Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA98-021 RECORDS TRANSMITTAL DEPARTMENT/DIVISION DATE PREP. TRANSMITTED BY: CITY CLERK'S OFFICE C 411) C r p D eti CITY OF RENTON RECEIVED BY: DATE REC'D APPROVAL: LOCATION BOX NO. RECORD SERIES TITLE INCLUSIVE RETENTION DESTRUCT DATES PERIOD DATE RVM-98-018 1998 PERM SME-98-019 1998 PERM ECF-98-020 1998 PERM SA-98-021 (volume 1)* 1998 PERM SA-98-021 (volume 2) 1998 PERM C:\Documents an Settings\bsorensen\Desktop\BSorensen\transmittal2.DOC\ v �ti�Y 0 CITY OF RENTON ® I Department of Community and ma Economic Development IP�N�O.�i Denis Law,Mayor Alex Pietsch,Administrator �:' arc! 10,2009 Josh .hearer KG vestment Management,LLC 249 'W 41st Street Renton,Washington 98057 Subj•ct: Receipt of Fourth Quarterly Maintenance and Monitoring Report Oakesdale Business Campus Wetland Mitigation Project City of Renton File LUA 98-021 Dear Mr. Shearer: I rec-ived the memo from The Watershed Company (dated March 9, 2009) in response to the reco endations provided by Otak in the memo dated December 19, 2008. This letter along with k our 4th quarter report fulfills your obligation for quarterly monitoring for the first year; you are .w required to monitor on a yearly basis for a minimum of four more years. The area must be s ccessfully monitored and maintained for a minimum offive years to assure the success of the wed.nd mitigation project. All r-commendations, on pages 3 and 4 (4.a-e) of the Otak memorandum (dated December 19, 2008), for future monitoring reports; shall be followed. Necessary measures, as recommended on page. 4 and 5 of the attached memorandum, need to be completed to secure the survival of the plan ings. The 1st Annual monitoring report should include a follow up statement that the recommended actions have been completed(specifically 5.c-g). As reminder, if at any time in the next four years the mitigation project does not meet the esta lished performance standards, the monitoring period will be put on hold until compliance is achi ved. Subsequently, the monitoring timeframe will be restarted and you will once again be requ red to provide quarterly reports for the first year and annual reports thereafter (for a mini um of five years). If y have any questions, please feel free to contact me. I look forward to receiving your first ann 1 report maintenance and monitoring report on December 19, 2009. Sinc rely, ICc-e%- femte,t R c le Timmons,Planner Curr nt Planning Division cc: City of Renton File LUA 98-021 Mike Foster,Ecologist—The Watershed Company 1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98057 RENTON �. AHEAD OF THE CURVE :.� This paper contains 50%recycled material,30%post consumer TH SCIENCE & DESIGN W. ERSHED CO PANY OEveG? O0 r March :, 2009 R S V 1qP` .. Rocale immons, Associate Planner SC ® '' Curren Planning Division City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton WA 98057 Re: Oakesdale Business Campus Otak Recommendations Verification, City File #LUA 98-021 The Watershed Company Reference Number: 070628 Dear Ms. Timmons: On Wednesday March 4,2009, I visited the Oakesdale Business Campus in Renton, Wash' gton. The purpose of my visit was to verify the implementation of the recom endations in the December 19, 2008 memorandum from the third party reviewer,Otak. Specifi ally,Otak recommended the following be addressed in this letter: • Remove all tree stakes and guy wires. • Inspect mulch rings around all installed woody plants, and where necessary, refresh to a minimum depth of three inches. Mulch must not touch plant stems. • In late winter/early spring: install the quantities and species of plants recommended in Table 2 of the 4th Quarter Monitoring Report. Upon visiting the site, I can verify that all of these recommendations have been implemented. Some of the mulch rings are touching the stems of the plantings,and will need to be pulled back,but in overall, the site appears to be in good shape. The remaining maintenance recommendations shall be addressed as part of the ongoing maintenance schedule. The monitoring recommendations shall be implemented at the next vegetation monitoring event in late su4nmer/early fall. Please all if you have any questions or if we can provide you with any additional information. Sincerely, / Ryan 'ahlo Enclos res 750 Sixth Street .outh 1 Kirkland,WA 98033 p 425.822.5242 f 425.827.8136 watershedco.com • ' , o� CITY OF RENTON G • AIR • Economic Development,Neighborhoods and .111 Strategic Planning Denis Law,Mayor Alex Pietsch,Administrator February 12, 2009 Josh Shear r KG Inves ent Management,LLC 249 SW 4 St Street Renton, shington 98057 Subject: Receipt of Fourth Quarterly Maintenance and Monitoring Report Oakesdale Business Campus Wetland Mitigation Project City of Renton File LUA 98-021 Dear Mr. Shearer: I received the forth quarter maintenance and monitoring report for Oakesdale Business Campus Wetland Mitigation project from The Watershed Company on November 13,2008. Because this was the final. quarterly monitoring report; the report was sent to a third party,Otak,for review. Based on a site assessment; Otak provided"a memorandum(dated December 19,2008)with comments on the condition of the mitigation areas,a review of the 4th Quarterly Monitoring Report, and recommended actions for the mitigation areas to help ensure success of the mitigation project: All recorrendations, on pages 3 and 4 (4.a-e) of the attached memorandum, for future monitoring reports; s all be followed. Necessary measures, as recommended on pages 4 and 5 of the attached memoran m, need to be completed to secure the survival of the plantings. The 1 St Annual monitoring report sh uld include a follow up statement that the recommended actions have been completed (specifical y 5.c-g). However, before your obligation for the 4th Quarter report can be fulfilled; your biologist will need to provide a statement that Recommendations 5a and b, have been performed. Specifically: inspect mulch rings and remove stakes/guy wires. Please su mit two copies of the statement to my attention no later than.March 13, 2009. Please contact me with y questions(425)430-7219.Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, • C-4- 1 Roca Timmons,Associate Planner Pla ins ivision 44111-414)141 cc: City of Renton File LUA 98-021 Mike Foster,Ecologist—The Watershed Company 1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98057 RENTON AHEAD OF THE CURVE This paper contains 50%recycled material,30%post consumes Memorandum a • To: Rocale Timmons,Associate Planner, City of Renton From: Suzanne Anderson, Senior Wetland Ecologist 10230 1 E Points MixStephanie Smith,Wetland Biologist Suite400 Copies: Kirkta d, WA 98033 Phone 25)822-4446 Date: December 19, 2008 Fax 25)827-9577 Subject: Review of 4'1' Quarter Oakesdale Business Campus Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Report Project No.: 31033F As re.uested by the City of Renton, Otak staff is providing third party review of the monitoring effort• at the Oakesdale Business Campus. To that end, Otak staff conducted a site visit on Dece ber 4,2008. Based on that site assessment, this memorandum provides comments on the condi on of the mitigation area,as well as a review of the 4`" Quarterly Monitoring Report by The Watershed Company. The last section of this memorandum includes recommended actions for the mitiga ion areas to help ensure success of the mitigation project. The following documents are referenced in this memorandum: • Oakesdale Business Campus Buffer,Year One Monitoring—Fourth Quarter Report by The Watershed Company,dated November 12,2008 (referred to as the 4thQuarter Report); • Oakesdale Business Campus Buffer,Year 1 Monitoring—Third Quarter Report by The Watershed Company, dated August 20, 2008 (referred to as the 3"'Quarter Report); • Wetland `A'Buffer Monitoring Report for Oakesdale Business Campus by Barghausen Consulting Engineers,Inc.,dated April 23, 2007 (referred to as the Barghausen report) and; • Wetland Mitigation Plan for Oakesdale Business Campus by Natural Resource Consulting, dated September 1998 (referred to as the Mitigation Plan). I. Introduction The Oakesdale Business Campus is located in the City of Renton.The entrance to the business park is loca ed west of the intersection of Oakesdale and SW 43rd Street,at 1600 SW 43rd Street.The mitiga lion plan was created for both wetland and buffer impacts that occurred when the land was cleare for the construction of the business park.The wetland compensatory mitigation areas have alread been deemed successful by the City of Renton,and therefore do not require additional monitoring. However, the buffer enhancement area suffered high plant mortality and has been replan ed several times.The original mitigation plan stated that the site had contaminated soils from K:\project\31000\31)33F\Reports\310331'Oakesdale Review SA.doc Roc. e Timmons,Associate Planner, City of Renton Page 2 Oakes ale Business Campus Monitoring Report Reviecv December 19, 2008 sever 1 types of businesses that previously occupied the land,including metals recycling,meat packii g, fueling of vehicles,roofing material storage, and pasture. 2. P=rformance Standards: Gene ally speaking, we concur with the conclusions of the 4`h Quarter Report that the plantings in the O4kesdale mitigation area are satisfying the Performance Standards specified in the Mitigation Plan .s follows: I. 80 percent survival of all planted woody vegetation during each monitoring event. 2. 80 percent aerial cover by non-invasive, native species at the end of five years. 3. Si'e Assessment Comments 3.:. Overall, the site looks good and the installed woody plants generally appear to be healthy and thriving. However, there are a few concerns that were also noted in the 4`h Quarter Report. Some of the larger established conifers (likely planted in 2001) appear to be stressed. This is of particular concern because these trees are 12 to 15 feet tall,indicating that prior conditions were favorable enough for them to become established, but that negative changes in their growing conditions have recently occurred. Several of the taller Douglas firs (Pseudotsuga men#esia) are chlorotic, and some have dead needles and/or the tips of the branches are curling and appear to be dead. A few of the older Western red cedars (Thuja plicata) also have branches that appear to be dying back. Some of the recently installed shore pines (Pinus contorta var. contorta), cedars, and Doug firs also appear to be stressed or are dying.The cause(s) of the detrimental growing conditions is unknown, but if this situation persists, the mitigation area may not achieve the Performance Standard of 80 percent cover by non-invasive,native species at the end of five years. 3... Many of the mulch rings around the installed woody plants appear to have disintegrated since installation. In particular,mulch rings along the driveway and in the southern portion of the mitigation area need to be replaced or refreshed. Lack of mulch to retain soil moisture may be a contributing factor to the apparent stress of some of the installed plants. 3. . The dead conifers noted in the 4`I' Quarter Report had not been replaced at the time of the Otak site visit in early December. 3.•.We concur with the 4th Quarter Report that (fortunately) non-native invasive plants are not yet well established in the mitigation area. Removal of the invasives should continue at least two times per year to help deter their establishment.Although there may be other species that were not apparent due to the time of the Otak site visit (such as bird's-foot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus) and tansy ragwort (Seneciojacobea) noted in the 3rd Quarter Report),non-native species that we observed that must be controlled include: • reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea): located in the southern end of the mitigation area near the Lombardy poplar downed log. Only limited occurrences observed,however, K:\project\311X)0\3 033F\Reports\31033F Oakesdalc Review SA.doc • Rocal- Timmons,Associate Planner, City of Renton Page 3 Oakes le Business Campus Monitoring Report Review December 19, 2008 this species must be removed ASAP due to its ability to spread rapidly,and the difficulty of eradicating it once it becomes established. • bittersweet nightshade (Solanum dulcamara): located around the edges of a stump near the southern end of the mitigation area. • Himalayan blackberry (Ribus armeniacus): located in small patches throughout the mitigation area. • holly (Ilex aquifolium): a small holly shrub is growing in a stump located towards the middle of the mitigation area. • thistles (Cirsium sp.): located sparsely throughout the mitigation area. • Lombardy poplar (Populus nigra): located at the southwestern portion of the mitigation area, as well as associated with the fallen Lombardy poplar. 3.e As noted in the 4`(' Quarter Report, there are some sections of the mitigation area where the irrigation system may not be working.We noted a wet area located towards the middle of the mitigation area (just north of the post labeled "T-2 North"). The irrigation system should be tested as soon as practical to make sure that it is working properly. 3.f. Many of the installed trees are still staked. 4. Mnnitoring Report Comments Each ionitoring report should be a stand-alone document. In addition to the current monitoring results •nd general site conditions,each monitoring report should include sufficient information (monitoring methodology;vicinity map; site map(s)with locations of the mitigation area,monitoring plots, .hotopoints, etc.) to allow other biologists to perform the monitoring,and for the City's repres- tative to verify the monitoring.This information will ensure accurate continuation of monit. ing in the event of staff turnover in the current applicant's biologist's firm or if the applicant choose. to change consulting firms. Gener lly speaking, the 4`1' Quarter Report presents comprehensive observations and conclusions, and includes an extensive list of recommended actions. The 3"i Quarter Monitoring Report even include. helpful photographs of two of the non-native species to be removed. In addition to the inform'don currently provided in the 4`h Quarter Monitoring Report, the following information should be included in future monitoring reports: 4.a Provide site address,vicinity map,and project site map. On the project site map,include a north arrow and the locations of: the mitigation area,transects/monitoring plots, and photo points. 4.b Include specific information regarding the monitoring transects including: locations (which transect is located at the south end of the mitigation area,and which at the northern end), and the length and the width of each transect. 4.c Provide information regarding the methodology of how the installed woody plants were counted—it appears that only the dead plants in the entire mitigation area were counted. If K:\project\31000\31(33F\Reports\31033F Oakesdale Review SA.doc Rocale Timmons,Associate Planner, City of Renton Page 4 Oakesdale Business Campus!vlouitoriug Report Review December 19, 2008 all installed plants are counted, they should each be flagged. However,rather than counting each installed plant,it would be reasonable to establish permanent representative vegetation monitoring plots. These plots could be established to include a certain width on either side of the existing transects. Whatever the number and dimensions of the permanent monitoring plots, they should be designed to representatively sample the different installed species,and to include approximately 25 percent of the installed plants (approximately 120 according to the total number of installed plants in Table 1 of the 4th Quarter Report). We recommend using rectangular plots, and each corner of the plots should be marked and labeled with either a metal fence post or a section of rebar. The installed woody plants in each plot should be flagged so that they can be easily identified from year to year. 4.d. Provide data sheets from each monitoring transect/plot that include: plot location and dimensions; species present and percent cover by individual desirable native volunteer species and non-native invasive species; quantities and species of plants originally installed in the plot,installed plants currently present, and percent survival of installed woody plants; and overall percent cover by desirable native woody species (installed plus volunteers), herbaceous species, and non-native invasive species. Data should be presented in tables similar to those included in the Barghausen Report.The monitoring reports should continue to include general site conditions and observations,and other information included in the current monitoring report (such as the species and numbers of dead/stressed installed woody plants in the entire mitigation area, overall presence and cover by non-native invasive species, etc.). 4.e. Provide a list of dates and description of maintenance activities. Include information on activities such as weeding,replacing mulch,plants replaced (numbers, species, sizes, mitigation section, etc.), etc. 5. Recommended Actions We concur with the recommended actions in the 4th Quarter Report,and have incorporated them into the recommended actions below. 5.a. ASAP: Remove all tree stakes and guy wires. 5.b. ASAP: Inspect mulch rings around all installed woody plants,and where necessary,refresh to a minimum depth of 3 inches. Use arborist mulch (usually free from tree trimming companies) or wood chips as specified in the 4t1' Quarter Report. Mulch must not touch plant stems. 5.c. In late winter/early spring: install the quantities and species of plants recommended in Table 2 of the 4th Quarter Report. However, contrary to the 4th Quarter Report,do not amend the soil in the planting pits with compost.Planting locations should be determined by the project biologist,The Watershed Company. 5.d. In early spring: Inspect the irrigation system as specified in the 3rd Quarter Report. 5.e. In early spring and continuing throughout the growing season: Continue to control non- native species,especially those listed in Section 3.d above and in both the 3rd and 4th Quarter K:\project\31000\31033F\Reports\31033F Oakesdale Review SA.doc Rocal. Timmons,Associate Planner, City of Renton Page 5 Oakesd,le Business Campus Monitoring Report Reriezv December 19, 2008 Reports, at least two times per year to help deter their establishment. Removal should be done by hand and/or according to methodologies outlined by King County Noxious Weed Program: lttrp:%%www.l.ing,ctn7l:t).roc,'a:nvir ont7ertt:!;tnimals_1nc1]'lattsi nc>xi<n,s weeds/wed-control practice's/brup.aspx. As noted in the 3"d Quarter Report, desirable woody native volunteer species (such as black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera spp. trichocarpa),red alder (Alnus rubra), rose (Rosa.p.),and snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus)) must NOT be removed.All weeded materials must be removed from the Oakesdale Business Campus site and disposed of in a proper manner. 5.f. During all maintenance events: Remove all trash from the mitigation area. 5.g. Before/during the next vegetation monitoring event: Either flag all installed woody plants if they are counted individually, or establish permanent representative monitoring plots as specified in Section 4.c. If you ave any questions regarding these findings,please contact us at (425) 822-4446. K:\project\31000\310'3F\Reports\31033F Oakesdale Review SA.doc ti` Y O� CITY OF RENTON +( Department of Community and Economic Development S� � Denis Law,Mayor Alex Pietsch,Administrator NT November 18, 2008 Suzanne Anderson OTAK Inc. 10230 NE Points Drive, Suite 400 Kir and,WA 98033 SUB CT: Wetland Mitigation Monitoring—Oakesdale Business Campus Dear Ms.Anderson: On ovember 7,2008 copies were given to you of the wetland mitigation plan,report,and recent correspondence for Oakesdale Business Campus. I have attached the most recent monitoring report(4th quarter)for the Oakesdale Business Campus Maintenance and Monitoring project, dated November 12, 2008. Please review this report on behalf of the City. Please forward your comments and recommendations to my attention as well as invoices for your servi es. Feel free to contact me at(425)430-7219 if you have any questions or if you would like to set up a time for a site visit Thank you. Sinc.rely, t', %t i2. ,-1 it/,v' -.- —' Ro a e Timmons Aso iate Planner cc: Jennifer Henning,Planning Manager i Attac ents r o 4- 9 e--62-1 1._ ____________...... 1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98057 RENTON This paper contains 50%recycled material,30%post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE $ -r { 1 ( SCIENCE & DESIGN V✓AT E RSHED oc-N%-o 12 November 2008 1•1QV \ 0 Rocle Timmons,Planner Current Planning Division City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Rent n,WA 98057 Re: Oaksdale Business Campus Buffer, Year One Monitoring - Fourth Qu rter Report, City File #LUA 98-021 The atershed Company Reference Number:070628 Dear Ms.Timmons, On ctober 6,2008, Ecologist Nell Lund and I visited the Wetland A buffer enha cement area at the Oaksdale Business Campus. The purpose of our visit was to cond ct the Year One, fourth quarter monitoring to ensure that the mitigation area is in a po ition to meet required performance standards within the five year monitoring period. This letter summarizes the findings of this study. Met ods The oerformance standards for this project are 80%survival of planted shrub and tree speci-s per year, and an 80% aerial cover of native vegetation at the end of year five. To dete 1 ine percent survival, individual dead plants were counted by species and corn.ared to the original planting plan. Aerial cover was determined by visual estimate alon I established transects. Photographic evidence of performance was taken at the ends •f both transects. Invasive species coverage was noted during the walkthrough, alon with any occurrences of damage or vandalism. Find ngs Over:11,the mitigation area is performing well. The shrub species are surviving at a very igh percentage, and many volunteers are growing in the mitigation area. How•ver, the tree species,particularly the evergreen species, are not doing well. Our onitoring shows that there are 16 dead plantings and 25 stressed or dying plan gs in the mitigation area. This equals an overall survival of 96%. The only mort.lity occurring is in the Douglas-fir and western red cedar plantings. There are curre tly 11 dead and eight stressed or dying Douglas-fir trees along with five dead and nine •tressed or dying western red cedars. The shore pines that previously replaced 750 Sixth Street South Kirkland,WA 98033 p 425.822.524:'. / 425 827 8136 watershedco.com Oaksdale Business Center Buffer,Year One Monitoring, Fourth Quarter Report Rocale Timmons 12 November 2008 Page 2 dea• Douglas-fir plantings are all still alive;however, six of them are stressed or dying. The •6% survival is well above the 80%yearly requirement for total survival. However, the • dividual species survival is below 80%for Douglas-fir and near 80%for western red edar(not including the stressed or dying plantings). Breakdown by species can be fou din Table 1. Perc-nt cover of trees and shrubs for the mitigation area is approximately 25%. The percent cover for Transect 1 is 28%while the percent cover for Transect 2 is 20%. Gro ,ndcover is nearly 100%with a mix of field grasses, red and white clover,creeping butt•rcup, and soft rush. There are many red alder and black cottonwood volunteers gro ing in the area. These volunteers are desirable and will help the area achieve the req ired 80%cover at the end of the monitoring period. For ately, invasive species are not currently well established. There is a scattered pres•nce of Canada thistle and birds-foot trefoil throughout the area, along with one patc of Himalayan blackberry near the southern end of the project area. Wo.d chip mulch rings are in satisfactory condition around installed plantings. Som- trash was discovered, including plastic bags,old boxes, and containers filled with motor oil. Table 1. Percent Survival by Species Species Number Dead Number Planted Percent Survival Pseudotsuga 11 31 65 menziesii Thuja plicata 5 30 83 All other species 0 417 100 Total 16 478 96 Recommendations • While the plant survival is well above the 80%performance standard, the combination of dead and stressed or dying trees,may make it difficult for the site to achieve the 80%aerial cover performance standard for Year 5. Therefore, it is recommended, although not required, that all dead plants be replaced. The Oaksdale Business Center Buffer,Year One Monitoring, Fourth Quarter Report Rocale Timmons 12 November 2008 Page 3 continued mortality of the Douglas-fir trees is being caused by the very wet conditions on site. Therefore, these plantings should be replaced with Sitka spruce, a more wet-tolerant species. The western red cedars are surviving at a higher rate and are more suited to the wet conditions. Therefore, they should be replaced with their own species. All plantings should occur in the same location as the dead plants and during the dormant season(October 15-March 1). • Invasive species should be removed as part of the ongoing maintenance. There is no specific performance standard regarding invasive species cover,but keeping invasive species from out-competing the native plants will help achieve the 80% survival required in the approved mitigation plan. • All trash in the mitigation area should be removed. Table 2. New Planting Numbers Scientific Name Common Name Size Quantity Picea sitchensis Sitka spruce 2 gallon containers 11 'huja plicata Western red cedar 2 gallon containers 5 I'lanting Notes • Dig planting pits to be three times the width of the diameter of the root ball. • Amend the soil thoroughly with 100%vegetable compost material(Cedar Grove Compost or equivalent). • Add a course wood chip mulch ring around the base of each planting to a radius of nine inches. Mulch should not be touching the stems of the plantings. "Arborist chips"approximately one to three inches in maximum dimension(not saw dust or coarse hog fuel) should be used. This material is sold as "Animal Friendly Hog Fuel" at Pacific Topsoils [(800)884-7635]. Monitoring photographs can be found at the end of this document. Sinc rely, Rya Kahlo Oaksdale Business Center Buffer,Year One Monitoring, Fourth Quarter Report Rocale Timmons 12 November 2008 Page 4 Ecol•:ist Encl.sures 1 Oaksdale Business Center Buffer,Year One Monitoring, Fourth Quarter Timmons 12 November 2008 Page 5 Transect 1 North (facing south) -:.:µmy • N , r ° R , # w. ,, 1 {,x i a thy' »F,}. 1 3+', ,3 -: +r '.! + I • S 7.`. a ,i l 3 r� 'II* • • .. gc.H•fir• 1t5.; L Akkid; " f FI ' '''' ;yy E � .v.* f �♦ Transect 1 South (facing north) :`-,. , - 4, IfrAly 1.yr i } Y>mrtr41 Y ... - to .- # aR� • 404 ., ....i::,. b • 1 -4 !I f i k �. it..--,- -tic• 1; . :4!— A-:— 1'- '''.a.....,..,,, ,,,.„ v .,.,'..,. . ,,„..i,.,,. . ..A, .i. . ,,,,,, : ,.., 7 ,-, ..,,,,, ... .,,,,o., 14, •'. t t a •s .',! "'� : *1s 'l sr , # t. . '': ia. „ "'-fe. r , xo. ,. oe• • .'^" -E-. '- i- ! v. . Oaksdale Business Center Buffer,Year One Monitoring, Fourth Quarter Report Rocale Timmons 12 November 2008 Page 6 Transect 2 North(facin: south) ,, ,..- , ..,... , — 7.,--"I..;,,,—.1.1.:i",i-."''"':'''.,,,j""'f::'f.,%f"'..,..,'"1:..,. ,' -2.,. , . , e .. ,, ,,...,,„, ,,, , , ....1,,,,, j . f . zY ;; VV Transect 2 South (facing north) 4 •a ',14, A. ',R i4 .'. ,t"- , 15. �il M s" a k, , , 1 J� 't ' y � '4 " ' , .k_ r-Y} - A '�Y LP' i s•r, +C 4 ;y g� '' r ♦ ? /' , t ��� yr,y, �,.rt k; —a 4 -- i ;.''.1,- -""". . "'.5',. -,..Vk 1 -7.4 0.4".,1V --...i. llik • ..`'' ,.• ,,•• Is;iiii .. '� $kN / 1t a or.,iy Artiglito � ice;; ,!t.. ati -, i a� .� sir or ` 'An .` y� "'1 Y � CITY )F RENTON � Department of Community and ♦ Economic Development Alex Pietsch,Administrator �� � Denis Law,Mayor Nrc September 22, 2008 Randall Morgan Burgess Design, Inc. 132 5th Avenue#500 Sea le,WA 98101 Sub"ect: Proposed Revisions to Approved Site Plan for the Kaye Smith Building(File No. LUA98-021) De Mr. Morgan, I am in receipt of your proposal to expand the Kaye Smith Building, dated August 12, 2008, wherein you request revisions to the approved Site Plan(File No. LUA98-021). The site is located at 4101 Oakesdale Ave. As your proposal discloses,three minor adjustments to the approved site plan are proposed. Request: 1. The removal of an existing concrete wall on the 1st and 2nd floors of the southern elevation. The opening would be replaced with new exterior windows,with finish to match existing exterior windows. ▪ The construction of a new glass storefront system to match existing construction and finishes. The new storefront system would be constructed to the bottom of the existing canopy. ▪ The addition of 30 new parking stalls to the north side of the building displacing a portion of the existing loading dock area. Sit 'Ian Modification Criteria: Re ton Municipal Code, Section 4-9-200I, allows minor adjustments to an approved site p1. provided: 1. The adjustment does not involve more than a ten percent increase in area or scale of the development in the approved site plan; or r. Have a significantly greater impact on the environment and facilities than the approved plan; or 3. Change the boundaries of the originally approved plan. 1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98057 R E N T O N �� AHEAD OF THE CURVE __ This paper contains 50%recycled material,30%post consumer Analysis of Request: The site plan modifications requested and as shown in your August 12, 2008 submittals have been compared to the Site Plan as approved by the City of Renton Hearing Examiner on April 27, 1998 (File No. LUA98-021). The proposed changes would not result in more than a 10 percent increase in area or scale of the development. The proposal would not have a greater impact on the environment and facilities,nor would it change the boundaries of the originally approved site plan. Decision: Based on staff's analysis, I have determined the proposed revisions are within the parameters defined by the Renton Municipal Code. Therefore,the proposed modifications to the site plan are approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to the issuance of the final building permit for Kaye-Smith Building, 3 full size copies and 1 8 Y2 x 11 inch photo reduction of a final site plan,building elevations, shall be submitted to the Planning Division project manager. 2. The applicant is advised that all code requirements and conditions of the site plan approval are still applicable to the development of the site. The applicant should also understand that Environmental SEPA Review and Site Plan Review may be required for future modifications to the site plan. This determination will be final unless a written appeal of this administrative • determination—accompanied by the required$75.00 filing fee is filed with the City's Hearing Examiner within 14 days of the date of this decision. Should you have any questions regarding this determination or the requirements discussed in this letter,please contact Rocale Timmons,Associate Planner, at(425)430- 7219. Sincerely, .E. Vincent I'laming Director c: File No.#LUA08-090 Jil'e No.#SA98-021 Jennifer Henning,Current Planning Manager Rocale Timmons,Associate Planner OtisY O,t N CITlillOW RENTON El: © + Department of Community and wi Economic Development �j NTO,' Denis Law,Mayor Alex Pietsch,Administrator August 27, 2008 Josh Shearer KG I vestment Management, LLC 249 .W 41st Street Renton,Washington 98057 Subj•ct: Receipt of Third Quarterly Monitoring Report Oakesdale Business Campus Wetland Mitigation Project City of Renton File LUA 98-021 De. Mr.Richter: This etter is to inform you that on August 22,2008 I received the third quarterly monitoring repo, for the wetland mitigation project at Oakesdale Business Campus. The project appears to be -eting performance standards,however,all recommendations on page 3 of the report should be dertaken as soon as possible. The forth quarterly monitoring report should include a follow up s :tement that the recommendations have been completed. In addition please insert a section that escribes how the performance standard for saturated soils has been met and a table with specifics on plant survival. Two copies of the forth quarterly monitoring report are due to the City by December 19,2008. If you have any questions I can be reached at(425)430-7219. Sine, ely, -' c -,L - a Roc.t e Timmons,Planner Curr- t Planning Division cc: City of Renton File LUA 98-021 Mike Foster,Ecologist—The Watershed Company 1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98057 RENTON �� AHEAD OF THE CURVE :, This paper contains 50%recycled material,30%post consumer .--- i 1 TH SCIENCE & DESIGN WA ERSHED CO PANY August 0, 2008 Rocale Timmons, Planner Current Planning Division City of Renton 1055 So*th Grady Way Renton, 'WA 98057 Re: Oakesdale Business Campus Buffer, Year 1 monitoring - Third Quarter Report, City File#LUA 98-021 Dear Ms. Timmons: On August 18, 2008, I visited the buffer enhancement area at the Oakesdale Business Campus to conduct the Year 1, third quarter inspection. The findings of this inspection are presented in this letter. During this site visit, I noted whether the recommendations from the March 24, and May 27 letters had been carried out. As with previous quarterly reports, I made a cursory evaluation of plant survival and noted the general health and condition of the installed vegetation. Cover will be measired in the fourth quarter report using two newly installed transects, T-1 and T-2. Some minor maintenance tasks are listed at the end of this report. All recommendations listed in the previous two quarterly updates appear to have been completed, including plant replacements, addition of specified mulch, and spot blackberry weeding. Plant totals are now near 100 percent with the recent addition of the 68 new plants. Black cottonwood and shore pine were placed in the south end of the buffer mitigation site where several Douglas-fir trees died due to wet conditions. So far, the replacement species are performing well in the saturated conditions. Moreover, desirable native volunteers continue to sprout between the installed vegetation in the north end of the site, adding to native plant totals. Volunteer species include red alder,black cottonwood,rose, snowberry and osoberry. Most of the plants in the mitigation site are healthy, and as noted in the last report, have put on significant growth this season. However, a handful of recently installed plants are stressed from extreme conditions. Several additional Douglas-fir and beaked hazelnut are dead or dying because of saturated conditions in the south end of the site. Elsewhere, a few plants, including big leaf aple and vine maple, are stressed due to dry conditions. No plait replacement is recommended at this time, as August and September are undesirable months or planting, and survival totals are currently only slightly beneath 100 percent. Planting reco ndations for those areas with sparser cover will be included in the Fourth Quarter report. Installation should occur in October or November. Invasiv weed cover has increased since the May site visit. Common thistle, Himalayan blackbe tansy ragwort and birdsfoot trefoil have a combined estimated aerial coverage of five percent throughout the site. The total is currently low and there are no specific performance 750 Sixth Street outh I Kirkland,WA 98033 p 425.822.5242 I f 425.827.8136 I watershedco.com coons,A 2 •� A _ st 20, 2008 Pate 2 of 3 st. dards for invasive weed cover in the Mitigation Plan. However, we recommend removal as pa of regularly scheduled maintenance activities, as the weeds may limit the growth of native ve:etation if left unchecked. Fi ally, some trash deposited in the mitigation site should be removed. A large tire was dumped in e northern section not far from the driveway, as well as a plastic bag, cans and other debris els where. Pl se, call with any questions. Si cerely, • ;67jel Mi e Foster Ec logist cc: Josh Shearer KG Investment Management,LLC 249 SW 41 s`Street Renton,WA 98057 Recommendations — August 20, 2008 1. Remove trash from the buffer mitigation area, including the old tire in the north end of the site, cans and plastic bags. 2. Conduct one weed check in August or September to remove common thistle, Himalayan blackberry, tansy ragwort*, and birdsfoot trefoil*. (*see below for photo of plant). Do not remove black cottonwood, red alder, snowberry, or rose volunteers sprouting between installed plants. These are desirable, and should be left in place. 3. Pressure-test the irrigation system to check for leaks in the south portion of the buffer mitigation area currently exhibiting saturated conditions. Also ensure sprinkler coverage is complete and the timers are set to accurately deliver 1 to 2 inches of water per week through September 30. Timmons, R. August 20, 2008 411011 •� Page 3 of 3 0 t ti.0 • f • \k • 4400406,.011.11111111.111111.111111111161111 ' alit Figure 1 -Birdsfoot trefoil(to be removed from site) . P1114.';...„' ..?" . ,d11111:03-; % e,. wit ..r �1 1 • • .- , , 41 ti; . IreSP '. J. s Figure 2-Tansy ragwort(to be removed from site) CITY "JF RENTON © a' Department of Community and S �-0 Economic.Development wli Denis Law,Mayor Alex Pietsch,Administrator- N May '9,2008 Josh '.hearer KG I vestment Management, LLC 249 S 41st Street Renton,Washington 98057 Subj ct: Receipt of Second Quarterly Monitoring Report Oakesdale Business Campus Wetland Mitigation Project City of Renton File LUA 98-021 Dear Mr. Richter: This 1-tter is to inform you that on May 28,2008'I received the second quarterly monitoring repo i for the wetland mitigation project at Oakesdale Business Campus. The project appears to be meting performance standards,however,all recommendations on page 3 of the report should be un i ertaken as soon as possible. The third quarterly monitoring report should include a follow up s . ement that the recommendations have been completed. Two a o s ies of the third quarterly monitoring report are to the City by September 19, 2008. If you have • y questions I can be reached at(425)430-7219. Since ely, R cal- Timmons,Planner Curre t Planning Division cc: villIPINNIIIIINIMMti Mike Foster,Ecologist—The Watershed Company 1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98057 RENTON �� AHEAD OF THE CURVE :'� Th it contains 50%recycled material,30%post consumer SCIENCE & DESIGN 2 WATERSHED May 27, 2008 DEVELOPMENT I PLANNINGO Rocale Timmons, Planner MAY 2 8 2008 Current Planning Division RECEIVED City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Re: Oakesdale Business Campus Buffer, Year 1 monitoring - Second Quarter Report, City File #LUA 98-021 Dear Ms. Timmons: On May 19, 2008, I visited the buffer enhancement area at the Oakesdale Business Campus to conduct the second quarter inspection of the Year 1 monitoring period. My findings are provided in this letter, as well as some minor maintenance recommendations to ensure the vegetation remains healthy, and the site remains on-track to meet final performance standards. I walked through the site, inspecting the vegetation for overall health and appearance, noting any damage or disease to any of the vegetation, and general site conditions. I estimated plant survival by dividing the estimated number of installed plants by the number of dead plants observed at the site. Furthermore, I checked to see if the recommendations listed in the first quarter report were conducted. Overall, the site continues to perform well. Most of the installed plants are exhibiting vigorous growth, and there are abundant desirable rose, snowberry and black cottonwood sprouts throughout. These volunteers will help the site meet the 80 percent cover requirement at the end of year 5. Plant survival at the time of my visit was estimated to be at 96 percent. Plant survival continues to be within the limits specified under the planting plan. Unusually wet conditions in the south end of the buffer have caused some localized Douglas-fir mortality. Since my March 3 site visit, 38 additional installed Douglas-fir trees died, mostly localized near the south end of mitigation site. The soil here is composed of poorly drained, compacted clay-loam soils that were saturated at the time of my visit on May 19. These conditions are too wet for Douglas-fir, and explain the high, localized mortality of this non- wetland species. More wet-tolerant species are recommended below for replacement. Himalayan blackberry is sprouting throughout the site, especially close to the wetland edge, west of the planting area. A weeding maintenance visit before June 30 should be conducted to hand- pull the sprouts, grub out the roots and cut back any canes encroaching from the wetland area. No other weeding needs to be done at this time, as the coarse wood-chip mulch ring is suppressing most weeds. Please note that several desirable rose and snowberry volunteers are sprouting near installed plants and should not be pulled during future weeding maintenance. The 750 Sixth Street South Kirkland,WA 98033 p 425.822.5242 } 425.827.8136 watershedco.com T � Ti mons, R. M.y 27, 2008 Pa:e2of3 vo nteer sprouts will continue to add native plant cover, and help the site achieve the final cover pe ormance standards. A ecent water main break beneath the adjacent driveway caused brief flooding in a small po ion of the buffer area since my last visit. The flood washed away mulch from the base of ap t roximately twenty installed plants, and caused moderate erosion around a few root balls. No pl. is were killed as a result. To keep the affected plants healthy, however, the soil and coarse wo e d-chip mulch rings should be replaced as soon as possible. The area is marked in the field by is ink- and black-striped flagging tape hung on one of the affected plants. Th pattern of beaver-related damage noted in the last report has stopped. No additional plants we e browsed since my last visit. Th• recommendations from my March 24 letter had not been implemented as of May 19, 2008, th o ugh the landscape contractor had ordered plants and scheduled a site visit to take care of all of the recommendations. In addition to the March 24 recommendations, the list at the end-of this let ler should be carried out before the end of this spring. As always, call with any questions. Si cerely, M'I a Foster Ec o logist cc: Josh Shearer KG Investment Management,LLC 249 SW 40 Street Renton,WA 98057 • Timmons, R. May 27, 2008 Page 3 of 3 Recommendations - May 19 1. Replace soil and coarse wood-chip mulch ring around the 20 flooded plants. (Affected area indicated by pink- and black-striped flag in the field). 