buffer would be totally rebuilt after the decades of tires and garbage are removed, and the Renton City Council-Appeal May 8th, 2006 Page 3 renewed wetland would be fenced along the eastern edge where it is most vulnerable to the impacts of human trespass. Storage Capacity of the Wetland During the hearing, the examiner questioned "if the wetland is filled, will it displace water around it" (p 4, Para. 1). AHBL, the project civil engineer, addressed this concern in its testimony. Further, as demonstrated in the construction documents, which are and have been on ftle with the city, and are part of the record, the engineer shows that the existing wetland has no existing surface water storage capacity, since the outflow of the wetland equals the inflow elevation of the existing culvert drainage pipe. Thus, no surface water storage capacity is being displaced. Yet the examiner notes, after the engineer's testimony, that he remains concerned "the fIrst flush won't be swept off into the lake" (p 5, Para. 6). On this issue, city staff noted that it "did not know for sure", ... a most unfortunate statement, since the plans had been under review for more than a year. Staff's statement led the examiner to conclude that "he would need to know this information prior to doing any work." Perhaps a factual statement, given staff's testimony, but certainly not a conclusion based on the actual facts. Relationship of the Wetland and the Watercourse Finding 15 notes that "There is an onsite watercourse that drains the wetland area ... " This fInding is not correct. As shown in the drawings of the application, the wetland connects directly to a culvert, which is the drain for the wetland. Finding 15 infers that the wetland precedes the watercourse and contributes to the water quality of the watercourse. In fact, the uplands seepage and city controlled roadway culvert drainage flow into the watercourse, which, in tum drains to the wetland area and then immediately into the culvert. This water remains in a culvert as it passes under the adjacent paved car lot, under Rainier Ave. and under the airport ... all the way to the fInal daylight at Lake Washington. As a fInal note, although not a fmding of fact or law, the examiner expressed concern as to the length of culvert being proposed. As proposed in the application, the culvert ends west of the parking lot edge, extending under the full length of the westerly sloped grades. It should be noted that this length can be reduced by constructing an ecology block retaining wall at the edge of the new parking lot pavement and shortening the culvert. Finally, we would like to draw the Council's attention to the testimony of the staff on this application. After years of analysis and scrutiny by staff and the many technical consultants, staff concluded that "The applicant has justifIed the variance request ... " (p 2, Para. 5). We encourage and look forward to your favorable consideration, and again, ask the Council to fmd that there are substantial errors in fact and in law in the record, that the Council reverse the decision of the Examiner accordingly, and that Council enter its own decision upon the application by approving the application as presented by the staff report. Renton City Council-Appeal May 8th, 2006 Page 4 Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, BA YLIS ARCHITECTS Meredith Everist for Richard L. Wagner, AlA cc: JDA Group-Jack Alhadeff AHBL-Matt Weber Riley Group-Celeste Botha Fred Kaufmann, City of Renton Hearing Jennifer Toth Henning, City of Renton, Senior Planner RLW: jlc TO City of Renton, City Council Members 1055 South Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 AITENTION o Enclosed o Original COPIES DATED IB1 Copy of Letter o Shop Drawing MAY 082006 o Mail o FAX o Courier IB1 Delv. o Prints o Disk DESCRIPTION 1 5/8/2006 Request for Appeal of Examiner's Decision These are transmitted as checked below o For approval o As requested o Approval as noted o For your use o For review and comment o Approval as submitted Remarks Copy to: Jack Alhadef,JDA Group, 95 South Tobin, Suite 201, Renton, WA 98055 10801 Main Street Bellevue, WA 98004 T 425 454 0566 IF 425 453 8013 www.boylisarchitects.com ]OBNO M5-0106 RE Rainier Station FILE DATE 5/8/2006 FAX PAGES o Correct and re-submit o Forwarded without review Jennifer Toth Henning, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055 Matt Weber, AHBL, 2215 North 30th Street, Suite 300, Tacoma, WA 98403 Fred Kaufman, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, W A 98055 Celeste Botha, Riley Group, 2025 S. Norman Street, Seattle, WA 98144 IB1 Mail o FAX Signed Thank You, o Courier Meredith 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 25 th day of April 2006, affiant deposited via the United States Mail a sealed envelope( s) containing a decision or recommendation with postage prepaid, addressed to the parties of record in the below entitled application or petition. Signature: Application, Petition or Case No.: Rainier Mixed Use South Parking Lot File No.: LUA 04-093, ECF, SA-A LUA 05-133, V-H The Decision or Recommendation contains a complete list of the Parties of Record. HEARING EXAMINER'S REPORT April 25, 2006 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON Minutes APPLICANT/OWNER: LOCATION: SUMMARY OF REQUEST: SUMMARY OF ACTION: DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT: PUBLIC HEARING: IDA Group, LLC J.D. Kline Corporation 95 S Tobin Street Renton, W A 98055 Rainier Mixed Use South Parking Lot File No.: LUA 04-093, ECF, SA-A And LUA 05-133, V-H West of Rainier Avenue North and north of Chang's Mongolian Grill. Southeast ofNW 6th Street. South Parcel, 20.012 square feet and a north parcel 59,951 square feet. Administrative Site Plan and Variance review for the construction of 27 parking spaces within a surface lot associated with Chang's Mongolian Grill restaurant. Development Services Recommendation: Approve with conditions The Development Services Report was received by the Examiner on March 7, 2006. After reviewing the Development Services Report, examining available information on file with the application, field checking the property and surrounding area; the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The following minutes are a summary of the March 14, 2006 hearing. The legal record is recorded on CD. The hearing opened on Tuesday, March 14,2006, at 9:03 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No.1: Yellow file containing the original Exhibit No.2: Neighborhood Map application, proof of posting, proof of pUblication and other documentation pertinent to this request. Exhibit No.3: Overall Site Plan Exhibit No.4: South Lot and South Wetland Fill Plan Exhibit No.5: North Wetland Enlargement and Exhibit No.6: Conceptual Planting Plan Enhancement Plan Rainier Mixed Use South Parkin.s ,-,ot File No.: LUA-04-093, ECF, SA-A and LUA-05-133, V-H April 25, 2006 Page 2 Exhibit No.7: Demolition and TESC Plan Exhibit No.9: North Wetland Grading and Drainage Plan Exhibit No 11: ERC Mitigation Measures Exhibit No 13: Letter from Hugh Mortensen, The Watershed Company, dated December 13,2005 Exhibit No.8: Parking Lot Grading and Drainage Plan Exhibit No. 10: Zoning Map Exhibit No. 12: Letter from Kathy Curry, The Watershed Company, dated August 31,2004 The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by Keri Weaver, Senior Planner, Development Services, City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98055. The proposal would create a 27 stall parking lot on approximately 20,000 square feet ofa 1.55 acre parcel located on the west side of Rainier Avenue North with a driveway connection from the existing Chang'S Mongolian Grill parking lot located off of Rainier. This is proposed to provide overflow parking for the restaurant and to accommodate the current rush hour parking shortages on the existing parking lot. The site of the south wetland area has significant areas of steep slopes with ravines and wetlands located at the bottom of those slopes and are largely wooded at this time. The site is bounded by residential properties to the west, the large change in grade does provide a natural separation buffer. The site is zoned Commercial Arterial (CA) and the parking lot is a permitted use within that zone. The proposed design of the parking lot drainage and access points does comply with the zone requirements. In order to construct a parking lot on this location, it will be necessary to fill a small area of wetland and wetland buffer on a wetland that has been identified by the applicant as meeting the requirements of a Category 3 wetland classification. This wetland is located on the south side of the property between two areas of steep slopes. The applicant proposed to mitigate this impact to the wetland by offsite creation and enhancement at a ratio of 1.5: 1 on what is referred to as the north wetland, a Category 2 wetland on a non-contiguous property under the same ownership. The applicant also proposed buffer averaging for the north wetland with a 25-foot buffer instead of 50-feet on the east side, which is currently under review as Rainier Station. There is an onsite watercourse extending from the Category 3 wetland that is proposed to be culverted to accommodate the parking lot. In order to remove trees and vegetation within 25-feet of this watercourse area, a variance will be required. The project is not subject to the current critical areas regulations. The applicant has justified the variance request by demonstrating hardship caused by the topographical limitations of the property including steep slopes, wetlands and the on-site watercourse that does prevent the majority of the site from being used for commercial development as allowed by zoning without significant alteration of the terrain and removal of sensitive areas. The project represents a minimal disturbance of the property. Mitigation conditions will be imposed through the SEP A DNS-M and the site plan conditions to prevent erosion and runoff and disturbance to wetland areas and to enhance an off-site wetland of a higher category. Prior to final approval, additional information will be necessary to finalize the category determination of the south wetland. Consultants have indicated that it may meet the requirements for a Category 2 wetland. This Rainier Mixed Use South Parking Lot File No.: LUA-04-093, ECF, SA-A and LUA-05-133, V-H April 25, 2006 Page 3 does not impact the applicant's vested ability to undertake the proposed partial fill or to place the parking lot in the desired location. The Examiner stated that we should know what the category of the wetland actually is before proceeding any further. Ms. Weaver stated she had been informed that they could proceed with preliminary approval, as the location of the parking lot would not need to be altered, it was the off-site mitigation that could be required to increase on the north wetland without having an effect on the south wetland. If it is determined that the south wetland meets the requirements of a Category 2 wetland the applicant would be required to undertake additional off-site mitigation that would occur on the north wetland by increasing wetland creation, enhancements or buffers. A Category 3 wetland normally requires a 25-foot buffer and a Category 2 would require 50-feet. The modification to the parking was requested because currently Chang'S has sufficient parking under code to serve the size of the restaurant. They requested a modification in order to provide additional parking off-site. It was determined, after review, that there is sufficient traffic and need to justify this modification. There was discussion regarding the removal of the natural detention provided by the wetland and whether or not that would contribute to future downstream problems or flooding. Rich Wagner, Baylis Architects, 10801 Main Street, Ste. 110, Bellevue, WA 98004 stated that the goals of the project were to make a commercially zoned property productive. There is an existing restaurant that could be much more productive, there are not a lot of alternative uses for a site like this and in this particular area given the boulevard that it is on, there is an immense amount of traffic but not a lot of transit. The City does try to keep the amount of asphalt low and yet access high. The City parking cap is not necessarily applicable here and that is why they have asked for the modification. This site is separated from the residential and the residential people have been advised about this potential rezone. There have been no comments from these people concerning this application. The parking lot is going to be an important aspect to the existing restaurant, it is also believed that as this area continues to redevelop that parking lot will be in the right location. The quality of this wetland, based on research, is not the same quality as the Class 2 that is to the north. By enhancing the Class 2 the neighborhood is getting a better environment from this change. The Examiner stated that there is dispute over the wetland. The Category of that wetland has been undecided. Mr. Wagner stated that experts had been brought in to make a determination. Last year the City did invite an opinion from the Watershed Company, they did an independent investigation. Those findings were never seen until just a couple of months ago. Last year Watershed did another analysis. There seems to be two professional opinions that do not agree. The Examiner stated that that may be the case, but at this point he does not have the information that is needed to make a decision on this property. The City and applicant can resolve it and find it is a Category 2, or the City can decide that it is a Category 3 and then go ahead and expend the north wetland further. A third option is that the applicant can appeal the determination of the category of the wetland. Rainier Mixed Use South Parkin5 ..... ot File No.: LUA-04-093, ECF, SA-A and LUA-05-133, V-H April 25, 2006 Page 4 He would like to know the category of the wetland that is proposed to be buried, along with the stream course that feeds it and beyond. Also, according to the report, it is not known if the wetland is filled will it displace water around it. Mr. Wagner stated that HBL has taken this project all the way to a building permit application and so it is known that it does accommodate a displacement. What he does not have is the documentation, but that can be presented to staff to make sure that that question is addressed and removed from the table. If for some unknown reason it were determined to be a Class 2 wetland, the actual work on this particular site would likely not change. The fill mitigation that is proposed on the north wetland is an expansion of a Class 2 wetland to mitigate the fill of the Class 3. The wetland itself continues up into the valley and there would be plenty of opportunity to buffer average in that area. HBL was brought in two years ago for the examination of this site, basically the intent is to clean up the trash and continue to clean up any noxious weeds that show up. The wetland area is fairly well cleaned up currently and that is because when the applicant took over ownership of the property they went in and cleaned the area. This site is owned by IDA Group. Because the site is so close to the Lake Washington basin, it was inappropriate to have retention/detention here, however, they were striving for water quality and that is why the biofiltering is being proposed. The Examiner stated that he would probably not close the hearing, Ms. Weaver is not at liberty to make that kind of decision at this hearing. The record would be held open until the matter is clarified. The City has environmental amenities that they try to protect, wetlands get moved, creeks can be put underground in a ditch or pipe and that may not be appropriate. The drainage course may be rerouted. Celeste Botha, 2025 S Norman Street, Seattle, WA 98144 stated that it might not be appropriate at this time for her to make a case for her determination. She went through the letter from the Watershed Company dated August 31, 2004 and explained the issues covered therein. The hydrology patterns have been addressed by the hydrologists and the engineers and require no further interpretation. Permits from the state and federal government are also standard and will be handled at the appropriate time. The minimum buffer that is required is regulated by the ordinary high water mark of the stream and that is included in the wetland so that the stream buffer is inside the wetland itself. The stream flows from the west towards the east and comes from offsite to the west and then goes into a series of pipes into the lake. As far as disturbance to native buffer areas, that will be addressed in the next phase and refers to the north wetland area where the mitigation is going to occur. The delineation report explains why this area, although the water is very close to the surface, the Watershed Company accepted the delineation and therefore agreed that it did not meet the wetland criteria. The performance standards have been changed in the most recent revisions to the wetland report will be submitted soon. The request was to put in the parking lot prior to the mitigation measures on the north wetland being in place for 12 months. The mitigation measures on the north would be in place and completed before any work was started on the south lot, they just would not have been monitored for 12 months. Item 10 in the Watershed letter has been revised for future submittal. A five-year monitoring schedule will be provided. Rainier Mixed Use South Parking Lot File No.: LUA-04-093, ECF, SA-A and LUA-05-133, V-H April 25, 2006 Page 5 The next letter from Watershed dated December 13,2005 was the first time that the applicant became aware that Watershed was involved. This was the first that they became aware that the categorization of the south wetland was accurately delineated but there was some trouble with the categorization. The watercourses classification is difficult, the City did not originally classify watercourses. She discussed with the City and as she understood it, those sections of the Code were reserved. As far as buffers being increased where the slopes exceed 15% there is ample space on the project for this to occur, the drawings can be revised to show the increased buffer area. Mr. Wagner stated that in both letters from Watershed they talk about exploring different options, many options were explored although Watershed was not a part of that teamwork. The options are, you continue to add more parking or you reduce parking because of the topographic layout, this was the only option to develop the site in any usable way. One idea that Watershed did have was to not do a paper fill, but to do an ecology wall and that appeared to be a great idea. Ryan Jeffries, 2215 North 30th Street, Tacoma, W A stated that he was here to speak about the drainage on the property, the existing watercourse flows from the west into the site through the wetland via the stream and is currently collected in a catch basin in the middle of the site. That flow from the stream is adequately conveyed through the existing City storm system. The proposal is to add 128 linear feet of culvert at the west edge of the parking lot and convey that into the existing system basically at its current locations. Approximately 120 feet of pipe will be added. The parking lot will be collected in a bio-infiltration facility at the south edge of the parking lot where it will be treated and also a measure of water quantity will be provided via the infiltration facility there, water quality and quantity will be provided in this proposed facility. That facility will overflow into a catch basin and drain into the City system at its current location on the site, which has adequate capacity. The surface water runoff flow rates will be increased slightly, however they will be mitigated via the infiltration facility that will be provided on-site so that the downstream system will not be significantly altered in terms of its flow rates. The water quality portion of the facility will meet the requirements in terms of removal of total suspended solids, oils, and grease which will all be treated in the bioswale. The Examiner stated that it is very difficult to rectify existing conditions along Rainier with all the facilities that are present but this facility should be designed so that the first flush won't be swept off into the lake. A wetland and a stream course are being buried to create a parking lot, which is not necessarily an environmental amenity. Mike Dotson, Development Services stated that the engineer addressed most of the Examiner's issues. They would need to demonstrate that the downstream system is sized to convey any future condition flows and that would be a requirement of their engineering design, if it did not they would be responsible to increase the system so that it would adequately convey flows. It was also mentioned that on-site detention would be provided to meet the design storm standards in order to mitigate their on-site runoff from the new impervious area they are creating. As to how much water storage capacity is being replaced by paving the wetland and the area adjacent to the wetland, he had not seen the report and so he did not know for sure. The Examiner stated that it would seem that the applicant would need to know this information prior to doing any work. In this area the water table is not that low and so it is impossible to just carve out a potential holding pond, you might not have the storage capacity there. Rainier Mixed Use South Parkino ~ot File No.: LUA-04-093, ECF, SA-A and LUA-05-133, V-H April 25, 2006 Page 6 Mr. Wagner stated that one of the things that has happened on this application is HBL, on behalf of the applicant, has actually filed for construction permits. It was a review of those construction permits that triggered a couple of the things that needed to be revised for the tree cutting ordinance, which brought forth the variances today. The application that had been filed with the City was suspended because of the processing of that construction permit pending this hearing. The information can be gathered and given to the Examiner ifhe wishes. The Examiner stated that he would close this session, but not the hearing. In order to go forward, he wants to know the Category or Classification of this wetland. If the parties wish to agree to the greater standard so it is final and done, that will be acceptable. The record will be open until that information is received. The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak, and no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at 10:16 am. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The applicant, IDA Group, LLC, and LD. Kline Corp., filed a request for a Variance from the Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Regulations, as well as a Site Plan approval. 2. The yellow file containing the staff report, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEP A) documentation and other pertinent materials was entered into the record as Exhibit #1. 3. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC), the City's responsible official issued a Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M). 4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter. 5. The primary subject site is located west of505 Rainier Avenue North and southeast ofNW 6th Street if that street were extended to the east. The site is located north of Chang's Mongolian Grill, a restaurant. If the variance allowing vegetation removal is approved, a parking lot would be developed to serve that restaurant. The applicant would also fill a portion of a wetland on this primary site to enable the construction of the parking lot. 6. A second parcel involved in the application is north of the first. It also contains a wetland. This second wetland would be enhanced to offset filling wetlands on the proposed parking lot parcel. 7. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as suitable for the development of employment generating uses, but does not mandate such development without consideration of other policies of the Plan. 8. The subject site is currently zoned CA (Commercial Arterial). 9. The subject site was annexed to the City with the adoption of Ordinance 1461 enacted in November 1963. Rainier Mixed Use South Parking Lot File No.: LUA-04-093, ECF, SA-A and LUA-05-133, V-H April 25, 2006 Page 7 10. The parcel is approximately 20,012 square feet. The applicant would develop approximately 9,200 square feet for the parking lot. 11. The south parcel contains approximately 16,600 square feet of wetlands while the north parcel contains approximately 21,700 square feet of wetland. 12. The applicant proposes filling approximately 2,017 square feet of wetland and 1,574 square feet of required buffer for total fill of 3,591 square feet to create the parking lot. 13. The parking lot would be northwest of the existing restaurant site. It would be to the rear of an auto repair business. It would be connected by an approximately 80-foot long aisle way to the existing restaurant. The parking lot aisle would be aligned in an east to west direction with the parking stalls oriented in two tiers with cars parked in a north to south orientation. The lot would accommodate 27 vehicles. 14. As noted, there is a wetland on the subject site. The wetland is at the base ofa ravine in the slopes above Rainier Avenue. The wetland was categorized by the applicant's wetland consultant as a Category 3 Wetland. The City's wetland consultant categorized it was a Category 2 Wetland. The status was unresolved at the time of the public hearing. Subsequent to the hearing, on April 6, 2006, the Development Services Director issued a decision that the wetland is a Category 3 wetland but noted in that decision that it appeared to be a close call. 15. There is an onsite watercourse that drains the wetland area and flows toward Rainer Avenue. The applicant proposes clearing vegetation within the 25-foot buffer and culverting the watercourse to develop the parking lot. 16. Chang's Restaurant has 43 on-site parking stalls. Staff reports Chang'S Restaurant has 3,500 net square feet of floor area. Code requires 1 parking stall per 100 square feet for eating and drinking establishments or 35 stalls for the restaurant. Currently the restaurant has eight (8) more stalls than required by code. The applicant proposes developing 27 additional stalls for a total of 70 stalls. A modification to develop the excess parking is required. It was approved by the Administrator. 17. The restaurant seats 140 patrons. The applicant maintains that during lunch and some dinner hours the existing parking lot is full and patrons leave since they cannot find parking. 18. Access to the new lot would be via a 22-foot wide driveway from Chang's existing lot and its driveway on Rainier. CONCLUSIONS: Variance 1. Variances may be granted when the property generally satisfies all the conditions described in part below: a. The applicant suffers undue hardship caused by special circumstances such as: the size, shape, topography, or location where code enforcement would deprive the owner of rights and privileges enjoyed by others similarly situated; Rainier Mixed Use South Parkin5 -,-,ot File No.: LUA-04-093, ECF, SA-A and LUA-05-133, V-H April 25, 2006 Page 8 b. The granting of the variance would not materially harm either the public welfare or other property in the vicinity; c. The approval will not constitute a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other property in the vicinity; and d. The variance is the minimum variance necessary to allow reasonable development ofthe subject site. The applicant's property is not ripe for the variance requested. 2. An analysis of the requested variance involves not only the direct impact of approving the variance but the additional ramifications. fu this case, the applicant seeks a variance to cut down trees or vegetation along a stream corridor but in fact granting the variance will result in the culverting of a surface water feature. So while it appears that only vegetation in the required 25-foot buffer would be removed if the variance is approved, the approval actually grants the applicant permission to remove a creek, a natural, if not critical feature, that is fed by a wetland, another critical feature, located at the base of steep slopes, yet another critical feature. The issue really comes down to whether or not an applicant who purchases or owns a severely constrained site, one with steep slopes, wetlands and a stream suffers a unique hardship that justifies clearing vegetation in the stream's buffer and then culverting the stream, effectively eliminating that stream. The entire request is driven by a request for more parking for a use that already has more than adequate parking according to code standards. The variance cannot be justified under these circumstances. Creating an enlarged parking lot over a portion of a wetland and eliminating a stream is contrary to City goals to maintain environmentally sensitive areas. Of course, as with any Comprehensive Plan policy, one can find a countervailing one. In this case economic development would be the other side of the coin. But using a need for more parking than required by code to eliminate a portion of a wetland and pave over a creek is untenable and does not strike a reasonable balance. 3. While neither the wetland nor creek are pristine, removing them from the inventory of environmentally sensitive site does not serve the public interest. The fact is that they were allowed to be degraded over the years because there was little interest in such natural features. But big rivers are fed by such little streams. The wetland and even this small drainage channel provide biofiltration just like the artificial swales created in many new developments only this one is natural, already exists and serves to filter water that eventually flows into Lake Washington. 4. Approving this variance would create an unjustified precedent. The steep hillside above Rainier Avenue is the source of many seeps. Many businesses can claim that they need more parking than code specifies. This would particularly be the case along Rainier Avenue where there are a number of restaurants and other businesses and no access to on-street parking. This office can completely sympathize with the restaurant. All businesses would want a larger customer base than they can support. The City, in adopting its parking standards, has relied on numerous factors and created a reasonable predictor -the square footage of the business. Economics have generally not been an acceptable basis for establishing a hardship. There must be a physical constraint and trading off a parking lot for a wetland and stream course is not appropriate. 5. There is no justification for approving this variance. Rainier Mixed Use South Parking Lot File No.: LUA-04-093, ECF, SA-A and LUA-05-133, V-H April 25, 2006 Page 9 Site Plan 6. The site plan ordinance provides a number of specific criteria for reviewing a site plan. Those criteria are generally represented in part by the following enumeration: a. Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; b. Conformance with the Building and Zoning Codes; c. Mitigation of impacts on surrounding properties and uses; d. Mitigation of the impacts of the proposal on the subject site itself; e. Conservation of property values; f. Provision for safe and efficient vehicle and pedestrian circulation; g. Provision of adequate light and air; h. Adequacy of public services to accommodate the propose 7. The proposal is not compatible with the environmental objectives of the comprehensive plan. The applicant proposes filling in a portion of a wetland and while the applicant proposes enhancing a separate wetland, a surface stream will be eliminated and placed in a culvert. Natural features should be protected and enhanced. While enhancement is proposed it is not for this wetland but at an off-site location. This wetland is at the base of a steep hillside and drains into a creek. The creek, even as short as it is and as shallow as it is deserves to be protected. 8. Compliance with building code would be determined at a later date. The proposal involves exceeding the normal complement of required parking. While the modification was approved, it would result in sacrificing a surface creek. 9. The creation of additional parking probably would not have a significant impact on adjacent properties but it could result in additional air pollution and engine noise reaching properties upslope from the site. 10. Asphalting a wetland and culverting a creek does not do much to mitigate impacts to the subject site. It is not appropriate to convert sensitive or environmental amenities to asphalt. 11. The development should not affect property values. 12. It would appear that pedestrian and vehicular circulation are adequate. DECISION: The Site Plan and Variance to allow tree cutting and vegetation clearing are not approved. Rainier Mixed Use South Parkino ~ot File No.: LUA-04-093, ECF, SA-A and LUA-05-133, V-H April 25, 2006 Page 10 ORDERED THIS 25th day of April 2006. ~4~~ FRED J. KAiJJ II "'" HEARING EXAMINER TRANSMITTED THIS 25th day of April 2006 to the parties of record: Keri Weaver 1055 S Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 Richard Wagner Baylis Architects 10801 Main Street, Ste. 110 Bellevue, W A 98004 Rolland Dewing 210 NW 5th Street Renton, W A 98055 Ronnie & Roberta McDonald 216 NW 5th Street Renton, W A 98055 Lee & Peggy Christopherson 503 Rainier Avenue N Renton, W A 98055 Mike Dotson Development Services Renton, W A 98055 Celeste Botha 2025 S Norman Street Seattle, WA 98144 Carl P. Burns 213 NW 6th Street Renton, W A 98055 Bruce & Sue Gregg 207 NW 5th Street Renton, W A 98055 TRANSMITTED THIS 25th day of April 2006 to the following: Mayor Kathy Keolker Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison Stan Engler, Fire Larry Meckling, Building Official Planning Commission Transportation Division Utilities Division IDA Group, LLC I.D. Kline Corporation 95 South Tobin Street Renton, W A 98055 Ryan Jeffries 2215 North 30th Street Tacoma, WA Mary Jo Carlson 215 NW 5th Street Renton, W A 98055 Sherondia Renee Otis 211 NW 5th Street Renton, W A 98055 Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator Alex Pietsch, Economic Development Jennifer Henning, Development Services Stacy Tucker, Development Services King County Journal Neil Watts, Development Services Janet Conklin, Development Services Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 100Gofthe City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., May 8,2006. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors 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 Rainier Mixed Use South Parking Lot File No.: LUA-04-093, ECF, SA-A and LUA-05-133, V-H April 25, 2006 Page 11 the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of $75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. An appeal must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., May 8, 2006. If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants, the executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or fmal processing ofthe fIle. You may contact this office for information on formatting covenants. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. SltePLNJPt.doc \'1 '" , , \ \0\ to-\. \:H ;. \ , ,--- ~----.. --...... ----.'" ... .- • NOJ..!)NIHSVM ~ 3SO <T:I)(lW 3()N3AV~3INIW li!1 h~n fbi ~ ~n U~ I I 1 tv ~ \~ I ~ ~ ~ $ o N II = $ ot: <:) :z ~ .-1 Exhibit 4 -' I I· -, . I I I I I \ \ !\ " \ / ,/ \ , ) I / / c-: r---~ I : , I J i f :. " ;J ;-~ r f I I I I r I , I 'JJ Exhibit 9 CITY OF RENTON REVISED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA04-093, SA-A, ECF/LUA05-133, V-H APPLICANT: JDA Group, LLC& ID Kline Corp. PROJECT NAME: Rainier Avenue Mixed-Use South Parking Lot DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAl: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and Administrative Site Plan review for the construction of 27 parking spaces within a surface lot associated with the adjacent Chang's Mongolian Grill restaurant The proposal includes portions of two large parcels containing Category 2 and 3 wet/ands. The Category 3 wetland would be filled to accommodate the parking lot, with wet/and compensation proposed off-site that would include wetland creation, enhancement and buffer averaging. A variance from the Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Regulations is required for proposed vegetation removal and work within the 25-ft. buffer of the onsite watercourse/stream. LOCATION OF PROPOSAl: LEAD AGENCY: MITIGATION MEASURES: West of 505 Ranier Avenue N & southeast of NW 6th Street The City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section 1. The project shall be required to be designed and comply with the Department of Ecology's (DOE) Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements, outlined in Volume" of the 2001 Stormwater Management Manual. 2. During site preparation and construction, the applicant shall install silt fencing with brightly colored construction flags to indicate the boundaries of the North and South wetlands and buffer areas adjacent to the proposed construction areas. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division and be completed prior to the issuance of construction/utility permits. 3. After the development of parking lot and associated stte improvements. the applicant shan install permanent fencing (i.e. split-rail fence or. other approved banier) and signage along the entire eastern edge of the North and South wet/and buffers. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division. 4. The applicant shall provide the total buffer fill square footage and an update landscape ptan illustrating the exact locations of where interplanting was instaJled on the South Parcel as part of the Wetland Mitigation Plan. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division. 5. In the event that archaeological deposits are found during construction, work shall stop and the contractor(s} shall contact the State Archaeologist at the State of Washington Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, phone (360) 586-3065. Exhibit 11 ~c Mitigation Measures Page 1 of 1 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: PLANNINGIBUILDINGI PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM April 6, 2006 Fred Kaufman, Hearing Examiner Neil Watts, Development Services Director Wetland Classification -Chang's Parking Lot Expansion This memo is in response to your inquiry of the appropriate classification for the wetland area associated with the Chang's Parking Lot Expansion west of Rainier A venue N. I concur with the applicant's conclusion that this wetland area is most appropriately classified as a Category 3 wetland. The specific characteristics of this wetland do not neatly fall into any of the available definitions for either a Category 2 or Category 3 wetland. Our recommendation is based on our review of the definitions for these two categories, and of the characteristics of this particular wetland. This wetland is a section of sloped area, which is subject to seeps and ground water flow, which results in a continually wet condition. It is not a pond or typical wetland with any accumulation of surface water. The area is vegetated with noxious weeds, and has been subject to remediation efforts to remove the undesired plant species. The wet area is adjacent to a drainage course, which is classified as a stream. The stream begins upstream from this location, draining a small basin area consisting of homes, yards, undeveloped slopes and public streets. This wetland is not located at the headwaters of this drainage course. The wetland has very limited value in terms of normal wetland values and functions. It is clear that this wetland is not a Category 1 wetland. The decision is whether it is appropriately treated as a Category 2 or Category 3 wetland. Renton's wetland regulations list out various potential definitions for qualifying as either of these categories. This wetland does not meet any of these definitions, although it most closely meets definition "a" (severely disturbed) of the definitions for a Category 3 wetland. We are left with the last definition for these two categories. A wetland can be classified as a Category 2 if it is not a Category 1 or 3 wetland, or it can be classified a Category 3 if it not a Category 1 or 2. As the wetland fails to completely fit into any of the other definitions for either a Category 2 or 3 wetland, we are left with having to decide where it best fits based on its wetland values and functions. This wetland does not meet the values and functions of a Category 2 wetland as it provides little in the way of hydrological value, limited habitat value and has been severely disturbed with invasive plant species. Therefore, it complies with definition "c" for a Category 3 wetland and is treated as a Category 3 wetland, with associated buffer requirements and replacement ratio requirements. March 28, 2006 City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 NT PLANNING OEVE\'~~~ RENTON C MAR 302006 RECE\VED Attention: Mr. Neil Watts RE: ]OBNO. Rainier Avenue Mixed -Use South Parking Lot M2-0589 PRINCIPALS Brian Brand, AlA Richard L. Wagner, AlA Thomas Frye, Jr., AlA Subject: South Wetland Classification I LUA04-093, SA-A, ECF/LUAOS-133, V-H Dear Mr. Watts: In recent conversations, both verbal and via e-mail, with City of Renton staff we resolved that the City would accept the Conceptual Wetland Delineation & Mitigation Report prepared by The Riley Group, Inc. dated July 22,2004, and classification of the South Wetland as a Category 3. It was agreed that the report would be accepted without amendment. Please accept this letter as our formal request to reconfirm this decision in writing. According to the City of Renton Critical Areas Ordinance in place at the time of application for the referenced project, wetland classification is determined when the wetland meets one or more of the criteria listed in a respective category. Classification of the South Wetland is outlined below and further explained in the attached letter by Celeste Botha, Wetland Biologist. Category 2 wetlands are greater than 2200 square feet and meet one or more of the following criteria: a) Wetlands greater than two thousand two hundred square feet that are not Category 1 or 3 wetlands; The South Wetland is classified as Category 3 -so it does not meet criteria (a). 10801 Main Street Bellevue, WA 98004 T 425 454 0566 F 425 453 8013 www.baylisarchitects.com City of Renton/ Neil Watts March 28, 2006 Page 2 b) Wetlands that have heron rookeries or raptor nesting trees, but are not Category 1 wetlands; As noted in the Wetland Delineation Report, a heron nest has been identified adjacent to the wetland, however, according to the City of Renton, a single nest does not meet the City's criteria for a rookery -so the wetland does not meet criteria (b). c) Wetlands of any size located at the headwaters of a watercourse, but are not Category 1 wetlands; The water in the South Wetland enters the drainage basin from an existing storm sewer culvert fed by the right of way improvements along Taylor Ave to the west of the site. The water passes though the wetland and drains directly and immediately into a constricted culvert at the east edge of the wetland. This culvert is a part of an extensive underground culvert system which connects to the city's storm drainage system and ultimately discharges into Lake Washington. Since this watercourse does not function as a headwater, and has no fish bearing capacity, it not a headwater wetland. -so the wetland does not meet criteria (c). d) Wetlands assigned the Significant #2 rating in the current King County Wetlands inventory 1991 or as thereafter amended; The South Wetland is not so rated and does not meet criteria (d). e) Wetlands having minimum existing evidence of human related physical alteration such as diking, ditching or channelization. There is substantial evidence of significant human related disturbance of the South Wetland, including culverting and outlet modification and uncontrolled dumping - so the wetland does not meet criteria (e). Category 3 wetlands are greater than 5000 SF and meet the following criteria: a) Wetlands that are severely disturbed; The South Wetland meets criteria (a) -The wetland has been severely disturbed by the dominance of invasive species, the presence of fill material and severe under- cutting and modification of the watercourse. b) Wetlands that are newly emerging; City of Renton/ Neil Watts March 28, 2006 Page 3 The South Wetland meets the criteria for a palustrine emergent Category 3 wetland. c) All other wetlands not classified as Category lor 2, such as smaller, high quality wetlands. The south wetland meets criteria (c), it is not classified as a Category 1 or 2. Based on the delineation and Classification work of Celeste Botha, the Report filed by the city dated March 14,2006, and this recap and restatement of that information, we request that the City of Renton make the determination, or accept the determination of this qualified licensed professional, that the South Wetland is a Class 3 wetland subject to the Critical Areas Ordinance in place at the time of application. Sincerely, Attachment: Letter from Celeste Botha, Wetland Biologist ME:amp , ! o Delineati.on o Reconnaissance evaluations Mitig-ation planning and Dlonitoring-0 Linear projects (rrnlds. power and gas lines) 0 Envirorunental coDlpliance during-construction 0 Peer revi.ew and perntit conditioning 0 Wetland inventories 0 o Perntit assistance and agency coordination o Professional report preparation o Impact analysis and sequencing March 21, 2006 Richard Wagner Baylis Architects phone: (206) ~5 Fax:(206)~ Cell: (206) 2.fo-~3 wpe@isp.COUl RE: Rainier Station Wetland Classification Dear Mr. Wagner: At your request, I am preparing this further explanation of ;the wetland categorization on the Rainier Station/South Parking Lot wetland. Section 4.3.050M i and ii of the City of Renton's Municipal Code provides the classification criteria, quoted below. I have highlighted the relevant rationale that I used in determining the wetland classification. In brief, the wetland meets the criteria for the Category 3 rating, and thus does not meet the criteria for being a Category 2. ii. Category 2: Category 2 wetlands are wetlands which meet one or more of the following criteria: (a) Wetlands that are not Category 1 or 3 wetlands; and/or (b) Wetlands that have heron rookeries or osprey nests, but are not Category 1 wetlands; and/or (c) Wetlands of any size located at the headwaters of a watercourse, i.e., a wetland with a perennial or seasonal outflow channel, but with no defined influent channel, but are not Category 1 wetlands; and/or (d) Wetlands having minimum existing evidence of human-related physical alteration such as diking, ditching or channelization; and/or iii. Category 3: Category 3 wetlands are wetlands which meet one or more of the following criteria: (a) Wetlands that are severely disturbed. Severely disturbed wetlands are wetlands which meet the following criteria: (1) Are characterized by hydrologic isolation, human-related hydrologic alterations such as diking. ditching. channelization and/or outlet modification; and (2) Have soils alterations such as the presence of fill, soil removal and/or compaction of soils; and (3) May have altered vegetation. (b) Wetlands that are newly emerging. Newly emerging wetlands are: 202S South Nonnan Street Seattle, Washington 9844 Raimer Station Wetland Classification Marph 23, 40% (1) Wetlands occurring on top of fill materials; and (2) Characterized by emergent vegetation, low plant species richness and used minimally by wildlife. These wetlands are generally found in the areas such as the Green River Valley and Black River Drainage Basin. (c) All other wetlands not classified as Category 1 or 2 such as smaller, high quality wetlands. I hope this adequately meets your project needs at this time. Thank you for the opportunity to provide you with wetland services. Please call with any questions or comments. Sincerely, Celeste Botha 03-ZB-Z006 14:37 FRDU-SAYLIS ARC'" ..... CTS 4Z5-453-8013 T-861 P.005 F-684 @ Ddlncation $ RcclQnna,-,-ev.aluat:ions MidJr-ldon pluming and monir.orlng e ~ pt"Djcc;ts (root .... pq_r and g-a" linee) e Environmeru:al compliance during-oo~n e ~ review and pc=rmlr condbioning & WctAnd Utvaatoriell @ C:) Pertnil: assis1:anoe and ag'C!DCy ooordiIRdon e Profal6ion.al rc:pon: ~~ e Impact ;maly.ia and ~ March 21, 2006 Richard Wagner Baylis Architects RE: Rainier Station Wetland Classification Dear Mr. Wagner: . At your reques~ I am preparing this further explanation of the wetland categorization on the Rainier Station/South Parking Lot wetland. Section 4.3.0S0M i and ii of the City of Renton's Municipal Code provides the classification criteria, quoted below. I have highlighted the relevant rationale that I used in detennining the wetland classification. In brief~ the wetland meets the criteria for the Category 3 rating, and thus does not meet the criteria for being a Category 2. ii. Category 2: Category 2 wetlands are wetlands which meet one or more of the following criteria: fa) WeUands that are not Catm,orv 1 or 3 wetlands; and/or (b) Wetlands that have heron rookeries or osprey nests, but are not Category 1 weUands; and/or (e) Wetlands of any size located at the headwaters of a watercourse, i.e., a wetland with a perennial or seasonal outflow channel, but with no defined influent channel, but are not Category 1 wetlands; and/or (d) Wetlands having minimum existing evidence of human-related physical alteration such as diking, ditching or channelization; and/or iii. Category 3: Category 3 wetlands are wetlands which meet one or more of the following criteria: (a) Wetlands that are severely disturbed. Severely disturbed wetlands are weUands which meet the following criteria: (1) Ate characterized by hvdrologic isolation. human-related hydrologic alterations such as diking, ditching, channelization and/or outlet modification; and (2) Have soils alterations such as the presence of fill. soil removal andlor compaction of soilsjand (3] May have altered vegetation. (b) Wetlands that are newly emerging. Newly emerging wetlands are: 03-ZB-Z006 14:37 MarcIl ~. LUI./CI FROM-BAYLIS ARCHITECTS 4Z5-453-BOI3 T-861 P.006 F-6B4 (1) Weuands occurring on top of fin materials; and (2) Characterized by emergent vegetation, low plant species richness and used minimally by wildlife. These wetlands are generally found in the areas such as the Green River Valley and Black River Drainage Basin. (e) All other wetlands not classified as Category 1 or 2 such as smaner, high quality wetlands. I hope this adequately meets your project needs at this time. Thank you for the opponunity to provide you with wetland services. Please call with any questions or comments. Sincerely, Celeste Botha '. \ • 1 , \ \ , , t ~ ~\. ,. ~ \ \\} \'\ \ ,\' I " e ,. \\ " \'. I , 0, ' , \ \ . Al\ . '" \ .P' \ -\ Z,\ -\ \"t\\ ")J' NO.1!)NIHSVM ~ 3S(103XIW 3nN3Av~3INIW .. -.--01 0 l --~----- " rJ:--.-------.' -.- III fl· , Iii t '1 "1;:1 ONVl..L3M HJ..(10S0NV ! .LOl HJ110S · I I · ,. · · I I • t I I • · I I I! • · " ~ N , 0 ~ ~ ~;tg ~~ Eh l I · · · 8 · · ~ I I · a-• ~ • • ...-~ \!)z :?;~w ...-~.-ii U) --...-Ul XU) w~ .~ $ 0 N II = Exhibit 4 m x '::J' 0: ~: <.0 " . . ~ . ~ . ~ S&ii/, t:3 -'" Ol\All\itc ac~LI: 1Il'J .... , 1 ...... 1\ ,RAINIER MIXED USE PARKINO EXPANSION THe ~ 0I.IAFn'I!A OF ~ 7, 'TOWNeHi!o 23 NOA'TIo!. RANOI! llA&T, Wl.I.AMIma MeP:IOwI CItY Of" I'II5NToN. I<1Na 00UKTy, WA8HINdroN BIHCHMABK \ \ .", .. ",.,..~---.. ............ , ,,""" . ~" "..... ,; ..... -'", ~I'<!T\.,AI«)~ ~ E~'~~~l " ~ .'. '.'~\~ . "'!.. ' .. " .:.\, "'i.;: " '. \', .. ,. -" -.. -" -,. ....,;:--:::-':::':-:::.:; \E-.• _ .• __ I I , ~ J ~! 8tTI! ,P\.AN ~ .,' ----~ .. ftII"II_'""III_ ........ ."., .................... .. ~-~V.l:l~~W~_ -.-~~ '~ .... ,.n .. ' 'lI:.,_._ . -.~ ~-\ 1 " \\ e ,jI!: \\ ~ ," , 't\ 1..\ 't"'I.tIt'~~ .. ~ ... -... ~ . ~;:. .... t:: I ... .. "Mel ..... .... " I il .. ~ WUfIT_AlIDl I I I ~ i I .. === := GJlADIRG UItAINAOIPUN C4.0 ~ . .. 1011_ \Q nIIIlFRlIIIIlRlIl'1IUsmn OAU..q RO\m8 _ ... __ of' ~ I::-:-~I .. 11'1'0", YOU DIQ ' ..... '. _-. _. II! .~_ 1400~~t40ts"S.. _ .. _ "" _ _ .. ~ \ COMMENCING AT 9:00 AM, CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER \PUBLIC HEARING March 14, 2006 AGENDA COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7TH FLOOR, RENTON CITY HALL The appIication(s) listed are in order of appl~tion number only and not necessarily the order in which they Will be heard. Items will be called for hearing at the discretion of the Heating Examiner. PROJECT NAME: Rainier Ave Mixed-Use South Parking Lot PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-04-093, SA, ECF/LUA05-133, V-H PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Administrative Site Plan and Variance review for the construction of 27 parking spaces within a surface lot associated with Chang's Mongolian Grill restaurant. The proposal includes portions of two large parcels containing Category 2 and 3 wetlands. The Category 3 wetland would be filled in to accommodate the parking lot with wetland compensation proposed off-site and include wetland creation, enhancement and buffer averaging. The proposal also involves the removal of noxious weeds; piping of an existing watercourse; installing a retaining wall; utility improvements; and a parking modification. HEX Agenda 3-14-06 • PUBLIC HEARING City of Renton Department of Planning / Building / Public Works PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER A. SUMMARY AND PURPOSE OF REQUEST: Public March 14, 2006 Hearing Date File Name: Rainier Mixed-Use South Parking Lot (Chang's Parking Lot) File Number: LUA 04-093, ECF, SA-A and LUA 05-133, V-H Project Manager: Keri Weaver Project The applicant is requesting Administrative Site Plan and Variance review for the construction of 27 parking spaces within a surface lot associated with Chang's Mongolian Grill restaurant. The Description: proposal includes portions of two large parcels containing Category 2 and 3 wetlands. The Category 3 wetland would be filled in to accommodate the parking lot with wetland compensation proposed off-site and include wetland creation, enhancement and buffer averaging. The proposal also involves the removal of noxious weeds; piping of an existing watercourse; installing a retaining wall; utility improvements; and a parking modification. Continued on next page Project West of 505 Rainier Ave. N. and southeast of NW 6th Street Location: Exist. Bldg. N/A Proposed New Bldg. Area: NA Area: Site Area: South Parcel -20,012 sq ft North Parcel -59,951 sq ft Project Location Map SitePLN -,pt. doc. doc City of Renton PIBIPW Department Pre ary Report to the Hearing Examiner LUA04-093 AND LUA05-133 RAINIER AVE. MIXED-USE S. PARKING LOT (SITE PLAN & VARIANCE) PUBLIC HEARING DATE: MARCH 14,2006 Page 2 of 11 B. EXHIBITS The following exhibits are entered into the record: Exhibit No.1: Yellow file containing: application, proof of posting and publication, environmental review and other documentation pertinent to this request. Exhibit NO.2: Neighborhood Map (dated Nov. 10,2004). Exhibit NO.3: Sheet A001. Overall Site (Key) Plan (dated July 29,2004) Exhibit NO.4: Sheet A002. South Lot and South Wetland Fill Plan (dated July 29,2004) Exhibit NO.5: Sheet A003. North Wetland Enlargement & Enhancement Plan (dated July 29,2004) Exhibit NO.6: Sheet W1. Conceptual Planting Plan (dated July 29,2004) Exhibit NO.7: Sheet C1.0. Demolition and TESC Plan (dated July 29,2004) Exhibit NO.8: Sheet C2.0. Parking Lot Grading and Drainage Plan (dated July 29,2004) Exhibit No.9: Sheet C4.0. North Wetland Grading and Drainage Plan (dated July 29,2004) Exhibit No.1 0: Zoning Map, Sheet E 3 West (dated Dec. 28, 2004) Exhibit No. 11: ERC Mitigation Measures Exhibit No. 12: Letter from Kathy Curry, The Watershed Company, dated August 31, 2004 Exhibit No. 13: Letter from Hugh Mortensen, The Watershed Company, dated December 13, 2005 c. GENERAL INFORM A TION: 1. 2. 3. 4. Owners/Applicants: Zoning Designation: Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation: Existing Site Use: 5. Neighborhood Characteristics 6. 7. B. North: East: South: West: Access: Site Area: Project Data: EXisting Building Area: New Building Area: SitePLN_rpt.doc.doc JDA Group, LLC, and I.D. Kline Corp., 95 S. Tobin Street, Renton, WA 98055 Commercial Arterial (CA) Employment Area -Commercial (EA-C) Vacant Sixth Street short plat, zoned Residential-8 units/acre (R-8) Auto repair shop and espresso stand -zoned CA Chang's Mongolian Grill restaurant -zoned CA Single-family residential-zoned R-8 From Chang's existing parking lot off Rainier Ave. N 9,200 square feet (parking lot) of 20,012 sq ft parcel Area N/A N/A comments N/A N/A City of Renton PIBIPW Department Prf, ary Report to the Hearing Examiner RAINIER AVE. MIXED-USE S. PARKING LOT (SITE PLAN & VARIANCE) PUBLIC HEARING DATE: MARCH 14,2006 Total Building Area: N/A C. HISTORICAUBACKGROUND ACTION Zoning Comprehensive Plan Annexation Short Plat (Sixth Street) Site Development Plan (Rainier Station) Land Use File No. N/A N/A N/A LUA04-093, SoH LUA05-155, SA-H, V-H, LLA, ECF LUA04-093 AND LUA05-133 Page 3 of 11 N/A Ordinance No. Date 5141 6/07/1993 4498 02/20/1995 1461 09/15/1963 N/A 11/04/2004 pending D. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE DEVELOPMENT REGULA TlONS (RMC TITLE IV): 1. Chapter 2 Land Use Districts Section 4-2-020: Purpose and Intent of Zoning Districts Section 4-2-070: Zoning Use Table Section 4-2-120.B: Commercial Development Standards 2. Chapter 3 Environmental Regulations and Special Districts Section 4-3-050: Critical Areas Regulations 3. Chapter 4 Property Development Standards Section 4-4-030: Development Guidelines and Regulations -General Section 4-4-070: Landscaping Regulations Section 4-4-080: Parking, Loading, and Driveway Regulations Section 4-4-090: Refuse and Recyclables Standards Section 4-4-095: Screening and Storage HeighVLocation Limitations 4. Chapter 6 Streets and Utility Standards 5. Chapter 9 Procedures and Review Criteria Section 4-9-200: Site Plan Review 6. Chapter 11 Definitions E. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: 1. Land Use Element 2. Environmental Element 3. Transportation Element F. DEPARTMENT ANAL YSIS OF SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPLICATION: 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND The subject project includes portions of two parcels (to be referred to as the South Parcel and the North Parcel). The applicant is proposing to construct a 27 stall surface parking lot with access drive, pedestrian connection and SitePLN_rpt.doc.doc City of Renton PIBIPW Department RAINIER AVE. MIXED-USE S. PARKING LOT (SITE PLAN & VARIANCE) PUBLIC HEARING DATE: MARCH 14,2006 Prl, ary Report to the Hearing Examiner LUA04-093 AND LUA05-133 Page 4 of 11 storm water management facilities. The filling of a Category 3 wetland on-site and off-site wetland compensation to a Category 2, piping of an existing watercourse, and installing retaining wall are also included on the south parcel development. The north parcel, which is not contiguous to the south parcel, would include wetland enhancement and creation, removal of uncontrolled fill, construction of an ecology block wall and wetland buffer averaging. The site is located west of Rainier Ave. South and north of an existing restaurant, Chang's Mongolian Grill. A request for a parking modification has been made by the applicant to increase the number of parking spaces for the restaurant. The applicant contends the parking lot is needed to support the restaurant by additional parking during peak hours, specifically the lunch hours and evenings of Friday and Saturday. Adjacent to the site is a auto repair with espresso stand to the east, to the south is Chang's, to the north is the approved but undeveloped Sixth Street short plat, and single family residential to the west. The site is zoned Commercial Arterial (CA) as designated on the City's zoning map and Employment Area - Commercial (EA-C) on the City's Comprehensive Plan. A utility easement exists on a portion of the existing south parcel and the adjacent restaurant parcel; however, reCiprocal cross-access easements between the subject site and Chang's are required. The South Wetland and North Wetland are at the bottom of small ravines. The edges of both sites are bound by steep slopes that surface drain to a small watercourse. Existing vegetation includes maple, alder, cottonwood, fir and hemlock and an understory of blackberries and shrubs. One tree from the south parcel and four from the north wetland area are proposed to be removed. The applicant is requesting buffer averaging to reduce the required buffer of 50 ft for the North Wetland, to 25 ft on the east side in order to accommodate a future development proposal (Rainier Station). The applicant also requests a modification to the required wetland compensation timing, which would be reduced from a 12 month timeframe to be concurrent with filling the south wetland. Additionally, the applicant is requesting a variance from the Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Regulations for proposed vegetation removal and work within the required 25-ft buffer of the onsite watercourse/stream. The project is dependent upon approval of this variance, as the parking lot is proposed to be placed within the filled area of the South Wetland. The project is vested to its application acceptance date of August 12, 2004, and is not subject to the current Critical Areas regulations. 2. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and SEPA (RCW 43.21C, 1971 as amended), on February 6, 2006 the Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non-Significance, Mitigated (DNS-M) for the project. The DNS-M included six (6) mitigation measures. A 14-day appeal period commenced on February 6, 2006 and ended on February 20, 2006. On February 20, 2006, the applicant appealed the DNS-M, and asked the Environmental Review Committee to reconsider and clarify the mitigation measures for silt fencing, wetland fencing and signage, and placement of an ecology block wall. The Environmental Review Committee issued a Revised DNS-M on February 23, 2006. A 14-day appeal period for the Revised DNS-M commenced on February 23, 2006, and ended on March 10, 2006. 3. ERC MITIGATION MEASURES Based on an analysis of probable impacts from the proposed project, the following mitigation measures were issued for the Revised Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated, dated February 23, 2006: 1. The project shall be required to be designed and comply with the Department of Ecology's (DOE) Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements, outlined in Volume II of the 2001 Stormwater Management Manual. 2. During site preparation and construction, the applicant shall install silt fencing with brightly colored construction flags to indicate the boundaries of the North and South wetlands and buffer areas adjacent to the proposed construction areas. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division and be completed prior to the issuance of construction/utility permits. SitePLN_rpt.doc.doc City of Renton PIBIPW Department PrE-, ary Report to the Hearing Examiner RAINIER AVE. MIXED-USE S. PARKING LOT (SITE PLAN & VARIANCE) LUA04-093 AND LUA05-133 PUBLIC HEARING DATE: MARCH 14,2006 Page 5 of 11 3. After the development of parking lot and associated site improvements, the applicant shall install permanent fencing (Le. split-rail fence or other approved barrier) and signage along the entire eastern edge of the North and South wetland buffers. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division. 4. The applicant shall provide the total buffer fill square footage and an update landscape plan illustrating the exact locations of where interplanting was installed on the South Parcel as part of the Wetland Mitigation Plan. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division. 5. In the event that archaeological deposits are found during construction, work shall stop and the contractor(s) shall contact the State Archaeologist at the State of Washington Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, phone (360) 586-3065. 4. STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS Representatives from various City departments have reviewed the application materials to identify and address site plan issues from the proposed development. These comments are contained in the official file, and the essence of the comments has been incorporated into the appropriate sections of this report and the Departmental Recommendation at the end of the report. 5. CONSISTENCY WITH SITE PLAN APPROVAL CRITERIA As per RMC 4-9-200.E, "The Reviewing Official shall review and act upon site plans based upon comprehensive planning considerations and the following criteria. These criteria are objectives of good site plans to be aimed for in development within the City of Renton. However, strict compliance with anyone or more particular criterion may not be necessary or reasonable. These criteria also provide a frame of reference for the applicant in developing a site, but are not intended to be inflexible standards or to discourage creativity and innovation. The site plan review criteria include, but are not limited to, the following": A. CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, ITS ELEMENTS AND POLICIES: The subject site is designated Employment Area -Commercial (EA-C) on the City's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The purpose of EA-C is to provide for commercial uses requiring large amounts of land and/or high visibility and access to large volumes of automobile traffic in areas outside of Centers and the Center Downtown designations. The proposal is consistent with the following policies intended to guide development in the EA-C land use designation: Policy LU-170. Individual development projects should be encouraged to: a. minimize curb cuts and share access points. The proposed parking lot shares the same curb cut/driveway with Chang's Mongolian Grill to access Rainier Ave. North. Policy LU-174. Parking areas should be landscaped (including street trees, buffers, berms), especially along the roadways, to reduce the visual impacts. The proposal includes landscaped areas around the perimeter of the parking lot. Policy EN-B. -Achieve no overall net loss of the City's remaining wetlands base. The applicant is proposing to fill in a Category 3 wetland and compensation via wetland creation and enhancement to a Category 2 wetland in order to address code requirements and to maintain the same wetland square footage. Policy EN-9. -In no case should development activities decrease net acreage of existing wetlands. The applicant would provide wetland creation and enhancement to an off-site wetland to compensate for filling of an on-site wetland; thus no decrease of acreage would occur. Policy EN -10.-Establish and protect buffers along wetlands to facilitate infiltration and maintain stable water temperatures, provide for the biological regime, reduce amount and velocity of run-off, and SitePLN_rpt.doc.doc City of Renton P/B/PW Department RAINIER AVE. MIXED-USE S. PARKING LOT (SITE PLAN & VARIANCE) PUBLIC HEARING DATE: MARCH 14, 2006 PrE-ary Report to the Hearing Examiner LUA04-093 AND LUA05-133 Page 6 of 11 provide for wildlife habitat. Buffers along the wetland would be enhanced; however, the north wetland is proposed to have an ecology block wall separating the buffer from the wetland. B. CONFORMANCE WITH LAND USE REGULA TlONS The subject site is located in the Commercial Arterial (CA) zone as depicted on the City's Zoning Map. A variety of retail sales and services along high-volume traffic corridors, including medical offices and clinics, are permitted in the zone. The proposed surface parking lot would be an outright permitted use within the CA zone. The proposal's satisfaction of the applicable development standards of the CA zone are discussed below: Lot Coverage -There are no buildings proposed. Setbacks -The CA zone requires a minimum front building setback of 10 feet and no maximum setback from the street property line. No building is proposed as part of this application. Landscaping -The CA zone requires a minimum 10 foot landscaped setback from all street frontages. The site does not front any public streets. However, the perimeter of the parking lot is required to have a minimum width of five feet of landscaping. The parking lot is 9,100 sq. ft.; thus does not trigger the 5% landscaping requirement. The applicant is proposing to have an interplanting of plant materials around the parking lot. The landscape plan calls out a variety of native trees, shrubs and herbs to be determined by the Landscape architect or wetland biologist. The plan indicates that they would field locate plants within these areas. To ensure sufficient plants are installed, staff recommended as part of the environmental review a mitigation measure requiring a final landscape plan be submitted illustrating where and how many interplantings were installed. Buffer enhancement plant materials include: Vine Maple, Redstem Dogwood, willows, Red Elderberry; and Sword Fern, to name a few. The site does abut residentially zoned properties. The south parcel abuts R-8 to the north and west. However, due to the steep slopes and the wetlands, the side and rear yard landscaped areas would be provided for by the additional landscaping as part of the wetland compensation; thus the project complies with this development standard. Building Height -There are no buildings proposed as part of this development. Parking -The parking regulations require a specific number of off-street parking stalls be provided based on the amount of square footage dedicated to certain uses. The applicant is requesting a parking modification to allow additional parking to support Chang's Mongolian Grill. Approval of the modification is made concurrently with the site plan approval. The parking ratio applicable to the site is: Eating and Drinking Establishments -1 space per 100 sq. ft. Based on these use requirements and on the 3,500 net sq. ft. floor area, 35 parking spaces would be required to meet code. Currently there are 43 spaces on-site which is 8 greater than required. The applicant proposes to provide 27 additional parking spaces to total 70 parking spaces distributed between the two lots. The applicant's justification to support their request is as follows: In 2001, Chang's Restaurant took ownership of the facility. The facility is approximately 5,000 gross sq. ft. with a net area of 3,500 sq. ft. seating 140 patrons. The restaurant has been and is deemed to be successful with an ongoing stream of patrons during the busiest times (lunch) and evening hours of Friday and Saturday. They contend that potential patrons enter the parking lot and exit due to lack of parking and that the parking has become the de-facto cap on the growth of the business. To alleviate this cap on their growth, the restaurant has been looking for nearby locations to expand their parking. As no on-street parking is available or allowed and other sites are not available, the JDA Group property abutting the restaurant property was identified as the best and only alternative by the applicant. SitePLN_rpt.doc.doc City of Renton PIBIPW Department RAINIER AVE. MIXED-USE S. PARKING LOT (SITE PLAN & VARIANCE) PrE-ary Report to the Hearing Examiner LUA04-093 AND LUA05-133 PUBLIC HEARING DATE: MARCH 14,2006 Page 7 of 11 Modifications may be granted by the Department Administrator for individual cases providing that a specific reason makes the strict letter of the Code impractical, and that the modification is in conformity with the intent and purpose of this Code and that such modification: a. Will meet the objectives and safety, function, appearance, environmental protection, and maintainability intended by the Code Requirements, based upon sound engineering judgment; and The applicant states that the existing restaurant does not provide adequate parking to support its business during peak hours and its format and popularity and continuing the limited amount of parking limits the potential economic development of the restaurant. The function, appearance and maintainability is met. Environmental protection is affected by the proposed parking lot by the filling of a wetland and piping of a watercourse. The applicant is proposing wetland compensation for the impacts to the on-site wetland by creating and enhancing an offsite wetland. b. Will not be injurious to other property(ies) in the vicinity; and The applicant states that the proposed parking lot is located on similarly zoned commercial property and is topographically isolated from other less intensively zoned properties nearby. The surrounding developed properties include the restaurant, auto businesses and an espresso stand. The residential areas are physically isolated due to the topography. The parking lot itself would not affect the surrounding properties. Parking currently exists for the restaurant and the additional spaces would maintain the associated use. c. Conform to the intent and purpose of the Code; and The applicant contends that providing sufficient parking for users of the restaurant is the intent of the Code by keeping the business viable and managing parking for the neighborhood. The Code does require parking dependent on the use proposed. Modifications to the code are permitted in order for unique circumstances, such as limited parking, and to provide for flexibility where justified. The additional parking meets the intent of the Code. d. Can be shown to be justified and required for the use and situation intended; and The applicant observed the existing traffic and parking patterns of the restaurant which confirms the need for additional parking. The additional parking appears to be justified for the continuing viability of the restaurant due to the constraint of the site and the surrounding development. e. Will not create adverse impacts to other property(ies) in the vicinity. As previously noted by the applicant, the site is isolated by topography and vegetation on the south, west and north and abuts an existing used car sales lot on the east. A parking lot is a permitted use in the zone and would not impact the other businesses in the vicinity. Staff recommends approval of the modification granted all other conditions and mitigation measures are complied with. Screening -There are no buildings proposed; thus screening is not applicable in this case. Pedestrian Connection -The CA zone requires a pedestrian connection to be provided from a public entrance to the street and in this case from the new parking lot to Chang's restaurant. The applicant is proposing to provide a four foot wide concrete pedestrian way flush with the pavement from the new parking lot to Chang's existing parking lot. Staff recommends as a condition of site plan approval that the applicant construct the pedestrian connection of a different material than the driveway to further define the separation of the automobile from the pedestrian and be clearly signed with text similar to "Yield to Pedestrians". C. MITIGA TION OF IMPACTS TO SURROUNDING PROPERTIES AND USES SitePLN_rpt.doc.doc City of Renton PIBIPW Department RAINIER AVE. MIXED-USE S. PARKING LOT (SITE PLAN & VARIANCE) PUBLIC HEARING DATE: MARCH 14, 2006 PrE-ary Report to the Hearing Examiner LUA04-093 AND LUA05-133 Page 8 of 11 The proposed development of the site as a parking lot is not anticipated to impact adjacent properties and uses. The filling of the wetland and piping of the watercourse may impact the surroundings. However, these issues can be appropriately addressed with mitigation of the wetland fill and an engineering design to address hydrology. The SEPA review addressed these environmental issues. The use is discussed within the site plan review. The properties to the west and north are zoned residential and are single family developments. These properties are isolated from the proposed parking lot by topography and existing vegetation. To the east is an existing used car lot and espresso stand and to the south is Chang's Mongolian Grill, all with same zoning of Commercial Arterial. The parking lot sited to the northwest of the business is to support Chang's Grill and would not be highly visible from the street. According to code, parking lot lighting fixtures are to be non-glare and mounted no more than 25 feet above the ground. This is to help minimize the impact onto adjacent properties, including the Renton Municipal Airport. The airport also requires an avigation easement for noise and fiyovers from airport traffic, which has been addressed in the site plan conditions. Potential short-term noise and traffic impacts would result from the initial construction of the project to adjacent properties. The applicant would be required to comply with existing code provisions that establish the allowed hours of construction activities for projects within 300 feet of residential uses to weekdays between the hours of 7:00 am and 8:00 pm. Construction activities are not permitted prior to 9:00 am on Saturdays and no work is permitted on Sundays. D. MITIGA TlON OF IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN TO THE SITE The applicant is proposing to fill a Category 3 wetland to provide for the construction of the 27 stall parking lot. A pedestrian connection would be provided to connect the main entry of the building to the public sidewalk and north to the parking lot. The proposal is expected to impact the site. Critical areas are present and have been discussed within the environmental review section of this report concerning slopes, wetlands and streams/creeks and compensation for impacts to the site. Construction activities related to the initial development of the project would be required to utilize best management practices through code requirements for an approved Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP). 2. As provided in the DNS-M Condition #2, a silt fence will be required, to be installed along all areas of the North and South wetlands that may be subject to erosion/siltation impacts from new construction and/or proposed mitigation activities. A permanent fence is required around the entire perimeter edge of the wetland buffer (including any newly created buffer) adjacent to the South Wetland construction area to provide awareness of the wetland location and prevent impacts from human activity. E. CONSERVATION OF AREA-WIDE PROPERTY VALUES The proposed development is not expected to decrease property values in the vicinity of the site. The development of the vacant site into a parking lot would include landscaping and infrastructure improvements including those related to surface water. F. SAFETY AND EFFICIENCY OF VEHICLE AND PEDESTRIAN CIRCULA TION Vehicular access to the site will be via a 22-foot driveway located at the northwest corner of the existing Chang's Mongolian Grill parking lot. The main portion of the Chang's parking lot has driveway access from Rainier Ave. N. Construction truck hauling hours are limited to between 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. under the Development Guidelines Ordinance in order to avoid conflicts with peak hour traffic. The Traffic Planning Section will review construction-related impacts prior to issuing final construction permits. G. PROVISION OF ADEQUA TE LIGHT AND AIR SitePLN_rpt.doc.doc City of Renton PIBIPW Deparlment Prt-lary Report to the Hearing Examiner RAINIER AVE. MIXED-USE S. PARKING LOT (SITE PLAN & VARIANCE) LUA04-093 AND LUA05-133 PUBLIC HEARING DATE: MARCH 14,2006 Page 9 of 11 Exterior onsite lighting, including security and parking lot lighting, would be regulated by code. Compliance with this code (RMC 4-4-07S) ensures that all building lights are directed onto the building or the ground and can not trespass beyond the property lines. Staff does not anticipate that parking lot lighting would become an issue due to the siting of the parking lot and the adjacent uses provided code requirements are met. H. MITIGA TION OF NOISE, ODORS AND OTHER HARMFUL OR UNHEAL THY CONDITIONS It is anticipated that the most significant noise, odor and other potentially harmful impacts would occur during the construction phase of the project. The applicant is required to submit a Construction Mitigation Plan that provides measures to reduce construction impacts such as noise, control of dust, traffic controls, etc. prior to any construction/building permits being issued. The proposed development does not appear that it would not generate any harmful or unhealthy conditions. I. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES TO ACCOMMODATE THE PROPOSED USE Fire Department and Police staff have indicated that the City's existing facilities and resources are adequate to accommodate the subject proposal. Water -There is an existing 12-inch water main located in Rainier Ave. N. The static water pressure at the street level is approximately 6S psi. The site is within the 270 Water Pressure Zone. The site is outside an Aquifer Protection Zone. No watermain are required to be extended. Water would be needed for the irrigation system and include the installation of a new water meter. Sanitary Sewer and Storm Drainage -There is an existing 8-inch sewer main in NW Sth Place (portions of which have been vacated). The development of a parking lot will not require extension of sewer service. A Surface Water System Development charge based on a rate of $0.249 of the total sq. ft. of the new impervious surface area of the site. The fee is estimated at $2,187.96 for a total of 8,787 sq. ft. of new impervious (per the TIR) and is required to be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. J. PREVENTION OF NEIGHBORHOOD DETERIORA TION AND BLIGHT. The proposal would result in the construction of a surface parking lot with site improvements including landscaping, a pedestrian connection and lighting. No deterioration or blight is expected to occur as a result of this proposal. 6. STAFF ANAL YSIS OF VARIANCE REQUEST The applicant is requesting a variance from the Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Regulations for proposed vegetation removal and work within the required 2S-ft buffer of the onsite watercourse/stream. The applicant proposes to fill a portion of the onsite Class III wetland (South Wetland), clear vegetation, culvert the onsite watercourse, and operate mechanical equipment for these purposes. A variance application was submitted on September 20, 200S (LUAOS- 133). The project is dependent upon approval of this variance, as the parking lot is proposed to be placed within the filled area of the South Wetland. The South Wetland is located at the bottom of a small ravine, bounded by steep slopes that surface drain to a small watercourse. Existing vegetation includes maple, alder, cottonwood, fir and hemlock and an understory of blackberries and shrubs. One tree and understory vegetation is proposed to be removed within the 2S-foot buffer. The project is vested to its application acceptance date of August 12, 2004, and is not subject to the current Critical Areas regulations. The variance request requires a public hearing and recommendation by the Hearing Examiner. 1 . Consistency with Variance Criteria Section 4-9-2S08.S.a. lists four criteria that are required to be considered, along with all other relevant information, in making a decision on a variance application. A determination must be made that the conditions specified below have been found to exist: SitePLN_rpt.doc.doc City of Renton PIBIPW Department RAINIER AVE. MIXED-USE S. PARKING LOT (SITE PLAN & VARIANCE) PUBLIC HEARING DATE: MARCH 14,2006 PrE. ary Report to the Hearing Examiner LUA04-093 AND LUA05-133 Page 10 of 11 a. That the applicant suffers undue hardship and the variance is necessary because of special circumstances applicable to subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the subject property, and the strict application of the Zoning Code is found to deprive subject property owner of rights and privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity and under identical zone classification: The applicant contends that special circumstances apply to the subject site, which impose undue limitations on its development under applicable development regulations. Specifically, the applicant indicates that the presence of a wetland on the site and adjacent areas of steep slopes have constrained the buildable area of the site so that reasonable use is precluded without the requested variance. The topography of the site slopes steeply up to the north and south of the proposed parking lot. The applicant states that adhering to the 25-foot buffer requirements would create a protected area through the middle of the site with limited area outside of steep slopes, which would limit buildable area to a maximum 25- foot width on one side of the buffer and less than 25 feet on the other. These restrictions would prevent any reasonable commercial development from occurring consistent with the site's zoning and other developed properties in the immediate area. b. That the granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which subject property is situated: The applicant indicates that the proposed work within the buffer area will result in a paved area (parking lot), with stormwater runoff directed to a biofiltration swale and then to an existing conveyance pipe. The variance will permit extension of the existing stormwater conveyance pipe approximately 120 feet north of its current location, to culvert the existing onsite watercourse. Prior to receiving construction permits, the applicant will be required to demonstrate that removal of the natural detention provided by the wetland will not contribute to future downstream problems or flooding, and that the proposed stormwater pipe connection and the downstream system have sufficient capacity to serve the entire basin (future conditions) and build-out (reference proposed Plat Conditions #5 and 6). c. That approval shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitation upon uses of other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is situated: A parking lot is a permitted land use in the CA zone per RMC 4-2-070K. The project will be consistent with relevant development regulations in all other aspects. The applicant indicates that approval of the variance request would allow reasonable development of the site consistent with that allowed to other property owners, given the topographical limitations of the site and required buffers. d. That the approval is a minimum variance that will accomplish the desired purpose: The applicant contends that the request is a minimum variance needed in order to develop the proposal, due to the steep topography and limited buildable area. The parking lot will be limited to the south side of the parcel adjacent to existing development, which will minimize disturbance to undeveloped areas that would result from further extension of stormwater piping and placement of additional impervious road surface. H. RECOMMENDA TION: Staff recommends approval of the Rainier Ave. Mixed-Use South Parking Lot, Project File No. LUA-04- 093, ECF, SA-A, and the associated variance, Project File No. LUA05-133, V-H, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated that was issued by the Environmental Review Committee on December 28, 2005. SitePLN_rpt.doc.doc City of Renton PIBIPW Department RAINIER AVE. MIXED-USE S. PARKING LOT (SITE PLAN & VARIANCE) PUBLIC HEARING OA TE: MARCH 14, 2006 Prl-ary Report to the Hearing Examiner LUA04-093 AND LUA05-133 Page 11 of 11 2. The applicant shall provide detailed landscape and lighting plans that shows proposed parking lot landscaping and lighting prior to the recording of the final site development plan, subject to review and approval by the Development Services Division. Lighting shall comply with RMC 4-4-075 and shall not create offsite glare that may interfere with aviation traffic. 3. The applicant shall be required to provide a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) designed pursuant to the Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements, outlined in Volume II of the 2001 Stormwater Management Manual, and to submit a Construction Mitigation Plan for review and approval by the Development Services Division, prior to issuance of construction permits. 