2. Omit recommendation number 2 from the March 24 report that calls for hand pulling all weeds 12 inches from installed plants. Most of the sprouts growing 12 inches from installed vegetation are desirable volunteers (mentioned above) to be left. See number 2 below for alternative weed treatment. 3. Conduct a weed check before June 30. Focus only on removing Himalayan blackberry sprouts. Be sure not to remove snowberry and rose volunteers sprouting between installed plants. 4. Cut all old flagging-tape ties on established trees planted several years ago. (Leave thick, black-plastic ties on trees planted in Fall of 2007) The old flagging ties, though flexible and seemingly harmless, can girdle and damage trees if left past their usefulness. 5. Replace the 38 dead Douglas-fir trees with more wet-tolerant species below. Plants should go in the ground as soon as possible, with a target date of no later than June 15. The 38 replacements should be planted in the same location as the majority of dead Douglas-fir trees in the south end of the site. Species Scientific Name Size Quantity Shore pine Pinus contorta 1 gallon containers 20 Black cottonwood Populus balsamifera 1 gallon container 18 var trichocarpa Planting Notes: • Dig planting pits to be three times the width of the diameter of the root ball • Amend the soil thoroughly with 100% vegetable compost material (Cedar Grove Compost or equivalent). • Add a course wood-chip mulch ring around newly installed plants to a depth of 4 inches and at a radius from the plant stem of 9 inches. Mulch should not be touching the stems of the installed vegetation. Mulch should be "Arborist chips", approximately 1 to 3 inches in maximum dimension (not saw dust or coarse hog fuel). This material is sold as "Animal Friendly Hog Fuel" at Pacific Topsoils [(800) 884-7635]. UPDATES FOR FILE : pqgoz I MICROFILME/ r),< Y aI 01 �, 0 CITY F RENTON +I 11 Planning/Building/PublicWorks Department �� �O Kathy Keolker,MayorIA Gregg Zimmerman P.E:,Administrator July 30,2007 • Josh Shearer KG Investment Management,LLC I N f C h °-IL I V i E I" 249 SW 41St Street Renton,WA 98057 Subject: Restart of Monitoring Period for Wetland A Oakesdale Business Campus City of Renton File LUA98-021 - Dear Mr. Shearer: I received the revised first annual maintenance and monitoring report for Wetland A of the Oakesdale Business Campus from the Watershed Company(dated July 20, 2007). As stated by Hugh Mortensen in his analysis,the mitigation and buffer enhancement project is not meeting established performance standards. Therefore,your wetland maintenance and monitoring period will restart. I understand you have contracted the Watershed Company for maintenance and monitoring services. There are several recommendations in Mr.Mortensen's report that should be undertaken immediately, and replanting should,commence in October or November. As of the date of this letter,the monitoring period is on hold, and will restart once I receive a statement from'the Watershed Company verifying that the area has been replanted and performance standards have been met. Once your monitoring period has restarted,maintenance reports will be due quarterly for one year,and annually thereafter for a total of five years(assuming performance standards are met). I look forward to evaluating the success of this project once the area has been replanted. 'Thank you for your cooperation.` I'm confident that once the recommendations from the Watershed Company have been put in place,the mitigation/enhancement project will achieve success. Please contact me at(425)430 - 7270 if you have any questions. cerely, Andrea Petzel,Plann Development Services Division cc: City of Renton File LUA 98-021 Jennifer Henning,Current Planning Manager Hugh Mortensen,The Watershed Company 1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington_98057 R E N T O N �� • AHEAD ,OF THE CURVE - :: This paper contains 50%recycled material,30%post consumer SCIENCE & DESIGN WATERSHED jt AY I AI syyyv,Y ,,—l1}qe--uZ/ July 20, 2007 Josh Shearer KG Investment Management, LLC MICROFILMED 249 SW 41st Street Renton, WA 98057 • Dear Mr. Shearer: Thank you for the opportunity to review the mitigation progress at the Oakesdale Business Campus in Renton, Washington. Ecologist Mike Foster and I made a site visit on July 16, 2007 to evaluate the progress of the mitigation areas. In preparation for this review, I read prior monitoring reports, the original mitigation plan, and the as-built mitigation plan. I also reviewed letters from the City of Renton and an independent review by our office in June 2004. Findings Springbrook Creek wetland creation and buffer enhancement areas As documented in the prior monitoring reports, mitigation conditions along Springbrook Creek are exceeding mitigation goals. Cover of native species is over 100 percent and invasive weeds are minimal. Further, saturated soils or evidence thereof was documented in the wetland mitigation areas found east of the detention pond and south of Building E. Wetland A buffer enhancement area Despite the success along the creek, the buffer plantings along Wetland E, found east of Building C along the eastern property line, are not yet meeting the 80 percent cover performance standard detailed in the plan. Native plant cover is approximately 30 to 40 percent. Invasive cover, however, is low with only one patch of Himalayan blackberry in this area. Shrubs planted south of the Wetland A buffer enhancement area Also noted as lacking were the various shrubs that were planted beneath the large Lombardy poplar trees growing along the eastern property line, east of Building E. Recommendations Springbrook Creek wetland creation and buffer enhancement areas Cease mowing grasses along the south and east perimeter of the detention pond. These areas are within the buffer and should not continue to receive mowing or trimming of grasses. Wetland A buffer enhancement area This area is to receive the bulk of the site maintenance to bring it up to the standards detailed in the mitigation plan. The following should be implemented immediately upon acceptance of this letter by the City of Renton: 750 Sixth Street South Kirkland,WA 98033 p 425.822.5242 f 425.827.8136 ! watershedco.com Shearer, J. 20 July 2007 Page 2 of 3 OIL LO A - j2 J 1) Inspect, repair and operate the irrigation system until October 1, 2007. The system should be checked to ensure that it covers the entire 1.3-acre area and provides at least 1 inch per week of water to the area. 2) Cut to the ground the large clump of blackberry vines found at the southern edge of the planting area. Apply herbicide to re-sprouting blackberry shoots when they emerge in three to four weeks. Herbicide application shall be by a state-licensed applicator only. 3) Remove competitive weeds (grasses and herbaceous weeds) from the base of existing trees and shrubs and shrub clusters. Weeding should extend to the dripline of the plants. Weeding should be by hand and should remove as much of the root system as is practical to prevent re-sprouting. 4) Apply a slow-release fertilizer such as Osmocote, or its equal, to the base of existing trees and shrubs. 5) Apply mulch to the base of each tree and shrub to its dripline. Mulch should be coarse, chipped woody material. This is commercially available from Pacific Topsoils as "animal friendly hog fuel." Mulch depth should be at least 4 inches. The following should be implemented at the beginning of the fall dormant season, October or November 2007: 1) Install native plants as shown on the following table: Species Size Quantity Douglas-fir 2 gallon container 100 Douglas-fir 1 gallon container 100 Black cottonwood 1 gallon container 150 Beaked hazelnut 1 gallon container 200 Tall Oregon grape 1 gallon container 200 Red elderberry 1 gallon container 200 Snowberry 1 gallon container 200 2) Plants are to be installed in open portions of the planting area. 3) Planted areas should be rototilled to improve soil conditions prior to planting. Do not rototill near existing native vegetation. 4) Rototill the blackberry removal area and remove by hand any re-sprouted vines and as many roots as practical. iV ICROFILM . Shearer, J. 20 July 2007 Page 3 of 3 ge-c2 5) Install plants per the following detail: NOTES: I.PLANTING PIT SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN(2) TIMES THE WIDTH OF THE ROOT BALL DIA. 2.LOOSEN SIDES AND BOTTOMS OF PLANTING PIT 3.SOAK PLANTING PIT AFTER PLANTING REMOVE FROM POT&ROUGH-UP ROOT BALL BEFORE INSTALLING.UNTANGLE AND STRAIGHTEN CIRCLING ROOTS•PRUNE IF NECESSARY.IF PLANT IS EXCEPTIONALLY ROOT-BOUND,DO NOT PLANT AND RETURN TO NURSERY FOR AN ACCEPTABLE ALTERNATIVE 4 MULCH LAYER.WEED-FREE COARSE WOOD CHIPS.HOLD BACK MULCH FROM TRUNK/STEMS 3'MIN HT.WATER BASIN jFINISH GRADE f st SLOW RELEASE GRANULAR FERTILIZER,OSMOCOTE -:_ OR APPROVED EQUIV.(OUTSIDE OF O.H.W.M. ONLY)APPLIED ONE YEAR AFTER INMAL PLANTING REMOVE DEBRIS AND LARGE ROCKS AND BACKFILL WITH NATIVE SOIL FIRM UP SOIL MOUND PLANT 2X MIN DIA ROOT BALL • 6) Per the detail, mulch all plants with wood chip mulch or arborist chips to a depth of 4 inches and extending from the stem to a radius of 18 inches. 7) Inspect, repair and operate the irrigation system beginning on June 1, 2008. Continuing maintenance at the Wetland A buffer enhancement area The following maintenance practices should be followed until the site meets performance standards or as directed in future monitoring reports. 1) Inspect, repair and operate the irrigation system during the growing season (from June 1 through October 1). 2) Maintain a 4-inch-thick, weed-free mulch ring beneath each plant. 3) Apply slow-release, granular fertilizer to each plant during each spring. 4) Inspect and remove invasive weeds as necessary across the entire planting area. Removal of roots is necessary to eradicate weeds. 5) IVIow competitive grasses between plants as necessary (twice per year). Stay back from plant stems with mowing equipment. Weeding within mulch rings is to be by hand with a three-tined rake. Implementation of the above recommendations will assure the buffer area meets the performance standards within three to five years following plant installation. Sincerely, Hugh Mortensen, PWS A Ecologist °t ICROFILMED SCIENCE & DESIGN WATERSHED rik, ge -cal ti 4 July 26, 2007 Josh Shearer KG Investment Management, LLC 249 SW 41 st Street Renton, WA 98057 Dear Mr. Shearer: Thank you for requesting a proposal for environmental consulting services. This proposal is to provide a re-planting evaluation and annual monitoring for the Oaksdale Business Campus in Renton. Task 1,Replanting Evaluation Under this task, we will conduct the following work: 1) Make two site visits to the site. The first will be to inspect the plant material as delivered prior to planting. The second will be to inspect the installed plant material. 2) Correspond with the installation contractor and yourself on the progress of the work and on any noted deficiencies (up to two hours are allotted). 3) Prepare a letter documenting the successful installation of the new plants. Task 2, Annual Monitoring Under this task, we will conduct the following work: 1) Make one early season site inspection to identify maintenance necessary for the growing season. 2) Make one late season site inspection to document the percent cover of native plants in the mitigation area and track the survival of new plantings. 3) Correspond with the maintenance contractor and yourself on the progress of the work and on any noted deficiencies (up to two hours are allotted). 4) Prepare a letter documenting the findings of the monitoring site visits. We typically invoice on a time and materials basis with a not-to-exceed figure. Ecologists Mike Foster or Nell Lund will do the majority of the work at $65/hour each. The work will be under the supervision of Senior Ecologist Hugh Mortensen, PWS, at$115/hour. rt E 750 Sixth Street South Kirkland,WA 98033 � C; p 425.822.5242 f 425.827.8136 watershedco.com Josh Shearer �" /G� July 26, 2007 1 1 I e `t r-0 2 of 2 The cost to complete Task 1 will not exceed$1,200. The cost to complete Task 2 will not exceed$1,800 per year*. Task 2 work items can be repeated in subsequent years until the City accepts the project as complete. Note that we have experienced an average cost increase of 4% per year. Costs associated with Task 2 may increase by this amount depending on current hourly rates. Please sign below, return one copy along with the retainer to authorize this work. Call with any questions. Sincerely, G�w c 7 P 4 0? A. William Way Jo Shearer for KG Investment Management, President L / Page 1 of 4 Andrea Petzel - Re: FW: Oakesdale I (/JC( �/-C) 2f From: Andrea Petzel To: Shearer, Joshua Date: 06/20/2007 11:00 AM Subject: Re: FW: Oakesdale Josh, No preference, in fact as a City employee I'm not allowed to have a preference. They're all on the roster because they are well- qualified and do excellent work. It's unclear to me from the email chain that if Barghausen is submitting another report or if you're going right to another consultant. Just so you are aware, I'm not happy with the three opportunities Barghausen has had to submit their report. This has extended well beyond any typical grace period to submit a monitoring report. There is a chance that whatever they submit I will send for secondary review at your expense. There's also the chance that if you use a new consultant not on the list I will also send that report out for secondary review ,also at your expense. If that's the case, it will be from one of the consultants on that roster - your choice. Also, if Barghausen submits another report that does not directly and explicitly address my concerns (including using the wrong performance standards), the monitoring period will restart. If that's the case monitoring would be quarterly for the first year and annually for the next four (five years total). Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Andrea Andrea Petzel, Planner City of Renton - Development Services Division Renton City Hall - 6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425-430-7270 apetzel@ci.renton.wa.us >>> "Joshua Shearer" <JShearer@kginvestment.com> 06/20/07 10:06 AM >>> Hi Andrea, See below for the latest from Barghausen. Are you sure you don't have a preference for any of the consultants on the City's list? If not, I'll be drawing numbers out of a hat to pick one off the list since I've never worked with any of them and neither has my client. Thanks, Josh Original Message From: Joshua Shearer Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 10:03 AM To: 'Jason Hubbell' Subject: RE: Oakesdale Alright, do what you can on your end. In the meantime, I will contact one of the wetland consultants on the City of Renton preferred list and get things going with them. file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\nweil\Local%20Settings\Temp\GW}00001.HTM 06/20/2007 Page 2 of 4 Josh Original Message From: Jason Hubbell [mailto:jhubbell@barghausen.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 10:01 AM To: Joshua Shearer Subject: RE: Oakesdale Josh, Unfortunately I am an engineer and not a wetland person so I can't even talk the language. I am simply the person on our side that can push Jim to get this resolved. The other option would be to move forward and transition this to another consultant now rather than later but I don't think we want to go down that road yet. Thanks From: Joshua Shearer [mailto:JShearer@kginvestment.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 9:56 AM To: Jason Hubbell Subject: RE: Oakesdale Is there any way you can get it resolved sooner than the end of next week? This has been dragging on and on, and apparently Jim doesn't understand what Andrea is asking for since this was the 3rd version of submittal and it still didn't address her comments. Seems to me that the best thing would be for you to deal with Andrea directly and just cut Jim out of the loop at this point. I will plan on picking everything up on Friday. Please make sure everything is ready for me. Thanks, Josh Original Message From: Jason Hubbell [mailto:jhubbell@barghausen.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 9:41 AM To: Joshua Shearer Subject: RE: Oakesdale Josh, I already have a call into Jim to discuss this further with him and will work to get it resolved sooner than later. My target will be the end of next week unless something dictates a longer timeframe. In the meantime I will make a copy of our entire file for you to pickup(or I can have it delivered to you)by tomorrow or Monday. Of course you will be copied on the resubmittal so we don't need to wait until then to make the copies. FYI Bill Shiels at Talasaea is good and Steve Kramer in your office is using him on one of his projects. Thanks From: Joshua Shearer [mailto:JShearer@kginvestment.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 8:44 AM ; A ;" To: Jason Hubbell 1 o rIL /IEr Subject: FW: Oakesdale f t►'f Jason, Please see the comments below from Andrea Petzel of the City of Renton. Obviously, I'm not happy with this situation. I know that Jim Carsner is no longer at Barghausen and even when he was there, there were some issues with his work, but we are paying you guys for this, so I expect at least this first monitoring report to be corrected properly. If you don't understand what Andrea is asking for, please call her to get a better understanding and provide the information she needs. After that's been done, I need to get all of the background information (mitigation plan, performance standards, etc.)from your office so that I can provide file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\nweil\Local%20Settings\Temp\GW}00001.HTM 06/20/2007 Page 3 of 4 all of the relevant information to whoever we hire to replace you guys. Josh Original Message From: Andrea Petzel [mailto:APetzel@ci.renton.wa.us] Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 8:30 AM To: Joshua Shearer Subject: RE: Oakesdale Josh, They are all really good. I just reviewed what Barghausen submitted to me for the THIRD time, and it's exactly the same report as the second, with 3 additonal sentences that don't address the comments I made in any of the letters. Maybe they thought I wouldn't read it. So I'm starting to be fairly concerned. The original report was due to us in December of 2006 and it is now June. I don't wait to punish you for having consultants who aren't on the ball, but my primary concern is to get an understanding of what's going on at this mitigation project. So there are a couple of options I'm weighing; either restarting the monitoring period or adjusting it so that it will be yearly from the date I receive the new report from whichever consultant you choose. I'll have to see what their report says. I can give you a month to get me the new monitoring report, so that's July 20th. Please make sure they have copies of my correspondence and are clear what the monitoring standards are. Barghausen has it wrong with their diminishing standards for plant survival, and I pointed that out in an email. I'm also happy to meet with the consultants in the field or in the office so that we're all on the same page. You can give me a call 425-430-7270 if you want to talk about the new consultants or my thoughts on this third Barghausen report. Andrea Andrea Petzel, Planner City of Renton - Development Services Division Renton City Hall - 6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425-430-7270 apetzel@ci.renton.wa.us >>> "Joshua Shearer" <JShearer@kginvestment.com> 06/19/07 4:28 PM >>> Thanks, Andrea. Anyone on the list that you like better than the others? As of right now, I don't have any of the background information from Barghausen, but I plan on swinging by their office sometime in the next days to pick up anything they will give me. Let me know if anything was left out or still needs clarification after you're reviewed their revised report. Thanks again, Josh Original Message From: Andrea Petzel [mailto:APetzel@ci.renton.wa.us] , Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2007 4:06 PM �� iCRO` ILI\FL To: Joshua Shearer Subject: Re: Oakesdale Josh, Thanks for the info - I had no idea Barghausen was getting rid of their wetland dept. Here's the consultant roster list. Do you file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\nweil\Local%20Settings\Temp\GW}00001.HTM 06/20/2007 Page 4 of 4 have the background information from Barghausen? Like the approved mitigation plan, performance standards, etc? We do here at the City, but it's all microfiched at this point and kind of hard to retrieve. So if you have the opportunity to get any of the background info that would probably be a good idea. A copy of the most recent report should also have a summary and some background details. Here's the list, let me know if you have any other questions. Thanks, Andrea Andrea Petzel, Planner City of Renton - Development Services Division Renton City Hall - 6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425-430-7270 apetzel@ci.renton.wa.us >>> "Joshua Shearer" <JShearer@kginvestment.com> 06/19/07 1:50 PM >>> Hi Andrea, I received an e-mail from Jason Hubbell of Barghausen yesterday stating that he would be submitting the revised report to you this morning. Barghausen has decided to do away with its wetlands department. I called SCS Engineers today to find out if they have a wetlands biologist on staff, but they do not. If you wouldn't mind, could you please send me the list of City preferred wetlands consultants? Thanks, Josh Josh Shearer, CC1M KG INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT,LLC 249 SW 41st Street Renton, WA 98057 425.656.4901 Phone 425.656.9108 Fax jshearer@kginvestment.com i‘t lCRO ILME[ file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\nweil\Local%20Settings\Temp\GW}00001.HTM 06/20/2007 Andrea Petzel - FW: Oakesdale Page 1 LU4> f& o 42"Joshua Joshua Shearer" <JShearer@kgmvestment.com To: "Andrea Petzel" <APetzel@ci.renton.wa.us> Date: 06/13/2007 9:08:16 AM Subject: FW: Oakesdale Andrea, See the e-mail below from Jason Hubbell of Barghausen. I will follow up with him next week to make sure they get something out to you. Thanks, Josh Original Message From: Jason Hubbell [mailto:jhubbell@barghausen.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 7:58 AM To: Joshua Shearer Subject: RE: Oakesdale Josh, I just got done with Jim and we should be able to issue a revised report or an addendum letter by mid to late next week at the latest. He needs to dig into a few things and I should have a better grasp on timing by Monday. Thanks Original Message From: Joshua Shearer [mailto:JShearer@kginvestment.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 10:02 AM To: Jason Hubbell Subject: FW: Oakesdale Jason, Here's the e-mail I sent Jim in April. The letter from Andrea Petzel is attached. I will send you a few more e-mails to go along with this just so you have the correspondence between Jim and me. Thanks for your help with this. Josh Original Message From: Joshua Shearer Sent: Friday, April 13, 2007 2:02 PM To: 'Jim Carsner' Subject: Oakesdale Jim, I received the attached letter from Andrea Petzel in yesterday's mail. As I recall, you were going to respond to her letter back in February. What happened? Please call or e-mail me ASAP to let me know that you are on top of this. I don't want to receive a code violation over this. 0c. � o� C I TN 3F RENTON + + Planning/Building/PublicWorks Department Kathy Keolker,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator • June 12, 2007 Attn: Patty Fink Poe Construction P.O. Box 1838 Auburn, WA 98071 Subject: Release of Bond Oaksdale Business Campus, Wetland Monitoring,(LUA98-021) Bond# 6054474 Dear Patty: This letter will serve as authority to release the above mentioned bond in the amount of $87,738.00. This bond was posted with the City of Renton on behalf of Zelman Renton, LLC on June 16, 2000. The original security device is enclosed for your files. If you have any questions, please contact Andrea Petzel at(425)430.=7270. Sincerely, '' efiv-v.- Jennifer Henning Development Services Director. Cc: Andrea Petzel,Assistant Planner Tina Hemphill;Accounting Assistant File LUA98-021 - I; ILA, L ---..... 1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98057 RENTON AHEAD 'OF THE CURVE 0 This paper contains 50%recycled material,30%post consumer Page 1 of 2 Andrea Petzel - RE: Oaksdale . ..tigation From: Andrea Petzel To: Shearer, Joshua LUi Date: 05/17/2007 4:52 PM /JQ Subject: RE: Oaksdale Mitigation `z U-62/ Hi Josh, As you are in the yearly phase of monitoring (as opposed to quarterly), I'm not to concerned with the situation, but I do need to have it justified in writing that the project is meeting performance standards. It took me a bit longer than usual to respond because I kept reading the report thinking I was missing something...it seemed odd that the information just wasn't there. I debated about copying you on the email, but I thought you should know. And I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that it just got left out accidentally. Thanks for your quick response, I'm sure we'll get this figured out. Hope all is well! Andrea Andrea Petzel, Planner City of Renton - Development Services Division Renton City Hall - 6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425-430-7270 apetzel@ci.renton.wa.us >>> "Joshua Shearer" <JShearer@kginvestment.com> 05/17/07 4:07 PM >>> Hi Andrea, I'm really sorry Jim's second report didn't address the issues and questions you raised. I assumed he had taken care of it, but I guess I should have read the revised report Jim to make sure. I have been very disappointed with the work Jim has done for us over the past few months. If things don't change quickly, I think we'll be hiring a new consultant. I know that doesn't make up for the previous deficiencies in the reporting, but I just wanted you to know that Jim's performance (or lack thereof in this situation) is not consistent with the new property owner's standards. Thanks for being patient. I will try to get this resolved as soon as possible. Hope all is well in your office. We had a 4-hour planning commission meeting last night for comp plan amendments. One thing I know for sure is that Rebecca, Don and the other planners sure do earn their money! Josh Original Message From: Andrea Petzel [mailto:APetzel@ci.renton.wa.us] Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 3:42 PM To: Jim Carsner Cc: Joshua Shearer w Subject: Oaksdale Mitigation ' ►_4 Efj Jim, I read the second monitoring report you sent me (dated April 23) and I guess I'm a little confused. In my letter dated February 6, 2007 I asked for some supplemental information to the monitoring report dated January 17, 2007. Specifically; file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\nweil\Local%20Settings\Temp\GW}00001.HTM 05/18/2007 Page 2 of 2 1. Please provide an explanation for the mowing activity that has happened in the buffer. In restoration areas landscaping is not permitted. Unless there is a specific reason for its appearance as a lawn, this area will need to be replanted. 2. Section 3.0: The eighty percent survival rate is applicable each year, not subsequently decreasing from one year to the next. City staff revised this standard based on a third party evaluation by The Watershed Company dated June 14, 2004. 3. What is the estimated percentage of invasive or non-native plant species? 4. Please insert a section describing how the performance standard for saturated soils has been met. I can't seem to find how those statements were addressed. The performance standards have been established and they are as follows: a. The presence of water sufficient to saturate or inundate soils in the wetland area. b. Survival rate of eighty percent per year for planted shrub and tree species. c. Eighty percent aerial cover of self-sustaining, non-invasive, native wetland vegetation at the end of the 5-year monitoring period. In order to consider this project in compliance I need to have that information, and the April 23 report doesn't seem to address that. In fact it has one less goal than the previous report. Can you please provide me with some clarification so we can wrap up this report. Otherwise this project will be considered out of compliance and the monitoring period will restart. Thanks for your help, Andrea Andrea Petzel, Planner City of Renton - Development Services Division Renton City Hall - 6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425-430-7270 apetzel@ci.renton.wa.us /WIC , • file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\nweil\Local%20Settings\Temp\GW}00001.HTM 05/18/2007 08(Y � CITY OF RENTON • _■ 1 • Planning/Building/PublicWorks Department r Kathy Keolker,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator April 11, 2007 Josh Shearer KG Investment Management,LLC 249 SW 41st Street Renton,WA 98057 Subject: Second Request for Additional Information Regarding the 1s`Annual Wetland Maintenance and Monitoring Report Oakesdale Business Campus City of Renton File LUA98-021 Dear Mr. Shearer: In a letter dated February 6, 2007 (enclosed)I requested additional information received in order to confirm that the wetland mitigation project at the Oakesdale Business campus is meeting established performance standards. The information was due to the City by February 28, 2007. As of the date of this letter,it has not been received. Please provide the additional information by April 27th, or the project will be turned over to Code Compliance. If you have any questions,please feel free to contact me(425)430-7270. Sincerely, iti(-1(1 Andrea Petzel,Planner Development Services Division cc: City of Renton File LUA 98-021 Paul Baker,Code Compliance Inspector Jim Carsner,Barghausen Engineers 1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98057 RENTON CfJ A H F A n n c This oaoer mntainc Sf°/. .......:.:_�n..�. T�. C. U�� CIT t )F RENTON ♦ ♦ Planning/Building/PublicWorks Department - NT O� Kathy Keolker,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator February 19,2007 Josh Shearer KG Investment Management,LLC 249 SW 41st Street Renton,WA 98057 Subject: Partial Release of"Wetland A"Set-Aside Funds Oakesdale Business Campus City of Renton File LUA98-021 Dear Mr. Shearer: On January 18, 2007 the City of Renton Finance Department received a wire transfer in the amount $87,738.00 as a surety device for maintenance and monitoring of Wetland A of the Oakesdale Business Campus. Based on the attached estimates from your biologist and landscape contractor, as well as credit for two years of successful maintenance and monitoring, the City will release$37,094.25 back to Principal Enhanced Property Fund, L.P. The remaining $50643.75 will be kept as a cash set-aside to ensure five years of successful maintenance and monitoring of Wetland A. After five years of successful maintenance and monitoring, the balance of the cash set aside ($50,643.75) will be released as a check back to Principal Enhanced Property Fund,L.P. Thank you for your assistance with this matter. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at(425)430-7270. Sincerely, r I rr Andrea Petzel,Planner Development Services Division cc: City of Renton File LUA 98-021 Amber Hoffman,Development Services Division Tina Hemphill,Finance Division 1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98057 RENTON 6pmm AHEAD OF THE CURVE 7 This paper contains 50%recycled material.30%post consumer City of Renton Finance Department Request for Claims Date of Request 2/19/2007 Date Required ASAP Requesting Department DEV SERVICES Authorized Signature P;sv I REASON FOR CHECK Deposit Refund Name PRINCIPAL ENHANCED PROPERTY Amount $37,094.25 FUND,L.P. Finance Receipt No. Receipt Date Other Describe Circumstances Requiring Issuance of Check: $87,738 cash set-aside was received for wetland maintenance and monitoring. Set-aside amount was reduced to$50,643.75 to cover costs for Wetland A only. The balance,$37,094.25 is refunded back. CHECK PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS Amount $$37,094.25 Charge to Account(s) 650.237.00.00.0000 Payable To Principal Enhanced Property Fund, L.P. Address attn: Josh Shearer x Mail Check to Payee 249 SW 41'Street Return to Dept. Renton, WA 98057 Other: CHECK AUTHORIZATION -Finance Department Use Only Approved Date Claims Check No: Finance form2.doc\n Rev:10/99 ********************************4******* DUPLICATE DUPLICATE DUPLICATE DUPLICATE City of Renton City Treasurer **************************************** Reg# #/Rcpt#: 002-00098133 [ CC ] Accounting Date: Fri, Jan 19, 2007 Date/Time: Fri, Jan 19, 2007 9:27 AM **************************************** 5999/MISC BALANCE SHEET TRANSACTION REF#:1/18/07 WIRE FEE AMOUNT: $87,738.00 Receipt Total = $87,738.00 **************************************** Payment Data: Pmt# :1 Payer: ZELMAN RENTON BOND Method: DO-BANK Amount = $87,738.00 **************************************** Receipt Summary **************************************** Total Tendered = $87,738.00 Receipt Total = $87,738.00 Change Due = $0.00 **************************************** THANK YOU!! **************************************** DUPLICATE DUPLICATE DUPLICATE DUPLICATE CITY OF RENTON 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Printed: 02-19-2007 Land Use Actions RECEIPT Permit#: LUA98-021 Payment Made: 02/19/2007 09:49 AM Receipt Number: R0700694 Total Payment: 87,738.00 Payee: Principal Enhanced Propoerty Fund -Wetland Set-aside Current Payment Made to the Following Items: Trans Account Code Description Amount 4999 999.999.99.99.9999 Unknown Fee Item 87, 738 .00 Payments made for this receipt Trans Method Description Amount Payment FINANCE 87738 .00 87,738 .00 Account Balances Trans Account Code Description Balance Due 3021 303 .000.00.345.85 Park Mitigation Fee .00 4999 999.999.99.99.9999 Unknown Fee Item .00 5006 000.345.81.00.0002 Annexation Fees .00 5007 000.345.81.00.0003 Appeals/Waivers .00 5008 000.345.81.00.0004 Binding Site/Short Plat .00 5009 000.345.81.00.0006 Conditional Use Fees .00 5010 000.345.81.00.0007 Environmental Review .00 5011 000.345.81.00.0008 Prelim/Tentative Plat .00 5012 000.345.81.00.0009 Final Plat .00 5013 000.345.81.00.0010 PUD .00 5014 000.345.81.00.0011 Grading & Filling Fees .00 5015 000.345.81.00.0012 Lot Line Adjustment .00 5016 000.345.81.00.0013 Mobile Home Parks .00 5017 000.345.81.00.0014 Rezone .00 5018 000.345.81.00.0015 Routine Vegetation Mgmt .00 5019 000.345.81.00.0016 Shoreline Subst Dev . 00 5020 000.345.81.00.0017 Site Plan Approval . 00 5021 000.345.81.00.0018 Temp Use or Fence Review . 00 5022 000 .345.81.00.0019 Variance Fees .00 5024 000.345.81.00.0024 Conditional Approval Fee .00 5036 000.345.81.00.0005 Comprehensive Plan Amend .00 5909 000.341.60.00.0024 Booklets/EIS/Copies .00 5941 000.341.50.00.0000 Maps (Taxable) .00 5954 650.237.00.00.0000 Special Deposits .00 5955 000.05.519.90 .42 .1 Postage .00 5998 000.231.70 .00 .0000 Tax .00 Remaining Balance Due: $0.00 Page 1 of 6 Andrea Petzel - FW: FW: Oakesda., ,,et-Aside Amount From: "Joshua Shearer" <JShearer@kginvestment.com> To: "Andrea Petzel" <APetzel@ci.renton.wa.us> Date: 02/16/2007 8:16 AM Subject: FW: FW: Oakesdale Set-Aside Amount Good morning, Andrea. As I suspected yesterday, the check should be made out to"Principal Enhanced Property Fund, L.P." Thanks again and please let me know if anything else comes up. Josh Original Message From: Joshua Shearer Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 5:20 PM To: 'Andrea Petzel' Subject: RE: FW: Oakesdale Set-Aside Amount Andrea, I'm thinking it will be"Principal Enhanced Property Fund, L.P.", but I sent an e-mail to make sure and will let you know tomorrow. Thanks, Josh Original Message From: Andrea Petzel [mailto:APetzel@ci.renton.wa.us] Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 5:13 PM To: Joshua Shearer Cc: Tina Hemphill Subject: Re: FW: Oakesdale Set-Aside Amount Hi Josh, I spoke with Tina in Finance (and copied her on this email) and there is some paperwork that I need to fill out in order to get a check cut for the reimbursement amount. I was wrong, they don't just rewire the money back to you. Please let me know who the check should be made out to and I will get the paperwork started first thing on Monday morning next week. Thanks for your help with this! Andrea Andrea Petzel City of Renton - Development Services Division Renton City Hall - 6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 425-430-7270 apetzel@ci.renton.wa.us >>> "Joshua Shearer" <JShearer@kginvestment.com> 02/15/07 2:46 PM >>> Hi Andrea, It is believed that the wiring instructions were given to someone at the City last month. But just in case, I thought I'd pass them on to you so that there's no confusion. Please call or e-mail with any questions. Thanks, file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\nweil\Local%20Settings\Temp\GW}00001.HTM 02/18/2007 Project Name: Oakesdale Commercial Park, I Date: Project Number: LUA98-021 FG Number: Location: northwest of intersection of SW 43rd St and Oadesdale Ave SW Contact Name: Jim Carsner Address: 18215 72nd S, Kent, WA 98032 Note: All plants and erosion control measures are in place. • � i(�s:.fC„lam �rg 8:'x.e.•..::;. • OTH' r c .� , .. . . ��� �OSTS T � C M\t4 4. ,.y�\� �:7rr..�t;&,;..1.',��;a^�f� '�yv�,�4�,v�?,� �'+,,:�, w'.ndC�i+"rt`:u ^tiy wr:'r+.� . . • ... �Y�,O�y"1.r�.���Vj���.,�N�c�'� �� \ '/ �l(' A��,���.K'l<�'1: � 'hl Y•�f'�t 1�.6(y��p Type. �. .,.=:(:Tr:',ko,g,;.....c. E:# r �. ,.c ,y � ti ,�, z;.' h4.,Ct .n � 'st +,,...a.'z� she'_ u ,a't y 7�'\ ,�•.R •.d 'C� ''l�nit.PrlGe UnJt .. (� .. 1fr �� tic�`;���. i i o`».�r� �d•�:•n�a�. �1as ts.}wU`4, .,x,5 �r�ioa�• ti Inspection, annual �� �� `�� � :,.... ,,,*., ' .a � ,x � �\ �.,�,,w � -� � �.nmy,sr ..$ 460.00 hif. ..lY lh,\��y.Y \11�'1.t3' Y T iYf'`,,�,,��0,,��\,, <l _�fir�'_, St1�C44 � �i, \A.....,.