4. The applicant shall submit a final wetland mitigation plan that complies with the Determination of Non- Significance -Mitigated, issued on December 28, 2005. The final plan shall include a five-year monitoring schedule for mitigation, with a maximum 10% cover of invasive plant species during the monitoring period. Per code requirements, wetland mitigation shall be conducted and shown to be successful for 12 months prior to proposed wetland fill impacts. The final plan shall include a detailed grading plan including at least two cross-sections through the wetland creation/restoration area, and a requirement that a qualified wetland biologist be present during grading of that area. As fill soils are removed, if the original wetland soils are revealed and found to be at an acceptable elevation for future wet/and conditions, the grading plan will be field modified as approved by the wetland biologist in order to replicate original conditions as closely as possible. 5. A drainage analysis and design for this project is required to meet the standard of the 1990 King County Surface Water design manual. The report submitted with the application utilized a method for design of the bio-swale contained in the Department of Ecology 2002 manual. Approval of the construction plan is conditioned upon the applicant's demonstration that this method is equal or better than the King County 1990 design criteria for water quality facilities. The analysis shall also demonstrate that removal of the natural detention provided by the South Wetland area to be filled will not contribute to future downstream problems or flooding. 6. The preliminary design submitted with the application shows a 24" pipe connection to the downstream system. Prior to issuance of construction permits, the applicant shall provide additional analysis and verification to confirm that the proposed connection and the downstream 24" system, have enough capacity for the entire basin (future conditions) at build-out. 7. The applicant shall provide an avigation easement to the City of Renton Municipal Airport for noise and flyovers resulting from airport traffic, in a format to be determined by the Development Services Division and the Renton Municipal Airport. EXPIRATION PERIODS: Site Plan Approvals (SA): Two (2) years from the final approval (signature) date. SitePLN_rpt.doc.doc , \ "A)\ "l>\ -\ 'Z\ -, m' -::0' • m II fll. Ii! NO~NlHSVM d:N311 3sn03XlW 3nN3AV ~3INI~ ~ I l-ll': () z (¢I ~ IH II. f HII ! t ILl NVldA3)1 Ili~ IhH ! 0 z ~ 0 ~;;!~ "'~::J to-A. .. ~~ ~ ~ ~ " ~ /:..:.. /l / ~ z « ([ w I- \j) c:c ......... -.--... ~---...--.~--...;, DATA SOUTH PARGEL TOTAL P ARC-EL I'lORKAREA IMl"EI<VIOUS AREA EXISTIN5 Pl<Of'OSED % OF TOTAL SITE LANDSCAPED AREA % OF TOTAL SITE EXISTIN5 AND Pl<Of'OSED STRUG11JRES TOTAL EXISTIN5 I'ETl.ANO i't;TLAND FILL, AG1VAL FILL PAPER FILL TOTAL FILL TREE COUNT. EXISTIN5 TO BE REMOVED ---/- 61,486 SF 13,200 00 SF q,eso SF 15% 51,600 SF e5% NONE 16.600 SF 2.011 SF 1.514 SF 3,SqISF >25 I I/Ul/}/ ~ "\il&;...'/ 0 ... ' \ -e:.-"'--srI. "\, .... /' \ ""0:'_---0,..\ \;~( -:::.., _7 --<.:./ ,'--0 / ::::"~~'\b ~~ T'l'P!VL*"~ 12'!+Ll6tfTfI'CI..! !t' H X 204' PIA. """""""' ...... (~ MT!ltGIJAL.IT"($Y!.1'BPf ... GlV1L 9n , , I I \ \ \ \0 ' I,n I I I :~ \ ~\\\\,\yII.llmll""· " \ \ \ ~, " ',\"",' ,!Ii \ \\'.\ '; I'II [0\ ,,', \', .' , .... \ i, ~ \ ~ \1;\\ . . ~ \ r\ ~ \ " \ .1',1 ...... ~ ~"""'\..!!1: ~ ·~~~~%~~~jfu;~\2:?I.-"~-----"\---------·--------------, EXISTING RESTAURANT SITE ~ .... • SOUTH LOT AND SOUTH V'iETLAND FILL 'tNc?tt~ If( = 201 $ PHEUI1INAH,Y· NOT fON CONSTHUCT/ON ~-~".iD: w ~ :J ~ Zw-w...,~ >:::l~ <(0) cr;:W w~ _:t Z ~ ~, ,..,U,aIIIM M ..... "" "" ..J f-J:..J Of-LL ..J :JO J:OZ f-1I):5 :J0f-OZ, II) «: ~ .. ' ~-==."":..':.. ,oJI,05)", -- SITE PLAN APPROVAL APPU<:ATlON A002 DAiA NORTH PARCEL TOTAL PARCeL r<:)RK AReA IMPeRVI0U5 AReA, EXISTING PROPOSED % OF TOTAL SITE LANDSCAPl:D AReA % OF TOTAL SITE EXISTING AND PROPOSEO STRUCTURES TOTAL EXISTING VETLAND i'lETLAND FILL, A~i\JAL FILL PAPl:R FILL TOTAL FILL TReE ~OVNT, EXISTING TO BE ReMOveD L!MIT RI'T1."I! ew:>6, c.oNS'flI'LIC.TlON FINISH' FiNAl 2 FT, TOPSOIL. E.xc.AVAft, EXISTI ~TROLLED FILL. 25'-0" 24b,1~1 SF ~,2OO SF 00 SF 00 SF 15% 51,600 SF 0% NONE 21,100 SF ~,sqISF sp2e SF sp2e SF >50 4 " II II U II I II II 1======= I'ETl.ANO_ BUFFE~ DcPA1L ~ 'T , " " " ..... / --" -----, --, NORTH V'lETLAND ENLARGMENT AND ENHANGMENT tN I" 20' \11 \ \ nre,t/t'MtM/t". lIIItH'. .';1'" .. ,' ~--~ w ,z :J ~ Zw-wV);!; >:>~ « a > o::::w w~ -I: Z ~ I Z, l:t" - -._ I'd ..... --.. ...... {: I- Oz Z W W J:ZI: I: ~~wo~ o \jj~~Z Z>~ « >Z J: W ' I "" ~ ... , .. _-~ SI'TE PLAN APPROV"," APPt..CA nON tHEL/N/NARY· NOTfOR CONsmUCTlON I AOO 3 \ . -' ---.. -----..-/' "-", " \,/ " .. -----~// '-, .... 7 .J. '\. ....... "-- -././' I ,,,,~-;/ _ -~. --V-..::.~, ---. "' 7 \ >/ _ jJ---\. " " Ftr.'i~· """....." '. ,.,,"", ",-", " '\ --->-;~'?::;'~':7!-::-""'<-"':::-" ., I, "-... ,..... ...... ,." NORTH jl'£Tl.AND PLANTIN5 PLAN =-"""-......".,...,.. ./ SOUTH jl'£TLAND PLANTINc:. PLAN KofrUI"·"" @ 1IITIIIPUInIIt_ HAil\{ TRm. SIIRVBS AND II£R8S 8ASID ON MASTER PlANT SOIEDVl£, SPEa[s AND QUNlTllIES SIIAU BE D£T£RIHD BY VICISCIK ARIlf1l:CT OR lIEn.AIIO 8KilOOIST POST NOH-HAnVE VEG£TA nON RElIOVAL. WIUIII_IlA1M _lilt GENERAl N01I:~ 1. IT ~ PRUruIIlE IlIAT 1lIE II(SIQj (F IlIIS PlANTI«l PlAN SEEI< TO R!PUCA1I: HA1\JIIAl PlANT _lIES .. SPECIES <XlIIPO!ITIO< ANI) ARR_r. ro SPACING ANI) STRAIQIT-ROW PlAN"'G A/I£ NOT 1lE9R£D. l;,t~\w;~~~~AU BE 1<STAU!1) "'Ill .. ~.~ r:, ~c:s si,. W:,":<: (\: ~ E~ 'i~ 6' ~AWE1tR) ANI) 1-12' LOIIG. 4, BAII£ROOT PlANT STOCI< MAY BE USED IIIIEIIE S[ASOHAU Y AVWIU; ANO GENERAUY IIUST BE 1NSTAU!1) DURING TI£ DOfIIIAHT SEASI)< (APPI!OlIIUAIUY _ JIST TIIROUGII FEB 1ST). BAPlROOT PlANT S1OQ( SHAU BE [QUAl TO OR GREATER IlIAH IlIAT or 1lIE SPEClFI£D COHTAIN£R '2£. S. ""'-01 SHAU BE INSTAUlD IROIIIO AU TREES AND SiRJ9S TO AS9S1 PlANT """"VAL. 1lIE 1lUL0i SHAU BE MEDII>I GIIAIl£ WOOD CHPS OR BETTER. AU. NOH-HAII\{ VEGETATION SIIAU BE II!MOVED "'1liIH 1lIE IlEn.AIIO 8UfF!R, Ill[ LANDSCAPE ARC1111I:CT OR lIETlANO 1Il!.0000T SHAU FLAG AREAS PfIIOR TO IIENOYAL. AREAS MI\[ PlAN'" HAVE BEEH _ SHAU BE IIEPLNI1!D "'Ill Ill[ HAil\{ PLAHIli US1£D .. Ill[ MASTER PLANT LEG£NO. 1lIE LAIIOSCN'[ ARIlf1l:CT OR IIETlANO 1Il!.000ST SHAU FI£Ll) L0CA1I: PLAN'" 1I111III no: A/l£AS. SUP MIX t.; lftEB 8VEt£R --gm!ISDBfD SlI 'BIt 1HE €JtWm) IM'fEB Hl()ROSml NIX Af£IICAllfM R6If$ P£R g. [ --] REGR£Di SI£Rl[ SEED !IX SEED IIIXMI[ JaB/ACRE 1"'Ii,.."" ... __ 1IOt 2OIlO LB _mER IIOOOfI8ER 11\,\,01 LB SEED III)( AS MeTED 200 LB 2~IO <0 LB TAa<m TO PREVENT RlPPUNG ~lI.lIIIT_"""1I:I" ::=:-.... "c:.::=.=w --.... -ttGiUiit rWILCllMw-Q.QtMtaAaI) 1,11 1'OST._PGI1S rl.l., DID, ctIIIIt..,NJ.POS1SII!tUL .w..-.l- ----f -=.Ji BOUNl)ART ,.jj. - w' ::> Zw wVl >:> «0 w 0::: x w: Z « a:: ~----iidGiil TACOMA· •• "'TT",. ................ '-. .. -_ .. ...................... --.... ,,,,.,7'7.40 .w - MY 13. 2004 CONCEPTUAL ...... ...... CIC .. M!n'.lO • ..n.fUCID ........ MEA,AI?IOIDIO ... ,IlQt I PLANTING PLAN ..roaPOll'. 4fEt1' Itt,..,AlCMGlWtGl. IU.MIUl'Ulaor 1M[ (i) €.0!fl':"P NIITIIG DITAL (2) C!!AII LIllI fI!!C!! DlIAL 2 ___ •• -o II!f!D MIlAM I!QI!lGI ....- PR[UIr{INARY -NOr fOR CONSrRUCTlONI W1 .... t= I VI VI liz "-0 ~~ z <{ :'5 1:'i "- u vi (oj 0--' o'<l z 0 § 0 :::E w ffi Cl z '" '" .!~ ii~ ~ ~ RAINIER MIXED USE PARKING EXPANSION lliE SOU'THWEST OUARTER OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, WLLAMETTE MERIDIAN ~~D'l~r, R£S .. R/CAP--" F OF RENTON, Km COUNTY, WASHNGTON 02" If X O.~ s \ \ \ ~tJ.. 1 ~\.\ \ \ \ ' BENCHMARK OTYrllIOOUtSUl'OCOfJID,fIElIIIII WRlICIlDA'I\IIoG1K AIIEJDII 'OlItILOAUI ' .. IORS (MAW! 118), ODIMJI1EDTDUSFtIT OTYrsIllmllSIJMY<XII1RQ..PaII1'21a fO.II)tfItASSDlSCSfMl'll)'lCe-.J-Zlt13"o.1WTl711[$fEl)Gf:or <XIG['I[SIJEWMJ(CltIH[IESTSlDEctRANERAOJ:SIJJDI. lDCA1Dl1l FIIONT rs lHIMI. RDfJAI.<DI1Ot AT 453 RMCRA\8U.1ICIt1K. fUVAQ·iM.D.}t .. ~ ~ It -. ~.~ /"""-TO .... ;~--:J( ev,." GRAPHIC SCALE ~ "\' t:: t.. • ..1 W i i \ F \ ,\ OIISDSI SQOM[ .. MORlH'IIEST OIRIJ rs CCMaEIt PIG fE POIIII VMlT UltAlDIlIt ...... fRCI(f« ......... TMDlESSNO.Sl5C111H[1ESI' u:rsWDAWlU. B.EYA ....... lf EROSION CONTROL NOTES. b ;U ~j ~ il o~11i :1df l~~~ -<..,c8~ g~:gi I ''''LV) \ \ \~. ... 1;. ""00 '\ __ \sy ---t:--~--'\ \ \ \ DSTCNIIFf,lOlI( ...... ,,- L ____ ------i::~~"E---------- T.E.S.C. NOTES. I.!lICOIS1IlJC'IKII~Utst&TOl1. 1 A1 A ........ 1IU1.E.S.C. fL\lUIESSlUU1lE1MSFtC1EO NrIl1Ullf1'AMDPER1I£SOIEDLtEPROWlED OH TllSHET. 1 f A'I1EU.ISEIICXUI1EII£ODlIRI«:CQrIS1RUC1IOH, 11£ COrIlRACTaI SHAiJ.MOfF(1I(Q1YorR£N1(II PllQlfO~PEROO'NmlNTorEal.OOYSTMIlNIlS. 4. HOOHlRAClllRSHALlBEFlli'fRE?ONS1ll.[flJIMl.OCAlIOHNClPII01ttl1CJIorAlLml1IiG l/1lITtS. M: ClIURAC1tf1 SWU \OIFr AU. U1lI1Y LOCA11IJNS PIIKII TO cetmlIOClKIt IfYCAiJ.ItG 1ME ~lOC.I.1'ElM:AT1-aoo-'24-~AllNlll.llor43IOlRSPflllJlTONrlEXCAYA11Ck s.. AlLOOIW9IEl)MAtEfUlSKNJ.1I( I6'OStDrsf9TEINAN IoPI'II(M])lOC.I.1ICfrI. 6.. COOIIllIIAlt .1I4I'\11NE'1'(J1Fl11Rt!.OCATIOH IS r.sTHCU1UTYI'CU. INSPECTION SCHEDULE FOR ESC FACILITIES SITE PLAN SCN.!:'.AI PRGIECrEXST, "",g- j""'''''' ,I I T .E.S.C. LEGEND @fEMPCWA/tYcamII\JC'IICI4Of1tNfC[@ ® STGltlOItM4IUTPR01EC1KlI@ . ®FlTERFMllllCf8ICt@ ® aINlFUSIICCO\ERIIC;,BPlASlICCOIOIIICI«!lESGlHrTCU @ 1EW'<fWtYSEEDIIC,.~MOlESlllft[tCl.l,SEDlICIIIII( .... 1RA .... M10S SHIUE P£R 11£ IlO-If'llRA'D S*lE SEED II)( ON HOCI.1. @""",,\.OIlS @)JElllaWlYlffERlD'tutSWU@ ~ ..... ! ..... "" \ I. 8EFlJII[Mf'(CDI$1IlICIICN CIt DE'lU.Cl'llJfTAClMTI'or::om, A PIIE~IIEE1IICIlISTa:IIELD.1\{1I(QTYCFf01tIIOO'MWOO (lPUIlUCII)II(S,OESIGIIEJCIUIl :t MlI.lllS (J' Q£.WIG MIl MEAS rs \G£JAIIII PIlSERVA1IIII AS PIDCIaD 111l£PlNI !IIoIU.II:Ill.IIfI.Yn..-:D 111M FlUI N() celJMDllNC """"""'" 00:,-.,. l 1 AU.R[QIREI)SEIlIIDI1'A1ICtI,.tIIO!JONCOfIRClFAClJ1ESlllUSJaECOJmJIlC1m =.::r~u:.~IER~:~o:'~ S'f'S1DI. oIU.EIlOSCR Nt) !!OIIIITrloClJl(S!lUUlI:WIITMCOIl A Sli1l!fIlCT(lr'(CCIIn(IIIMllSU01_IIIATQ£MIIfGNe!f1t1DfS1llUC1lCll1S COMP\!1F.I) MIl POlEHTIAi. Fa!: ClH.lE EIlOSkII HAS PASSED. 111: IllUlCNTADI, MMI1[IWI((,IIEfIlACOIOO,...taII(IISlOOIOSIIIf/SEDlO'TAlDtCt:Jf1R(l S\'S1EMSMl.1IIE~«Tlf:POUTIt[. I ~ I'ECCIOBClED """""""' ... "'---- ~~:s~r:~a:.~~~~ PRS.R£SlRICTG!S.OWMI.S,CltflltOODlrl(lJln ltuMltf 1111: PUICOrsf«1t'Dl(Jl I HIORIMMOI 31, AUPROICl IJSlUIIIlD _IIOS(ll[A1UI1IIM~!QMII[ftEI', tM'MlElOlI:lUT lMIIIICED flIIlIIIII[ ww. nnw: (12) 1I)IJI!$,.!IIoIU.. CO\(II(O BY II.lOI. SCIlDNO.CltPWIIC~ 7. II Nff AMA lII01 HASIlEEN UlCISM1CI'AlEDrotAPUIIII IIUSTI£ MmA1Q.Y ST.IIUZED"'" API'RO'elR09CJlCXIfM.RA1III GllSlClLCiIIASS!IBI«IM,(Jt(w" N'Rl1lllOUQt5EP1DllEll:1fIl.US\(. nlSlIHlREllESTfEMJIUIIT1II.I11T IClIIC. CIt OllER KAMNT M'PRO\UJ 11'1' ........ ..- :.:::ms~=~~~,=~1\{ !ISID[Sl.CfI£S. '.A1DIfI!IWY1iRA\U.CXIIS1RUCOONEN1RAIICI,24'.~Xror4-101-IlOl caJIMYSPAUSstW.LELOCAlmATIlUP<*1Sor\ttlllUR IIGlSSNCl ElIIESSlOH~n I ,... DIIlWIIII 1ft lOT 10 -l _PCllCOM1'IIC1ICIII _ _ "1111 __ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ; CHECKED fOR COMPLIAICE TO cm STANDARDS CITY OF RENTON DEPAaTMllN'l' OP PUaLlC WOIUUI ~ i I Ii :"~~AClJ~~:,-&~A~~~~~~::t:,: """'" IIIY<iASlI!QMY1-'fflDRJ!]Q}.M(AlIID: "'----"'----=======""-""--DEMOLmON & T.E.S.C. PLAN C1.01 ~ WI soW! Irgp!! J -""" lilt OMl. N() .IllER E'«R'r R .... AU ~T PROOUQrIG RltIrsf CALL 48 HOURS BEFORE YOU DIG ,,-~ --",,-0Are../07/04 IlUMMeo2Olll1$-Cl01 ~ -"" '".20' I ~ I HEEDmR£PNRSSHAI.l.II£IIAllE.1III2'HCU!'SIl1 •• m/'~YfPOSSllL 1-800-424-5555 ~ .aT,2: 01', '1 3 0. <> w ;!;< ~ "'~ ~z ~ i!!~ 0 "" :ow '" 0 <.:J w ~ IS " ~ ffi <.:J Z iii ll~ --r-~ I Jl!! '.-li~~l -iT BENCHMARK RAINIER MIXED USE PARKING EXPANSION THE SOUTHWEST OUARTER OF SECl10N 7, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANOE 5 EAST, WUAMETTE !EAICfAN ImfElIDf1II:lfllnOUWItIlIETIIIIC --0A~'IUICNI __ M1III1tII1OJIS_II).COIMInEDlOusnn g O1Yt:lfIImII UWYCCIfIIQ.JIO.lfll .. \ GRAPmc SCALI: \ \ 7w~' I ='.-:=:=~~"'~'=~~~~~~..:..1tI '--, crry OF RENTON, Kt«l COUNTY, WAIH'«lTON 1 ' \ ;.~. . ~\\ , --------Fi1Tl~~ ,~!':'.. ~ ~1i:RF1 1 ·1 1 1 '-1'"1 " ""...... T \ \ --T -- ft&~9Il1ht.45\~ ...... (""J ~ -"""-~-", .\=..~ ::""~,,ftCllrlNlEJTCIOIIMJI (JI'COIIIX.PMtll'OIUIVlQ,rr.oc.., .......... AlDlfTart.I.IIICI"l MJDIIDS .... .,GIC .. ..,.. III orRMIIJI A'I8IIt 1 a.m_.~~ \ :r,--r---r-,---, .--.. t il !f ~nfi lit lS~f ~i ~~~j " .~" .~\ -.- \ \ \ @---\ At _ DRIIWt 0f'DINC \ '(nP, • '""~ .WI:!!.~ ---fM} \.....-. ----------19.15' LiS". _I·.::' 1/ 1'0 Ii' I I , .... l .............. IIIfU .. _~WD. zo..M1UI'D.'a1M""IIM._CU'conDn', ....... IJ:"W'I:IS'I.PII ..... 1O'IIll\II ........ ro"", '-~---\h~ 1I>'JI'i,!-'''-'!..l''!_''''')'''L~ \"' \ r_<.".,"_" r 8·c:OIClf"'~("s, n" etI'IItlf n." (JrI~", ~;·'(c;!i~(~~ ( .. -", 1.!ii <-"._" \i ~u' ~ II /III~ I .. "",oS"i?"_ .. .. .. .. .. " " " ~ I j ~ ~ ~ 1CIUtr..' :! STORM PROFILE'1 II I ~ 'GU:1"oo$" I ~'-I ---.o- It! • .>-.. .. .. " .. " " " • J ~f.'JII ~ --- ~I I 1 ....... \I/~.!iiJ I [ [ [ \ I I I .... ~ I ,:.. I J.. I I I ~mA=1 tl Q STORM PROFILE 12 =--CIII!IMID POR COIlPUAllC! CITY OF RENTON !, ~ ,.., " N'f'fIiOfN. TO em ITA.DAltDS DD..ut ..... aMT or .u.LIC woa_ -...... ---"" , : ... GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN C2.0 2 AdlOTfONllCALL 48 HOURS IL "" "",."".. ~,_ .... , ... " ~ t5=.~, -BEFORE YOU DIG IL :: ~~ '"" '" __ , _. !II _-"'_nII__ 1.800.424-5555 I' .... , 4 ", 7 ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~:i ~~ a Cl ~g ~~ 0: 0,-, 8 z~ g ~ '-' j .!~ ijw GRAPHIC SCALE r.. • ..,.u..J RAINIER MIXED USE PARKING EXPANSION THE SOlJTi.iwesr OUARTER OF SECTIoN 7, TOWNSHIP 23 NOR'IH, RANOE 5 EAST, WUAME'TTE MEAIOIAN CITY OF RENTON, Kr.IQ CO\.MY, WASHINaTON ( .. rwr) , ...... n. " ·"t ....... ------_ , // , / , ,/ -. -./ _!!GO !!LOCK 04'He:16HT ---z 1--"-- 1\ ' \ \ ENi<ANCCD0'En._~ =-\ \ [f5ARGEL • ~eoooo'l I-'~ --~---I _....... -.......... ,/ ~ / , ~. F INGREASeoI I • _.5P2bSF / / / / t., " .. ", .', , , '\ , " , , ,. , ..... "--------------=---»:=-=--:::;--~ IL--____ OJ,.... / \1 \ . I I II ) \ \ .. " fli 81T! PLAN ~ I I .J ~ ~ ---... .. _---"'----"'----CALL 48 HOURS =.:=.=:.:.: II BEFORE YOU DIG -"',.--1-800-424-5555 BENCHMARK Ol'rrlJlElmllSIJIMYCXIfIIClNETnlll WR1ICM. DA1\IkofI(It1t IIIaCNI \01IC.It. DA1\II1 .. II£DS{IIA>C "" COfG1ED lOUSFl[f arttlllBmllUW't'CIOIn'IIl.I'CIn_ fUID rIMSS_ IT ... 'kC-H 1113" G.TtASrfl1BflDClflCllllClll1[SIWI.IC CIt .. O_tl .... "I811(.,.., laCAlED."""' ....... IIDftIC.CIJnDIAT. __ =..~ t~ ~SQJ.willIlClnlllDTOOII8 \ ,Ie POIIbwwUICA1ID .. .-...xw FllCltfflMlllQUMIIIII!IIIlSlSCIt A'IOIJt 1IlVA ... • ... t ~ .~\\ 1 ~:' e , \\, "'--11 \ il''''''''''M'''''~ 1~"''' ,.~. ~'lI(11o-t) I U-CW'I( d.lI(IoI/CU''') ~4·1IOfoIC. J4.U(ClUT WI ~Ol!:: " CHIt J" NOI I'JIO .. ~ ~ jl it ~Jlf ji l~jj §l ~2d ! I ~ j ~ ; ; ~ ! I ~ ~ ~ I CHICKED FORCOMPUAIICE CITY OF RENTON TO em STAlCDARDI DllPAIl'I'tIdNT 0.. pwuo WOR.U :: == GRADING Ic DRAINAOE PLAN C4.0 2 ~--~ O'""ltllO';o.. ""' ..... ~ls-c'O ~ ..... ,.... m _,,7010,7 ~ IMCP) IMCP) F3 .. 18 T23N RSE W 112 ~ ZONING ----Renton d1v LImIt,! o ~ TBCHNICAL BBllVICU N 7 T23N R5E W 1/~ CITY OF RENTON REVISED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA04-093, SA-A, ECF/LUA05-133, V-H APPLICANT: JDA Group, LLC & 10 Kline Corp. PROJECT NAME: Rainier Avenue Mixed-Use South Parking Lot DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and Administrative Site Plan review for the construction of 27 parking spaces within a surface lot associated with the adjacent Chang's Mongolian Grill restaurant. The proposal includes portions of two large parcels containing Category 2 and 3 wetlands. The Category 3 wetland would be filled to accommodate the parking lot, with wetland compensation proposed off-site that would include wetland creation, enhancement and buffer averaging. A variance from the Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Regulations is required for proposed vegetation removal and work within the 25-ft. buffer of the onsite watercourse/stream. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: LEAD AGENCY: MITIGATION MEASURES: West of 505 Ranier Avenue N & southeast of NW 6th Street The City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section 1. The project shall be required to be designed and comply with the Department of Ecology's (DOE) Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements, outlined in Volume II of the 2001 Stormwater Management Manual. 2. During site preparation and construction, the applicant shall install silt fencing with brightly colored construction flags to indicate the boundaries of the North and South wetlands and buffer areas adjacent to the proposed construction areas. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division and be completed prior to the issuance of construction/utility permits. 3. After the development of parking lot and associated site improvements, the applicant shall install permanent fencing (i.e. split-rail fence or other approved barrier) and signage along the entire eastern edge of the North and South wetland buffers. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division. 4. The applicant shall provide the total buffer fill square footage and an update landscape plan illustrating the exact locations of where interplanting was installed on the South Parcel as part of the Wetland Mitigation Plan. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division. 5. In the event that archaeological deposits are found during construction, work shall stop and the contractor(s) shall contact the State Archaeologist at the State of Washington Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, phone (360) 586-3065. ERC Mitigation Measures Page 1 of 1 The Watershed Company August 31, 2004 Susan Fiala City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 OEVELOPME CITY OFtz:~~~NING SEP ~ 1 200" RECEIVED Re: Rainier Ave. Mixed-Use South Parking Lot Wetland Delineation and Mitigation Review, City File #LUA 04-093, SA-A, ECF Dear Susan: Thank you for the opportunity to review wetland and buffer mitigation associated with the. proposed Rainier Avenue mixed-use south parking lot project. In response to your request, I have reviewed the Conceptual Wetland Delineation & Mitigation Report -South Parking Lot prepared by The Riley Group, Inc. (July 22, 2004). Comments below are based entirely on this report. A site visit was not conducted as part of this review and, therefore, delineated wetland boundaries were not field confirmed. Review Comments 1. The applicant proposes to fill or otherwise impact 3,591 square feet of the lower portion of an on- site Class 3 wetland and proposes to pipe 120 linear feet of a watercourse through. the proposed wetland fill area. According to the above-referenced report, the total wetland size is estimated to be 16,600 square feet. The report does not discuss potential impacts to the upper portion of the on- site Class 3 wetland that may occur as a result of proposed fiU and watercourse piping in the lower portion of the wetland. Proposed fill and piping will likely change hydrology patterns and may impact additional wetland area such that further mitigation should be required. The applicant should provide additional information analyzing potential impacts to un-filled wetland that may result from proposed actions. 2. Proposed wetland fill will require permits from, and coordination with, the Seattle District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Washington Department of Ecology. 3. The above-referenced report refers to two watercourses. Proposed piping or alteration of these watercourses will likely require coordination with, and permits from, the Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife and the Seattle District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 4. According to the Renton Municipal Code (Title IV, 4-4-130 Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Regulations, D, 3, b), a minimum buffer area of 25 feet is required from the ordinary high water mark of a stream. This application should be revised to reflect this required buffer. 5. Proposed wetland mitigation includes wetland creation that will cause disturbance of buffer area that is described in the above-referenced report as being predominantly vegetated with native vegetation. The applicant should provide further information that describes conditions within the proposed mitigation areas. Mitigation should only be targeted for areas that will not require disturbance of existing predominantly native vegetation. 1410 Market Street • Kirkland • WA 98033 • Phone (425) 822-5242 • Fax (425) 827-8136 Fiala, S. August 31, 2004 Page 2 of2 6. Proposed wetland mitigation includes wetland creation that, due to steep slopes, reportedly necessitates the placement of ecology blocks at the wetland edge. This is not acceptable because the ecology blocks will reduce and interfere with adjoining wetland buffer hydrology and wildlife functions. Plans should be revised to address this issue. 7. Proposed wetland mitigation includes wetland creation accomplished through removal of the upper 6 inches of soil. The applicant should provide supporting hydrology information that shows that wetland hydrology is present at this shallow depth sufficient to accomplish wetland creation, but not sufficient for the area to presently meet jurisdictional wetland criteria. 8. Proposed mitigation performance standards include an allowance for up to 30% cover of invasive plant species. This should be revised to include a maximum of 10% cover of invasive plant species during the monitoring period. 9. The applicant has requested that the City authorize proposed mitigation to occur concurrently with proposed wetland fill and watercourse piping. This would not be allowed under the current City Code which requires that proposed mitigation for Class 3 wetland impacts that does not meet required mitigation ratios be conducted and shown to be successful for twelve months prior to completion of proposed wetland fill/impacts. It is not recommended that this Code requirement be waived due tosuffrcient uncertainties regarding the success of proposed mitigation as noted above. 10. Proposed mitigation includes a three-year monitoring schedule. This should be revised to include a five-year monitoring schedule. This concludes my review comments for this project at this time. Please feel free to call with any questions about this information. Sincerely, &77 Kathy Curry Environmental Scientist, PWS 13 December 2005 Keri Weaver, Senior Planner City of Renton Planning Department 1055 South Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 Re: Rainier A venue Parking Lot project -Environmental Review Dear Keri: Thank you for the opportunity to review the above referencedptoject for compliance with the pre-June 2005 'City of Renton Critical Areas Ordinance. This is the second review provided by The Watershed Company for this project. The initial work was a review of the wetland mitigation plan by Kathy Curry, formerly with this office. Kathy did not conduct a site visit to verify the wetland boundaries and classifications. During . this review, I did make a site visit to complete those tasks. I also read through Kathy's 8/31104 review letter, the original report by The Riley Group, Inc. entitled: Conceptual Wetland Delineation and Mitigation Report, South Parking Lot and dated 7/22/04. Per a conversation with you, this report has not been amended. or revised. I also reviewed the following additional documents: 1) City of Renton Staff Report, dated 9/Z1I04 2) City of Renton letter to Rich Wagner, dated 101201{)4 3) AHBL Project Menio/Report, dated 4/15/05 4) AHBL letter to Jennifer Henning (City Planner), dated 9/30105 The site visit was completed on the 5th of December 2{)05. Findings The southern wetland appears to have been accurately delineatfX}, compared to the provided survey map and to several old flags founq O'n the property. However, the wetland has not been accurately classified as a Category 3 wetland. The ordinance gives five criteria, only one of which must a wetland meet to satisfy a Category 2 designation. Criterion "c" is wetlands of any size located at the headwaters of a watercourse. This wetland persists on a slope and feeds water to the stream. It is therefore a headwater wetland. The northern wetland was accurately delineated and classified. Neither watercourse was classified in the Riley Group report per 4-3-050 L "Shorelines . Streams.and Lakes." Using this system, both watercourses would meet the definition of Class 3 waters as they are perennial, but are non-salmonid bearing. The culverts beneath Rainier A venue South are migration barriers to salmon. Since the Conceptual Wetland Delineation and Mitigation Report has not been updated, the comments found in The Watershed Company review 8/31/04 letter are still valid. In addition, acceptable final· mitigation plans should show detailed grading plans including 1410 Market Street, Kirkland, WA 98033 -(425).8225242 -fax (425) 827 8136 watershed@watershedco.com-www.watershedco.com Keri Weaver 13 December 2005 Page 2 of3 at least two cross sections through the wetland creation/restoration area~ Plans should also include a provision that a qualified wetland biologist be present during grading. As the fill soils are removed, if the original wetland soils are revealed and found to be at an acceptable elevation for future wetland conditions, the grading plan will be field modified in order to replicate original conditions as closely as possible. Also, there should be a proposal formaximOln buffer slopes. These -slopes should not exceed 15 percent, unless the buffer is wider than the standard width required in the code. The City of Renton Critical Areas Regulations in place at the date of vesting list 3 requirements which must be met in order for a permit approval (Section 4-3-050 M 2.). Requirement a. is that a proposed action avoids adverse impacts or takes appropriate measures to minimize and compensate for impacts. While no detailed construction plans for the parking -lot were provided, it appears that wetland area will be filled to the west, outside of the parking lot pavement. The use of a poured or stacked concrete block retaining wall at the western end of the lot could possibly reduce the wetland impacts somewhat. Requirement c. is that denial of the permit would result in the denial of all reasonable use of the property. The applicant is asserting that the parking lot is needed to serve-Chang's Mongolian Grill restaurant. Apparently, the Chang's lot is not large enough to handle busy dining times. The recent lot line adjustment leaves little room for use of the property without wetland and stream impacts. However, The applicant has· not shown that other development proposals with less impact to the wetland, buffers and -the stream are not possible. The use of the site as a parking lot is surely not the only possible reasonable use of this property, _ The applicant is also seeking -a variance from the tree cutting and land clearing regulations to allow approximately 65 percent of the on-site stream length to be placed in a culvert. In order for a variance to be granted, the applicant must prove an undue hardship. It is acknowledged that this property is highly constrained by topography arid critical-areas. However as stated above, the applicant has not shown that there is no other possible development option that would result in fewer impacts to the stream corridor. Buffer widths on both the north and south wetlands should be wider than shown. Slopes within these buffers vary, but are noted as being up to 40 percent, and possibly steeper where topography is not shown on the plans or is difficult to read. Section 4-3-050 M 6 d. iv. requires increases in buffer widths when slopes exceed 15 percent. Recommendations The following tasks are recommended for corrections to the submittal: 1) Revise the report to reflect the category 2 classification of the southern wetland. 2) The applicant should explore other development options which have fewer impacts that the current proposal. Keri Weaver 13 December 2005 . Page 3 6f3 3) The mitigatiori plan should be altered .to reflect out prior review letter' comments and include detaiis on grading as noted above. 4) Buffers on both wetlands, including tlie wetland mitigation area, should be increased where the s10pes exceed 15' percent. . The applicant's consultant should propose buffer widths that ~e justified by the best available science on sloped buffers. " 5) The buffer on the newly created wetland area should he less than 15 perrent or . the buffer width should be incre.ased. -, . Implementation of these recommendations will ensure that the project meets the letter . and intent of the City of Renton CAO. Please call with any questions. Sincerely, Hugh Mortensen EcologistIPWS CITY )F RENTON Planning/BuildingIPublic Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator March 13, 2006 Matt Weber AHBL, Inc. 2215 N 30th Street #300 Tacoma, WA 98403 SUBJECT: Rainier Avenue Mixed-Use South Parking Lot LUA04-093, SA-A, ECF/LUA05-133, V-H Dear Mr. Weber: This letter is to inform you that the appeal period has ended for the Environmental Review Committee's (ERC) Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated for the above-referenced project. No appeals were filed on the ERC determination and this decision is final.. The applicant must comply with all ERC Mitigation Measures outlined in the Report and Decision dated February 21, 2006. A Hearing Examiner Public Hearing has been scheduled for March 14, 2006 to to consider the variance portion of the project. The applicant or representative(s) of the applicant are required to be present. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (425) 430-7382. For the Environmental Review Committee, 1(~4W~ Keri Weaver Senior Planner cc: JDA GroupllD Kline Corp. I Owner Richard Wagner I Applicant Rolland Dewing, Mary Jo Carlson, Ronnie & Roberta McDonald, Bruce & Sue Gregg, Sherondia Renee Otis, Lee & Peggy Christopherson, Carl P. Burns I Parties of Record -------l-OS-S-s-o-ut-h-Gr-a-d-y-W-a-y---R-en-to-n-, -W-as-h-in-gt-o-n-9-8-0S-S-------~ ~ This oaper contains 50% recvcled material. 30o/~ DOS! consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE CITY OF RENTON CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 7th day of March, 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 Richard Wagner, Baylis Architects Matt Weber, AHBL, Inc. Jack Alhadeff, JDA Group, LLC/ID Kline Corp. Rolland Dewing Mary Jo Carlson Ronnie & Roberta McDonald Bruce & Sue Gregg Sherondia Renee Otis Lee & Peggy Christopherson Carl P. Burns (Signature of Sender): ~ ~ STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) Contact Contact Owner POR POR POR POR POR POR POR I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Stacy Tucker Representing signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. '~~""'R'(~~I'" ~ """\\\\\\i'~~/" D t d I J .: $" .. ~i;A\!: ;"04,'", '~ ae :3 BfolR -: ~. ~ e State of ~sljngton "'J) ~~.~l~ I' UJ~ "'...(. i~ ~ -t ~ "0 ... "'::.,. N t (P ' t) .1'\ I . \ I no :;00: ~~.(", f4: E o ary nn: NynlQ eel ¥ If) D Nrl nty'fl t\ ~1" 'I,"~ I q, Ie g = My appointment expires: ":"I \0 \ D " q;!1", l}, 1 0 " ..... ~ .: QI-\ -'I, ~'II'\\\\"",~O~ ~ Project Name: Rainier Ave Mixed Use South Parking Project Number: LUA04-093, SA-A, ECF/LUA.05-133, V-H lIt. '1SHtNG \ ... , ........ "\'\\\""'~ STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF KING} AFFIDA VIT OF PUBLICATION PUBLIC NOTICE Jody Barton, being first duly sworn on oath that she is the Legal Advertising Representative of the King County Journal a daily newspaper, which newspaper is a legal newspaper of general circulation and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of publication hereinafter referred to, published in the English language continuously as a daily newspaper in King County, Washington. The King County Journal has been approved as a Legal Newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County. The notice in the exact form annexed was published in regular issues of the King County Journal (and not in supplement form) which was regularly distributed to its subscribers during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a Public Notice was published on February 24, 2006. The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of $134.40. oC' ......... "",,,'\t ~ A ... ~'! .. O'~.s····. ,: ~"5S\ON •••• ~~ " \ -.' ~\ ~.f: '.~' " ::~ ~~ ~ J~ : :'0 _\OTAR'_~'·· ~ .. . () \.. r (fl' , Legal Advertising Representative, King County Journal ~. _._ (J) : ~ s~ooand,wom~daYOfFeb,""Y.2006. \~\. "UBUC /~J j(. ',,"Y"';..··~q·19-0:./~ .? '. ,-0 ........ ~ --)'~ , •••• , ~ WAS~\ ......... -KathY~ -'''''' ,,,,,,,, Notary PublIc for the State of Washington, Residing in Covington, Washington PO Number: NOTICE OF REVISED ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE & PUBLIC HEARING RENTON, WASHINGTON The Environmental Review Com- mittee has issued a Revised Determination of Non-Significance- Mitigated for the following project under the authority of the Renton Municipal Code. Rainier Avenue Mixed-Use South Parking Lot LUA04-093, SA-A, ECF I LUA05-133, V-H Location: West of 505 Rainier Avenue N & southeast of NW 6th Street. The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and Administrative Site Plan review for a 27 -space parking lot. A portion of a Category 3 wetland would be filled with ofTsite wetland mitigation. A variance from the Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Regulations is required for work within the 25-ft. buffer of the on site watercoursel stream. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on March 10, 2006. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Exam- iner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. Additional infor- mation regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. A Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner in the Council Chambers, City Hall, on March 14, 2006 at 9:00 AM to consider the Variance request. If the En- vironmental Determination is appealed, the appeal will be heard as part of this public hearing. Interested parties are invited to attend the public hearing. Publication Date: February 24, 2006 Published in the King County Journal February 24, 2006. #848761 STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF KING } AFFIDA VIT OF PUBLICATION PUBLIC NOTICE Jody Barton, being first duly sworn on oath that she is the Legal Advertising Representative of the King County Journal a daily newspaper, which newspaper is a legal newspaper of general circulation and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of publication hereinafter referred to, published in the English language continuously as a daily newspaper in King County, Washington. The King County Journal has been approved as a Legal Newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County. The notice in the exact form annexed was published in regular issues of the King County Journal (and not in supplement form) which was regularly distributed to its subscribers during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a Public Notice was published on February 6, 2006. The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of $151.20. ... , ....... """~" .. __ .............. "t t.J,~.i..o 'I" -.~ ,."" Q~ " ! ~~;/'.:2,\J?'i~:';>~ \ ..:~ fl.,...,. ~"J'. , .. . 0 t '.n ,.' Con' ~ ega I Advertising Representative, King County Journal ~ : 0 ,,,, .. ,.,'<L; "~'j : ~ Subscribed and sworn to me this 6th day of February, 2006.~ (J) \ ~ ;;c,....... /o<! i ',/-", , ,,·',,5 ", "'1 ~ ··Ju .. ·,:'. ') I,,' 0 .: " $' '""":; , .. ~\~ -- 1'1 Of: W'p..Sl' ~~-'" ........ \\\.\.\.'\., .... ,,,' or the State of Washington, Residing in Covington, Wasnmgton NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE & PUBLIC HEARING RENTON, WASHINGTON The Environmental Review Com- mittee has issued a Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated for the following project under the authority of the Renton Municipal Code. Rainier Avenue Mixed-Use South Parking Lot LUA04-093, SA-A, ECF I LUA05-133, V-H Location: West of 505 IL"lnier Avenue N & southeast of NW 6th Strcct, The applicant is re- questing Environmental (SEPA) Review and Admin-istrative Slte Plan review for the construction of 27 parking spaces within a surface lot associated with the adjacent Chang's Mongolian Grill restaurant. The proposal includes portions of two large parc(" s containing Category 2 and :3 wetlands. The Category 3 wetland would be filled to accommodate the parking lot, with wetland compensation proposed off-site that would include wetland creation, enhancement and buffer averaging. A variance from the Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Regulations is required for proposed vegetation removal and work within the 25-ft. buffer of the onsite watercourse/stream. Appeals of the environmental deter- mination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on February 20, 2006. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Ex- aminer, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. Additional infor- mation regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. A Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner in the Council Chambers, City Hall, on March 7,2006 at 9:00 AM to consider the Variance request. If the Environ- mental Determination is appealed, the appeal will be heard as part of this public hearing. Interested parties are invited to attend the public hearing. Publication Date: February 6, 2006 Published in the King County Journal February 6, 2006. #848630 - I CITY OF RENTON CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 23rd day of February, 2006, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing Revised Environmental Determination & Mitigation Measures documents. This information was sent to: Name Representing Agencies See Attached Matt Weber Contact JDA Group/lD Kline Corp Owners Richard Wagner Contact Rolland Dewing POR Mary Jo Carlson POR Ronnie & Roberta McDonald POR Bruce & Sue Gregg POR Shrondia Renee Otis POR Lee & Peggy Christopherson POR Carl P. Burns POR (Signature of Sender): Jt;;-uj \.:1r~~hv ..... . ," -,-. ..... CHARLES F. KOKKO ~ -)0 ~ NOTARY PUBLIC ~ STATE OF WASHINGTON STATE OF WASHINGTON ~ ) SS COMMISSION EXPIRES ~ COUNTY OF KING ) MARCH 19,2006 ~ ~ ~ I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Stacy Tucker signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: c?r6'-1 h b I Notary Public in and for the Sate of Washington Notary (print): __ C_)_~--::'t~&s~· --:-rf----::;--~_~....;...~ ______ _ My appointment expires: 3/ /C)/()t' Project Name: Rainier Avenue Mixed-Use South Parking Lot Project Number: LUA04-093, SA-A, ECF/LUA05-133, V-H template -affidavit of service by mailing T Dept. of Ecology * Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 WSDOT Northwest Region * Attn: Ramin Pazooki King Area Dev. Serv., MS-240 PO Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 US Army Corp. of Engineers * Seattle District Office Attn: SEPA Reviewer PO Box C-3755 Seattle, WA 98124 Jamey Taylor * Depart. of Natural Resources PO Box 47015 Olympia, WA 98504-7015 KC Dev. & Environmental Servo Attn: SEPA Section 900 Oakesdale Ave. SW Renton, WA 98055-1219 Metro Transit Senior Environmental Planner Gary Kriedt AGENCY (DOE) LETTER MAILING (ERe DETERMINATIONS) WDFW -Stewart Reinbold * Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept. * c/o Department of Ecology Attn: Karen Walter or SEPA Reviewer 3190 160th Ave SE 39015 -172nd Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98008 Auburn, WA 98092 Duwamish Tribal Office * Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program * 4717 W Marginal Way SW Attn: Ms Melissa Calvert Seattle, WA 98106-1514 39015 172nd Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092-9763 KC Wastewater Treatment Division * Office of Archaeology & Historic Environmental Planning Supervisor Preservation* Ms. Shirley Marroquin Attn: Stephanie Kramer 201 S. Jackson ST, MS KSC-NR-050 PO Box 48343 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 City of Newcastle City of Kent Attn: Mr. Micheal E. Nicholson Attn: Mr. Fred Satterstrom, AICP Director of Community Development Acting Community Dev. Director 13020 SE 72nd Place 220 Fourth Avenue South Newcastle, WA 98059 Kent, WA 98032-5895 Puget Sound Energy City of Tukwila Municipal Liason Manager Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official Joe Jainga 6300 Southcenter Blvd. 201 South Jackson Street KSC-TR-0431 PO Box 90868, MS: XRD-01W Tukwila, WA 98188 Seattle, WA 98104-3856 Bellevue, WA 98009-0868 Seattle Public Utilities Real Estate Services Title Examiner 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900 PO Box 34018 Seattle, WA 98124-4018 Note: If the Notice of Application states that it is an "Optional DNS", the marked agencies and cities will need to be sent a copy of the checklist, PMT's, and the notice of application. * Also note, do not mail Jamey Taylor any of the notices she gets hers from the web. Only send her the ERC Determination paperwork. template -affidavit of service by mailing f CITY ( f RENTON PlanningIBuildingIPublic Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator February 23, 2006 Matt Weber AHBL, Inc. 2215 N 30th Street ste: #300 Tacoma, WA 98403 SUBJECT: Rainier Avenue Mixed-Use South Parking Lot LUA04-093, SA-A, ECF/LUA05-133, V-H Dear Mr. Weber: This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) to advise you that they have completed their review of the subject project and have issued a REVISED threshold Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated with Mitigation Measures. Please refer to the enclosed ERC Report and Decision, Section C for a list of the Mitigation Measures. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on March 10,2006. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton.City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. Please note that the Public Hearing which was previously scheduled for March 7, 2006 has been rescheduled to March 14. 2006 by the Renton Hearing Examiner in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, Washington, at 9:00 AM to consider the Variance request. The applicant or representative(s) of the applicant is required to be present at the public hearing. A copy of the staff report will be mailed to you prior to the hearing. If the Environmental Determination is appealed, the appeal will be heard as part of this public hearing. The preceding information will assist you in planning for implementation of your project and enable you to exercise your appeal rights more fully, if you choose to do so. If you have any questions or desire clarification of the above, please call me at (425) 430-7382. For the Environmental Review Committee, Keri Weaver Senior Planner cc: JDA Group, LLC & 10 Kline Corp I Owner(s) Rolland Dewing, Mary Jo Carlson, Ronnie & Roberta McDonald, Bruce & Sue Gregg, Sherondia Renee Otis, Lee & Peggy Christopherson, Carl P. Burns I Party(ies) of Record Richard Wagner I Contact Enclosure -------l-OS-S-S-o-uth-G-ra-d-y-W-a-y---R-en-to-n-,-W-as-h-in-gt-o-n-9-g-0S-S-------~ (i') This paper contains 50% recycled material. 30% POSt consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE CITY ( ~ RENTON PlanningIBuildingIPublic Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator February 23, 2006 Washington State Department of Ecology Environmental Review Section POBox 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Subject: REVISED Environmental Determinations Transmitted herewith is a copy of the Revised Environmental Determination for the foliowing project reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) on February 21, 2006: REVISED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NUMBER: Rainier Avenue Mixed-Use South Parking lot lUA04;.093, SA-A; ECF/LUA05-133, V-H LOCATION: West of 505 Ranier Avenue N & southeast of NW 6th Street DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and Administrative Site Plan review for a 27 -space parking lot. A portion of a Category 3 wetland would be filled with offsite wetland mitigation. A variance from the Tree Cutting and land Clearing Regulations is required for work within the 25-ft. buffer of the onsite watercourse/stream. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM" on March 10, 2006. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. If you have questions, please call me at (425) 430·7382. For the Environmental Review Committee, Keri Weaver Senior Planner cc: King County Wastewater Treatment Division WDFW, Stewart Reinbold David F. Dietzman, Department of Natural Resourtes WSDOT, Northwest Region Duwamish Tribal Office Karen Walter, Fisheries, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe (Ordinance) Melissa Calvert, Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program US Army Corp. of Engineers Stephanie Kramer, Office of Archaeology & Historic PreseNation Enclosure -------------l-OS-S-S-o-m-h-ili-a-d-y-W-a-y-.-R-en-t-on-,-W-a-Sh-in-~-o-n-9-8-0-SS-------------~ ® This paper contains 50% recycled material, 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE CITY OF RENTON REVISED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) APPLICATION NO(S}: LUA04-093, ECF, SA-A / LUA05-133, V-H APPLICANT: JDA Group, LLC and 1.0. Kline Corp. PROJECT NAME: Rainier Avenue Mixed-Use South Parking Lot DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and Administrative Site Plan review for the construction of 27 parking spaces within a surface lot associated with the adjacent Chang's Mongolian Grill restaurant. The proposal includes portions of two large parcels containing Category 2 and 3 wetlands. The Category 3 wetland would be filled to accommodate the parking lot, with wetland compensation proposed off-site that would include wetland creation, enhancement and buffer averaging. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: LEAD AGENCY: West of 505 Rainier Ave. N. and southeast of NW 6th Street The City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section The City of Renton Environmental Revi.ew Committee. has determined that it does not have a probable Significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (E1S) 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 .befUed'iI1Vtlriting on or before 5:00 PM on March 10, 2006. Appeals must be filed in writing together With the required$15;QO application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. PUBLICATION DATE: DATE OF DECISION: SIGNATURES: February 24, 2006 February 21,2006 CITY OF RENTON REVISED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA04-093, SA-A, ECF/LUA05-133, V-H APPLICANT: JDA Group, LLC & ID Kline Corp. PROJECT NAME: Rainier Avenue Mixed-Use South Parking Lot DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and Administrative Site Plan review for the construction of 27 parking spaces within a surface lot associated with the adjacent Chang's Mongolian Grill restaurant. The proposal includes portions of two large parcels containing Category 2 and 3 wetlands. The Category 3 wetland would be filled to accommodate the parking lot, with wetland compensation proposed off-site that would include wetland creation, enhancement and buffer averaging.. A variance from the Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Regulations is required for proposed vegetation removal and work within the 25-ft. buffer of the on site watercourse/stream. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: LEAD AGENCY: MITIGATION MEASURES: West of 505 Ranier Avenue N & southeast of NW 6th Street The City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section 1. The project shall be required to be designed andeornply wi.th the Department of Ecology's (DOE) Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements, outlined in Volume tfofthe 2001 Stormwater Management Manual. 2. During site preparation and construction, the applicant shaJI install silt feneing with brightly colored construction flags to indicate the boundaries of the North and South wetlands' and buffer areas adjacent to the proposed construction areas. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division and be completed prior to the issuance of construction/utility permits. 3. After the development of parking lot and associated site improvements, the applicant shall install permanent fencing (i.e. split-rail fence or other approved barrier) and signage along the entire eastern edge of the North and South wetland buffers. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development SerVices Division. 4. The applicant shall provide the total buffer fill square footage and an update landscape plan illustrating the exact. locations of where interplanting was installed on the South Parcel as part of the Wetland Mitigation Plan. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division. 5. In the event that archaeological deposits are found during construction, work shall stop and the contractor(s) shall contact the State Archaeologist at the State of Washington Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, phone (360) 586-3065. ERC Mitigation Measures Page 1 of 1 REVISED ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION & PUBLIC HEARING ISSUANCE OF A REVISED DETERMINATION OF NON·SIGNIFICANCE • MITIGATED (DNS-M) POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAl ACTION PROJECT NAME: Ronlor Awn ... Mbtod-Uoe South P.rldng Lot PROJECT NUMBER: LUAU4-083, SA-A, ECF I LUAU5-il3, Y-H LOCATION: west of 505 Ronle, Aven ... N & _est ofNW 8th Stntet OESCRI'TION: Th. _1Icant I. req ... otIng Environmental (SEPA) R.vlew ond AdminlstrothNo Site PIon ...... w for • 27""","", porIdng 101. A portion of. CatogOf)' 3 wetl.nd would be fliled with --- mltlgotlon. A v_ from .... T .... Cutting .nd Lond CIe.ring Rogulotlon. I. required for wort within .... 25-ft. buffer of the ona" watercoUI'MIstream. 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 detennlnation must be flied In writing on or before 5:00 PM on March 10, 200t. Appeal. m .... be flied In writing toge .... , with .... required $75.00 application fee wHh: H •• ring ex.mlne" City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way. Renton. WA t8055. Appe". to the examiner .... govemed by City of Renton Municipal Code SectIon ...... 110.8. Addition.llnformatlon regarding the appeal proce .. may be obtained from the R_on CIty Clerk'. OIflco, (U5) 430-8510, A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON THE 7TH FLOOR OF CITY HALL, 1055 SOUTH GRADY WAY, RENTON, WASHINGTON, ON MARCH 14.2006 AT 9:00 AM TO CONSIDER THE VARIANCE REQUEST. IF THE ENVIRONMENTAl DETERMINATION IS APPEALED, THE APPEAL WILL BE HEARD AS PART OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING. CERTIFICATION I, \Der4-Ja.-6b , hereby certify that ~ copies of the above document were posted by me in ~ conspicuous places or nearby the described property on DA TE:----.:~'-+-"d.::..:.L.I+_/ 0=--(;_ SIGNED::"Df< ~ ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn before me, a Notary Public, in and for the State of Washi ton residing in ~I INJ--. on th,l!b.l day of GJ '2&" i ---I-,.L.Ji ~':t.L.!---- REVISED ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION & PUBLIC HEARING ISSUANCE OF A REVISED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED (DNS-M) POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: Ranier Avenue Mixed-Use South Parking Lot PROJECT NUMBER: LUA04-093, SA-A, ECF / LUA05-133, V-H LOCATION: West of 505 Ranier Avenue N & southeast of NW 6th Street DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and Administrative Site Plan review for a 27-space parking lot. A portion of a Category 3 wetland would be filled with offsite wetland mitigation. A variance from the Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Regulations is required for work within the 25-ft. buffer of the onsite watercourse/stream. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERG) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on March 10, 2006. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON THE 7TH FLOOR OF CITY HALL, 1055 SOUTH GRADY WAY, RENTON, WASHINGTON, ON MARCH 14, 2006 AT 9:00 AM TO CONSIDER THE VARIANCE REQUEST. IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION IS APPEALED, THE APPEAL WILL BE HEARD AS PART OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING. FOR FURTHER ION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION AT (425) 430-7200. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION Please include the project NUMBER when calling for proper file identification. • • STAFF City of Renton REPORT Department of Planning / Building / Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE A. BACKGROUND ERC MEETING DATE February 21,2006 Project Name: Rainier Ave. Mixed Use South Parking Lot (Chang's Parking Lot) -Site Plan Review (LUA04-093, ECF, SA-A) Rainier Ave. Mixed Use South Parking Lot (Chang's Parking Lot) -Tree Cutting Variance (LUA05-133, V-H) Owners/Applicants: JDA Group, LLC and I.D. Kline Corp. 95 South Tobin St. Renton, WA 98055 Contact: Richard Wagner, Baylis Architects, 10801 Main St., Ste. 110, Bellevue, WA 98004 File Number: LUA04-093, ECF, SA-A Project Manager: Keri Weaver, Senior Planner LUA05-133, V-H Project Description: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and Administrative Site Plan review for the construction of 27 parking spaces within a surface lot associated with the adjacent Chang's Mongolian Grill restaurant. The proposal includes portions of two large parcels containing Category 2 and 3 wetlands. The Category 3 wetland would be filled to accommodate the parking lot, with wetland compensation proposed off-site that would include wetland creation, enhancement and buffer averaging. Continued on next page Project Location: West of 505 Rainier Ave. N. and southeast of NW 6th Street Site Area: South Parcel-13,200 sq. ft. of a 67,486 sq. ft. parcel (1.55 acres total) North Parcel-9,200 sq. ft. of a 246,731 sq. ft. parcel (5.66 acres total) RECOMMENDA T/ON Staff recommends that the Environmental Review Committee issue a Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M) SITE Project Location Map ERC_ ChangPkgLOT.Feb2006.doc , . , . City of Renton PIB/PW Department Environm I Review Committee Staff Report RAINIER AVE. MIXED-USE S. PARKING LOT (SITE PLAN & VARIANCE) LUA-04-093 AND LUA05-133 ERG REPORT of February 21, 2006 Page 20f8 PROJECT DESCRIPTION CONTINUED: The subject project includes portions of two parcels (to be referred to as the South Parcel and the North Parcel). The applicant is proposing to construct a 27 stall surface parking lot with access drive, pedestrian connection and storm water management facilities. The proposal also involves the removal of noxious weeds; piping of an existing drainage ditch; installing a retaining wall; utility improvements; and a parking modification. Proposed development on the South Parcel includes: filling of a Category 3 wetland on-site; off-site wetland compensation to a Category 2 wetland; piping of an existing watercourse; and installation of a retaining wall. Development on the North Parcel, which is not contiguous to the South Parcel, would include: wetland enhancement and creation; removal of uncontrolled fill; construction of an ecology block wall; and wetland buffer averaging. The site is located west of Rainier Ave. South, and north of an existing restaurant (Chang's Mongolian Grill). The applicant has requested a parking modification to increase the maximum allowable number of parking spaces for the restaurant. The applicant contends that the new parking lot and additional parking spaces are needed to support the restaurant during peak hours, specifically the lunch hours and Friday/Saturday evenings. Adjacent development includes: East: Auto repair shop and espresso stand West: Single-family residential (R-8 zoning) North: Steep slopes on undeveloped land under the same ownership (CA zoning). South: Chang's Mongolian Grill restaurant. The site is zoned Commercial Arterial (CA) as designated on the City's zoning map, and Employment Area - Commercial (EA-C) on the City's Comprehensive Plan. A utility easement exists on a portion of the existing south parcel and the adjacent restaurant parcel; however, reciprocal cross-access easements between the subject site and Chang's restaurant will be required. The South Wetland and North Wetland are at the bottom of small ravines. The edges of both sites are bound by steep slopes that surface drain to a small watercourse. Existing vegetation includes maple, alder, cottonwood, fir and hemlock and an understory of blackberries and shrubs. One tree from the south parcel and four from the north wetland area are proposed to be removed. In addition to the parking modification request, the applicant is also requesting buffer averaging, and a modification to the required wetland compensation timing, from a 12 month timeframe to be concurrent with filling of the south wetland. A variance is also requested from the Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Regulations for proposed vegetation removal and work within the required 25-ft buffer of the onsite watercourse/stream. The project is dependent upon approval of this variance, as the parking lot is proposed to be placed within the filled area of the South Wetland. The project is vested to its application acceptance date of August 12, 2004, and is not subject to the current Critical Areas regulations. B. RECOMMENDA TION Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommends that the Responsible Officials make the following Environmental Determination: DETERMINA TION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE Issue DNS with 14 day Appeal Period. ERG _ GhangPkgLOT, Feb2006,doc DETERMINA TION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGA TED. xx Issue DNS-M with 14 day Appeal Period. Issue DNS-M with 15 day Comment Period followed by a 14 day Appeal Period. , ' , . City of Renton PIB/PW Department RAINIER AVE. MIXED-USE S. PARKING LOT (SITE PLAN & VARIANCE) Environm .... 1 Review Committee Staff Report LUA-04-093 AND LUA05-133 ERe REPORT of February 21, 2006 Page 30f8 C. MITIGA TlON MEASURES 1. The project shall be required to be designed and comply with the Department of Ecology's (DOE) Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements, outlined in Volume II of the 2001 Stormwater Management Manual. 2. During site preparation and construction, the applicant shall install silt fencing with brightly colored construction flags to indicate the boundaries of the North and South wetlands and buffer areas adjacent to the proposed construction areas. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division and be completed prior to the issuance of construction/utility permits. 3. After the development of parking lot and associated site improvements, the applicant shall install permanent fencing (Le. split-rail fence or other approved barrier) and signage along the entire eastern edge of the North and South wetland buffers. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division. 4. The applicant shall provide the total buffer fill square footage and an update landscape plan illustrating the exact locations of where interplanting was installed on the South Parcel as part of the Wetland Mitigation Plan. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division. 5. In the event that archaeological depOSits are found during construction, work shall stop and the contractor(s) shall contact the State Archaeologist at the State of Washington Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, phone (360) 586-3065. Advisory Notes to Applicant: The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the environmental determination. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for environmental determinations. Planning 1. Commercial, multi-family, new single family and other nonresidential construction activities shall be restricted to the hours between seven o'clock (7:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m., Monday through Friday. Work on Saturdays shall be restricted to the hours between nine o'clock (9:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m. No work shall be permitted on Sundays. Building 1. Parking stalls must meet ADA requirements. 2. Building permit required for retaining walls greater or equal to four feet (4 ft.) in height. Fire Department 1. Maintain turning radius for fire equipment. A 45 ft. outside and a 25 ft. inside radii. Plan Review -General 1. All plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards. 2. A construction permit is required. The permit requires three copies of the drawings, two copies of the drainage report, a construction estimate, application and appropriate fee (this may be submitted at the sixth floor customer service counter). Plan Review -Surface Water 1. A drainage analysis and design for this project is required to meet the standard of the 1990 King County Surface Water design manual. A cursory review of the report submitted with this application determined that it met the criteria except for the following: The report submitted with the application utilized a method for design of the bio- swale contained in the Department of Ecology 2002 manual. Approval of the construction plan will be conditioned on showing that this method is equal or better than the King County 1990 design criteria for water quality facilities. 2. The preliminary design submitted with the application shows a 24" pipe connection to the downstream system. It will be necessary to further verify that the pipe systems being installed, and the downstream 24" system, have enough capacity for the entire basin (future conditions) build-out. This analysis and verification will be required prior to approval of the utility construction plans. 3. It appears that the area being filled previously provided some natural detention. And it is understood that the disturbed wetlands will be mitigated off-site (within an adjacent drainage basin). However, it must also be shown that the removal of the natural detention will not contribute to future downstream problems or flooding. 4. The System Development Charge shall be at the rate of $0.265/square foot of new impervious (the TIR reports ERC _ ChangPkgLOT. Feb2006.doc City of Renton PIBIPW Deparlment Environm I Review Committee Staff Reporl RAINIER AVE. MIXED-USE S. PARKING LOT (SITE PLAN & VARIANCE) LUA-04-093 AND LUA05-133 ERG REPORT of February 21, 2006 Page 4 0(8 that a total of 8787 square feet of new impervious will be added. This would result in a fee of $2328.55.) This fee is payable upon recording of the final site plan and is subject to change. D. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS In compliance with RCW 43.21 C. 240, the following project environmental review addresses only those project impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and environmental regulations. 1. Earth Impacts: The City's Critical Areas maps depict the presence of steep slopes and erosion hazards on site. Slopes equal to or greater than 40% are to the immediate north of the proposed parking lot. The applicant requested an exception through modification for these slopes of which a portion are on the subject site. The portion of the slopes which are approved for a modification are located at the northeastern corner of the site. The remaining onsite slopes are not included in the exception. As part of the previous review of the slopes, a geotechnical report was submitted and has been re-submitted as part of this project as described below. The applicant submitted a Geotechnical Report prepared by The Riley Group, Inc., dated June 2, 2003 with the land use application. The report addressed soils, groundwater, landslide hazards including historical slide activity, foundation systems and site preparation. The report discussed conditions for multiple parcels under the same owner. The report is assumed to address similar conditions for the subject site. The geotechnical report discussed the proposed commercial development along Rainier Ave. N. and stated that potential impacts to the slopes would be at the toe. Likewise, the proposed parking lot would abut the toe of slopes located to the north and south of the lot. The lot appears to be as close as 2 ft from the toe of the slope. The geotechnical report stated that no cutting into the toe of the slope should be done due to the steepness of the slope, which is prone to surficial creep and ravelling over time. The applicant indicates that no excavation will occur at the toe of the slope. In order to reduce the potential for erosion and control sedimentation to the site and to adjacent properties, staff recommends additional mitigation, including a requirement that the project be designed and comply with the Department of Ecology's (DOE) Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements, outlined in Volume II of the 2001 Storm water Management Manual. Mitigation Measures: The project shall be required to be designed and comply with the Department of Ecology's (DOE) Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements, outlined in Volume II of the 2001 Stormwater Management Manual. Policy Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations. 2. Surface Water Impacts: The site drains to Lake Washington via the West Hill drainage sub-basin. The applicant submitted a Storm Drainage Technical Information Report prepared by AHBL, dated June, 2004. The report states that current runoff from the site and upstream is discharged through an existing culvert that connects to the storm system in Rainier Avenue. The culvert is proposed to be extended by this project, in order to continue to collect runoff from the existing ditch and convey it downstream. The upstream analysis addresses the storm system located in Taylor Place NW, which discharges to a ditch west of the site. This ditch conveys the flow through the project site to the existing culvert. The report indicates that the upstream drainage pattern would be maintained in the existing system. The drainage analysis and design for this project is required to meet the 1990 King County Surface Water design manual (KCSWDM). Staff review indicates that this criteria is met, except for the use of a bio-swale designed to the Department of Ecology 2002 manual. During construction plan review, the applicant will be required to justify how this method is equal to or better than the 1990 KCSWDM design criteria for water quality facilities. ERG _ GhangPkgLOT. Feb2006.doc City of Renton PIBIPW Department RAINIER AVE. MIXED-USE S. PARKING LOT (SITE PLAN & VARIANCE) ERG REPORT of February 21, 2006 Environm Review Committee Staff Report LUA-04-093 AND LUA05-133 Page 50f8 Additionally, staff review indicates that the 24-inch pipe connection to the downstream system will require further analysis and verification that the system would have enough capacity for the entire basin (future conditions) upon build-out. This will be required prior to the approval of the utility construction plans. Furthermore, the wetland area to be filled provides some natural detention. Offsite mitigation for this wetland fill is proposed within an adjacent drainage basin. The applicant must also demonstrate that the removal of the natural detention will not contribute to future downstream problems or flooding. No further mitigation is recommended; however, the applicant is required to address these issues as stated above prior to utility construction plan approval. (Also see following discussion on Wetlands.) Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation is recommended. Policy Nexus: N/A 3. Wetlands/Streams Impacts: The applicant submitted a Wetland Delineation & Mitigation Report prepared by The Riley Group, Inc., dated July 22, 2004. The purpose of the study was to delineate wetlands, evaluate the functions and values of wetlands and any streams, determine classification and buffers, determine impacts and present a conceptual mitigation plan. The study delineated an approximately 16,600 sq. ft. Category 3 wetland within the ravine on the parking lot site (the South Wetland) and an approximately 21,700 sq. ft. Category 2 wetland on the north parcel (the North Wetland). A portion of the South Wetland is proposed to be filled (3,591 sq. ft. of impact includes 2,017 of wetland and 1,574 of buffer). Mitigation of these impacts is proposed to be off-site, to the North Wetland, at a 1.5: 1 ratio resulting in 3,591 sq. ft. of creation and 1,800 sq. ft. of enhancement. The applicant is requesting buffer averaging to the North Wetland to accommodate future development of the parcel to its east. According to the wetland report, the South Wetland meets the criteria as a palustrine emergent Category 3 wetland. The wetland is classified due to the size (greater than 5,000 sq. ft.); severe disturbance, including the dominance of invasive species within the wetland, specifically Japanese knotweed and Himalayan blackberry; fill material within the wetland at the east end as well as woody debris dumping; severe under- cutting of the watercourse; and outlet modification (watercourse entering a culvert). The applicant has previously undertaken noxious weed abatement of the Japanese Knotweed. The North Wetland is classified as a Category 2 wetland in that it lies within the headwaters of a watercourse. This watercourse is piped to Lake Washington and has minimal stream function. Although the eastern end of the wetland was historically filled, the wetland area shows little evidence of human related physical alteration such as diking, ditching or channelization. On December 13, 2005, the City's wetland consultant, The Watershed Company, provided an analysis of the wetland delineations, classifications, and proposed mitigation measures. This analysis indicated that the South Wetland should be considered a Category 2 wetland as it is located at the headwaters of a watercourse. The classification has not yet been resolved. If the South Wetland is determined to meet the criteria for a Category 2 wetland, the required buffers and proposed mitigation measures will be increased according to code requirements (RMC 4-3-050). The flowing water features on the site are unlikely to support salmon ids. The primary source of hydrology is discharge from on-site wetland and upland environments. An underground culvert system connects the watercourses to the city's storm drainage system. The applicant is requesting buffer averaging of the North Wetland's code required 50 foot buffer. The wetland report indicates that the North Wetland's existing buffer area on the east side is nearly non- functional since the area lying within 50 feet of the wetland edge contains fill, debris and blackberries and would not not support desirable native vegetation. The proposed increase to the buffer area on the south edge of the North Wetland 100 ft wide at its widest point, with a total area of 5,028 sq. ft. ERC _ ChangPkgLOT. Feb2006.doc City of Renton PIBIPW Department RAINIER AVE. MIXED-USE S. PARKING LOT (SITE PLAN & VARIANCE) ERG REPORT of February 21. 2006 Environm Review Committee Staff Report LUA-04-093 AND LUA05-133 Page 60f8 To ensure that disturbance to the wetland and buffer does not occur during and after construction, staff recommends that silt fencing be installed around the wetland and buffer during construction and permanent fencing be installed after construction. The applicant is proposing to install a 6-ft high chain link fence along the west edge of the reduced 25 ft. wetland buffer along with signage. From review of the required wetland compensation of the wetland fill and buffer fill, it appears that the square footage of the fill area is less than required by code. The wetland area is noted as 2,017 sq. ft. with a buffer fill of 1,574 sq. ft.; however the filled buffer compensation square footage is provided only for the west part of the buffer. The 25-ft buffer surrounds the entire wetland, to its north and south. It appears that the loss of the buffer would be partially mitigated outside of the parking lot, but the square footage has not been provided. Additionally the water quality facility is proposed to be located within the proposed buffer enhancement area which would reduce the amount of interplanting area. Staff recommends that as part of the final mitigation plan the applicant provide the square footage of buffer fill, and provide a landscape plan showing where and how many plants were interplanted on the South Parcel, or else obtain approval of a variance. Additionally, as previously noted, the classification of the South Wetland must be resolved in order to correctly determine the required buffers and mitigation associated with the development proposal. Staff also informed the applicant that a variance from the Tree Cutting and Land Clearing regulations would be required, for the proposal to culvert the onsite watercourse/stream and remove vegetation from its required 25-ft buffer area. A variance application was submitted on September 20, 2005 (LUA05-133). The impacts of the proposed variance have been addressed in the wetland impact analysiS and the proposed mitigation for the parking lot development. Mitigation Measures: 1. During site preparation and construction, the applicant shall install silt fencing with brightly colored construction flags to indicate the boundaries of the North and South wetland areas and buffers. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division and be completed prior to the issuance of construction/utility permits. 2. After the development of parking lot and associated site improvements, the applicant shall install permanent fencing (Le. split-rail fence or other approved barrier) and signage along the entire eastern edge of the North and South wetland buffers. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division. 3. The applicant shall provide the total buffer fill square footage and an update landscape plan illustrating the exact locations of where interplanting was installed on the South Parcel as part of the Wetland Mitigation Plan, or obtain a variance. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division. Policy Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations 4. Habitat/Wildlife Impacts: A wildlife reconnaissance report was conducted and submitted with the land use application as prepared by Raedeke Associates, Inc., dated September 4, 2003. The reconnaissance was required as part of the approval for the "JDA Group Townhome 2003 CPA & Rezone". The reconnaissance report stated that no bald eagles were observed on-site or on the surrounding lands as conducted on September 3, 2003. No bald eagle habitat was mapped for this area by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife in the Priority Habitats and Species program inventory. The closes bald eagle habitat is the nest and territory on the south end of Mercer Island. The report continues to state that the lack of conifers of sufficient size or configuration for nesting or roosting, the urbanization and lack of foraging in the area does not provide any habitat for bald eagles. An occasional transient bald eagle may be seen in the area, such as is common for most of the region, but this site does not provide any of the life requisites for eagles. ERG _ GhangPkgLOT. Feb2006.doc City of Renton PIBIPW Department Environm I Review Committee Staff Report RAINIER AVE. MIXED-USE S. PARKING LOT (SITE PLAN & VARIANCE) LUA-04-093 AND LUA05-133 ERG REPORT of February 21, 2006 Page 70'8 The second wildlife type reviewed was the Great Blue Heron. The report states that no great blue herons or nesting sites were observed on-site. No great blue heron nesting habitat was mapped for this site by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife in the Priority Habitats and Species program inventory. The report continues to state that the wetlands on site do not provide substantial foraging areas for great blue herons as the hydrologic conditions conducive to supporting amphibians and other prey for herons is not present. Four great blue herons were observed to the west of the subject site at the east end of NW 5th St. One of the herons was an adult and were observed to have been sitting and flying into a western hemlock tree located about halfway up the slope. This tree would be out of the development site. No nests were observed, however, it is likely that one or two nests are present in the tree as local residents reported seeing nesting herons. If nesting occurs at this location, this is likely a temporary satellite nesting area for herons that are periodically forced to abandon the Black River colony when the bald eagles attack. Similar temporary colonies have been found in other areas to the south which are eventually abandoned and the heron return to the main colony at the Black River site. Staff received correspondence from adjacent neighbors concerning the heron in the area. The applicant has provided their consultants review of the issue to address a condition of the previous rezoning of the site. The subject site does not appear to contain any heron nests or a colony and would not interfere with any existing nests within the surrounding area; therefore, no further mitigation is recommended. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation is recommended. Policy Nexus: N/A 5. Archaeological and Cultural Resources Impacts: The proposed construction of the parking lot will occur on a portion of a wetland to be filled. A letter was received from the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation concerning the proposed project. Staff also contacted the Office concerning the contents of the letter for further information. The letter was forwarded to the applicant. The applicant has responded that the owner has not identified any ethnological history on the subject parcels and the fill over existing soils, they contend, would preserve any ethnographic and geologic history of the site. The State's letter indicated that there are six ethnographic place names adjacent to or surrounding the project area. The distances from the subject site to these place names are as close as 300 feet and as far as 2,600 feet. Four of these places are within the 1 ,000's of feet from the site. These places are clustered in the vicinity. There is also a small seasonal watercourse and a wetland. These factors combine to increase the probability for archaeological resources to be present. Staff recommends as a mitigation measure that in the event that archaeological deposits are found during construction, work must stop and the contractor(s) must contact the Washington State Archaeologist. Mitigation Measures: In the event that archaeological deposits are found during construction, work shall stop and the contractor(s) shall contact the State Archaeologist at the State of Washington Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, phone (360) 586-3065. Policy Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations E. COMMENTS OF REVIEWING DEPARTMENTS The proposal has been circulated to City Departmental I Divisional Reviewers for their review. Where applicable, these comments have been incorporated into the text of this report as Mitigation Measures and/or Notes to Applicant. X-Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File. __ Copies of all Review Comments are attached to this report. Environmental Determination Appeal Process: Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM, March 10, 2006. If no appeals are filed by this date, the action will ERG _ GhangPkgLOT. Feb2006.doc City of Renton PIBIPW Department Environm I Review Committee Staff Report RAINIER AVE. MIXED-USE S. PARKING LOT (SITE PLAN & VARIANCE) LUA-04-093 AND LUA05-133 ERG REPORT of February 21, 2006 Page 80(8 become final. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.E. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. ERG _ GhangPkgLOT. Feb2006.doc • \ "AJ\ »\ -\ Z\ -, t't\' "Xl' I" NO.J.~NfHSVM NOiN3lI I . 3Sn03XIW I' . 3nN3AV ~3INI';t1J M D z « ~ ~ I l-ll': () z IH II., -i Jih II -I 0 NVldA3)1 1'1: z ~ Ikl 0 ! ~~~ Q.~::J t"~ "'~ ~ § ~ ~ G ~ ~ /~ ~ / i ~ IJIJj/ ~~~~~N~~~~1I@i~t DAT SOUTH PARCEL. TOTAl. P ARc.EL >'lORK AREA IMFERVI~ AREA. EXISTING PROPOSEO % OF TOTAl. SITE LANDSGAPEDAREA % OF TOTAl. SITE ---- EXISTIN6 AND PROPOSED STJWc.i1JRES TOTAL EXISTIN6 Y'EiLAND Y'IETl.AND FILL, ACTUAl. FILL PAPER FILL TOTAl. FILL TREE~, EXISTIN6 TO BE REMOVED 61,4!IQ SF 19,:200 00 SF q.ll5O SF 15% 51,600 SF 85% NONE 16.600 SF 2Pl1 SF 1~14 SF 9~ISF >25 I .... . In. \ :Ji> ( i'I'I"'r:VLI6H1'I"I)('Tt,M I2'H U6HTfI'OL! ". HX 2<1. DIA """"'""' ..... I""""'""' "'tetQI,Ir(J1Y !Y5.T!M "'OML Q , .... 1 1 , .... Ib· 0\ \(.) .. \ \ "'" ~Q '/110, ,Q 1 1 \ \ I 10 ; I II .... I I I :Q \ ~\'" IYJJ.'IIIII""" '\ ',\'\ , \"'.' "" I ;, \ '. .~ ; ,", ,'(vI" " .. " ,"l'1li\:"\\ II;!! '" r\\\"\ .1;, EXISTING RESTAURANT SITE "~ ~ • SOUTH LOT AND SOUTH ~ETLAND FILL ~N"R''' I" = 201 $-PREUI1INARY· NOT fOR CONSTRUCTION ~-~'!t$l! w z ~w~ wV!~ ~~~ a:w w2S -:t z Z 0 ~ ~, ,..,U.1OM ..J I-J:..J Ol-LL ..J:::JO :rOZ I-V)~ :::J0l-OZw V)<~ -ow ~ ... ---T .. _ .... ~ SITE ~LAN APPROVAL APPUCATION A002 § ~~.' , o.Z 0.2 o.~ Q. ~ (;j 0. !;1 W ",< ~ ~: ~ tifg 0 ::>w -'<l 0'" ~ ~ 2 25 '" 12 '" '-" z 8i ll~ ---,-- R) Jjll ~ JI~!: " Ai a I , f ! II I ! I . 'I i ·m··~lj . I I ! ~ r·I,! ! ~ m1~- RAINIER MIXED USE PARKING EXPANSION '-\ GRAPHIC SCALI! \ THE 90UTHWEST OUARTER OF SECT10N 7, TOWNSHIP 23 NOFITH, RANGE e EAST, WII..LAMET!C MERIDIAN CIT'( OF F!ENTON, KN:l COtMY, WASHINOTON 1 \ kosoLY i i 1\ --~---~ ,~!':'~ ~ \ . \ \ '-<m._ ~ '\\ JtII2G7U7E:IZt77IU'\ 101IItMI w . (-4&C1(N"1[J ~ n if=-~ . -.. _Jt~. ," _<1.Jo,fI}!--- ~, \ .J 121'!:, w.¥PioI'!!(. IS!!! '!\IC~l..-" "', .. r_,,,,,,.,,, If \ . .-<\-~~\·;·r .. t(.;.~~1 \ ~;.~~t~~ , .. _ .. ) $ \ "._,,,,,,,,,,,,, <., ATO;JIII ORMW((IIOMC \ \ I @(nP.'''''_ '".,,_..... •. \1'IINI1IOCX1'II01ECIIII ~lt L--------"W'---~~ , ~~. ~ '~PUH _I".'" ~N;lItI\JM;lIA""'1IIUJt .............. .... 1. IIHR.IIA"ICI.IWJ.._~,., --....... u. ........ CUl'COIIJn'. Ml)lO-al'MoWCWf'CGPOIf. I"M!lWJ.KIIO'IIDI ...... 1,.,... MLCCMII1',M_II8IES ... 10 :~~~~::: 5KAU..N'fI\IDIOKM£IOn\IITIII. ... M.'lDllMNlr II ..... IIAIIII-.: lAT. _II1MA..w ftIlStWr IIIDIIX. FA m 1IX.IIIIJZID~tH1IU.."'lO'" ..... ,,1ML <lOT ., I < II~ sou:rJ II :! ~.-I -.--"1 ,=J,'Ii""_ BENCHMARK orr"IIUIlatUMTOIItIII1I1N11t '4I1ItIIltA1I.IMI:InIMIJIICNt'CImCN.~1UIf ""II[1QtS(ttA.II),CQMMmlDIISFttt ont:#IIDmIIUMTCOf1IIlPOllt_ =-"-:==~~~~=:=--..:,..oc:::~.:e.H "\ ::::..~ :"' .... 1ICItIftal1lllla (J'COICIIEW:'AD"""~t~1IDItSllOhAUf" ,...," ...... "roClllleS ... StSClt1lll'101'."JIJIIIIIAUl, t llMa-1:i \ :r;---r.-~-,.-..... . " ~ ~ il .. .. il inl Ii ~Uf /III~ ~ I .. .. .. .. " " " " ~ I .. STORM PROFILE '1 'DIC#If,:f"-S tIIlIIIZDrfJt: (-20' ~ i i I ~ I ~ ~ ~ I JII :1'1 ~~I: I I I ~ wu.cora MOO ..aD 2+00 r--...,: .... ~=====,,--r--L~~==~:l:::::::::::--. I ~ , {"{"H"'."~ STORM PROFILE .2 ~ CIllllUHOft COMPUAIICl --.e-~~, -= ';:z. .. ---__ "'_ TOClTTnAIDAftDl -----------:===::::== GRADING" DRAINAGE PLAN C2.0 . I CALL 48 HOURS ""--~~.,,,,,, ... _ .... , ..... o ~~-IEilf==U B1~:g~~2~~~5~~G --, .• ~ _. 4 .. 7 I _ ..... 3,': 0 ' .... 1= ~111~~j~~ t-.~ U J, • I V1 , o..§ ~~ ~ I~~ ~z" ~~ ~ " ffi z ~ 3 a. ~~ ;r;~ ~.:o ~~ ~ (!) .l~ ll~ ~. I ~j.;:! :.. I ~ '!J ~ 11 GRAPHIC SCALE RAINIER MIXED USE PARKING EXPANSION BENCHMARK kos-LJ--l' (11'",,) Im'rlMlfllllIIIW:YCl:llrlQ.IC1'II:III 'G1IC#l1lA ...... MIIEJICMI'1IJrICM.DAlWl .. wm(IIA"'.c:ctf'OtEDlOUSR£T I 1zIQ .. 10 I\. THE SOtJri.twesr OUARTER OF SECT10N 7. TOWNSHP 23 NORlH, RANGE 5 EAST. W1LLAAETie MERIDIAN CITY OF RENTON, KfoIQ COlMY, WASHtIaTON otYtllI8ffa.lIhlYa.-.,..,.. ~ \ " " .".~.------, // -- ....... _--./// ro&OecoeLOCK 4' HEI6HT ----1 1--" - i\ ' \ \ AIle t _IIICSf_ 'llC-H" o.TDSTCf BlDClflCXlffCllll[l[.-...x ON H mr_fl ........ 1IIIWL \,OCA1D.FIDIT" ......... IDl ... arnutAr48.1RMC11 ...... -1.lW.1CII_au:tt , r:a. ItaI.W "1DIIIm OllIla ~ nan" .... 'AIDIEII ... Sl5111 DlW.IDM· ... tt . '.\\"VMUlOeAlEDIISIIIR9IX. ~~.-." ~ ~.\ 1 e ~ il It ~df Ig hii ~I ~2d ! I ENW<c.eo...en.ANDB.FPeR ~~ \ \ .\ \ \ \4' \\ ./ .. -''-\1' \~\ ~ ~ rAR.G.EL . Q5646OOOa11 ,_ •• " --~---. I .... -...... + ,/ ,!--, ~OP INGRI!~I I • 1'19" SP2&S/' I I t. I I " ',,-'" , , "-, \, \, \ \ \ I \ / _.", .. -. \ .... .-..-. l~c:'I.~·lelll'lVC ..-.• \{ ,'P'oCIII4111(11o_S) .---. 12" CW I( ~l.tl (IIo/OUT It) ~. '4" aile: I[ 24.U(OIIt WI "tQrt''''PClJ'"NOtntO i ~ I ; ~ ! I ~ ~ ~ I " " " " " "-------------ro ~_::::_= _ _::::;-~~ ;L______ .37.... I / / \ \ --" " t fIJI SIT! PLAN ~ I I J ~ ~ !llII'lIIIIlI'r-'-111 ~I ="'...=,.<>: CHICKED pal COMPUAIICI CITY OF RENTON ~ ,,___ TO ern ITANDAROI DapAlt'I'NIIHT or PUaldO WOJUtll " ::: GRADING It DRAINAGE PLAN C4.0 2 , ___ lOTTO_II CALL 48 HOUR~'" 91 _I'0Il __ BEFORE YOU DIG t-_ "~"",... ... -.... , .. , .. 'oS -.J!1!!I_1_ 1.800.424-5555 .. _ Mn _ .. __ ..... _,.... :'':'"7 ",:,"; ~ c;]~ ~i14th st.ID ~ C=;]J15th stJD 00 ~ " CJl15th pI.ID ~ h::===~ClJ116th stJD Of] ~ CJ 117th st.1D c=J :>- ; CJh7th PIJD 0 ~ ~~ r..:::::==~ClJA1Bth st. 10 O..---r c=;] h19th StJD ~~~t r==;J k20th stlD ~~ c=;] li21st sLD I-'>'-~~!:.!..Id [s-122n~ st. s 123rd St [s 123r~ S S 123rd PI Is 123rdl PI. S 124th St ~ St. e ZONING + ~ + ~ TBCHNICAL SBllVICBS IMCP) IMCP) 7 T23N R5E W 1/~ DATA NORTH PARCEL TOTAL PARCE~ ~KAAEA IMPERVI0.J5 AREA, EXISTIN6 PROPOSED ~ OF TOTAL SITE ~AND5CAPED AREA ~ OF TOTA~ SITE EXISTIN<So AND PROPOSED STRUC~ TOTAL EXISTING> i'lETLAND i'£T~ND FI~~, ~TUAL FI~ PAPER FI~~ TOTAL FI~~ TREE COUNT, EXISTIN6 TO BE REMOVED LIMIT f'V11!RE eu:>G. c.oNSTRlJC.TlON II'INIS+-! , FiNAl 2 FT. TOF'SOIL EXCAVAft, EXISTI ~NTROLLED FIW. :2!!'-o' 246,151 SF ~,2oo SF 00 SF 00 SF 15% 51,600 SF ~ NONE 21,100 SF 5,5<!ISF Sp2e SF Sp2e SF >SO 4 ~!!l.!'FeR " " I: " , " " t======: Q BUEEE& D~TAIL ,T, . , ...... ----, // '-" / -~/ NORTH ~ETLAND ENLARGHENT AND ENHANGHENT '>~.\'.~. ~:---:,:-:-'" /, -\. ',,::,' ,,*, -' ~[»~_.~.,c: --- tN I" 201 $ \ \ ~;,~~AIIIW' ,~1.' _e_ ==--==--~ w ,~ :J ~ Z W -~~~ o::W W?5 -1: Z Z _ 0 ~ i~ ..... ,f= I- /,,\Z Z I..IW W 1: Z:r: :r: ~ =:iw0tj o tii~~Z Z~~ ~ Z Z w w "" ow ~'" ,---,.::.--.... -... -- Sm;PLAN APPROVAL APPUCATION PIfELi/1/NARY·NOTfORCONSTf{UCTION I A003 --" " ---------/' \.. ,.............. \ F!Ii_. . ""'iC '-, ',,~ '-\ '. ~ -. -'" '" ", --->--:---. ""' -:---..:. ""' .::::--.,.----" -~---"'-'-7!--" -. " ....... ' ........................ / ........ '''-.., -..... , " NORTH ViETl.AND PLANTIN~ PLAN SOUTH ViETl.AND PLANTIN~ PLAN @ 1Co«IIA1"-"" @ --HAlIVE 1ms, HUllS AltO IfRBS BASED OH wASTER PU/IT SCHEJM£. SPEOES AHD QUAHlIIES SIIALL BE IIE_ BY IJHOSCN'E AROiltCI II! _ BIOLOGIST POST NOH-NAnVE VEGETATION REWOVAL IIITUIID _"'1M _!IX _NOn t IT ~ PR£ftRAaE IItAT lItE ~ or TItS PlANTIIG PlAN SEEk 10 IIO'UCAlt NA1URAL PU/IT COMHlD IN SPEQES COIFOSITION ANI) AllRAHGOOI<T. EI€N SPAQIG AHa S1MIGIiT-fWW PlANTI<G ARE NOT IIESIO!D. l;,t~=~~ALLBEINSTAU£OIIIIItIN ~.~. ~ ~~:""~I~(=(:1 ~ E~lir: ," ~AM[ltR) AltO 8-12' LOHG. 4, BAREROOT PlANI SfOCI( WAY BE VSEO MAE SEASONALLY AVAIlA1!LE AltO GENERALLY WUSI BE INSTAU£O DURING lItE OOfIIIANI SEASOH (_AlD.Y OCTOBER JIST IItROUQI fEll 1ST), BAREROOT PlANT STOCK SHALL BE EQUAL 10 II! Gll£AltR IItAN IItAT or lItE SPECIFIED CQoTAIIIER 9Z[. I, IAlLOt SHALL BE INSTALLED NIO.R<D ALL lREES AHD SHOms 10 ASgSI !'UHT SUR.vAL lItE WULOI SHALL BE MEIIIW GRAOE WOOD OIPS GR BET1l:R. ALL HOH-NAnVE VEGETATION SHALL BE REMOVED ,,1IttI1ItE BEn.AHD 1IUff[R, lItE LANDSCAPE AROIII!:CT II! BEn.AHD BIOLOGIST SHALL fLAG AREAS PftKIR 10 REWOVAL AREAS MIlE PlAN~ HAVE BEEN _ SHALL BE REPlAIII!:D "lit lItE NA lIVE PLAH~ USI!:D IN lItE WASltR PU/IT lEGE!«). lItE LAHDSC»E AROIII!:CI II! BEn.AHD BIOLOGiST SHALL FIEllI LOCAl!: PlAN~ WITHtI THESE AREAS. tiP .!r.: \fPf8!Mm .. _ m p!S'NRfQ D, ,MIt lHf fttWQl> IlffiB H'mROS£m WI AAIUCA. tKJl [ -] AEGREEN S1tRl£ SEE!) lOX _ .. SEE!) IIXTURE lWi/ACRE ..... 1.lIEFIIItoSI'USnJI --"" (1) CO!!.~ I'UIITIIQ DITAL RAmptR pro 2000 LB EI!O-FIIEII IIOOOfIBER "'CN LB SEm MIX AS NOTED 200 LB 25+10 <0 LB IACl<FER 10 PREI€NI RII'PUIG """ ~~~~ QM_", ....... " ......... lM: --Ni •• ·tt .... ' .... ClM1ID-ClA!t2A(LIGQ ....... - U11'OS1'_.ua:POS1StLD..M, ... _flW.POSfS21/'tUl M e- .. I (i) !!'!'!.~ fI!!CI AlTAI. WETLANDli Btma 'I. ~~ART ~~w::4to~~~I-=:=~'=:.::':.CII -o IlmllIOIIIIDMI IICI!WI IOIm_ PR£UI,(INARY -N01 fOR CONS1RUC170N w' ~ Zw Wtn >::> <to w Ct:~ W:::E Z « Ct: == --=---';".'Ji..~, m,aJwll TACOM'" .•• ",TTL.. V&"' .............. ... "'0IIIfIIII ..................... . _ .... . __ ~."..40 ow - JULV 23. 1004 CONCEPTUAL PLANTING PLAN W1 · , CITY OF RENTON RECEIVED FEB 20 2006 BUILDING DIVISION February 20, 2005 Environmental Review Committee City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way, 6th Floor Renton, WA 98055 Subject: RE: Request for Reconsideration of ERC Determination Rainier Avenue Mixed Use South Parking Lot LUA04-093, SA-A, ECF/LUA05-133, V-H Dear committee Members: PRINCIPALS Brian Brand, AlA Richard l. Wagner, AlA Thomas Frye, Jr., AlA By this letter our office, in behalf of the Owner of the referenced Project, requests your reconsideration and amendment of three of the five Mitigation Measures of the ERC's determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated. In particular, we request that the following amendments be made. 1. Acceptable as written 2. Delete in total The IlppJ..iCllftt shllll revise the wetlllftd pillft to move the ecology willI from its proposed loclltioft to 11ft Ilrell outside of the rettuired 50 ft. Buffer ift order for hydrology IlBd wildlife to fuftctioft. The slltishtctioft of this rettuiremeftt shllll be subject to the re. iew Ilftdllpprovlll of the Developmeftt Services Divisioft Ilftd be completed prior to the issullftce of constructioft!utiJ..ity permits. 3. Amend as noted: During site preparation and construction, the applicant shall install silt fencing with brightly colored construction flags to indicate the boundaries of the North and South wetland areali and bufferli7 adjacent to the proposed construction areas. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division and be completed prior to the issuance of construction/utility permits. 10801 Main Street Bellevue, WA 98004 T 425 454. 0566 F 425 4538013 www.baylisarchitects.com f· , . City of Renton February 20, 2006 Page 2 4. Amend as noted: After the development of parking lot and associated site improvements, the applicant shall install permanent fencing (i.e. split-rail fence or other approved barrier) and signage along the entire Easterly edge of the North & South wetland buffers. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division. 5. Acceptable as written 6. Acceptable as written JUSTIFICATION For support of the appeal, the following background and information is provided. Please refer to Drawing AOOl, Key Plan, dated July 15,2004, of the Site Plan Approval Application. 2) Ecology Wall Location -North Wetland The ecology wall is proposed only along the north edge of the north wetland. It is intended to allow for the excavation at the toe of the slope, an excavation necessary to extend the floor of the existing wetland, increasing the wetland area and extending the wetland hydrology, flora and fauna. Locating the wall at the buffer edge, 50 ft away from the wetland edge will force a mass grading of approximately 1,000 yards and revegetation of approximately 9,000 SF of existing third growth vegetation. This work is vehemently opposed by the geotechnical engineer. 3 and 4) Fencing Both the South and the North Wetlands extend far to the west into the respective valleys, well beyond the area of work. Additionally, almost half of the South Wetland extends onto our neighbor's property, well beyond the applicant's property. The easterly edge of the North Wetland, extending approximately 100 ft west of the commercial development, is the only area affected by the future commercial development being proposed under separate application. The wetland extends approximately another 250 ft to the west for a total of approximately 350 ft from any commercial property. The easterly edge of the South Wetland, extending approximately 30 ft west of the commercial development, is the only area affected by the proposed parking lot. The wetland extends approximately another 125 ft. onto our neighbor's property and into the valley. Further, at the time that the delineations were being done, it was recognized that both these wetlands were at the toe of very steep and high slopes and were therefore thought to be relatively inaccessible. To permanently fence the entire north wetland would require approximately an additional 1,150 ft of fencing. To permanently fence the entire south wetland would require approximately an additional 450 ft of · ' * , City of Renton February 20, 2006 Page 3 fencing, half of which would be off the applicant's property. Further, all of this quarter mile of fencing would mandate construction impacts in areas that are otherwise, fortunately and respectfully, untouched by this project. As can be seen in the neighborhood map, both these wetlands back-up to the rear yards of single family residences built 30 to 50 years ago. Thus, the juxtaposition of the wetlands is well known to the residences. Note further, that the fencing that the ERC suggests is not intended to be a barrier to actually stop an intruder, but only a prompt or reminder of something beyond. A split rail fence, as suggested, would not stop access human access and any fence that would, would also stop wildlife access. Please also note that the text amendment suggested by the applicant, is to protect access from the east to both the north and the south wetlands, not just the south as might otherwise be inferred from the staff report. To the extent that you determine that these fences should run up the steep slope some distance (25 ft?) beyond the boundary to deter a trespasser, this might be a more reasonable alternative. With this background, we encourage the Examiner's favorable review and adoption of the proposed re-statement of the ERC's Mitigation measures. Respectfully, S ARCHITECTS, INC. Principal Cc Jack Alhadeff -Owner Matt Weber -AHBL Celest Botha -Wetland Keri Weaver -Renton PIBI PW RW:jf • • ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION & PUBLIC HEARING ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE • MITIGATED (DNS-M) POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAl ACTION PROJECT NAME: Ranier Avenue Mlxed-Use South Parking Lot PROJECT NUMBER: LUA04-493, SA-A, ECF I LUA06-133, V-H LOCATION: West of 50S Ranier Avenue N & southeast of NW 6th Street DESCRIPTION: The _Rcant Is requesting environmental (SEPAl Review and Administrative Site Plan review for the construction of 27 parking spaces within a surface lot associated with the adjacent Chang's Mongo/ian OrRl restaurant. The proposallndudes portions of two large pan:els containing category 2 and 3 wetlands. The category 3 wetland would be filled to accomm_ the parking lot, with wetland compensation proposed otr-clte that would include wett.nd creation. enhancement and ~r averaging. A variance from U1e Tne Cutting and Land Clearing Regulations Is ... qulrwd for Proposed vegetation ~ovaland WOI1< within the 25- ft. buffer of the onsite watercourse/stream. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. Appeals of the envlronmeOW _rmination must be '-Iied in writing on or befOra 5:00 PM on February 20, _. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, lOSS South Orady Way, Renton, WA HOSS. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by CIty of Renton Municipal Code SectIon 4-I-ll0.B. Additional Information ~rding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerl<'s OIfice, (4251 430""10. A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON THE 7TH FLOOR OF CITY HALL, 1055 SOUTH GRADY WAY, RENTON, WASHINGTON, ON MARCH 7, 2006 AT 9:00 AM TO CONSIDER THE VARIANCE REQUEST. IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION IS APPEAlED, THE APPEAL WILL BE HEARD AS PART OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING. CERTIFICATION •.. -'~"~"''''''''''';'\ I J~naJt.. J o rat. '" , hereby certify that 3 copies of the above d6:,~~: ,~~~!~ I, ,------. ,...;&-r!!;sloJ\t'·,.'1: 'I were posted by me in ~ conspicuous places or nearby the descnbed pro~~ .. ~\ ('~"~ \ II : ~ :' 0 NOTARy,,': t'f\ ~ DATE: ~ ~( DG SIGNED: .D ez· r ~ ';;1;; g:;):Xl J 'I ~. ." .. ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn before me, a Notary Public, in and for the State of Washington residi~~" ~.: !.~~~'?. ~~o~ c: ~(,l1lIt VIA, on th, ~ day ofiQ?YvtUl 110010 0 cJ;tk. ~ ~ ~~~ NOTARYPUBLICSIG~ , To: From: Gregg Zimmerman, Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator Dennis Culp, Community Services Administrator Lee Wheeler, Fire Chief Alex Pietsch, EDNSP Administrator Jennifer Henning, Development Planning ~~~ ~~~~=-~~~ Rainier Ave Mixed-Use South Parking Lot (Weaver) LUA04-093, SA-A, ECF/LUA05-133, V-H The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and Administrative Site Plan review for the construction of 27 parking spaces within a surface lot associated with the adjacent Chang's Mongolian Grill restaurant. The proposal includes portions of two large parcels containing Category 2 and 3 wetlands. The Category 3 wetland would be filled to accommodate the parking lot, with wetland compensation proposed off-site that would include wetland creation, enhancement and buffer averaging. The subject project includes portions of two parcels (to be referred to as the South Parcel and the North Parcel). The applicant is proposing to construct a 27 stall surface parking lot with access drive, pedestrian connection and storm water management facilities. The proposal also involves the removal of noxious weeds; piping of an existing drainage ditch; installing a retaining wall; utility improvements; and a parking modification. Proposed development on the South Parcel includes: filling of a Category 3 wetland on-site; off-site wetland compensation to a Category 2 wetland; piping of an existing watercourse; and installation of a retaining wall. Development on the North Parcel, which is not contiguous to the South Parcel, would include: wetland enhancement and creation; removal of uncontrolled fill; construction of an ecology block wall; and wetland buffer averaging. Renton Bible Church Addition (Ding) LUA05-162, CU-H, SA-H, ECF The applicant is requesting Hearing Examiner Site Plan Approval, Hearing Examiner Conditional Use Permit Approval, Hearing Examiner Variance Approval, and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the construction of a 14,797 square foot addition to an existing church structure. The subject site consists of two parcels, which total 81,099 square feet in area located within the Residential-8 (R-8) dwelling unit per acre zoning designation. Access is proposed to the site via a 30-foot wide driveway access off of Union Avenue NE. cc: K. Keolker, Mayo"r J. Covington, Chief Administrative Officer B. Wolters, EDNSP Director ® J. Gray, Fire Prevention N. Watts, P/B/PW Development Services Director ® F.Kalilfman. 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 ® .. February 20, 2005 Hearing Examiner City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way, 6th Floor Renton, WA 98055 Subject: RE: Appeal of ERC Determination Rainier Avenue Mixed Use South Parking Lot LUA04-093, SA-A, ECF/LUA05-133, V-H Dear Mr. Examiner: .~ PRINCIPALS Brian Brand, AlA Richard L. Wagner, AlA Thomas Frye, jr., AlA 'I,' 30;~f? CITY OF RENTON FE B r; : 1006 RECtJVED QTY CLERK'S OFACE )', 2..!..f p~ By this letter our office, in behalf of the Owner of the referenced Project, appeals to your office to amend three of the five Mitigation Measures of the ERC's determination of Non-Significance- Mitigated. In particular, we request that the following amendments be made. 1. Acceptable as written 2. Delete in total The II:ppliell:ftt shll:ll fevise the wetlll:8d plll:ft to move the eeology wlI:ll from its proposed loell:tioft to 11:8 II:rell: o1:ltside of the req1:lifed 50 ft. B1:lffef i8 ofder fof hydfology 1I:8d wildlife to fU8etloft. The sll:tisfa:etio8 of this feq1:lifeme8t shll:ll be s1:lbjeet to the fevie W 1I:8d II:ppfova:l of the Developme8t Sefviees D~ isio8 1I:8d be eompleted prior to the iSS1:l1l:8ee of e08str1:letloft/1:ltllity pefmits. 3. Amend as noted: During site preparation and construction, the applicant shall install silt fencing with brightly colored construction flags to indicate the boundaries of the North and South wetland area§. and buffer~7 adjacent to the proposed construction areas. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division and be completed prior to the issuance of construction/utility permits. 10801 Main Street Bellevue, WA 98004 T 425 454 0566 F 425 4538013 www.baylisarchitects.com City of Renton February 20, 2006 Page 2 4. Amend as noted: After the development of parking lot and associated site improvements, the applicant shall install permanent fencing (i.e. split-rail fence or other approved barrier) and signage along the entire Easterly edge of the North & South wetland buffers. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division. 5. Acceptable as written 6. Acceptable as written TUSTIFICATION . For support of the appeal, the following background and information is provided. Please refer to Drawing A001, Key Plan, dated July 15, 2004, of the Site Plan Approval Application. 2) Ecology Wall Location -North Wetland The ecology wall is proposed only along the north edge of the north wetland. It is intended to allow for the excavation at the toe of the slope, an excavation necessary to extend the floor of the existing wetland, increasing the wetland area and extending the wetland hydrology, flora and fauna. Locating the wall at the buffer edge, 50 ft away from the wetland edge will force a mass grading of approximately 1,000 yards and revegetation of approximately 9,000 SF of existing third growth vegetation. This work is vehemently opposed by the geotechnical engineer. 3 and 4) Fencing Both the South and the North Wetlands extend far to the west into the respective valleys, well beyond the area of work. Additionally, almost half of the South Wetland extends onto our neighbor's property, well beyond the applicant's property. The easterly edge of the North Wetland, extending approximately 100 ft west of the commercial development, is the only area affected by the future commercial development being proposed under separate application. The wetland extends approximately another 250 ft to the west for a total of approximately 350 ft from any commercial property. The easterly edge of the South Wetland, extending approximately 30 ft west of the commercial development, is the only area affected by the proposed parking lot. The wetland extends approximately another 125 ft. onto our neighbor's property and into the valley. Further, at the time that the delineations were being done, it was recognized that both these wetlands were at the toe of very steep and high slopes and were therefore thought to be relatively inaccessible. To permanently fence the entire north wetland would require approximately an additional 1,150 ft of fencing. To permanently fence the entire south wetland would require approximately an additional 450 ft of City of Renton February 20, 2006 Page 3 fencing, half of which would be off the applicant's property. Further, all of this quarter mile of fencing would mandate construction impacts in areas that are otherwise, fortunately and respectfully, untouched by this project. As can be seen in the neighborhood map, both these wetlands back-up to the rear yards of single family residences built 30 to 50 years ago. Thus, the juxtaposition of the wetlands is well known to the residences. Note further, that the fencing that the ERC suggests is not intended to be a barrier to actually stop an intruder, but only a prompt or reminder of something beyond. A split rail fence, as suggested, would not stop access human access and any fence that would, would also stop wildlife access. Please also note that the text amendment suggested by the applicant, is to protect access from the east to both the north and the south wetlands, not just the south as might otherwise be inferred from the staff report. To the extent that you determine that these fences should run up the steep slope some distance (25 ft?) beyond the boundary to deter a trespasser, this might be a more reasonable alternative. With this background, we encourage the Examiner's favorable review and adoption of the proposed re-statement of the ERC's Mitigation measures. Respectfully, BAYLIS ARCHITECTS, INC. Principal Cc Jack Alhadeff -Owner Matt Weber -AHBL Celest Botha -Wetland Keri Weaver -Renton P/BI PW RW:jf CITY OF RENTON City Clerk Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 425-430-6510 Receipt N~ 0516 Date 2/&-1/0 ~ ( 7 o Cash 0 Copy Fee 0 Notary Service li:?'theck No. ~ 5 71 ~AppeaI Fee 0 ________ _ Description: 44(lea I to ;lEX r, LvA--o </-fl!L~ L t._vA-OD 'l3 j . ----, Funds Received From: Name JDA &I!-ouf. LLC Address City/Zip ~-~_~6i'-] 51 -#-20/ &. AA fQ--v, Lv /} q X".5'":S---------,~------- --- IAmo~t $ 75: oc) I · , , , CITY OF RENTON CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 2nd day of February, 2006, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing ERC Determination documents. This information was sent to: ."'.1, ,'~"'? .:~. '. t'::';:;'! "? -..... '>!";:';j'±~:~:'''~ .......... . ,.~,:},,;;;:';;;:' j Agencies See Attached Matt Weber, ABHL, Inc. Contact Richard Wagner, Baylis Architects Contact JDA Group, LLCIID Kline Corp. Owners Rolland Dewing POR Mary Jo Carlson POR Ronnie & Roberta McDonald POR Bruce & Sue Gregg POR Sherondia Renee Otis paR Lee & Peggy Christpherson paR Carl P. Burns POR (Signature of Se '~/~"~~ STATE OF WASHINGTON ) tl ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Stacy Tucker signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the u~~~w.~''\\\ purposes mentioned in the instrument. I hl'?-~~"":"~~st\\ /J '. /J ... ~ .. ' ~sS\Otv (,',,-<l-k ., Dated.' ~/ '7/0b ~~"\: ' ... ~~ ~ ... <:) " ,,~: '?J'.tt\; Notal):' Public in and for the Sate of Was in~6h -._ ~ ~ ?J ~ ~ '. PuBUC : : '" A . A / ~ ".-. _I/) " ~', : ;' Notary (Print): ./ICZYlCth 17 7T~)(Ctr ~r \~i":'''~:!.~,~. ;';6~ .f My appointment expires: J -j I -c) -6 \, O;"'I.,'A"U,\\'\" ", '\. .V, ..;).' 0" ',\\.~"", ...... ---- Rainier Avenue Mixed-Use South Parking Lot '. ,\,.;mft~:~;1 LUA04-093, SA-A, ECF/LUA05-133, V-H template -affidavit of service by mailing Dept. of Ecology * Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 WSDOT Northwest Region * Attn: Ramin Pazooki King Area Dev. Serv., MS-240 PO Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 US Army Corp. of Engineers * Seattle District Office Attn: SEPA Reviewer PO Box C-3755 Seattle, WA 98124 Jamey Taylor * Depart. of Natural Resources PO Box 47015 Olympia, WA 98504-7015 KC Dev. & Environmental Servo Attn: SEPA Section 900 Oakesdale Ave. SW Renton, WA 98055-1219 Metro Transit Senior Environmental Planner Gary Kriedt AGENCY (DOE) LETTER MAILING (ERe DETERMINATIONS) WDFW -Stewart Reinbold * Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept. * clo Department of Ecology Attn: Karen Walter or SEPA Reviewer 3190 1601h Ave SE 39015 _17200 Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98008 Auburn, WA 98092 Duwamish Tribal Office * Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program * 4717 W Marginal Way SW Attn: Ms Melissa Calvert Seattle, WA 98106-1514 39015 172nd Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092-9763 KC Wastewater Treatment Division * Office of Archaeology & Historic Environmental Planning Supervisor Preservation* Ms. Shirley Marroquin Attn: Stephanie Kramer 201 S. Jackson ST, MS KSC-NR-050 PO Box 48343 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 City of Newcastle City of Kent Attn: Mr. Micheal E. Nicholson Attn: Mr. Fred Satterstrom, AICP Director of Community Development Acting Community Dev. Director 13020 SE 72nd Place 220 Fourth Avenue South Newcastle, WA 98059 Kent, WA 98032-5895 Puget Sound Energy City of Tukwila Municipal Liason Manager Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official Joe Jainga 6300 Southcenter Blvd. 201 South Jackson Street KSC-TR-0431 PO Box 90868, MS: XRD-01W Tukwila, WA 98188 Seattle, WA 98104-3856 Bellevue, WA 98009-0868 Seattle Public Utilities Real Estate Services Title Examiner 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900 PO Box 34018 Seattle, WA 98124-4018 Note: If the Notice of Application states that it is an ·Optional DNS", the marked agencies and cities will need to be sent a copy of the checklist, PMT's, and the notice of application. * Also note, do not mail Jamey Taylor any of the notices she gets hers from the web. Only send her the ERC Determination paperwork. template -affidavit of service by mailing ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION & PUBLIC HEARING ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED (DNS-M) POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: Ranier Avenue Mixed-Use South Parking Lot PROJECT NUMBER: LUA04-093, SA-A, ECF / LUA05-133, V-H LOCATION: West of 505 Ranier Avenue N & southeast of NW 6th Street DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and Administrative Site Plan review for the construction of 27 parking spaces within a surface lot associated with the adjacent Chang's Mongolian Grill restaurant The proposal includes portions of two large parcels containing Category 2 and 3 wetlands. The Category 3 wetland would be filled to accommodate the parking lot, with wetland compensation proposed off-site that would include wetland creation, enhancement and buffer averaging. A variance from the Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Regulations is required for proposed vegetation removal and work within the 25- ft buffer of the onsite watercourse/stream. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on February 20, 2006. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON THE 7TH FLOOR OF CITY HALL, 1055 SOUTH GRADY WAY, RENTON, WASHINGTON, ON MARCH 7, 2006 AT 9:00 AM TO CONSIDER THE VARIANCE REQUEST. IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION IS APPEALED, THE APPEAL WILL BE HEARD AS PART OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING. CITY F RENTON PlanningIBuildinglPublic Works Department Gregg ZJmmer~an P.E., Administrator February2, 2006 . Matt Weber AHBl, Inc. 2215 N 30th Street ste: #300 Tacoma, WA 98403 SUBJECT: Rainier Avenue Mixed-Use South Parking lot lUA04.093, SA-A, E;CF/lUA05-133, V-H Dear Mr. Weber: This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental. Review Committee (ERe) to advise you that they have completed their review of the subject proJect. and have issued a threshold Determination of Non- Significance-Mitigated with Mitigation Me~sures. Please refer to the enclosed ERC Report and Decision, Section C for a list of the Mitigation Measures. . Appeals of the environmental determi.nafion must be filed In writing on or before 5:00 PM on February 20, 2006. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00appncation fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner aregovemed by City of Renton Municipat Code Section 4-8-110*8. Additional information regarding the appeal process maybe obtc:iined from the'RentonCity Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. A Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of City HaU, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, Washington, on March 7.2006 at 9:00 AM to consider the Variance request. Theappficantor representative(s)of the applicant is required to be present at the public hearing. A copy of the staff reSJort witl be mailed to you' one week before the hearing. If the Environmental Determination is appecded, the appeal will be heard as part of this public hearing. The preceding information wifl assist you· in planning for implementation of your project and enable you to . exercise your appeal rights more fully, if you choose to do so. If you have any questions or desire clarification of the above, please call me at (425) 430-7382. For the Environmental Review Committee; Keri Weaver Senior Pfanner GC: JDA Group, llC & 10 Kline Corp I Owner(s) Rolland Dewing, Mary Jo Car/son, Ronnie & Roberta McDonald, Bruce & Sue Gregg, Sherondia Renee Otis, lee & Peggy Christopherson, Carl P. Burns IParty{ies) of Record Richard Wagner I Contact Enclosure -------1-05-5-S-ou-t-h-Gr-a-dy-W-ay---R-e-nt-o-n,-W-as--'--hin-gt-. o-n-98-0-'-55------R E N TON t:a This oaoer contains 50% recvcIed material 30% nom r:on~lJmP.r AHEAD OF THE CV.RVE ~ RENTON . Planning/BuildinglPublicWorks Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E.t Administrator Wash,ington State Department of Ecology Environmental R-eview Section PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Subject: Envi(onmentalOeterminations Transmitted herewith is a copy of the Environmental Determination for the following project reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) on January 31, 2006: DETERMINATION· OFNON~IGNIFICANCE -MITIGATEO PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NUMBER: Rainier Avenue Mixed-Use South Parking Lot LUA04-093,SA-A, ECF/LUA05-133, V-H LOCAT'ON= . DESCRIPTION: West of 505 Ranier Avenue N & southeast of NW.E;th Street the appU~ant Is requesting Environmental ($EPA) Review and Administrative Site Plan r.eview for the construction of 27 parking spaces within asunace 101' associated with the adjacent Chang's 'Mongolian Grill restaurant. The proposal includes portions of two large. parcels containing Category 2 and 3 wetland's .• The Category 3 wetland would be filled to accommodate the parking lot. wJth wetland compensa1ioo< .proposed off,;,sjte that would include wetland creation, enhancement and buffer averaging. A variance ftom the tree Cutting';arid Land Clearing Reg.,.tations is required for proposed vegetation removal and work Wfthin the 25-ft. buffer of the. onsitewatercourselstream. AppeaJs of the environmental. determination rnustbefUed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on F:~bruary 20, 2006. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton,WA98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. Addjtional inforlll3tioh regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)430-6510. If you have questions, please. call meat (425) 430-7382.· For the Environmental Review Committee, Keri Weaver Senior Planner cc: King County Wastewater Treatment Division WOFW, Stewart Reinbold David F. Dietzman, Department of Natural Resources WSDOT, Northwest Region Duwamish Tribal Office Karen Walter, Fisheries, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe (Ordinance) Melissa Calvert, Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program US Army Corp. of Engineers . . Stephanie Kramer, Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation -,E!=.!.n"",cl".,.os~ur",,"e~ ____________________ R E NT' O' N 1055 South Grady Way -Renton, Washington 98055 m This paper contains 50% recycled material. 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON·SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) APPLICATION NO(S): LUA04-093, ECF, SA-A / LUA05-133, V-H APPLICANT: JDA Group, LLC and I.D. Kline Corp. PROJECT NAME: Rainier Avenue Mixed-Use South Parking Lot DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and Administrative Site Plan review for the construction of 27 parking spaces within a surface lot associated with the adjacent Chang's Mongolian Grill restaurant. The proposal includes portions of two large parcels containing Category 2 and 3 wetlands. The Category 3 wetland would be filled to accommodate the parking lot, with wetland compensation proposed off-site that would include wetland creation, enhancement and buffer averaging. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: LEAD AGENCY: West of 505 Rainier Ave. N. and southeast of NW 6th Street The City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). Conditions were imposed as mitigation measures by the Environmental Review Committee under their authority of Section 4-6-6 Renton Municipal Code. These conditions are necessary to mitigate environmental impacts identified during the environmental review process. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on February 20, 2006. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11 O.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. PUBLICATION DATE: February 6, 2006 DATE OF DECISION: January 31 , 2006 SIGNATURES: 1/ W 6 R -~ H~rf_""=-:-L ~/ 1-=-31+--/ fJfc_' DMs 4 tee~~ Date Fire Department J/lJ)()iD Date I . CITYOFR'ENTON., . DETERMINATION OF NON-SI'GNIFICANCE-MITIGATED MITIGATION M:EASURES . APPLlCATfON NO(S): LUA04-093, SA;.A, ECF/U,JA05-133, V-H APPUCANT: JDA Group, LLC & 10 Kline Corp. PROJECT NAME: Rainier Avenue Mixed-Use South Parking Lot DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) R~vtew and Administrative Site Plariteview for the construction of 27 parking ~paces within a 'sutfa'ce lot as.sociatedwith the adjacent Chang's Mqngolian Grill restaurant. The proposal. jncludesportions of two large pareefscontaining . Category ,2 and 3 wetlands. The CatE~goiy 3 wetland wO,Uld be filled to accommodate tha pai1<ing Jot,with wetland compensation proposed. off-site that would include wetland creation, enhancemeniand' buffer averaging. A variance from the Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Regulations is required for proposed: vegetation removal and work within the 25-ft. buffer of the onsite waterrourse/strealll. LOCATION OF PROPOSAl: LEAD AGENCY: MITIGATION,MEASURES: We~t,of~,~I;'ti,~{,Avenue N & southeast ofNW 6th Street· ;~~City dt·~enton~""'i;"~,~"·fs,,. ' . DeJ5artrneritofelann,r9IBt.tit~glPublic Works ";Development Plarmmg, sAttiQrt\ . "< \" ~-'1/.' 1. The project shall be required t~ b· theOepartlT$nt of EcoJogy's (DOE) Erosiboand Sediment'Control Requirements~o . Storfjtw+tr.4anagemenlManual. " , 2. The appJjqmt shaU revise the WEft/and plcl(l tortllwe;.e " wali ffbm, its prOposed Jocati()n to an area outside of the required 50 ft. buffer in orde~",for hyg,fQ.logy,;and wi'dfife,cti{jJh: The satisfaction, of thjsrequirement shaUbe subject to the review and approvatof6e Development Services D,~i§iQfl!an' be completed prior to, the issuan~ of construction/utility permits. ',;;:," . ,.~.~:t ". _, .. _,~« '.c/· .t;~ "'i"~' .' . " ' 3. During site preparation and con$t.ru~appliC9(1tsh.aJl~n$tllU~jJt f~ing with brightly ~olQred constructlonftags to indicate the boundaries.of the wetta birea,and buffer: T~sift1'on of this requirement shall be subjecUo the .review and approval of the Developm~i1t\ Servic~s Divl!f lid be completedptior to the issuance Of, construction/utility permits. 'c .' .."p·C" ..' , , 4. After the development of parking lot CJnd associated siteil11pr6vements, the applicant shatl'mstall permanentfencing (I.e. split~ranfefl¢eorother approve~:Lbiurjer) and signage along the~ntire edge of the weHand-bUffer. The satisfactiqn: of this requjrementshall be subjectto the review and approval of the Development Services, DIViSion. 5. The applIcant shall provide the total buffer fill square footage and an update landscape plan Jllustratingthe exact locations. of where interplanting was iQ~aned, on the South Parcel as part of the Wetland Mitigation Plan. The satisfaction Of this requirement shall be, sUbject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division.' 6. In the event that archaeological depQsits are found during construction, work shall stop and the contractor(s) shall contact the State Archaeologist at the State' of Washington Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, phone" (360) 586~3065: ' , , . ERe Mitigation Measures Page 1 of 1, . CITY OF RENTON , 'DETERMINATION ()F N.ON-SIGNIFICANCE~M·ITIC"ATED, ADVISORY 'NOTES , APPLICATION NO(S): LUA04-093, SA-A, ECFILUA05~133, V-H APPLICANT: JDA Group, LLC & 10 Kline Corp. PROJECT NAME: Ra,inier Avenue Mixed-Use'SQu1hParking Lot DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: , "The applicant is reque§tingEllvi~onmental (SEPAl Revi~w., and Administrative Site Plan review for the construction of 27 parking spaces within a surface lot associated wUh the ' adjacent Changis Mongotian Grill restaurant. The proposal includes portIons of two large' parcelscoritaining Category 2 and 3 wetl~ds. The Category 3 wetland would be fiUedto accommodate, the parking lot, with wetland compensation proposed off-site that-would include wetland 'creation,etlnancement and buffer averaging~. A variance from the Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Regulations is required' for proposed vegetation removal and work within' the 25-ft. buffero( the onsite watercourse/stream. LOCATION OFPROPQSAl: Av.enU!e" N, & 'southeast of NW 6th Street LEAD AGENCY: niftiPulblic Works the folliJwing notes are 'su)oplemenlfaJ4I[Qf(frm .the environmental determination. , Because the$eiJote,s,. inf",rm • Planning·' 1. Commercial, mUlti-f~mny;new sin~~ f~nY ~~other nOrlrel>laEmUar.~St -hours betweenseveh o'ctock (7:00)·t.~rh. ~&e!glit;'f).'clock (8:0q) shall be restricted to.thehoors betWe~ ~. o'clttck (9:00) a;'" permitted on Sundays. ' ' ',. " , Byikfmg 1; Parking stalls must meet ADA reqUirements. IIDJ~cr to the appeal process for actlvitiesshaU be restricted to the , ' through Friday_ W0rk on Saturdays ()~clock (8:00) p.m. No work shaJl be " . . 2; Building permit required fOJ retaining walls greater or equal to four fe.et (4 ft.) in height. Fire ,Department 1. Maintain turning radiusforfire'equipment. A 45 ft. outSide and a 25 ft. inside radii. Plan Reyiew -General' 1. Aft plans shalt. conform to the Renton Drafting Standards. 2. ,A'constructio{l permit Is required. The permit requires three copies of the draWIngs, two copies of the drainage report, acorlstruction estimate, application, and appropriate fee (this may be submitted at tile sixth floor customer seriice countei").' , Plan Review -Surface vyater 1. A drainage analysiS and design for ttUs project is required to m~t the sta,ndarn of the 1990 King County Surface . Water design' manuaL A cursory review of the report submitted with tbis appli~tion determined that it met the, criteria excent for the follo~lng:' Tfte report submitted with the application utitiieda method for design of the bio-swate . ERe AdviSQfY N'otes Pagetof2 contairn;ld in ti1e Department of Ecology 2002 manual. Approval offM construction ptan will be condiJioned on showing that this method is equ-a1 Of· better than the King County 1990 -dest9n cril'~ria; for water quality facilities: - 2. The preliminary design submitted with the application shows a24~ pipe connection to the dQwnstream system. It will . be necessary to further VeritY that the pipesysterris being installed. and, the downstream 24"system. haveeooUgh capacity for the_ entire basin (fl!ture conditions) build-out. This ,analysis and verification wm be required priot to approval oUMe utility-construction plans. ' - .3. It appears that !he area-being filled previouslyprovkfed some natural detention. And it is understoOd that the disturbed wetlands will pe mitigated off"site(withln an adjacent drainage-'basin). However; it must also be Shown that the removal oHhe natural detentiOn will·not contribute to future dowlistreampr-oblerils or flooding. -. - 4. The System Developmellt Char~ shafLbe at the rate of $O.265fsquarefoot" of new impervious (the TJRrepoits that a total of 8787 square fe¢t of new jmpervlouswill be added. This would result in a fee of $232lt55.) This fee is payable upon recording of the final site plan and is subject to change. . _ERC Advisory Notes Page 20f2 To: From: Gregg Zimmerman, Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator Dennis Culp, Community Services Administrator Lee Wheeler, Fire Chief Alex Pietsch, EDNSP Administrator Jennifer Henning, Development Planning Rainier Ave Mixed-Use South Parking Lot (Weaver) LUA04-093, SA-A, ECF/LUA05-133, V-H The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and Administrative Site Plan review for the construction of 27 parking spaces within a surface lot associated with the adjacent Chang's Mongolian Grill restaurant. The proposal includes portions of two large parcels containing Category 2 and 3 wetlands. The Category 3 wetland would be filled to accommodate the parking lot, with wetland compensation proposed off-site that would include wetland creation, enhancement and buffer averaging. The subject project includes portions of two parcels (to be referred to as the South Parcel and the North Parcel). The applicant is proposing to construct a 27 stall surface parking lot with access drive, pedestrian connection and storm water management facilities. The proposal also involves the removal of noxious weeds; piping of an existing drainage ditch; installing a retaining wall; utility improvements; and a parking modification. Proposed development on the South Parcel includes: filling of a Category 3 wetland on-site; off-site wetland compensation to a Category 2 wetland; piping of an existing watercourse; and installation of a retaining wall. Development on the North Parcel, which is not contiguous to the South Parcel, would include: wetland enhancement and creation; removal of uncontrolled fill; construction of an ecology block wall; and wetland buffer averaging. Renton Bible Church Addition (Ding) LUA05-162, CU-H, SA-H, ECF The applicant is requesting Hearing Examiner Site Plan Approval, Hearing Examiner Conditional Use Permit Approval, Hearing Examiner Variance Approval, and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the construction of a 14,797 square foot addition to an existing church structure. The subject site consists of two parcels, which total 81,099 square feet in area located within the Residential-8 (R-8) dwelling unit per acre zoning designation. Access is proposed to the site via a 30-foot wide driveway access off of Union Avenue NE. cc: K. Keolker, Mayor J. Covington, Chief Administrative Officer B. Wolters, EDNSP Director ® J. Gray, Fire Prevention N. Watts, P/B/PW Development Services Director ® F. Kaufman, Hearing Examiner S. Engler, Fire Prevention ® J. Medzegian, Council P. Hahn, P/B/PW Transportation Systems Director R. Lind, Economic Development L. Warren, City Attorney ® STAFF City of Renton REPORT Department of Planning / Building / Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE A. BACKGROUND ERC MEETING DATE January 31,2006 Project Name: Rainier Ave. Mixed Use South Parking Lot (Chang's Parking Lot) -Site Plan Review (LUA04-093, ECF, SA-A) Rainier Ave. Mixed Use South Parking Lot (Chang's Parking Lot) -Tree Cutting Variance (LUA05-133, V-H) Owners/Applicants: JDA Group, LLC and 1.0. Kline Corp. 95 South Tobin St. Renton, WA 98055 Contact: Richard Wagner, Baylis Architects, 10801 Main St., Ste. 110, Bellevue, WA 98004 File Number: LUA04-093, ECF, SA-A Project Manager: Keri Weaver, Senior Planner LUA05-133, V-H Project Description: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and Administrative Site Plan review for the construction of 27 parking spaces within a surface lot associated with the adjacent Chang's Mongolian Grill restaurant. The proposal includes portions of two large parcels containing Category 2 and 3 wetlands. The Category 3 wetland would be filled to accommodate the parking lot, with wetland compensation proposed off-site that would include wetland creation, enhancement and buffer averaging. Continued on next page Project Location: West of 505 Rainier Ave. N. and southeast of NW 6th Street Site Area: South Parcel -13,200 sq. ft. of a 67,486 sq. ft. parcel (1.55 acres total) North Parcel-9,200 sq. ft. of a 246,731 sq. ft. parcel (5.66 acres total) RECOMMENDA TION Staff recommends that the Environmental Review Committee issue a Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M) Project Location Map ERC_ ChangPkgLOT.Jan2006 City of Renton PIBIPW Oeparlment Environ!. dl Review Committee Staff Reporl RAINIER AVE. MIXED-USE S. PARKING LOT SITE PLAN & VARIANCE LUA-04-093 AND LUA05-133 ERG REPORT of January 31, 2006 Page20fB PROJECT DESCRIPTION CONTINUED: The subject project includes portions of two parcels (to be referred to as the South Parcel and the North Parcel). The applicant is proposing to construct a 27 stall surface parking lot with access drive, pedestrian connection and storm water management facilities. The proposal also involves the removal of noxious weeds; piping of an existing drainage ditch; installing a retaining wall; utility improvements; and a parking modification. Proposed development on the South Parcel includes: filling of a Category 3 wetland on-site; off-site wetland compensation to a Category 2 wetland; piping of an existing watercourse; and installation of a retaining wall. Development on the North Parcel, which is not contiguous to the South Parcel, would include: wetland enhancement and creation; removal of uncontrolled fill; construction of an ecology block wall; and wetland buffer averaging. The site is located west of Rainier Ave. South, and north of an existing restaurant (Chang's Mongolian Grill). The applicant has requested a parking modification to increase the maximum allowable number of parking spaces for the restaurant. The applicant contends that the new parking lot and additional parking spaces are needed to support the restaurant during peak hours, specifically the lunch hours and Friday/Saturday evenings. Adjacent development includes: East: Auto repair shop and espresso stand West: Single-family residential (R-8 zoning) North: Steep slopes on undeveloped land under the same ownership (CA zoning). South: Chang's Mongolian Grill restaurant. The site is zoned Commercial Arterial (CA) as designated on the City's zoning map, and Employment Area - Commercial (EA-C) on the City's Comprehensive Plan. A utility easement exists on a portion of the existing south parcel and the adjacent restaurant parcel; however, reCiprocal cross-access easements between the subject site and Chang's restaurant will be required. The South Wetland and North Wetland are at the bottom of small ravines. The edges of both sites are bound by steep slopes that surface drain to a small watercourse. Existing vegetation includes maple, alder, cottonwood, fir and hemlock and an understory of blackberries and shrubs. One tree from the south parcel and four from the north wetland area are proposed to be removed. In addition to the parking modification request, the applicant is also requesting buffer averaging, and a modification to the required wetland compensation timing, from a 12 month timeframe to be concurrent with filling of the south wetland. A variance is also requested from the Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Regulations for proposed vegetation removal and work within the required 25-ft buffer of the onsite watercourse/stream. The project is dependent upon approval of this variance, as the parking lot is proposed to be placed within the filled area of the South Wetland. The project is vested to its application acceptance date of August 12, 2004, and is not subject to the current Critical Areas regulations. B. RECOMMENDA T/ON Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommends that the Responsible Officials make the following Environmental Determination: DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE Issue DNS with 14 day Appeal Period. ERG _ GhangPkgLOT.Jan2006 DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGA TED. xx Issue DNS-M with 14 day Appeal Period. Issue DNS-M with 15 day Comment Period followed by a 14 day Appeal Period. City of Renton PIB/PW Oeparlment Envirom. a/ Review Committee Staff Reporl RAINIER AVE. MIXED-USE S. PARKING LOT (SITE PLAN & VARIANCE) LUA-04-093 AND LUA05-133 ERC REPORT of January 31, 2006 Page 30f8 C. MITIGATION MEASURES 1. The project shall be required to be designed and comply with the Department of Ecology's (DOE) Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements, outlined in Volume II of the 2001 Stormwater Management Manual. 2. The applicant shall revise the wetland plan to move the ecology wall from its proposed location to an area outside of the required 50 ft. buffer in order for hydrology and wildlife to function. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division and be completed prior to the issuance of construction/utility permits. 3. During site preparation and construction, the applicant shall install silt fencing with brightly colored construction flags to indicate the boundaries of the wetland area and buffer. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division and be completed prior to the issuance of construction/utility permits. 4. After the development of parking lot and associated site improvements, the applicant shall install permanent fencing (i.e. split-rail fence or other approved barrier) and signage along the entire edge of the wetland buffer. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division. 