`� 5,1k:VZ:' 1 k:�V( 7::`+k�.L 2" at'4` ao:Ssit $ •°i1,380. Inspection, final EACH $ 575.00 EACH 3 $ 1,380.00 Maintenance, semi-annual 1 $ 575.00 Maintenance annual irri ation — Monitorin , annual 1 600.00 annual - $ 3,600.00 annual 3 $ 4,800.00 Waterin , 1" of water 50' soaker hose $ 3.62 MSF 3 $ 10,800.00 NOTE: All plant prices are from Storm Lake Growers, Wabash Natives, Fourth Corner, and Sound Native PI $ Frosty Hollow and Abundant Life seeds , ants (containers); and from SUBTOTAL (SUM ALL PAGES): 30% CONTINGENCY & MOBILIZATION: .._$ 17,555.0 $ 5,266.50 TOTAL: $ 22,821.50 • bond worksheet - 2007.xls Sensitive Areas Bond Quantity Worksheet Page 1 1/10/2007 02/08/2007 12:06 FAX 4257888788 OREENWAY-LANDSCAPE tj 001/001 GREENWAY ' February 8,2007 LANDSCAPE SERVICES, INC. • Josh Shearer . KG Investment Management • 249 SW 41st Street • Renton, WA 98055 Dear Josh: The wetland buffer area A at Oakesdale Business campus is included in our annual maintenance agreement. We currently provide: mowing 18 times per year and sprinkler system adjustments in our contract. The monthly cost for this area is $480.00 per month and is included with Bldg.A,B and C. The maintenance cost will likely increase by approximately three percent per year. Plant replacement-and irrigation system repairs are not included in the contract. ['ve enclosed a copy of last years plant replacement proposal and invoice. I would estimate the same amount for 2007 with a five percent increase for inflation. Irrigation repairs are approximately$500.00 per year as the system is above ground and open.to damage from rough mowing equipment. Budget 2007 Maintenance: $5,760.00 Plant Replacement $1,200.00 Irrigation repair $500.00 Budget 2008 • Maintenance: $5,835.00 Plant Replacement $1,260.00 Irrigation repair $525.00 Budget 2009 Maintenance $6,010,00 Plant Replacement $1,320.00 Irrigation repair $550.00 Note: Above prices do not include WSST Please let us know if you have any questions Sin G eenvvay ommercial Landscape Services Inc. Dan DeFoor President • • P.O.Box 1083 • Woodinville,WA 98072 • (425)788-2754 • Fax(425)788-9789 02/08/2007 12:08 FAX 425708Q70Q GREEN4'AY-LANDSCAPE la001/002 July 10,2006 Chuck Wiegman JSH Properties,Inc. 14900 Interurban Avenue South,Suite 210 Seattle,WA 98168-4654 Dear Chuck: Please review the following proposal for landscape improvements at Oakesdalc Business Park in Renton.Per recommendation from Barghausen Consulting. Wetland Buffer Area-West Perimeter Remove existing dead plants. Unit cost installed Total Install: 3 Big Leaf Maple 5' $24.50 $73.50 5 Douglas Fir 5' $52.00 $260.00 6 Western Red Cedar 5' $52.00 $312.00 1 Red Twig Dogwood 1 gallon $7.65 $7.65 2 Ocean Spray 1 gallon $7.65 $15.30 3 Vine Maple 1 gallon $7.65 $22.95 4 Wood Rose 1-gallon S7.65 $30.60 1 Indian Plum 1-gallon $7.65 $7.65 Mulch each plant with 3"bark mulch Mobilization and procurement Total labor and materials $1,055.00 WSST $92.84 Total $1,147.84 Acc. JSH Properties, Inc.Date Acc. Greenway Landscape,Inc. Date Please contact us if you have any questions. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Greenway Commercial Landscape Services, Inc. Dan DeFoor President 02/08/2007 12:08 FAX 4257881:17919 GREEN44AY-LANDSCAPE la 002/002 Greenway Commercial Landscape Services,Inc. Invoice P.0, Box 1083 DATE INVOICE IS Woodinville, WA 98072-1083 • 425 788 2754 9/12/2006 16377 BILL TO HIP TO 0&kesdale Business esdale Business Park C/O KG Investments 249 SW 41st Street,Suite K Renton,WA 98057 P.O.NUMBER TERMS REP SHIP VIA F.O.B. PROJECT Nct 30 9/I2/2006 QUANTITY ITEM CODE DESCRIPTION T PRICE EACH AMOUNT 1 Planting Install plants to west perimeter wetland area per proposal 1,055,00 1,055.00T 7-10-06 Sales Tax 8.80% 92.85 Total S 1,147.85 ( Fái.R 0,e, CITY )F RENTON 74. Planning/Building/Public Works Department .4, O� Kathy Keolker,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator NT0 February 6, 2007 Josh Shearer KG Investment Management,LLC 249 SW 41st Street Renton,WA 98057 Subject: Request for Additional Information Regarding the ls`Annual Wetland Maintenance and Monitoring Report Oakesdale Business Campus City of Renton File LUA98-021 Dear Mr. Shearer: I received the first annual maintenance and monitoring report for Wetland A on the Oakesdale Business Campus on January 20, 2007. Before I can confirm that the project is in compliance I need the following supplemental information: 1. Please provide an explanation for the mowing activity that has happened in the buffer. In restoration areas landscaping is not permitted. Unless there is a specific reason for its appearance as a lawn,this area will need to be replanted. 2. Section 3.0: The eighty percent survival rate is applicable each year, not subsequently decreasing from one year to the next. City staff revised this standard based on a third party evaluation by The Watershed Company dated June 14, 2004. 3. What is the estimated percentage of invasive or non-native plant species? 4. Please insert a section describing how the performance standard for saturated soils has been met. As a reminder, each report should specifically address the following three performance standards: a. The presence of water sufficient to saturate or inundate soils in the wetland area. b. Survival rate of eighty percent per year for planted shrub and tree species. c. Eighty percent aerial cover of self-sustaining, non-invasive, native wetland vegetation at the end of the 5-year monitoring period. Please submit the required supplemental information to my attention by February 28, 2007. If you have any questions,please feel free to contact me(425)430-7270. Sincerely, (iffehk' '1'-' Andrea Petzel,Planner Development Services Division cc: City of Renton File LUA 98-021 Jim Carsner,Barghausen Engineers Jennifer Henning,Current Planning Manager 1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98057 RENTON AHEAD OF THE CURVE WETLAND 'A' BUFFER MONITORING REPORT YeACLi 2u A gs--()).1 Oakesdale Business Campus Renton, Washington MICROFILMED Prepared for: JSH Properties, Inc. 14900 Interurban Avenue South, Suite 210 Tukwila, WA 98168 January 17, 2007 Our Job No. 10494 UGH A V mi • •Z CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING, SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES ," 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (425) 251-6222 (425) 251-8782 FAX ? BRANCH OFFICES • OLYMPIA,WA • TACOMA,WA • SACRAMENTO, CA • TEMECULA, CA °<r 4 �'' www.barghausen.com hC ENG1N E TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 1 3.0 ANNUAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS 2 4.0 METHODS 3 4.1 Vegetation Sampling 3 4.2 Permanent Photo Stations 3 5.0 RESULTS 3 5.1 Vegetation Sampling 3 5.2 Permanent Photo Stations 4 5.3 Habitat Conditions and Wildlife Use 4 6.0 CONCLUSIONS 5 7.0 CLOSURE 5 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1 Vicinity Map FIGURE 2 Wetland'A'Buffer Mitigation Monitoring Plan LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1 Wetland'A'Buffer Mitigation Monitoring Summary LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX A City of Renton Letter(June 30, 2006) APPENDIX B Monitoring Data Sheets APPENDIX C Photographs 10494.005.doc 1.0 INTRODUCTION We have completed the fall 2006 Wetland 'A' buffer monitoring at the Oakesdale Business Campus located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of S.W. 43rd Street and Oakesdale Avenue S.W. in Renton,Washington (Figure 1). This report presents the results of the observed site conditions and observed compliance with agreed performance standards for the Wetland 'A' buffer of this mitigation project. In a June 30, 2006 letter, the City of Renton agreed that Springbrook Creek has met the performance standard and that Wetland'A',a buffer planting,did not(Appendix A). In fall 2001, the wetland buffer adjacent to Wetland 'A' was planted and monitoring began. The Wetland 'A' buffer was replanted with supplemental plant species in the fall of 2004 and again in 2006 following observations of dead and diseased plants. Soils around the replacement plants were amended, mulch rings were placed around the existing and planted species and irrigation was to continue for at least 2 years with monitoring to continue until 2009. 2.0 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The overall goal of this wetland mitigation project is to create 27,911 square feet of Wetland 'A' and associated buffer that will transition over time to a multi-story forested, shrub-scrub, and emergent plant community. To achieve this goal for the mitigation site, monitoring is being conducted for: 1. Survival of tree and shrub plantings. 2. Cover of emergent plant species in the seeded Wetland'A'area. 3. Inundation or saturation of the soils achieved during final grading. Monitoring was completed in September 2006 using the methods described in Section 4.0 of this report and includes: 1. Establishment of permanent vegetation plots to monitor survival, changes in plant species composition, percent cover by species over time, and hydrologic conditions. Tree and shrub density will be evaluated using plots that were established within the wetland mitigation areas, the bench, and the buffer slopes. Plot sizes were determined by establishing a goal of sampling 10 percent of the mitigation area. Plot locations were established in the field at the time of baseline/as-built mitigation monitoring and located to reflect differences in hydrologic regime,plant distribution, and overall mitigation area conditions. 2. Establishment of photo stations to collect a sequence of photographs. These photographs will be used to evaluate vegetation community response over time. 3. Measurement of water levels in the early and late growing seasons to determine if inundation is present at the permanent sampling plots. If the area is not inundated, an auger hole will be dug to determine if water or saturated soils are near the surface. 4. Observation of the wetland mitigation area for excessive erosion, scour, or sedimentation that may affect the health and/or diversity of the overall wetland mitigation area. 5. Observation and reporting of wildlife use in the wetland mitigation area. t 10494.005.doc 3.0 ANNUAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS The multi-year monitoring program prescribed for this wetland mitigation project included two site visits in the first year and one visit in each of the following years. Performance standards provide measurements to gage the progress of the project periodically, and to identify remedial actions necessary to meet the final success criteria. For the buffer mitigation project, we propose to use the health of vegetation to gage the progress of the project. The planted buffer species will be monitored for vigor and survival. The overall target survival rate per year will be 80 percent of planted shrub and tree species, surviving from the previous year, as measured in representative plots. If it is determined that planted tree and shrub species are being replaced or out-competed by native wetland shrubs or trees that grow voluntarily, the success criteria will be met only if the number of volunteer and planted shrub and tree species in the mitigation area meets or exceed the number of shrub and tree plants required in the area for that year. If these performance standards are not met, the cause of the failure to meet the performance standard will be evaluated and action will be taken to rectify the problem until the objectives are achieved. The annual breakdown of the performance standards for the project includes: • Year 1 —80 percent survival of planted species • Year 2—80 percent survival of species that survived the first year • Year 3—80 percent survival of species that survived the second year • Year 4—80 percent survival of species that survived the third year • Year 5—80 percent areal cover of self-sustaining, non-invasive wetland species At the time of the 2006 Wetland 'A' buffer monitoring event, the overall plant cover along buffer was determined to be greater than approximately 40 percent with several dead and diseased tree and shrub species. Data was recorded during the September 9, 2006 within the Wetland 'A' buffer (Plots 21 and 22), and included replacement planting, for comparative purposes with previous monitoring years. In fall 2001, the wetland buffer adjacent to Wetland 'A' was planted and monitoring began. The Wetland 'A' buffer was replanted with supplemental plant species in the fall of 2004 and again in 2006. The supplemental plant species are to be monitored through 2009 successive growing seasons, this report represents the second growing season(2006)following planting. The overall target survival rate per year will be 80 percent of planted shrub and tree species, surviving from the previous year, as measured in representative plots. If it is determined that planted tree and shrub species are being replaced or out-competed by native wetland shrubs or trees that grow voluntarily, the success criteria will be met only if the number of volunteer and planted shrub and tree species in the mitigation area meets or exceeds the number of shrub and tree plants required in the area for that year. 2 10494.005.doc 4.0 METHODS Field monitoring and recording took place on September 9, 2006. During this time, the weather conditions were cool and rainy. Vegetation conditions were measured at two plots. Photographs were taken from two permanently marked locations. 4.1 Vegetation Sampling Tree and shrub vegetation was sampled in two plots (Figure 2). Appendix B presents data gathered for each of the plots. The location of each plot was chosen to reflect observed differences in plant communities and topography on the site. The corners of each of the plots were permanently marked with rebar posts hammered into the ground. The upper left rebar post of each plot was then tagged with a plot number. Figure 2 details the layout for the two plots within Wetland 'A' buffer. During baseline monitoring, the number of each species originally planted is noted and the number of species present during monitoring was counted and recorded for each plot. During subsequent years, the number of each species planted,the number of each species counted that year, and the percent cover of each species will be determined for each plot. Mortality, survival rate, and total cover will be calculated for the project as prescribed for the success criteria. The percent cover was recorded for each of these monitoring plots. Note that mitigation monitoring data collected during the first year monitoring is not available to Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc.,for inclusion in this report. 4.2 Permanent Photo Stations Two permanent photo stations were established at this site and are marked with rebar (Figures 2). Photographs taken from these photo stations are included in Appendix C of this report. Photographs from the second monitoring year to the current monitoring year are included for comparative purposes. Photographs of the baseline and first year monitoring event are not available to Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc., for inclusion in the report. 5.0 RESULTS This report is to be used primarily for comparative purposes and as a report outline for subsequent monitoring years. Data presented in Appendices B and C may be directly compared with data gathered during successive growing seasons. 5.1 Vegetation Sampling Appendix B presents data gathered for the shrub and tree species for each of the monitoring plots. The monitoring plots showed that salal and sword fern was not represented in the wetland buffer area. Further investigation indicated that salal and sword fern has not survived in the wetland buffer throughout the site. Wetland'A'buffer is annually maintained for control of non-native and invasive plant species as well as being periodically mown. 3 10494.005.doc In the fall of 2004, replacement plants were installed in the Wetland 'A' buffer due to a high overall mortality of trees and shrubs at the time of the 2003 monitoring event. In addition, soils in the entire planting area of the Wetland 'A' buffer were amended with 4 inches of vegetative compost/topsoil. In addition, 3-inch-deep mulch rings were placed around all of the planted trees and shrubs within the buffer with irrigation to be provided to help establish newly planted species. The September 2006 monitoring event showed a significant loss (mortality) of several species of trees and shrubs (Appendix B). Replacement plantings occurred and are presented in Table 1. TABLE 1 WETLAND 'A' BUFFER MITIGATION MONITORING SUMMARY Plot Average Percent Installed Average Percent Number Species Survival* Aerial Cover 21 100 50 22 100 60 Total 100 55 * Includes replacement plants. The Wetland 'A' Buffer is annually maintained, evidenced by mowing activities visible from Photo Stations 9 and 10. The mowing has restricted herbaceous growth; however, the mowing activities do not appear to have restricted growth of installed tree and shrub species. 5.2 Permanent Photo Stations The photographs taken during the 2006 monitoring clearly show dead and diseased trees and shrubs in the Wetland 'A' Buffer (Appendix C). Station locations are identified on Figure 2. The photographs taken from these photo stations are included in Appendix C of this report. 5.3 Habitat Conditions and Wildlife Use Habitat conditions are well developed within the created Wetland 'A' and its buffer along Springbrook Creek at this time. Songbirds were observed in the mitigation area. A Great Blue Heron and mallards were observed feeding in Springbrook Creek during monitoring. According to Larry Capellaro of the King County Drainage District, beaver were using this reach of Springbrook Creek. A beaver was trapped within this reach of Springbrook Creek on November 22, 2005,and relocated. The beaver felled several trees in the mitigation area. The removal of these trees did not negatively impact the overall survival rate of vegetation in the wetland mitigation project. Use of the created wetland by wildlife is not the focus of this monitoring program, but observations of species in this mitigation area will be included in subsequent reports. 4 10494.005.doc 6.0 CONCLUSIONS Overall, with the replacement plantings of Wetland 'A' buffer brought plant quantity to 100 percent. The City of Renton has mandated that monitoring of the buffer continue until 2009. The Wetland 'A' buffer was replanted with additional trees and shrubs in the fall of 2004 and again in 2006. Soils were amended, mulch rings were placed around the existing and planted species and irrigation will continue for at least 2 years. Results from the 2006 monitoring event indicate that the Wetland 'A' buffer has had a significant mortality, possibly due to the extended dry period. Some of the species of plants observed were prescribed in the initial wetland mitigation plan, and others have established on their own in this area. This natural invasion of native species is considered beneficial to the long-term stability of this wetland mitigation effort, since these species may display a particular propensity to thrive in the newly created environment. 7.0 CLOSURE The findings and conclusions documented in this report have been prepared for specific application to this site. They have been developed in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill normally exercised by members of the environmental science profession currently practicing under similar conditions in the area. Our work was also performed in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in our proposal. The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are professional opinions based on an interpretation of information currently available to us and are made within the operation scope, budget, and schedule of this project. No warranty,expressed or implied,is made. (21/ mes H. Carsner,PWS atural Resource Ecologist 5 10494.005.doc `,. 23 st 151STT ST / /,' \`.\ *'+-.,,__ 24 < �51T <'j St �. o +� . I52NOr$T !4 \°" \ llx¢�" ,, Cs.�� r. — FJ �..�..►/'� " ,l S 152No Pt Lc 'I 1 _.S ,$/r�" ' 't ..«//,;/-, ' 31 ST SW N �1 U ST „ �/ --�/ -- 1 1 df: r 'i t 04, t,: rc^ $167 ----TOW—Kt �' Ft-Li tam I `i j _ t W t� n1 ` i S r r � 1 ��� > I 4gpr TFR s CH '` !^ I .: I sw 19T1T ST + ' 7 toT 4 ❑ t M t 1# i 1 a FS Avrr4i 4jJ • U k'.1l/ PKWYY c • •DeASSr I-SUITE'S s irr i OCi� 4 '� �` '� O © '= 1' 4,1 6Prra i t } 1 !'� : f or, N • BAKER �� TUR�ILI I `� Ski 23RD 5T S 23/40 ` 5 QM • BLVO W :I i < 3 STA'10 j — r i PAL i I STRANDER ■ BLVD nrmrrt AE III + j E +� L'• .�. •CC _ NTON ST ; • W72, SOUTH( W + TREGK INO!/ N.`� T N ;;' E r PLAZA A , DR )__s� UN1C I 0 ��44 -C-A 2 Qll)rPTYAlTi+ fir' ! 1 iS BY NAIIRwOrT ,j / ,'�q • y; : . -..7?-..EL ., 1— ••,"''f l') FS {{: I. tx *MAW we ST :ae. 315T m CO RATE I 1 1 1 + IIIpI1 33t ST ' I Willa 4y1 u t I S _ 'I a STf 'Oil' ` >+ t CORPOTTA ! ` F ST ANTHfR o OR s.?Ef X i f 34TH ST S PARKWAY¢/ / -. Wi C }? Ji 961THsw I. JS.1 111"'""" } 3)7 3 St S PLAZA; { 1 - STT It— ( ; S �, 4 MI W : it , I Y RENTON I ,, :4, • , '1 t / ! MFTLANi15 _ 5Y 39�it1 ST Y � `DR 1SI / iPs . C t S ?_TRIC`AI�' pR' ? r __ Ski _- I i 415T §T S T7I �ti f t o i i 2 4. r _._. __,_._._._ I 2 { I S • PAVILION$ALL rrn��rr. "I x s ST f Z y ,$S 8TH x�1T =, < 43RD ISM . HST) -+s S 1 o Sl� ! ,ST : (SE 16OTH ST i g�` ,� „, , ' s/ m\ ~ RIVE S 0210 TIPB 0 / ra`'41 35 a) ti ST _ .. sT 11, 0H / a 1621H MI c' ` 1 181 184TFI Si y Iir,Lu am v) 1 BL /1 u�i 1 < !CC,pC S 184TH '< �� p � ' f � - any �� $?'� BEN Qfl47 S Cii` Z c S 186TH ST an JP E ': ARK QR E,- + .5 Lk" - ��._» }S--`-''_.186TH- ty Sid,l Oft.- ST S 186TH S 188TH ST S 18BTH 5T S 187TH SSTrx N. . $, r".. .,L - - 4 ST_ S 190TH SS' 190H� ST > "!T23N T22N D_ _ LZ _192 ST _ \s 792N)1I$T_ S 55TH T S 194TH t ST —1 r. ( S 194TH I, S 194TH ST aw Reference:Thomas Brothers Maps,2001 Job Number Scale: For: 10494 Horizontal' N.T.S. Vertical N/A OAKESDALE BUSINESS CAMPUS �G vs 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH R E N TO N WA 'Q" 'P, KENT, WA 98032 coo- z (425)251-6222 FIG. 1 n (425)251-8782 Title: o` �ii�►► • _ VICINITY MAP CIVD PNING, I DATE: 7-2002 fir/'ra■Na\M**. SURIVEYING,ENVIRONENGINEERING,MENTAL SERVICES P:110000s 1104941 exhibr f 110494-x 1.cdr N ,�I•N I • I m I Z I / 0 V I D IN jot° • • f • I I. • • • . s i zo • . 1Jz II Ii Ii Ii Ii No. Dote By Ckd. Appr. Revision I I Title: WETLAND 'A' BUFFER I I MONITORING LAYOUT . For: I I OAKESDALE BUSINESS CAMPUS RENTON, WA Job Number �&HAL, Scale: 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH Designed 10494 vir KENT, WA 98032 Drown ELR Horizontal (425)251-6222 a Checked TH 1"�100'± Sheet /� c1 7\t` o (425)251-8782 FAX FIG. 2 . Zvi �I ��� Approved Vertical V 5' CML ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING, G�r'NG ENG1N��� SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Dote 8/9/02 N/A of 'ilo• P•\ 1 nnnnc\ 1 nd0d\ovhihi+\ 1 fl 04._ ,v9 ruin Writ./T,,,•,A• nR/no/7nn9 1 1•5F cr.niA• 1=1 nn orn+ncconn Yrofc• APPENDIX A CITY OF RENTON LETTER (June 30, 2006) APPENDIX B MONITORING DATA SHEETS 2006 Monitoring Sheet Oakesdale Business Campus City of Renton File Number LUA98-021 Plot Number: 21 Date: 11/29/2005 Examiner: AGC Plot Size: 60' x 80' Wetland A Buffer Baseline Counted Counted Counted %Cover Counted Counted % Cover Species Planted Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 4 Year 5 (2006)* Year 5 (2001) (2002) (2003) (2004) (2004) (2005) Alnus rubra (volunteer) Acer macrophyllum 2 2 2 2 Trace 2 5(3) Trace Populus trichocarpa 1 Trace 1 Trace Pseudotsuga menziesii 5 5 5 1 5 1 6(5) 5 Fraxinus latifolia Populus tremuloides Acer circinatum 2 Trace 2 5(3) Trace Thuja plicata 4 4 4 2 5 2 7(6) 5 Salix lasiandra Salix sitchensis Lonicera involucrata Vaccinium ovatum Oemleria cerasiformis (1) Trace Arctostaphvlos uva-ursi Physocarpus capitatus 5 5 5 5 5 Holodiscus discolor (2) Trace Ribes sanguineum Cornus stolonifera 9 9 9 9 20 9 10(1) 25 Gaultheria shallon Symphoricarpus albus 6 6 5 2 5 2 2 5 Rosa gymnocarpa or nutkana 8 Trace 8 12(4) 5 Polystichum munitum Total: 26 26 25 32 40 32 55 50 NOTES: * the first number is the number counted and includes the replacement quantity (in brackets). Replacement plants were installed in September 2006. Percent plant species survival from Year 6, including replacements is 100+%. BCE File No. 10494 2006 Monitoring Sheet Oakesdale Business Campus City of Renton File Number LUA98-021 Plot Number: 22 Date: 11/29/2005 Examiner: AGC Plot Size: 60' x 80' Wetland A Buffer Baseline Counted Counted Counted %Cover Counted Species Planted Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 4 Year 5 Counted % Cover (2001) (2002) (2003) (2004) (2004) (2005) (2006)* Year 5 Alnus rubra (volunteer) Acer macrophyllum 2 2 2 3 Trace 3 3 Trace Populus trichocarpa 3 Trace 3 3 Trace Pseudotsuga menziesii 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 10 Fraxinus latifolia Populus tremuloides Acer circinatum 3 Trace 3 3 5 Thuja plicata 2 2 2 2 Trace 2 2 5 Salix lasiandra Salix sitchensis Lonicera involucrata Vaccinium ovatum Oemleria cerasiformis 2 Trace 2 2 Trace Arctostaphylos uva-ursi Physocarpus capitatus 6 6 3 8 10 8 8 10 Nolodiscus discolor 6 6 3 0 0 0 0 0 Ribes sanguineum Cornus stolonifera 6 6 6 11 20 11 11 20 Gaultheria shallon Symphoricarpus albus 5 5 5 4 5 4 4 5 Rosa gymnocarpa or nutkana 9 5 9 9 5 Polystichum munitum Total: 31 31 25 50 45 50 50 60 NOTES: 10 percent cover increase since Year 4. Percent plant species survival from Year 5 is 100%. APPENDIX C PHOTOGRAPHS i .;,h, .. to,e- I•~r a y,.Fly r,, p.- Photo 1: Photo Station 9 view southwest toward Plot 21,year 4. bf. s },bey R 3 -• �; r � i r h .,.f + f Li' «'�*,;� '',.4,, yam`,. f!cf R i '` ./J ,`)• .'"4: ;y �„-• - 1--. % . ,4 •'' R 4,1 N , _ _ `Y r; ' ris , ', ok.: ., „it.-;,...---.:,,, * w'9ir4 s .V .yy.� ,,..;44 tic.. .. �~'-' } •. .+..,ti I it .its.,‘ V Photo 2: Photo Stationn 9 view southwest toward Plot 21,year 5. GNAV m .I►i s PHOTOGRA s PHS 1 ? • 4 p t3 'Q RN60' ,s Y d 2 1 k 5 y':1 ' N., '' J V F / Q t' is Y y. . 11'1. fir" i ✓ Y T #yr\ J V. oi ter/ A tX` Photo 3: Photo Stationn 9 view southwest toward Plot 21,year 6. ; s. ii-f.. . •i/ ,, { • 12• '�T " td ! ``/1 4:,,,,:-'3;`' ' ay `�� '. !•ELT !l':. ' 1 '.e: • w t 'S F,Z - tiy* ' S ..fit . _. -V i► ._ • , • „...,..,„ .. . .,;.„,:...,...7., ?,,;.,.. . 4 • Photo 4: Looking southwest toward Plot 21,following plant replacement fall 2006. oriAV l4 Ert,$'0 PHOTOGRA PHS 1• <44 <rthm tHGT044. I , yf. . tte 1LM 4,.�a 4,'�!' ,�* - .'. ,..; . .. 4 y' , 1 '� , . .z.,. f r Photo 5: Looking southward toward Plot 21 following fall 2006 plant replacement. .4,� .. y j= .. 41 . a . a♦Y . I I~ 4 y`.y ♦=4., 'i 'l•.F� j L.a y , i a Photo 6: Photo Stationn 10 view southwest toward Plot 22,year 4. c,HAL q V►►i00 PHOTOGRA PHS o t,,pa LN6�Ns`� ,. N }. f F' , tSG O` .' _If.. k Y s; W 2 Photo 7: Photo Stationn 10 view southwest toward Plot 22,year 5. s " k 4 i $• ; . • E' � ttt ry .fit , .. '. `y.. - Photo 8: Photo Stationn 10 view southwest toward Plot 22,year 6. coNAL aT4t1:4�►►i�i PHOTOGRA o PHS 42.*4*41 aNa3044r }44 ;:fir. ` ,s 1`I �`• .> � , y a ) ' r� • M, 4. 4 P • .1416 y �� , i' ti y ��lt 1" t - 4 , - - .:.,_ -.I .--- 41 . • �� , } .. ....�,s-,, . ,,. . , EL'-""" .. ... Photo 9: Looking northwest toward Plot 22,following plant replacement fall 2006. , P"'s11 • 3y Y s • . 3, { 3 . • M � 44044, _.4.0r lrk.s.. s + Photo 10: Looking northwesterly toward Plot 22,following plant replacement fall 2006. 6,HAV v►►isx PHOTOGRA s107- o PHS s• t Sr1NG,rH460*4. LU 9430� � C4HTM 0 4k CIVIL ENGINEERING,LAND PLANNING,SURVEYING,ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES mQ' ;', wo Ir'1l,Jl iLlVI[_L r o "..G i 2 Zia 4,. January 10,2007 ENG 14,- E-mail: jshearer@kginvestment.com Josh Shearer KG Investment Management,LLC 249 SW 41st Street Renton,WA 98057 RE: Scope of Work for Mitigation Monitoring Services Oakesdale Commerce Park,LLC Renton,Washington Dear Chuck: Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc., is pleased to submit this scope of services and cost estimate for environmental services supporting Oakesdale Commerce Park, LLC. This scope of services and cost estimate is for mitigation monitoring of the Wetland A buffer only. As outlined in a letter from the City of Renton dated December 30,2005,the mitigation area along Springbrook Creek has been released from regulatory review by the City of Renton and will no longer require monitoring. The City of Renton has required annual monitoring of the Wetland A buffer to continue until December 2009. The following scope of work and cost estimates are proposed: 1. Semi-Annual Monitoring and Memorandum: The mitigation project will be monitored at the beginning(March or April) of the growing season and mid-growing season(June or July) for evaluation of compliance of the mitigation site, including development of the plants toward meeting the mitigation goals and percent aerial cover of non-native, invasive plant species present. If the percent aerial cover of non-native, invasive plant species is in excess of 10 percent aerial cover, we will inform you for coordination of maintenance by a landscape contractor. At the time of the site visit, Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc., will identify potential correction measures needed to ensure the mitigation performance standards and success criteria for Wetland A buffer mitigation area are being met. Semi-annual monitoring will occur for 2007,2008,and 2009. Fee: Hourly Rate Basis(Per Current Fee Schedule— Not to Exceed$600 Per Monitoring Event) 2. Long-Term Mitigation Monitoring: The mitigation site will be monitored at the end of the growing season (August or September)of 2007, 2008, and 2009. A report documenting our findings will be prepared for the City of Renton following the fall monitoring event. The estimated cost for each year of monitoring is $3,000,for a total of approximately$9,000 for long-term mitigation monitoring. Fee: Hourly Rate Basis(Per Current Fee Schedule— Not to Exceed$3,000 Per Year) 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT,WA 98032 (425)251-6222 (425)251-8782 FAX BRANCH OFFICES • OLYMPIA,WA ♦ TACOMA,WA • SACRAMENTO,CA • TEMECULA,CA www.barghausen.com Josh Shearer -2- January 10,2007 3. Coordination and Meetings: Once the reports are submitted to the City of Renton, if any interaction with you and the City of Renton, or the project landscape contractor is required after a report is submitted, you will be informed and the time expended will be placed under this task. At this time, it is difficult to estimate the time that may be expended for this task; therefore, you will be notified on a monthly basis of the time and costs. We will not exceed the estimate without acquiring approval. Fee: Hourly Rate Basis(Per Current Fee Schedule— Estimated: $500) 4. Reimbursable Expenses. All reimbursable expenses will be in addition to the proposed contract fees and will be itemized each month and billed as outlined on our Standard Invoicing Procedures Fee Schedule. Administrative support services are billed on an hourly rate basis according to the attached fee schedule. We consider computer administration services to be a reimbursable expense for the purpose of this contract and will charge a fee equal to three percent(3%)of our professional fees. Fee: Per Fee Schedule If this proposal is acceptable to you, please acknowledge acceptance of the terms and conditions of this contract by signing the enclosed copy of this letter and the enclosed Standard Provisions and Agreement and Contract Addendum in the appropriate spaces, and return them to our office. Please be sure that each page of the Standard Provisions and Agreement and Contract Addendum is signed and initialed where required. • If you have any questions or would like to discuss this proposal in further detail, please feel free to contact me. This proposal will be valid if executed within 90 days of the date of this letter. We appreciate the opportunity to provide our services to your company and look forward to working with you on this project. Visit our web site at www.barghausen.com to learn more about our company and to see what other services we have to offer. Sincerely, James H.Carsner,PWS Natural Resource Ecologist JHC:/dm g5.037.doc enc. Standard Provisions and Agreement Standard Invoicing Procedures/Contract Addendum cc: BCE/Proposal X Signature Date Project Name: Oakesdale Commercial Park, I Date: Project Number: LUA98-021 FG Number: Location: northwest of intersection of SW 43rd St. and Oadesdale Ave SW Contact Name: Jim Carsner Address: 18215 72nd S, Kent, WA 98032 Note: All plants and erosion control measures are in place. ,::.... • . .• ... .,_ -,..: OTHER COSTS TMRO JGHOUT i MO �' �N' VE }�i ` . ` . .. .... '1`. Type: • • • nit Price Unit QtyITIMIMPORY,Wgraititialtapag. f. 7 Inspection, annual $ 460.00 EACH 3 $ 1,380.00 Inspection, final $ 575.00 EACH 1 $ 575.00 { Maintenance, semi-annual $ - Maintenance, annual (irrigation) $ 1,600.00 annual ~� 3 $ 4,800.00 Monitoring, annual $ 3,600.00 annual 3 $ 10,800.00 Watering, 1" of water, 50' soaker hose $ 3.62 MSF $ - NOTE: All plant prices are from Storm Lake Growers, Wabash Natives, Fourth Corner, and Sound Native Plants (containers); and from Frosty Hollow and Abundant Life (seeds). SUBTOTAL (SUM ALL PAGES): $ 17,555.00 30% CONTINGENCY & MOBILIZATION: $ 5,266.50 TOTAL: $ 22,821.50 { bond worksheet - 2007.xls Sensitive Areas Bond Quantity Worksheet Page 1 1/10/2007 Gn (VY � CITI 3F RENTON ♦ 4 ♦ Planning/Building/PublicWorks Department Kathy Keolker,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator January 5,2007 Chuck Wagman Zelman Renton LLC 14900 Interurban Avenue,S. Suite 210, Tukwila,WA-98168 Subject: Request for l -Annual Wetland Maintenance and Monitoring Report • Oakesdale Business Campus City of Renton File LTJA98-021 Dear Mr.Wagman:. This letter is to inform you that the 1st annual,maintenation and monitoring report for Wetland A at the Oakesdale Business Campus was due to;the City of Renton on December 5, 2006. :Please submit the required report to my attention within 30 days of the bate on this-letter.; .If you have any questions,please feel free to contact me(425)430-7289- • Si /.ly, Andrea Petzel,Planner Development Services Di%'siom cc: , kity of Renton:File LUA 98-021 Jennifer Henning,Current Planning Manager'<, 1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98055 RENTON t�^• __ . _ . AHEAD OF THE CURVE © CITI OF RENTON Planning/Building/PublicWorks Department K y Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator December 30,2005 Charles E. Poe Poe Construction Inc. PO Box 899 Auburn,WA 98071 Subject: Oakesdale Business Campus Wetland Monitoring LUA#98-021 Dear Mr.Poe: The City of Renton has received and evaluated the sixth year wetland monitoring report dated December 5,2005 for the Oakesdale Business Campus. The purpose of this letter is to inform you of the City's findings regarding the wetland mitigation project for the Oakesdale Buiness Campus and SAFECO bond#6054474. The report has indicated one year of successful growth for"Wetland A"located in the northwest portion of the site. Renton Municipal Code 4-8-120D23 mandates a minimum of five years of successful wetland mitigation and monitoring. The wetland does not yet meet City requirements for release of your bond. When your wetland mitigation project has been successfully installed and established according to your approved mitigation plan for a period of five consecutive years you will be eligible for a release of your bond. The earliest eligible release date would be December of 2009. Due to the success of the wetland mitigation area along the Springbrook Creek,the City of Renton will no longer require submission of monitoring reports for this area. However,for"Wetland A",the City of Renton requires annual wetland monitoring reports to be submitted until the wetland has been successful for a minimum of 5 years. Please send future reports to the attention of Laureen Nicolay If you have any questions regarding this letter,please feel free to contact Laureen at(425)430-7294 We look forward to receiving your next annual report for"Wetland A". Sincerely, -Dustin D.Walton Code Compliance cc: Andrea Gates Sheree L.Pendergrass Barghausen Consulting Engineers,Inc. SAFECO 18215 72nd Ave S Millennium Corporate Park Bldg. C Kent, WA 98032 18400 NE Union Hill Road Redmond,WA 98052 1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98055 R. E 1 V T 0 N � AHEAD OF THE CURVE ., This paper contains 50%recycled material,30%post consumer -£21 -° ‘ uit SIXTH YEAR WETLAND MONITORING REPORT DEve`noF ra iNia Oakesdale Business Campus N DEC _ Renton, Washington 72005 REcEJVED Prepared for: JSH Properties, Inc. 14900 Interurban Avenue South, Suite 210 Tukwila, WA 98168 December 5, 2005 Our Job No. 10494 mom 4'Gt4Av 411 CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING, SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES z 18215 72NDAVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (425) 251-6222 (425) 251-8782 FAX J ? BRANCH OFFICES • OLYMPIA, WA • TEMECULA, CA • WALNUT CREEK, CA www.barghausen.com TANG G\NE�- TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 1 3.0 ANNUAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS 2 4.0 METHODS 3 4.1 Vegetation Sampling 3 4.2 Hydrology 3 4.3 Permanent Photo Stations 3 5.0 RESULTS 4 5.1 Vegetation Sampling 4 5.2 Hydrology 5 5.3 Permanent Photo Stations 5 5.4 Habitat Conditions and Wildlife Use 6 6.0 CONCLUSIONS 6 7.0 CLOSURE 6 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1 Vicinity Map FIGURE 2 Springbrook Creek Wetland and Buffer Mitigation Monitoring Plan FIGURE 3 Wetland A Buffer Mitigation Monitoring Plan LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1 Hydrologic Data TABLE 2 Springbrook Creek Mitigation Monitoring Summary TABLE 3 Wetland A Buffer Mitigation Monitoring Summary LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX A Monitoring Data Sheets APPENDIX B Photographs 10494.004.doc 1.0 INTRODUCTION We have completed the sixth year monitoring at the Oakesdale Business Campus located in the Northwest, quadrant of the intersection of S.W. 43rd Street and Oakesdale Avenue S.W. in Renton, Washington (Figure 1). This report presents the results of the sixth year conditions along Springbrook Creek and observed compliance with agreed performance standards for this wetland mitigation project. Construction of the wetland mitigation portion of this project began July 16, 1999, and fmal planting along Springbrook Creek was completed on October 18, 1999. Twelve of the logs placed below the ordinary high water mark but above the summer water levels in the stream have been moved into the water. Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife and the King County Drainage District staked the logs to be moved and where they were to be moved. Approximately 27,911 square feet of wetland has been created along Springbrook Creek, 17,600 square feet along a 10-foot-wide bench and 10,311 square feet in two wetland mitigation areas adjacent to the bench. The area along Springbrook Creek was cleared after placement of a silt fence along the ordinary high water mark of the creek. Some trees were retained along the ordinary high water mark between 150 and 350 feet down the creek. The bench and two mitigation areas were excavated. The log and root wad habitat features were placed, the entire area was planted with shrub, tree vegetation as indicated on the plans, and the area was seeded. In fall 2001, the wetland buffer adjacent to Wetland A was planted and monitoring began. The Wetland A buffer was replanted with supplemental plant species in the fall of 2004. Soils were amended, mulch rings were placed around the existing and planted species and irrigation will continue for at least 2 years. In addition, the Wetland A buffer will continue to be monitored for at least 2 years (2005 and 2006) or until the performance standard for Year 5 (80 percent areal cover of self-sustaining, non-invasive species) is met. This report documents additional planting in the Wetland A buffer that were planted in the fall of 2004 and are to be monitored through the fall of 2006. 2.0 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The overall goal of this wetland mitigation project is to create 27,911 square feet of wetland and associated buffer that will transition over time to a multi-story forested, shrub-scrub, and emergent plant community. To achieve this goal for the mitigation site, monitoring is being conducted for: 1. Survival of tree and shrub plantings. 2. Cover of emergent plant species in the seeded wetland area. 3. Inundation or saturation of the soils achieved during final grading. Monitoring was completed in December of 2005 using the methods described in Section 4.0 of this report and includes: 1. Establishment of permanent vegetation plots to monitor survival, changes in plant species composition, percent cover by species over time, and hydrologic conditions. Tree and shrub density will be evaluated using plots that were established within the wetland mitigation areas, the bench, and the buffer slopes. Plot sizes were determined by establishing a goal of sampling 10 percent of the mitigation area. Plot locations were established in the field at the time of baseline/as-built mitigation monitoring and located to reflect differences in hydrologic regime, plant distribution, and overall mitigation area conditions. 1 10494.004.doc 2. Establishment of photo stations to collect a sequence of photographs. These photographs will be used to evaluate vegetation community response over time. 3. Measurement of water levels in the early and late growing seasons to determine if inundation is present at the permanent sampling plots. If the area is not inundated, an auger hole will be dug to determine if water or saturated soils are near the surface. 4. Observation of the wetland mitigation area for excessive erosion, scour, or sedimentation that may affect the health and/or diversity of the overall wetland mitigation area. 5. Observation and reporting of wildlife use in the wetland mitigation area. 3.0 ANNUAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS The 5-year monitoring program prescribed for this wetland mitigation project included two site visits in the first year and one visit in each of the following years. Performance standards provide measurements to gage the progress of the project periodically,and to identify remedial actions necessary to meet the final success criteria. For this mitigation project, we propose to use the health of vegetation and the presence of water to gage the progress of the project. The planted wetland and buffer species will be monitored for vigor and survival. The overall target survival rate per year will be 80 percent of planted shrub and tree species, surviving from the previous year, as measured in representative plots. If it is determined that planted tree and shrub species are being replaced or out-competed by native wetland shrubs or trees that grow voluntarily, the success criteria will be met only if the number of volunteer and planted shrub and tree species in the mitigation area meets or exceed the number of shrub and tree plants required in the area for that year. The wetland area must contain inundated or saturated soils during a portion of the growing season. If these performance standards are not met, the cause of the failure to meet the performance standard will be evaluated and action will be taken to rectify the problem until the objectives are achieved. An annual breakdown of the performance standards for the project includes: • Year 1 —80 percent survival of planted species • Year 2—80 percent survival of species that survived the first year • Year 3—80 percent survival of species that survived the second year • Year 4—80 percent survival of species that survived the third year • Year 5—80 percent areal cover of self-sustaining,non-invasive wetland species At the time of the fifth year (2004) monitoring event, the overall plant cover along Springbrook Creek in the wetlands, bench, and buffer was determined to be greater than 80 percent and the creek portion of the mitigation site was deemed to meet the annual success criteria for all monitoring years, and met the final criteria for Year 5. Data was recorded in 2005 within the Springbrook Creek wetlands, bench, and buffer (Plots 1 through 20) for comparative purposes with previous monitoring years. In fall 2001, the wetland buffer adjacent to Wetland A was planted and monitoring began. The Wetland A buffer was replanted with supplemental plant species in the fall of 2004. The supplemental plant species are to be monitored for two successive growing seasons, this report represents the first growing season(2005)following planting. The overall target survival rate per year will be 80 percent of planted shrub and tree species, surviving from the previous year, as measured in representative plots. If it is determined that planted tree and shrub species are being 2 10494.004.doc replaced or out-competed by native wetland shrubs or trees that grow voluntarily, the success criteria will be met only if the number of volunteer and planted shrub and tree species in the mitigation area meets or exceeds the number of shrub and tree plants required in the area for that year. 4.0 METHODS Field monitoring and recording took place on November 29, 2005. During this time, the weather conditions were cool and rainy. Vegetation and hydrologic conditions were measured in 22 plots. Photographs were taken from ten permanently marked locations. 4.1 Vegetation Sampling Tree and shrub vegetation was sampled in 22 plots. Appendix A presents data gathered for each of the plots. Six of the plots were within the wetland, five were on the bench, nine were on the wetland buffer slopes, and two were in the Wetland A buffer. Due to the density of the tree and shrub layer monitoring of herbaceous vegetation was discontinued in 2003. The location of each plot was chosen to reflect observed differences in plant communities and topography on the site. The corners of each of the plots were permanently marked with rebar posts hammered into the ground. The upper left rebar post of each plot was then tagged with a plot number. Figure 2 details the layout for the 22 plots. During baseline monitoring, the number of each species originally planted is noted and the number of species present during monitoring was counted and recorded for each plot. During subsequent years, the number of each species planted, the number of each species counted that year, and the percent cover of each species will be determined for each plot. Mortality, survival rate,and total cover will be calculated for the project as prescribed for the success criteria. The percent cover was recorded for each of these monitoring plots. Note that mitigation monitoring data collected during the first year monitoring is not available to Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc., for inclusion in this report. The location of monitoring plots 17 and 20 was field approximated due to missing rebar plot corner posts; however, areas adequately representing the plant community to be sampled were selected. 4.2 Hydrology Water level readings were taken in the upper left corner of each of the wetland and bench plots identified on Figure 2. If the area was not inundated, an auger hole was dug to determine if water or saturated soils were near the surface. Table 1 represents the hydrologic data gathered at each of the plots. 4.3 Permanent Photo Stations Ten permanent photo stations were established at this site and are marked with rebar (Figures 2 and 3). The photo stations include views up and down Springbrook Creek and at representative plots. Photographs taken from these photo stations are included in Appendix B of this report. Photographs from the second monitoring year to the current monitoring year are included for comparative purposes. Photographs of the baseline and first year monitoring event are not available to Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc., for inclusion in the report. 3 10494.004.doc 5.0 RESULTS This report is to be used primarily for comparative purposes and as a report outline for subsequent monitoring years. Data presented in Appendices A and B may be directly compared with data gathered during successive growing seasons. 5.1 Vegetation Sampling Appendix A presents data gathered for the shrub and tree species for each of the monitoring plots. The monitoring plots showed that salal and sword fern was not represented in the wetland buffer area. Further investigation indicated that salal and sword fern has not survived in the wetland buffer throughout the site. The buffer of Springbrook Creek is annually maintained of non-native, invasive plant species and low growing vegetative species, evidenced by mowing activities. Data gathered in the sixth year study indicates that the planted vegetation along Springbrook Creek is surviving quite well and more than meets the 80 percent survival for the fifth year. Red Alder (Alnus rubra) and Cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) were observed as volunteer species within several of the plots as were volunteers of planted species including willow and aspen. Overall, the plots along the stream corridor had 100 percent aerial cover of trees and shrubs. TABLE 2 SPRINGBROOK CREEK MITIGATION MONITORING SUMMARY Average Percent Installed and Average Percent Plot Number Volunteer Species Survival Aerial Cover 1 73 85 2 100 156 3 100 160 4 100 100 5 100 90 6 75 100 7 100 125 8 73 90 9 100 145 10* 25 15 11 100 136 12 100 150 13 100 135 14 75 60 15 100 136 16 60 45 17 100 90 18 69 115 19* 45 70 Total 84 105 A decrease in plant survival was noted in monitoring plots 10 and 19 due to recent beaver activity. According to the King County Drainage District representative on-site at the time of monitoring, a beaver was trapped and relocated on November 22, 2005, from the reach of Springbrook Creek included in the mitigation monitoring. 4 10494.004.doc Monitoring of the herbaceous plots was discontinued in Year 4 due to a dense, well-developed overstory. Reed Canarygrass is not present within the actual project site. It is present along the lower banks of Springbrook Creek as it was at the beginning of the project. In the fall of 2004, replacement plants were installed in the Wetland A buffer due to a high overall mortality of trees and shrubs at the time of the 2003 monitoring event. In addition, soils in the entire planting area of the Wetland A buffer were amended with 4 inches of vegetative compost/topsoil, 3-inch-deep mulch rings were placed around all of the vegetation in the Wetland A buffer (newly planted and existing vegetation), and the Wetland A buffer is to be irrigated for another year until the new vegetation is established. Monitoring of the Wetland A buffer will continue through 2006. TABLE 3 WETLAND A BUFFER MITIGATION MONITORING SUMMARY Plot Average Percent Installed Average Percent Number Species Survival Aerial Cover 20 100 60 21 100 47 Total 100 54 The Wetland A Buffer is annually maintained, evidenced by mowing activities visible from Photo Stations 19 and 20. The mowing has restricted herbaceous growth; however, the mowing activities do not appear to have restricted growth of installed tree and shrub species. 5.2 Hydrology The created wetland system was designed to have the bench and wetland areas inundated during flood events and the site soils saturated for at least the first 3 to 4 months of the growing season (March, April, May and possibly June). The water depth and the degree of fluctuation throughout the year will dictate the survival rate of the planted species and the nature of any volunteer species that take root in the wetland. During the November 29, 2005, monitoring, water levels within the wetland and bench varied from 1 to 10 inches below the surface (Table 2). Soils were saturated but not inundated in most of the wetland areas. Plots 3, 12, 13, and 15 contained inundation that was 1 inch deep during the November 2005 site visit. 5.3 Permanent Photo Stations The 10 photographs taken during the Year 6 monitoring clearly show the completed wetland through systematically selected stations. The 10 photographs taken during the sixth year of monitoring showed healthy growth of the planted species along Springbrook Creek and replanted vegetation in the Wetland A Buffer. Station locations are identified on Figure 2. The photographs taken from these photo stations are included in Appendix B of this report. 5 10494.004.doc 5.4 Habitat Conditions and Wildlife Use Habitat conditions are well developed within the created wetland and its buffer along Springbrook Creek at this time. Songbirds were observed in the mitigation area. A Great Blue Heron and mallards were observed feeding in Springbrook Creek during monitoring. According to Larry Capellaro of the King County Drainage District, beaver were using this reach of Springbrook Creek. A beaver was trapped within this reach of Springbrook Creek on November 22, 2005,and relocated. The beaver felled several trees in the mitigation area. The removal of these trees did not negatively impact the overall survival rate of vegetation in the wetland mitigation project. Use of the created wetland by wildlife is not the focus of this monitoring program, but observations of species in this mitigation area will be included in subsequent reports. 6.0 CONCLUSIONS Overall, the wetland and bench areas along Springbrook Creek presently display wetland conditions. Sufficient surface saturation is promoting the dominance of hydrophytic vegetation. The overall plant cover along Springbrook Creek in the wetlands, bench, and buffer is greater than 80 percent and the creek portion of the mitigation site has met the annual success criteria for all monitoring years. It is our recommendation to discontinue monitoring the areas along Springbrook Creek; upon notification in writing that this portion of the project is released from regulatory purview, monitoring of this area will be discontinued. Although there has been recent mortality from beaver activity, the local drainage district has been and will continue to monitor activity of this reach of Springbrook Creek for beaver activity and associated felling of trees within the stream. The Wetland A buffer was replanted with additional trees and shrubs in the fall of 2004. Soils were amended, mulch rings were placed around the existing and planted species and irrigation will continue for at least 2 years. Results from the 2005 monitoring event indicate that the Wetland A buffer has had a low mortality of the planted species. The Wetland A buffer will continue to be monitored until the performance standard for Year 5 (80 percent areal cover of self-sustaining,non-invasive species)is met. Some of the species of plants observed were prescribed in the initial wetland mitigation plan, and others have established on their own in this area. This natural invasion of native species is considered beneficial to the long-term stability of this wetland mitigation effort, since these species may display a particular propensity to thrive in the newly created environment. 7.0 CLOSURE The findings and conclusions documented in this report have been prepared for specific application to this site. They have been developed in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill normally exercised by members of the environmental science profession currently practicing under similar conditions in the area. Our work was also performed in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in our proposal. The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are professional opinions based on an interpretation of information currently available to us and are made within the operation scope, budget, and schedule of this project. No warranty,expressed or implied,is made. Andrea C.Gates Wetland Ecologis 6 10494.004.doc NED I ,,at4 0' 5 INN i�"� - z `sr '1 .71 Y Iw f I I T. ,W r 16T11 SW a .. Si 16TH ST S Ilc -: c$ . gl9 S C so„„. r1K. _ _%� c e� r, `,17rrt{iJ NT : I - 19TH ST -C/ }�L r FS 5 1 ` lm k�,,7,c p KW( wr, I 4 P Y(3 7£Cr 7.172 .• Y Nr u c ,„,..1,,---„, RhV CC \D h SW c 3RD Si S 1 F.D ;I . •_ 'r- I rU ILA I k k t 1" ! , ` BLVD r_ -,'STA ION } - j __ ,.. _.. s - - —_ _...__._7 _7 - _ �. ;TIZ t10(R R BLVD ,. .. • `z_ a f a CC } Sp CT1 NTON 127j„ R.CK_-i1"1/4' RENttIN 1f T•LA i '-F: \ l AN T I ON 29TH ST1 ' ,' , RENTON - 3i+ _ ,,o z --_.._ - , ` , WETLANDS *r S ^ SW 30ST . LI z CORPORA if c = i w 1 J. CDF,POR47[L s tTh T r'ANTNF.R o DR ' - _,rdlNr. > - BL1'i' s a • w-' - '1A nr Si VPIAR, m Syy z ' Cnffky N 1$,N sr' 71. 'L 7 h : I Li RENTON so l ! S rH NIDLA..hf .I - " c, f - -o" rh'I JAL` e< -�t iajti til NrIL'7!?r i .. 7c ' i .1 ' ,15A* DR. ! 1 II L LA - -„ ., , , . . ,,„ _i ,, , TRIM'ND DR! 7 ? 11 sT - ^ , l S • PAVILION Mall — :rats, • C z cra j I� - W 4.R1`< STI =t SW � ¢ rJsS -I:, grH �43RD S 4,iRD F sT 1 OT ! =ST sr 1sar1! sr) Ise MOTH str ; Sr 0;0 ^' i - , sPRrNG8R0ox "' 81732,. _i_ j_, nn GREENBELT a 77 1 Els' t , 1 1 -,1: �, �; c S • 182N0 ST ti VJ LI i `rr '' _. . u (''ate > 181 S-- 184TH ST , TDDO •c _ .o CC 1,ri A. $184THfe "BLV ��' ` CC tc 7 k E 4.1 lENT{Q -. `ti/se- h P4 \0/ S 186T11 Sl , t: I JQ" �' PARK p(p L-. - -, r S(GUPt•1CR. -- `� 7 S 186Tt+ PL'�- - t 5 I -:'r. ST 188TH ST !5 team cI _ S 1R'TH , S 188TH ST S Si 6Pr ��' 5�P4RK � {- - - 1 T r� F — r ]90TH ST i 'rn ;T CT. S 1 ( ,I I Fr . I co r23N ' s �_�� _ 192NC. )42HC _ , C T S 557H / v - r22N . S1 .aWW ,,-, >_/ ..- S 194TT1 - _.1 z i i. 19 TH`*, S 194TH S1 I ._4 jI 0 Q : (11.FNI14NP Reference:Thomas Brothers Maps,2001 Job Number Scale: For: Horizontal: N.T.S. Vertical: N/A 10494 OAKESDALE BUSINESS CAMPUS eHA`s 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH RENTON, WA it, WI F KENT, WA 98032 FIG m` _ b Z (425)251-6222 o • 3 (425)251-8782 Title: i. •<, 4 LO 4, CIVIL ENGINEERING,LAND PLANNING, VICINITY MAP DATE: 7-2002 rr4'c IN6`NE6 SURVEYING,ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES P:110000s1104941exhibit110494-x 1.cdr IV s 4 ' ________y w s s H v• o ri Z Z O Z l C.1 41 No. 1 -.Date 1 By 1 Ckd. I Appr. Revision \.. Title: MONITORING LAYOUT JULY 2002 \. For: OAKESDALE BUSINESS CAMPUS RENTON, WA Job Number �GI'1qu0 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH Designed Seale: 10494 KENT, WA 98032 Drown FIR • �,- �,4� ' ?'(425)251-6222 Horizontal Sheet --r (425)251-8782 FAX Checked TH 1'-1oo'f U i. ? Approved Vertical FIG. 2 G` /"GENG\N�(,� PLANNING. SURVEYING, ENVI ONMENTALERVICES Date 8/9/02 N/A 11)OD File: P:f10000s�10494\exhibit\10494—wxl.dwg Date/Time: 08/09/2002 11:08 Scale: 1=100 eratossepp Xrefs: . — . I \ •IV • I r CD z I D I I No. Date By Ckd. Appr. Revision I I Title: WETLAND 'A' BUFFER I I MONITORING LAYOUT For: I OAKESDALE BUSINESS CAMPUS REN TON, WA Job Number ,,s_GN w U� Designed die. �'1 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH 10494 KENT, WA 98032 Drawn ELR Horizontal - 1' (425)'251-6222 � (425)251-8782 FAX Checked TM t'-t�'t Sheet n � s / • Approved Vertical FIG 3 �'• CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING, G� iro �N � SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Date 8/9/02 N/A G ENG P:�10000s�10494\exhibit\10494—wx2.dwg Date/Time: 08/09/2002 11:08 Scale: 1=100 eratassepp Xrefs: TABLE 1 HYDROLOGIC DATA YEAR 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 . Five Slope 1" S 1" I Slope 10" S Slope 10" S Slope 10" S Slope 1" S 1" I 1" I Slope 1" I Slope 10" S Slope 10" S Four Slope 11" S 1" S Slope 10" S Slope 12" S Slope 11" S Slope 1" S 1" I 1" I Slope 4" S Slope 10" S Slope 9" S Three Slope 10" S 1" S Slope 8" S Slope 10" S Slope 10" S Slope 1" S 1" S 1" S Slope 3" S Slope 8" S Slope 6" S Two Slope 8" S 2" I Slope 6" S Slope 8" S Slope 8" S Slope 2" I 3" I 2" I Slope 1" S Slope 4" S Slope 4" S One Slope 10" S 2" I Slope 8" S Slope 9" S Slope 10" S Slope 2" I 1" I 1" I Slope 1" S Slope 6" S Slope 10" S - Baseline Slope 1" S 1" I Slope 6" S Slope 8" S Slope 6" S Slope 1" I 2" I 2" I Slope 1" I Slope 2" S Slope 8" S I. Note: S=saturated below ground surface I =inundated Slope=no data gathered within buffer APPENDIX A MONITORING DATA SHEETS t r 2006 Monitoring Sheet Oakesdale Business Campus City of Renton File Number LUA98-021 Plot Number: 1 slope Date: 11/29/2005 Examiner: ACG Plot Size: 20' x 30' Baseline Counted Counted Counted %Cover Counted Planted Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 °AI Cover Species (1999) (2001) (2002) (2003) (2004) (2005) Year 6 Alnus rubra (volunteer) 1 5 Acer macrophyllum Populus trichocarpa 1 1 1 1 10 I 20 Pseudotsuga menziesii 2 2 2 2 30 2 35 Fraxinus latifolia Populus tremuloides Acer circinatum Thuja plicata Salix lasiandra Salix sitchensis 2 15 Lonicera involucrata Vaccinium ovatum Oemleria cerasiformis Arctostaphylos uva-ursi Physocarpus capitatus Holodiscus discolor 9 6 6 6 30 6 30 Ribes sanguineum 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 Cornus stolonifera Gaultheria shallon 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Symphoricarpus albus Polystichum munitum Total: 15 11 11 11 70 8 85 NOTES: 15 percent cover increase since Year 5. Percent plant species survival from Year 5 is 73%. BCE Job No. 10494 NOTE: Data from Year 1 not available to BCE. 2006 Monitoring Sheet Oakesdale Business Campus City of Renton File Number LUA98-021 Plot Number: 2 Wetland Date: 11/29/2005 Examiner: ACG Plot Size: 20' x 30' Baseline Counted Counted Counted %Cover Counted Planted Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 %Cover Species (1999) (2001) (2002) (2003) (2004) (2005) Year 6 Alnus rubra (volunteer) 2 3 20 3 40 Acer macrophyllum Populus trichocarpa 6 3 3 3 20 3 25 Pseudotsuga menziesii Fraxinus latifolia Populus tremuloides Acer circinatum Thuja plicata 3 3 2 3 20 3 25 Salix lasiandra Salix sitchensis 1 6 6 6 50 6 60 Lonicera involucrata 1 1 1 1 Trace 1 1 Vaccinium ovatum Oemleria cerasiformis Arctostaphylos uva-ursi Physocarpus capitatus Holodiscus discolor 2 2 2 2 5 2 5 Ribes sanguineum Cornus stolonifera Gaultheria shallon Symphoricarpus albus Polystichum munitum Total: 13 15 16 18 115 18 156 NOTES: 41 percent cover increase since Year 5. Percent plant species survival from Year 5 is 100%. BCE Job No. 10494 2006 Monitoring Sheet Oakesdale Business Campus City of Renton File Number LUA98-021 Plot Number: 3 Wetland Date: 11/29/2005 Examiner: ACG Plot Size: 20' x 30' Baseline Counted Counted Counted %Cover Counted Planted Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 %Cover Species (1999) (2001) (2002) (2003) (2004) (2005) Year 6 Alnus rubra (volunteer) 10 Acer macrophyllum Populus trichocarpa 5 4 4 4 25 4 30 Pseudotsuga menziesii Fraxinus latifidia Populus tremuloides 2 2 2 2 10 2 10 Acer circinatum Thuja plicata Salix lasiandra 2 2 2 2 40 2 50 Salix sitchensis Lonicera involucrata 8 8 8 8 10 8 15 Vaccinium ovatum Oemleria cerasiformis Arctostaphylos uva-ursi Physocarpus capitatus 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 Holodiscus discolor Ribes sanguineum Cornus stolonifera 3 3 3 3 25 3 30 Gaultheria shallon Symphoricarpus albus Polystichum munitum Total: 35 34 34 34 125 34 160 NOTES: 35 percent cover increase since Year 5. Percent plant species survival from Year 5 is 100%. BCE File No. 10494 2006 Monitoring Sheet Oakesdale Business Campus City of Renton File Number LUA98-021 Plot Number: 4 Slope Date: 11/29/2005 Examiner: ACG Plot Size: 20' x 30' Baseline Counted Counted Counted %Cover Counted Planted Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 %Cover Species (1999) (2001) (2002) (2003) (2004) (2005) , Year 6 Alnus rubra (volunteer) 10 Acer macrophyllum Populus trichocarpa 1 1 1 5 1 5 Pseudotsuga menziesii 2 2 2 2 30 2 35 Fraxinus latifolia Populus tremuloides Acer circinatum Thuja plicata 2 2 2 2 20 2 25 Salix lasiandra Salix sitchensis Lonicera involucrata Vaccinium ovatum Oemleria cerasiformis Arctostaphylos uva-ursi Physocarpus capitatus 5 4 4 4 20 4 25 Holodiscu.s discolor Ribes sanguineum 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 Corn us stolonifera Gaultheria shallon 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 Symphoricarpus albus Polystichum munitum 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total: 15 10 10 9 75 9 100 NOTES: 25 percent cover increase since Year 5. Percent plant species survival from Year 5 is 100%. BCE File No. 10494 2006 Monitoring Sheet Oakesdale Business Campus City of Renton File Number LUA98-021 Plot Number: 5 Bench Date: 11/29/2005 Examiner: ACG Plot Size: 10' x 30' Baseline Counted Counted Counted %Cover Counted Planted Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 %Cover Species (1999) (2001) (2002) (2003) (2004) (2005) Year 6 Alnus rubra (existing) 40 50 Acer macrophyllum Populus trichocarpa 3 3 2 10 2 10 Pseudotsuga menziesii Fraxinus latifolia Populus tremuloides 4 3 3 4 30 3 20 Acer circinatum Thuja plicata 2 2 2 1 10 2 10 Salix lasiandra Salix sitchensis Lonicera involucrata Vaccinium ovatum Ocrmleria cerasiformis Arctostaphylos uva-ursi Physocarpus capitatus Holodiscus discolor Ribes sanguineum Corn us stolonifera Gaultheria shallon Symphoricarpus albus Polystichum munitum Total: 6 8 8 7 90 7 90 NOTES: Zero percent cover increase since Year 5. Percent plant species survival from Year 5 is 100%. Lack of increase in aerial cover is attributed to recent beaver activity and subsequent death of a Quaking aspen. BCE File No. 10494 2006 Monitoring Sheet Oakesdale Business Campus City of Renton File Number LUA98-021 Plot Number: 6 Slope Date: 11/29/2005 Examiner: ACG Plot Size: 20' x 30' Baseline Counted Counted Counted %Cover Counted Planted Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 %Cover Species (1999) (2001) (2002) (2003) (2004) (2005) Year 6 Alnus rubra (existing) Acer macroph vllum Populus trichocarpa Pseudotsuga menziesii 1 1 1 1 30 1 30 Fraxinus latifolia Populus tremuloides Acer circinatum 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Thuja plicata 2 2 2 2 25 2 40 Salix lasiandra Salix sitchensis Lonicera involucrata Vaccinium ovatum 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 Oemleria cerasiformis Arctostaphylos uva-ursi Physocarpus capitatus Holodiscus discolor Ribes sanguineum Cornus stolonifera 3 3 3 3 20 3 30 Gaultheria shallon 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 Symphoricarpus albus Polystichum munitum 2 2 2 2 Trace 0 0 Total: 15 8 8 8 75 6 100 NOTES: 25 percent cover increase since Year 5. Percent plant species survival from Year 5 is 75%. BCE File No. 10494 2006 Monitoring Sheet Oakesdale Business Campus City of Renton File Number LUA98-021 Plot Number: 7 Bench Date: 11/29/2005 Examiner: ACG Plot Size: 10' x 30' Baseline Counted Counted Counted %Cover Counted Planted Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 %Cover Species (1999) (2001) (2002) (2003) (2004) (2005) Year 6 Alnus rubra (volunteer) 5 40 Acer macrophyllum Populus trichocarpa Pseudotsuga menziesii Fraxinus latifolia 2 2 2 2 20 2 20 Populus tremuloides 3 3 3 3 35 3 35 Acer circinatum Thuja plicata 2 2 2 2 20 2 30 Salix lasiandra Salix sitchensis Lonicera involucrata Vaccinium ovatum Oemleria cerasiformis Arctostaphylos uva-ursi Physocarpus capitatus Holodiscus discolor Ribes sanguineum Corn us stolonifera Gaultheria shallon Symphoricarpus albus Polystichum munitum Total: 7 7 7 7 75 12 125 NOTES: 50 percent cover increase since Year 5. Percent plant species survival from Year 5 is 100%. BCE File No. 10494 2006 Monitoring Sheet Oakesdale Business Campus City of Renton File Number LUA98-021 Plot Number: 8 slope Date: 11/29/2005 Examiner: ACG Plot Size: 20' x 30' Baseline Counted Counted Counted % Cover Counted Planted Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 % Cover Species (1999) (2001) (2002) (2003) (2004) (2005) Year 6 Alnus rubra (volunteer) 2 4 30 4 35 Acer macrophyllum Populus trichocarpa Pseudotsuga menziesii 2 2 2 2 35 2 40 Fraxinus latifolia Populus tremuloides Acer circinatum Thuja plicata 1 1 1 1 5 1 10 Salix lasiandra Salix sitchensis Lonicera involucrata Vaccinium ovatum Oemleria cerasiformis 4 4 4 3 10 1 5 Arctostaphylos uva-ursi Physocarpus capitatus Nolodiscus discolor 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ribes sanguineum Cornus stolonifera Gaultheria shallon 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 Symphoricarpus albus Polystich.im munitum 1 1 1 1 Trace 0 0 Total: 13 8 10 11 80 8 90 NOTES: 10 percent cover increase since Year 5. Percent plant species survival from Year 5 is 73%. BCE File No. 10494 2006 Monitoring Sheet Oakesdale Business Campus City of Renton File Number LUA98-021 Plot Number: 9 bench Date: 11/29/2005 Examiner: ACG Plot Size: 10' x 30' Baseline Counted Counted Counted % Cover Counted Planted Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 % Cover Species (1999) (2001) (2002) (2003) (2004) (2005) Year 6 Alnus rubra (volunteer) 3 6 20 6 30 Acer macrophyllum Populus trichocarpa 1 9 9 20 9 30 Pseudotsuga menziesii Fraxinus latifolia 4 4 4 2 20 2 30 Populus tremuloides 4 4 4 6 30 6 35 Acer circinatum Thuja plicata 1 1 1 1 20 1 20 Salix lasiandra Salix sitchensis Lonicera involucrata Vaccinium ovatum Oemleria cerasiformis Arctostaphylos uva-ursi Physocarpus capitatus Holodiscus discolor Ribes sanguineum Corn us stolonifera Gaultheria shallon Symphoricarpus albus Polystichum munitum Total: 9 10 21 24 110 24 145 NOTES: 35 percent cover increase since Year 5. Percent plant species survival from Year 5 is 100%. BCE File No. 10494 2006 Monitoring Sheet Oakesdale Business Campus City of Renton File Number LUA98-021 Plot Number: 10 slope Date: 11/29/2005 Examiner: ACG Plot Size: 20' x 30' Baseline Counted Counted Counted %Cover Counted _ Planted Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 %Cover Species (1999) (2001) (2002) (2003) (2004) (2005) Year 6 Alnus rubra (volunteer) Acer macrophyllum 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 Populus trichocarpa Pseudotsuga menziesii Fraxinus latifolia Populus tremuloides Acer circinatum 1 1 1 1 Trace 0 0 Thuja plicata 1 1 1 1 10 1 15 Salix lasiandra Salix sitchensis Lonicera involucrata Vaccinium ovatum Oemleria cerasiformis 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Arctostaphylos uva-ursi Physocarpus capitatus Holodiscus discolor 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ribes sanguineum 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 Corn us stolonifera 2 2 2 2 20 0 0 Gaultheria shallon 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 Symphoricarpus albus Polystichum munitum 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 Total: 18 6 6 4 30 1 15 NOTES: 15 percent cover decrease since Year 5. Percent plant species survival from Year 5 is 25%. BCE File No. 10494 2006 Monitoring Sheet Oakesdale Business Campus City of Renton File Number LUA98-021 Plot Number: 11 Wetland Date: 11/29/2005 Examiner: ACG Plot Size: 10' x 30' Baseline Counted Counted Counted %Cover Counted Planted Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 %Cover Species (1999) (2001) (2002) (2003) (2004) (2005) Year 6 Alnus rubra (volunteer) 10 10 20 10 30 Acer macrophyllum Populus trichocarpa 1 1 1 1 10 1 10 Pseudotsuga menziesii Fraxinus latifolia Populus tremuloides Acer circinatum Thuja plicata 2 2 1 1 10 1 10 Salix lasiandra Salix sitchensis 0 H 12 12 60 12 65 Lonicera involucrata Vaccinium ovatum Oemleria cerasifonnis Arctostaphylos uva-ursi Physocarpus capitatus 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Holodiscus discolor Ribes sanguineum Cornus stolonifera 10 5 5 5 20 5 20 Gaultheria shallon Symphoricarpus albus Polystichum munitum Total: 14 17 30 30 121 30 136 NOTES: 15 percent cover increase since Year 5. Percent plant species survival from Year 5 is 100%. BCE File No. 10494 2006 Monitoring Sheet Oakesdale Business Campus City of Renton File Number LUA98-021 Plot Number: 12 Wetland Date: 11/29/2005 Examiner: ACG Plot Size: 20' x 30' Baseline Counted Counted Counted %Cover Counted Planted Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 %Cover Species (1999) (2001) (2002) (2003) (2004) (2005) Year 6 Alnus rubra (volunteer) Acer macrophyllum Populus trichocarpa 1 2 2 2 15 2 15 Pseudotsuga menziesii Fraxinus latifolia Populus tremuloides 2 2 4 4 10 4 10 Acer circinatum Thuja plicata 2 2 2 2 10 2 10 Salix lasiandra Salix sitchensis 3 3 3 3 20 3 20 Lonicera involucrata 7 7 7 7 25 7 25 Vaccinium ovatum Oemleria cerasiformis Arctostaphylos uva-ursi Physocarpus capitatus 14 14 14 14 35 14 40 Holodiscus discolor Ribes sanguineum Cornus stolonifera 9 9 9 9 25 9 30 Gaultheria shallon Symphoricarpus albus Polystichum munitum Total: 38 39 41 41 140 41 150 NOTES: 10 percent cover increase since Year 5. Percent plant species survival from Year 5 is 100%. BCE File No. 10494 2006 Monitoring Sheet Oakesdale Business Campus City of Renton File Number LUA98-02I Plot Number: 13 wetland Date: 11/29/2005 Examiner: ACG Plot Size: 20' x 30' Baseline Counted Counted Counted %Cover Counted Planted Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 % Cover Species (1999) (2001) (2002) (2003) (2004) (2005) Year 6 Alnus rubra (volunteer) Acer macrophyllum Populus trichocarpa 3 3 2 2 5 2 5 Pseudotsuga menziesii Fraxinus latifolia 4 4 3 3 10 3 10 Populus tremuloides 3 3 3 3 10 3 10 Acer circinatum Thuja plicata 2 2 2 2 15 2 15 Salix lasiandra Salix sitchensis 3 3 3 3 25 3 25 Lonicera involucrata 10 10 10 10 35 10 40 Vaccinium ovatum Oemleria cerasiformis Arctostaphylos uva-ursi Physocarpus capitatus 4 4 4 4 5 4 5 Holodiscu.s discolor Ribes sanguineum Corn us stolonifera 7 7 7 7 20 7 25 Gaultheria shallon Symphoricarpus albus Polystichum munitum Total: 36 36 34 34 125 34 135 NOTES: 10 percent cover increase since Year 5. Percent plant species survival from Year 5 is 100%. BCE File No. 10494 2006 Monitoring Sheet Oakesdale Business Campus City of Renton File Number LUA98-021 Plot Number: 14 slope Date: 11/29/2005 Examiner: ACG Plot Size: 20' x 30' Baseline Counted Counted Counted %Cover Counted Planted Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 %Cover Species (1999) (2001) (2002) (2003) (2004) (2005) Year 6 Alnus rubra (volunteer) Acer macrophyllum 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Populus trichocarpa Pseudotsuga menziesii 1 1 2 2 40 2 45 Fraxinus latifolia Populus tremuloides Acer circinatum 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Thuja plicata 1 1 1 1 10 1 15 Salix lasiandra Salix sitchensis Lonicera involucrata Vaccinium ovatum Oemleria cerasiformis Arctostaphylos uva-ursi Physocarpus capitatus Holodiscus discolor 2 2 1 1 5 0 0 Ribes sanguineum Cornus stolonifera Gaultheria shallon Symphoricarpus albus Polystichum munitum Total: 6 6 4 4 55 3 60 NOTES: 5 percent cover increase since Year 5. Percent plant species survival from Year 5 is 75%. BCE File No. 10494 2006 Monitoring Sheet Oakesdale Business Campus City of Renton File Number LUA98-021 Plot Number: 15 wetland Date: 11/29/2005 Examiner: ACG Plot Size: 10' x 30' Baseline Counted Counted Counted %Cover Counted Planted Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 %Cover Species (1999) (2001) (2002) (2003) (2004) (2005) Year 6 Alnus rubra (volunteer) 2 10 Acer macrophyllum Populus trichocarpa 1 1 1 1 20 1 25 Pseudotsuga menziesii Fraxinus latifolia Populus tremuloides Acer circinatum Thuja plicata Salix lasiandra Salix sitchensis 1 1 2 2 40 2 40 Lonicera involucrata Vaccinium ovatum Oemleria c.erasiformis Arctostaphylos uva-ursi Physocarpus capitatus 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Holodiscus discolor Ribes sanguineum Corn us stolonifera 8 8 7 7 40 10 60 Gaultheria shallon Symphoricarpus albus Polystichum munitum Total: 11 11 11 11 101 16 136 NOTES: 35 percent cover increase since Year 5. Percent plant species survival from Year 5 is 100%. BCE File No. 10494 2006 Monitoring Sheet Oakesdale Business Campus City of Renton File Number LUA98-021 Plot Number: 16 slope Date: 11/29/2005 Examiner: ACG Plot Size: 20' x 30' Baseline Counted Counted Counted %Cover Counted Planted Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 % Cover Species (1999) (2001) (2002) (2003) (2004) (2005) Year 6 Alnus rubra (volunteer) Acer macrophyllum Populus trichocarpa 3 5 3 5 Pseudotsuga menziesii 2 2 2 2 25 2 25 Fraxinus latifolia Populus tremuloides Acer circinatum Thuja plicata 1 1 1 1 15 1 15 Salix lasiandra Salix sitchensis Lonicera involucrata Vaccinium ovatum 3 3 1 0 0 0 0 Oemleria cerasiformis Arctostaphylos uva-ursi Physocarpus capitatus Holodiscus discolor 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Ribes sanguineum 3 3 2 2 5 0 0 Corn us stolonifera Gaultheria shallon Symphoricarpus albus 4 4 2 2 5 0 0 Polystichum munitum 2 2 1 0 Trace 0 0 Total: 16 16 9 10 55 6 45 NOTES: 10 percent cover decrease since Year 5. Percent plant species survival from Year 5 is 60%. 2006 Monitoring Sheet Oakesdale Business Campus City of Renton File Number LUA98-021 Plot Number: 17 bench . Date: 11/29/2005 Examiner: ACG Plot Size: 10' x 30' Baseline Counted Counted Counted %Cover Counted Planted Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 % Cover Species (1999) (2001) (2002) (2003) (2004) (2005) Year 6 Alnus rubra (volunteer) 3 15 Acer macrophyllum Populus trichocarpa Pseudotsuga menziesii Fraxinus latifolia 5 5 4 4 30 4 30 Populus tremuloides 3 3 3 3 40 2 30 Acer circinatum Thuja plicata Salix lasiandra Salix sitchensis 5 15 Lonicera involucrata Vaccinium ovatum Oemleria cerasiformis Arctostaphylos uva-ursi Physocarpus capitatus Holodiscus discolor Ribes sanguineum Cornus stolonifera Gaultheria shallon Symphoricarpus albus Polystichum munitum Total: 8 8 7 7 70 14 90 NOTES: 20 percent cover increase since Year 5. Percent plant species survival from Year 5 is 100%. Plot area approximated, rebar corners not located. BCE File No. 10494 2006 Monitoring Sheet Oakesdale Business Campus City of Renton File Number LUA98-021 Plot Number: 18 slope Date: 11/29/2005 Examiner: ACG Plot Size: 20' x 30' Baseline Counted Counted Counted %Cover Counted Planted Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 %Cover Species , (1999) (2001) (2002) (2003) (2004) (2005) Year 6 Alnus rubra (volunteer) Acer macrophyllum Populus trichocarpa Pseudotsuga menziesii 2 2 2 1 20 1 20 Fraxinus latifolia Populus tremuloides Acer circinatum 3 3 2 2 10 0 0 Thuja plicata 2 2 2 2 20 2 30 Salix lasiandra Salix sitchensis Lonicera involucrata Vaccinium ovatum Oemleria cerasiformis Arctostaplrylos uva-ursi Physocarpus capitatus 4 4 3 3 25 3 25 Holodiscus discolor Ribes sanguineum 2 2 2 2 10 0 0 Cornus stolonifera 3 3 30 3 40 Gaultheria shallon 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 Symphoricarpus albus Polystichum munitum 6 6 2 0 0 0 0 Total: 21 21 16 13 115 9 115 NOTES: Zero percent cover increase since Year 5. Percent plant species survival from Year 5 is 69%. BCE File No. 10494 2006 Monitoring Sheet Oakesdale Business Campus City of Renton File Number LUA98-021 Plot Number: 19 bench Date: 11/29/2005 Examiner: ACG Plot Size: 10'x 30' Baseline Counted Counted Counted %Cover Counted Planted Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 %Cover Species (1999) (2001) (2002) (2003) (2004) (2005) Year 6 Alnus rubra (volunteer) 1 1 10 1 30 Acer macrophyllum Populus trichocarpa 0 0 1 1 15 0 0 Pseudotsuga menziesii Fraxinus latifolia 4 4 4 4 30 () 0 Populus tremuloides 5 5 5 5 40 4 40 Acer circinatum Thuja plicata Salix lasiandra Salix sitchensis Lonicera involucrata Vaccinium ovatum Oemleria cerasiformis Arctostaphylos uva-ursi Physocarpus capitatus Holodiscus discolor Ribes sanguineum Corpus stolonifera Gaultheria shallon Symphoricarpus albus Polystichum munitum Total: 9 9 11 11 95 5 70 NOTES: 25 percent cover decrease since Year 5. Percent plant species survival from Year 5 is 45%due to recent mortality from beavers. BCE File Jo. 10494 2006 Monitoring Sheet Oakesdale Business Campus City of Renton File Number LUA98-021 Plot Number: 20 slope Date: 11/29/2005 Examiner: AC(; Plot Size: 5' x 10' Baseline Counted Counted Counted %Cover Counted Planted Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 '% Cover Species (1999) (2001) (2002) (2003) (2004) (2005) Year 6 Alnus rubra (volunteer) Acer macrophyllum Populus trichocarpa Pseudotsuga menziesii Fraxinus latifolia Populus tremuloides Acer circinatum Thuja plicata Salix lasiandra Salix sitchensis Lonicera involucrata Vaccinium ovatum Oemleria cerasiformis Arctostaphylos uva-ursi 12 12 12 14 60 14 60 Physocarpus capitatus Holodiscus discolor Ribes sanguineum Corn us stolonifera Gaultheria shallon Symphoricarpus albus Polystichum munhtum Total: 12 12 12 14 60 14 60 NOTES: Zero percent cover increase since Year 5. Percent plant species survival from Year 5 is 100%. Plot location was approximate due to missing rebar plot corners. BCE File Jo. 10494 2006 Monitoring Sheet Oakesdale Business Campus City of Renton File Number LUA98-021 Plot Number: 21 Wetland A Buffer Date: 11/29/2005 Examiner: ACG Plot Size: 60' x 80' Baseline Counted Counted Counted %Cover Counted Planted Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 4 Year 5 %Cover Species (2001) (2002) (2003) (2004) (2004) (2005) Year 5 Alnus rubra (volunteer) Acer macrophyllum 2 2 2 2 Trace 2 Trace Populus trichocarpa I Trace 1 Trace Pseudotsuga menziesii 5 5 5 1 5 1 5 Fraxinus latifolia Populus tremuloides Acer circinatum 2 Trace 2 Trace Thuja plicata 4 4 4 2 5 2 5 Salix lasiandra Salix sitchensis Lonicera involucrata Vaccinium ovatum Oemleria cerasiformis Arctostaphylos uva-ursi Physocarpus capitatus 5 5 5 5 Holodiscus discolor Ribes sanguineum Cornus stolonifera 9 9 9 9 20 9 25 Gaultheria shallon Symphoriearpus albus 6 6 5 2 5 2 5 Rosa gymnocarpa or nutkana 8 Trace 8 2 Polystichum munitum Total: 26 26 25 32 40 32 47 NOTES: 7 percent cover increase since Year 4. Percent plant species survival from Year 4 is 100%. BCE File No. 10494 2006 Monitoring Sheet Oakesdale Business Campus City of Renton File Number LUA98-021 Plot Number: 22 Wetland A Buffer Date: 11/29/2005 Examiner: ACC Plot Size: 60' x 80' Baseline Counted Counted Counted %Cover Counted Planted Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 4 Year 5 %Cover Species (2001) (2002) (2003) (2004) (2004) (2005) Year 5 Alnus rubra (volunteer) Acer macrophyllum 2 2 2 3 Trace 3 Trace Populus trichocarpa 3 Trace 3 Trace Pseudotsuga menziesii 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 Fraxinus latifolia Populus tremuloides Acer circinatum 3 Trace 3 Trace Thuja plicata 2 2 2 2 Trace 2 Trace Salix lasiandra Salix sitchensis Lonicera involucrata Vaccinium ovatum Oemleria cerasiformis 2 Trace 2 Trace Arctostaphylos uva-ursi Physocarpus capitatus 6 6 3 8 10 8 15 Holodiscus discolor 6 6 3 0 0 0 0 Ribes sanguineum Cornus stolonifera 6 6 6 11 20 11 25 Gaultheria shallon Symphoricarpus albus 5 5 5 4 5 4 5 Rosa gymnocarpa or nutkana 9 5 9 5 Polystichum munitum Total: 31 31 25 50 45 50 55 NOTES: 10 percent cover increase since Year 4. Percent plant species survival from Year 4 is 100%. APPENDIX B PHOTOGRAPHS 41 ` -��:- '' •• ,\ `r - Ni,;•i I. f .. '. .: _ . „ .II 99//��¢ S iii .. .r .. , . •• Ailk * toi • s{tn• try r ` : *, PHOTO 1 Photo Station 1 view northeast down Springbrook Creek, year two. te:ti i ill , - �:., �,• z i :'t. _ '_`' - � 4, Mf, . ` * „'',,�s • r .