5. The applicant shall provide the total buffer fill square footage and an update landscape plan illustrating the exact locations of where interplanting was installed on the South Parcel as part of the Wetland Mitigation Plan. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division. 6. In the event that archaeological deposits are found during construction, work shall stop and the contractor(s) shall contact the State Archaeologist at the State of Washington Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, phone (360) 586-3065. Advisory Notes to Applicant: The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the environmental determination. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for environmental determinations. Planning 1. Commercial, multi-family, new single family and other nonresidential construction activities shall be restricted to the hours between seven o'clock (7:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m., Monday through Friday. Work on Saturdays shall be restricted to the hours between nine o'clock (9:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m. No work shall be permitted on Sundays. Building 1. Parking stalls must meet ADA requirements. 2. Building permit required for retaining walls greater or equal to four feet (4 ft.) in height. Fire Department 1. Maintain turning radius for fire equipment. A 45 ft. outside and a 25 ft. inside radii. Plan Review -General 1. All plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards. 2. A construction permit is required. The permit requires three copies of the drawings, two copies of the drainage report, a construction estimate, application and appropriate fee (this may be submitted at the sixth floor customer service counter). Plan Review -Surface Water 1. A drainage analysis and design for this project is required to meet the standard of the 1990 King County Surface Water design manual. A cursory review of the report submitted with this application determined that it met the criteria except for the following: The report submitted with the application utilized a method for design of the bio- swale contained in the Department of Ecology 2002 manual. Approval of the construction plan will be conditioned on showing that this method is equal or better than the King County 1990 design criteria for water quality facilities. 2. The preliminary design submitted with the application shows a 24" pipe connection to the downstream system. It will be necessary to further verify that the pipe systems being installed, and the downstream 24" system, have enough capacity for the entire basin (future conditions) build-out. This analysis and verification will be required prior to approval of the utility construction plans. 3. It appears that the area being filled previously provided some natural detention. And it is understood that the ERC _ ChangPkgLOT.Jan2006 City of Renton PIBIPW Department RAINIER AVE. MIXED-USE S. PARKING LOT (SITE PLAN & VARIANCE) Environt. a/ Review Committee Staff Report LUA-04..lJ93 AND LUA05-133 ERG REPORT of January 31, 2006 Page 40f8 disturbed wetlands will be mitigated off-site (within an adjacent drainage basin). However, it must also be shown that the removal of the natural detention will not contribute to future downstream problems or flooding. 4. The System Development Charge shall be at the rate of $0.265/square foot of new impervious (the TIR reports that a total of 8787 square feet of new impervious will be added. This would result in a fee of $2328.55.) This fee is payable upon recording of the final site plan and is subject to change. D. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS In compliance with RCW 43.21 C. 240, the following project environmental review addresses only those project impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and environmental regulations. 1. Earth Impacts: The City's Critical Areas maps depict the presence of steep slopes and erosion hazards on site. Slopes equal to or greater than 40% are to the immediate north of the proposed parking lot. The applicant requested an exception through modification for these slopes of which a portion are on the subject site. The portion of the slopes which are approved for a modification are located at the northeastern corner of the site. The remaining onsite slopes are not included in the exception. As part of the previous review of the slopes, a geotechnical report was submitted and has been re-submitted as part of this project as described below. The applicant submitted a Geotechnical Report prepared by The Riley Group, Inc., dated June 2,2003 with the land use application. The report addressed soils, groundwater, landslide hazards including historical slide activity, foundation systems and site preparation. The report discussed conditions for multiple parcels under the same owner. The report is assumed to address similar conditions for the subject site. The geotechnical report discussed the proposed commercial development along Rainier Ave. N. and stated that potential impacts to the slopes would be at the toe. Likewise, the proposed parking lot would abut the toe of slopes located to the north and south of the lot. The lot appears to be as close as 2 ft from the toe of the slope. The geotechnical report stated that no cutting into the toe of the slope should be done due to the steepness of the slope, which is prone to surficial creep and ravelJing over time. The applicant indicates that no excavation will occur at the toe of the slope. In order to reduce the potential for erosion and control sedimentation to the site and to adjacent properties, staff recommends additional mitigation, including a requirement that the project be designed and comply with the Department of Ecology's (DOE) Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements, outlined in Volume " of the 2001 Stormwater Management Manual. Mitigation Measures: The project shall be required to be designed and comply with the Department of Ecology's (DOE) Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements, outlined in Volume " of the 2001 Stormwater Management Manual. Policy Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations. 2. Surface Water Impacts: The site drains to Lake Washington via the West Hill drainage sub-basin. The applicant submitted a Storm Drainage Technical Information Report prepared by AHBL, dated June, 2004. The report states that current runoff from the site and upstream is discharged through an existing culvert that connects to the storm system in Rainier Avenue. The culvert is proposed to be extended by this project, in order to continue to collect runoff from the existing ditch and convey it downstream. The upstream analysis addresses the storm system located in Taylor Place NW, which discharges to a ditch west of the site. This ditch conveys the flow through the project site to the existing culvert. The report indicates that the upstream drainage pattern would be maintained in the existing system. The drainage analysis and design for this project is required to meet the 1990 King County Surface Water design manual (KCSWDM). Staff review indicates that this criteria is met, except for the use of a bio-swale ERC _ ChangPkgLOT.Jan2006 City of Renton PIBIPW Deparlment RAINIER AVE. MIXED-USE S. PARKING LOT (SITE PLAN & VARIANCE) ERG REPORT of January 31, 2006 Environ a/ Review Committee Staff Reporl LUA-04-093 AND LUA05-133 Page 50f8 designed to the Department of Ecology 2002 manual. During construction plan review, the applicant will be required to justify how this method is equal to or better than the 1990 KCSWDM design criteria for water quality facilities. Additionally, staff review indicates that the 24-inch pipe connection to the downstream system will require further analysis and verification that the system would have enough capacity for the entire basin (future conditions) upon build-out. This will be required prior to the approval of the utility construction plans. Furthermore, the wetland area to be filled provides some natural detention. Offsite mitigation for this wetland fill is proposed within an adjacent drainage basin. The applicant must also demonstrate that the removal of the natural detention will not contribute to future downstream problems or flooding. No further mitigation is recommended; however, the applicant is required to address these issues as stated above prior to utility construction plan approval. (Also see following discussion on Wetlands.) Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation is recommended. Policy Nexus: N/A 3. Wetlands/Streams Impacts: The applicant submitted a Wetland Delineation & Mitigation Report prepared by The Riley Group, Inc., dated July 22, 2004. The purpose of the study was to delineate wetlands, evaluate the functions and values of wetlands and any streams, determine classification and buffers, determine impacts and present a conceptual mitigation plan. The study delineated an approximately 16,600 sq. ft. Category 3 wetland within the ravine on the parking lot site (the South Wetland) and an approximately 21,700 sq. ft. Category 2 wetland on the north parcel (the North Wetland). A portion of the South Wetland is proposed to be filled (3,591 sq. ft. of impact includes 2,017 of wetland and 1,574 of buffer). Mitigation of these impacts is proposed to be off-site, to the North Wetland, at a 1.5: 1 ratio resulting in 3,591 sq. ft. of creation and 1,800 sq. ft. of enhancement. The applicant is requesting buffer averaging to the North Wetland to accommodate future development of the parcel to its east. According to the wetland report, the South Wetland meets the criteria as a palustrine emergent Category 3 wetland. The wetland is classified due to the size (greater than 5,000 sq. ft.); severe disturbance, including the dominance of invasive species within the wetland, specifically Japanese knotweed and Himalayan blackberry; fill material within the wetland at the east end as well as woody debris dumping; severe under- cutting of the watercourse; and outlet modification (watercourse entering a culvert). The applicant has previously undertaken noxious weed abatement of the Japanese Knotweed. The North Wetland is classified as a Category 2 wetland in that it lies within the headwaters of a watercourse. This watercourse is piped to Lake Washington and has minimal stream function. Although the eastern end of the wetland was historically filled, the wetland area shows little evidence of human related physical alteration such as diking, ditching or channelization. On December 13, 2005, the City's wetland consultant, The Watershed Company, provided an analysiS of the wetland delineations, classifications, and proposed mitigation measures. This analysiS indicated that the South Wetland should be considered a Category 2 wetland as it is located at the headwaters of a watercourse. The classification has not yet been resolved. If the South Wetland is determined to meet the criteria for a Category 2 wetland, the required buffers and proposed mitigation measures will be increased according to code requirements (RMC 4-3-050). The flowing water features on the site are unlikely to support salmon ids. The primary source of hydrology is discharge from on-site wetland and upland environments. An underground culvert system connects the watercourses to the city's storm drainage system. The applicant is requesting buffer averaging of the North Wetland's code required 50 foot buffer. The wetland report indicates that the North Wetland's existing buffer area on the east side is nearly non- ERC_ChangPkgLOT.Jan2006 City of Renton PIBIPW Department Envirom, al Review Committee Staff Report RAINIER A VE. MIXED-USE S. PARKING LOT (SITE PLAN & VARIANCE) LUA-04-093 AND LUA05-133 ERG REPORT of January 31, 2006 Page 60f8 functional since the area lying within 50 feet of the wetland edge contains fill, debris and blackberries and would not not support desirable native vegetation. The proposed increase to the buffer area on the south edge of the North Wetland 100 ft wide at its widest point, with a total area of 5,028 sq. ft. The 50-ft. buffer on the north side of the wetland would be provided beyond the proposed ecology wall that separates the created wetland area from its required buffer. The Watershed Company has indicated that the ecology blocks would reduce and interfere with the adjoining wetland buffer hydrology and wildlife functions and is not an appropriate method; thus the wall should be moved. Staff recommends as a mitigation measure that the applicant revise the wetland plan to move the ecology wall from its proposed location are outside of the 50 ft. buffer in order for hydrology and wildlife to function. To ensure that disturbance to the wetland and buffer does not occur during and after construction, staff recommends that silt fencing be installed around the wetland and buffer during construction and permanent fenCing be installed after construction. The applicant is proposing to install a 6-ft high chain link fence along the west edge of the reduced 25 ft. wetland buffer along with signage. From review of the required wetland compensation of the wetland fill and buffer fill, it appears that the square footage of the fill area is less than required by code. The wetland area is noted as 2,017 sq. ft. with a buffer fill of 1,574 sq. ft.; however the filled buffer compensation square footage is provided only for the west part of the buffer. The 25-ft buffer surrounds the entire wetland, to its north and south. It appears that the loss of the buffer would be partially mitigated outside of the parking lot, but the square footage has not been provided. Additionally the water quality facility is proposed to be located within the proposed buffer enhancement area which would reduce the amount of interplanting area. Staff recommends that as part of the final mitigation plan the applicant provide the square footage of buffer fill, and provide a landscape plan showing where and how many plants were interplanted on the South Parcel, or else obtain approval of a variance. Additionally, as previously noted, the classification of the South Wetland must be resolved in order to correctly determine the required buffers and mitigation associated with the development proposal. Staff also informed the applicant that a variance from the Tree Cutting and Land Clearing regulations would be required, for the proposal to culvert the onsite watercourse/stream and remove vegetation from its required 25-ft buffer area. A variance application was submitted on September 20, 2005 (LUA05-133). The impacts of the proposed variance have been addressed in the wetland impact analysis and the proposed mitigation for the parking lot development. Mitigation Measures: 1. The applicant shall revise the wetland plan to move the ecology wall from its proposed location to an area outside of the required 50 ft buffer in order for hydrology and wildlife to function. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division and be completed prior to the issuance of construction/utility permits. 2. During site preparation and construction, the applicant shall install silt fencing with brightly colored construction flags to indicate the boundaries of the wetland area and buffer. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division and be completed prior to the issuance of construction/utility permits. 3. After the development of parking lot and associated site improvements, the applicant shall install permanent fencing (i.e. split-rail fence or other approved barrier) and signage along the entire edge of the wetland buffer. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division. 4. The applicant shall provide the total buffer fill square footage and an update landscape plan illustrating the exact locations of where interplanting was installed on the South Parcel as part of the Wetland Mitigation Plan, or obtain a variance. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division. Policy Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations ERC_ChangPkgLOT.Jan2006 City of Renton PIBIPW Department .. RAINIER AVE. MIXED-USE S. PARKING LOT (SITE PLAN & VARIANCE) ERC REPORT of January 31, 2006 4. HabitatIWildlife Envirom. II Review Committee Staff Report LUA"()4"()93 AND LUA05-133 Page 70f8 Impacts: A wildlife reconnaissance report was conducted and submitted with the land use application as prepared by Raedeke Associates, Inc., dated September 4, 2003. The reconnaissance was required as part of the approval for the" JDA Group Townhome 2003 CPA & Rezone". The reconnaissance report stated that no bald eagles were observed on-site or on the surrounding lands as conducted on September 3, 2003. No bald eagle habitat was mapped for this area by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife in the Priority Habitats and Species program inventory. The closes bald eagle habitat is the nest and territory on the south end of Mercer Island. The report continues to state that the lack of conifers of sufficient size or configuration for nesting or roosting, the urbanization and lack of foraging in the area does not provide any habitat for bald eagles. An occasional transient bald eagle may be seen in the area, such as is common for most of the region, but this site does not provide any of the life requisites for eagles. The second wildlife type reviewed was the Great Blue Heron. The report states that no great blue herons or nesting sites were observed on-site. No great blue heron nesting habitat was mapped for this site by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife in the Priority Habitats and Species program inventory. The report continues to state that the wetlands on site do not provide substantial foraging areas for great blue herons as the hydrologic conditions conducive to supporting amphibians and other prey for herons is not present. Four great blue herons were observed to the west of the subject site at the east end of NW 5th St. One of the herons was an adult and were observed to have been sitting and flying into a western hemlock tree located about halfway up the slope. This tree would be out of the development site. No nests were observed, however, it is likely that one or two nests are present in the tree as local residents reported seeing nesting herons. If nesting occurs at this location, this is likely a temporary satellite nesting area for herons that are periodically forced to abandon the Black River colony when the bald eagles attack. Similar temporary colonies have been found in other areas to the south which are eventually abandoned and the heron return to the main colony at the Black River site. Staff received correspondence from adjacent neighbors concerning the heron in the area. The applicant has provided their consultants review of the issue to address a condition of the previous rezoning of the site. The subject site does not appear to contain any heron nests or a colony and would not interfere with any existing nests within the surrounding area; therefore, no further mitigation is recommended. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation is recommended. Policy Nexus: N/A 5. Archaeological and Cultural Resources Impacts: The proposed construction of the parking lot will occur on a portion of a wetland to be filled. A letter was received from the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation concerning the proposed project. Staff also contacted the Office concerning the contents of the letter for further information. The letter was forwarded to the applicant. The applicant has responded that the owner has not identified any ethnological history on the subject parcels and the fill over existing soils, they contend, would preserve any ethnographic and geologic history of the site. The State's letter indicated that there are six ethnographic place names adjacent to or surrounding the project area. The distances from the subject site to these place names are as close as 300 feet and as far as 2,600 feet. Four of these places are within the 1 ,000's of feet from the site. These places are clustered in the vicinity. There is also a small seasonal watercourse and a wetland. These factors combine to increase the probability for archaeological resources to be present. Staff recommends as a mitigation measure that in the event that archaeological deposits are found during construction, work must stop and the contractor(s) must contact the Washington State Archaeologist. Mitigation Measures: In the event that archaeological deposits are found during construction, work shall stop and the contractor(s) shall contact the State Archaeologist at the State of Washington Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, phone (360) 586-3065. Policy Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations ERC_ChangPkgLOT.Jan2006 City of Renton PIBIPW Oeparlment ~ RAINIER AVE. MIXED-USE S. PARKING LOT (SITE PLAN & VARIANCE) ERG REPORT of January 31, 2006 E. COMMENTS OF REVIEWING DEPARTMENTS Environ a/ Review Committee Staff Reporl LUA-04-093 AND LUA05-133 Page 80f8 The proposal has been circulated to City Departmental/Divisional Reviewers for their review. Where applicable, these comments have been incorporated into the text of this report as Mitigation Measures and/or Notes to Applicant. ~ Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File. __ Copies of all Review Comments are attached to this report. Environmental Determination Appeal Process: Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM, February 20, 2006. If no appeals are filed by this date, the action will become final. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.E. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. ERC_ChangPkgLOT.Jan2006 • 'II I" l'ljli h! ·iill i~ ll.lil NO.l.~NIHSVM NO.l.N3~ 3sna3XIW 3nN3AV ~3INI~ ! I.. i nl! NVldA3)1 _ .... _-__ u. __ -_~tw\tOOn_.oI _ _"O DATA SOUTH PARCEL TOTAL PARC.EL I'IORK AREA 1t-1PEF<VIOUS AREA _",,""'M_~'''. >" '15. " / / , '. £@~{~~f ~~ • .... \ ,J..:) ' .... "(,,, .' <ID ) "''''\ ./ :12"110\ 1 '~ .. 0, • U.n',..A I ---, .:." I '"'''' " \ -'-CL," o~ ---0"'-_'7 --~:~:~~/ ~/~ ---* ___ 1~'K (i) pn I I .... p~ ~ '111111"'" ,'0\ ",...\ • i l \ " tll,I\\ .' =-:---~-:1-~-:~ :~ ~~1~-~!::=~~~§~, ,~ ", .. -. ~"":-\: . --~ 61,4b6 SF 19,200 '''\1fi-.... '~ ~~i{~t': -i~~ ......... -----::...=,-:.-- .... ...:::.- 11~~I~"l-"GGl$S~T '. EXISTIN6 PF<OPOSED % OF TOTAL SITE LANDSGAPED AREA % OF TOTAL SITE 005F q,l)SO 5F 15% 51,600 SF 65% ~"1.16HT"1~ I2'H1.I6HT~ ~·HX2<4·DIA. GOIIGOm ..... (:l!'IXe) .. c-,:t~:~t~~~~~r~~~~~\JI~<n_r~~~~~~~~=-, EXISTIN~ AND PF<OP05ED STF<lIG TVF<ES TOTAL EXISTIN6 l"eTLAND Y'eTLAND FILL, AGTtJAL FILL PAPEF< FILL TOTAL FILL TREE GOUNT, EXI5TIN6 TO BE REMOVED NONE 16,600 SF 2,o115F 1.514 SF 9,Sq1 SF >25 I M11!!t GlJALIT'T' 9Y5T&1 ~CIVJl.. EXISTING RESTAURANT SITE ...... • SOUTH LOT AND SOUTH V"{ETLAND FILL 'tNOft~ III = 20 1 $ PREU/1INARY· NOT fOH CONSTHUCT/ON ~--~~~~ w z ::) g z ~ WW:r >S~ < 0 ~ cx:W w2S ZL Z -( « ~ a:::: w' a: ~l).20001 -J I-I-J o I-i! -J ::) 0 IOZ 1-(/):5 ::)01-OZw (/)«~ .w ow ~ ... ---•• u .. " ... ., ---- SITE PLAN APPROVAL APPUCATlON A002 § ~n·"'· 0..% o..Q o..!(,1 ~ i:j 3 0.. C> u.J ~~ ~ ~:i ~ ~~ 0 :ow "<! ,,'" '" ~ ~ :; ~ ffi '" z ~ ii ~ "~ l! ~ ~ !. 11 ' 818,» , ~, ... I!I!I;i! I 1 " ~ I . q-I'W Ii ~_ -I, ! ~II' IIIII ! 'I ,L RAINIER MIXED USE PARKING EXPANSION TI-E SOUTHWEST OUARTER OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 23 NOR'll-I, RANGE 5 EAST, WlLLAMETTE MERIDIAN crry OF RENTON, KNQ COU'ITY, WASHINGTON 1 \ • • GR~mC SCALE • ", \ ~--• .w--I \ --T""'··""---,.:.:~)~ e \ > 'AHBLr ",' \ .,"""', .'''n •. ~ \ ~ \ \ PfIO\UACCtSSBMID "', t:·~SO(2."![) \ NCllIOCKtUTNIIIIIHIIO \' ~ ~V/... _~ ___ ~_ _~ ___ L. "," 'o;.:-t>. \\(. '\ ."", iZlo:! " 'l!'i ."'. 10m ""'''''').~ \>' \ ".~ r e"COi'ICff'i2+(W-E) .-It -e-CONtI( ".S,(OH.S) \ 22" t(WC 1£ 11"(""·") ~;-O[c~'~ {~-~ ("."J • 51 \ 'a·~CI(21.~(OVT-[) G, \ \, \ @"""""'-~>r II ATO.NI8D11MW.lCfllllltG \ \ (TlP.4lOCA1ICIIS) '. T'lft2-!4"ca '--__________ N~~~!"[----.... 14.:l~ £XSl'24' r[ SITE PLAN ~:r·lII / 1/ "., " "" , .... 1. IIIrNl1llAlICIt SCI. NU. • !!OJ CGcmIJC1ICII $oWJ, •• lIPD. WlIIlOS HI! "IMDUI cur cttfl8fr, NG20--MClGoWCI£IICCWOST. I'ttSHMilllf:1IEn&N UMDU Z.1'I.M1IC~tQllSfcr~1MHtlSoI8!TO 1Q.[IU,1[_oWJ:!Q.1lltmUR[0IH)I~POICIIIGWA1ElI FUIC1UAlIIJI5, MIl VNWU SI1I11JS11J11[ C(lnDIT. IMCM "-HAll\{ 9.Du, 00 HOT SHAU.': R'PI.ID TO IC SlIIi.[ I01lOf l' WI. Mat IX*P.t.CT!lAN: "'19l1l """ 1l'lDl*N1.Y It: 1O-IR.1RA1IOI SWIll[ MAY lIE 1IIG-fI:1OOKII""'l£$. In'DItOSEDntANIlS1Uf:1OIDINnm..x.IfAm IoIXrsU1l/ZEDPIlOUaCSSIW.1.8(IU«JOPIIO'ClE 0-GRADING SECTION 'A' _ ... ",.,.. I IfOTIOSDLE ,----L.-I -.. 54) " .. .. ~ " " " " ~ " CBI2, TYPE 2-54' SCIl[:,'';''- :1 -l ,,,,,~.;y- BENCHMARK QrrtEIINTO'IU\(1'IDI1III1N[fa1( 'o8mCIIlOA~MIEJIEAII'ltlfllCM.DAfl.lll_IIf[1OIS(MA",ee).canmolOlISrtET atY(WIIEII1IJjSlM'l'IXIffIItlI'Oll'''. fWNO SO IItASS_ SfNlftl) 'ke-J-21ttJ" o.r £A5TC'l1I£STm<l tECQd[1[ SIOtO< (II H lOT!JlIEtE«MIEJI:AI(MISCMIl LOCAUtlfllOlTtEU-MlllDltH.COOERAT46J1tMIEJI .\~"':"!...". ::.a.mSWNlE:lfllClt1NlllTa:IIINEII tEalllCJl:JlPMlOfPOlOl \WA.TLOCAm;l1fil3l)[lMU(1I fIICIft rx ....... AT.aras IG. ",(111M[ lOT SIll( (J"IWIEJII A'otIlIt ~ B.MlICII. i:i ~ it I~ a:e \ :r;--~--~-.. _-....- :: Inatmi4iJi11 /III~I ~ .. .. " ~ ~ " ~ i " ~ STORM PROFILE 11 ,~ II i \tII1ICN.;,· .. r IIClIIlOfTIIl:'O.2(I' ~l I I II ~ ..::f'~lr~·_~8t.. " j i~ ",",,'''''''''' @=:'''''''''' III ''''GOO, CW!i" r IIII.COII'AC1EDllPlII ~I I I~"'~\I/-""'I 1 . 1 1 iT I I """" ...... 1V...c1NJ.1Ot4l' OIM(IJI(FOIC(,SU ~ o i~ o~t!J i~~1 ~i!~ <~cl!f 'l:!iu I i ~ ~ ~ I s;! @="""""'l4 ~_M"&Ah~~~ ~ " -!tJ),~, -""' ... _ ...... ( oaAT on '~~T ASfCDlOlOl'IIOIU POllI'ItIJtANGf:AWA' FRQiIll[TAtIIfG_ .... STORM PROFILE 12 ~ .. 1ICIIlQfr1l:'"*2I1 """""""" """""""""-ClII\ItEO fOR COMrUAllCE I 'CITY OF' ~ENTON I ! TO em nAIDARDS -----------,,----,,----,,---- CALL 48 HOURS I =-,:"==:.:..e: II BEFORE YOU DIG _" TIII_ A~ 1-800-424-5555 .. tt __ D.PAIlTM_NT or PU.ldC wo .. ~ GRADING" DRAINAGE PLAN C2.01 ~ I;IAflh'/O?/04 .... ·"-20l1115-c:2;Oi ~ .... ,,4 ",,7 ~ 3 0- I" 0.., ~~ g~ !1i. a.z ;o:~ ",g 0 VlZ ~~ "'''' C '" 0,-" '" Zz x ~ 'i 0: '" W Z ~ ,i i:~ !!~ ~jj'! /I'!;j j---,- . ~ GRAPHIC SCALE RAINIER MIXED USE PARKING EXPANSION BENCHMARK ~-• ....u-; lHE SOU1i-!wesr OUARTER OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W1l.LAMETTE MERIDIAN CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINOTON OlYCFJIEMJQt!IJIMYCOIIIIQ.NOJIJII( 'OlICIl1lA1I,II.ofQ'IH MIEIIICM '01ICAl0A1\II1_1ORS I'M\() II). CCInERlID 10 us 1m' ~ \ (INPftT) lblab_1IIO I'L , ,"t~/'~----_ , // '-/ .... / --./ ----1 J, 1_--"-- OfYflIIII1\'tISlIM'I'COOlIClPClltl2l. Fturl J"IIlASSOISC SfMlJlU) 'ke+2111J" o..rwr CF 'lDl'ftlCEtSCCIICXIE!IImUI' <*11£ 1[$fsa:(ERMEI"'~sanN. I..OCAIEDMf1IQfTtStf.oII.U.llENfALCEN1l'IAT45.11UH(J ~~~"r \~~~ ~SQJ.w:IIIICIttIftImCCIIID \' pkI I'OIiiiVAIlfl.OCAtmlNSIOUII fltCffTtS~"TAlXlllESSItQ.5t5(l1 A\EU. "", .... ".Ir .", ~ " ~~ ~ oJ IS Is <f ~hf J~ ~1fj~ . a ~..!J a ~;i ~:!!i:llj j\ , \ \ ,\\ \\ I \' ~ A \\ ' ~ \~ •. ~ ~ I ~ Ip~,-~ ENHANCED i'ETlAND aJFFE"-~$f~ , ,1" ....,...., " , , , \ \ \ \ \ I \ 1 \\ ~ '-"\1 \' 't~, \_\ \ T~c:'e~:r' (em SIUCIU~ ~. VII!: If. .,l:. ("'-$) • 17' ew '( ~3~1 ("'/OJI WI 2'-CONC1;2'U(0IJ'w'j "Olt w tIOO 20' 010' rHO - ~ I i ~ ~ I ~ ; ~ I ~ ~ " '...., '-~ ----iL ',----------w __ --------!! NO>:lll':L-. ______ , ---------",.... I / / \ , \ ~ z I .. fI'! 81T! PLAN ~1·.2O' I I J ~ ;:; 11~'t'.t"-'-111 ~ I1I!C<lIoMI<lI! CHECKED FOI COMPLIANCE CITY OF RENTON ~ t1~ TO em ITAIIDMDS O"AR.TWIINT 0.. PUIILIO WOaKS :---: GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN C4.0 ~ [_ ........ All..., TO _I [CALL 48 HOUR~ "" -"" "~'/"'" ~ -"""_,~ ~ _PCIII __ BEFORE YOU DIG :: ~_ ,._". __ . _. ill -" T1tl_ AIIIIC'I 1-800-424-5555 ,,_ .. " __. _. 7 _ 7 ~ IMCP) IMCP) ~~ 4YO E3 7 T23N R5E W 1/~ E) & ZONING +~+ ~ TBCHNICAL SBllVICIS - - - -Renton div Uml~ DATA NORTH PARCEL TOTAL PARCEL i"IORK AREA IMPERVIOUS AREA, EXISTIN6 PROPOSED I\; OF TOTAL SITE LANDSCAPED AREA I\; OF TOTAL SITE EXISTIN<5 AND PROPOSED STRIJC,T1JRES TOTAL EXISTIN<5 i'lETLAND i'lETLAND FILL, AG11!AL FILL PAPER FILL TOTAL FILL TREE GOUNT, EXISTIN<5 TO BE REMOVED LIMfTO RIME B!.D6. WNSTR1JC.TION fiNISH. 1"1NAL. 6R.A01 2 FT. GLEAI TOPSOIL EXCAVAn EXISTI UNCONTROLLED FILL 25'-0- 246,101 SF q,200 SF 00 SF 00 SF 151\; 51bOO SF 01\; NONE 21,100 SF 0,5<11 SF 5.028 SF 5.028 SF >50 4 " " " I: " I " " 1:======: YErLAND OO'RR BUFFER DETAIL Q N.T.s. , ...-" ..-.... ..--..., .,.,---- ..... --...- ........ , .. \ .. " ...... ' --\ \.~~.--~./,. -. ---- NORTH )A{ETLAND ENLARGMENT AND ENHANGMENT tN I" 20' $ " I \ \ / \ \ \ \ / / / \ \ \ \ \ \ ?:';,~~fCN' .,>' ~-a-- a~~~~ w '5 :J t; Z w ~ W III V} >:J § <(0) cd~ w--L z Z 0 -I-~ §. ... U~ I- ",Z Z L..IW w IZI:OI: ~:5w ~ otu~~z z>..J « >Z I w Z w ~ '--,~I~~- SITE PLAN APPROVAL APPLICATION PREU/1INARY·NOTfORCONSTRUCTION I A003 , oJ ,- /....----,- '/"-, \tr " ~-----/' d ' , .~"--= ~~-: '/~:/ . -::-i/--' '\ ,-....... \ r'~;"" x "-'-"'~" " ""''--, '-"',, ---~:-:--:~::-~~..:-~~<~~---',-" 7!-' -------:---"--. -......... I "'- NORTH V'lETLAND PLANTIN6 PLAN SOUTH V'lETLAND PLANTIN6 PLAN ~r • .". @ @ " (lUANll1ES TO BE O£lERYI®" ANAl WlllGAllCfi ~ IIITIIIPLAII1IIIIOTU NA TIlt TREES, SHRUBS AND HERBS BA9ED ON "ASTER PLANT SC><EOUI£. SPEaES AND QUANTITIES SHAll Il( DETrRWI<Ell BY lN40SCAPE AR01Il[CT OR WEllAHO BIOLOOST POST NIl4-NA liVE \{GETAllON REMOVAl. 1IIlUIII_ RATM _Ill GENERAl N01[S: 1. IT IS PREftRA8I.£ tHAT THE DESIGN Cf THIS PlAHTlHG PLAN SEEK TO REPlJtA1[ NAlIJRAl PlANT Cilll",,~TlES ~ SPEQES 00I'05ITJ()1 AN£) ARRANGEMENt E\{H SPACING AHO SlRAlQH-ROW PlAHlI4G ARE NOT DESIRED. kA :=~":j,TI~~All BE ~STAllEO .1H~ ~.~. ':P~~S~:,':1= (\: ';: E~L';~ 6-OIAM£TER) ANO 8-12' LCtfG, 4. BAREROOT PLANT STOCK MAY BE USED 'MiERE SEASONAU Y AVAIlAIlf AND GENERALlY !.lUST 8£ INSTAlLED DURING THE OORIIANT SEASON (_XlIIATElY OCTOOER 31ST lHROOGH fEB 1ST), BAREROOT PlANT STOQ( SHALl BE EQUAl TO OR CREATrR 1HAN 1HAT Of THE SPEOAED CONT~NER 9ZL 5. MUl()4 SHALL BE INSTALl..EO AROJHO All TREES ANO SHRUBS TO ASSIST PlANT StJRIt1VAl. mE MULCH SHAll BE MEDIUM GRADE \\000 OiIPS OR BETTER. .til. NClt-HAllVE \{G(TATlON SHALl BE REMO\{tl 'MTHIH THE WETLAND B1JfftR. TH£ LANDSCAl'( AR0<11[CT OR I1£TlAND BIOlOGIST SHALl flAG AREAS ~ TO REMOVAL AREAS HRE PLANTS HAlt BEEN REIIO\tD SHALl BE REPlAN1l:D N1H 1HE NATIVE PlANTS US1[D 1N 1HE MASTER PLANT I£GOO. tHE LANDSCAP£ AROiI1[CT OR WETlAND 9OLOO1ST SHALl A£lD LOCA1[ PlANTS 'MltIH THESE AREAS. SEW MIX A; UPPER BUfUB --Sff]) QlSlURfJD Sf!. IntIN DiE fMtANcm moo H)llBOSEFD NIX Apet ICADOO RATES P£8 t.CR£' [J REGREEH STERIlE SEED MIX SEED ",XTlJRE lOLB/AaRE 1II1L I.NJUtlOftCSfa! 1OOt~1DN. """"'CO DElIlUDUSM.MI ""' ....... 101 FNSIID,.1I1 --MlD~IO",*~ -_·-1'lII1IFIt (1J CO!!.~ PJ,AJITIIQ DmL 2000 La ERO-R8ER ~ABER MUlCH LB SEED MIX AS NOTED 200 LB 25-0-10 40 LB TACI<flER TO PREVENT R1PPUNC '"'" 1i),.1W/S,W\M.!JlQm1WIS~1l B£CIIIISTAlCPMfD-c:aDllOllAT01fUtC[ COA1MASAPPItO'GnOfMRSIIID'II1UItAlM iiiiW:0A1E-10'~ "'IInl~1t.D-a.ASS2A(I..M:I<) ..... ... "" LKI'OSfIHJMII1POmrUl.OO, CGIIDIMClflW.POSlS21!fI.o. r .... , (2) !!!.!l* FINC!! PlTAL -.... WETLAND.1i BUFFER '/, ~~ART "_[\01' zs JOlIOntT, MaD o.t" fUm NIU Amoo 10 A 1«TIt. (II UDfDICt POST.' Fm ftllf'ErI' oIIMGIfAO(!JIM QJHJumtUfI K """-o IUPPlllIOIIIIAIIY IIGIIAQI omw"",, PR£LIUINARY -NOT fOR CONSTRUC770N w' ::J Z WW >Vl «:::J o W 0::: x w~ Z « 0::: ------ildmll T ... COM.... • ..... 'TTI.. :'.::r: ..... --"'-... -:.0.:':--. ........... - ",v ... ,r7.40 .. ",. JlN..y 2.1, 2004 .I_M __ •""-"""HOOoI TU __ i~a.:~_ CONCEPTUAL PLANTING PLAN W1 z :5 "- cJ <Ii cJ ,...: "<! :z 0 E ...J 0 ::; '" UJ OJ Cl Z '" '" 1'-ii~ ~ 1 til!' ~ ! : ~~ I "j w-.-:.. ilil,Dltlll i I -~ ~c~~v..!'.~ ~/ (~R~'::-~c:.~ ';.~~) \ RAINIER MIXED USE PARKING EXPANSION THE SOUTHWEST OUARTER OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHf' 23 NORTH, RANOE 5 EAST, WILL.AMETTE MEAIDIAN I'10IO '12-OIEOAfl/C","-,CITY OF RENTON, Kt«l COUNTY, WASHINGTON ~s2:'~G~ II ~~ S 1 \\1 \ \ \ -'a ~~~ e'~~ GRAPHIC SCALE ~ '\' \ ;1:"..:1"'" • ~.. • , -------~ ~.' ~ ••• J--" I -~ --s.~: . (.""'''~' ~--," --"®J,, /=...~= .... -.. ~ \ -.... / ..... "' .... " ..... --[ -, \ iJ /.~/ "./ ~' ~c;::t1~_ .. a ~,\~ ",' I::::i~-'U \ __ ~~_~5y -~-",' -~-i'" ", \!o'l\"l."" '1'" ",,,,,., 1-,teI'\ \ \ T.E.S.C, NOTES. I. S[[COfS1IIUCTII)I!itOUEMt1:OI HrTco.l. z. ATA ........... u.s.c.m1lllESsttALI.!(IICSFm'tDMJIUlfTAMDPER"D£SOI£llUl£PROt!UD Ql1ItSK£T. 3, F ~flEU.ISEIICIlIHl(JIIDOIJIIltCcom!tUC"IICf(, lItECOI1MC1at9WJ.NOfFY"D£OTJ~1IOI1OI PRlCllTOM.IIIJIMICPlRIIO'M1I(Nt~EtU.Oa1'STIfCWIIS. 4. lItEcaf"tAClCIII5l.lUIEflUJ.YIU'CllSll1""TI£~II(IIIfI)I'It01[t1II;J4~NJ.DmIHG U1lJ1l$. K COf1IUoClat SMAlL 'IDFr ...... lI1lSTYl.OCAlICICS PRIOR TO camRUClKIt IYCAUJNC lItE ~l.OCI.ltLt«Arl-«JIJ-42.-S5S5A ....... tf4l1QlRSIII1IaTOMO'[XCA¥A1ICM. SITE PLAN ~ e-~tHC 0( ., ~J ( .. -:;) e" ~OHto( ".2 t (""-C) r 22' COIOC r£ 21a&(' .. -W,' j ........ ';=\"~'" Ii' ~ II PII01[(;TasT, UOITn_ ;"", ..... r ' l ~ T .E.S.C. LEGEND @IEIII'IMtY~0I1RN1Cf:@ @) SltRlOItMIIUtPR01tC1k"ff@ . ®fl"JtRr.le1lCfIMCt@ ® Q.£MfU.S1I:ttJ'GIIC., UI'\.AS1ICCOWR\NOII01ESCII HrrCl.I @ 'IOIIP(Mt'(~~II'IIlII05UtlItIlO1DOIHtTCI.',B1IIC(II"JH[ IIO-ff1."AV.JION NIlAS 9IIt.I. lIE PER 111: lIO-N\1RAlKW SIM£ SlED MIX QI KETCI.I, ® ..... "'" ~ ~ '\ \ , 'fF-l ~~ BENCHMARK OTYorlllftalQM'rCOMtlQ.I£JWOIIII( \UI1ICAI, 00\1\IMQnK.tIIOICM 'G1ICN.. DAtuM , .. fIlltRS {ItA'oO .~ CXMMIntDlOU5f1[l cmOF"Il'IClONUMYcotmIQ.fl(lNtti. 1'~:U~ST:':st~~~rA~~~:'tI ffICIf'I'or 1J....Ma.1IIf1'M. COI1EII: AT ~IUMO AQ.( /lQR1H. tlLYAaw_54.OJt i&. OtISDmSIIIME .. IItIIlIIIOTClWIJItE~"Mlor"'VMl.r ~lIDlisnull""",orIU.OltCAT.tIDDIISSItO.&l5(11H'IIE$' SIIl[crlWlUlAWHUt Bl'It. .. • .. ,t EROSION CONTROL NOTES. tlERll:l«fCOlSlllUC'lCllOltI:lNl.OPlllENTN:1I'otITYoctU!S,A P!£-CIlHSII!UC1IOIIliItllIIGflllSTB£lI1.OnHaT'l'(J"!III1ONIlO'AIIMMT orl'lBJCGlCS.II[SQ(DIGIIDl 1. AU. lim or CWMC NID IfI[A$ or 'l8tTA1OI PllDYAb AS PlIDC1IaD ON 111: I\M 5HoIU.8£ Q.£AT A.MIlOII TIl fIlD 00 CISUnftl NIIHG ..."...", lAU.lOMDstDIIOOAD,tII09ONCXINt'IICI.r.lOU1lESIII5T.~ :.: ::'::"'Tu:,.~1Da.:'~~o:":::=: sma It.I. 8IOSJt MIl SDIaT r~ SIWI.. lIMfTMG .. A SAMrM:TOIn' COClID l1l1I. SUOI1IIE 1MAt CUNN II'IJ~ aIII5fIIUCIIQ( IS <:cIIV:1lD MIl P01UI1VIl nil Glt-n UIt1:ItI$ ~ PASSEO. 1ItE IASlDfTA1IQ(, ~~~':=,,~tA1IatctMJ1C4. ~~~':='~=~~~o:s PRS.~OIMIELS.Clltr'lII1IJtrlQ/1l[1 f.IlUWtGK_PEJI(I)~Nl7t9EtI1lflO.lll411M0131,I(,lPllO.UT II51IIIIIEDJ:Il -.-s1KA1JI IIWI UOO 9W.wflET, 1H~T,III( TOIlt I!FT I.tIItIIItlDnII IIJIIf 11M na.'IIE (1'Z)NCUtS.1WJ. I[ CO'GBI rr IWM. DllfC,allPI.AS1CCIMIIIC. :J::ms~n::=-~~~ .. 11.:l.CfES. .. A IOI'OIIMYINWI,aJIS1JIUC1JIJtOllRMCl, ttllllx""", TO .. IIQ ""'.MLS 1lIIIU.. LOCA1ElI AT ...... Pam" WNtUJ,R1NIJIIIESS AlII laImTOKcamI!UC:1ICltstt. t;j ~ ~I ,6 If 6 !i ~~~f: b ~il-'~I h 0ni 5!i q~d ! I ~ ~ ~ l':! ~ ; ~ ~ ~ ~ I ',It.I.DOIIlJHD1tIA1EfUl9W.L.IlEPSI'OSEI)1JTtlEINNtIPPROWllLDCAlQI. I.COOIIDIIAIt.-tHI'\1IM'L'aInll:fIflOCATIOHaFOtSIINGUrutYPQl, @-_ .... @ ~ ...... ''''''''''''' ,'====':':1 JIl!l __ ' INSPECTION SCHEDULE FOR ESC FACILITIES :Mla:-~'1'~~~~..:.~~,:r:tr:: -"""-... "'---- CHECKED .OR COMPLWlCE TD cm ITA.DAHIII CITY OF RENTON O •• AA ...... HT OP PUBLIC WORItII i ....... gryzmlNAI! -prom. (It([A,. "'----"'----1-=====""'-1-.... --DEMOLITION & T.E.S,C. PLAN C1.01 2 .tyt.Sl!fOCJ!R!l-..... l)M.l,MClKIDIE"G1'ItMf',lUt'ttIIT!'IIOO!X1NGlIl.tI!fI'. PIEOOlIlEPW !fUUIEIM[)[W1III 141101J!SCWlllEDlAIB.l'FP05:9IU. CALL 48 HOURS BEFORE YOU DIG 1-800·424-5556 ..,,-- D"1"'IO'/04 1'U-2OJI'~10 ~ ~ ICAUI, '" .. 20' ....,.,2 Of',7 p.nll<p.r_"'hp.p.llp.r Mayor December 16, 2005 Richard Wagner Baylis Architects 10801 Main Street #110 Bellevue, WA 98004 CITY F RENTON PlanningIBuildinglPublic Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P_E., Administrator Subject: Rainier Ave. South Parking Lot (Chang's Parking Lot) Variance Request LUA 05-133 (Cross-Reference: LUA04-149) Dear Mr. Wagner: The Development Planning Section of the City of Renton has determined that additional information is required to continue our review of the above-described project, based on the attached letter from The Watershed Company, dated December 13, 2005. According to the wetland analysis conducted by The Watershed Company, the southern wetland area has been inaccurately classified in the site plan and variance applications as a Category 3 wetland. The wetland should be classified as a Category 2 headwater wetland. Additonally, both onsite watercourses meet the requirements for Class 3 designation. These corrections should be reflected in the Conceptual Wetland Delineation and Mitigation Report and site plans. Please refer to The Watershed Company's recommendations regarding revisions to the mitigation plan (including grading details) and increased buffer width requirements, as provided in their letter of December 13, 2005 and their previous review letter of August 31, 2004. These recommendations should be incorporated in revisions to the Conceptual Wetland Delineation and Mitigation Report and site plans, based upon the best available science. At this time, your project has been placed on hold pending receipt of the requested information. Please contact me at (425) 430-7382 if you have any questions. Sincerely, t 'm . ! , /! I l/lI-'f (;' i/o '.A :/'-c..~-,----- K ri A. Weaver, AICP Senior Planner -------lO-5-5-S-ou-t-h-G-ra-d-y-W-a-y---R-en-to-n-,-W-a-sh-in-g-to-n-9-g-0-55-------~ <1' This paper contains 50% recycled material, 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE From: To: Date: Subject: Gregg Zimmerman Abdoul Gafour; Jennifer Henning; Keri Weaver; Neil Watts 01/13/20066:19:20 PM Rainier Ave. South Mixed use project The Mayors Office was clear that they would like us to use our collective expertise to find mutually acceptable solutions to the outstanding issues on the subject project. That will require some creative solutions because the outstanding issues that currently exist would prevent the project from going forward. During our meeting today with Rich Wagner, the main outstanding issues were brought forward and discussed. I list these below, along with the direction that we should take toward finding a solution: 1) The delayed lot line adjustment. This has been recorded, so is no longer a problem. 2) Can we have the HEX hearing on the site plan earlier than March (as currently scheduled). Please provide response on this. 3) Wetlands: Use of the new standards and the 75-foot setbacks would preclude the possibility of this portion of the development from going forward. Other phases of this project are subject to the older setback requirements (25-feet). Since there appears to be a nexus for connecting the newest submittal with the older submittals (a mitigation connection), we should explore this and determine if it is reasonable to apply the 25-foot setback standards. 4) There is an ongoing disagreement between the developer's ecologist and the City's ecologist as to whether to classify the wetlands on the Chang parking lot site as Class 3 or Class 2. This has to be brought to resolution. Again, consideration has to be given to feasibility of building the project in our efforts to resolve this dispute. 5) Water line. At the meeting we offered to split the costs of the water line along 6th St. 50%/50% with the City paying full cost for the street overlay (incorporate into the annual overlay program). While on the generous side, I think this can be justified due to the benefit that other water customers will derive from this line. If this offer is acceptable to the developer we should go forward with it. That would bring closure to the water line issues. 6) Rich Wagner brought up an issue that was new to me after Jennifer had left the meeting. Apparently a commercial back yard setback variance will be needed behind the commercial buildings. They would like a variance to reduce the required setback from 15-feet to 0-2 feet, impacting 2 houses that would be higher on the slope. Part of the proposal was to record a restrictive covenant on the house lots giving notice of the reduced setbacks to future home purchasers. I am not familiar with setback criteria, but according to Rich this item will have to be worked out in order for the project to be feasible. Anyway, see what you can do with this next week and report back to me. Thanks. Gregg cc: Jay Covington ~ The Watershed Company ~ OEVE . l3 December 2005 ( 1#~fJdwNIA" • rtiOIV I ON • V\:o Keri Weaver, Senior Planner DEC 1 ~ 2005 City of Renton Planning Department 1055 South Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 RI:;('cIVED Re: Rainier Avenue Parking Lot project -Environmental Review Dear Keri: Thank you for the opportunity to review the above referenced project for compliance with the pre-June 2005 City of Renton Critical Areas Ordinance. This is the second review provided by The Watershed Company for this project. The initial work was a review of the wetland mitigation plan by Kathy Curry, formerly with this office. Kathy did not conduct a site visit to verify the wetland boundaries and classifications. During this review, I did make a site visit to complete those tasks. I also read through Kathy's 8/31104 review letter, the original report by The Riley Group, Inc. entitled: Conceptual Wetland Delineation and Mitigation Report, South Parking Lot and dated 7/22/04. Per a conversation with you, this report has not been amended or revised. I also reviewed the following additional documents: 1) City of Renton Staff Report, dated 9121104 2) City of Renton letter to Rich Wagner, dated 10/20104 3) AHBL Project MemolReport, dated 4/15/05 4) AHBL letter to Jennifer Henning (City Planner), dated 9/30105 The site visit was completed on the 5th of December 2005. Findings The southern wetland appears to have been accurately delineated, compared to the provided survey map and to several old flags found on the property. However, the wetland has not been accurately classified as a Category 3 wetland. The ordinance gives five criteria, only one of which must a wetland meet to satisfy a Category 2 designation. Criterion "c" is wetlands of any size located at the headwaters of a watercourse. This wetland persists on a slope and feeds water to the stream. It is therefore a headwater wetland. The northern wetland was accurately delineated and classified. Neither watercourse was classified in the Riley Group report per 4-3-050 L "Shorelines Streams and Lakes." Using this system, both watercourses would meet the definition of Class 3 waters as they are perennial, but are non-salmonid bearing. The culverts beneath Rainier A venue South are migration barriers to salmon. Since the Conceptual Wetland Delineation and Mitigation Report has not been updated, the comments found in The Watershed Company review 8/31104 letter are still valid. In addition, acceptable final mitigation plans should show detailed grading plans including 1410 Market Street, Kirkland, WA 98033 -(425) 822 5242 -fax (425) 827 8136 watershed@watershedco.com -www.watershedco.com Keri Weaver 13 December 2005 Page 2 of3 at least two cross sections through the wetland creation/restoration area. Plans should also include a provision that a qualified wetland biologist be present during grading. As the fill soils are removed, if the original wetland soils are revealed and found to be at an acceptable elevation for future wetland conditions, the grading plan will be field modified in order to replicate original conditions as closely as possible. Also, there should be a proposal for maximum buffer slopes. These slopes should not exceed 15 percent, unless the buffer is wider than the standard width required in the code. The City of Renton Critical Areas Regulations in place at the date of vesting list 3 requirements which must be met in order for a permit approval (Section 4-3-050 M 2.). Requirement a. is that a proposed action avoids adverse impacts or takes appropriate measures to minimize and compensate for impacts. While no detailed construction plans for the parking lot were provided, it appears that wetland area will be filled to the west, outside of the parking lot pavement. The use of a poured or stacked concrete block retaining wall at the western end of the lot could possibly reduce the wetland impacts somewhat. Requirement c. is that denial of the permit would result in the denial of all reasonable use of the property. The applicant is asserting that the parking lot is needed to serve Chang's Mongolian Grill restaurant. Apparently, the Chang's lot is not large enough to handle busy dining times. The recent lot line adjustment leaves little room for use of the property without wetland and stream impacts. However, The applicant has not shown that other development proposals with less impact to the wetland, buffers and the stream are not possible. The use of the site as a parking lot is surely not the only possible reasonable use of this property. The applicant is also seeking a variance from the tree cutting and land clearing regulations to allow approximately 65 percent of the on-site stream length to be placed in a culvert. In order for a variance to be granted, the applicant must prove an undue hardship. It is acknowledged that this property is highly constrained by topography and critical areas. However as stated above, the applicant has not shown that there is no other possible development option that would result in fewer impacts to the stream corridor. Buffer widths on both the north and south wetlands should be wider than shown. Slopes within these buffers vary, but are noted as being up to 40 percent, and possibly steeper where topography is not shown on the plans or is difficult to read. Section 4-3-050 M 6 d. iv. requires increases in buffer widths when slopes exceed 15 percent. Recommendations The following tasks are recommended for corrections to the submittal: 1) Revise the report to reflect the category 2 classification of the southern wetland. 