-•fit ,,;. �.`� VISt..„. `t•$ ; +�YW„ � .Y ' . f . 1 -yN Y y•S 4�•.�+:1'1 s v %�'kt.�p * ,� �- ,p''Lw •!�� zJi. r-1Jt ,y!T�� !pc::: r , •g r r rt •"� � . r. ,i°.�?1� try +� e J �n� �� 1. •,fir, ,y r• ,r 1t. ,. j t;}P -A. , f{ .,Y ,rif ' c { 'i ., �.,; ham:-� • /. ., a � �.✓ , v+ k. ''It �•: h ,,0 a ,.• '^ '14' 3,:r _ }y�.r��,t` •• r "A,.: ��y�'r } f • 1 t--!. +. ♦• -s t 1H? "•� �_4 r'/',fir ' • -J f ,r, "' .!f�FFI , i4 if ,o- ?v+`{�,�'' .4.04, ,• 7 ,.»._11F' r� '• 2 1 .qi ♦,,,,�}}1 - �f r Y�l � r ..�.of ♦ o-, � ♦��,�?J�1Y �r ids '.. 1 A t•J. r, �_r,,0. 'TR fit a .. ' r f. r o. > a � tia rltlw tf { ! -, V-. :.4 \ k' fie; 'Y '` 1 .� 1 9A a�n) air• t c 0 `. _ Wt1 ^� '� r .�,'lki'P�` i{ ,t '.,,-�hnti ,.i.1,*, i,� - '> `-s� PHOTO 2 kTW y . b. 'd%!n ;r 1,,e', `- .'. 1 - , �,� •= . S. .. .rzz"f'..* ' Photo Station 1 view northeast down Springbrook Creek, year three. �G,,,q`S PHOTOGRAPHS 47:44,Fy Oakesdale Business Park Renton, Washington 4 �• Wetland Monitoring Report C ICI tie*, ''r t s' i w 7 e "i ,f P> r rr i y,W ; fc TSll �j • y -' , �... , �• s- } f,r :ji -'4>t,..r y fir : 14'4t"' / .\,.:{•' r LY' r • ;Pi.. } +, _ • Y fY Yt 43 .•Vt:% '1'0. -`4/, .Tip. / `, k.,'t ` '•'1' 1 %A• i 7. 1 1 -N-,,, • hair .4. +- _ • p f'. ?_. ._r . ' R' e:'1 a nL s f a r • • , i �#� c r., vAl +i.,. , �I+ 0 1 A f i 4 Yam. a; <.....„ „ .. .,.. f4 ` o i f � -'s"#' _µ 11 ii..4.9E \ s V+V" '. 'rw t a ,{f4 '' "� f I PI•oto 1: Photo Station 1 view northeast down Springbrook Creek, year four. YTAj,x• ' +KG 4 -!. -• V 7 ' + ��' Tj` i- .4► ,.bf. • '"' tl r f >e-•y c 4 • 4a✓a >— z p, ri a e ?�. gy. � C �r„ire� • s � q.r '\ a ,. � 3 1 c " ti � . . 1> ` y ♦ - %, ; s T tag .pp . w • N � '? w** I M - ;y,'r ,. G. ' :ice .- - Q.E..v.J�y[, t.�• , ?.•�_ ... y{ •�•4,y.�� }�• -• •.-.�- ti • • -t- -4' -•,y 3y "". ,, •.'5�.•e.;,e 14 1KT' ,+y�- 4,,i-; •••'''''.** . • ., * '. Ivialw .ropip ... PI-oto2: Photo Station 1 view northeast down Springbrook Creek, year five. 4mHAV`1 PHOTOGRAPHS t`Z Oakesdale Business Park Renton, Washington Wetland Monitoring Report Na.....a ni IR .inR nin 1nAOA .,N, t, i . ,-, ':1 � /, • e• .�.-•ram • ` 1 Y i� i' . lF pr.; .il. .-70. ,,,. v — tI,.. ...„14- 'ne,',Ii ,. , ,,,, 4 , , . . . , ( A , s ,i 4 4 , , .,z:.i . * "is;,.."'- i -,',-.,.‘ wAViin,ki t I " . ,i s. t+•\liti •`,1} ' Y '" ' •T2 ; 'z: ''. ,} . \ - • :6 c .i . 4 .b . itt .. 4 < :tom rT+I f♦ i• •4 I-`Y �. i) .• ` w i i .• YY!!,, J! 4• .i< , ' 1 ; e ! A A y i , , S P s I"t f R PHOTO STATION 1 : VIEW NORTHEAST DOWN SPRINGBROOK CREEK. P O O 41,,, WETLAND MONITORING REPORT YEAR 6 PHOTOGRAPHS �� � Z OAKESDALE BUSINESS PARK o. `41,.. �= RENTON, WASHINGTON a `�+•+N..wo+N�*' (BCE JOB#10494) 7- a t ` F y 1 ♦ rilitlyir . • r:� 1. b • Fr ,,.a iy5 . ' jx j ih -fT'Q >6 ;:4;- `• Ali,,'', MK • L-„� x ' sk•. e _j. Itya � .14 <x., Y F �`, Ls , • to .. `1F•Y.•A ` X + • • • PHOTO 3 Photo Station 2 view south over westerly mitigation triangle, year two. r-, -yt k �q�� rt, rt14 I. �. 5 +r la x r , I :a tt �+ a ��s sr � s k� ,may � iYSrif �- l t %i `'�'1 i +: "� M - ; to :. -- ''t r12;4 J w• •4 ', - r ?+r ' 2 r 'TM , 'A.•1.. mow, it � M� ��, e e '' - •X, 2* / R +:k. S er.of . '' i - + '; ! ...., x- .tom- R 1 p'at , i 'JAI (., (?,.§- ,Y,.. r- 7. n li. .•///..�..... f .a a44. .+ �-r .. / , , _',--•. 1',- !:,' PHOTO 4 Photo Station 2 view south over westerly mitigation triangle, year three. (,,, AL, PHOTOGRAPHS cit. Oakesdale Business Park -<_�-' Renton, Washington Wetland Monitoring Report 'a...,. ni iA in nin 1l1AOA r I,+ :: '''. _.".'*''4.:'..,. ..,. .,, \ t' r tit'�•r+ s "`, -'I ., ,gs� r':-...:::. 1 ft•re• 1 yd' ...1„ it , 'IV*, • 4 , � o_:; sir, .. t i - 'N¢ ' I, ,- s n `tip „ J. f� ti • , • Photo 3: Photo Station 2 view south over westerly mitigation triangle, year four. *.' , i.e R-I'"-. 4 - t i " �; . K ' . -) ,,` ., t" ;4,�. . .n . I /.tea ;�.�''� ....r �,fF,�. _ _ ', a:gs,‘"....„ - rJ'Z '. •- •s:�f .. s. - ...w• 'I;�l�Y�'-• • •mil - �-'[ _ •. - ..•'� - Photo 4: Photo Station 2 view south over westerly mitigation triangle, year five. +d$4V PHOTOGRAPHS el- N. Oakesdale Business Park -0- • Renton, Washington Wetland Monitoring Report „i,n Irn .n.,.. `{ } r , - a.sr- '• r, ct e • _ • / et .�, fI*14 . 41, . ./, „rots rE wttvls, 4... ',Iiik ' • • 04 •.4'-44114bt . , 4 4"t lc );':. -, 7114 t..• *11, t ' N44474:41„. ' • .:. W • ,,t •.}1 . *. r Y t T lf ;• s ' • ; - ', 4 IA • Wit . . ' • Or It• t S • - - .r .. its „f 1 PHOTO STATION 2: VIEW SOUTH OVER WESTERLY MITIGATION TRIANGLE. U 0_ v P d O ni��s` WETLAND MONITORING REPORT ri YEAR 6 PHOTOGRAPHS m " �z OAKESDALE BUSINESS PARK o _� 444ik�` ,= RENTON, WASHINGTON C,,,,—.0.4' (BCE JOB#10494) 8 6 r " '0' ' v ,..40.1-...,, _. : f•, ' , .. " oefw'ir gt77 1,-,4 i {I, ; . ,• ' i . i. 6. • I 4./.. . • vk .1i, •. ‘, • A . ,,. " r- . •-- .• ' , • ,..,. p• . 4 .r.,,.‘ 4>...,.;,r.1 ' '-'a,-• 4' I,' '. Arf ii:‘•.. • .tti r f:0'. -Y , . .;I.0 - ; • . •.• 1 70. 4 - l• • I-.•',. ils.. ', _. • • ,./... ....;,.. . , c t4,-1 .. -. , • r' . ,... • .4 A 7-4 \ , , %/gip,vi,••.., .., -4. "i • rh•• ,, -4 - 1.- . - . . . 41 I 1,.e• .' rl.-„ ; 4 •- • .1. , . , - • •-. • • .. . ' '. • PHOTO 5 Photo Station 3 view east towards Plot 4 (slope) and Plot 5 (bench), year two. l ' • • 4 ..•. , ' %, - • - , ,,,. •fr , - -,. .'- .44,c — , -.... - .„rt. 2 o . • ‘-- * ..,,, 1!..• X : :-.--.$.4/' .' .,, 0-,-. .--. ...._.,:...1„.. 7. /. _ .. , : fl ,•.• . ,.. 2, • 10, 0 •• .40,-.„,•,. , ....- ,, •• . • *•-•*. *„ • • ' '•-' . • • 1 :.•- '-.., , ,i,' '•'a'4 1!/ ., '' • .,.•,...411t; ' •- -/7.,. ''1•461- .,... ' , i f- .'1! . ''., 1 ..ii," -•':';:... 117, 0.: .4.;-:''...;"•Ari :''. '., ,,,..:4‘..4.14'..i', , J . •..ti : ,._,,'.,. _ sTiro, ...., ,:44'F!•.." ..:'.1.0.1., ..,2_,), , :::...:-*.'_,,..1.•,.- --''- it • ..;' ' • .-• Y- ' .6_,4 . • 7 . • ' '::•.:5•40'•:;.••-• 17 .r..-'>4. ,e,.• .' • .• /- -•7,- ' •., - '....!„-z,,.,.- • - . '1.4, -,•-•,-..!4.-' .,.•1. ....., -0,. ,,I. '', , :' - .,..;!'..-(..",,,, ;: ', .••. ...!4.:,.... .......L.• , • • . • • ' - • ,t,„ /. •,-•.P. .-.0- ...- ...• .,....•. •,, -... ,,..r.,,,I.?.., ... ..,! 1 i:I.,,," . l• . •. •.'. .r.., .., :,;-,.. .,. .. ,. ,:.1.,„4,- -.t,, ,. - 0. ,.--'..--— - . - ,,• -• ,...i.,-... • N, . ',....•..-.--.,:m- .,7:41,0- ...- .., , ,,-- , _...7.1.:,,,,,,-,,,,,,,,._ 4 ..*,:•-:....--fr,..,,iiii--.,...,,,',.....„,,..:4:- - _=,1*.t..7.: .,:1,• - , ,,,,,„. ..,-:, P• .-.. -.....,,, .-: ;' ••',..O.F.", r . :,,,:7'•—- , ...-:,,,,1._ra-,.),,,1:•:11•... ' ,..• ••:41' ""ii. . '-'-':: ' .. l' .. .• • , 4.., •_ ,f, .z.• '..;:•- or- . •44°Ir,„....r.-. 0•er A .,k. .-. ..f• . 4*. - Jo. " 5i,...i--- !fir . . •••::-. • v. >-44.... • --... - ._. , _. .._ .. -- .."...4",. ---. Nili"„,.".'4'.';:-.-: " .,,,,s,,,1 p y Y•••`- , _.i-- .' -••• , . ..44„,e.T . • . - .• . ,,, • .., - . f Ar..4„.,....r.,: -:..:,i .. ...,.:to-,,..."---. , ' ..-r".. -•''- ' : - - "' ".--- -:'-.1..i71.---; 'LI 41.-,-,....,;:., ,,••77--.: ' - -,.: .f:'"•.,`'''..--.....;*-43.!... . ,• _- . ,• . - -,,,, ..... - „..,,,4„:„. ..,,, .A.?-.4.,:iri:....".. . _. • „ , „.. . . . ,,,,,.....-... ...,... ,_ ,,...,,,,A,_,- _, • .. , . _ .4- - ' •-: - - 1-1. ..•;. .-!'-.,---' - • . -, ...!.• •.• .., IL- r.......,,,,•• Ar..f:ri,.....?, ' :__„•1:441Aii"' - ..-:kfr'1 4-*•.".A ,t-:::-',,';:it • .....1: ' -.- ' . -7. • .•: w-- lirjr.••••'•:!;:,,..0-t•?-, -4,• • .-i. . .",•-•''' -- •••!•,' ' ' .,-.1 4" ..Y!:•;,•,?V •3. ,l!'.•,.'.•:'•, ...--. -' -: , -•..- • --- ,..::-. :%;.: ''..--i'..!,T,•!.../ •-•'.'';::: .•• . . •- .:- .•;' 'f",'I' ,..";,'••r;,4-f•TI' , "„ 1-,- ' .- • ' - . - . • , -. •.- , , . .. PHOTO 6 Photo Station 3 view east towards Plot 4 (slope) and Plot 5 (bench), year three. PHOTOGRAPHS 0.. eviAt, • Oakesdale Business Park Renton, Washington . Wetland Monitoring Report fll ICI ino ton 1 nArlA r I SI / te! . .• V� _ f '7 ''i .'.OAK -'q I.d '. -;✓ 'Y.`,TVI.' of 1'1" ''4C. /• ,. ri �,'. :16'-.,. e!' - - - --�`-:' _ .J ,. -ids+. 1' ,.I:,,r, ' 4. r' . � •.\` / ; _ ` Photo 5: Photo Station 3 view east towards Plot 4 (slope) and Plot 5 (bench), year four. . st e, -. .- Yr.+' r 40, t I • • S I / . ,t4adiri Aft ilk - -.4"..:;" it, :,-"1*- ' .41 .- ;- alifire. er ii. ' '....Ite ,w _ . , ft.....i. ..'".-Ikti,r404111.' lip.", . ea � ..4 ,•. ,-. ., �:. / y ay,r Y:. - • �!. . '.4 A • % -4 Photo 6: Photo Station 3 view east towards Plot 4 (slope) and Plot 5 (bench), year five. G. PHOTOGRAPHS I_ Oakesdale Business Park -� Renton, Washington Wetland Monitoring Report ' e..., ni iR.Ina Nn ,naaa T-- ..060. .*• S -c A s, . ' t �„ G{ti . 'i ir -M+•4"} l a R . Y A ;: off, . ... E • _ + • ` ,,, . . , 4.4 h :-.: ,, .1 . 1#4 � , j`t :-i .. r//-.. ir' r•.+�� � v If + ...„)..4 .. we'. - PHOTO STATION 3: VIEW EAST TOWARDS PLOT 4 (SLOPE) AND PLOT 5 (BENCH). U 11 Q P V O G �,s` WETLAND MONITORING REPORT YEAR 6 PHOTOGRAPHS to - i OAKESDALE BUSINESS PARK o 4441,` •z RENTON, WASHINGTON o o 'hQ...,0$4! (BCE JOB #10494) a .., /4'r� 1- r PHOTO 7 Photo Station 4 view east towards Plot 6 (slope) and Plot7 (bench), year two. ytY� ,.• r .F -- }. % i • .< • - i. -meµ i; h . r�} }L7, rr. i r .. PHOTO 8 Photo Station 4 view east towards Plot f;(slope) and Plot7 (bench), year three. ,gC3MAV PHOTOGRAPHS d , _, Oakesdale Business Park 'L, � Renton, Washington Wetland Monitoring Report 'a.e..., ni Is .Ina Kin indQ4 F lit f J jar •+4 -in ✓! fir , .g. <•t' 4,' 1X ,f' v / • r$ I Photo 7: Photo 4 view east towards Plot 6 (slope) and Plot7 (bench), year four. Station ite• , y ... � Ac t a'�',, 1,7. . '.'! t„t .,,may 1 r ( r • +. f �/ ‘� ,orM 1 ' „pxz i� //t i, Sip 1' 01049, tow ^ sue_ Jy. - / F. . - 4 106- i e :.' ., k It 4 . leitsot, „. ,,• , ...., i. fir' ea ' Photo 8: Photo Station 4 view east towards Plot 6 (slope) and Plot7 (bench), year five. Note that the camera was on zoom and shows the plant material in the background of the year four photograph. ,,Act PHOTOGRAPHS Dr Aik.I. Oakesdale Business Park Renton, Washington Wetland Monitoring Report '+t.�.� ni I D Ina Nn 1nnon t ., MI r . -•rrs , s ♦ i, • < s ! � - . ;• If a�t i!k 1 •i I. wI 1 lik. � • 'Nyut4i7► it 1 is rt JD u•4rr `-•,:1 �• A. i'i ."• I jam'. -:.:if :41 ile*";:r.' lif. ' . i, r ` -' a a Z t% '1y -' rtib • -`fir C. � �f Y, µ 11101ter , ! • • . • • .•. - • ` 1 ,. ., _ R• _..- / M \e • j. PHOTO STATION 4: VIEW EAST TOWARDS PLOT 6 (SLOPE) AND PLOT 7 (BENCH). U a v P C O 4.-Gi4 it vss WETLAND MONITORING REPORT YEAR 6 PHOTOGRAPHS to , Z OAKESDALE BUSINESS PARK 44,iii� .- RENTON, WASHINGTON o <r,',Q...,04`+ (BCE JOB#10494) a • • r w . .• • L • - "... Q d 4 V', PHOTO 9 Photo Station 5 view east towards Plot 8 (slope) and Plot 9 (bench), year two. S a '. 16. . . it 4• l i �71 • T^i•I l , y„A - nrr Y y w -. , 'r,`e l i ti i'• ' -e. ti ra . . .01'. tlf '-Ali - , . . • R _ • PHOTOIO Photo Station 5 view east towards Plot 8 (slope) and Plot 9 (bench), year three. egA, PHOTOGRAPHS . ` Oakesdale Business Park ' Renton, Washington ' ,r, Wetland Monitoring Report ` ,. z g ' ~,mod I .C- �`,w / L1 ♦i . 1 ' '�F - �. ice'. '�) ^ ; '!*�- _ 5 ' f .. ',.r4, .i r h a♦ s •` 4 r F " . " • r ' rrt,. ) c tt Photo 9: Photo Station 5 view east towards Plot 8 (slope) and Plot 9 (bench), year four. �S 11,... -"Ill' -'''.- ' ...4.-%171311'°--N.-1‘ 3. -.4- • A itt:_. ,,,-•••••' . :. ri )0-0. , a, .., -.0...,.. _,_ - _ ii,..:':__ _‘__'- ...-:,,,...,,...,.. ...---, -_ ,.-: - . ,..__ ,... ,cc. _ . t ........• .,..:,-. ....- .,.. ...,-.. .,,,.,. ., ,.....''....."P.*/ •..*.1'14_lie*, ,, . .. ,... ,,,,,,.., .. . .,..,......: ....,..,;. : . . .. ,._.,. , III •.- .... r• 4111111111:.j. �� f a, 0► _,mac' t s �,� I. �L. '4-. , .+r'q !`• �' '•`.'� r , i s- j Y "~aj-• 1f ,.44%. _ Photo 10: Photo Station 5 view east towards Plot 8 (slope) and Plot 9 (bench), year five. mHAV PHOTOGRAPHS IT• Oakesdale Business Park �`' Renton, Washington Wetland Monitoring Report '• 1- ,' ,....- . , :-, „ I.i ', .,....., `f..% .., ,...j. ik NI- ' „ , . -4'1 ,. ,.. -• 1^-% i j,.. Ayr,.... •••41W-!::-* ''''.' -47 - 1-' '.- t •-•••••'- ..:tiirk 4'..., .it w,iii.s!...,40.-101/4s. ;44009 - I . . •?i, llirtiA''''': ',i4t..:7111t 1 i je.S... 41.91.• ' ".• - ..*.;*".-- 4.'00,2-*. .114,X * 7.404 M 7•35'..:.;:" ir'. . : Aj Pilo .49.174110 ' Ar 1 efir, . ".•Ialk,:-- 1,-, fr••:...-,-'Ili:0g ...s:.1:5;; •4/:fT „. 3.." -'. - , - -. ' . c ie. ,/ „s. r... ••• ' . ..,-' .7-1,4-- ..-41. I e;...e- -. 44 .,-.-- , A * ,,,i. If -:-., , ,,,,.. •s,.„.: „ •,..‘•. ji ..,/,...-..-00:14., , ',-, . , .• *,% •, lr... 4" t;,.,, NI. 1-•!1 v.'V f.,' .-.;-•g` ,. c-g` ,{ ••• 4. • '4,• :f , ,, p* ,, , ".qjl ' At.' i:1-41:' ,4..''. :.*,7 I '0,•,.':•A*14 ..„ -.• - - .''-.•- /,' 4.4 - • it " -./ '....5.. t•i, I-. -. -P•,.., ll. Ili ittt.:ii.1 4' • r'\,0 ' ,jet, / .,1, r:ft . ,. lie... 4.,1,,t,'. :• ,,. , , I :1"1. •" I. ' 11 r41% a...1' 4:ti4tIVZ.Aik.. 4! ' 5.:, 1)474‘ •' d'. ,,,',,... ..7_.,,r • 4,„•;,',,*,.0 .. •'s. --• , :.1 ..s:..e. . -It .1... ....11,,,._ .,. ? ...to Hai*-00.4: , 4 r.A. !,.` 'A. ./ ,, 1, i e, 140 e, .' . .• '::... ''s. .0. tifi.te 11../4/C ... •Of - .. . ;e: ' -. a' "er ,.lii.", , arark . - ..,, .....,: tkk 0 i,;,..;,—riz... . ..,:„.,_ :, 4 11 I : ...r r., - ' 11 '‘, • ,„.„........- !-Is„ ,.... , 4,4••• . 1. 's' • J ."'' ' -k-,' .** ,' 't '**• s '• .• '''•. s**,, • „f•• • . . - 4...4'.1. --'''''',,,,40111%-;4141Sitle.91.. i' illti-l•• • '-‘, ,11 -41.. 0 ‘ P ''''vi, *.4-'14°I.'-;:ii.`w.--4".. f• , - ' , .. t...., ..4 ' 'a,. •',-,t'' 4..jfis..titha.1011011 ..'• : 1.rir.tiiiit.10070.- ..,...1.w•:.!;!.. ."..., 41'., ...-1,..' )1••-,x •31,.**1 •' ar, *474.'4 .• " •., At' . : . .'.. - ... •1,... II .40 i ,,,t . . '14Ve • V ..- - .. . A "P I if° 49`."... , • • „, • .. . ... .. Rik .,. ', V tki •..* , e 1 V r P Re*. •. • 'II ., va, . t. . s 4414i, 4.!• liv. •r : 's t„. -f " ' 1 0 %I .. .'"Ik.:4,,_ • ,, . •••••• g ... . —: -_. --.-: - •-* '_ . OA *. -• . _ '',., .. • . .., , , ....- • •, 1 ,1"- , . — 4.4. ,,, ..„ ---4.; ... ...., .,„:, ....., .. .• sr, .I.P.0 "k . li, : ,,,s• ‘.-11 s g,',4;r1.• .*, • 7' -•, • ' I . . - Ati.,t • . - . "k''•••.... ' ,.. ,„.rt• , , . ..... 4:4' •• . '• 1 • r '. • z-, 4• ,....-', - , 1111.0.•..... • •. . -. .• . - t ,gist. 4. --• ...'' -4, .il : . ' fr.v. 4 r ... .. -.- - ..... . . ‘. . ' -,„„ ".." " 4 s,- -- "4' "... . •- ' ...,:''''I .- ...,I • ,,. • PHOTO STATION 5: VIEW EAST TOWARDS PLOT 14 (SLOPE) AND PLOT 15 (BENCH). i5 0 'O. .4 c. .4. D 614,Frikrei'S't4 WETLAND MONITORING REPORT YEAR 6 PHOTOGRAPHS c. .4 OAKESDALE BUSINESS PARK . .--g-, .1 RENTON, WASHINGTON . ''',........" (BCE JOB#10494) 7- a .4' N I' 4. ' . - ' ,4 •• . ti \ .a • , _ ^\' +\ .. , { % PP uY 7T?', PHOTO 11 Photo Station 6 view south over easterly wetland mitigation triangle, year two. a J. .. • Alt .�. _ , fl I '•: ii:i �' , ; — ,� l air }S � , x�r F y4- , p „ a r 3kv � k.f`j: L •s,. '� `,,� ' "•�,- , ,, '• U • fir, �J!= .- i '(• s '4 •.)Y �p •,e o-a s� c ` \'. `' *. e 9 ri Aik•r,7 4'► 4.'.1 : n .,z . '/, t * I . F a 1`1*--; 7/4,. ..4•4. i ' ! s .. yx'% z,, T .7.'4CJ t, 8- ,, �• f - .*: - • .vI,4d_.4,,,•1,Y t 1, `,` •Ir „f,'. • / ?+ril !\ i ,,.� ..d» ice' 'I -x, ., .. PHOTO 12 'hoto Station 6 view south over easterly wetland mitigation triangle, year three. ¢bH,,` PHOTOGRAPHS ti. f '� Oakesdale Business Park C Renton, Washington k_—'4F i Wetland Monitoring Report 1 ,t ! .�0. 4, !--,T .Yyyt a T'- L . � A. . ` + / I • yry ---a. r ,.. I .:a - •. . c .'.14K„ ' }.. .r. * ..N; r}.r�11. _ . �V; ;' a ,'. N.t w , r. 'cs 1�, `9Y r �. - . •,` r . "ice • `, y Photo 11: Photo Station 6 view south over easterly wetland mitigation triangle, year four. . , ,,; flir 4tttof t. r.jY} .4:�4.1 a ;.. t1n J„ Y rr 6. I r > i f In -•w- ., ;91 '•„.• :‘ ',..''.,r,f,„...., :,,,, ,4.40l.,:....r-:,\IA,...: ,....::.,:.," ,., ?-. r!.444.0,0,.., •.-:;...:...V.•• •••.0.'..'-:sf,, , ', ,...•/••5,,- —it.,'''! �� a * if 'K,. ' 1110°: #-- ‘Ve.,,dik6,..' . . '- • Pl-oto 12: Photo Station 6 view south over easterly wetland mitigation triangle, year five. Hq PHOTOGRAPHS Tr I 4 r `Z Oakesdale Business Park - Renton, Washington u Wetland Monitoring Report i .r. l I • • _ 14 • ` ♦ 37, \ •• • bl "1 J , 1.� 4 tK \ • g t.'9.1144`sI' ,i i t , f i 1� ! ,� z,. �j„_ r Y i s 't� f ,1,' .jr °` • fy' ` ,� � ; ,� 11 t1�#j(r( \,;`.A .� y 1 'j t� 4 i t � 4 �!'`,;.,a, . b t4 '',. ( i lei !' f' r• I , , 4:', ' - " f 6 j / R:41 • .— �? tug.• °'t a++ .k t , .• 0.' , ', 1 ilt. / i, ..: Y ' r►r•• ` 9 `~' " toe"` _. If' f Y '`, / S 4 .,e z14N_,,• N ' «^► . .e... -1'• , ' +"; . `, - ', r; •1 it. ' , . -. �► ‘ 11:7 ,fie • 1, . • i ,.... • . - r e ....b. o• ,41...$ eliwit... •` q __ 1i 4.°" �1. % `1 . ' t il +� PHOTO STATION 6: VIEW SOUTH OVER EASTERLY WETLAND MITIGATION TRIANGLE. U Q V P V O G.►��. WETLAND MONITORING REPORT YEAR 6 PHOTOGRAPHS m OAKESDALE BUSINESS PARK o 444ii>.`,z RENTON, WASHINGTON `,w.„„„,,, (BCE JOB#10494) 7- rl . 4 ti z V. • i• t► ;I 4.- :J;`• Is, .,. • Ai. ` • 0 si •,; r'r+�r• y ! -f~ 'tL• 4 i s,4 F y c e PHOTO 13 Photo Station 7 view east towards Plot 14 (slope) and Plot 15 (bench), year two. ;, 1;h4 . !114/._ •`..•.,. e . ..,.. ....,. .g..0 , 174.. . .. .„..A.:, . . ...... ...,. is... r ' •'A- . • ..1-;:, .-.;4t-A'• tv, -' • , . :. , , ...,. —" 1 r Y ' 4A t y 4 S y I • j !`i".r Al f J '7 .. *t-- trt. 4*/,a f- ft•• ..t'•• 1' 7 t ., . r• 1"� • • ��4.T r' AI t g�q A 1 • •,.., F t ��/'w.4 < f" ,j1'�a, am '' 44 f 7„eir �'. PHOTO 14 Photo Station 7 view east towards Plot 14 (slope) and Plot 15 (bench), year three. 4- 6HA„, PHOTOGRAPHS ��) Oakesdale Business Park Renton, Washington g Wetland Monitoring Report • rrs ! ` ± ; 4 .,-.1, - 1*••:. ..a-, -.,:y.--,-.. , -- 4460:• it _ it(r4iA, ' � c; .. ` - �h t �\ • • .r r iy Y .r 1 a f * e.,,'- ,(414 � h r F r i' y 4. • 1A Photo 13: Photo Station 7 view east towards Plot 14 (slope) and Plot 15 (bench), year four. ,`ty • 1N - ..sii-i-'4.40.7:. W. - " ----rift - 4,- - , 4 „.-4' ,. ir :41,7 «� '` `2' Via. ,, II 1.0 Ziee ,,, A•At vi . r . jp ' i g 1 L_wr 4,,.-T.,_41... = w . a ...- er ......*. - , ., _ - - V4.4114 y1 Wilrlik A 40/11r-A1- - r� 4 i ,- 11* All Photo 14: Photo Station 7 view east towards Plot 14 (slope) and Plot 15 (bench), year five. 01440 PHOTOGRAPHS 47:- Oakesdale Business Park - Av Renton, Washington Wetland Monitoring Report 1,y 4-;, s 10 , • -%'„*., , 41k - 40 .e.... , ..)-$1,4*.+4. f .. ..... - ;�. f .r.. yf r •.,, T •� 'ma's' J • . 1.'s . 11111)*" - , ''' Itle: " . "...If• 'ir , •..--.' • " „.. . . 4; W M i"'• ' r t '♦. PHOTO STATION 7: VIEW EAST TOWARDS PLOT 14 (SLOPE) AND PLOT 15 (BENCH). P V ►,1. sF WETLAND MONITORING REPORT YEAR 6 PHOTOGRAPHS m Cl,„, Z OAKESDALE BUSINESS PARKCD 444kilt RENTON, WASHINGTONCD t�^'o■NO0'44+. (BCE JOB #10494) �� if, ; t * b i,J .0 } p. PHOTO 15 Photo Station 8 view west up Springbrook Creek, year two. r r.t - S.anti" ( `�, ;. • ;; r , . . f[ , jry /- / ` K J tY C PHOTO 16 Photo Station 8 view west up Springbrook Creek, year three. �aHq� PHOTOGRAPHS mP - `" Oakesdale Business Park - Renton, Washington j I Wetland Monitoring Report t �y.��bb fT� r•� � may. '`-toil y` !T- • ' '_Y Z1t�c '-S b: p .In' �' •'S L .t it ` • i, - l tr;7, ..,,,..,,.:zyl f,,,;:!,it..i,:;-;,-51;/4.' :'W4 ti: .-kt-'4_ g L Pr oto 15: Photo Station 8 view west up Springbrook Creek, year four. , �A 1 r ,t +_ ram.ti �Y • .' , , .- _ •..0 •'1, �.- 4 s e _ a, i . . ( . c e ,�t• Z'' . yf •�. ,R ' , a -Ii. #.9 '\ ,�h. .a.. j ,c \ .,,•+ "Nib-' Y X -y . • " `�! ;. y ,, . ' '141 A'� 1 ti t1 � i,,y, a . r- r I"v " r _Alr y,r-T,=-ti± +.F ` 1 ' ` `lay.; ► MP•, R .. _ 0,Z14 Y M 1 _.Let' 4:(�. I,, x. +Zr. 3°•'=-- r r ch i lA 1-fit,..- t- W w ffevi .t Ph )to 16: Photo Station 8 view west up Springbrook Creek, year five. �dHgV PHOTOGRAPHS Ii Oakesdale Business Park arc = Renton, Washington $4� �►► Wetland Monitoring Report " '�a n..,c;Z r:ir fitir.i.:, • . A.:.... , ,., "7"1.1:L:-.• - • • ,, ..,:-.. . - - i'.4:'- ilk 3's Kay. • �'l 4 i ! �'1 • ;.A ' p. �. "'z::: ,�' � .�7:x r. ..:'''' �� { :Al. :: •4. p,tis :., i�..i•M p - ram : F.r st•`_, PHOTO STATION 8: VIEW WEST UP SPRINGBROOK CREEK. U a v P V O a"��8� WETLAND MONITORING REPORT YEAR 6 PHOTOGRAPHS m - i OAKESDALE BUSINESS PARK o i,,4vx ,= RENTON, WASHINGTON `'...,,.,,.' (BCE JOB#10494) o r � �. r 0 i 1,,•r•'. Z. .r ♦ , ..A, r A` t.N. � 1 . •Ni tot is.. • , •t. • • i • tR • • t i r ,f '. - „•.'''ll „per. 43.''' i�� 4 i .. ;.:•• r PHOTO 17 it- Photo Station 9 view southwest toward Plot 21, year two. � tt*k ' r t ..t ; t,+f'4a{i t 1 1 T / •� Ky Yam ' .r' . . ) , .,-. J# r y� • c ';w" •eTsw.. `tr �1rl::• t r�r .T• Yb "+ rr .� ` ". •• '+ate "v • • t ku n: 7- y ii'. •. 11/111 . J C rt�-1, a.� ;• }K ee .T t{�.•�{T �cr F ►at��1�ta. *r3 r' ni23 t> �y,. 1, • a r y,, .ik tt'tt{to '1 {-{ r•} �.A r t,. 4,,H3fL°i•'' �i,-w�se� .Y 1."7 _ J , I t,� .'�,f ; S• M t• .W h1 Y 4 thy- T { 'j. `,i .r..}'"-- •_. 1 .. r 'F :- a ft".,' y`. +t'`.,. i0'cTit :Ylt'�a.4..,sz..}„r t t5/.•a '�`.'�_. .':_._ a,a ..r*,.,':..s' PHOTO 18 r.. Photo Station 9 view southwest toward Plot 21, year three. 4, PHOTOGRAPHS er Oakesdale Business Park �_ '- Renton, Washington ' Wetland Monitoring Report na a ..2. — f rn { a 4 �y t �"a ✓r t, 1e e tr S Photo 17: Photo Station 9 view southwest toward Plot 21, year four. �I -*`13 I 7: 7 a•'ty s »�,e� N�rw 2. 1 b. , ,, try "'„,0. 4,✓ y e,{r 'i F t yy k.,, ,L.a ,q,� i'q t m ,6 r ti• y4c 1- �$y 8^ 1 Y .7 h 9 d. 4 4 t •tt r • a a pp N K _ a' .if 1 ..Lq 1 .�Gt I r j �, Iy.. ,. -'1". '..---1—..-- —,0:4 ..''liti.',..::?," -._•:::-' . ,'0 '',...- + .- .. r.. f4.4..' - ' , ' ter . !. • • ayg:. 1 b,r 4ib ,,,, Photo 18: Photo Station 9 view southwest toward Plot 21, year five. 0,44(4PHOTOGRAPHS Oakesdale Business Park 4)i Renton, Washington Wetland Monitoring Report • „ • I t . ' ;dp. � t� y4 7p� ;it p 4i, •i l i i,:vile • .� k,� 9 , • x, 'i 1 i o t',- ;, `. 4 it 7C77'TFF. f \'r t 1' •; 1 is-.J x i ` 4,. ��, ii. i ar a; g •+ Mkt . ` ;s 'N. � f ti .P.wy o •4 1 :r PHOTO STATION 9: VIEW SOUTHWEST TOWARDS PLOT 21 . U Q v P Q O 46 °'n��� WETLAND MONITORING REPORT YEAR 6 PHOTOGRAPHS mz OAKESDALE BUSINESS PARK `,,ip . RENTON, WASHINGTON o ` .......64 (BCE JOB#10494) a d -• o t • C' y1 , • - < < +F" PHOTO 19 Photo Station 10 view southwest toward Plot 22, year two. • 4 L s xi ''• , • ` - -- • -, .. - PHOTO 20 Photo Station 10 view southwest toward Plot 22, year three. �m HA� PHOTOGRAPHS Oakesdale Business Park < - Renton, Washington Wetland Monitoring Report ti. • t.. .. :i • ' ' • 4i•f R' J �1s6• .,i 1. Photo 19: Photo Station 10 view southwest toward Plot 22, year four. ` A pp Photo 20: Photo Station 10 view southwest toward Plot 22, year five. HA PHOTOGRAPHS Oakesdale Business Park -4PV Renton, Washington Wetland Monitoring Report `413.14 • `1 f'r • ee tor, • • • • PHOTO STATION 10: VIEW SOUTHWEST TOWARDS PLOT 22. a O O °n��� WETLAND MONITORING REPORT YEAR 6 PHOTOGRAPHS 40: OAKESDALE BUSINESS PARK s,i,4 = RENTON, WASHINGTON o �`'>+.�,,.,..•` (BCE JOB#10494) Y 'Hipp `LA,01 -9/- Dal nirrr=f' 9 THIRD YEAR MONITORING REPORT Oakesdale Business Campus Renton, Washington Prepared for: Zelman Development Company 707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 3036 Los Angeles, California 90017 August 20, 2002 Our Job No. 10494 &HA •� _ rrri F2 CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING, SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 02 IU,� ,i 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH, KENT,WA 98032 . (425)251-6222 . (425)251-8782 FAX www.barghausen.com �tiG fNG'N�"� • TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 1 3.0 ANNUAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS 2 4.0 METHODS 2 4.1 Vegetation Sampling 3 4.2 Hydrology 3 4.3 Permanent Photo Stations 4 5.0 RESULTS 4 5.1 Vegetation Sampling 4 5.2 Hydrology 5 5.3 Permanent Photo Stations 5 5.4 Habitat Conditions and Wildlife Use 5 6.0 CONCLUSIONS 5 7.0 CLOSURE 6 LIST OF TABLES Table No. 1 Herbaceous Species Quadrate Data 2 Hydrologic Data LIST OF FIGURES Figure No. 1 Vicinity Map 2 Monitoring Layout 3 Wetland"A"Buffer Monitoring Layout APPENDICES Appendix A Monitoring Data Sheets(A-1 to A-22) Appendix B Photographs(B-1 to B-9) 1 10494.001.wpd THIRD YEAR MONITORING REPORT OAKESDALE BUSINESS CAMPUS RENTON,WASHINGTON 1.0 INTRODUCTION I have closed my company and am now employed at Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc.; therefore, this and future reports will be under this name. We have completed the third year monitoring at the Oakesdale Business Campus located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of SW 43"I Street and Oakesdale Avenue SW in Renton, Washington (Figure 1). This report presents the results of the third year conditions along Springbrook Creek, and observed compliance with agreed performance standards for this wetland mitigation project. Construction of the wetland mitigation portion of this project began July 16th, 1999 and final planting along Springbrook Creek was completed on October 18th, 1999. Twelve of the logs placed below the ordinary highwater mark but above the summer water levels in the stream have been moved into the water. Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife and the King County Drainage District staked the logs to be moved and where they were to be moved. Approximately 27,911 square feet of wetland has been created along Springbrook Creek, 17,600 square feet along a ten-foot wide bench and 10,311 square feet in two wetland mitigation areas adjacent to the bench. The area along Springbrook Creek was cleared after placement of a silt fence along the ordinary high water mark of the creek. Some trees were retained along the ordinary high water mark between 150 and 350 feet down the creek. The bench and two mitigation areas were excavated. The log and root wad habitat features were placed, the entire area was planted with shrub, and tree vegetation as indicated on the plans, and the area was seeded. 2.0 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The goal of this wetland mitigation project is to create 27,911 square feet of wetland and associated buffer that will transition over time to a multistory forested, shrub-scrub, and emergent plant community. To achieve this goal for the mitigation site, monitoring is being conducted for: 1. Survival of tree and shrub plantings. 2. Cover of emergent plant species in the seeded wetland area. 3. Inundation or saturation of the soils achieved during final grading. Monitor was completed in August of 2002 using the methods described in Section 4.0 of this report and includes. 1. Establishment of permanent vegetation plots to monitor survival, changes in plant species composition, percent cover by species over time, and hydrologic conditions. The canopy coverage method of Daubenmire will be used for herbaceous plants. Tree and shrub density will be evaluated using plots that were established within the wetland mitigation areas, the bench, and the buffer slopes. Plot sizes were determined by establishing a goal of sampling 10 percent of the mitigation area. Plot locations were established in the field and located to reflect differences in hydrologic regime, plant distribution, and overall mitigation area conditions. 1 10494.001.wpd 2. Establishment of photo stations to collect a sequence of photographs. These photographs will be used to evaluate vegetation community response over time. 3. Measurement of water levels in the early and late growing seasons to determine if inundation is present at the permanent sampling plots. If the area is not inundated, an auger hole will be dug to determine if water or saturated soils are near the surface. 4. Observation of the wetland mitigation area for excessive erosion, scour, or sedimentation that may affect the health and/or diversity of the overall wetland mitigation area. 5. Observation and reporting of wildlife use in the wetland mitigation area. 3.0 ANNUAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS The five-year monitoring program prescribed for this wetland mitigation project included two site visits in the first year and one visit in each of the following four years. A report documenting the findings of the monitoring efforts will be completed and submitted to the City of Renton and the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife by December of each of the monitoring years. Performance standards provide measurements to gage the progress of the project periodically, and to identify remedial actions necessary to meet the final success criteria. For this mitigation project, we propose to use the health of vegetation and the presence of water to gage the progress of the project. The planted wetland and buffer species will be monitored for vigor and survival. The overall target survival rate per year will be 80 percent of planted shrub and tree species, as measured in representative plots. If it is determined that planted tree and shrub species are being replaced or out-competed by native wetland shrubs or trees that grow voluntarily, the success criteria will be met only if the number of volunteer and planted shrub and tree species in the mitigation area meet or exceed the number of shrub and tree plants required in the area for that year. The wetland area must contain inundated or saturated soils during a portion of the growing season. If these performance standards are not met, the cause of the failure to meet the performance standard will be evaluated, and action will be taken to rectify the problem until the objectives are achieved. An annual breakdown of the performance standards for the project includes: Year 1 80 percent survival of planted species Year 2 80 percent survival of species that survived the first year Year 3 80 percent survival of species that survived the second year Year 4 80 percent survival of species that survived the third year Year 5 80 percent areal cover of self-sustaining,non-invasive wetland species 4.0 METHODS Field monitoring and recording took place on August 8, 2002. During this time, the weather conditions were warm and sunny. Vegetation and hydrologic conditions were measured in twenty- two plots. Photographs were taken from ten permanently marked locations. 2 10494.001.wpd . 4.1 Vegetation Sampling Tree and shrub vegetation was sampled in twenty-two plots. Six of the plots were within the wetland, five were on the bench, nine were on the wetland buffer slopes, and two were in the Wetland A buffer (Figures 2 and 3). Herbaceous vegetation was also monitored within the wetland and bench plots. The location of each plot was chosen to reflect observed differences in plant communities and topography on the site. The corners of each of the plots were permanently marked with rebar posts hammered into the ground. The upper left rebar post of each plot was then tagged with a plot number. Figure 2 details the layout for the twenty-two plots. During baseline monitoring the number of each species originally planted is noted and the number of species present during monitoring was counted and recorded for each plot. During subsequent years the number of each species planted, the number of each species counted that year, and the percent cover of each species will be determined for each plot. Mortality, survival rate and total cover will be calculated for the project as prescribed for the success criteria. Herbaceous vegetation was monitored using a 1-square meter quadrate. The quadrate used for this analysis were rectangular, 1-square meter in area, PVC frames constructed on a 2:1 dimensional ratio. The short side of the rectangle measured 0.71 meter and the long side measured 1.42 meters. The upper left corner of the quadrate was placed at the tagged rebar post with the short side of the rectangle approximately parallel with Springbrook Creek. Herbaceous vegetation was monitored within the wetland and bench areas at Plots 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15, 17, and 19. Cover was visually estimated at each of the 1-square meter quadrants and assigned a cover class designation. Only plants rooted within the quadrate were included in coverage estimates. Since leaf surfaces may overlap, even when measuring a single vegetative stratum, the summation of cover values for a single quadrate may be greater than 100 percent. A total of eight cover class designations were chosen for this estimate. Coverage class designations are presented below. These designations also correspond to numbers indicated on Table 1. 0=No individual plants observed in plot 4=26 to 50 percent cover 1 =One individual plant observed in plot 5 =51 to 75 percent cover 2= 1 to 5 percent cover 6=76 to 90 percent cover 3 =6 to 25 percent cover 7=91 to 100 percent cover 4.2 Hydrology Water level readings were taken in the upper left corner of each of the wetland and bench plots identified on Figure 2. If the area was not inundated, an auger hole was dug to determine if water or saturated soils were near the surface. 3 10494.001.wpd • 4.3 Permanent Photo Stations Ten permanent photo stations were established at this site and are marked with rebar (Figure 2). The photo stations include views up and down Springbrook Creek and at representative plots. Photographs taken from these photo stations are included in Appendix B of this report. 5.0 RESULTS This report is to be used primarily for comparative purposes and as a report outline for subsequent monitoring years. Data presented in Appendices A and B may be directly compared with data gathered during successive growing seasons. 5.1 Vegetation Sampling Appendix A presents data gathered for the shrub and tree species for each of the monitoring plots. The monitoring plots showed that salal was not represented in the wetland buffer area. Further investigation indicated that salal has not survived in the wetland buffer throughout the site. All species planted within the wetland mitigation site were represented. Seeded shrub species were not observed within the plots. Elderberry seedlings were observed outside of the plots in several areas. Oregon grape and service berry seedings were not observed during monitoring. Kinnikinnick was planted in the areas near the sidewalks. Data gathered in the third year study indicates that the planted vegetation is surviving quite well and more than meets the 80% survival for the third year. The overall survival of the planted species in the monitoring plots for the third year was 97%. Red Alder (Alnus rubra) and Cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) were observed as volunteer species within several of the plots. The dozens of alders noted on the data forms were not counted for the survival rate. Percent cover is increasing in all of the plots. Plots 10 and 14 have the lowest percent cover but did not have any mortality of plants this year. Table 1 presents the species, cover of each species, and percent frequency in the herbaceous monitoring quadrants. Originally, the wetland and bench areas were seeded with Glyceria elata, Poa palustris, Carex rostrata, Carex obnupta, Juncus ensifolius, Juncus bufonius, Scirpus microcarpus, Ranunculus repens, and Potentilla palustris. Wildlife had been grazing on the herbaceous species present in the mitigation area; therefore, we were unable to distinguish specific species of Carex, and Juncus. Overall the seeded species were well represented in the quadrants with the exception of Glyceria and Scirpus. Glyceria and Scirpus did not appear to be present in the mitigation area, and may not have found this site suitable for growth. Trifolium repens(white clover)was seeded on the slopes above the wetland and bench areas, and was present in all of the quadrants last year. It is not present in all of the quadrants this year, its percent frequency is down to 73 percent from 100 percent last year. Overall the Agrostis, Carex, and Lotus corniculatus have increased in frequency and the remainder of the herbaceous species have stayed at the same percent frequency. Four other species are also present in the quadrants Agrostis spp., Holcus lanatus„ and Polygonum persicaria. The quadrants and project site are being monitored for the presence of Reed Canarygrass. Reed Canarygrass is not present within the actual project site. It is present along the lower banks of Springbrook Creek as it was at the beginning of the project. 4 10494.001.wpd 5.2 Hydrology The created wetland system was designed to have the bench and wetland areas inundated during flood events and the site soils saturated for at least the first three to four months of the growing season (March, April, May and possibly June). The water depth and the degree of fluctuation throughout the year will dictate the survival rate of the planted species and the nature of any volunteer species that take root in the wetland. During spring rains and flooding in 2002, the benches and wetlands were inundated with up to two feet of water. Flooding did not dislodge the log structures nor the planted vegetation. One of the key stone blocks associated with the south end of a log structures near the east end of the project has pulled loose. The north end of the log is still cabled to the below ground key stones, the vertical log post and the adjacent log. At this time we are proposing to secure the south end of the log to the south vertical log post, the adjacent log, and burying the displaced keystone. During the August 8, 2002, monitoring, water levels within the wetland and bench varied from one to ten inches below the surface(Table 2). Soils were saturated but not inundated. 5.3 Permanent Photo Stations The ten photographs taken during baseline monitoring clearly show the completed wetland through systematically selected stations. The ten photographs taken during the third year of monitoring show the healthy growth of the planted species. Station location are identified on Figure 2. The photographs taken from these photo stations are included in Appendix B of this report. 5.4 Habitat Conditions and Wildlife Use Habitat conditions are rudimentary within the created wetland and its buffer at this time but will continue to diversify as the plant communities develop. Song birds and red legged frogs were observed in the mitigation area. A Great Blue Heron and mallards were observed feeding in the created wetland during monitoring. A Muskrat was also observed in the western portion of the wetland. According to Larry Capellaro of the King County Drainage District, beaver were using this reach of Springbrook Creek. They have moved up stream and are no longer using this reach of the creek. Several trees in the mitigation area were fell by the beaver. The removal of these trees did not negatively impact the survival rate of vegetation in the wetland mitigation project. Use of the created wetland by wildlife is not the focus of this monitoring program, but observations of species in this mitigation area will be included in subsequent reports. 6.0 CONCLUSIONS Overall, the wetland and bench areas presently display wetland conditions. Sufficient surface saturation is promoting the dominance of hydrophytic vegetation. The overall plant cover is greater than 80 percent and the mitigation site meets the annual success criteria. Some of the species of plants observed were prescribed in the initial wetland mitigation plan, and others have established on their own in this area. This natural invasion of native species is 5 10494.001.wpd considered beneficial to the long-term stability of this wetland mitigation effort, since these species may display a particular propensity to thrive in the newly created environment. 7.0 CLOSURE The findings and conclusions documented in this report have been prepared for specific application to this project. They have been developed in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill normally exercised by members of the environmental science profession currently practicing under similar conditions in the area. The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are professional opinions based on interpretation of information currently available to us, and are made within the operational scope, budget, and schedule constraints of this project. No warranty, either express or implied, is made. Please contact us if you have any questions. Theresa R. Henson Natural Resource Ecologist 6 10494.001.wpd r TABLE 1 HERBACEOUS SPECIES QUADRATE DATA Species Year Plot Plot Plot Plot Plot Plot Plot Plot Plot Plot Plot Percent 2 3 5 7 9 11 12 13 15 17 19 Frequency Agrostis 2002 3 1 3 1 2 0 2 3 3 2 2 91 Carex spp. 2002 0 2 0 1 1 1 3 0 2 2 0 64 Holcus lanatus 2002 3 2 3 2 0 1 1 1 2 2 2 91 Juncus spp. 2002 2 2 2 2 2 5 4 3 3 2 0 91 Lotus corniculatus 2002 0 2 0 0 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 46 Poa palustris 2002 2 0 0 3 4 2 2 2 5 0 2 73 Polygonum persicaria 2002 0 1 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 36 Potentilla pacifica 2002 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 27 Ranunculus repens 2002 2 3 0 3 2 0 3 4 2 2 5 82 Trifolium repens 2002 2 2 2 2 1 2 0 0 0 2 2 73 Note: Only wetland plots were monitored for herbaceous cover. Plots not included here are wetland buffer plots. 0=No individual plants observed in plot 4=26 to 50 percent cover 1 =One individual plant observed in plot 5 =51 to 75 percent cover 2= 1 to 5 percent cover 6=76 to 90 percent cover 3 =6 to 25 percent cover 7=91 to 100 percent cover 7 10494.001.wpd TABLE 2 HYDROLOGIC DATA YEAR 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Three slope 10"S 1"S slope 8"S slope 10"S slope 10"S slope 1"S 1"S 1"S slope 3"S slope 8"S slope 6"S Two slope 8"S 2"I slope 6"S slope 8"S slope 8"S slope 2"I 3"I 2"I slope 1"S slope 4"S slope 4"S One slope 10"S 2"I slope 8"S slope 9"S slope 10"S slope 2"I 1"I 1"I slope 1"S slope 6"S slope 10" S Baselin slope 1"S 1"I slope 6"S slope 8"S slope 6"S slope 1"I 2"I 2"I slope 1"I slope 2"S slope 8"S e Note: S =saturated below ground surface,I=inundated, slope=no data gathered within buffer. 8 10494.001.wpd '� �-�- y S , 4*,. 24.. ` 2 > sr o 152t1D i 9`�2 0� —;_____�i`a S .SW_.:` 16Tl1 sT 16TN ST \ �-�/ !$ e' D i11H SI. S(/(J/,tic• I Pk' a - ►� s =6,,,. ..* gI r- IS 1 TH f 4' u� �7. , r '. :� rr, _1 I _SW 19TH ST � � , Y ,. rok __ ,LU PARTNER wit, P KW, ' y -` -14 cc�� y :r ;1 < ,► SOOT K fNTE i cREEI i i, sw 'Pri • Q 1 1 Y t .. N . - irETiAhOSS t30 rtI ,7f i • BAKERS SW 23R0 ST 23RD pN� • S O ,-- t TUKWILA s • e >,1MALLI � � Al Y J STRANDER • BIVD �"0 1 i ¢ ¢ rt ■ NTO� -SW 421T11 � ;:p. � � ® Cc 1,2 ■ •, - a0i1(h:fN(lRa iRECK•.�1N, I 1 ;Mil vL jai l>.> , 'UTA Ob ! RENTON iWETLANDS • r' N RR s, L (J NC T I 0 iW ?.9r'• 70 I •pss'�` C 'r, 'kH0-4RD • • • (.' RENTON 25 �' -< r ` = H) MAPRInr _ SW 30rH .,. `^< T z y, FS I WETLANDS niS ST SL 3I r z I��� -I -� `. .eT.lsai �..;__:__SN S*;pP°1 r70*i CORPORATE. o �Z ;i w �. 4,� • OR N ' w ) CORPORATEa - -_I - i, 1.11i{ _ ST • .hurl;; m 34TH Sr S DR 'S llPL,)J DI / SW a W 381.f, aE'LANGS g S r' IOLAN) DR o • o SITE SAXDN OR 0' f� _w 'I 415T ST - -- If,.ANO DR x — F • i f µor r,� ;' - IJ S •♦ PAVILION rr•.,. arrerrr . SW ' �I< ST SWZ E 4 D s S TH IE l:i ST) �" 3R St S 180111 •. Al,tl,ti, L 1801H ST; • / S T 1 �m a3Ro 1 s 79�� h.(1 ( `'I _ ' R!V_ERSI 11k}2ND _ 4..''.r i r - I a' / :`�,,r, ar 35j o� 1 - ,,,' OR'NDE % Si • a',S 1 182N0 ST ��:' - - ,.. T• L11 TUi 1 4e• a;l/ ,,i/\ a`r T S a.184T1! ST - — S .P,•1T11 65 N '��Wd9f ODD • =. !`� CrC �. I7 • iI BLVD / ^ �i y j } ,, Sffig(- yam, Q?, q T 186TH ST n o �• 1 _. j E PA ( 4 I l h1 186TH Pt m _ � ST ST`,: ti--. NK.pq C. _i".s GLACIER.y -S- - .. i 0 ST 2' S 188TH ST S .i7TH ST ce ,, S L88TH ST 5 irtirn _r -- - - 3 !CH S 190TH ST 5• 190TH ST !r o STSI rj � 4 R • I90TH ST - T23N as S ?!D_ ST _x 2/ 19_200 9 T 22N 19STIC._ j 1)<r�n4�T_ — s — ; ST ,� o a ti y iLLI S _194TH I __I ^ x t` 194TH a .S„-194TH ST 1 - --;.� _ 6. __ 4-1 � ,- .,, , . . :� 6.EVELAND Reference:Thomas Brothers Maps,2001 Job Number Scale: For: Horizontal: Vertical: N/A 10494 I OAKESDALE BUSINESS CAMPUS 4, s, 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH RENTON, WA v ¶TP, F KENT,, WA 98032 F I G. I ? (425)251-6222 �� _ (425)251-8782 Title: VICINITY MAP <r 6., CML ENGINEERING,LAND PLANNING, DATE:7-2002 '.‘'G aNGO4f- SURVEYING,ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES tt P::110000s1104941exhibit110494-xl.cdr IV __A • rn O rn Z Z (7)O • rio <53 OO\ • • • • • I Z O --I Z D -oZ O • No. ( Date By Clad. Ippr. RaMeion •` Title: MONITORING LAYOUT JULY 2002 \, For: OAKESDALE BUSINESS CAMPUS RENTON, WA Job Number w Scala: \ �H^('� 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH DpN9md _ \\` 10494 Q t (K4E2NT5)25WA1 968202322 m Z 0re Eu+ Horizontal Sheet (425)251-8782 FAX e"i1 ° TN r—i oo f o - PoprwW Vertical gy FIG. 2 " NG ENG\N L<Ti *"' SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL.ENGINEERING, LANDPUNNING, ow e/9/02 N/A •OD File: P:�10000s`10494\exhibit\10494—wx1.dwg Date/Time: 08/09/2002 11:08 Scale: 1=100 eratassepp Xrets: tJ • • I I m r D I / • D I Il(0 • • I / I / • • I / z o 0 I / o • Z D O r Z O I I I I No. l Dote I By I Md. I Appr. RM.ion Title: WETLAND 'A' BUFFER MONITORING LAYOUT i For: LJ OAKESDALE BUSINESS CAMPUS RENTON, WA Job Number Deigned _ Sool.. �1 V 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH 10494 P KENT, WA 98032 Drawn EL HpHyontoi m k *(425)251-6222 Checked TM -ioo'm (425)251-8782 FAX Sheet o "_�, 2 Approved V.rl)col IVIL FIG. 3 sG<TiAG EN e SURVEENGINEERING,ING, VIONMENTAL SERVICES Dot. E/9/02 N/A GM File: P:�10000s`10494\exhibit\10494—wx2.dwg Date/Time: 08/09/2002 11:08 Scale: 1=100 eratassepp Xrefs: APPENDIX A MONITORING DATA SHEETS 10494.001.wpd THIRD YEAR MONITORING DATA SHEET OAKESDALE BUSINESS PARK Plot#: 1,slope Date: August 8,2002 Examiner: TRH Plot Size: 20'x30' Species Planted Counted Counted % Cover Year 3 Year 2 , Year 3 Big leaf maple (Acer macrophylum) Cottonwood(Populus trichocarpa) 1 1 1 Trace Douglas fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii) 2 2 2 15 Oregon ash(Fraxinus latifolia) Quaking aspen(Populus tremuloides) Vine maple(Acre circinatum) Western red cedar(Thuja plicata) Pacific willow(Salix lasiandra) Sitka willow(Salix sitchensis) Black twinberry(Lonicera involucrata) Evergreen huckleberry(Vaccinium ovatum) Indian plum(Oemieria cerasiformis) Kinnikinnick(Arctostaphylos uva-ursi) Ninebark(Physocarpus capitatus) 9 6 6 20 Oceanspray(Holodiscus discolor) Red flowering currant(Ribes 2 2 2 5 sanguineum) Red-osier dogwood(Cornus stolonifera) Salal(Gaultheria shallon) 1 0 0 Snowberry (Symphoricarpus albus) Sword fern (Polystichum munitum) Total: 15 11 11 40 NOTES: 15%cover increase since year two. 100% survival. A-1 10494.001.wpd THIRD YEAR MONITORING DATA SHEET OAKESDALE BUSINESS PARK Plot#: 2,wetland Date: August 8,2002 Examiner: TRH Plot Size: 10'x30' Species Planted Counted Counted % Cover Year 3 Year 2 Year 3 Big leaf maple(Acer macrophylum) Cottonwood(Populus trichocarpa) 6 3 3 20 Douglas fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii) Oregon ash(Fraxinus latifolia) Quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) Vine maple(Acre circinatum) Western red cedar(Thuja plicata) 3 3 2 20 Pacific willow(Salix lasiandra) Sitka willow (Salix sitchensis) 1 6 6 30 Black twinberry(Lonicera 1 1 1 Trace involucrata) Evergreen huckleberry(Vaccinium ovatum) Indian plum(Oemieria cerasiformis) Kinnikinnick(Arctostaphylos uva- ursi) Ninebark (Physocarpus capitatus) 2 2 2 5 Oceanspray(Holodiscus discolor) Red flowering currant(Ribes sanguineum) Red-osier dogwood(Comus stolonifera) Salal(Gaultheria shallon) Snowberry(Symphoricarpus albus) Red Alder(Alnus rubra) volunteers 2 5 Total: 13 16 with 16 with 80 NOTES: 20% cover increase since Alder Alder year two. 100% survival. volunteers volunteers A -2 10494.001.wpd THIRD YEAR MONITORING DATA SHEET OAKESDALE BUSINESS PARK Plot#: 3,wetland Date: August 8,2002 Examiner: TRH Plot Size: 20'x30' Species Counted Counted % Cover Year 3 Planted Year 2 Year 3 Big leaf maple (Acer macrophylum) Cottonwood(Populus trichocarpa) 5 4 4 20 Douglas fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii) Oregon ash(Fraxinus latifolia) Quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) 2 2 2 10 Vine maple(Acre circinatum) Western red cedar(Thuja plicata) Pacific willow(Salix lasiandra) 2 2 2 15 Sitka willow(Salix sitchensis) Black twinberry(Lonicera involucrata) 8 8 8 20 Evergreen huckleberry(Vaccinium ovatum) Indian plum(Oemieria cerasiformis) Kinnikinnick(Arctostaphylos uva-ursi) Ninebark(Physocarpus capitatus) 15 15 15 25 Oceanspray(Holodiscus discolor) Red flowering currant(Ribes sanguineum) Red-osier dogwood (Comus stolonifera) 3 3 3 10 Salal(Gaultheria shallon) Snowberry(Symphoricarpus albus) Sword fern (Polystichum munitum) Total: 35 34 34 100 NOTES: Dozens of alder volunteers. 15% cover increase since year two. 100% survival. A-3 10494.001.wpd THIRD YEAR MONITORING DATA SHEET OAKESDALE BUSINESS PARK Plot#: 4,slope Date: August 8,2002 Examiner: TRH Plot Size: 20'x30' Species Planted Counted Counted % Cover Year 3 Year 2 Year 3 Big leaf maple(Acer macrophylum) Cottonwood(Populus trichocarpa) 1 1 Douglas fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii) 2 2 2 20 Oregon ash(Fraxinus latifolia) Quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) Vine maple(Acre circinatum) Western red cedar(Thuja plicata) 2 2 2 10 Pacific willow (Salix lasiandra) Sitka willow(Salix sitchensis) Black twinberry(Lonicera involucrata) Evergreen huckleberry(Vaccinium ovatum) Indian plum(Oemieria cerasiformis) Kinnikinnick(Arctostaphylos uva-ursi) Ninebark(Physocarpus capitatus) 5 4 4 15 Oceanspray(Holodiscus discolor) Red flowering currant(Ribes sanguineum) 2 1 1 Trace Red-osier dogwood(Cornus stolonifera) Salal(Gaultheria shallon) 3 0 0 Snowberry(Symphoricarpus albus) Sword fern (Polystichum munitum) 1 0 0 Trace Total: 15 10 with 10 with 45+ NOTES: 15%cover increase since year volunteer volunteer two. 100% survival. A-4 10494.001.wpd THIRD YEAR MONITORING DATA SHEET OAKESDALE BUSINESS PARK Plot#: 5,bench Date: August 8,2002 Examiner: TRH Plot Size: 10'x30' Species Counted Counted % Cover Year 3 Planted Year 2 Year 3 Big leaf maple(Acer macrophylum) Cottonwood(Populus trichocarpa) 3 volunteer 5 Douglas fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii) Oregon ash(Fraxinus latifolia) Quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) 4 4 3 20 Vine maple(Acre circinatum) Western red cedar(Thuja plicata) 2 2 2 15 Pacific willow(Salix lasiandra) Sitka willow(Salix sitchensis) Black twinberry(Lonicera involucrata) Evergreen huckleberry(Vaccinium ovatum) Indian plum(Oemieria cerasiformis) Kinnikinnick(Arctostaphylos uva-ursi) Ninebark(Physocarpus capitatus) Oceanspray(Holodiscus discolor) Red flowering currant(Ribes sanguineum) Red-osier dogwood(Comus stolonifera) Salal(Gaultheria shallon) Snowberry(Symphoricarpus albus) Sword fern (Polystichum munitum) Total: 6 6 5 plus 3 40 NOTES: 5%cover increase since year two. volunteers 100% survival. A-5 10494.001.wpd THIRD YEAR MONITORING DATA SHEET OAKESDALE BUSINESS PARK Plot#: 6,slope Date: August 8,2002 Examiner: TRH Plot Size: 20'x30' Species Planted Counted Counted % Cover Year 3 Year 2 Year 3 Big leaf maple(Acer macrophylum) Cottonwood(Populus trichocarpa) Douglas fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii) 1 1 1 10 Oregon ash(Fraxinus latifolia) Quaking aspen(Populus tremuloides) Vine maple(Acre circinatum) 1 0 0 Western red cedar(Thuja plicata) 2 2 2 15 Pacific willow(Salix lasiandra) Sitka willow(Salix sitchensis) Black twinberry(Lonicera involucrata) Evergreen huckleberry(Vaccinium ovatum) 2 0 0 Indian plum(Oemieria cerasiformis) Kinnikinnick(Arctostaphylos uva-ursi) Ninebark(Physocarpus capitatus) Oceanspray(Holodiscus discolor) Red flowering currant(Ribes sanguineum) Red-osier dogwood(Comus stolonifera) 3 3 3 15 Salal(Gaultheria shallon) 4 0 0 Snowberry(Symphoricarpus albus) Sword fern(Polystichum munitum) 2 2 2 Trace Total: 15 8 8 40+ NOTES: 10%cover increase since year two. 100% survival. Trace cover- blackberry. A-6 10494.001.wpd THIRD YEAR MONITORING DATA SHEET OAKESDALE BUSINESS PARK Plot#: 7,bench Date: August 8,2002 Examiner: TRH Plot Size: 10'x30' Species Planted Counted Counted % Cover Year 3 Year 2 Year 3 Big leaf maple(Acer macrophylum) Cottonwood(Populus trichocarpa) Douglas fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii) Oregon ash(Fraxinus latifolia) 2 2 2 10 Quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) 3 3 3 20 Vine maple(Acre circinatum) Western red cedar(Thuja plicata) 2 2 2 15 Pacific willow(Salix lasiandra) Sitka willow(Salix sitchensis) Black twinberry(Lonicera involucrata) Evergreen huckleberry(Vaccinium ovatum) Indian plum(Oemieria cerasiformis) Kinnikinnick(Arctostaphylos uva-ursi) Ninebark(Physocarpus capitatus) Oceanspray(Holodiscus discolor) Red flowering currant(Ribes sanguineum) Red-osier dogwood(Comus stolonifera) Salal(Gaultheria shallon) Snowberry(Symphoricarpus albus) Sword fern (Polystichum munitum) Total: 7 7 7 45 NOTES: 10%cover increase since year two. 100% survival. A-7 10494.001.wpd THIRD YEAR MONITORING DATA SHEET OAKESDALE BUSINESS PARK Plot#: 8,slope Date: August 8,2002 Examiner: TRH Plot Size: 20'x30' Species Planted Counted Counted % Cover Year 3 Year 2 Year 3 Big leaf maple(Acer macrophylum) Cottonwood(Populus trichocarpa) Douglas fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii) 2 2 2 20 Oregon ash(Fraxinus latifolia) Quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) Vine maple(Acre circinatum) Western red cedar(Thuja plicata) 1 1 1 5 Pacific willow(Salix lasiandra) Sitka willow(Salix sitchensis) Black twinberry(Lonicera involucrata) Evergreen huckleberry(Vaccinium ovatum) Indian plum(Oemieria cerasiformis) 4 4 4 10 Kinnikinnick(Arctostaphylos uva-ursi) Ninebark(Physocarpus capitatus) Oceanspray(Holodiscus discolor) 1 0 0 Red flowering currant(Ribes sanguineum) Red-osier dogwood(Corpus stolonifera) Salal(Gaultheria shallon) 4 0 0 Red Alder(Alnus rubra) 2 volun. 10 Sword fern (Polystichum munitum) 1 1 1 Trace Total: 13 8 10 with 45+ NOTES: 20%cover increase since year volun. two. 100% survival. A-8 10494.001.wpd THIRD YEAR MONITORING DATA SHEET OAKESDALE BUSINESS PARK Plot#: 9,bench Date: August 8,2002 Examiner: TRH Plot Size: 10'x30' Species Planted Counted Counted % Cover Year 3 Year 2 Year 3 Big leaf maple(Acer macrophylum) Cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) 1 volunteer 9 volunteer 10 Douglas fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii) Oregon ash(Fraxinus latifolia) 4 4 4 15 Quaking aspen(Populus tremuloides) 4 4 4 15 Vine maple(Acre circinatum) Western red cedar(Thuja plicata) 1 1 1 10 Pacific willow (Salix lasiandra) Sitka willow(Salix sitchensis) Black twinberry(Lonicera involucrata) Evergreen huckleberry(Vaccinium ovatum) Indian plum(Oemieria cerasiformis) Kinnikinnick(Arctostaphylos uva-ursi) Ninebark(Physocarpus capitatus) Oceanspray(Holodiscus discolor) Red flowering currant(Ribes sanguineum) Red-osier dogwood(Corpus stolonifera) Salal(Gaultheria shallop) Snowberry(Symphoricarpus albus) Red Alder(Alnus rubra) 3 volunteer 10 Total: 9 10 21 60 NOTES: 25%cover increase since year two. >100% survival. A-9 10494.001.wpd THIRD YEAR MONITORING DATA SHEET OAKESDALE BUSINESS PARK Plot#: 10,slope Date: August 8,2002 Examiner: TRH Plot Size: 20'x30' Species Planted Counted Counted % Cover Year 3 Year 2 Year 3 Big leaf maple(Acer macrophylum) 1 1 0 Trace Cottonwood(Populus trichocarpa) Douglas fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii) 4 planted Trace Oregon ash(Fraxinus latifolia) Quaking aspen(Populus tremuloides) Vine maple(Acre circinatum) 1 1 1 Trace Western red cedar(Thuja plicata) 1 1 1 Trace Pacific willow(Salix lasiandra) Sitka willow (Salix sitchensis) Black twinberry(Lonicera involucrata) Evergreen huckleberry(Vaccinium ovatum) Indian plum(Oemieria cerasiformis) 1 0 0 Kinnikinnick(Arctostaphylos uva-ursi) Ninebark(Physocarpus capitatus) Oceanspray(Holodiscus discolor) 1 0 0 Red flowering currant(Ribes sanguineum) 3 0 0 Red-osier dogwood(Comus stolonifera) 2 2 2 5 Salal(Gaultheria shallon) 4 0 0 Snowberry(Symphoricarpus albus) Sword fern (Polystichum munitum) 4 1 0 Trace Total: 18 6 6 10+ NOTES: 5%cover increase since year two. 100% survival year 2 to year 3. Fir trees added to slope in the winter of 2001. Trees and shrubs on this slope are not surviving. A -10 10494.001.wpd THIRD YEAR MONITORING DATA SHEET OAKESDALE BUSINESS PARK Plot#: 11,wetland Date: August 8,2002 Examiner: TRH Plot Size: 10'x30' Species Planted Counted Counted % Cover Year 3 Year 2 Year 3 Big leaf maple(Acer macrophylum) Cottonwood(Populus trichocarpa) 1 1 1 5 Douglas fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii) Oregon ash(Fraxinus latifolia) Quaking aspen(Populus tremuloides) Vine maple(Acre circinatum) Western red cedar(Thuja plicata) 2 2 1 10 Pacific willow(Salix lasiandra) Sitka willow(Salix sitchensis) 0 8 12 50 Black twinberry(Lonicera involucrata) Evergreen huckleberry(Vaccinium ovatum) Indian plum(Oemieria cerasiformis) Kinnikinnick(Arctostaphylos uva-ursi) Ninebark(Physocarpus capitatus) 1 1 1 Trace Oceanspray(Holodiscus discolor) Red flowering currant(Ribes sanguineum) Red-osier dogwood(Comus stolonifera) 10 5 5 20 Salal(Gaultheria shallon) Snowberry(Symphoricarpus albus) Red Alder(Alnus rubra)volunteer 10 10 Total: 14 17 30 95 NOTES: 45% cover increase since year two. >100%survival due to willow multiplying and alder volunteers. A-11 10494.001.wpd THIRD YEAR MONITORING DATA SHEET OAKESDALE BUSINESS PARK Plot#: 12,wetland Date: August 8,2002 Examiner: TRH Plot Size: 20'x30' Species Planted Counted Counted % Cover Year 3 Year 2 Year 3 Big leaf maple(Acer macrophylum) Cottonwood(Populus trichocarpa) 1 1 2 5 Douglas fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii) Oregon ash(Fraxinus latifolia) Quaking aspen(Populus tremuloides) 2 2 2 10 Vine maple(Acre circinatum) Western red cedar(Thuja plicata) 2 2 2 5 Pacific willow(Salix lasiandra) Sitka willow(Salix sitchensis) 3 3 3 20 Black twinberry(Lonicera involucrata) 7 7 7 20 Evergreen huckleberry(Vaccinium ovatum) Indian plum(Oemieria cerasiformis) Kinnikinnick(Arctostaphylos uva-ursi) Ninebark(Physocarpus capitatus) 14 14 14 35 Oceanspray(Holodiscus discolor) Red flowering currant(Ribes sanguineum) Red-osier dogwood(Comus stolonifera) 9 9 9 25 Salal(Gaultheria shallop) Snowberry(Symphoricarpus albus) Sword fern(Polystichum munitum) Total: 38 38 38 120 NOTES: 25%cover increase since year two. 100%survival. Very dense shrub beginning to form multi-layered canopy. A-12 10494.001.wpd THIRD YEAR MONITORING DATA SHEET OAKESDALE BUSINESS PARK Plot#: 13, wetland Date: August 8,2002 Examiner: TRH Plot Size: 20'x30' Species Planted Counted Counted % Cover Year 3 Year 2 Year 3 Big leaf maple(Acer macrophylum) Cottonwood(Populus trichocarpa) 3 1 2 5 Douglas fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii) Oregon ash(Fraxinus latifolia) 4 4 3 10 Quaking aspen(Populus tremuloides) 3 3 3 10 Vine maple(Acre circinatum) Western red cedar(Thuja plicata) 2 2 2 10 Pacific willow(Salix lasiandra) Sitka willow(Salix sitchensis) 3 3 3 15 Black twinberry(Lonicera involucrata) 10 10 10 35 Evergreen huckleberry(Vaccinium ovatum) Indian plum(Oemieria cerasiformis) Kinnikinnick(Arctostaphylos uva-ursi) Ninebark(Physocarpus capitatus) 4 4 4 5 Oceanspray(Holodiscus discolor) Red flowering currant(Ribes sanguineum) Red-osier dogwood(Cornus stolonifera) 7 7 7 20 Salal(Gaultheria shallon) Snowberry(Symphoricarpus albus) Sword fern (Polystichum munitum) Total: 36 34 34 110 NOTES: Dozens of alder volunteers. 20% cover increase since year two. 100% survival. Beginning to form a multi-layered canopy. A -13 10494.001.wpd THIRD YEAR MONITORING DATA SHEET OAKESDALE BUSINESS PARK Plot#: 14,slope Date: August 8,2002 Examiner: TRH Plot Size: 20'x30' Species Planted Counted Counted % Cover Year 3 Year 2 Year 3 Big leaf maple(Acer macrophylum) 1 0 0 Cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) Douglas fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii) 1 1 2 10 Oregon ash(Fraxinus latifolia) Quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) Vine maple(Acre circinatum) 1 0 0 Western red cedar(Thuja plicata) 1 1 1 5 Pacific willow(Salix lasiandra) Sitka willow(Salix sitchensis) Black twinberry(Lonicera involucrata) Evergreen huckleberry(Vaccinium ovatum) Indian plum(Oemieria cerasiformis) Kinnikinnick(Arctostaphylos uva-ursi) Ninebark(Physocarpus capitatus) Oceanspray(Holodiscus discolor) 2 2 1 5 Red flowering currant(Ribes sanguineum) Red-osier dogwood(Cornus stolonifera) Salal(Gaultheria shallon) Snowberry(Symphoricarpus albus) Sword fern (Polystichum munitum) Total: 6 4 4 20 NOTES: 5%cover increase since year two. 100% survival. A-14 10494.001.wpd DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON q q)'0 THERESA R. HENSON CONSULTING NOV 2 8 2001 Assessment, Management and Regulatory Permitting P.O. BOX 7208 • TACOMA,WASHINGTON 98406 • (253)756-0370 FAX(253)756-0155 A EC E ii/E D LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL Date i 1- 2 6 - 0 I Job No. 1-1 — 1° 1—O q, To: _ 7e 1 Pia el De - Ca. Attention P ex_ I C a S t° y 07 W , is it Rl��! St. 3o36RE: 04...kesdale 3tAs-vicess C'cirvx?‘,ts /-05 Anctele.s EA . 10017 g_e tl W/4 We are sending the following items: Copies Date Description 1 If— of 2 " yeci.r- (Oa n, �zic y�c kePvt!� These are transmitted: ❑ For your retention Et''Ir'or your use 0 As requested ❑For review and comment 0 For action specified below 0 With corrections ❑Please return by 0 0 Prints returned after use by us Message: • Copies sent to: ,,I 5 14 P Pope N•14e S - C h u G k- IA)f 1 r►'t y F' 511 ,- LOJ I 1-(e Ph, I 5c4ne , e,— ` atF Ren 4-on — Sk Y Sent by: r6 ? 5& tis. 0 THIRD YEAR MONITORING DATA SHEET OAKESDALE BUSINESS PARK Plot#: 15,wetland Date: August 8,2002 Examiner: TRH Plot Size: 10'x30' Species Planted Counted Counted % Cover Year 3 Year 2 Year 3 Big leaf maple(Acer macrophylum) Cottonwood(Populus trichocarpa) 1 0 1 20 Douglas fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii) Oregon ash(Fraxinus latifolia) Quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) Vine maple(Acre circinatum) Western red cedar(Thuja plicata) Pacific willow (Salix lasiandra) Sitka willow(Salix sitchensis) 1 2 2 30 Black twinberry(Lonicera involucrata) Evergreen huckleberry(Vaccinium ovatum) Indian plum(Oemieria cerasiformis) Kinnikinnick(Arctostaphylos uva-ursi) Ninebark(Physocarpus capitatus) 1 1 1 Trace Oceanspray(Holodiscus discolor) Red flowering currant(Ribes sanguineum) Red-osier dogwood (Comus stolonifera) 8 7 7 40 Salal(Gaultheria shallon) Snowberry(Symphoricarpus albus) Sword fern (Polystichum munitum) Total: 11 10 11 90 NOTES: 50%cover increase since year two. 100% survival. A -15 10494.001.wpd THIRD YEAR MONITORING DATA SHEET OAKESDALE BUSINESS PARK Plot#: 16,slope Date: August 8,2002 Examiner: TRH Plot Size: 20'x30' Species Planted Counted Counted % Cover Year 3 Year 2 Year 3 Big leaf maple(Acer macrophylum) Cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) Douglas fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii) 2 2 2 15 Oregon ash(Fraxinus latifolia) Quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) Vine maple(Acre circinatum) Western red cedar(Thuja plicata) 1 1 1 5 Pacific willow (Salix lasiandra) Sitka willow (Salix sitchensis) Black twinberry(Lonicera involucrata) Evergreen huckleberry(Vaccinium ovatum) 3 1 1 Trace Indian plum(Oemieria cerasiformis) Kinnikinnick(Arctostaphylos uva-ursi) Ninebark (Physocarpus capitatus) Oceanspray(Holodiscus discolor) 1 0 0 Red flowering currant(Ribes sanguineum) 3 2 2 5 Red-osier dogwood(Comus stolonifera) Salal(Gaultheria shallon) Snowberry(Symphoricarpus albus) 4 3 2 5 Sword fern (Polystichum munitum) 2 1 0 Trace Total: 16 10 8 30+ NOTES: 5%cover increase since year two. 80% survival. A-16 10494.001.wpd THIRD YEAR MONITORING DATA SHEET OAKESDALE BUSINESS PARK Plot#: 17,bench Date: August 8,2002 Examiner: TRH Plot Size: 10'x30' Species Planted Counted Counted % Cover Year 3 Year 2 Year 3 Big leaf maple(Acer macrophylum) Cottonwood(Populus trichocarpa) Douglas fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii) Oregon ash(Fraxinus latifolia) 5 4 4 20 Quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) 3 3 3 25 Vine maple(Acre circinatum) Western red cedar(Thuja plicata) Pacific willow(Salix lasiandra) Sitka willow (Salix sitchensis) Black twinberry(Lonicera involucrata) Evergreen huckleberry(Vaccinium ovatum) Indian plum(Oemieria cerasiformis) Kinnikinnick(Arctostaphylos uva-ursi) Ninebark(Physocarpus capitatus) Oceanspray(Holodiscus discolor) Red flowering currant(Ribes sanguineum) Red-osier dogwood(Comus stolonifera) Salal(Gaultheria shallop) Snowberry(Symphoricarpus albus) Sword fern (Polystichum munitum) Total: 8 7 7 45 NOTES: 15%cover increase since year two. 100% survival. A -17 10494.001.wpd THIRD YEAR MONITORING DATA SHEET OAKESDALE BUSINESS PARK Plot#: 18,slope Date: August 8,2002 Examiner: TRH Plot Size: 20'x30' Species Planted Counted Counted % Cover Year 3 Year 2 Year 3 Big leaf maple(Acer macrophylum) Cottonwood(Populus trichocarpa) Douglas fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii) 2 2 2 10 Oregon ash(Fraxinus latifolia) Quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) Vine maple(Acre circinatum) 3 3 2 10 Western red cedar(Thuja plicata) 2 2 2 10 Pacific willow(Salix lasiandra) Sitka willow (Salix sitchensis) Black twinberry(Lonicera involucrata) Evergreen huckleberry(Vaccinium ovatum) Indian plum(Oemieria cerasiformis) Kinnikinnick(Arctostaphylos uva-ursi) Ninebark (Physocarpus capitatus) 4 3 3 20 Oceanspray(Holodiscus discolor) Red flowering currant(Ribes sanguineum) 2 2 2 10 Red-osier dogwood(Comus stolonifera) 3 have 3 20 cover in plot Salal(Gaultheria shallon) 2 0 0 Snowberry(Symphoricarpus albus) Sword fern (Polystichum munitum) 6 4 2 5 Total: 21 19 16 85 NOTES: 35%cover increase since year two. 85% survival. Dogwood is rooted outside the plot but has cover in the plot. A-18 10494.001.wpd THIRD YEAR MONITORING DATA SHEET OAKESDALE BUSINESS PARK Plot#: 19,bench Date: August 8,2002 Examiner: TRH Plot Size: 10'x30' Species Planted Counted Counted % Cover Year 3 Year 2 Year 3 Big leaf maple(Acer macrophylum) Cottonwood(Populus trichocarpa) 0 1 1 10 Douglas fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii) Oregon ash(Fraxinus latifolia) 4 4 4 20 Quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) 5 5 5 20 Vine maple(Acre circinatum) Western red cedar(Thuja plicata) Pacific willow(Salix lasiandra) Sitka willow (Salix sitchensis) Black twinberry(Lonicera involucrata) Evergreen huckleberry(Vaccinium ovatum) Indian plum(Oemieria cerasiformis) Kinnikinnick(Arctostaphylos uva-ursi) Ninebark(Physocarpus capitatus) Oceanspray(Holodiscus discolor) Red flowering currant(Ribes sanguineum) Red-osier dogwood(Corpus stolonifera) Salal(Gaultheria shallon) Snowberry(Symphoricarpus albus) Red Alder(Alnus rubra)volunteer 1 5 Total: 9 10 11 55 NOTES: 20%cover increase since year two. 100% survival. A-19 10494.001.wpd THIRD YEAR MONITORING DATA SHEET OAKESDALE BUSINESS PARK Plot#: 20,slope Date: August 8,2002 Examiner: TRH Plot Size: 5'x10' Species Planted Counted Counted % Cover Year 3 Year 2 Year 3 Big leaf maple(Acer macrophylum) Cottonwood(Populus trichocarpa) Douglas fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii) Oregon ash(Fraxinus latifolia) Quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) Vine maple(Acre circinatum) Western red cedar(Thuja plicata) Pacific willow(Salix lasiandra) Sitka willow(Salix sitchensis) Black twinberry(Lonicera involucrata) Evergreen huckleberry(Vaccinium ovatum) Indian plum(Oemieria cerasiformis) Kinnikinnick(Arctostaphylos uva-ursi) 12 12 12 55 Ninebark(Physocarpus capitatus) Oceanspray(Holodiscus discolor) Red flowering currant(Ribes sanguineum) Red-osier dogwood(Comus stolonifera) Salal(Gaultheria shallon) Snowberry(Symphoricarpus albus) Sword fern (Polystichum munitum) Total: 12 12 12 55 NOTES: 5%cover increase since year two. 100% survival. A -20 10494.001.wpd THIRD YEAR MONITORING DATA SHEET OAKESDALE BUSINESS PARK Plot: 21,Wetland A buffer Date: August 8,2002 Examiner: TRH Plot Size: 60'x 80' Species Planted Counted Counted % Cover Year 3 Year 2 Year 3 Big leaf maple(Acer macrophylum) 2 2 2 trace Cottonwood(Populus trichocarpa) Douglas fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii) 5 5 5 5 Oregon ash(Fraxinus latifolia) Quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) Vine maple(Acre circinatum) Western red cedar(Thuja plicata) 4 4 4 5 Pacific willow (Salix lasiandra) Sitka willow(Salix sitchensis) Black twinberry(Lonicera involucrata) Evergreen huckleberry(Vaccinium ovatum) Indian plum(Oemieria cerasiformis) Kinnikinnick(Arctostaphylos uva-ursi) Ninebark(Physocarpus capitatus) Oceanspray(Holodiscus discolor) Red flowering currant(Ribes sanguineum) Red-osier dogwood(Comus stolonifera) 9 9 9 20 Salal(Gaultheria shallon) Snowberry(Symphoricarpus albus) 6 6 5 10 Sword fern (Polystichum munitum) Total: 26 26 25 40 NOTES: 5%cover increase since last year. 96% survival. A-21 10494.001.wpd THIRD YEAR MONITORING DATA SHEET OAKESDALE BUSINESS PARK Plot: 22,Wetland A buffer Date: August 8,2002 Examiner: TRH Plot Size: 60'x 80' Species Planted Counted Counted % Cover Year 3 Year 2 Year 3 Big leaf maple(Acer macrophylum) 2 2 2 trace Cottonwood(Populus trichocarpa) Douglas fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii) 4 4 4 5 Oregon ash(Fraxinus latifolia) Quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) Vine maple(Acre circinatum) Western red cedar(Thuja plicata) 2 2 2 trace Pacific willow(Salix lasiandra) Sitka willow(Salix sitchensis) Black twinberry(Lonicera involucrata) Evergreen huckleberry(Vaccinium ovatum) Indian plum(Oemieria cerasiformis) Kinnikinnick(Arctostaphylos uva-ursi) Ninebark(Physocarpus capitatus) 6 6 3 5 Oceanspray(Holodiscus discolor) 6 6 3 5 Red flowering currant(Ribes sanguineum) Red-osier dogwood(Cornus stolonifera) 6 6 6 15 Salal(Gaultheria shallon) Snowberry(Symphoricarpus albus) 5 5 5 5 Sword fern (Polystichum munitum) Total: 31 31 25 35+ NOTES: 10%cover increase since last year. 80 % survival. A-22 10494.001.wpd . S , APPENDIX B PHOTOGRAPHS 10494.001.wpd • .1 . ir. A *** ' ' or- •-?,• • ,i ., •- .„.• •r, s,-4-47:•Afit...: ,,' .• - • :At Avtie ' • . .4. • -I.lc r sr •:- ,t ' • , '''', ..*;,. " ''.' • --..`.•1 it, 1", h•`' • ti'-•49., $ ..'''' ''''t' . • ' 'V* 1 Iti, -4- - •-4 • -. -r, s.., - - • % -••• , , • ,. ,_,„..-.4?K.:A • - if . v. OS .., • -4. . ' '",:"..i.:-.-ik, ' .441 ; • . - 'i ' • . , • . :•..Ni.' 1,i got. - .. , *4 r .1 4 . . . ',‘ et°...4.!"! . • .. ' :•• .„.A,, ..- • . ., . . . . • . --- iii • , , •• •„to- •. ..e," . . •.. i*2 •'- PHOTO 1 . • • - Photo Station 1 view northeast down Springbrook Creek, year two. ..•=0. irrAfj.:4. -, ,•,., i . • .,, f,,-,. .;,.^-4,-..., .. .1, A...., ' .:.'", lir, ' .:•• - 4-'.:,;,i;-,, - 1,.....4.-IN . ; ••••'.'i--•:;?-4;:,- • , -.1-- . witill7 '-^'^ - tie.-,• •74 -,.. ;• 4t ;:4.. .4 -* .; :r..."4,.. ..,;,-... , • -...r.- -:,.. i Itilii . ': ' •-•.•', :41'• ,h..r••- % •-• Pc4;;•-'. ,: -1›-, •-•?.4';- ...it...- . - _17 . , -4.,, • ,.. . . .. ..7. :,,„• al 7.-eff:-1\*:' ' ' ,r...-. C},• ' ;'.7 'fi'0 " - ...,. i .t• , . 4'.. • • 14..1', ',o•Ail• ::,"'t.5.",`"''. . '..-...,.!--••• .'' '''.5,1.:':.<' ' '•''... ''-'ic ' t .•%ft!'..`...f7' 1....4..'Z', t ik.,'.,0t:.4.441-.-I4,.:-.1..,.. . ^7- ' - ' ," •-""c1;‘,.•,,,,„, • ...-...`..,, -:-. '4.4.4\it...1.71%,,,1--! '''"3"; ii0-4*t.:. (---..,i,40C-e., k I ,., , •,,)-4,4.0" 4,1,..1.-•• 1---ri^r 1..•";e:',, • •-.'v<',$k` f' ' li'...-:••,,'- 1:oico' ''4?. • ,4 - - •-..- - ---••• • - . •. '4 • :..,..-7--- ,-•v •rs'• 1. ti...) .‘-1,...1. ..74.-•••ttz, gt, L Aikiii.,;1' ,k!•'• "4 0 ..4tir''.. :14 i- vr.-. ... ".• ' 4:rt...e‘.4.-1*'• ' 'rr:-...-. '-?t::::i. "irivc:?; .- -!.. . .',-..," , ,: -• -!;;;..,_ ,..t,igi:AW.=41,;,.- +4. , :Jill, rt,!'14raft. - .q-'4'..'.ii.fti.ir6...:•00' *,/ , ' '..2-`,„,••`;f14.:..,•,).•:; •..-IX.'gq+4)t'''''VtiZ4.4.;;;"-NA,'•IA'''''.V. •:‘•". - •'1'.%''.. ",- '' ;t......t IOW II?•ii:•' .• • - ..:- ,,,..‘,;.•,-...." --i.:;,,11:.rip...-::,,‘0, 11,1; -..‘.., ., ....,....:),:;10& ..-0....„2.1,•.: v:,',„Ab ;, ..v.;'.. ....i.l..„,- .•.. -$., ...t ,4;:,...- .) -:.,:,..e-•::-:„4411fAW-..,...4:.i4..;‘)..,.."7';',;•.-..: 1. P;4415 ,fot ,: , is:IP4 -..,;,;,,, r % - ' ‘'.%sr.3"..;:••,:rfear.i.;1.:13,;,.7.*: '....4.t:.• :- • , ' C•`.', 1,, • I. ';';:•)"gr`..74,,-..-,"iq>PS, ,..„."?"" t1.4":11.7.t.;•;11"!..74 f, p • '''.:e:f1-.41....• . ..4 ‘ ."N;i4, 1,1•A,X„,..e•Ai ,,..,.4,,. !-,.. :44iitro• .#. -'.,:,.•,,,4.•,:„.iti,?--• ..ili% ,,......,..- . 1....,J.±.„.....;.-v,..I. * _.... z. ..' lot.'-'••,•‘04'..1 4 " •.'o'r •. I.;•e 4, ..4.,,,10,,, 4., .1..7.:,:,..-. ,5!;'0i,:r--• :;' ;•.44-t,i•? *-•:-' •;4,''it 'c' , 7.`17-it''''',f*"7?-'4' f:' - r, , _•.,,, -•-•;) ..;.7.,' ... -:..:.?;',";•;. 34.-- .1. ., i IPAt....'*_414,...11, ' .> 14• -':-..,,..sA,2'1•-• ,.4 p,_ , , • ,',t4i ,,T-l: ..1-. 5r. .. • '..;4n';t•'• ' 'j.1" .-tV•rk/Z.' '- ' It-t7r3 4 • ••• CIL 4 a, ..,.4.ir,§A,AT..r••-.I. •%.ijr• '.- . .e. 't-t•‘'; % . ..: l'• `,t+ l'^' ' ' •... . k.(1.t...ti.:'1.*•-47r-.':46-,. 4,-- • , I . v.-, r .-:.• .1=-- r t ../ 1 ., _ - 1.„..„‘.:,-.,.?.7i,i..,;;k5<il.i.,:..z:74-,..41k-f:•1:: .,-.1.......4.,p;...15I,..,:-1',. '-.:, .-:,, ''-rie •;* i t.4,, • ,,v 4 .,(;,/,‘ r', - '.1111‘M .r A-44,, 0,;.-,-, -;,-,„.4.i,.. .„.,,. 0 5. .A.,,,,,, ,,- ,_ /,1,..„--,,,,, ;, 11,1,..... ,.cift....c....4-4-•;,;.-.-1;,.. _,.. , ,..-...v...A.,,k, -,„• ... ....,.,4-.4riai ! te.--1.,1 ;1-,7t ' '' /,'" ...' . f.14" 011416;4 . '.:,--'...:4» kie ',I . '".•":,* 1,... c.... ..'.4 '.1- . ;'. . ,. , , .....,-..,.., .;,.t.. , „4. ..'.1. .,i'0„1 .. J7ifi'. .• r igi•• ,.,- , ,,, ,,. .. '''I'''' '''''. .1'.'',/. ••4e, ., .rx c t7. 44;.•.: t',44. .., - • ,,fil I, • ,i,t ift.'4,,,.,:-,-„,4,,,x0. . -i'_,4. • , .ii 0.4s-- ', 4.- - - , ?-..„ • "111---.- ''- P I„E.,1•': :'44,i..,..,4) .., "fq ‘1.41,0'44 • 'r--.K. . .,,ii.:4"is,: 5-4.. .,,, tikR.,) .4,.., „,,..,...1...,.,. . ,I ' ' :,:,-. g, , ..-1Ni - .'1 -- ,i, 1.- ... --' • .. ,N. ••+: :.• ....1 en • •,t s v.....-..)• 4r t. I. 14;}-, \ t---. ..'' kt t''.• ("15N .41:" .7,fl'Ate ',•,''' ,",N .....*:.,.4,4- , it_ 7 .."1'.. *.%.•••• .•4 , t,• ...',.1'. r a, Irlii%1V1FA ' ',..1L-‘.: N..-• ,•tIce. '''%"-, b.,...,• t"R...- , . PHOTO 2 Alvi N :s. 1k ,. ,. , • :. - . 40 .;,'1.0..it -s: ,,,1 , , •• i.•.• .. •44,... i '"\ .>T...1.), ...^, ... ,.,..' i; :.4 Photo Station 1 view northeast down Springbrook Creek, year three. PHOTOGRAPHS ...0 Oakesdale Business Park el •2 ‘ Renton,Washington e, ! Wetland Monitoring Report 0.0 OUR JOB NO. 10494 F 151 • a , .f �0 S • 1'1• 40 • • ,,•t. . • 441 • • PHOTO 3 Photo Station 2 view south over westerly mitigation triangle, year two. • . ;:' . •;..� .•�„!r • ;_ = . ` 71,yta. • t o P • • ` S. • ', . r ,•• . PHOTO 4 Photo Station 2 view south over westerly mitigation triangle, year three. PHOTOGRAPHS C3�G � Z Oakesdale Business Park - ' - Renton, Washington Wetland Monitoring Report ''wo.• OUR JOB NO. 10494 F.15 . . T PIA 'f ,' -11;94,417."`• , A ielf I r 4 It ti°1 *, .4'.'• ' :. , . ' i . .,.. 0 .'ttel' ''.il ' . !:-Ik .! : 4 • 4 • A - 4 '• . sit . , I ' - ,. .14,- •..g,,:,?...6 ir ....,.... .., . • . . • -,. .• •••• ,.i.• ..„. . •.,,;,,, , -r j. .. . , . , 0. .., • , , . ... f •• , . • .4',1 A:Al,4';.i°.r. . ••;),le t l'i ' 41, .1*. 4. '' •••..;Ir 7. - Xe...,,,,•,.7.:•.... ...` . . •;• . , , „3 - N. .., ,ii Le , •I if i .1 ••.,. .••• "41 .f 'It 4***1....4,-44.*t. • , • .,, 44 ' ! '< .41. '..-. .‘.!‘ • .. i .•. ( ...1, ' il ..,•••.4-...4-I ,-,:i 4,,,,;_,.: .41111 • :- i' • „ . . . • . . PHOTO 5 Photo Station 3 view east towards Plot 4 (slope) and Plot 5 (bench), year two. 1' IP 4 i , ' 41/40-4, .,4): ' ._ „ - , .., _ • ,....„) fr- •fir , , .- ;.- 46, ...44 -, .40 OP . .. . ... no . - ,. -- i •• 441° - ;. . . '. • *: • I - 4 - ,:-.---gfrdiv „_ -, -e,-,-* ),..d: • •• ,- - .,;.,..- ,, _1.A,,;-•,• • -,...1 A.-- • -•'...,.....,.• ,..0:0-44. [ o, • •1. ' .. , '.. ..41 -.. ' .714. "..% • . . . . • Ak • '.1.1 .- • ..-- .... ,3:41 • . , "..,,f.:, ...,." - ..,- ,,";,.i.,_ .... f) - • - • -1 ---1.'4,-;:-.1., , - . i ..Ir.:0P .,, . . . •• . •,_: Ar20 --......•.4....-:,-,-70;- -' • ,. , ,•-_ ,--tt. ." .f...-.....,: ---"-;,, : . - . -.- ,, ., ...'., ',.. ••':,..e. '4Afile: (1S:.•••• .7'. 'Olf....''.i.F.:;.':- ' -"' • '''71' '' 'M7*111°,-7, :i1-• 4i* 4e F'-':. '.; l'it." ,'jr514:4P. 4;L,:--..'.'•.;,'•,: - , .. • .• -- • -- 7 -,,,,,. .... I ,441.A.t. . , .4''..2;;,'Arigu,... • .,.:•7r 7.0). •.1•Ite••t;ri. ,.......-•;,,ac,,. ..r7 ..i. 7 ... , . i.:.4;"" l• • 1.7„•,..;:e" .or?'...r,"..-:-; •,.." ,. . :tria:, '-'•;" , , _ . .ep,.%,-Ins. -•.!••• 7-,..--,. 7;.,'''' - ... . . • ... •2•#,....,',,•.. ..,•,,..1 •:••••.,...-' 4 , . . ••-•••' ',,r....'' • ',,• ' 1 •"4.(51k.s.. •• :•• '. . . .' Ale? '' -7 *. • t '•'• ;..7-. .- • •- :• . - ;,-t•., !).-A... ,, .. .,... - -',-: • ' . - --al-44, • ' ' 740..41 ,,:.:-' "-'.,,,; .:...-.-_,..r.,:' . ,..-,-- ••:;1.- -...1,....-,- -- ._ :-..- ; . ...•14.,„_.,:c5,..--,-• .-, :::,..-.-._*•....,..„: ..-,,,,..._ _ _ „... :,_ .-. ..;,..,...i.,-- .• ,. .„:;.-...,;._•; :i-,-.;.-t,t:'-.,•.- - ----- -:af:;:i.- , . ,, ..1). vf---a , ''',-;:,-;,:::?1,7••:--,- .1.--,ka';',''. - '.."` ; .' .(.. % ' . • l' .-... • '- -;?. Y:ififiVig...7 1:,..-''a ; •..'.•4.1%.*•:',....f.,-.Y-...-_,..:1.:'.' ... -, '', / ' s- ' .' '. ',' .1••% . '.. -sc- ,.1.4 1...,, ....' -..•'-fft'Ci...\4:Y,. ... ;, Ir'4 :41.14:d.,Z.::4"141.'Aiti..',=,,,. 'IT'...;1'..S:•cl': t'', • ,. !%*' " ...':k"1%1/4'.... :2,1pii.i;:k"7°..-k!,,..X.2::':: '‘ t'' ;, • .7.'- .. '.. „ ' ., . .,... . ••- s.:k: N s 'i:1;;Y:,....N1.- .. ,.‘' ';,',,-..-'_-„ • • t,., . ' .... ,* ,• , • '; ,•,_,. 7.... A; 'V i;.%),..s•tt. .ili. .4.. ;* '..,,c;•:'.....:;, . , , '-:,'-...,.........:• `":::',I.!. •:4._: 'i- • :. ' ., - - ' - PHOTO 6 Photo Station 3 view east towards Plot 4 (slope) and Plot 5 (bench), year three. PHOTOGRAPHS icolAu Oakesdale Business Park 0 Renton, Washington N....." Wetland Monitoring Report OUR JOB NO. 10494 F 151 4. :i I 4,, • . , . ♦ . I,, K h•'i , PHOTO 7 Photo Station 4 view east towards Plot 6 (slope) and Plot7 (bench), year two. J,"'! y if,+yt4 '' .r •y;, r� _`f �_ f. , r y. !y ,2" .L • j t { � ' • ,4V r ti PHOTO 8 Photo Station 4 view east towards Plot 6 (slope) and Plot7 (bench), year three. �6Hq` PHOTOGRAPHS Aid, ). Oakesdale Business Park -€ ' Renton, Washington \ 'f.a. 1 Wetland Monitoring Report '+ 1' OUR JOB NO. 10494 F,151 • ,, • -F:i x(, ., PHOTO 9 Photo Station 5 view east towards Plot 8 (slope) and Plot 9 (bench), year two. t . ?. ,Y-w e•s — •r•_ -_ „�. : '.-tr.11:-.: fir `• 1,- `d .^_ -:• r ins t. J i 1 to r e-- 7 PHOTO 10 Photo Station 5 view east towards Plot 8 (slope) and Plot 9 (bench), year three. PHOTOGRAPHS bH'4 ii i %` Oakesdale Business Park de._ `'_ ` Renton, Washington ' Wetland Monitoring Report • 110 . .',. :4:- '",%. • .6 , 1- . • . i 1 ' • - i c, . • • .. •. . . PHOTO 1 1 Photo Station 6 view south over easterly wetland mitigation triangle, year two. ,•,- • , . .. _ .. 4:14 _. . - • — .. . . • .,- -..._ •.,...14,......N.--,,,.!„..;.,,,.. .3.:.-4,--,.,....-..,s,A-,..k.,...t.yy.', ,,,L, \!... ....,, ...._.-.• . ,''• . - . ' • • J'Ixtrl,g.• ','•`'.-:ST.:=4.Tilit':frti:.'ztAi .'00...11),!•t-',;.',;••F4.es-7.'" -.' ' _ -):-,-1.--- '', • P7.4V4:- . • • , ,, - ,-,...- 7 .'.''._'' • .:- , 'k.:7,..'NC.,"V 7:' . PO" .'Z'ji-',..''''.:`"...t-?'!.:•-'''. r •Vir.r .-- ', •••': - ' :-.." •- ', ,..1-,:'' . •-!...: -•;: - , , : •,•••;.f... .,.. ; ;',-t,:,..."7,t•T,:,• ' --• .•',.---,,. ''.. -,'"`k i---- ...-- . ":.'',"' , ',,.1.:.,,.'•:•F:1... •, ..;:". . „ -.- . - '...:...-.. . , •• • ..__-,,.-4.71;r1.1, •., i- , ..-.. . .1,...,II.,,,:;;;i:,„4• . • , •-• •-. "'-i ' ---'" '''N. - ' •--. ... V'',7 :-.'..(..,!..."§v 1,- -.. , -- •,i ;I:.t-. ,-2. - . . •• . .. -..- • ...;2:4,.-..--.;. •..,. 4,:v„,., ,.,.e.,-.!••-ot "Ai: IN , -,, <- :V.Y.4„;Jr- . .:" . ' :- . ......:,:,.. .....1-f.-•$,,,72: • u „•. .:,-...- ;.-.. .......-, - .....1.--:-,-' -3,-* -:,. ;,,(; . ,.. - •.; - - -„- L‘N;..• ,- ' . - -. ••••'.-;1' '' ‘." • ,,' ir.,‘•••\'..-4„*.V,*%:,;:',._ - :- . . ' C,...'•---r- , ', . st b2,"-.4,. - 1, ',,,k,--. • ;,. ;' ." .• • ...•„ ,-1-...-., 'Czei„,_tv.ta .i<is..--.7.7g,...-0._,Iqr. • .1/1 , :4,. ,A; 47„: .-\;•• •_, :, ,•.-- • - . '. -- - v. .-,-.;,„ . . "0.•41,‘i.0'4.11",_•' -.,, ,,.... ,.--,,,mi.4,,ik,.; •-"I. •••-• ,_ • • • .,• ''''',4.,, .,.i.' ',1."4.3 ')'/-....‘4"..T.A-1 '-i. , n'\•' ---, ;t411;.„ - - ,,- -. - - \‘‘...,-, -+r- • -.4.,..• 4.1,, .,••,. -, ,4\,...1 N ,-. A. 4.,•,..1, . , ,45.4"..),J.. .;•;.i•‘,./,'".,,,,.--..:,•N. , ' 4,, -4.....d4....,-,,.../ .: .:;.1.,. '''...7 4.;,•,,i• 4.•,,-,-.41'.,-Fa.,Vi... v$7.1s''''.. 4.-C ;‘*•,...,•-•.w.z•-.v:— • 1.. ; , ",'',1.,.......•'...* ....:"TV••,-C;W...i. ,.:.•llt kg), .....,•,<;;IT,OJT:N.*. "y( . ) . •i:.--4.-", ,,—.',25;40 .1,•'• •,-,,,,, ,,:y.,:s .".„.N‘•„.•.4,m.,g_t -.11 ...--.....2 -•,,,,m,,,, . -. ':"''' ' '-'1V%''''."' 'AL.!".--1.,75,A,..0.1t.-.LVV5',' e , .'.•1,:c!i - t 4X-N,...„, ' 4, 44;:1, f..•.. ..e. 44-i'q:'.,-: /41.:.' .• •,'•'•-;',•'14. 3 . es ' '',f-1-,";, ..---- --.- -,•''';',-4..,.. ..•-4":-. -".. : - :I..' ' ‘ ; .- t• , .., . . • PHOTO 12 Photo Station 6 view south over easterly wetland mitigation triangle, year three. PHOTOGRAPHS or 6,4*.NHAc., 42- Oakesdale Business Park -S.' Renton, Washington V— 1 Wetland Monitoring Report OUR JOB NO. 10494 Flit c yid PHOTO 13 Photo Station 7 view east towards Plot 14 (slope) and Plot 15 (bench), year two. • I • • • • % { • 'fir... 1 _ y4.•,. FRS. '�:�C f _ ( ' • wr 7 1 I 3 i • pq+'ai • ! J 4 v,t PHOTO 14 Photo Station 7 view east towards Plot 14 (slope) and Plot 15 (bench), year three. �bH,,G PHOTOGRAPHS Oakesdale Business Park - Renton, Washington Wetland Monitoring Report Flit OUR JOB NO. 10494 • • , t 4,� PHOTO 15 Photo Station 8 view west up Springbrook Creek, year two. • `.. . _ 1 1�� r ;6 w• I.•.• .• Kf • r • r • + •r I >>t Y . • ,.� ' $�r cry; ae yy�p, 5 h 1r aNF� rh'5 r4s ? • �" • 44+ PHOTO 16 Photo Station 8 view west up Springbrook Creek, year three. PHOTOGRAPHS IOakesdale Business Park = Renton, Washington 1 Wetland Monitoring Report r.t t OUR JOB NO. 10494 • , :.; .4 t 'p, La` r r• r 1. • _ . • PHOTO 17 Photo Station 9 view southwest toward Plot 21, year two. t 1l r �.:.