2) The applicant should explore other development options which have fewer impacts that the current proposal. Keri Weaver 13 December 2005 Page 3 of3 3) The mitigation plan should be altered to reflect our prior reVIew letter comments and include details on grading as noted above. 4) Buffers on both wetlands, including the wetland mitigation area, should be increased where the slopes exceed 15 percent. The applicant's consultant should propose buffer widths that are justified by the best available science on sloped buffers. 5) The buffer on the newly created wetland area should be less than 15 percent or the buffer width should be increased. Implementation of these recommendations will ensure that the project meets the letter . and intent ofthe City of Renton CAO. Please call with any questions. Sincerely, Hugh Mortensen Ecologist/PWS City of Re ... on Department of Planning / Building / Public ~~urks ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ~~~NG~M~ME~~~~~~~~~4L· _____ ~C~O~M~M~E!~~S~D~U~E~:JD~E~C~E~M~B~E~R~2~,~2~OQ05L ___ ~ APPLICATION NO: LUA05-133, V-H DATE CIRCULATED: NOVBflP ........ /\ -?n05 APPLICANT: AHBL, Inc -Matt Weber PROJECT MANAGER:' Keri Weaver )\ PROJECT TITLE: Rainier Avenue Variance PLAN REVIEW: Arneta Henninger l n ~ / SITE AREA: 1.55 acres BUILDING AREA (gross): N/A LOCATION: 505 Rainier Avenue N I WORK ORDER NO: 77500 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting a variance from tree cutting and land clearing regulations (Chapter 4-9 RMC), to clear vegetation within a 25-foot stream buffer in order to culvert and redirect the stream. The variance request is part of the Rainier Avenue Mixed Use Project application (LUA04-093). 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 LiqhtlGlare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ HistoriclCultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELA TED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Signatu~&aeC'I~thOriZed Representative Date City of I. _ .. on Department of Planning / Building / Public •• ~rks ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: fer COMMENTS DUE: DECEMBER 2, 2005 APPLICATION NO: LUA05-133, V-H DATE CIRCULATED: NOVEMBER 10, 2005 APPLICANT: AHBL, Inc -Matt Weber PROJECT MANAGER: Keri Weaver CITY OF RENTOl>< PROJECT TITLE: Rainier Avenue Variance er SITE AREA: 1.55 acres BUILDING AREA NOV 10 20Cj LOCATION: 505 Rainier Avenue N WORK ORDER NO: 77500 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting a variance from tree cutting and land clearing regulations (Chapter 4-9 RMC), to clear vegetation within a 25-foot stream buffer in order to culvert and redirect the stream. The variance request is part of the Rainier Avenue Mixed Use Project application (LUA04-093). 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 Energyl Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of fYObable impact or a"",s who'" a"''';on In' aYon I, needed to properly a,,,, .. /hI, proposal. {J {/G! ~ '1 0 0 ~ . Date City of R • .,n Department of Planning / Building / Public .. "rks ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: Bvcs. COMMENTS DUE: DECEMBER 2, 2005 DATE CIRCULATED: NOVEMBER 10, 2005 APPLICANT: AHBL, Inc -Matt Weber PROJECT MANAGER: Keri Weaver PROJECT TITLE: Rainier Avenue Variance er SITE AREA: 1.55 acres BUILDING AREA LOCATION: 505 Rainier Avenue N WORK ORDER NO: 77500 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting a variance from tree cutting and land clearing reg~~~ 4-9 RMC), to clear vegetation within a 25-foot stream buffer in order to culvert and redirect the stream. The variance request is part of the Rainier Avenue Mixed Use Project application (LUA04-093). A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housinq Air Aesthetics Water UghtiGlare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Trensportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Culturel Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELA TED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS a lL(5!200S'--- Date City of Re ..• _n Department of Planning / Building / Public ____ :s ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: P arlLs COMMENTS DUE: DECEMBER 2, 2005 APPLICATION NO: LUA05-133, V-H DATE CIRCULATED: NOVEMBER 10, 2005 APPLICANT: AHBL, Inc -Matt Weber PROJECT MANAGER: Keri Weaver PROJECT TITLE: Rainier Avenue Variance PLAN REVIEW: Arneta HenninQer SITE AREA: 1.55 acres BUILDING AREA (gross): N/A LOCATION: 505 Rainier Avenue N I WORK ORDER NO: 77500 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting a variance from tree cutting and land clearing regulations (Chapter 4-9 RMC), to clear vegetation within a 25-foot stream buffer in order to culvert and redirect the stream. The variance request is part of the Rainier Avenue Mixed Use Project application (LUA04-093). 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 SeNices Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources PreseNation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS__ . /) . ) Ii' ~( (,I/Z.{ /Z{). ~1 J ytL/J/L.. /b / ,/z/Jl2 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 ,dditional information is nee~d to properly assess this proposal. I (. . / J(..LLUi!rt---i;,.5i.;Llt£/~ 11/ IJ /CS Signatt:fre of Director or AuthrlzeRepresentative Date f / City of Ren."n Department of Planning / Building / Public V ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: p COMMENTS DUE: DECEMBER 2, 2005 APPLICATION NO: LUA05-133, V-H DATE CIRCULATED: NOVEMBER 10, 2005 APPLICANT: AHBL, Inc -Matt Weber PROJECT MANAGER: Keri Weaver PROJECT TITLE: Rainier Avenue Variance SITE AREA: 1.55 acres BUILDING AREA LOCATION: 505 Rainier Avenue N WORK ORDER NO: 77500 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting a variance from tree cutting and land clearing regulations (Chapter 4-9 RMC), to clear vegetation within a 25-foot stream buffer in order to culvert and redirect the stream. The variance request is part of the Rainier Avenue Mixed Use Project application (LUA04-093). A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housinq Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10.000 Feet 14.000 Feet B. POLICY-RELA TED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS '1/o~ 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 additio nformatio is eeded to properly assess this proposal. 8.J ;1/ W 0 ~ Date City of Re ... on Department of Planning / Building / Public •• v. ks ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: -Ate mr+ COMMENTS DUE: DECEMBER 2, 2005 APPLICATION NO: LUA05-133, V-H DATE CIRCULATED: NOVEMBER 10, 2005 APPLICANT: AHBL, Inc -Matt Weber PROJECT MANAGER: Keri Weaver PROJECT TITLE: Rainier Avenue Variance PLAN REVIEW: Arneta Henninger SITE AREA: 1.55 acres BUILDING AREA (gross): N/A LOCATION: 505 Rainier Avenue N I WORK ORDER NO: 77500 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting a variance from tree cutting and land clearing regulations (Chapter 4-9 RMC), to clear vegetation within a 25-foot stream buffer in order to culvert and redirect the stream. The variance request is part of the Rainier Avenue Mixed Use Project application (LUA04-093). 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 x.. Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public SeNices Energyl Historic/Cultural Natural Resources PreseNation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14.000 Feet B. POLICY-RELA TED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELA TED COMMENTS ::IJP-pcu-rsv--:J lot-/t((jid-,'",() /5 l-<5d/ flcCt$SC. Signature Date 7 ' City of Re .. n Department of Planning / Building / Public .. ~. ks ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: Co~C>n APPLICATION NO: LUA05-133, V-H APPLICANT: AHBL, Inc -Matt Weber PROJECT TITLE: Rainier Avenue Variance SITE AREA: 1.55 acres LOCATION: 505 Rainier Avenue N COMMENTS DUE: DECEMBER 2, 2005 DATE CIRCULATED: NOVEMBER 10,2005 PROJECT MANAGER: Keri Weaver PLAN REVIEW: Arneta Henninger BUILDING AREA (gross): N/A I WORK ORDER NO: 77500 NOV 10 20G:· BUlL DING DIVISIC. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting a variance from tree cutting and land clearing regulations (Chapter 4-9 RMC), to clear vegetation within a 25-foot stream buffer in order to culvert and redirect the stream. The variance request is part of the Rainier Avenue Mixed Use Project application (LUA04-093). A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10.000 Feet 14.000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELA TED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas wh additional information is nee d to properly assess this proposal. ~! '1i !t/I5P('/ Date City of Ren,on Department of Planning / Building / Public ~~vrks ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: -. COMMENTS DUE: DECEMBER 2, 2005 APPLICATION NO: LUA05-133, V-H DATE CIRCULATED: NOVEMBER 10, 2005 APPLICANT: AHBL, Inc -Matt Weber PROJECT MANAGER: Keri Weaver PROJECT TITLE: Rainier Avenue Variance er SITE AREA: 1.55 acres BUILDING AREA ross: N/A LOCATION: 505 Rainier Avenue N I WORK ORDER NO: 77500 BUILDING DIVISION SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting a variance from tree cutting and land clearing regulations (Chapter 4-9 RMC), to clear vegetation within a 25-foot stream buffer in order to culvert and redirect the stream. The variance request is part of the Rainier Avenue Mixed Use Project application (LUA04-093). 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 Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELA TED COMMENTS IV~ C. CODE-RELA TED COMMENTS f.J~ We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or a", s who", addmonal i~;/ion is needed /0 properly assess this proposal. Da~ t/~ City of Remon Department of Planning / Building / Public ~ .. ,. ks ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: Fi r<:- APPLICATION NO: LUA05-133. V-H APPLICANT: AHBL. Inc -Matt Weber PROJECT TITLE: Rainier Avenue Variance SITE AREA: 1.55 acres LOCATION: 505 Rainier Avenue N r C,_") , ~' L . '"1 DATE CIRCULATED: NOVEMBER 1Q. LUv:r ___ -=-. l, I PROJECT MANAGER: Keri Weaver ! ' . PLAN REVIEW: Arneta Henninger I BUILDING AREA (gross): N/A ; I WORK ORDER NO: 77500 L_ i iJV , 0 2005 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting a variance from tree cutting and land clearing regulations (Chapter 4-9 RMC). to clear vegetation within a 25-foot stream buffer in order to culvert and redirect the stream. The variance request is part of the Rainier Avenue Mixed Use Project application (LUA04-093). A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housinq Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet NI B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELA TED COMMENTS ariicular attention to those areas in which we have experiise and have identified areas of probable impact or ded to properly assess this proposal. Signature of illl~ht Date , I CITY OF RENTON CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 10th day of November, 2005, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing Acceptance Letter, NOA documents. This information was sent to: Name Matt Weber, AHBL, Inc Contact! Applicant Jack Alhadeff, JDA Group, LLC Owner Bruce & Sue Gregg Parties of Record Sherondia Renee Otis Party of Record Lee & Peggy Christopherson Party of Record Carl P. Burns Party of Record Mary Jo Carlson Party of Record Ronnie & Roberta McDonald Parties of Record Rolland Dewing Party of Record Surrounding Property Owners -NOA only See Attached (Signature of Sender): 7~ ~ STATE OF WASHINGTON ) COUNTY OF KING ) SS ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Stacy Tucker Representing ." \~:>" ,. signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. .A 1l . Dated: II/ro!b~ (~L]=eJlkc. I , Notary Public in and for the State of Washington Notary (print): __ O~~~J;_'U==--:--,~-----:...~_,,_1/4_· ______ _ My appointment expires: ~ (1'1 !D' PtQlAA.ti~~tifif Rainier Avenue Variance ... -., 956480010605 ALHADEFF JACK JDA GROUP LLC 95 S TOBIN ST #201 RENTON WA 98055 420240150003 CHANG BROTHERS INC 6301 NE 204TH DR NE REDMOND WA 98030 956480016503 DEWING ROLLAND L 210 NW 5TH ST RENTON WA 98055 956480016008 GREGG BRUCE+SUE 207 NW 5TH ST RENTON WA 98055 956480017600 MILLER WAYNE A+DEBRA J 19611 SE 192ND ST RENTON WA 98058 956480010506 SWEENEY FRANCINE A 205 NW 6TH RENTON WA 98055 420240124008 BAUER EDDIE 501 RAINIER AV N RENTON WA 98055 420240130500 CHRISTOPHERSON R LEE 503 RAINIER AV N RENTON WA 98055 956480006108 FLATTEN LIVING TRUST FLATTEN MELFORD+JOSEPHINE 210 NW 6TH ST RENTON WA 98055 956480005605 HYRE ROLAND C 214 NW 6TH ST RENTON WA 98055 956480009003 NAZZAL ANDREW+DEBORAH 217 NW 6TH ST RENTON WA 98055 956480009508 BURNS CARL P 213 NW 6TH ST RENTON WA 98055 956480006603 GERISILO PHILIP G+DEBORAH C 31117 E LAKE MORTON DR SE KENT WA 98042 956480007007 JDA GROUP LLC & I D KLINE C/O HOLMAN R/E SERVICES 95 S TOBIN ST #201 RENTON WA 98055 956480009607 SWANSON KELLY R 209 NW 6TH ST RENTON WA 98055 If' ... NOTICE OF APPLICATION A Master Application has been flied and accepted with the Development Services Division of the City of Renton. The following briefly describes the application and the necessary Public Approvals. PROJECT NAME/NUMBER: Rainier Avenue Variance I LUA05·133, V-H alkla LUA04·093, SA-A, ECF PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting a variance from tree cutting and land clearing regulations (Chapter 4-9 RMC), to clear vegetation within a 25-fool stream buffer in order to culvert and redirect the stream. The variance request is part of the Rainier Avenue Mixed Use Project application (LUA04-093). PROJECT LOCATION: 505 Rainier Avenue N PUBLIC APPROVALS: Hearing Examiner Variance approval APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON: Matt Weber, AHBL, Inc.; Tel: (253) 383-2422; Eml: mweber@ahbl.com PUBLIC HEARING: PUblic hearing Is tentatively scheduled for January 24 2006 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. Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Kerl Weaver, Senior Planner, Development Services Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055, by 5:00 PM on December 24,2005. This matter Is also tentatively scheduled for a public hearing on January 24, 2006. at 9:00 AM, Council Chambers, Seventh Floor, Renton City HaU, 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. PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION DATE OF APPLICATION: October 28, 2005 November 10, 2005 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: DATE OF NOTICE OF APPLICATION: November 10, 2005 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 South Grady Way. Renton, WA 98055. File Name I No,: Rainier Ave Vartance I LUA05-133, V-H a/kla LUA04·093, SA-A, ECF NAME: ____________________________________________________________ ___ MAILING ADDRESS: ________________________________________________________ __ TELEPHONE NO.: ________________________ __ CERTIFICATION I, 1\~n li)Q0~ ,hereby certify that 3 copies of the above document were posted by me in ~ conspicuous places or nearby the described property on DATE:_I....:....1 -1--/.:.....;:1 O,-,-I_DS_ SIGNED:_1f-H-bt--t:_~ ____ _ ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn before me, a Notary Public, in and for the State of Washington residing in 6J"w,1 ,o.tIre 104'" dayo,jJbCI z.o~) aL~ 7~ '"'1.1,\;:,;:-:"., .', NOTARY PUBLIC SIGNATURE: 1 '-'rl .. 1;.\., ......... , ...... !"-_;-(\.L\" ...... f '~ NOTAi:;Y PUBLIC f' " STATE '~~:-\,VASHINGT('N "·1 CO";;,;, " ":;\l ~;:XF'Ir:,''=.3 : ,., • < .... ;ri 1~.~"'" '.~'~} , NOTICE OF APPLICATION A Master Application has been filed and accepted with the Development Services Division of the City of Renton. The following briefly describes the application and the necessary Public Approvals. PROJECT NAME/NUMBER: Rainier Avenue Variance / LUA05-133, V-H a/k/a LUA04-093, SA-A, ECF PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting a variance from tree cutting and land clearing regulations (Chapter 4-9 RMC), to clear vegetation within a 25-foot stream buffer in order to culvert and redirect the stream. The variance request is part of the Rainier Avenue Mixed Use Project application (LUA04-093). PROJECT LOCATION: 505 Rainier Avenue N PUBLIC APPROVALS: Hearing Examiner Variance approval APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON: Matt Weber, AHBL, Inc.; Tel: (253) 383-2422; Eml: mweber@ahbl.com PUBLIC HEARING: Public hearing is tentatively scheduled for January 24. 2006 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. Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Keri Weaver, Senior Planner, Development Services Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055, by 5:00 PM on December 24,2005. This matter is also tentatively scheduled for a public hearing on January 24, 2006, at 9:00 AM, Council Chambers, Seventh Floor, Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton. If you are interested in attending the hearing, please contact the Development Services Division 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. I PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION I DATE OF APPLICATION: NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: DATE OF NOTICE OF APPLICATION: October 28, 2005 November 10, 2005 November 10, 2005 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 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. File Name / No.: Rainier Ave Variance / LUA05-133, V-H a/k/a LUA04-093, SA-A, ECF NAME: ____________________________________________________________________ _ MAILING ADDRESS: _________________________________________________________ _ TELEPHONE NO.: _____________ _ CITY F RENTON Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor PlanningIBuildinglPublic Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator November 10, 2005 Matt Weber AHBL, Inc. 2215 N 30th Street #300 Tacoma, WA 98403 Subject: Rainier Avenue Variance LUA05-133, V-H (a/k/a LUA04-093) Dear Mr. Weber: The Development Planning Section of the City of Renton has determined that the subject application is complete according to submittal requirements and, therefore, is accepted for review. You will be notified if any additional information is required to continue processing your application. The Variance application will be reviewed concurrently with the Site Plan application for the Rainier Avenue Mixed Use Project (LUA04-093). . This matter is tentatively scheduled for a Public Hearing on January 24, 2006 at 9:00 AM, Council Chambers, Seventh Floor, Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton. The applicant or representative(s) of the applicant are required to be present at the public hearing. A copy of the staff report will be mailed to you one week before the hearing. Please contact me at (425) 430-7382 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Keri Weaver Senior Planner cc: JDA Group, LLC / Owner Rolland Dewing, Carl P. Burns, Mary Jo Carlson, Ronnie & Roberta McDonald, Bruce & Sue Gregg, Sherondia Renee Otis, Lee & Peggy Christopherson / Parties of Record -------l-OS-S-s-o-u-th-G-r-ad-y-W:-a-y---R-e-nt-o-n,-W:-a-s-hi-n-gt-on-9-g0-S-S------~ * This paper contains 50% recycled material, 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE LrJ400-133 City of Renton DEVELOPM CITY of'XT PLANNtN "lEN/ON G LAND USE PERMIT OCT282005 MASTER APPLICATIONiECElvED PROPERTY OWNER(S) NAME: 1"])A-&Du? ~ .. J n...v :='. MJL. ~ w-. -- ADDRESS: 95 ::>, '"T"o"oll'-,\ Dr ~~~ CITY:~~ ZIP:~~ TELEPHONE NUMBER: Y;QS -~'\ \ -I Ob";;L, APPLICANT (If other than owner) NAME: rr1l'frT. ~ COMPANY (if applicable): Jj1 ,.e.t.., ~Q.....- ADDRESS: ~~ l\.J.35D~g*~ CITY:-r~ ZIP: erg lf1)"Q TELEPHONE NUMBER U;;~ ')"?583 -~4~':l.') CONTACT PERSON NAME: V"\ f\-'rr u)~ COMPANY (if applicable): ~'-,:u-ll . ADDRESS: ~~CS t-J, ~~ S-~~l>D CITY: ZIP: \~ ~40~ TELEPHONE NUMBER AND E-MAIL ADDRESS: (~~)B73~~~~~ ~1.,l)hDfP ~. ~fYy........ Q:weblpw/devserv/fonns/plnnnll1g/m~sterapp.doc PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT/ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION AND ZIP CODE: .5os ?a..ll-JlQL A-ve.. ~O~ 'l<€..).SIO"-\ J LOA ~os:; KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): ~<gOOllO' EXISTING LAND USErS): \l PROPOSED LAND USE(S): ~ PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION (if applicable): EXISTING ZONING: tA-(!.,D~ PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): SITE AREA (in square feet): SQUARE FOOTAGE OF ROADWAYS TO BE DEDICATED FOR SUBDIVISIONS OR PRIVATE STREETS SERVING THREE LOTS OR MORE (if applicable): Ntf""'ll" PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN UNITS PER NET ACRE (if applicable): N , f't. NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS (if applicable): ~V'\ NUMBER OF NEW DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): Nl~ . 0912"103 ! ,. PROJECTINFORMAT~I_O_N~(~lco_n_t_in_u_e_d~) ____________ ~ NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): SQUARE FOOTAGE OF exISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): NET FLOOR AREA OF NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if apprrcable): NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE NEW PROJECT (if applicable): PROJECT VALUE: IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREA, PLEASE INCLUDE SQUARE FOOTAGE (if applicable): Q AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA ONE Q AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA TWO Q FLOOD HAZARD AREA Q GEOLOGIC HAZARD Q HABITAT CONSERVA~N Q SHORELlN~ND LAKES )i, WETLANDS ___ sq.ft. ___ sq.ft. ___ sq.ft. ___ sq.ft. ___ sq. ft. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY JAttach lejJal description on separate sheet with the followin.g information included) SITUATE IN THE QUARTER OF SECTION _, TOWNSHIP _, RANGE_, IN THE CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. TYPE OF APPLICATION & FEES List all land use applications being applied for: 1. 3. 2. 4. I ! Staff Will calculate applicable fees and postage: $ ___ _ I I AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP ~;:::':::::::::!:::::~IL;~:""':~~C!::!.~~,.---, declare thai I am (please check one) _ the current owner of the property t ve to act for a corporation (please attach proof of authorization) and that the foregoing (Signature of Owner/Representative) Q:weblpwidevscrv/forms/planning/mnslerapp.doc herewith are in all respects true and co ect to the best of my knowledge and lief. I certify that I know or have satisfactory vidence that ~~~=.J~':.L.::ll~~~ signed this instrument and acknowledg d it to be hislher/their free and voluntary act for uses and purposes mentioned in the i trumen!. ~""""'" ........... " tl G. ,., "~Itt Notary Public in and for the Slate of Washington -':-«}~'···iC:j'·.9.(,A!", : ~ •• ~\SS IV ~.f: .:~ ~ ~ G J{ f~/!~OTA~r~···"r.z,\ , .0 1'1'. iI! I\Nl..iit.: _._ (J) : ~ i.. ,,~~. • ~ Notary (Prlnt), __ --.:..__________ ~ <P'" ,oUBUC : ~ ~ I ( ~/:;\ /~~I y I 0 -7 '« A·· •• 8, 1-07 •• no. .: U , "~ (il' 0 .. ··········· ~...,. ~ My apPOintment expires: __ ~ ___ ..!.....____ ••••• ,.. WASV\\ ..... ~ "'\\\\\\\"~ 09l:!~/03 .. September 30, 2005 Ms. Jennifer Henning Principal Planner Development Planning City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055-3232 OCT 282005 RECEIVED m Project: Rainier Avenue Mixed-Use South Parking Lot -File No. LUA-05-093 Our File No. 203615.10 Subject: Variance from RMC Chapter4-9, Land Clearing and Tree Cutting Ordinance Dear Jennifer: This letter is submitted in response to the letter from Susan Fiala, Senior Planner, to Richard Wagner, dated October 20, 2004. Ms. Fiala's letter stated that two items were required for the City's review of the project to continue. The first item is a hydrologic analysis of the affected watercourse addressing the effects of filing and culverting. A memo responding to this request is enclosed. The second item is a request for a variance from the Tree Cutting and Land Clearing regulations in Chapter 4-9 RMC for clearing and operating mechanical equipment within 25 feet of a drainage course. Pursuant to your conversation with Owen Dennison on September 21, 2005, we understand that the project is vested under the regulations in effect at the time the application was accepted for review and is not required to comply with amendments to the Critical Areas Ordinance or other City codes subsequently adopted. The South Parking Lot proposal is a part of the larger Rainier Avenue Mixed-Use project. The topography of the South Parking Lot project site and surrounding properties form a draw. The flattest portion of the site and the area proposed for the parking lot is the lowest area of the draw. As described in the enclosed memorandum, the wetland at the bottom of the draw appears to be fed by a ditch/watercourse that drains from an existing culvert from Taylor Place NW. The wetland in turn drains to another existing culvert and is conveyed to the City's stormwater system. Development of the parking lot on the site will require filling a portion of the wetland, clearing vegetation, and extending the existing stormwater pipe to the edge of the proposed paving. Under the code that was in effect at the time the project was vested, the stream setback was determined by standards in the Ground Clearing and Tree Cutting Ordinance, which states, "No ground cover or trees which are within a minimum of twenty five feet (25') of the annual high water mark of creeks, streams, lakes, and other shoreline areas or within fifteen feet (15') of the top of the bank of the same should be removed, nor should any mechanical equipment operate in such areas except for the development of public parks and trail systems." Development and use of the parking lot will require variances from these provisions. Civil Engineers Structural Engineers Landscape Architects Community Planners Land Surveyors Neighbors TACOMA 2215 North 30th Street Suite 300 Tacoma, WA 98403-3350 253.383.2422 TEL 253.383.2572 FAX www.ahbl.com Ms. Jennifer Henning September 30, 2005 Page 2 The Hearing Examiner has authority to grant variances from the provisions of the Land Clearing and Tree Cutting Ordinance, subject to the following criteria. a. The applicant suffers undue hardship and the variance is necessary because of special circumstances applicable to subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the subject property, and the strict application of the Zoning Code is found to deprive subject property owner of rights and privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity and under identical zone classification. Response: Hardship is created by the topography and buildable area of the site, and impacts from surrounding development. The topography of the site slopes steeply up to the north and south of the proposed parking lot. The toes of the slopes are separated by about 90 feet at the widest point, decreasing to less than 50 feet in the narrower western portion. The drainage ditch enters the site from the slopes to the north, and flows to the existing outlet culvert at about the midpoint between the northern and southern slopes. Application of the 25 foot buffer would create a minimum 50 foot wide protected swath through the site, limiting the buildable area to a maximum of 25 feet on one side and less on the other. This would effectively preclude reasonable use of the site. As noted, the drainage ditch originates at a culvert discharging storm flows from Taylor Place NW, and conveys the stormwater to an existing culvert where it rejoins the City's formal stormwater system. Other CA properties in the vicinity are not constrained by similar requirements to maintain open stormwater conveyance, and then to provide a 25 foot buffer surrounding such facilities. b. The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which subject property is located. Response: Following construction, the area proposed for clearing within 25 feet of the existing channel will be paved and stormwater directed to a bio-infiltration swale with non-infiltrated and pass-through drainage directed to the existing conveyance pipe. The variance will permit extension of the existing stormwater conveyance pipe by about 120 feet from the current stormwater discharge point from the site. Drainage for new development on the site and the capture and conveyance of offsite waters entering the site must be approved by the City. Except for recharge via the proposed bio-infiltration swale, drainage flows will continue to be directed to the existing pipe for conveyance to the City's stormwater system. New impervious areas will be managed for flow control and treatment prior to discharge to the stormwater system. Stormwater discharge will be consistent with City standards and will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. mmml! Ms. Jennifer Henning September 30, 2005 Page 3 c. Approval shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitation upon uses of other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is situated. Response: The development proposal for this portion of the project is a surface parking lot. The proposed use is permitted in the CA Zone under Section 4-2-070K. The project will be consistent with all other applicable development standards. The variance will allow reasonable development of the site consistent with that allowed other property owners in the vicinity of and same zone as the subject property. d. The approval as determined by the Reviewing Official is a minimum variance that will accomplish the desired purpose. Response: The proposed project will require piping the open section of the drainage channel in order to pave the flat portion of the site. Therefore, the minimum variance necessary to accomplish the desired purpose is the full 25 foot buffer on both sides of the channel. Thank you for your consideration of this variance request. We look forward to an expeditious conclusion to the review process. If you need additional information or clarification, please don't hesitate to call me at (253) 383-2422. ~~~ J. Matthew Weber, P.E. Associate Principal Enclosure K:\Civil\yr_2003\203615\615varOl 092805 Land Clearing Variance Draft-wp.doc 203615VarianceLtr050930.doc mmmm THE RILEY GROUP, INC. APPENDIX 2: WETLAND BOUNDARY MAP r;:'.,--r .... __ '".- '. .. - Wetland Delineation & Mitigation Report 20 June 8, :~()1 South Parkin Lot Pro-ect-Rainier Avenue North, Renton, WA Pro-ect#2002-061c ,. , ... DATE: TO: ( . ( i. ~! Construction Services, Fire Pre_lion, Plan Review, EDNSP, Project Planner ' ' FROM: Neil Watts, Development Services Division Director SUBJECT: Ne..:. Preliminary APPlication~ Crn~~ 12e~~ ~~CJ ff.rxl../'}S~ LOCATION: eo-~(n\C/r'"" Ave-IS PREAPP NO. ~ , Mq ieant has been scheduled for Z:c:K/ PH ~Thursday, :o-:II~~----' in 'one of the 6th floor conference rooms (new City is scheduled at 10:00 AM, the MEETING MUST BE CONCLUDED PRIOR TO 11 :00 AM to allow time to prepare for the 11:00 AM meeting. Please review the attached project plans prior to the scheduled meeting with the applicant. You will not need to do a thorough "permit lever review at this time. Note only major Issues that must be resolved prior to fonnalland use and/or building permit application submittal. . Plan Reviewer assigned is --lLrt\~,\(~{kll...ll~= ....... _____ _ ...... ,,~ .' '"~ ~'~~,~ij!f!lmtI[lPl~:.iHtin"c6~~nlsiro ': ·f~fe~~.·;,; (FdarmeB)',al' feaslfWo (2) days before the meetmg. Thank you. H:\Division.s\Develop.ser\Dev & Plan-ing\Template\Preapp2 Revised 9/00 ' " -.~. ... i It" DATE: MEMORANDUM kj--/liij, -_I~url { { DEVELOPMENT SERVIces CITY OF RENTON APR 2:3 2004 RECEIVED TO: Construction Services, Fire Prevention, Plan Review, EDNSP, Project Planner FROM: Neil Watts, Development Services Division Director SUBJECT: New Preliminary Application: CJYltji; 12.e~-f1b0ran:i LOCATION: s:.o-~(Il~ Ave-.Jt.J PREAPP NO. ~ -0Aq with the applicant has been scheduled for Z~c:::t.J PH"" Thursday, ~"--~ ____ , in -one of the 6th floor conference rooms (new City Hall). eeting is scheduled at 10:00 AM, the MEETING MUST BE CONCLUDED PRIOR TO 11:00 AM to allow time to prepare for the 11:00 AM meeting. Please review the attached project plans prior to the scheduled meeting with the applicant. You will not need to do a thorough "permit lever review at this time. Note only major Issues that must be resolved priorto fonnalland use and/or building permit application submittal. - Plan Reviewer assigned is --I1i\~,\~'ck.lL.\~F· ==r. _____ _ Please submit your written comments to ~ 7 ~ least two (2) days before the meeting. Thank you. f1'~ 'r~fc;t H:\Division.s\Develop.ser\Dev & Plan.ing\Template\Preapp2 Revised 9/00 . (Planner) at t' To: From: Date: Subject: CITY OF RENTON MEMO PUBLIC WORKS Susan Fiala _ • .4 r~_ Mike Dotson/)'fj,./v- May 5, 2004 PreApplication Review.Comments PREAPP No. 04-049 Chang's Restaurant Parking Expansion NOTE ON PRELIMINARY REVIEW COMMENTS CONTAINED IN THIS MEMO: The following comments on development and permitting issues are based on the pre-application submi.ttals made to the City of Renton by the applicant. The applicant is cautioned that information contained in this summary may be subject to modification and/or concurrence by official decision makers (e.g. Hearing Examiner, Boards of Adjustment, Board of Public Works and City Council). Review comments may also need to be revised based on site planning and other design changes required by the City or made by the applicant. The following comments concern various utility and transportation issues that are associated with development of the subject site. WATER: 1. This project site is located in the 270 Water Pressure Zone. 2. The static water pressure at the street level is approximately 65psi. 3. There is an existing 12" watermain located in Rainier Ave N. 4. A Water System Development Charges of $0.213 per square foot of property is required if not previously paid. The Development Charges are collected as part of the construction permit. ~~.b ~.-~ ... ~ Q.. .. 1"o4-<.,. SANITARY SEWER: ~ ~ ~ 1. There is an existing 8-inch sewer main in NW 5th Place (portions of which have been vacated). 2. A Sewer System Development Charges of $0.126 per square foot of property is required if not previously paid. The Development Charges are collected as part of the construction permit. t>~~ ~.~ .... ~~~ STREET IMPROVElJiENTS: 1. Fully improved roadways with curb, gutter, sidewalk and street lighting already surround the site. Existing site ingress and egress is adequate. site. This fee is due at time of permit. ~O ~~...., ~~ o· . 2. A traffic mitigation fee of $75 per additional (if any) trip generated/day is r~~tr~he 3. All new electrical, phone and cable services and lines must be undergrOUnd~ he construction of these franchise utilities must be inspected and approved by a City of Renton public works inspector prior to occupancy. Page 2 05105/2004 STORMDRMNA@ r ~~~-.t=.~~/~ ~~a~.~Q"T~& J\ ~~::&!="~ r 1. This site is located in the West Hill dramagebaSinr . ~ ~ 2. There is a drainage course located on this property. Any changes or connections to this ~"f~. system must be analyzed for conveyance and downstream capacity. 3. A conceptual drainage plan and report is required to be submitted with the formal application for the project. The drainage plan is to be designed per the 1990 King County Surface Water Drainage Manual. ~ ~ ~ \.0 ~ • '2.Cb- 4. A detention andlor water quality vault will require a separate structural permit. Please coordinate permitting of this item with the Building Department; Jan Conklin at 425-430- 7276. 5. Public storm drainage facilities are located within Rainier Ave N. 6. The Surface Water System Development Charge (SDq are $0.249 per square foot of new ~ impervious area. These fees are collected at the time a construction permit is issued. ~ ~'?t>?, Q..~ , ~~~. ~') GENERAL COMMENTS 1. Retaining walls greater than 4 feet in height are reviewed under a separate Building permit. A licensed engineer with geo-technical expertise must stamp design plans for retaining walls or rockeries greater than four feet in height. The engineer must monitor rockery construction and verify in writing that the rockery was constructed in accordance ARC standardS. Written verification by the engineer must be provided to the City of Renton public works inspector prior to approval of an occupancy permit. Locations of water and sewer mains will be considered in relation to the retaining walls. It may require special protection or relocation of the lines under or near the retaining wall construction. 2. Submittal of conceptual utility plans showing all existing and proposed utilities; including water mains, sewer mains, manholes, valves, hydrants, drainage facilities, drainage mains and catch basins is required for permit review. All existing utility easements on the site must also be shown on the site plan. A complete conceptual drainage plan with a Level 1 (1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual) downstream analysis and calculations for sizing any required detention and water-quality treatment facilities may be required with the formal application of this project. If you have questions please call Mike Dotson, Plan Reviewer, at 425-430-7304. 3. Permit application must include an itemized cost of construction estimate for the utility and roadway improvements. The fee for review and inspection of these improvements is 5% of the first $100, 000 of the estimated cost; 4% ofthe next $100,000; and 3% of any additional cost. One-half of the fee is due upon permit application. 4. The owner is responsible for securing any necessary private utility easements. C:\Plan Review\Changs Restaurant Parking lot pre-app.doc ,I '\. ":,,,~ ";',-" /' 1'--f> : "'-"-. ; "\; , "',,; Storm System PIBIPW TECHNICAL SERVICES W13/01. rN ~ II.E8-4 \J -, ~ y 200 4fO E3 1:4800 7 T23N R5E W 1/2 5307 r---_--......_ .... _¥_ --~~·L 118 S ~22nd St • S If''' 10] ~ ~O:Slt ~ s 1231?Atd!12 Vl OJ > <r "C L ("') CD 8"----~ NIJ " ~, r: 122nc/ OJ > <t ! -----, .s:: +> 1500 F3 .. UTILITIES DIVISION PIBIPW TBCIINlCAL SBRVlCBS 05110/00 S 121st St I ! 8" , . i .' r: -.:t, ·~.JT. 18 T23N RSE W 1/2 ----Renlon CitJ Limits Renton MunicipQl Airport e . ~. /t ~f cY I ~:7 r: C'J i N273 • N272 196 y 200 "'yo E3 114800 7 T23N R5E W 1/2 ~ SANITARY SEWERS P/BIPW TBCHNICAL SERVICES 03/1Uo.+ F3 II 18 T23N RSE W 1/2 .: -0 II) i ~ ~ Renton Munlclpo.l Airport y 200 "yo 1:4800 AIRPORT LIFT STATION -25 E3 ~ ~ ~ 7 T23N RSE W 1/2 5307 = CITY OF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works MEMORANDUM DATE: May 6, 2004 TO: Pre-Application File No. 04-049 FROM: Susan Fiala, Senior Planner, x7382 SUBJECT: Chang's Restaurant Parking Expansion General: We have completed a preliminary review of the pre-application for the above- referenced development proposal. The following comments on development and permitting issues are based on the pre-application submittals made to the City of Renton by the applicant and the codes in effect on the date of review. The applicant is cautioned that information contained in this summary may be subject to modification and/or concurrence by official decision-makers (e.g., Hearing Examiner, Zoning Administrator, Board of Adjustment, Board of Public Works, and City Council). Review comments may also need to be revised based on site planning and other design changes requir~d by City staff or made by the applicant. The applicant is encouraged to review all applicable sections of the Renton Municipal Code. The Development Regulations are available for purchase for $55.00, plus tax, from the Finance Division on the first floor of City Hall. Project Proposal: The subject site is addressed as 505 Rainier Avenue North. The applicant's proposal is to construct a new 28 stall surface parking lot in proximity to the existing Chang's restaurant located at 505 Rainier Ave. North. The proposal also involves addressing the removal of noxious weeds and wetlands. Zoning: The subject site is designated Commercial Arterial (CA) on the City's Zoning Map. A variety of retail uses, including eating and drinking establishments, are permitted in the zone. The proposal would be considered an accessory use to the existing restaurant use. Development Standards: The proposal woUld be required to comply with the development standards of the zone. The proposal's compliance with the CA zone development standards is addressed below: Lot Coverage -Not Applicable as no structure is proposed. Setbacks/Landscaping -The CA zone requires a minimum landscaped setback of 10 feet from all street frontages. No other landscaped setbacks are required in the zone, unless located adjacent to property designated as a residential zone in which case a minimum landscaped setback of 15 feet is required. The subject property abuts residential zoned property on the north (R-8) and west (R-1 ) sides. Please note, the landscaping provided within the rear and side yards where abutting residentially zoned property must be landscaped in a manner that would accomplish a sight-obscuring visual barrier. Chang's Restaurant Parking Expa --' -n Pre-Application Meeting Page 2 of 4 A detailed landscape plan indicating the location, sizes, and types of the proposed plantings will be required for review. All landscape areas are to include an underground sprinkling system. Pedestrian Connection -All development in the CA zone is required to provide a direct and clear pedestrian connection from sidewalks to building entrances. The proposed parking lot is located some distance from the front of the building entrance. A pedestrian connection from the new parking lot to the front entry is highly recommended to be incorporated as part of the proposal. Staff will likely recommend this as a condition of approval. Parking, Circulation and Loading: The parking regulations require that a specific number of oft-street parking stalls based on the amount of square footage dedicated to certain uses be provided within the boundaries of the property. For the proposed parking lot for use by the existing restaurant, the following ratio would be applicable: • Eating and Drinking Establishments: One (1) space per 100 square feet of net floor area. Please take note that net floor area is the total of all floor area of a building, excluding stairwells, elevator shafts, mechanical rooms, interior vehicular parking or loading and all floor below the ground floor, except when used for human habitation or service to the public. As related to these proposed uses, the areas to be deducted from the overall floor area may also include refrigeration rooms, lobbies, corridors/hallways and restrooms and those accessory areas that are used by the occupant(s). .