� yrf> :: A.,11_••rsf,t... ,',...t. .. ..'" ..‘:74.1e • ..'' .jalL4' . , 's•040:".Y h Y 'L, , .� ' �tt'tf'yy��'i• ; 1., lam.• r • ' ? "jf t A r• .� A' i •. ^ tJC�"fi ..� • f f s 9rfipkV,1•1441 p J.. 1 i f 1y •. a •+ �, ... ^•:S��A r.. ., ,xl. {a.._.RyA•,-� i.3: .. . PHOTO 18 Photo Station 9 view southwest toward Plot 21, year three. 4`GHAT PHOTOGRAPHS or ,id,, Z Oakesdale Business Park 40_ Renton, Washington ' i Wetland Monitoring Report '.o,•., OUR JOB NO. 10494 Fisi • ,, a ax Y, ; t. f " ( , • • j r k w 5 ti �• ,c, PHOTO 19 Photo Station 10 view southwest toward Plot 22, year two. • ^; . r: r K r / fi ,„,:s_„TM V! ' PHOTO 20 Photo Station 10 view southwest toward Plot 22, year three. �6HA� PHOTOGRAPHS mP y/� � Oakesdale Business Park 74,-° Renton, Washington ' Wetland Monitoring Reporto.•- OUR JOB NO. 10494 F.151 __.. .... . w.... .1.R1.11R111,N1,,,, 11,1„1, ,,,, ,,,, 1„I„11M,. .*", ,n,Wm,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,t.,,,,,,,,,,,,,M»»m1R �R uND 1111 1ru111u111111,IN11111:1,1, D1IRRRN1T11D,n.,,,,R11D OFFICE OFFICE OFFIC: SDT - OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE j1 SPlICE r OFFICE 7]5' OFFICE ' - I A A I (�N :'::'.';,3y� {e D' , u' ''I U D .. ..4* • 1 C 1 R A 1 i r ARCHITECTURE +r ss ,r A 1 sr sr ss Sz ss .. +r ss 52 ar sr R s2 1 I 8 4 i (5 A R On {'DOCK {'DaK 1 {•5020 , {•DOOR Ex61WDI „ L41 St/lye RN P liAAI' RN. .P RAMP :19 - A• , Ilf AD D BUFFER v DOCK a•DOCK a'DOCK +'DEN JI•I 11 w REPLACEMENT ZELMAN RENTON LLC i/i� ii; ' 1 529' 1 6s+ - OFFICE /{ 1/ /1 LOS ANGELES,CA 90017 •303E ' 707 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD. DIIsnNc/ I Si ����/•••/////' / A I R /// ,/ / ��i,y ii I\ se'-r ss ss 1 sr D ss 80 I ss e-r u ez 1 er sr sr 1B Sr sr I sr 52 sz ar / r // /I SO'r4)RFER/ ` ry I j I A A � o' / !n I A I W I I I I C.i ,;%i / • OFFICE 529• OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE , OFFICE OFFICE / // I Z �: .. I - — / GJ it SANITARY EASEMENT .:T _' • %/ SARR GNNFyY %1.25� NE 5 ' / DEIFMION PONDS I A. 101 [,•II�� !I A 1�1 —I r - _ G ROQK�Eg I/ _ T�_ _ - --� N _ V 2 OFFICE I - _ ! - �/ •C I rl �., �. , _ I - i�13'DON1F'EASEMENT 0 15- 30. 80' h i - _ i� I SUB-PARCEL J ( _.l-- - I NOT INCLUDED IN PROPOSAL I - K/ Co. $FgRELNE SETBACK I N 1 Rn�m 15'LANDSCAPED SIDE/REM - - - /'/ �- / . / 15'DRLIIY EASEMENT 1 I YARD SETBACK �F I I I I lyl p ®I , SUB-PARCEL H I I" NOT INCLUDED IN PROPOSAL �15'ummr EASEMENT I S /�' SUB-PARCEL G i I .11 NOT INCLUDED IN PROPOSAL --� I ' 385' OFFICE A I..�__- __- I Pmirc1 No. 105 U h, , // I I Due R/OE/SB �'• ! I PROPERTY NOT INCLUDED WATER MAN EASEMENT I I Draws B9 RCC IN PROPOSAL 25'WETLAND BUFFER r //, I NOTSUB-PARCEL K I (�� '1,r•�; / NOT INCLUDED IN PROPOSAL I I O I ' MULTI-CELL DETENTNNI POND NI 25.WETLAND BUFFER"m. / 23' SHORELINE • N Title WETLAND REPLACEMENT AREA - , SLY COMMERCIAL SNORIUNE SETBACK O A K S D A L E BUSINESS CAMPUS _ I SITE PLAN APPROVAL /J/ t i SUBMISSION /i / SOUTH EST PARCEL I r. NOT I LUDED IN PROPOSAL I PRELIMINARY A-lb I [`� I _- -- Sheet No. . iD. i1SCMED FRONT YARD SETBACK 250' I - _ _ _ __ ,�� P NA SITE .�w�'� �i� a , ,o �.,;� %� --- - 385' � / iii SLOPE EASEMENT - - SNINI S.W. 43RD STREET 300' xRFF .REF. .REF ,REF R« -2/04A90-2-OP,s•a, iN rI ` -J �x�T d \ �I 1 a 1 _ _z _ c _ - ,: z F: 11 -k. ,•,- .... __ . . \ • j.I R n 2 — — a va fi s, — I�N tl'',. ✓ ........ !,:. /,; • 7 sw 34TH Z~sr ; r ./�.•+ 1Z Q SW 34TH ST 1 WNNLER- -- /./ i — , ! k° 4'-^— T--1 , ._- I fix .,. // Z , F i J .J I. ;- -- Gorr Las \/ It% - f� ' a , _ I ( 77kt 31.Str f,I MA/2resi1.21 7 fl"— m. Z 1 K 2 ~ ' i w i } '4• n H z « y IM ZONE ya rn 1 —['i '� ki ti:' .. e e ` Z 1JaI Z • ,. I ul EN-11' /A . -- 1 142 Kr.>_�w.__ _—_y,a_-- I�1 ��� .3�A at 2 ; aa) 10.. --i. -- ° ,: 1[3y o 4cq s e 3 Y•• I- 2 _ W J ;oj/NE / 1 I �7'` f u i i o a = 9 s.. 3erN — sr., .J K /, ' IL ZONE - NOR THERN I SOUTHCENTER« '� v4...k J o , o N s 4. „ 1. .« d N< o IN ZONE W i ,r .�y , I i 'IONDUSTRIiAL . ° ,., W¢ ' zr z¢, .e ,, 3�'� NoaT„N, VALLEY ar r I h : . -------0a� I - -- _ PARK .«. lu z r,a •33 0 sW _ 39,. 5T • - • 1 i W - / - m is E. Y OVsl NE55 /AA,y I W! — .....•.�.. IL NE - .. tt,�` ' - ..1 D p \ �r O r- — —�. ——._._ ZO 2 IL ZONE .I. wr t' a ... �� i _ � .1 W /�� BURLINGTON NORTHER L NG1RTNE1N ,n, 1 W 4ilf �; . „��� I IN ZONE ','®« • ORILLIA INDUSTRIAL P RN. ��� r a y IN ZONE . •......, T^," T.-. OF R NTON DIV I w _ ( P If--------- �(.�' _ / 4 E I TUKWILA NNooelh dlprNi g61oo&Cres1 ; sw IlOT x- ` ST. sW nsrl+ sr I we / // /// A g a 1 j woos/ t 111 ZONE , j• EL71 • SL IN ZONE I I C ENT E RI/ R E N T�O�,N • �� - 0. LLII .E. ..�_�� - .Z P i' �T' s i.-s' ,•'.«`� I '••441 n m« I r ,,. ALL PROPERTIES NORTH OF CITY LIMIT. , y 7,1 I .' i i i _, IN AREA•VALLEY f//fQ o- SW[� '-743Rd'1.4-57: ',P :... — . ��.i� .. ___ __-_- v T /• _:i..� - e .o . . G O .. RLcGI� �« RILLIA N • • • „ 5W. 13RD -L 5T q 1 ° I�N ,R 1 v E 6' pi£ Q A O. Fr Fr 3N 1¢....id.'< I •isv fU LNG -1f 1. .L uw y ,. _ �/ ,1 m f,1,S.A R S wAJ:.y,. I GI V.2 1 t y 4 . ,,,, _ t:/Q e W p pAApJJ III \\.\ 1�,,1 st 'i. .DlU S-T R 1 A l; 00 t .w�. '1 I 1 i• s TB. ',- a / S • i — - - 9 a, it S. • I. 1 • 3 "?;y'• R u «.2,«„> V jl .-I """ . KENT z•-• -� 01 Zr j "' 12.1\ _r� «. .... ' L�• ii ,S ND .� i :2 i �� P A R N - I ' �L9 1 Al \�\ '® ® �S:ill: fl a, Op POR E W ,....w..°...,°. I -«. - �: 1 I�r.«_ N E N 7 " ''',' • y I, A m':I i�I -' y' \j • ®' a c Y• ;.„At s s a = �� E �;1.. 1 .,'<1.. • ,PJb'Q - >e a `w q ;I �,, -' _ —=ter•— �1 .. ®, o ® tlf v3.1 •'•o :' r" • �� _ ¢ tr~ _ `� �� `�r„ •NEIGHBORHOOD DETAIL MAP . • A _ fi I c s i 3 W H ».w •,•••• g Oaksdale Business Campus • C i i 1 I. i III I I I- 3 _ �2 - MKT• o ' North of Springbrook Creek If rood - 1- �-''r. i f i zp = z _'.._ !^ fl�. Y ..., ——= EEVp 4 1 o t3 , z p a I ! ¢ i rn mmmgi e e Q II(, jpi i a�, 3 m .N/ �dth„.w o / ...o .� I. , �. 1 • ,- •2 «' n II a i 1 !it tt�r� a7 l �Ia ! I®,«.w.,.. µitT 1 041'o .^_o•To �'Ofii'°sir°: .iL:• l�l[ :"e 11�1et ra -ate t;.r,,,, .°;.,°,A.lg',i..$;..or II!.,/,,-. aP.O 4«;..,9�H.�04?;*'^.:-h'. ; 9,IN f"i:t'.'.°.e: °o` 0:.1�VM:.3,°00 ° N 113 :4 ° oi6:31111 1 I 11111 1111 IMIIIi'' I I wift� .� ,.. 4 Le �a /,.:// / ,;;;E i .....•_ III II I I I•II ais 03 ,, 1 °'� sum: III II I I I I / �h ° ED 4, o�- _ „i om_ .YYi. _ I 1 _ I I I I I 1 1 - o °,t_ —_ _ 7 _ _I _ , _ _ r _ _I_ _ 7 _ _r_ _ ,_ _ 1- __ _ -T_-I_ _, _ - I_ _ _I_ _T _ _I_ _, _ _r_ -1__ T _ I_ - 1 - r - - - c R. U3( . :A-1 -- - 1 - -I_ - J _ - L _ -1- - 1 - -1_ _ J- - L - - 1- -I--J- - L - -I--1 - -I-- 1--L- -I-- 1 - I _ J _ _L_ — Q. yE `o , 1 I I — — I I 1 I 1 I I I I I I - o- 5 d!lddd o , =- - 7 - -I - 1- - 1- -1- _ 7 --r- 1 - - 1- __ -T--1- - 1- - I- - -I- -T--I- -1 - -r- -I- - T - I - 1 - -I-- —6h�2y _ 1 _ _I_ _ 1_._ L 1 _ _I_ _ J_ _ L _ _ _ 1__I_ _ J _ _L _ _I_ _J._ _I__J __L _ _I_ _ 1 _ I __1 _ _L_ — °•` I I I I I I I 1';a L. .._...cy -_ _ 7 _ _I- _ ,_ _r_ _1_ _ T __r_ ,_ _ r _ _= _ _ T _ _I__ 1_ _I- __I_ _T __I_ _ , _ _r _ _1_ _T _ _1__ , _ _I__ - �s' "-- _-.o%I = _ 1 _ _I_ _ J__ L _ _I__1_ _L _ J_ _ L _ Li _ 1 _ _I__ J_ _L __I__1 __I_ —' I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 — — I 1 1 1 1 1 1 - 1- -1 --1- - 1 - -l1_- 1 --L- — — 9 an; r LL w W / _ _ 1111 1 I I I /L''' V a� Iy�� 1,i� 1! til ilk �' � fn' ov� — - -I-- 1 - -L -I- - 1 -1- J- - L - 1- - — L I 1 L. J L I I 1 ... j, / :„/•. _ I \\ �i. / °°is I I I I I 1 — 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I , �.\\ ,//, �, • / l I J L -1 1 I J- - L _ -1- — L - -I- - 1 1 J L I I I I I I %\ f%'.° ' W I — I I I I I I I 1 1 I 1 I I I I 1 I 1 I I 'o,^' / / y.• ° , - °0 —I-- J__L—_1- -1 - _I- - J - - L _ -I — L - —I- — J -I- -J--L- _1- - , ,' / D 30 I oo}� = I I I — _ I I I 1 :a.rr'. • -4:0- / to F r 1 r III I I I �¢°° j� Ji m >Z ,, ,::wry _ ..r_ III:e 11 a �" / > 31 .. .A y Jf. . 0 III .... ..1i r .a0:.. v / �zo- - -- ij,J a :: !1 II III I� ins ° ,/ Q w 3 �00� I I I I Imo l —f:1 - _ C 1 I I 1 I I I .., - : �`°�.�r'" Q o iitti s'. .-' ^oo�o°oXOc °<oo � 011''°Y,o--- // - - (Aa,- �N. . - ° ✓ BOOK EEK— — V l 1 1 — 4fl F I I - _ SPRINO� �� 4 Ur) 1 1 1 1 1 — Y.. ow .i .o o.a+ rn w' I el _ - 1Qr !l T I- + I- I°l' )o° l� - ��_-1- r O I I I I o �' 1 I I I I �:p o 02 /' SCALE ,.wo �I -I- t -I- 1 -I- f'`°' o ze.e 1 I 1 '' L DATE: I . ''�. 1 DRAWN er: EAP CHECKED ITC I 1 /f o°%. WATERHED o.wu,cs WOW FEWER To PLANS ..�D e MAW "I ��� __—__ REVISIONS: 1111IIIIIII /`: '/ i 1 r` � i // / t , /IT I **See Sheet L- for Landscape Leg i and Planting De_tf ils _ _ \ PRELIMINARY •ESCAPE PLAN SHEET NUMBER' S.W. 43RD STREET • ARY N OF • AREA NORTH ES ARCELSPRINGBROOK CREEEK 31.631 ACRES SOUTHWEST PARCEL 1.090 ACRES SOUTHEAST PARCELS (G,H,J,K) 11.210 ACRES TOTAL PARCELS 43.931 ACRES 1111 BUILDING SMEARY BUILDING ----'—�___ - - - -- -- . .;.s -_-.....___.._s... .._s -- s --s -ari-a -- -- PARKINGBUILDING -A ARCH I T E C T U R E >, s wTn _ a-- r_ - /, \O E•T BUILDING C 107 110,440 SF "s O +Ir-_ ,.p .. BUILDING - D •132 115,320 SF ss"ic O; _RD e ^ C+ �, �� I-- -- _ ••- .1511. [O/ O. BUILDING - E 75 59,995 SF �JI?% O 6_ -I- I ' _ _I_1_} `O4 1- I CD .•t-F_I-,_I +0 F_I-1-+-F_) TOTAL BUILDING AREA 576,887 SF ,";a', z +-I- II -I-+-I- -i-1-1- 1-}-I--I -F-I--i +-F-I-1-+_I-,. LION Tr1B8m NE woo c�'�'' b§= +-I-1---+ F-I-1-4- _' -}_I_ _t_F_I-1-+-F-I- -+-F •- DETENTION POND AREA 35,940 SF Bellevue WA 9� +-F�-1-+C F-I- -+ _�_ _}-I- I -F-I Al-+-F-I- -+-F O EXISTING WETLAND AREA TO REMAIN 9,500 SF 4zs.ezz.b'roo '�`"�%' �+ �I REPLACED WETLANDS AT CREEK 43,130 SF 425828.9„6 Fax "R +s I-'1--'+ 1-'-I'-I++- 7 + +tl-_I_' :F•I_-1-+�F-cl_-i:}:I_ ' 0 ,s S 0 +-F S-1-+-F-I-1-+- I 1 = +-}-I--I- -I-_I-1-+-F-I-1-+-H •K' PARKING SPACES REQUIRED: `c%%.c 0 ---- BOB' - _ a� _ � •O WAREHOUSE: O 70%O 1/1500SF: 272 ;c _° y �'"' +'� it; V BooE 4-9 4'DOCK y MANUFACTURING: O 20%0 1/1000SF: 116 a IMP .. y 1 O O OFFICE: O 10%O 3/1000SF: 174 562 y% ;c' O t 4a 4 8 'o n SS1Y. 41st ST PARKING SPACES PROVIDEDM PARKING SPACES: 568 568 §' OT O ■■ w I:1 ... O, AFL - __ INTERIOR PARKING LOT LANDSCAPING: 16,180 SF ggi a 1h e•BOCK I -1,. •,__ h AB '.�00,00;. i 4 GENERAL GAPING AREA: 128,400 SF SF Bar - WETLAND BUFFER LANDSCAPING 8 il.n,'e ' - i-+-F-I--I-+--I--I- - I--I-1--I--I-+-sF I " -+-I--I m 44P ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHT: NO REQUIREMENT 4 44 �S§ ' - i-+-F-I-1-+_I--I- -1-}-I--I-f-BF-I- -+-ti-I- `�.S•b PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT: 38• MAXIMUM I �I BUILDING SETBACKS REQUIRED BY CODE: �: 1 'A1--�'r+ 1--`-1--I P-+.,F., 1''. ll� 1-1+f.-1-.I�-}%4-.I---I''F.I-cl_. O • D , • O SIDE/ YARD: NO FEET MINIMUM EMENT >� - -I 10 -+-F-I-1 +-F-I-�-r--I- , SIDE/BACK YARD: NO REQUIREMENT ''°c'Z y1 7-I--4-+-F--I-1-+-F-I- -+-F-I--I-}1.F `�J//1 ; PROPOSED BUILDING SETBACKS: 4, 7 I- -+-F-I-1 + F-I +.-F-I-1 + •F ��•"' /'"�';/; rn FRONT YARD SETBACK: 90' i „ m•• m m mpissggemasmseszpot � m z 7•A m m O ' '� '`" agai j SIDE/REAR YARD SETBACK: 75' O -'�a.:, "b ma.. AG-,E3:T .•.a- ... Afl -yqs s.. KEY NOTES ...P 1...L1: ...• 1 1 1 1 1 i ../ <•u.,.,"s"..�'•'r+" __—_ _ _— mul-au orro o,MO O I • I E ry. I g y J— °ar MUST.SNORE.SETS.(ROD..NOT SHOWN) ,r DO -Y"r7'rt :S I E; S` i 's:. � -"%�.LI� ss.r..o<4 { CY 0 m ca.clastm_smasuis.-re... 1 I 1 1�-.=.- ...t; gfiP - --ice �s ; _ 0 WOW roan a 4 I ,,%�"7'''Y/y •l�� ,. ' ';i(1� I O 00•.EIIINe BUTTER :' f.'."7i +1 1 1 ,.j�/�',..i'"�- ,% .P• 1!'}/ ' BC wow..mwr.uts sue. e al °,n•LAND..SIDE/REM rwm syn. ` m, 1� sa•"s`• .• __J ,nor COURT.,.•rn,Dona w•B•rE_r Bwre , ..,. CI§ VD 14 I F------- ---- 0 TENANT Darr,-saesmrt/w,ro. No. Dar Le swrwEr SEWER EAmOIf i , II."' i1��� t as 1. •sE•r s�.rr• i i m..s s I Q)s x•ua,on Be.. WAITER MN sosomarr 4" :A 0 WATER wr/rwsort TO BE REROUTED dd I El s ss41;;�' !j E'•, I m,e•onun Amon , T SPANNING O.CREW S.W. 43RD STREET 0+r W-E rs»4.0 PEE..no, - - + DAL.Eurm•/100r/En447 OPEN. P,oi.a No. IXIs ) r- Floe 3/24/94 1so' wc. D. BY ROC c 7s' OAKSDALE BUSINESS CAMPUS PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN 1:100 ,Tide Shen Po. A-1a • •- ar ARE, XaEr ROC-3/24/98-Z-0PTs , 1133F ILEV:55.2-•\• `l 1� ' I .�I __' I A • -gib -Iw_EN !, _ =■_■=eir ._ -■■■■_: N giliiinuoviimmialuJii � +• w ,a� s"a lia i■Wialli ►MNIVIII _ * o ■[lk i i,1g7- Ai ■t ■jEW' 5 31. 11�IA•.aNrlr.riAYi1Mlrl___•—I--Ma/! I lE MI . 1' -.1'...I_�IMIDW rro:wLl �VII• l'rL7i:1'—=-""'"moll wit - "'�""'7 I- i ARCHITECTURE BUILDING A NORTH ELEVATION(EAST END) ROOF ELEV.,552-1 1 u y TPI 19&6 NE 8000 BI + ` i i �Vr GCS t ■IOU T17108004 TL6T WA 00 r '_-4 is ! 1 L•L l ll'l�ME = —__`J _ 125.838.9116 Pu Ilia ,,, -• . aaa ■■■F�.i,iiit■lla iilr��' ,i�3 1. ing■ii i .■■r�l►,il i ogle( Wiz., MI'd_e_I- . 1 _..I. 1•M __= r_I- I S)■I urJM. ll- 3 B■BII-. - _"'�'...�T- -i:mieo 7 WM I 1BB111/Ll• ZELMAN RENTON LLC 701 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD,•3038 LOS ANGELES,CA 90017 BUILDING A NORTH ELEVATION(WEST END) ROOF ELEV.55.2 , L N =■■ICI■■=■■111■■=w■Ma=1► • � i i�•i t Fiiwa a��� "�.r aj�':• _ - � L a r moo U....r: �Li���'r w' T1.5 Ei ,I,� ....AI':r A - BUILDING A EAST ELEVATION R3OF OW,554—, I L -- _ — It/i -i� l'' i mw v GE5 — I0- BUILDING A SOUTH ELEVATION(WEST END) Prom No. SOS ROOF ELEV:55.2—\ ` o. aloa/Be r — mom — mos mom �n�■ mem —n-�uC60 I� — EL uI !lig 1 1 i _ _ - _ ' ' !-- _— � C r3' �'ii ,7a"5 E - _—_a �i Nl it < - SITE PLAN APPROVAL SUBMISSION Sheet No. A-1d BUILDING A SOUTH ELEVATION(EAST END) ua-2/04/98-z-.15c a, ROOF!LEV:WA 7■■■■1 .� L_ Ali lIt�■■■I .a: *VIM& j A N I��ry �, C curl mot I . J .l:rt r1i�!IAI !! I s!I I•111=1‘=UI s _ =-/—W4T , ARCHITECTURE BUILDING B EAST ELEVATION BUILDING B NORTH ELEVATION R00F ELEV.S9.2 _. I I r 1 -'T__ _-__-_ 717 108eh NE N00 -___-_ fl_—_ • Imo_ I Bellevue WA9804 b N■■I �■■■■g. _. --- _..— - _. --._—_ 425.E23.91160Fss ■■ &1his u ,re'a• dfo Ai Iles '■■ 524.5 -`1I 3 ��I =Yli�ll�lb'�II��i.L ] ��F rn�r,iawrr i • ZELMAN RENTON LLC 707 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD,•303E BUILDING E EAST ELEVATION BUILDING B SOUTHEAST ELEVATION LOS ANoeLEE,CA E0017 ROOF ELEV:55.2 1■■■■■r --_. - -- • r'EX,Er 7■■■1'■■==■■■■■= 1 III HIP w PAM BEN EmOliar.aWREIW rr•I.—_=_TN i BUILDING E SOUTH ELEVATION BUILDING E SOUTHEAST ELEVATION PAINTED METAL EOUIPMENT SCREEN (AROUND THREE SIDES) B VWV\N VS/VS/VS",V�/ l/V' /�/v�IW�NUwv� I. E.,,BI N. Date Item 71111CR COURT WARBIOINE _ ..�• 7-1-� liniskaks III BUILDING A SECTION LOOKING WEST THROUGH OFFICE AND WAREHOUSE Praia.No. E06 Dote WOOS Dnw By RCC Tide SITE PLAN APPROVAL SUBMISSION • Sheet No. A-1e °Q —an w%— °,,,^°°. PPP—SS—TTTT I sow "' " �, CITY OF I GRADING AND STORM DRAINAGE PLAN ''" �.. \ ±7t RENTON °� AS I....�.I ,® PIonninym�iIadi g Pcnr Wen.D.PI. .. No. REV510N ITT DATE ,1VPN ` 99 Z P.E..AdLnis1ro1r RENTON,WASHINGTON s 1 i Y g g MATCFLIE BEE!MEET C2 _ _ _ _ �a s $ iri' I, 2' , r t 1 ' V 1 1I. • I, �? e I i, I ; r 1 i, 4: ;.., 4-° ' ''' - 1 ` i 2.111 g.Lasx , 23, L"a 0 Y` > •- ,a @ 1 $ 1 $ 1 T 1.* i_ ,/ ! r�E, I 0 I�, .„tie } ,, °C" ' I•• D s +— > dill I Ijf •/. lbl 1 SIN ' , 0 K 1. % �1\4 qµ{- 1 I. s f R 1 Al cl‘ts, ..? i ._, i r --- s- mi.' II—g----� 1_:. 0 - • ' i __qt••-----••.,• _ . 0 ii, : _ , •4 '„ I H _ . sus al. 1 'I, �C 11 " 3: sns / iii• . . > J it, :: TT V•' r : \y i: ... . .,..w.:... '�fa ?W- ■ice .e.,r'• - 3 rl SDI ,]o'ez [d (-"'+E _ "� =ems TrT— T i `,I KSDAt_E,A lit" . .� 1 il F if yE 8$- ---_ - 1 °I°I `4- g s la r i -1 : p 1-ig9 f gi o TITLE: LOCATION Z 2 ,G14 41JS' 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH p E y y KENT.WA 98032 OAKSDALE BUSINESS PARK NW.CORNER OAKSDALE AVE.S.W. (206)251-6222 �j (206)251-8782 FA)( PHASE 2 AND 3 AND SW.43RD ST. 0 I n mE RENTON,WASHINGTON " cEKO SUEJEYMG.EIMRONIENTI.SONGS ;Inc inn kin 59t1 6 WATER AND SANTITARY SEWER EXTENSION PLAN I- v IA Irl k a_ PAY W ' -) CO Z C iE o CE I- ram. 1 I L 4 --(-rr---rm_r_r'i O m Qj I 5I1,30'52•E I W 0 co NIMIIMIl$ Se.'0/06.E �..C..__J� .s ., _ _ _I lXl Q(X o =1 mse v,r n. y .,...,,.,.r \ao v 1r�u.— .,.nw ,r o. Z .• � : - i D _11tr�1 � j��; 1?I�i i, ` r� (� � r t= , ... , , . . i . I li I - i,.0i.0 —x (_ 6b _ILK Iss. •20X O I POTALLI • . /- w. nr lfF P.,+CJ -rS- - 211- dx va c,r.e. _6•WE v uc 0,0 '1Sr DU:.s— _.�-;r t 6•dlF VNVL(( y�' OgaaClOa A FOX son __ 1.lI 6 D __ % :• rt vrtK'4fW',ar+F_a-t3�--�5.- `- mowr8fi �s.JJJ__,—L.I.L1=:T_!ats'ayr_....NN7[/ - r�-rT--rd- - I ' s�;IE,x•A (a(N - PER ana6Emas sloe. .___ -__ _ sa aTJa srm - va.,x .-- oa adrJhi yr _* me eia T ' __r6.,e CC.BLOCKING i— / E., L 1 12 If r PVC �-- 41tA OM i VCC--—� s E �- - -- - rsrr r rr_ o z raE X- <c __--- S 4__ r_ I�jWJ Q = CO WW 4. JU-I a 1 ,- aµ( maw - IC \ I QS O d - - 1-nor WOW,+a•e6. - h4:11. 1, OE CET.WET — 7 t - - 1 CONC.ecoac 6— O cs -= , . \ l � —- \ ,. y .`em •e F 's` g - - - �-c �- 3 "'�---@vli ------�\--- I — - • ,i w�— - -r.[MORTAR gSEYBLr T rl _ _ ~ xa mca WOW ems. i„y.A-rt.9 3 i_i.u•r�u,w�c.(naul_ __ r L_ i SO OE=6,EF1 [-,xeo(!•DM N COnM0,0.TJ ipD wusr e CONC.&OpM6 `�• lOd1RM1 a 61.MIEIW W u 6 s _ I . RDDOC - - —W w r11 .1\R- - I o s s _.L.I- - i --.. V._ .I. µse ^;�a MATCHJNE SEE SHEET C9 C I-6•da vac( ) JO U 6•D, F.m asRin ors ems. °' :ill, ` /4 •. CORRJCTDOR a FIELD L E6VERITLOGI.OF EX o I. 'ro66i(t+ bb I nwncs - I ��� �6fo F rus_c ON —_ FOR APPROVAL OErn WORKS Br sr WATER AND SANTARY SEWER C n EXTENSION PLAN a o r 'rr .... . .. .�,. ,•-.D U.............. C7 an c r..P\SOI.....\6Y,,\6)E C\-,,.,DF 0M./IWe././,6! ,,,” S,l.•-.0 Jmn.. n.".2%,I,T]6.,,,0. lIl#ltt-----t1--1IIIID1Ii'111'E*IIIIIII111L1UIIIII t22ItDDS2DIIt t1I I_i!I I��..1I31111 -_a.-_ - - �•.�=YARD SEf�CCICI- - t _ �+„,,,! �w,..,r' -. _q„,,.J "•-•..•.J '-' .' t., ' t..w - *N*. ' LAN .PED SIDE/ _ • A • --I I N • ii - U OF FICE lI �775 OFFICE I 1 OFFICE ICE OFFICE n OFF OFFICE I - 1- - I - _..•,\I ARCHITECTURE R I 1 10' 64' 23' f1-- / . I I I g A b P 86 10NE H00 N • I • I I I N — Bellevue WA 98004 - _ . 52' 52' 44' 47' 52' 52' _-- 52' 52'R 52' I 52' 52' 52' I 52' 52' 52' 52' 52' 52' O 425.828.912c.82216i1600 FAa . . . . . I I I I ZELMAN RENT,N LLC h I 775' I I 702 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD,•3036 I LO• 4' DOCK 'S V' 4' DOCK `�• RAMP RAMP RAMP / DRIVEWAY OVER CRE EK 41 st HATER MAIN EASEMENT b _ I TRUCK COURT , ro /- v 1 RAMP RAMP RAMP 'X" / LAND BUF R �S,_'J4 k 4' DOCK 4' DOCK 4' DOCK r 1 _f)1f I f I I / R:PLA ENT • I I 644' OFFICE , / , f ,� I I ./ r i / / / S2' 56'-6' 20' 52' 52' 52' 52' 52' 52' 52' 52' 52' 52' 52' 52' r .4 m 1 7/ N9. D. ir® mB .' i / CT' I I w .�, i' /_ ETLAND P MEEN I i 0' WIR / Q i LLJ 1) OFF j OFFICE 384' OFFICE OFFICE ., _ ��� / n Q L'- ----aG�- ar f+ 0 WM.No. 8055 --. -. !-� ! SANIT:• S EASEMEISF" . 1-'r•/ �"' DEfENT10N PONDS ( Y Drawn e. RCC ���25� 1 .RELINE S�' � � Q 1( -` `` CREEx i - - - TRH / SITE PLAN APPROVAL ^ � >z—�` � �� BUSINESS CAMPUS $UBwSBroN I r RING�� AAK�A� fMINARY SITE PLAN 1140 I I ��-..... - _ --, Sheee No. I I / _ 0 .1 75' 150' 300' I I I I � '' �� ER RC XREi XREF. %REf -2/04/98-2-08•Sc 6.9 1 - i VNl \/I • 5 iI II19NI �..'74,Qoulll°eO1F �Nu ���{�!� u. , enRlx 1� , 161. \ Y eN� c it Mall ' ___._.__.. sill T II I' IeIRI Sr/NIA* ■ ` tllll L�r\r\ 1p. 1 .I YIa 9I I willfn „�ii 4 lel imlll I / U ..„N., � uRU •, O i NIIII _ ',It v,iiiN I t ulll PI lall I it lYlll—I I/ 9 , 17,111 I nN Pam j/I d Si r�I � � IM I��rla � YYrl RR 1 _" W11 -Lr I / �" x I fi lAlll = t VICINITY MAP Oaksdale Business Campus-North of SpringbrooeCreek for LMlen Renton LLG l�• PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE SCHEDULE o SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SI2E&CONDITIION py 5 ShbdTrr• w ae.wly I• 0 em -e.,wre. oec�ww� C .� `Pg.calla„ d' a Calla,Po Ronnyw C.C. li .drmd Ouse.'valuable P.O,. „.Au p.m Snell Deciduous Trees n.I-S..-�I,ar,xl.a,P..e, ,� ruaan. H AedIr waxes '' Sp. o.�Red cede. bo .g,.rmasIl otgat' tRd..RBa, ,.V..usets.. Qa ds• Bror.Pee ® LaraN Shrub. Dour, Mb 24.N.4'p.e,d wear:a.. warm ur ea PIP.mn•clo D.B...seem_ u b rgilCorps. °0 e�yT DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTING M11n1 �•sp...S Ruh* wry v O NTS gV� neINriu m roe Rwaw�o-callforni. Pacific yy Q .Ayll NOIgulear Prunus !pup:. Portugal uvr wSTATE TON �'�%xl Small Shrubs B" L.p.,d , l' lu g.'E .,.buy,b....c.a., rr�.':,aCMEGT eartnnu g.Willa.Porn. Will.Pen Dann., R...".'go Tugo' Mgc PIP S .n..... _ R.9.n 1 I.Otto L,yar.' Otto Luja.Level !L%® Groudd00KNE Start ry•n c uOr w,u,e. 9 s • N�vw p Io.,,. or Farb or p.a.Son P.e vyd.. mpg ..Brd . .or ajR I.'.-I Rough Ores•Seed e�p.p. lrluuno "' "°° 0. O EVERGREEN TREE PLANTING • 1;.,':_,'d Seeded or Sodded Lawn e«.pe....bn NTS ♦/S D . Existing Significant Tree.To Be RetainedP.«w did proun W N 4 O • W Z Mao PLANTING NOTES .. •e ,,seem. '° J z lb g� w I. ALL NEW LANDSCAPE APE.ARE TO GE WItTERTD WITH AN NIICSIATIC 0 d g O WRIER ft+ixcRVMO IRRIGATION SYSTEM. "' Q ,.ALL NEW SNRIB Amp rwrurrOyER APE.ARE TO BE MILO.,MTN A HNMN 2.DEPTH OF SPECIFIED MOON. I w etim tan3.WERE GROINDCOVER IS PROVIDED.IT SIN HALL BE RANTED AT THE aY-1-�"•,�v 1 w • SPECIFIED SPACING TIP....qR THE BED,UP TO Par FROM TREES AND MOH SWUM,,START FIRST ROW ID FROM EDGE OF BED. A.REFER To SPECIFICATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL IEDUIREnENT5. © SHRUB PLANTING NTS 0 SCALE: AS NOTED DATE: 4&0O DRAWN Bur: EAP CHECKED BT: MAW REVISIONS: L-2 SHEET NUMBER: LANDSCAPE LEGEND AND PLANTING DETAILS PPP-SS-TTTT -- -- - — ""'3 9"" ' hin .-- CITY OF GRADING AND STORM DRAINAGE PLAN ..„, RENTON PS .::::. CM' Ron AVEINARing/Public~ER 0/91. Adnunistrotor .. ..,FO. REvram Err DATE AMR ...AN . Zr..1.:. Mk Gr." E" RENTON,WASHINGTON s i 1 4 I _1, I E , MATCHLJNE SEE SHEET C4 431',, 1 L -- .,7 !_1, I i Tr4 Tfl Til TI:i 4 ,'.\\ • 1,\\ k Alz,,:a z4 ,.,..4 i I ' 1 I VI I \, •.,,,,: I '\\'''‘\,\ I \V" \\\ It. \ \ 4 %,‘ V V, '6,, ti,,' ,,• , ,..„ . ,\i % \\\\,, \ I ...,...A „;,„, ,,ik) r• 1 ' '' ' '' „. %, 1 i VS, % • ..7-. :- 1 I 2 t 1 \ tA . •'... Z .,, .. 1_. , ... , I > , ,,,, . \ .\ \- vga, N \ _, \-, , . 4 I Z ____ ,' •,-,-,-- t,, \ 1, ' \ , I.1 N\ v ,,,, •P-, 1 1\ \ 9",-.- 1 I I CI) ii\\ - ' 1 , '‘\vs, i i.'' —I I • .11 0 \ \ ' '. — , \ •.\.\ i1.l .R1 v1211",__ . \ •:, ••• a.' , \ ck\s, " 1 . '-•„,\ ,tv--- ...‘.:17.2461111A4' la DJ i ‘ , ,. s , ‘ •,,\\ , 1 ‹ 711,,,,,,, ‘.\ • ,,, ,, \,\ . , 0,0,,, 4 1•,-,* ''\\ 1 " k\ ,4, \\ \ _v=k,,,,,ti . 1 , , 7-4 \'''kt\ '` 11/4\, , • ,N.N m . , , - 0 . .• ....., s , ..„ , ,s.,„‘•,...,, , ,, • , .........., .,,,,,s —o 1 , , :.r.. . ." . ,.. ‘,.. ,.., s, • 411 I 1 - --; , iii; „1 \\ .. \,,. • ,.'., :, , >, .4.:;,.....-1,.-t-_- ,1 • , , -• . -.:„....,-.... -, z ',7^,,4,''.4_,_,..1''t 1- lr,..',-,-;'-a II ..". t 1 ,_------c,''''.';‘,`•:----.:-,V.:.:1.-,. . -..---:-...,,:..".. '-'-: 1 --i ------t; --t 1 11-1----:„.--",__%„,, -•4-7----L,-: . :,,, . ! ,4,1 A -- _ • ••. ]:"-4,,,,,,s,;-,.•-• •-,-I a _..__-,:_:.7.. :.------R-,----z- - -•-.-,t-I .__,----- -_.--- -1,-—— - „7--At-. _--_- =_,--- . • _.— -- :__--,. ''''_:,‘,--..,',,,--_,-----...- — , •Y., 414.2 20' ir -------' '''.--------7---_-_,,a ___ • , — ,_-_--_-_---------- — i ' 1 'A---Y7 7;',T'''' - :'''' :";-.,' ,” 4 1 'S'•t:-; ,: --- .z.. ., ,..)-,:- r .,,;,- - -— - - tl g, — > i t 0 4.."4,.• om a ee, •le 4 1 E ;RI 1TTLE: LOCATION Fl 1. 0 G0-44° ,, 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH 111— r , KENT OAKSDALE BUSINESS PARK NW CORNER OAKSDALE AVE S.W. •, s-1 4T)- i 'WA 98032 (206)251-6222 gli F PHASE 2 AND 3 AND S.W.43RD ST R ; L, (206)251-8782 AX RENTON,WASHINGTON 1 li .. . cm.ENGINEERING.WC PJIG. 'P,,...,.... NANEERIG,ENARONLIENEPL%RACES ._ g / WATER AND SANITARY SEWER EXTENSION PLAN I I I I 1 § —,`___---T N 3 tn d T-40' vi 9 0 co _ i . c Q W9 �u 3 x a Sc O _ — MATCH.AE SEE SHEET C7 _ - U z ¢m r' I I i 0 I 6 I z _,F. _-t, __ I g5 M'E5,e ,97 _ r - �� -_ I Et r� I p 'E — L. FF.-2S2 v a PI � IF a 6 e O y 6.r�y. �,L� RM1' u V 6"eH- W m /- iE S 1 lI.6R1EfK(IY.RI E tm[ •x.0x 2 Emra. oLau/n -- SSCO INSTALL,LR1 .�cnau� ,s LF 1u6Rmwr VF(( L61L(Y - L 53 CNI l if It.DI I(n ERE INDRAW ASSEMBLY ER�JJ 1 PER CITY DE RENIDx SIDS, Jr sFudg._� w•.__ 0 ----PHASE- 1 vWL(. L�, Q L SHUT 2 !�'I- �cEo6c.eLoc.iRc I ;—.�__,9;sr-d•�l I NI 1 I ii �: ICI i"l r— !.rok�i} t+'. I`' :: BB�� .- ' J-- 1 ^ 2 AEE, lY li , —.. 39D,E lr Di �jl , 1 r 111 t " E.ISrl y �} __Fi r I�.�,.} 1 I 1 J ■ w _J{I _ —, A,RM EiSI-it P%r,n• _ / —__ —�[J __ 2-1 WI EUt 1' 1-6•uh wlH(fl. ) .I W DR FARCE, r _ _ ( -- mil'.1 ,_ , !T r CC a�D, ♦ 61nw`wn�RrOEI. F F. 6 I lylI , " • ' l IIII -_ I..� L i,11 L___ _I t ( s,To�S ' �,_ l _ _ _ Z-: — e }ham j 0 MATCHU E SEE MEET CII >$N 6W �44 r. Jg I EYAHE$ -1 Ai CW 1m :.14'2"4,,,I.,,, I pi. ,,f CITY OF RENTON FOR M p1R1E1VAL oEvw WORKS 6. 6. WATER AND SANITARY SEWER S 6. EXTENSION PLAN • — qq 5 666m .w _ VW. men 4 a ''am mule CIA/ moo:.arm OM_ e 69e M6 D. _,_._a• mo,C9 6Ri E.:P.\SOSKPRD,\56,r\EKR1ED \SO1,1.63.0w D.t./02/06/1616 „„ Sc.1_.0 JOS.r:W.. x,.,,,626.,,,1s,.I1,. l ° WATER AND SANITARY SEWER EXTENSION PLAN 15• 14i i — -- (ncc) � 3 CL r-aa cij El Z SHEET C9 p - - � - - - - - IAATCFLE "ram — � = ,_ a3 0. --/ - - I _ CC 0 $$ /- -/ BDE O F.F.-252 - 1 i ' ' .y / I 1 2 O 3 L- - x -e•se( •w(n.)au) -_ '(:'p1�. S� i I ��.. O w • 1114 • wSSE)ar h -RENNtt SECS �( Sel' I a - f 6 p' t-)2'nW(14 `• yh 1 Y• f c' y1II� 3 0 0 S'E ': 1 ! a_ —_ _ 1-E WOE 1-6.° ) '6°0 0°y _ °•R`P0""G �o xbn F.sE.xx)_ ;&N ga eu F., •3 7 — -�x'aue YAW En+N '-nwM. vu OW Of sy�, /7\.--w,cr.+. 05 lu, ,� III I w �{..: r i # I 0aw / Ip 3 k li1N !� SIX WIZ e5 t. rl I I I I I I -� IX'S),x.• a 2 O 1 }E . MO g 1 0 ¢O • obi % k. i'gl a _)�< .i .bye.,; � / -.-__ -,,--' Q "a 1 1 E • • f2iSr�NG /, ) / ' EFFECE,W RCE—\ ICE q:-i,n.._, '�{" COAT �I I v ' •1000 I — i�NFE I r nJf.a x } =T:L�R Cs•'S NOM f.:uE'JI—, 4 CUR.e 9. / S / ,�.FM Y'�F.C6�)Sa)6 30 Ent.wN-. a•4r.OR COAT cmUS` 1l.. q \/' yJ 5.6`. L. 5'EOREY r hA X SLOR USEUEN, I:EMT 4NB 95 5(e'•N• ni0ft9h<OR 1.\ w rurN,'nKEI. __ .N Ers CnN:WRCE:L `• a I E� W BRg.cN C [ •s' .� / 5E ,7,,,)R-p;Ri W,5r I. _.[%r,81ia2t) \ 6 e W) 0-fY•"' $ .ry7 uC e�-]-OBt�'_. I:,-,II ) C•iif1AE�t2;COxC) .-MeM1 Bo. FJx/ SCE`-.� i \ Wq O R § xt 6 - -� • F -� � / . ). L— {}� K.-2 eSx ea a•P)j--f ,AWN y�jhESn.Rf V] Eli•xNREI ';( L . /,� ` 'ti ]6eA _ __ ERE NrpMNi-� r1 -rE 1.,.1 , > ,� 1 ,tlCJ!]6 - vO.FR Vn�n F� �� '�,�--� • 40wr wxRR VALVE-1 :. RL J-eoM ,,, e ) _ ,-+'A.TR Wax - -- -•..-.--.- F 1 _ -- .'"------...4 6 w.Y�GwN 0-�--•---1:�',1i 7� ti—.`C�---- eISa AR9uwo E::•.4.- -06 REk. _y, — sr ""•"F cusaY' — — — ,� — — — — — rr' 6 a. ' 3" —S:W:—43rd—STREEP- — — m'01 t 0...,5 - 44, 1227 = .i•5R 3 K _ 9E,A,i E Ej (N S " h=2205 E Oa'CO.) 51. g h02 4--,. s..s so s Os;C'.CI y2 COW ?'F C R .ouln•Or D.rlEwwt '24•5"2•?, b I E:awEsq 1;0A - . . eeooaom CITY OF RE TONi w,•no�rJ,nL 0Ern WORKa • a n WATER AND SANITRAY SEWER C n EXTENSION PLAN z win°w0 le. n _ a ,pvt. ..Lop p w p• A .• me .wRw. .l cn ail FL. O\50••51111WS000*:\e.,),•5.o.e •Mu/1W*02/0./I•A 112) Sae� 2="0 aeon .. 2e.,,,e,2s•,,,)see,),., v..-.ww. m SITE SUMMARY AREA �T A NORTH OF SPRINGBROOK CREEEK 31.631 ACRES N SOUTHWEST PARCEL 1.090 ACRES ('1 SOUTHEAST PARCELS(G, H,J, K) 11.210 ACRES C TOTAL PARCELS 43.931 ACRES BUILDING SUMMARY ARCHITECTURE BUILDING PARKING AREA SF .' \ —R� • '__ __ t4 _ __ __ _ BUILDING - 157 170,500 SF B D G A y _ —__ 'Cr-- � m13 _�- �', '�_ �_ �__�.,,`�__�__�_-�_� -- BUILDING - B romom ""'� BUILDING - C 107 110,440 SF %VA,. i ��KS • lili " 11 a� - -- - BUILDING - D 132 115,320 SF „ ; Q saz O n.:e k a O O ns' n BUILDING - E 75 59,995 SF I I 9 3I 576,887 SF rrr toav,NE♦004 rO• 54• TOTAL BUILDING AREA BWuP..L.vn sRom 00 SF x 0 a m r r 125.822.6'!00 - I + 35,940 SF E`Xb,'az i n C o - A DETENTION PLAN AREA Kzs.azsR11SP08 ,t .I p • I • I p I EXISTING WETLAND AREA TO REMAIN 9,43,530 SF a`s0a . .. . - • I • M k •. • . - I °-: REPLACED WETLANDS AT CREEK t, ,i E W 5• R TM' PARKING SPACES REQUIRED: ems'; TQ -- WAREHOUSE: 136 s',i's ��W_ ♦oocW + a DDCK AI unLm '�, 'DOCK Al .'00O( .rl n / ai MAUNFACTURING: 384 i' RNv ,I rl _ ' ''�i i, S.W. 41st ST OFFICE: 87 a +Q' s 8 to ,,,,,,� C.) S.W. PARKING SPACES PROVIDED: 591 %£;�4 i RA�� R • .Orl INTERIOR PARKING LOT LANDSCAPING: 4,100 SF .3 •i -xwv L I RAMP "''� "A"PI ',ijii7� / GENERAL LANDSCAPING AREA: 128,400 SF s;% Y a•Boat I I a•Boat �'eocx r a's°cx °` '•""""`:, i WETLAND BUFFER LANDSCAPING 87,500 SF 5za• I I au•' m... sN ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHT: NO REQUIREMENT !I + + oI I I", / PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT: 38' MAXIMUM o -II t y + I • � J1 BUILDING SETBACKS REQUIRED BY CODE: -. + 1 - - I ''. - - - - - o b ///� FRONT YARD: 20 FEET MINIMUM D B ! SIDE/BACK YARD: NO REQUIREMENT �T-� t + + I /"l �� I �' PROPOSED BUILDING SETBACKS: W I E '_i / I FRONT YARD SETBACK: 90' ! sp• -tt n „ �,/ � i SIDE/REAR YARD SETBACK: 75' wove , illi I , O, (L�i' _ yA • _ O>•- - 9 -0 --� a KEY NOTES i © `-/. . r o�po60�"" N ULR-CELL OEiDmaN POND O I r O . BBF� _-- I o 035•INDUSTRIAL SHORELINE sEB.,(BOUNDARY NOT SHOWN) ts• .... ea •_ la I I ,�� .ice 1 :p..Wxoaa ' ©50•COMMERCIAL SHOREUNE surto< T I �.- lJ ' I Q WETLAND REPLACEMENT AA. (i i E .'i--� I ts• �, ©o+m:Nc WOUNDS 10 REMAIN 1.I • KKK 3 0 25'WETLAND BUFFER Y y �' i'Y J 18 ti'J I Q 50•BERARD BUFFER of \ I Q 3 LANDSCAPED FRONTYARD S BMX :4' O Iv VNDSCAno ROE/REAR YARD SET... No. O . ' rM� I xxMYOLx L,.�__-__----__-__� (' mot COURT e/ HOt DOCKS MID DRNE-IN RAMPS Y /', : 1, ro+wa ENTRY-STOREFRONT/room ri • .' t I Woa 4l ruAnw xMYHO�• i I wMWxfs x I ®SARRARY SEVER EASEMENT xevMPan' y (D SLOPE EASEMENT ,O Q ® / ' WAFER MAN EASEMENT OO �� 5 I I i ®WATER MAN/EASOAEM TO BE REROUTED 0 ' ,�(�p) ' 1 _ J/' 15'nor FASDAEM Qo I i"�-/ n `-' yp. ' JB5' G a1NEWIT SPAM.OrER CREEK S.W. 43RD STREET - Praea No. B06 Due 2/04/9S DnwDe ACC 0 /s'150' NO' OAKSDALE BUSINESS CAMPUS PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN 1:100 Tide Sheet Nn. A-la 144E XREF KREE ROC-2/04/RA-3-DPTS.a•B GRADING AND STORM DRAINAGE PLAN Ui - 3 N EA z ._ 1•-40' n- g a d W w a 7F_ ' o 2 z r � ` .� t-'�ir-- --, -4,„m--,rT�tr- c-t-f= ITV i : - -_J_L1L- - :rrs:-s�s - , -I o -__ 6 co Q zp t G.J?ri ,•�.eRF.6,,'i" "'�• ' C7 tios�i►�i i E 't"- . .1: riii. ,- w } ti/wibe'►" I 6 I ,w T ft _ YS"i < .•..�- •` to 0 Z W J _ ; 'Ta rs l .;a =,�iP`z !i I . .. /1 IA . _ 21 'III J ' A v; / U p I �y`.',,,� 2aa/ ,-.. - ,I!! x^---r,- ._ f ii !MI �p`A' _,. ; O P �z.o: a.0t r r I a s4-1. --1i a r'` . . i.'. r ; :..- i . 1 . P' I.tr t .-V.I _a 1.9 I',Z .! v oOoe o `I' 1 1 y �W zrw o^ a I l I I BUILDING c " " - = ; � BULF6 A r T I Uao� ,II \ 4 ill , I ! FF.-25.2 �.• � F.F.2S2 W g • { �I 'AI IDS z Q =0) TN 4 �-hco w Oa / I l !:; a cc I� i 2� ' J :a►� x ::g 1 1 1 f I a . . I e ,,,1 � y 4 a _ C1 q f / ; .:. • - }✓a.1z B24 it v,r se.OM t� i4 , l; ,j Jx y '�'A� ..J�y �. p- 4 i'1-r Ir 1�i '°-" �.. - �� i U le ..._Slur •.-(/��T�I///III''';jj�s'1 '7 1 ,f 21S/_, .i+.•✓X \ \/ I II- I 1. r, .0 Jb. '} "�' ' I i � I � � R' , �� „ _ J, A l: _ °� I , - '- \ pyel ,n :ao.Ojai-- i08114 �„t>ffi- !' Q � ,1,u 16•ae W 0, 1T 1 '• I 1 y I - . s. gip; ma � .. '�xJ ___.-. "3�, I .. MATCHLINE SEE SHEET C4 - A g fR Do 0,Iskl CATCH BARN SCHEDULE. o R�eA - �04 CB/13➢K 2-7I• CB/17 IYFE i CB/2p Trot 1 W/JA ME 1 0 1 i'e, J /▪ nAMM,port /nA1.uwD GRATE /STR MD GRATE /n/MOMD CRATE f� RY W W -6f.J 20.2 22J 1 23.J ,41'- C.1.02 F-16.35 E-16.37 E-XITp ' Z CB I14 trot 1 a l.e MI 1 CB IJD Mt 2-b• CO/)S IMP[3-b• , ♦2b7x a • 1d n111M9MD GRATE �/;AMw86 GRATE 20.2 qel}J CRATE rs 33ti port -Ffl'bRTI EE'�+` ab' . 1E-16.M F•t6e9 692 F•1.90 CH Its TYPE 1 Ea/ta ME 1 CB N1 ME 2-.e• a W rreE 1 I DIMS .xyNp o„z �/nw4 CRATE ./n02 CRATE .:/n.om GRATE CB/*4 7 WE GRATE •703 RY•20.1 •zJJ 23.9 CITY OF RENTON E.1706 F•.1.70 E-17.Je E-t6x9 - _- IpaMKAID CFPARTMAENT OF PUBLIC WMCB CB Ile ME 1 CB/20 TYPE I W I32 TM I CB/b 111E I N //• nAM.CRATE ./STAMMm GRATE : S""'aArz .//717."CRATE t0.2 9M am.z -2J.J zJ.J sI GRADING AND STOF#A DRAINAGE PLAN O E-17.69 1. F-bo 419.25 Z A CO CB DA TM; CB/u MC1 CB N 1YP 6E1 • /nMDwD CRATE .h/nMBEN puTE /STANDARD MATE mEn AW C Av-30.3 -zJJ 9Y-2J.3 -d1s 1/z1/se mew. 7 41?M E-19.69 F-20.J xo mwm R .M drt M.n'.W#1 _-_ sou PACE pbL A6 scYe _ W.$ ..., ,,„,,o., 61.:,C2 0,17 m I,1,PAS(6.6960911VNGI EVOWN39111p11 MG 6w/1.66,.62/06/19915 0.13 6P.1...6,A.on..w. 9591115,9,1111.6991111. ORnEL,BER.LY.15 RNCHIPINM SFRDIM LieCANTON" `"° COVER SHEET d o.< u_Ip �Y�,H aP RD�. ONMUCTOR AOR.E,-.0 DE LPN.�L NV ,� X OWN.FROM THE P rn� PaYaeRoaS OF XL CASTNG MUM.Ehe Nq.wPSC PUNT NNNN�pa.RgK I RTsDUN%9,°R Br cmpArnN PEP NKE N TEIEM.Al On)o.-Ilfo. •' SITT lf s NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 36, A 3 In STATE,E DeARn.N N a No K If) K 9.6 N RNE RESOURCES R r FIMES API 8.33 WON DE WNW.MWNW.. „„ME„R0 to time.. TOW NSFIP 23 NORTH,RANGE 4 EAST AND THE NORTHEAST QUARTER 08 ii 8mmullP.M LAND E. eECOMM.Sm.COMO"NNW.. OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 36,TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, a a B°,.OW .o. NN�1R01.s°C.TO MOWN Nth PRON.NPR TO NmEONC rN, 111 PO .w.a1N teN-Na CO...° RANGE 4 EAST,W.M. > N CONS.1 09 Nth YNUEN15 yrm.MONO.DR CITY OF RENTON,WASHINGTON a ._ °N9:Y'°"BE WHAM N A.611�IN.9111 0R,a 114I M AM CALL BEFORE YOU DK3 W AT r'iON..N 1M CO.NCTGR,n%mYn TD.SE MGuu1Nq. ME. a J n FORM rce N P voNRK ne«9« von B TM 1-800-424-5555 l _ © E� - Y W 2 T o 3 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: -.-_ 1 L. 0 p CC 3 Parer.a INIl,,, _._ _ r 200 D K a E / a The North 330 feet of the fol lows described trees, ��� T.., ( �a � "'^"" lowing F ...1 . 00 0 That portion of the Wort....gaiter of the....est quarter and of the 1.tnwst quarter of t. -'•-�._+.._p�N+ tSa+ .- VICINITY MAP z n t gwrlm or Sectlm>6, ems!p 23 North,Rage 4 East,WI Veneer•Ner,dean, an King MSHEET-07�- _...-'.the... I"'.`A'Lt' CS INDEX TO SITS O cam<r•Weth.ngeon,des<rlbea ee ronwf� E.._) ..... 3 W¢ BEGINNING al the Northeast corner of the Henry Pe.Donation Law Clain Na 43. -• .-J: I C1 OF 17 COVER SHEET Q 2 THENCE Norte orerp the ttocenter e Tor South 180th Street(formerly a county road), 114 Hart) - •c I-I= �__._,.. \8 -� 0 THENCE North b11.R feet to!b a of POINT 6 BEGAN et I i C2 OF 17 GRADING AND STORM DRAINAGE PLAN THENCE Mo-<hmiy,m a straight lane parallel to the East line e<Northern Pacific Rai nay cong.ny ( SC A C3 OF T7 GRADING AND STORM DRAINAGE PLAN OJ WitCiyR o-ear.<o the Noren I Ine er aeon eeeum' - �'3' STORM DRAINAGE PLAN Eartrrl,alone the Oar.lint or Isla sect!.., eo a win.Wreon.hich n w1.31 rest vest I, 11a N Mile --,II' • C4 OF T7 GRADING AND o Ncrtheef<corner of the Northwest corner of the Northeast porter thereof, I.THENCE South 03.40'Or West, )3Q 69 irrp I _fv. r-��-� C5 OF 17 GRADING AND STORM DRAINAGE PLAN THENCE North 84.34'00'West 649 TI Hats,more o-Irss, t0 the TRUE POINT 6 BEGINNING. ''r`�- - I Or'RTVP +!' yt. - C6 FO T7 GRADING AND STORM DRAINAGE PLAN Parcel D SHIFT CID 3 C7 OF 17 WATER AND SANITARY SEWER EXTENSION PLAN gg.8 The North 330 feet of the fellw."4 described tract ° C8 OF 17 WATER AND SANITARY SEWER EXTENSION PLAN g' Sj That portion of the North..garter of the Northeast quarter of Section 36, p 23 � 7 ! i'' d.'.: C9 OF 17 WATER AND SANITARY SEWER EXTENSION PLAN IB Rang..Co.,vlllaneete Meridiem, !n Kip tamer.Washington,deter e.follows) north, I < C10 OF T7 WATER AND SANITARY SEWER EXTENSION PLAN z tow': ...EN Batch 1. I,5.25 feet I - - -- Borth of tit.a point m the East of the of the Roots Stoup, P � �O 3Y North of aw 1,000.2>fee!Esft ee the Northeast corner of query woof Donation Land Clain NO. 4.� a �MI� `:I Ct1 OF T7 WATER AND SANITARY SEWER EXTENSION PLAN Y �F n, •f'- -' ' l _iI,.. C12 OF 17 GRADING AND STORM DRAINAGE cz '�., = THENCE North 03.4Y Or East 901,91 feet more or I t the Nor.It.of said subdivision I I 1 a z Fgd THENCE North 89.24'30' a said North I Inge 252.9 feet nere o-less t s ant 1 O along f I L rtiiASErli 11 I NOTES AND DETALS V ,c lies 881.37 feet West oft Northeast porter o said Northwest garter.the I p€ HENGEeSw.03'40 00 Yest 923.69 r mtmlant a ee! .,00gh. C13 OF 17 GRADING AND STORM DRAINAGE O z THENCE North quid cmteel one er!00 flesetp,tONH<a.en`w 3Y 1n Eafea184.n weep 1 I /_ � -- Q POND AND DETAILS Z x m E THENCE N SrIX'OD'EONS 30 fret) C71 I ;ti THENCE North r IP 00'East 30.52 feet to the POINT 6 BEGINNING I B I C14 OF T7 GRADING AND STORM DRAINAGE y a POND CROSS SECTIONS m of a 1T 'C' - f Tr{�.'I I C15 OF T7 WATER AND SANITARY SEWER EXTENSION W 0U The xortM1 330 Hart of She Hollowing described.ock 8 That �Il. _ W < O // J NOTES AND DETAILS a x portion°r the Northwest porter or the Nor<hewt quarter of Section 36, Township 23 North. C16 OF T7 SPRINGBROOK CREEK CROSS SECTIONS i Rtge 4 East. II anette derision, in King County,va.lnoton,describe/as follows - --- -- -- O.W. 6L _--- O a I C17 OF 17 SPRINGBROOK CREEK CROSS SECTIONS co 1y E East at a point No the Inacenterof the of coring Brook sleep,HenryDrainage Ditch No. 1, 1,000 in N feet - l �,N Eazt and 530.25 Hatt N0.I.he of the Northeaft corner of y Wens Dmatam Law[lain No. 3, Q [ or Or 4Y Or East 807.91 feet,here or less, he North line of said s51 50 ibn„ SSS$ THENCE,*tong the fell North line,South Eir 24'30•East 62&Il feet to the East lint of seta • EARTHWORK QUANTITIES CUT: 55,000 C.Y. O subdivision)i ong sale East line,South av 13' 30'East 290 feet. centerline of said slog, FILLI 55.000 C.Y. _ T re of , *lough, w 21.34• CO'West 301.of fee, P0' T.THENCE South 75.38' Or 1 Vest 316.3E feet) !' net n r<m s HIowH Parcrl K. sc Ilews tn, lllanette N I CEPT I',o5.38' or West rai 3 feet O the POINT OF KGINNING, That portion of the Northwest quarter K the Northest qua of Section 36.township 23 North, Thet 4,,,..,or Section 36, T !p 23 N0 RGpr 4 COST. Y er ldIon, 1n Kin.50,0,0 I Eyy EXCEPT right-of-way for said drainage ditch Rape 4 East, a to Her!Alien. a King County.Washington. described as fo Ya5M1,ngtm,de r10tl of ro 0wnf y* 3§S Parcel D BEGTMING et a paint on the centerline of Spring Rook S10.n Drainage Ditch No. I, Ala n Is B - portion of t o 1,000.27 f,t East ew 530.25 feet North of the Northeast corner obe smHenry Adams Donation Law BEGINING a<a pang,NIT.!s.14 feet Eafl aw.feet Nor.iron the Northeast T.A.of Henry W Thee pm he Northwest porter of the Northeast garter a.of the Northeast quarter f She Slain N. D Adahe Nor. 6 Clain No. 3, Northwest quarter of Section 36, Township 23 North,Rare 4 East,Yi llenet a r,dlan, in KingHENCE"In.03'IY o0'Ea 8p1.91 fret e0 W Nor. of H s f7V1,. id.. THENCE North bare a8 leer, r F HENCE South MP 34'00' ast.9.70 in, County,Washington,closer as wnsh! r iKNLE, gong sa.tl rv<h 5outn 89.24'30'EwS 628 I)Hatt totthe eo tnt of arTHENCE South 01'37'00'West 170 feet) F, deism's tract) THENCE North 84.34'ar Wes 70 feet) BEGINNING at the Northeast earner or the Wiry Adams Don...Law Clain No. 43i HENCE,along fell East IIne,South 00• 13'30'Ewt.0 feet to the centmllne or said•loran, HENCE See.to the cantor,in of Spring Rook Slough Drainage Ditch No. II gg HENCE East, 4 1 the centerline or Swtn 180<h)101)1 (formerly a coney rood), 111 feet) THENCE,oleog the he of sal4 flougN, South e'•34'00' • 301.02 feet) THENCE Southwesterly a10g said center,l,.to a point East of the POINT Of BEGINNING. 5' 'Z 8 THENCE No-lF 611.)8 feet to the TRLE POINT 81 BEG?M1IW. THENCE Stu.56'00'30''Vs`N6 3B Hart. THENCE Wes!13D B6 feet!o the POINT 6 BEGINNING, 5 THENCE Northerly,m a straight line parallel o he East Nine of Northern Pu.ilc RailwY CONonY THENCE South n'3Y Or We.3JQe fart to the POINT OF BEGINNING, TIHEN�E E f<erl the North i oilneioisr Ion) .M We. [%CEPS!he M0M 330 ere!!hereof,AAA EXCEPT repot-of-NO Ho-said Drainage Ditch No. 1,aw _ y,a mmm<he the N 1 quad erofm, t a Mans mart.wh s 881.31 Heft Ve 5 Wast corner No-<nwes<Spa quarter or he sort Northeast guar m Wool, tract u EXCEPT that on thereof condemned n King County Super ler Cart Ca.e Number 81-2-08117-7 THENCE South 03' 0' OP pW <730.69 feet, EXCEPT!het portion of said main tr t lying within W fol lw.ng described woperly� far widening portion thereof 3rd Street.mots4 Xi THENCE heth 8.']I' Or Vest rein 70 Heft more o-less. to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; R GIMa1NG et W I lancet.Her rner of theNortheast Township 1 lament m N quarter of Section 36, T !p 23 North. Ponc•I N EXCEPT! N0.330 feet<her onge 4 East. I . King County.Washington; Porc•1 E, .ENCE North 81.4l Nor223'sEWest 330.03 5 feet) Thet point of Section 36,To...23 North,Range 4 East, W. age tf Mgr.., in King County, mj ig • �,a THNNCE South 01• 23' at 3]0.03 feet) t of Washington,described es follows ?3 N QQ • S Thet portion of the Nor.M1wrat quarter of 45 Northeast quarter of Section 36, Township 34 Nor., THENCE t 1 So h 87'31' 36'Vest 260.0 tees o he TRITE POINT 6 BEGIMHiNG of!M1 BEGINNING a<a point which.s,14 feet East ew 30 feet North from Me Northeast Corner or henry 6 Range 4 East,W. the •Orr ltl lane !n King County. wM1lnglm' THENexceCE South 87'31'36'West 4600 feet, Mona Donation La.Clam No. 3, i Described as follows. THENCE Seto 0P'21r 24'East 197.0 feet, THENCE North 644.]B feet. "y g fyI g THENCE North 82•31'e6'East 60.0 feet, THENCE South 81•N'OV ast 649 70 feet. m BEGINNING at a pornt m the centerline of Spring Rook Slough Drainage Batch No. I.530.25 feel THENCE North Or 28•24' es 197.0 feet to the TRUE POINT Li BEGINNING of this HENCE Sow.01'37'00•West ITN feet k the TONE POINT CO'BEGINNING) North of and 1,000.21 feet East or the Northeast corner of a04 Donation Lend Clain No. weep mi o THENCE North 84'34'00'Vest 470 feet) HenryY EXCEPT right-of-my e<-wY for said o-s.ne0r 0l tcha THENCE South<e.eycrnTerllap.tlnt rtroihepf ding ttcn5cx, re.trarne�O pal'Sa II K.B4 . h Oe'S 3, THENCE Northeaster) mp00 1 THENCE Nor.03'1Y Or East BON.91 feet,non or Irss to the N0th Ilne of sale sub0lelslm. fit_ THENCE Nor.Sou.Oa'03 Eas!West frm the TRUE one BEGINNING; 3�1�S. 6�\ Jy 6 HENCE North BY 24• 30'Vest,e10.said North Hine,252.9 feet,rsr or less,to a point more or whichlies 881.37 fret west of the Nor.neeft corner of said Northwest garter of.e Northeast Parc•1 O O BEGINNING. :11�f'-� Q e-00 ater, THENCE Sou.03'40 00'Vest 923.69 feet So the centerline of said slough That portion of W Nan....wrier of 40 Northeast quarter of Section 36, Township 23 North, E%CEPT rlp,t-of-quay ion saltl trelrape Ditch h 1H A•' _ -'1 THENCE,a0Nor*5 said carter,int of the slough,North 64'32' 10'East 184. 