~ As the proposal appears to provide more parking than required by code, a request for a parking modification would need to be applied for review and approval. This request should be submitted by the applicant as part of the land use application with clear written demonstration The request is to include detailed data on the square footage of the restaurant and parking requirements. The parking regulations specify standard stall dimensions of 9 feet x 20 feet, compact dimensions of 8~ feet x 16 feet, and parallel stall dimensions of 9 feet x 23 feet. An aisle width of 24 feet is required for 90 degree parking stalls and a width of 18 feet is required for parallel stalls. ADA accessible stalls must be a minimum of 8 feet in width by 20 feet in length, with an adjacent access aisle of 8 feet in width for van accessible spaces. Compact spaces are allowed up to 30% of the total required parking. Please refer to the handout outlining parking requirements. Loading -In the requirements for Loading Space Standards, RMC 4-4-080J, all new buildings shall provide off-street loading space if the activity carried in the building requires deliveries to it of people or merchandise. Loading space is in addition to required off-street parking. Sensitive Areas: Based on the City's Critical Areas Maps, the site is located within critical areas, including erosion and landslide hazards and steep slopes. The site appears to contain wetlands based on the submitted drawings of the subject parcels. The drawings also note a stream to be located on the south parcel. The applicant will be required to determine if this stream is regulated and provide documentation. Wetlands -The project narrative indicates that the parcel where the parking lot would be constructed contains a Category 3 wetland which would be filled. This site has recently undergone noxious weed removal process. As outlined in correspondence dated 049_ ChangsPKG.doc Chang's Restaurant Par' Expansion Pre-Application Meeting Page 3 of 4 November 17, 2003 concerning the Japanese Knotweed abatement, the fourth step of the abatement remains to be completed ["4) Return to the site in mid-summer 2004 and apply additional Aquamaster to treat regrowth"]. As part of the land use application submittal, the applicant is required to provide a wetland delineation and report addressing the quality and size of the wetlands. In addition, the report would need to include a discussion regarding. impacts to the wetland, if any, from the proposed development. The required buffers will need to be shown. Any proposed modifications to the requirements must be clearly identified and justified (Le. buffer averaging, etc.). The wetland report will need to be prepared by a qualified wetlands biologist and submitted with the formal land use application. For wetlands present, the applicable buffer widths based on the category of the wetland are required (Category 1 -100 ft.; Category 2 -50 ft.; and Category 3 -25 ft.). Due to the size of the wetlands, the Army Corps of Engineers should be contacted to verify that they will not take jurisdiction .over the wetland. Please refer to RMC 4-3-050. M. for additional regulations on wetlands. From the submitted drawing, it appears that only a portion of the wetland has been delineated. The entire wetland areas are to be delineated and flagged. It was noted in the pre-application narrative that the impacted Category 3 wetland would be replaced abutting the Category 2 wetland located on a separate parcel to the north. According to RMC 4-3-050.M.14. Off-Site Compensation, the applicant must clearly demonstrate through written justification and/or drawings that the creation/enhancement meets the criteria of items L through v. Additionally, the timing of compensatory projects is crucial in order to reduce impacts to existing wildlife and flora. Staff further hotes that the pre-application drawing shows a ecology block wall along the "created" portion of the Category 2 wetland. Please provide information as to this proposal and how it functions. Also, the wetland and buffer to be recreated and enhanced must be clearly delineated with a detailed landscape plan. As outlined in the development regulations, a mitigation plan, five year monitoring, surety devices, etc. would be required. Geologic Hazards -Sensitive slopes have grades from 25% to 40%. Specific standards also apply for development located within sensitive slopes, landslide and erosion hazard areas. Protected slopes are defined as topographical features that slope in excess of 40% and have a vertical rise of 15 feet or more. As required by the City's Critical Areas Regulations, a Geotechnical Report that addresses the potential erosion and landslide hazards, soils and slope issues will be necessary. Site Plan Review: The intent of site plan review is to review site layout, building orientation, pedestrian and vehicular access, landscaping, parking and other elements. Site planning is the horizontal and vertical arrangement of these elements so as to be compatible with the physical characteristics of a site and with the surrounding area. Permit Requirements: The proposal would require Administrative Site Plan Review and Environmental (SEPA) Review. Development in the CA Zone is subject to Level I Site Plan Review. In review of the criteria to determine if a public hearing is required, the proposal is does not meet the SEPA thresholds of: 1) 25,000 sq. ft. of nonresidential uses outside of the EA-V; 2) less than 300 parking stalls; 3) less than 10 acres; and 4) less than 60 feet in height; therefore, the site plan would be reviewed administratively. 049_ ChangsPKG.doc Chang's Restaurant Parking Expan~;~n Pre-Application Meeting Page 4 of 4 All permits would be reviewed in an estimated timeframe of 8 to 10 weeks. The application fee for joint land use applications is full price for the most expensive permit (Site Plan at $1,000) and half off any subsequent permits: and Yz of full fee for SEPA Review (Environmental Checklist) which is dependent on project value: less than $100,000 is $200 (1/2 of $400 full fee) and project value over $100,000 is a $500 fee ( 1/2 of $1,000 full fee). In addition, first class postage per mailing label would be required for notification to surrounding property owners located within 300 feet of the site. Detailed information regarding the land use application submittal is provided in th~a!tached handouts. A parking modification would also be required to be submitted with written justification and supporting data. In addition, the applicant would be required to apply for all applicable building, electrical, plumbing permits and other relevant permits as required by the City of Renton's Construction Services Division and Fire Prevention. Additional Comments: In advance of submitting the full application package, applicants are strongly encouraged to bring in one copy of each application material for a pre- screening to the customer service counter to help ensure that the application is complete prior to making all copies. ' cc: Jennifer Henning 049_ ChangsPKG.doc CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRA TEGIC PLANNING MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: STAFF CONTACT: SUBJECT: May 3, 2004 Susan Fiala (Jdv. Rebdtcrtmd Don Erickson Chang's Restaurant Parking Expansion, 505 Rainier Avenue N; PRE 04-049 The applicant is proposing to construct a new parking lot to serve their existing restaurant at 505 Rainier A venue North. The new lot would provide 28 additional parking spaces for the restaurant bringing its total up to 67 spaces. The applicant believes that the proposal would result in a number of stalls exceeding the maximum allowed for this use. It would also include filling in a portion of an existing Class 3 wetland with compensatory enhancement of an existing Class 2 wetland, and averaging a wetland buffer. The site is designated Employment Area -Commercial and zoned CA (Commercial Arterial). Relevant Comprehensive Plan land use and environmental policies are attached. Analysis: In terms of off-street parking the proposed use falls into the use category of "eating and drinking establishment." The use requires a minimum of one space per each 100 square feet of gross floor area and there is no maximum limitation in Section 4-4-080F. The applicant has not provided legible drawings of a sufficient scale to determine where the new parking is proposed in relation to the existing restaurant, where the existing parking is, how the two lots relate to one another, and whether there are opportunities for shared access, signage, and what, if any, landscaping is being proposed. As a result it is not possible to determine whether Policies LU-70, LU-74 or LU-75 are being complied with. It also is not possible to tell whether Policy LU-317 is complied with since the applicant's drawings do not show pedestrian walkways, for example, between the parking areas and the restaurant. In fact, the restaurant does not show up on any of the drawings submitted. In terms of wetlands protection the applicant is proposing to fill an apparent Class 3 wetland to make way for the proposed 28-space parking lot on their "south" lot. This 3,112 square foot would then be replaced by adding to an existing Class II wetland on the north of NW 6th Street. It is unclear whether this wetland is under the same ownership or whether restrictive covenants would be filed to protect it. The applicant needs to clarify this. Recommendation: Support the concept of an additional parking lot in the south lot but do not support this specific proposal. Additional information from the applicant pursuant to the above comments is required. Attachment cc: Don Erickson H:\EDNSP\lnterdepartmental\Development Review\Preapps\Comments\EA-c\Chang's Restaurant Parking Expansion.doc\cor EMPLOYMENT AREA -COMMERCIAL LAND USE DESIGNATION Relevant Policies: Policy LU-170. Individual development projects should be encouraged to: a. minimize curb cuts and share access points, b. provide for internal circulation among adjacent parcels, c. share parking facilities, d. centralize signing, e. create a unified style of development, and f provide landscaping and streetscaping to soften visual impacts. Policy LU-174. Parking areas should be landscaped (including street trees, buffers, benns), especially along the roadways, to reduce the visual impacts. Policy LU-17S. Landscape buffers, additional setbacks, reduced height, and other screening devices should be employed to reduce the impacts (e.g. visual, noise, odor, light) on adjacent, less intensive uses. Policy LU-3l7. Criteria should be developed to locate pedestrian and bicycle connections in the City. Criteria should consider: a) linking residential areas with employment and commercial areas; b) providing access along arterials; c) providing access within residential areas; d) filling gaps in the existing sidewalk system where appropriate; and e) providing access through open spaces and building entries to shorten walking distances. Environmental Element Policies-Wetlands Policy EN-8. Achieve no overall net loss of the City's remaining wetlands base. Policy EN-9. In no case should development activities decrease net acreage of existing wetlands. Policy EN-IO. Establish and protect buffers along wetlands to facilitate infiltration and maintain stable water temperatures, provide for the biological regime, reduce amount and velocity of run- off, and provide for wildlife habitat. Policy EN-14. Provide a ranking system for wetlands based on their acreage and quality. High quality wetlands should have more protection under this system. H:IEDNSP\lnterdepartmental\Development Review\Preapps\CommentsIEA-C\Cbang's Restaurant Parking Expansion.doc\cor Rich Wagner From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: ChangAlhadefCWa gner_LTR.doc ( ... Rich: Susan Fiala [Sfiala@cLrenton.wa.us] Thursday, May 27, 2004 2:43 PM Rich Wagner Jennifer Henning; Neil Watts Reply: Changs Parking Lot and Alhadeff Uplands Per your emails and faxes, we offer the following response. See attachment. This has also been faxed to you. Susan Fiala Senior Planner Development Services Division Development Planning (425) 430-7382 This message has been scanned by the City of Renton's filtering gateway. 1 .. · . " .. ' RE: Pre-04-049 -Chang's Parking Lot Wetland Delineation -The entire south wetland does not have to be surveyed, however, disclosure of the classification and size of the entire wetland is to be provided as part of the wetland evaluation and report. Creation, enhancement and restoration are required as noted in the pre-application comments to meet wetland regulations. Stream Definition -The site survey provided with the pre-application materials indicates the presence of a "stream". It is the applicant's responsibility to evaluate and determine if this element is classified as a stream/watercourse or ditch-per the City of Renton's definition for a stream by your wetlands/fisheries consultant. The evaluation is provided to the City by the applicant for review as part of the proposal. As you may recall, as noted in the Advisory Notes for the JDA Group rezone (LUA02- 142, ECF, R, CPA), a stream and wetland delineation report must be provided to determine whether or not a stream is present. Biological Evaluation -The term Biological Evaluation typically refers to the study of the presence of salmon. If there is a stream present on site, your evaluation should include appropriate discussion. However, a Habitat Data Report is required. As you may recall, as noted in the Advisory Notes for the JDA Group rezone (LUA02-142, ECF, R, CPA), a habitat data report must be prepared for the subject site, which this parcel is, to identify heron habitat and nesting sites. Multiple letters concerning the presence of heron were submitted from the surrounding neighbors. Pedestrian Access -A pedestrian connection is needed. It must be demonstrated that the widest a vailable width 0 f pavement would be provided at this" bump-out". With a clear demonstration of the width of the land available and how the retaining wall is designed as part of the submittal, staff will likely recommend as a condition of approval that the pavement type in this area be different than the remaining asphalUconcrete surface or other approved method. However, painting a line would not suffice. The width of the paved surface provided here must be at its widest width, but no less than 18 feet for vehicles and 4 feet for pedestrians for a total of 22 feet. Additionally, at the point where this bump-out ends and the larger land a rea starts, t he pedestrian connection must continue at 4 feet in width (varied pavement type) and the paved driving surface must be 20 feet for a total of 24 feet in width. Property Boundaries -Staff notes that a street vacation was completed in 2002 (see Recording #20020402002350 and/or Ordinance #4955) of which the right-of-way vacation exhibit does not appear to match the south property line as shown on the pre- app drawing. Please verify the property boundaries on the south which on the pre-application drawings shows a "bump-out" however, the street vacation appears to be a different configuration. RE: Alhadeff Residential Uplands In reference to the fax sent on May 18, 2004, we offer the following response: Private and Public Streets -A request for a modification to the street standards would be required. Please see RMC 4-9-250.D. for criteria which must be clearly demonstrated through written justification. In order for eight lots to utilize the same road, you will need to evaluate which of the following approaches you wish to follow: 1) You may request a modification to the street standards for a private street to allow additional lots on the private street. This may likely involve increasing the widths from the required 26 foot wide easement with 20 feet of pavement. OR if you chose: 2) You may request a modification to the street standards for a residential street which requires a right-of-way of 50 feet with 32 ft. of pavement to a ROW of 42 ft. with 28 ft. of pavement per RMC 4-6-060.R. 3. My initial take is there would be a compromise between the two requirements for right- of-way and pavement width. Also, if you go the public street approach, setba~ks would likely become an issue. One project which has a private streets is the Orchards development in the City of Renton, you may wish to check the project files in the City Clerk's office. PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST: OCT 282005 RECEIVED The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.21 C RC-W,-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 knowledgfi. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if questions do not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply". Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal. Even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. USE OF CHECKLIST FOR NON PROJECT PROPOSALS: Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). For nonproject actions (actions involving decisions on policies, plans and programs), the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. Environmental Checklist A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Rainier Avenue Mixed Use -Commercial South Parking Lot 2. Name of Owner: JDA Group, LLC Name of Applicant:: Richard L. Wagner, Baylis Architects 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Baylis Architects 10801 Main Street, Suite 110 Bellevue, W A., 98004 425-454-0566 4. Date checklist prepared: December 13, 2002 April 4, 2003 Updated July 23, 2004, Updated 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Renton, Development Services Division 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Begin construction in Summer 2004 Construction complete in Spring of 2005 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. No. All construction will occur at one time. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. The site has been delineated for wetlands and for steep slopes, and a determination of steep slope stability has been prepared by The Riley Group. Additionally, there has been a Wildlife Reconnaissance conducted by Raedeke Associates. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. There will be an application for a Lot Line Adjustment to parcel off the existing CA zoning of the work area of this application and there is a current application for an 8 lot Short Plat for the upland portion of the existing parcel. There are no other pending approvals or proposals for this parcel. 2 environmental Checklist 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. The proposed wetland fill may require a permit from the Corp of Engineers. 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, inctuding the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. This rroject 'proposes to construct a surface parking lot for approximately 26 cars; to fiI a portion of an existing Class 3 wetland; and to expand and enhance an existing Class 2 wetland. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information fm· a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The site is located along the north side of N.W. 5th St. (vacated), about 120 ft. west of Rainier Ave. N. The legal description and vicimty map are enclosed. The total site area is approximately 19,600 SF. As a part of the implementation of this project, there is also a wetland mitigation project proposed in a small portion of a much larger site approximately 450 ft Immediately north and adjacent this site. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. EARTH a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other _____ _ The site is generally level in the center with steep slopes to the south and north. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximately percent slope)? Steepest slopes on the site are approximately 45%. c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. Soils are generally loam and clay variety. See Geotechnical Report d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. No. Quite the opposite, the site has a history of being excavated in the 1950's for fill materials for the Renton Airport and construction of Interstate 405. The resulting hillsides -with manmade steep slopes -have been found to be geologically stable. See Geotechnical Report. 3 environmental Checklist e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximately quantities of any fill or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. The source of fill material will be an approved borrow site. Excavated Materials: Approximately 50 CYDS. Suitable materials will be stockpiled on-site; unsuitable materials will be removed to an approved site. Import Fill Materials: Approximately 3,000 CYDS. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe It is possible that some erosion could occur as a result of clearing and gradmg. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Final impervious area will be approximately 55% of total site area. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: 2. AIR Reduction and control of erosion will be implemented by using erosion- prevention practices as recommended by the project soils engineer and approved by the City of Renton. Construction work IS proposed along the toes of the slopes, including landscaping, but no work is propose3 on the steep slopes. ." a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (Le., dust, automobile, odors, and industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. During construction, emissions to the air would include occasional dust raised 3uring the clearing and construction process, plus some diesel exhaust fumes from operating earth-moving vehicles and trucks. After the project is completed and in use, emissions to the air would be those associated with general parking uses: exhaust from automobiles entering and leaving the site. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. No. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any. 3. WATER Periodic maintenance of all construction equipment and restriction of long- term idling of engine. a. Surface Water: 4 environmental Checklist 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (i ncluding year- round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. There exists a small seasonal watercourse on the site surrounded by Class 3 wetlands. The total wetland area extends beyond the subject site and is approximately 16,600 SF. The on-site wetland area is approximately 3,100 SF. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Yes; the proposal is to actually fill approximately 2,025 SF and <cpaper fill" approximately 1,575 SF to create a "paper buffer" at the southern wetland ana to place 120 linear feet of the southern watercourse in a pipe. Much of the existing on-site wetland area has been damaged and fully invaded by noxious weeds. To mitigate for the impacts of this on-site wetland fill, an equal or ~reater area of Class 2 wetland will be created on adjacent property approximately 450 feet north, which is in the same drainage basin and is owned by the same property owner. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. 4) See Item t.e for quantities. Ap'proximately 50 cyds of material will be excavated. Suitable material wIll be stockpiled on-site for later use; unsuitable materail will be removed; and approximately 3,000 cyds of fill material will be imported. Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 1 ~O-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. No. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No. b. Ground Water: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No. 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. 5 Environmental Checklist No. c. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? With this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. Storm water runoff will be collected from the impervious areas and passed through a surface water bioswale as required by City standards, then released into the City storm water sewer system. No detention of the surface water is proposed. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. Not likely. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: 4 PLANTS All exposed open land resulting from grading and construction will be landscaped With approyriate ground cover planting to hold the soil and mitigate the impacts 0 surface runoff. a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: -L deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other cottonwood, willow _x _ evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other -L shrubs -L grass pasture crop or grain water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other -L other types of vegetation Noxious Weeds including Japanese knotweed and Himalayan blackberry b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Alder, cottonwood and willow trees, general lower canopy woodland plants and noxious weeds will be removed for construction and paving. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. There have been sightings of blue heron, but a habitat study shows that they are temporary and are not forming a rookery. See the Wildlife Reconnaissance. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Landscaping around vehicle areas will be J?lanted with native vegetation to both provide suitable ground cover and Visually blend into the surrounding forest. The mitigation proposal has four components as follows: 6 Environmental Checklist • Creation of 3,600 SF of wetland adjacent to the North Wetland involving removal of fill material followed by dense planting of wetland plants. • Creation of 1,800 SF of wetland buffer east of the North Wetland, involving removal of fill material and backfill with appropriate planting soils followed by dense planting of upland vegetation. • Removal of invasive species in the area west of the proposed parking lot within the wetland and buffer adjacent to the South Wetland as required by the City of Renton. • Removal of invasive plants in the buffer of the South Wetland followed by interplanting of native species to meet the City's landscaping requirements. 5. ANIMALS a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other songbirds and blue herons Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other small fauna Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other --=-n=o=n=e'--_____ _ b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. See Wildlife Reconnaissance. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. No. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Of the non-impervious areas, emphasis will be placed on reintroducing native plants -grass lawn areas will be minimized. 6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Electricity will provide site lighting. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: 7 environmental Checklist The project will be constructed to meet the current standards of the Washington State Energy Code, as well as working with any energy conservation programs established by the City of Renton. 7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. No. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. No special emergency services are anticipated. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: There are no environmental health hazards foreseen coming from this project. b. Noise: 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, aircraft, other)? The noise generated by airplane/jet takeoffs and landings at Renton Airport affect this site as does the truck and auto traffic on Rainier Avenue. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Short-term noises will be generated from construction equiement and materials delivery trucks. These noises would occur primanly Monday through Friday, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. On a long-term basIs, noise would be generated by vehicles entering and leaving the site. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: During construction, this project will comply with all noise standards established by the City of Renton. 8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The entire site is currently zoned CA (Commercial Arterial) and contains no buildings. Commercial properties (CA) with commercial buildings occur to the east, southeast, and northeast. There are residential properties to the north (R-8) and west (R-8). b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No. 8 enVironmental Checklist c. Describe any structures on the site. None. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? None. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? The entire site is currently zoned CA, Commercial Arterial f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation" of the site? Employment Area -Commercial. g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Does not apply. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. Degradated wetlands and steel? slopes occur on the site. As described in 3.a above, the wetland impacts wtll be fully mitigated. As described in Item ld above, the slopes are geologically stable. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? .. None. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: None. I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: See Project Narrative portion of the Site Plan Approval application. 9. HOUSING a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: 9 Environmental Checklist None. Does not apply. 10. AESTHETICS a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s}, not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s} proposed? Rockeries and retaining walls no greater than 8 ft are proposed. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any. None. 11. LIGHT AND GLARE a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? During hours of operation, the project will produce light associated with commercial buildings and parking lots, and lights from vehicles entering and leaving the site. No glare is anticipated as a result of constructing the parking lot.- b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No. c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: All lighting will have fixtures selected to control glare. 12. RECREATION a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Walking and biking on residential streets. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any. None. 10 environmental Checklist 13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. None. Does not apply. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None. Does not apply. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, If any: None. Does not apply. 14. TRANSPORTATION a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. The site will be accessed via the commercial property (Chang's Restaurant) directly southeast from this site across a proposed accessed easement. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Two blocks. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? The completed project will provide 25 to 28 parking spaces for patrons of the adjacent restaurant to the south. There are no current parKing spaces provided on this site. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). No. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. The project anticipates only minimal vehicular trips eer day since the south lot is a parking expansion only, and no additionalbutldings are proposed. Peak volumes would occur during the weekdays from 11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. and from 6-10 p.m. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: None. 11 Envlronmantal Checklist 15. PUBLIC SERVICES a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. ,); .. No. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. None. 16. UTILITIES a. Circle utilities current available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Electricity: Puget Sound Energy During construction, there will be a need for temporary electrical service. C. SIGNATURE I, tlie undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non- significance that it might' ue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willf la k of full disclosure on my part. Applicant: Proponent: Name Printed: Contact: Date: ENVCHLST.DOC REVISED 6198 Jack Alhadeff, General Manager Richard Wagner Vice President Baylis Architects June 7, 2004 Printed: 10-28-2005 Payment Made: --<~TY OF RENTON 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Land Use Actions RECEIPT Permit#: LUA05-133 10/28/200512:02 PM Receipt Number: Total Payment: 250.00 Payee: JDA GROUP LLC Current Payment Made to the Following Items: Trans Account Code Description Amount 5022 000.345.81.00.0019 Variance Fees 250.00 Payments made for this receipt Trans Method Description Amount Payment Check 5068 250.00 Account Balances Trans Account Code Description Balance Due 3021 303.000.00.345.85 Park Mitigation Fee 5006 000.345.81.00.0002 Annexation Fees 5007 000.345.81.00.0003 Appeals/Waivers 5008 000.345.81.00.0004 Binding Site/Short Plat 5009 000.345.81.00.0006 Conditional Use Fees 5010 000.345.81.00.0007 Environmental Review 5011 000.345.81.00.0008 Prelim/Tentative Plat 5012 000.345.81.00.0009 Final Plat 5013 000.345.81.00.0010 PUD 5014 000.345.81.00.0011 Grading & Filling Fees 5015 000.345.81.00.0012 Lot Line Adjustment 5016 000.345.81.00.0013 Mobile Home Parks 5017 000.345.81.00.0014 Rezone 5018 000.345.81.00.0015 Routine Vegetation Mgmt 5019 000.345.81.00.0016 Shoreline Subst Dev 5020 000.345.81.00.0017 Site Plan Approval 5021 000.345.81.00.0018 Temp Use or Fence Review 5022 000.345.81.00.0019 Variance Fees 5024 000.345.81.00.0024 Conditional Approval Fee 5036 000.345.81.00.0005 Comprehensive Plan Amend 5909 000.341.60.00.0024 Booklets/EIS/Copies 5941 000.341.50.00.0000 Maps (Taxable) 5954 604.237.00.00.0000 Special Deposits 5955 000.05.519.90.42.1 Postage 5998 000.231.70.00.0000 Tax Remaining Balance Due: $0.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 i::VELOPMENT PLANNING ~11Y OF RENTON OCT 282005 RECEIVED R0505873 I, : I , I i I I l- I- l- I- I (f) V1 I o..Z 0..0 o..~ <{ 1---0... o v o I o z m 'l -- ~ o § Q X W '" Z -<{ ~3: <{ ~ o...z wg (/)Z :::::>w a::: o w x :::::2: a::: w z ~ o ,. en z o Vi ~ 0:: - GRAPHIC SCALE ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = 20 ft. r------ I ---~ OUTLINE OF PROPOSED)--4¥ . . .' -22.E~NDB_U_FF~ _ I ----/. AREA OF PROPOSED BUFFER = 21,013 SF 1--...1.-. __ ", I NEVi EGO BLOGK ViAll BUFFER = 26,Cf2Cf SF -·f/f.T;~.'\H;,l -' i ENHANGED ViETLAND BUFFER NEVi ViETlAND AREA = 3146 SF OUTLINE OF 50' ViET lAND BUFFER i ~ :--- OUTLINE 0 PROPOSED ViETlAND BUFFER ', .. :.:' -..., .... ~"" w , 0 ~o <01[) p~ . -.,..: . ~ .. " ~.-, . " . '-~ .. ;' .. " -, . .' ',- '~ .. '.' .... : .. "-~-': , '. ' .... "-. .. ' " , ~. '. ': '. .." ". '.~" ,-." " ... ~ : .... . " ". . .'~ ,'" " .... " .. ~ ' ... g'!o' /"'" ... -_ c,_ '._ _...;;.,';;""" ,....::;;;.. . N87~t~6.W, / <>-c .. Q7:45': / /1 .'-.. .. '-. , /~~: Hlt;H GH!.)g-lLl~l:< ViETlAND (CLASS 2) . '-,' '\ ',,:.\ -:'-. '. :-,. . . . '\ :. , ", . . " . . . ', \ ..... '-. RAINIER MIXED USE PARKING EXPANSION THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON -.: . . ·:.<'C( " ,':<' " , i, -. '-~: .','... .. '., .. '. ' -.. , ....... . SITE PLAN SCALE: 1'=20' ..... \. ",' ! .' ! \ \ \ ! .' , '. , \ I i , " '. \, ) '\ BENCHMARK CITY OF RENTON SURVEY CONTROL NETWORK VERTICAL DATUM=NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM 1988 METERS (NAW 88), CONVERTED TO US FEET CITY OF RENTON SURVEY CON1ROL POINT 2189 FOUND 3' BRASS DISC STAMPED 'KC-J-2 1993' 0.7' EAST OF WEST EDGE OF CONCRETE SIDEWALK ON THE WEST SIDE OF RAINIER AVENUE SOUTH. LOCATED IN FRONT OF U-HAUL RENTAL CENTER AT 4-53 RAINIER AVENUE NORTH. \ //ElEV~ TIQN = 54.032' • / .-j :( ---~ .... '\ \ I:. ·-'·TBM . -j'/~' \" , \ ~~~E~gF S~t~~ciN A~O:~:i; ~gR~~ O~F ~~N~~~sio~D O~F R~~N~~ X~ME~OCATED IN SIDEWALK IN • \ , RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL By _____ _ By _____ _ , \ \ \ ELEVATION = 46.12' \ \ , \ l , CHECKED FOR COMPLIANCE TO CITY STANDARDS --__________ DATE __ _ REUSE Of DOCUMENTS iIlIS [lOOJIltiH HAS BIDI SQS ElECTllQftCAlLY ill ACC(JItJN!CE 'ITH '!lAC 19ij-23~Oro NlO flW'IDI lS.34-RCW. I,)NA\ml~zm oIJ.tERA»I (f ANY ~ nE IIf"OOIIAlICtI ON 1HI$ DOCI.lWEItT 1m tlyltJOATE lHE DOO.NENT. lilY CElIflflCAnctl AND SIGtIAIrnE. lIfE IDS NiO DESOO tlCOOPCRAlEO HEREIN, AS AN IMSJRlJENT (f PfttfESSIIltAL SERW,I. IS ltIE mtl'ERTi' (f JJfIl. NIl) r.l HOT 10 BE U:!EJ), IH 'H-ICU mIN I'ART, ~ ~Y 01l£R PROJ:CT 'MUlrol tI£ YfIIrnN NJnmy.nat (f IJla.. CITY OF DEPARTMENT OF .J::. -5 z Q)C ::::JO c-Q)0l <~ U) 10.. af "~ 3: C "(ij C 0:0 -LOC oQ) LOa: Z o ~ o g " . W ...J l- I- z ::i a.. ~ z « a: o o z « " z ~ f5 o z « ~ ~ o z a: w z ~ RENTON PUBLIC WORKS z Q 00 ~ a.. >< w " z 52 a: ~ ~ ::> o w >< ~ a: w z « a: BY ---~--------_DATE __ _ GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN C4.0 OATE THESE DRAWINGS ARE NOT TO BE CALL 48 HOURS ~ USED FOR CONSTRUCTION UNLESS BEFORE YOU DIG z 0 DESIGNED, GCH GCH SMC DATE. 6/07/04 FILE NAME, 203615-C40 SCALE. 1" = 20' FIELD BOOK:_ PAGE: APPROVED, ~~~hh~~z~ ____________________________________________________________________________ ~S~IG~NE~D~B~Y~T~HE~R~E~VIE~W~IN~G~A~G~EN~C~Y~~1~-~800-424-5555 NO. REVISION BY APPR. DATE SHEET, 7 OF, 7 DIRECTOR 17 PUBLIC o "I'""': LO CD (V) o C\I a z rn o --, ...J rn I « -0 Ii l ~ o I ~ ~ ~ 0.. OJ E " z ~ ----------- NORTH ~ETLAND A=003 \ " /-------N ~------------- ... I,V 1/? """"" >UtG ...---~ck""~CQIiC""" .".... 0.7 "1'1/01 ,"O,1ja" \f.or~o.I~s. SOUTH LOT A=002'~---~-\ ~-- SITE PLAN l~ ________________________________________________________ __ .-"-•• t:I~ ) ,--==- --/--~- \ \ T1'I"I:VUetfTFI~ l2' H UGoIfT f'OI..f 0\6' H X 24-' 01"-"""""" ""'" ,~) '------ 5GALE, I" = 50' NORTH ------------ \ \ \ \ \ \------~, ,~'"' (",,) \ \ \ -,0" \ \ \ \ T' -, ••• _~ """'" I r''''''"''' U6H'r POL..E TO Ra-1Al1i 1Ir-f>'""" ""'" ---'-------- EXISTING RESTAURANT 51 I!QJ[' W'F!N!:I!) 'fQlJES" P'MP AWE I.tID QN-S1'E 'SEE NOTES AND LEGEND ON SHEET :2 OF 3 "SEE LEGAL DESCRIP1l0N AND SURVEY DATA INFORI.lATION ON SHEET 1 OF J (wr-'J ""-"''''''''{OTR;T\Y.;Tl'REj ~ IW4<lU -). 0" _, " +> .... «>JT_S) \ ,I \ \ \ \ (em_,) il I 1/ Iii ;' I I /1 I I / I 'I I I I I I I ,! 'I ·~i i I I I ! II (WT-_W) ..!i' ''lI.mffi'EI(CTRslWlllRE) "",l, lOP tM'l I' ~. '" .: ~01 (OOT_S~ (""'-') +MS(IN_II) ".411 (Wf-W) ",Ol I :IJ I I I I II NORTH \ \ I i \ I PREL//1/NARYm NOT fOR CONSTRUC770N COPYRIGHT © 2003 BAYLIS ARCHITECTS INCORPORATED ALL RIGHTS RESERVED THIS DOCUMENT AND TH& IOEASA~ID DESIGNS INCOPPOAAT".O HEI<.£!N IS THE f'ROPERTYOF BAYUSAAQ11 rlCIS_INC., AHDMA( NOT BE REUSED, IN WlfOLE Oft IN PAK1, WITI-IDU r THE WRITTEN CONSENf OF BAYLISARClIITECTSINCORPOMTH) UJ :J ZLU UJV) ~~ ~LU UJ~ -L Z -~ z o I- l? Z I Vl ~ z o I- Z LU 0::: PROJECT NUMB~R; FROJECT MANAGER; DRAWN BY: M2-0589 CH DW FLQTDATE; Jui26, 2004 ·IO:3Iam July 15, 2004 z ~ c.. >-UJ ~ 1080 I MClin Street BelleVUe, IN/\ 98004 T 425 4540566 F 425 453 8013 v"NlW.baylisarchitccts,com AOOI l- I- l- I- I (f) (f) I 0- 0- 0- o u o i :z ::s 0.. w <...') « z: « 0::: o d(3 <...') :z o « 0::: <...') w ~ o >-m z o (f] GS fr': o z ~, , -, , '-, ' : .\. ,'; -, '--'" -~-. CALL 48 HOURS BEFORE YOU DIG 1-800-424-5555 ~'-" \ \ , DISCHARGE DITCH @ EXSlr.-- PIPE DISCHARGE LOCATION PROPOSED DlTCH~_ -..... ... \ I ~F=101.50 ! ! .' / 1) FF=102.50 6TH STREET SHORT PLAT . FF=98.00 . FF=95.00 FF=85.00 FF=95.00· FF=85.00 3 BIO"RETEf'lTION -.. . FOR DRIVEWAY ~~~ ... . __ ~f.'\ fWNOFF TREA 1).!ENT I '--'-"-' FF=95.00 , FF=85.00 "''''. \ \ \ \ \ \ I I \ \ '. \ \ .... \ \ \ . '. '. \\' .•. I . '\ i i \ \ \ \ \ \ , '. \. , \ \ ! ! ! / \ '. . \ \ /~-'>. " ~ . H ,""".J, \ 1 G"ki \ , , I I ) I / I . , \ / / \ \ , \ \ \ \ \ , \ ( \ \ \ \ \ . r~l)ULiC U-:-~!JTY 'i'!T \ f~EC. NC). b~'~O.{!-O('!U~)'~ /: .. '.- , \ 20 I i GRAPHIC SCALE eo p I ( IN FEET) 1 inch = 20 ft. S l. D PLANti~S '. / rri!/7!/?:(/ii,/', .. i/i"'-"'/,///i/;;" I' : ! / I Ii f I , , • I I, . \ I ( f i ' , , .. : I [)RAINAGE NOTES 1. ROOF DRAINS FROM LOTS 1, 2. 5. 6 &: 7 SHALL BE DISCHARGE 'I1A LEVEL SPREADER TO ADJACENT NATIVE GROWTH AREAS. ROOF DRAINS FROM LOTS 3. 4 &: 5 SHALL BE TlGHTLINED TO PROPOSED STORM SYSTIEM. 2. RUNOFF FROM THE DRIVEWAYS ON LOTS 2. 3. 4 &: 5 SHALL BE COLLECTIED IN TRENCH DRAINS AND DISCHARGED TO THE PROPOSED BIO-RET1ENTION CELL. 3. ROAD RUNOFF AND DRIVEWAY RUNOFF FROM LOTS 1. 6 &: 7 'MLL BE TREA TIED 'I1A THE CATCH BASIN STORMFILT1ER. EARTHWORK SITE AREA: PROPOSED DISTURBED AREA: PROPOSED CUT: PROPOSED FILL: NET EARTHWORK FU SOURCE: 80,295 SF 38.475 SF 1925 CY (3850 TONS) 3035 CY (6070 TONS) 1110 CY (2220 TONS) IMPORT ADJACENT PROJECT REUSE Cf DOCUMENTS JllIS t)OOJlWH HAS IHN SlG'lID W:C1R'OO1OlLY 1/'1 AC(:(RJNlCE 11TH WAC 1!I6--2S-Q1O .Il1O QlN'TtIl 19,:H RCW, UNAUIHOO!ZEO ,I,llIRATlI1I« Nfl ($1)£ Ilf"OOUA~ 00 THIS IlOCIJIIDlT ¥IU tmWATE 'DIE !lOO.IIEHT. WY WlnFlCAOCfI NlO ~All.flE. .s:: -L. o Z (l)e ;:)0 e-(1)0) >.1;;; "2~ .~ 3= e ·iii c a:O -LOC. 0(1) LOa: Z o ~ o o -l W -l l- I- \ TlI'E IDS AND OCSQlS IiCCfljlffiATEO H£RElH. AS AN lNS1RIJ,(HT (;f mm:ssIJiAl 'SmWZ IS mE PRmJIfY (;f NIil. .Il1O IS Nor ro BE USED, IN 'Iflru; 00 IN PMT, r(fl NlY Oll£R ffID.(CT IIIHOUT 11£ II1IItDf AUTHaltlATKtI (;f Nl6l. \ RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL By ______ _ By _____ _ By ______ _ NO. CHECKED FOR COMPLIANCE TO CITY STANDARDS ---________ DATE __ _ ----________ DATE __ _ DATE REVISION BY APPR. DATE CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN C2.0 DESIGNED, GCH DATE'10/20/04 FILE NAME, 20361 GCH SMC SCALE, 1" = 20' PAGEl SHEET, I OF, I APPROVED, DIRECTOR DI" PUBl,.IC WORKS d z III o J -l III I <{ I-- I--I-- I-- I (f) (f) I z 0..0 o..(f) o..z I------lCi X o I o z m 'i -- w o Z« ~3: 0::: « -CLZ W~ (f)Z :::::>w 0::: o W X Z 0::: W Z ~ 2 :5 CL Ow 20 :5<:( 1-2 W <:( 3:0::: o ~~ 0::: 00 22 o <:( 0::: o >-m o z GRAPHIC SCALE 20 1----- ( IN FEET) 1 inch = 20 ft. NEV'l ECO BLOCK V'lALL AREA OF REQUIRED BUFFER::: 26,Cf2Cf SF NEV'l V'lETLAND AREA ::: 3146 SF OUTLINE OF 50' V'lETLAND BUFFER - OUTLINE 0 PROPOSED V'lETLAND BUFFER --- '. ..~. , . ,~r " " . : , , / ... -, j . '~" . , . . . . -. . ~-.-.. -' . -~-. . .. - "-..... /<" ," . ~,.:':'---. "" - '. . . . .'~ . .~.,-,-.:::. '," "', . -', -, . . .. '-. , .'", . . "-. '. ,'. ........ , . '.'~ .. ,.,. . eo I V'lETLAND (CLASS 2) BENCHMARK RAINIER MIXED USE PARKING EXPANSION CITY OF RENTON SURVEY CONTROL NETWORK THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, WILLAMETIE MERIDIAIN CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON VERTICAL DATUM=NORTH AMmlCAN VERTICAL DATUM 1988 METERS (NA'I1l 88). CONVERTED TO US FEET CITY OF RENTON SURVEY CONTROL POINT 2189 FOUND 3' BRASS DISC STAMPED 'KC-J-2 1993' 0.7' EAST OF WEST EDGE OF CONCRETE SIDEWALK ON THE WEST SIDE OF RAINIER AVENUE SOUTH. LOCATED IN FRONT OF U-HAUL RENTAL CENTER AT 453 RAINIER AVENUE NORTH. SITE PLAN SCALE: 1"=20' \ \ , \ \ \ \ \ \ \ , . t \ \ \ \ \ ; " ;..~ .. ,. . I, '< \) ''" ) \ / \ ") / ., "\ / 1>."~ ~ /_ ~ .. / (r ;"\/' / '. v~-'" " ;! I I ' , , ! : 1 I ' , , . . ' " I .I ," i \ \ \, ./ ) \ j \ l \ ",/. Rue VIM \, , , n ;-" '~; " ., /lELEV~ TIQN = 54.032' \1;1 . _,~ " .. 7; . 1/ 'Trir'-\ /I-"'~" 10M \ " . ~~!1 ~ , • . ' \ CHISELED 'SQUARE IN NORTHWEST CORNER OF CONCRETE PAD OF POWER VAULT LOCATED IN SIDEWALK IN FRONT OF BUILDING AT ADDRESS NO. 515 ON THE WEST SIDE OF RAINIER AVENUE . \. ELEVATION = 46.12' , \ , " , \, \ ! \ --",.- EX, CI3 TYPE II \ \ \ \ , \ " " L < \ """ \ Wh/l'ii RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL , By ______ _ By _____ _ , , \ " \ CHECKED TO CITY \ \ COMPLIANCE ANDARDS --------l-____ DATE __ _ REUSE QF OOOJMENTS OOS OOOJIltNT HAS BEEN SQim El..EC~Y rN ~ NIH lAC 1~-2J-010 Nm ~APJ{R 19oM~. UMAUTHOOIZEl) N..lERATlai (f NtY (F THE IIf'CRIIAlI(W 00 tHIS OOOJIo'EtlT 'IIU. IIVAl1!lATE lHE OOCl.AIEl'IT, IIY <rRnflCAlKJi AIm SQ(ATI.RE. TlfE flEAS NiO t(SQ1S II0.w00TEtlIlrn;JM, AS AM IIISTRUlflH {f PfI1:fESS(JIN. !lR'tItt. 15 THE PR<HRTY Cf" NieL NiO IS !'tOT TO BE usm, IN 'ltiQ! OR 1M l'ART, fOO ANY OMR mru.:CJ iIIIHOUT T1£ I'IRITITH Al.iTHORlZA11!}l (J" AH8l.. CITY OF DEPARTMENT OF .c. t: o Z 4)C ::::JO c ..... 4)0) >,l:;; «.c. '-~ ,~ S: c '(ij c 0::0 ..... LOC 04) LOa: Z o ~ () g z « ...J CL W ~ z « a: o o ~ " Z ~ o o z « ~ ~ Z REN'1Ya1l!WED PUBLIC WORKS z ~ Z ~ >< W " z 52 a: « CL w CI) ::::> o ~ ~ a: w z « a: BY ---------+ ____ DME __ _ GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN C4.0 THESE DRAWINGS ARE NOT TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION UNLESS SIGNED BV THE REVIEWING AGENCY CALL 48 HOURS BEFORE YOU DIG 1-800-424-5555 NO, REVISION DATE BY APPR. DATE DESIGNED, GCH GCH CHECKED, SMC APPROVED, DATE, 6/07/04 SCALE, 1" = 20' FILE NAME, 203615-C40 FIELD BOOK; PAGE: SHEET, 7 OF, 7 a z CD o J ...J CD I «