1 feet) Rerpr 4 East,Wl llehette Mgr.., an King County Yeeh.nglon, described as fat lots _ ..(r., N THEENCENCE North,63'10' 00•East.52 rfeet to the POINT or BEGINNING, - BEGINNING at the N st corner or the..theist garter of Section 36. Twwh.p 34 North, Perot D ffff/S1Crt�aE vs$. _ EXCEPT the 50,' 330 lees Shereoi,aw Rape 4 East,Wa,,anent bradien, In King County.Washington,near l6a es fol lows. The < iquarter f'0N1 Cho d' t !n.tree.I 1 n ones fount IS feet o the SouthwestEXPIRES �1 8 i °us ! Range iNG at She No-thees<corner Of S�Northeast quarter o<Section 36,Township 23 Nor.. or the south Sout.astfee porter and h 15 E Ns d 1•III'1 EXCEPT Chet portion of sold main Yap within She fat lowing described orowrtY' Rare 4 East.Y. ahe<a Meridian, i Ip County,Washington) out of.he arse 1of the feel !he Southeast quarter of t Southwest M1p.arkr, n, o hap a CITY TOF�RENTON t BEG1MalNG at W Northaast corner of W NorShewt parlor of Section 36,Township 23 NorlF, THENCE WrM 8)'3T' 00 EesS 1.340.95 fart, WI Her.d.m B OEpq V --- - Rape 4 Lest .I lar.l*Nor!glen, in !ng County, n.ngton. THENCE South 01• 23•Vest 330.03 in, Rao 4 East,W 1+� � ra3el.le U'oaa:: THENCE See.BT 31' 36•test 260.0 feet to the TRUE POINT 6 BEGINNING. ng County Washington THENCE North 81.31• 36.East I,340..fret, THENCE See.Eir 31' 36•West 460.0 feet. N THENCE South 01.47' 23'West 3'30 03 feet, THENCE Sou.02'28'24'East 197.0 rep IT COVER SHEET HENCE South 87'36' 36'Wart 260.0 iert to the TRUE POINT 6 BEGINNING of this HENCE North 07.31' 36. est 460.0 feet) f THENCE South 87•31' ..Vest 460.0 feet) THENCE North Or ar West 197.0 feet to the TRUE POINT 6 BEGINNING R THENCE Sou.02.28' 24'East 197.0 veepTHENCE fN1 5. y# THENCE Nort.02'28'24'test 1ast 97.0 f0 eet to the TRUE POINT 6 BEGINNING of this • `l AD__ Pm I/31/N Naas except..and 01.1113 AS ? EXCEPT right-of-wY for said trelneq tl.Scn. em ' IRIaN a fftB o1Te tl4Ro.o r.Wi 1• mom01 m85 ` corm 0 m.e Fat P\009N1R0.\S0lI\ENa0Emw\30I1101.°NG Dole/nm:II/06/191N 1 02 scale..-300 Jam„Yr. 0N111T2N111Si5B1118, —... .'" "°'" ,o, —,.— ,,. .b m PPP—SS—TTTT = " '.' CITY OF GRADING AND STORM DRAINAGE PLAN —` RENTON uw I .."'" 1 ® Pb ilq/a.w.nngq/R or WO D .. ,u. N1 REVISION e( DATE APPR ""'- "-' G.,99 Z P.E..M iri i cn RENTON,WASHINGTON • 11 Y 8 I I a I !figIlllil�. R�� NftO nI.a nf.Q Trig D I I e . a e c M QMW(MMNIMEC W1 h dill a W` Fes- 4 '�� = ss $§ $s I • ,.oi, . k Ai r��1j t [ •,F .1' '� I I .>•. DJ 1: I �—. I l' I I r 0€ i I Z` 01 A:� �� ,II�- 0• `I n1 Ilin { /- 0 a CO $I \\ 'i ' .• IN 0 1 .z , °t \ I D D I _ UJ I 0 '.v. o'I; P : I m !ii I M. e I II • 13 ! I— EI ://. - Z I ` q:�i • I I I.\\ �, J� "� 1 I D 1t P J p ^ MATCHLJNE SEE SHEET CS I �yi bQP 'S 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH TRLE LOCATION ! 1 Q D E 42 SA,, KENT,WA 98 32 OAKSDALE BUSINESS PARK N.W.CORNER OAKSDALE AVE.S W. 12 22 (206)251-8782 FAX PHASE 2 AND 3 AND S.W.43RD ST. y m RENTON,WASHINGTON CNC ENGINEERING.1N10 RWIIIIIIC. 111 ''''MO€i.c"P SURJEInC.ENMiOIPIENIAI SER.IaS Z WATER AND SANITARY SEWER EXTENSION PLAN I— I— 4 IIi - v) cri 3 a T-40' d C[ CL Z t-,0,,,E l5i CW) 1 U Q xJ,caa a n.-curl sl C 7� 'fTTrT - «.?-TTl T-TfT-r-r-TT-TT-r4-t- —E.Sswl�,5. O CI) QP { �a t2` thi si- - - 71:11111111 .. y -•1 e i 1 �I • 'E 0v'a.., J..__ -�-rr ttimTr -i !a V c'c7k�'�nrrr-rYT _ _'. ` X-J-.! __ I''lll r. ,ERa OF RE tsar a a III a I _ __ �sz�s� r.= u�E1 E PER star-cr.7 rz* ? r a r irr> I • fl d $-a`, �rL�- E%i51a,0 tact ROCMt16-- t * EX Km F ��-� I 1 W E,35 N 16J., nft fi • aWas I -.;. julex iehwEnu) -- i d • _.� " .Xas `= - .w OHUOG t rZT_TT- 7€ L___.,--,E-- -. ._,,t,3 FF.-252 - rrrnrninc•stzt_ _, kt- 1M o CCI "'-�' sE)IWeu ,<ECW"d") E,rcuS.s n a 0 $c i'+ ,-a•art wul fneu> -a•art wE.x(Heal) ;13-G watt?1n,rq �/f�- .>`•�',��e �j 2 9 II �'-fAE°inoban aS�EBI. 1-nRE MEDIUM ASSEOKS r-E.¢`m0 xf 4Era. ----- 'L"-"% .�f�;.v,,:a 111 99p3 3 rt.arc or MOM sms rm Em a arnox sms. se y rtx cm a aniox sms. r. 4(,_.E $ I I EEE Rill=7 SEE Rbl Str, 4,.)' N !s c,r.,�9� O mtc•aaxE tote.aR,vc \ o EOrIG•nu•¢ // -__ _- a{ • aE wan, I _ _ ,l itlg �c wr��:f I\ j3f1 •I r _ •^ =-.-a — —- r,„:a sir j ' 3,W= ‘ '_�ihE 1 �� 4' ems/E@ns -sie- - "-lm-- Isrrr alar- - / • .::: "' E L. E 'II nd, WEc.•oauc Ili --' ) H1t Hili III I • {II „„,,„ III III s, +. 3,Ea „ w gid— _ _ _ • MATCHU E SEE SHEET CIO -x. o .` t Jg04 r'",`• I E,m,acs+ifu n9 I CITY OF RENTON ��� rnm,.Erar OF'UELrc WORKS . 4alA4taWlL CE w O VIAND UPSTART TARY SEWER Z r EMERSION PLAN I g a we . rw a.. T� '� ....ammo as mu J'-.a' E .5.5 R_ „�..�d. —ce on m n.:0VMEnOASS„\O SKEWIC v,,,aaMS 00./0a/0a/190a O.,S Swt,wa A...* RSO,,,l,tS3„O.S91,,t E I I , WATER AND SANITARY SEWER EXTENSION PLAN 0 co T.4Io1 < � 0_ up� Z 6Eli q <a_ O E3ri a§ <c cc o CO 3 a cc x MATCHLINE SEE SFEET C8 q _ _ _ p 0 I MIN,eu.a•a �- , _ 1 ;; r Q Z 3 • a I 6 f:m ;r5—rv. I IPA-. ) III I � 3 I r.2267 NE(6'rO M I_—_ .n0P 4 A9a'E MAN ]i_kR 6.CU fib UR1 \ / /�^'' ..P RM1011 k *CEP rvn0H91C PR Ott or sn>s. ..n.n.al. mt o[Ea s1m� cac■oanc r r�_�-___�`_"` -'�- BUILDING El -- .4 / /y �� ,�-1' x woo; Ae 0 o I FF.•252 CO .E10CIPIC � fj i. CwW Uux IE4LE J ,.ry.a:E,Co. p wz g oo iE I / b� ( II E. " �n a aE OWL) N5f/�], '�.I _� -6'G1E.1. (R+W) 1-711S POOm omW �' III `11 < Z IFi zi n �I 1]if.'O.I. CONC.iOL 6 _b W _EM4 cP 5 O Ua €° I BEEoMsmash .. i<, 3'LMC w7 Erb ~ W '' ` ah I ) III Q Lrv_E7 n qM1 w C s E I / OrL v0 P' C _L' �a�hh '}h __ 7)IL C < f17 yI V. W / E-k,EE 9Ec z..r 044 Cc*KooteGE ,M,,,,,11°P. YS s0 ?` -II 7I 7 N < L� u° �I / E.1 s 'c / �}ti� E:S: c.rc E W Q Z E Eh- 7 _.: -"__ _�/\ _ _ _ ao y am,— ._ _-� < ~~ cc it 211�'�li I I )r •• 7 - 5��� - \Y,\ y• \::/ y i �, ' I [11 1 i' cr�c' co Li j P I _ 6� 10 If lY Ol 539 •SNrv1' M(w K 5 KK r,3'CCM. ] , 5. `_,EKK 0.. �I EarSn E"2.: � 1 n9 E I A: 3E w 02 I I I VS. KN7 .f 01 F'wM[ 1 < ,f W r I' Y� I I III PLtE— _• 5;9�h ,yaEf rv].y'4.'_•3?.� u7:1'1'.—:::::::;,.... \G0. , y --µ---Y-TE'w51.r--t- -' �'� . iij 11 i r ,maoss' r' y ,, 6;E`E: ove, / IIwu-��.,« \oo.ss \Bari — 1�I .y * * 4 `I_ E.. E(r.=�) 1 1IIC,955 10.456 / y�_y =M Ex sswl—' Iit II tics 4 § *IIua 1.es' _--Hill 1 I ;s.`:,,rL V ) g E(ry r.o i g i m CS $ g Y i a Arlim, i 4k ,,,, . . a.. 4.., . , , I EmIRES sv�yl aws CITY OF RENTON P PCS AMCy� C•EPAIRTMEIVT OF PUBLIC WORKS a _ _ - x WATER MD SANTARY SEWER S m EXTENSION FLAN mEI .a1 ..1E 1/i1/.. MI ows1O AS li £ wo ..101 -w .I.E o.1E .n4loro tame•,.<(�-a .mc •7 c a�n u Ow P.\40410603\3011\000¢xxC\54111E64 OM 061./014n:02/06/1911. 111E 0444.1.40 Amon EMc 49011153591111,3501110. RILL& M kW WI LOT S<LI "PER sLLE .mil PPP-SS-TTTT m IS SWAN K.c.,...,,r., I onao CITY OF GRADING AND STORM DRAINAGE PLAN . " : — -11\ tR RENTON 1 "3* ,.....• AI Of DATE *PPR ..... ' On I, I ,_C331' Pion,.g EVAId•Pq/PutAt Wofka Dept REVISION Grogg'nE(nrnermon P T.Acppin•v,p,tp, RENTON.WASHINGTON Is i i TT r4 11 t A t: i-ti TM i_ s-$.VA,i..,• Tis i1.WVAES1- 2in ''1.--.7:N.;.:;:.•:.:--::,.4 '''i. ' '1411'•,/ wA :. ,4,'1•1. . 1,:I ---,..,.,.,.• `. •- ,„.., : i I• `• i'fzi-T-4--..„,--‘:'-'-----------„*.O S PAALI PO.,„ ' II., . ...(1•11•POINA.1•LIL •...."• „.r..,•...•.• \ ''• .• • "I.'.•. . :-, ?^ ' . _. a.it- 'S'Ito.•77. /. .. • ..M.' .\AA ! 03 MI •I'M 1 •.. '' Naar,: —L... °148P0s-.?, -88.'', 1_ - __ _ = i8VA ,-,. E.-' •._40 1 8 f-- ( iN. L ' 1 - = li .`... PPP ' , ,,,,• k•' ,•';''''''''''''‘4 P.. iT 2-'z' % '' ''''',' -.! ' '' ',-• c-, : 1' i_it'jC_ ...p , ,r 11,,,-,-.:.--,,-,-;- --, . • —411ii - . , : ., i 11 ' \\ 0 , ••••- 0.,, ....... •-•"A7ET:' q.:•`::` : DJ • • . I O.1,,,,, ' _ 1,.. ,-,,,.-L• ... to / ., > s -Ilk,(..P „ lv m ' \ 1 • , ', , ' ",„ ':',°,, :`'`T, 4 i '.. , '''' 0 ,, . , ... \ i 1. - 1 *.ii, '„'',,,.,, ,' .-,, ' ,•• '.4 4t),, ., 1\ \ • 1I , 0 -4 I ,;,, •• > , \ „ . iiikL-, „ 0 1 i• I I R-TI"` l'••#•1`, ''''A I I 1 sli ,,....„ ,,,,,... ,.. -,.. z ik„. , •, -,k. . ,4 \ :'' , AI .,,. to , `--..:',,g? \ \Z"\ 'V' '=:, \ ' ikkll''' , l' 0 1 4 ' ,', , \.4. ' ''...s.,s, ,N ' .;onlir . 4,ffk., p. ---,7 \ k ‘, 4,,,. "• ‘ ,-. NM '1,,..141 4,1 - , . ,,,... , — , t ,z,,. , ,. U) ,a-wpii ' r %,. , '4- 0 , \; \ ,„ ,tt,.. ,. ..,,,,, ',_ ., .q ,..,.,•";t , 7,7---,--\ ,,,(" `. ' '-,' \' \ . ,.... ,‘;: ..1 ,:..... ;\....• m', ,,, \'V,'-111P1"lr-liaild--- - '•-L-1 JJ /. • --i-,/ . .w-• , *\\ \',..‘ i Z 1 ' ,, , 1.4.7.,_ _,-.4 -, -.: 4 \r ..,\\,., ,..,\k\vi,.\\\ N •e: th so,.,,,rw 264-i2 \ , ‘ \\‘ ' \.‘‘\'‘ \'‘+‘\ % \ 1 51 > \-„ \\\\\ ‘ ' 1 !i:1 • N.' ''. ':7-1 '' 'A \ ' \, ,‘ % I 0 ‘ ,v\.\\ s,,-, %- \\ ‘\ % ,,,,,, . , ,2 ••=-,-. - • .1'' - % ,\ \\•ov\, \\,‘ , % \ 1 i Nil -0 -,•-,,-, ' \‘' ,,, ,\, , \ 1 gli I— ''14,1 •:- ,i..11 'M \ \ , . \\\\ ‘. I 1,,,,o,..,, ,,,,,. . ,\ \ 21 ' ri' • \`‘ v Z w,„L-i-k•i , :.,, "'• , ,',..----.1.„,.- ,,,,i:":1 \ ..\,‘ \ , 1I,7 'i'i1.r.' g lji'II '''1-•::;1 A•,1:•;. ',,:'.i.i3 )N a 111. ' ' \A ,\, 1 II '10 is,j- •,- • \ \\\' ‘•;"" ;•\11‘' I , ; ; 1 , ,I\ 1,;,... -. 1 l' - ' •‘'‘\' ••'• 'Lt, • ;. I I 1....\ 1 -,''' ,/ \ • t , / Noril'in I \ ‘ V- ,\ I i 4,\ \\\\''''\\''• ,:,; ; de: liA ' • \•\ ‘' \ ' ',\Nd, ‘Wi. ‘'.41 ' \ \\\\ . \\\ , 1 / 5A ' ' 1 4,, .,,„ .'..,. :,A • , , i \ ,‘ , - , ,4 ,•,.., -,i -.Y,;:;,;,,I •,i ..., , 1 . , ,-' =A:2.4 • . ,-'i. k 1. ' , :.-,2ri • k ,--,- -------- - -- , ,.. \',' \ L 1\ • \ I\`\ '1 r 7 g 40 • ; •,. , / "'',)2 -----;:-.'"'--------",.7 -:-- " • 1 ' I 14 i i 1 PM 1TTLE. LOCATION i 1 1 6 z v.•<•• 0 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT,WA 98032 OAKSDALE BUSINESS PAN( NW.CORNER OAKSDALE AVE SW 211 fii i . (206)251-6222 0 (206)251-8782 FAX PHASE 2 MD 3 AND S.W.43RD ST. q • RENTON,WASHINGTON i w *.e. . CNA DIONTERING LAND PLATINVIG 'Oo,....A‘ SLADVANG•DAARDNITENTAL SERACES ets ar.c.Lit, call • �i J�� _ . r . • .� J 2 -., - - _ .1 [..r-: . )-- , i ' 4 • '''- - • ' t, , -. 2„ 0 • . 11 . ' .' :- '' , .. .W ,zfy E ,.1-7.ED-,.\ /_ \jII 1r i.I.I �; 1 ." _. _. r.rr..gmr.r a,r r=-'•- _. �_1 III ',r 1_ —/ •ri------I 1 1 V AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss. County of King ) MARILYN MOSES , being first duly sworn, upon oath, deposes and states: That on the 28th day of April ,1998, affiant deposited in the mail of the United States a sealed envelope(s) containing a decision or recommendation with postage prepaid, addressed to the parties of record in the below entitled application or petition. Signature: C%71/ SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 171 day of amiti , 1998. -.1)114. ("-ne“4/Lavil/K-- Notary Public i and for the State of Washington, residing at , therein. Application, Petition, or Case No.: Oakesdale Business Campus LUA98-021,SA-H The Decision or Recommendation contains a complete list of the Parties of Record. HEARING EXAMINER'S REPORT April 27, 1998 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND DECISION APPLICANT: Zelman Renton L.L.C. Oakesdale Business Campus File No.: LUA-98-021,SA-H,SM LOCATION: NW Corner of SW 43rd and Oakesdale Ave. SW SUMMARY OF REQUEST: To construct five warehouse/office structures ranging from 62,300 square feet to 151,800 square feet, for a total of 576,887 square feet. SUMMARY OF ACTION: Development Services Recommendation: Approve with conditions DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT: The Development Services Report was received by the Examiner on April 7, 1998. PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Development Services Report, examining available information on file with the application, field checking the property and surrounding area; the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The following minutes are a summary of the April 14, 1998 hearing. The legal record is recorded on tape. The hearing opened on Tuesday,April 14, 1998, at 9:05 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the second floor of the Renton Municipal Building. 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: Vicinity map application, proof of posting, proof of publication and other documentation pertinent to this request. Exhibit No.3: Site plan Exhibit No. 4: Landscape plan Exhibit No. 5: Elevation drawing Exhibit No. 6: Elevation drawing The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by PETER ROSEN, Project Manager, Development Services, City of Renton,200 Mill Avenue South,Renton, Washington 98055. The applicant requests site plan approval and shoreline master program permit to develop the subject site located in the southwest corner of the Zelman Renton L.L.C. Oakesdale Business Campus File No.: LUA-98-021,SA-H,SM April 27, 1998 Page 2 City. The applicant owns the majority of the parcel that is bordered by Oakesdale and SW 43rd Street; however,only the portion of the site north of Springbrook Creek is being considered at this time. The area south of Springbrook Creek has been proposed for rezone to Commercial Arterial,but is not included as part of this proposal. The property directly west of the site is owned by the City storm water utility. The applicant is proposing primary access to the site from SW 41st Street which will require a box culvert over Springbrook Creek. There is a north driveway off of Oakesdale as well as driveway access in the very southwest corner of the site off SW 43rd Street. There is a project planned for grade separation of 43rd Street and the railroad corridor which is in preliminary stages at this point. It would begin at or near the southwest corner of the applicant's property,but is not anticipated to interfere with the proposed driveway. The proposal consists of five separate warehouse/office structures that range in size between 62,300 square feet and 151,800 square feet, for a total of 576,887 square feet of floor area. Buildings would be one story tilt-up concrete structures with a maximum building height of 35 feet. The buildings may include mezzanines or two- story office areas. The office areas would be oriented towards the street. Between the buildings is a truck court for truck maneuvering and the dock loading areas. Parking is provided for 591 vehicles mainly around the perimeter of the buildings. There is a drive for car traffic for employees and customers that is kept separate from the main truck circulation on the site. The site was previously used for an auto wrecking yard which stopped operation in 1985. There is presently an on-site remediation action program that is in the process of development and review with consent decree with Washington State Department of Ecology. The remediation action program would include leveling and mitigating two on-site auto fluff piles. There are three wetlands delineated on the site which will be cleaned up and filled under the consent decree. There is wetland mitigation that has been proposed along Springbrook Creek and near the storm water facilities portion of the site and also off site on some City-owned property. The subject project went to the Environmental Review Committee(ERC)and was issued a Determination of Non- Significance-Mitigated. The mitigation measures are fairly extensive, dealing principally with wetland issues. One area of mitigation deals with the Class I wetland in the northwest corner of the site requiring a 100 foot buffer width. Further mitigation measures included fire and traffic mitigation fees,a construction mitigation plan, and the applicant's contribution toward the cost of a new traffic signal at the intersection of SW 41st Street and Oakesdale Ave SW. A traffic report indicated that with the future connection of Oakesdale and this project that a traffic signal would be necessary at that location. The proposed development is located within the Employment Area Valley Comprehensive Plan designation which was adopted for the entire Green River Valley in August 1996. The overall objective was to allow for a range of employment-based industrial,office and commercial uses. Industrial development is considered consistent with the EAV policies which emphasize employment-based uses. The subject site is particularly appropriate for industrial development given its large size,allowing for a scale and intensity of development that is envisioned by the policies. This site is somewhat buffered from surrounding uses. Springbrook Creek forms the south boundary to separate the industrial from the commercial development that is expected south of the creek. There is City-owned property to the west that has a significant wetland area and railroad tracks beyond that which buffer from development to the west. There is a railroad corridor along the north edge of the property and north of that is Burlington Northern property that is essentially a truck terminal. The zoning of the site is Medium Industrial(IM). Manufacturing and warehouses are allowed as primary permitted uses in the zone. Offices are permitted as secondary uses. The mix that the applicant has indicated is 70 percent warehouse use,20 percent manufacturing,and 10 percent office. The IM zone requires a front street Zelman Renton L.L.C. Oakesdale Business Campus File No.: LUA-98-021,SA-H,SM April 27, 1998 Page 3 setback minimum of 20 feet along all streets designated as principal arterials. The proposed site plan indicates a 20 foot landscaped front yard setback along Oakesdale and SW 43rd. The setback from the creek is governed by both shoreline and land clearing and tree cutting ordinance and requires a 25 foot setback from the creek for industrial development,as indicated on the plan. There are no side or rear yard setback requirements in the IM zone. The applicant has provided a parking analysis to meet the parking requirements based on the percentage of the different land uses proposed and proposes 591 parking spaces. In terms of landscaping requirements, in addition to the 20 foot landscaped street frontages,the parking and loading ordinance requires large parking lots over 10,000 to have 5 percent interior parking lot landscaping. The applicant has provided details which indicate there is approximately 6.7 percent interior parking lot landscaping. There is additional landscaping proposed around the office areas and driveways of the site entries. The site is located within the Green River Valley and the code requires a natural landscape area equal to 2%of the gross site area. The applicant has indicated that they would be providing that within the setback of the creek as enhancement to the buffer. There are three Category III wetlands on the site that would be filled by grading that is required as part of the cleanup effort under the consent decree. That would result in a total wetland area that would be filled of 43,844 square feet. Wetland A is a Category I wetland and a portion of it extends to the northwest corner of the applicant's property. The larger portion of it is on the City-owned property directly to the west. There are no direct impacts to Wetland A. The proposal came in with three on-site wetland mitigation areas. One is a 10- foot wide flood plain bench that would be constructed along the north side of Springbrook Creek. That bench would also add some flood storage and possibly make up some compensatory storage. Another on-site area would be directly to the east of the storm water facility. The applicant has proposed wetland mitigation of approximately 10,625 square feet. Another wetland mitigation area was in the southwest corner of the site of approximately 5,600 square feet. One proposal was to do wetland mitigation on the storm water property that is directly to the west which would create a channel off of Springbrook and go under the driveway off SW 43rd Street. This would create a wetland on the City-owned property which would have a connection to a bigger Wetland A. After discussions agreement was reached that any additional wetland mitigation could be done off-site in the City-owned wetland mitigation bank area. Regarding Springbrook Creek which flows diagonally across the property from the southwest corner to the east property boundary,there was a requirement for a trail to be constructed along the north side of the creek. The applicant and staff have agreed to construct the trail along a portion of the south bank which has a lower slope gradient. There is also a 50 foot shoreline setback along the south side because the shoreline master program requires a 50 foot setback for commercial development. That is within the ownership of the applicant and they could provide that trail except for one parcel which is not under the ownership. For the remainder of the property the applicant has agreed to construct that trail along the south side of Springbrook Creek. The proposed development would not directly impact Springbrook Creek. The proposed concrete box bridge is necessary in order to align their driveway with SW 41st Street. The design of that box bridge would have to meet the requirement of King County Surface Water design manual and would be designed in coordination with the City's storm water utility. The surrounding area is developed with a mix of industrial,warehouse,and manufacturing uses and business park development. The proposed development would not adversely impact the existing uses in the vicinity or uses that could be expected under the zoning. The conversion of the site to industrial development cannot be effectively mitigated from its present state;however,the applicant is conducting an on-site remediation plan that essentially will be cleaning up the site and represents a significant investment towards the clean-up. The Zelman Renton L.L.C. Oakesdale Business Campus File No.: LUA-98-021,SA-H,SM April 27, 1998 Page 4 applicant is providing storm water facilities along the south portion of the site that is along Springbrook Creek. There is a SEPA requirement that applicant enhance the stream buffer and coordinate all of the revegetation from the edge of the creek to their parking area,which includes the storm water facility,the wetland mitigation area,the stream buffer. A traffic impact analysis was prepared which indicated that by the year 2010 with the completion of the Oakesdale connection,that the intersection at 41st would warrant signalization. An ERC mitigation measure requires the applicant contribute a fair share towards the cost of a new traffic signal at that intersection. Staff recommends approval of the Oakesdale Business Park,with the recommended condition that the applicant comply with the ERC mitigation measures. Paul Casey, 777 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 3036,Los Angeles,California 90017,representing the applicant herein,stated that with regard to truck circulation onto 41st and 43rd,the best route for any truck traffic exiting the site is to exit off 41st Street onto Oakesdale. That then gives access to north and southbound SR-167; alternatively, from 41st to Oakesdale to 43rd,which would give drivers access to the signalized intersection at 43rd. He further emphasized applicant's efforts in cleaning up what has been an undevelopable site. They are making considerable efforts with regard to wetland mitigation and landscape enhancement. Regarding the required 2 percent natural landscaping,he stated it will primarily be located along the south property boundary. Neil Watts,Plan Review Supervisor,Development Services Division,City of Renton,200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, Washington 98055,discussed the box culverts for the driveway location on SW 41st. In order to align their driveway with SW 41st, installation of a box culvert is needed over a portion of Springbrook Creek. Regarding the flood plain,a portion of this site is shown on the 100 year flood maps. The widening of a shelf along Springbrook Creek provides some compensatory storage. The 100 year flood plain elevation in this area is somewhere around 16 or 17 feet at the upper end of the creek, so the buildings are well above that. Regarding truck access from the site other than from 41st street,there are no restrictions on SW 43rd at this time. The City could require C curbing at this location if it does develop into a problem situation with traffic trying to make a left hand turn into and out of that driveway. 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 10:20 a.m. FINDINGS,CONCLUSIONS&DECISION Having reviewed the record in this matter,the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The applicant,Zelman Renton L.L.C.,for Oakesdale Business Campus, filed a request for approval of a Site Plan for a warehousing complex. Zelman Renton L.L.C. Oakesdale Business Campus File No.: LUA-98-021,SA-H,SM April 27, 1998 Page 5 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)for the subject proposal. 4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter. 5. The subject site is situated on property located north of SW 43rd Street and west of Oakesdale Avenue SW. The property has frontage along both of those streets but is separated from the actual intersection by other parcels,some owned by this applicant. 6. The subject site is Medium Industrial(IM). This classification was effective with the adoption of Ordinance 4405 enacted in June 1993. 7. The subject site was annexed to the City with the adoption of Ordinances 1745, 1764, 1928 and 4040 enacted between April 1959 and February 1987. 8. 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 including industrial and warehousing uses, but does not mandate such development without consideration of other policies of the Plan. 9. The approximately 32.72 acre parcel is somewhat triangular in shape. Its south property line is defined by the curving course of Springbrook Creek. The parcel has approximately 372 feet of frontage along Oakesdale Avenue on the east. It has approximately 150 feet of frontage along SW 43rd Street in the southwest corner of the parcel. The west property line is approximately 1,307 feet long. The north property line is approximately 1,402 feet long. 10. The applicant proposes constructing five mixed use buildings that will be primarily warehousing,but will accommodate manufacturing and office uses. The mix is proposed to be approximately 70% warehousing,20%manufacturing and 10%office uses. Office uses are generally required to be supportive of the warehousing and manufacturing uses in the IM Zone. 11. All of the buildings will be what it termed one-story,tilt-up concrete buildings. In actuality,the buildings will be up to 35 feet tall which has the visual bulk of three-story buildings. 12. The five buildings will be arranged in three tiers. The northernmost tier will contain,from east to west, Buildings A and C. Both buildings will be rectangular. Building A has an approximately 170,500 square footprint. It will be 220 feet wide(north to south)by 775 feet long(east to west). Building C will be approximately 220 feet wide and 502 feet long. Its footprint will be approximately 110,440 square feet. 13. The middle tier will contain Building B on the east and Building D on the west. Building B will be articulated and be narrower at its east end to accommodate the curving south property line along Springbrook Creek. It will be approximately 218 feet wide(north to south)by approximately 644 feet long. Exhibit 3 shows this irregularly dimensioned building has an approximately 120,632 square foot footprint. Building D will be west of Building B. It is a rectangular building approximately 218 feet wide and 529 feet long. Building D has a footprint of approximately 115,320 square feet. Zelman Renton L.L.C. Oakesdale Business Campus File No.: LUA-98-021,SA-H,SM April 27, 1998 Page 6 14. The southernmost tier contains the fifth building,Building E. Building E is oriented with its long axis in the north to south position. Like Building B, its facade narrows to step around the curving creek corridor. It is approximately 180 feet wide(east to west)by 340 feet long. Exhibit 3 shows it contains approximately 59,995 square feet. 15. It appears that the parking calculations were based on the footprint square footage of the buildings. If mezzanines or other methods of increasing floor space are utilized,that would potentially increase the overall square footage and potentially affect the parking ratios. The applicant proposes 591 stalls which falls near the bottom of the range calculated by staff. That range would be from approximately 557 to 702 parking stalls. 16. Building A observes an approximately 100 foot setback from Oakesdale Avenue. Building E provides an approximately 250 foot setback from SW 43rd Street. The applicant will be providing at least a 20 foot minimum landscape area adjacent to each of those streets. 17. The site will be served by three driveways. The northernmost driveway along Oakesdale will provide access to the general parking for the site. The major truck driveway will be aligned with SW 41st Street. The applicant will be contributing to the signalization of this intersection. The third driveway will be located at the southwest corner of the site and provide access to SW 43rd. Trucks will be encouraged to use the driveway at the 41st alignment. 18. The general vehicular parking will be located around the perimeter of the envelope created by the buildings. A perimeter roadway will provide circulation to the parking and around the exterior of the site. 19. The drive-up bay doors and docking areas will be located in the center of the site between the four larger buildings,Buildings A-D. A loading dock will be provided on the west side of Building E,the building located at the southwest corner of the site. The 41st driveway is intended to provide direct access to this loading area. 20. The on-site storm water detention system will be located east of Building E. It will provide both detention and water quality control before the water is released into the adjacent creek. 21. There are sections of the site that are below the 100-year flood plain. All of the buildings will have their finished floors approximately 25 feet above that level. The applicant did not propose providing compensating flood storage. There was no determination as to whether filling the site or raising the buildings will displace flood water onto other low-lying properties. 22. As noted,the site is immediately north or northwest of Springbrook Creek. The main truck driveway at the 41st alignment will cross the creek. A concrete box bridge will be used to support the crossing. The ERC required hydraulic analysis of the structure and site to determine that there would be no increase in the 100 year level of Springbrook Creek. 23. There are four wetland areas on the subject site. Wetland A is located in the northwest corner of the site and straddles the property line between the subject site and City owned property abutting the subject site on the west. Wetland A is a Class I wetland. It requires a 100 foot buffer. The applicant has proposed a 50 foot buffer. The applicant will be using buffer averaging on City owned property to the west to provide the averaging complement. Zelman Renton L.L.C. Oakesdale Business Campus File No.: LUA-98-021,SA-H,SM April 27, 1998 Page 7 24. The remaining wetlands would be filled by the applicant who proposes providing compensating wetlands off site. These wetlands are degraded and the contamination on the site has had an impact on their quality. Wetlands B and C are generally located in the area where Building D is proposed. Wetland D is located in the vicinity of where Building E will be located. The wetland area that will be filled is approximately 43,844 square feet. Staff has determined that replacement must be in the ratio of 1.5:1 which requires that total replacement must be 65,766 square feet. An alternate technique may be employed if proven appropriate. 25. The applicant proposes part of the compensation as part of its wet pond storm water system. A portion would be located near the 43rd Street entrance to the site and the final part defined by the applicant would be an expansion of a wetland or flood plain shelf. This last technique will require approval from the separate drainage district with jurisdiction over the creek. These mitigation measures add up to approximately 33,825 square feet. The plans for the remaining 31,941 square feet remain tentative. The applicant planned on using the site west of the subject site,but now proposes using the City's alternative wetland bank. The use of any City owned property will require an agreement with the City. 26. The site was contaminated by its previous occupants. A Consent Degree requires remediation. The remediation exempts the site from certain requirements,but the substantive procedures,particularly the wetland measures of the City,are still applicable. 27. A trail link proposed for the north side of the creek would be relocated to the applicant's property south of the creek. This would create a disconnected trail since the applicant does not own all of the contiguous property. The applicant should be responsible for paying any acquisition costs. CONCLUSIONS: 1. 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 proposed use; The proposed use satisfies these and other particulars of the ordinance. Zelman Renton L.L.C. Oakesdale Business Campus File No.: LUA-98-021,SA-H,SM April 27, 1998 Page 8 2. The Comprehensive Plan for the area supports a range of uses that will generate additional employment opportunities and a mix of uses so that the City's economy is diversified. The proposed warehouse and manufacturing uses are compatible with these goals and policies. 3. The building appears to meet the bulk and setback standards of the IM zone. Building and Fire Code compliance will be determined when a building permit is submitted. 4. The approximately 35 foot tall buildings are well-separated from surrounding development. Rail lines divide the site on the north and west from surrounding development. Oakesdale,a major arterial, is located east of the site providing separation from any uses east of the site. Finally, Springbrook Creek provides a buffer and transition area along the south margin of the site. The interior orientation of the heavy truck facilities should provide effective screening of those operations from surrounding uses. 5. It would appear that the ERC required consideration of the impacts of developing this site on the flood plain. The applicant shall be required to demonstrate that providing finished floor elevations above the flood plain shall not displace storm water to surrounding sites in this vicinity or provide compensating detention in some appropriate fashion. 6. It would appear that the wetland mitigation measures are still incomplete. Not only are the methods not fully determined but agreements with appropriate jurisdictions are incomplete. The applicant shall be required to finalize all wetland compensation and all agreements to use the property of another prior to the issuance of building permits for building construction. While remediation under the consent decree is appropriate, until the applicant has executed the necessary agreements to provide the compensating wetlands either on-site,adjacent to the west or in the wetlands bank,no building permits shall be issued. 7. If the wetlands plans are finalized appropriately, it appears that the applicant has mitigated the impacts of developing the site. The buildings themselves are fairly plain rectilinear buildings,but hopefully the proposed landscaping along the perimeter of the site and around the facades will enhance the visual appearance. The creek is definitely a positive attribute of this site and should work to soften the overall appearance of the development. 8. The development of this under-utilized parcel should enhance the overall property values in the area and not adversely affect property values. Clearly,the development of the site will increase traffic in this area of the City and increase the flow of heavy trucks. The proposed alignment of the truck driveway with a regulated intersection should offset any impact. 9. It appears that overall the site has appropriate circulation patterns for both ordinary passenger cars and the heavy trucks that will access the warehousing on the subject site. The parking quotient may be low if additional interior floor space is created. The applicant will be required to meet the parking requirements of its full build-out. If necessary,one of the buildings may be reduced in size but none of the landscaping or setbacks shall be reduced to accommodate additional parking. 10. The spacing between buildings assisted by the interior truck access area,the creek,and the railroad lines all help to provide adequate light and air to the interior and exterior of the site. 11. It appears that there are adequate public services to serve the proposed use. Zelman Renton L.L.C. Oakesdale Business Campus File No.: LUA-98-021,SA-H,SM April 27, 1998 Page 9 12. In conclusion,the proposed use appears appropriate for the site. Although some of the wetland mitigation is unresolved, it appears that there are sufficient avenues to provide the appropriate mitigation. DECISION: The Site Plan is approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with the conditions imposed by the ERC. 2. If the parking ratio is incorrect for full build-out,the applicant may reduce one or more of the buildings in size to provide additional parking,but the applicant shall not reduce either landscaping or setbacks to accommodate additional parking. 3. Prior to the issuance of any building permit,the applicant shall execute the necessary agreements to provide the compensating wetlands either on-site,adjacent to the west or in the wetlands bank. 4. The applicant shall provide information that by placing finished floor elevations above the flood plain it shall not displace 100-year flood storm water to surrounding sites in this vicinity. If displacement would occur the applicant shall provide compensating detention in some appropriate fashion. 5. The applicant shall execute an agreement binding it or its sucessors in interest to provide for a trail along the south side of Springbrook Creek. The applicant shall pay for the acquisition of property from Campbell or its successors to provide a contiguous trail along the south side of the creek. ORDERED THIS 27th day of April, 1998. 4-1-1L—Li (Qu-k- FRED J.KAUF HEARING EXA ER TRANSMITTED THIS 27th day of April, 1998 to the parties of record: Peter Rosen Paul Casey Neil Watts 200 Mill Avenue S Zelman Renton L.L.C. 200 Mill Avenue S Renton,WA 98055 777 Wilshire Blvd,#3036 Renton,WA 98055 Los Angeles,CA 90017 Larry Capellaro Richard Burr KC Drainage District#1 Burr&Temkin P.O. Box 297 165 NE Juniper Street,#203 Kent, WA 98032 Issaquah,WA 98027 Zelman Renton L.L.C. Oakesdale Business Campus File No.: LUA-98-021,SA-H,SM April 27, 1998 Page 10 TRANSMI FIbD THIS 27th day of April, 1998 to the following: Mayor Jesse Tanner Gregg Zimmerman,Plan/Bldg/PW Administrator Members,Renton Planning Commission Jim Hanson,Development Services Director Art Larson,Fire Marshal Mike Kattermann,Technical Services Director Lawrence J. Warren,City Attorney Larry Meckling,Building Official Transportation Systems Division Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Utilities System Division Councilperson Kathy Keolker-Wheeler Sue Carlson, Econ. Dev.Administrator South County Journal Pursuant to Title IV,Chapter 8, Section 15 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m..May 11. 1998, Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure,errors of law or fact,error in judgment,or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen(14)days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant,and the Examiner may, after review of the record,take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV,Chapter 8, Section 16,which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk,accompanying a filing fee of$75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department,first floor of City Hall. If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants,the executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or final processing of the file. You may contact this office for information on formatting covenants. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte(private one-on-one)communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. .... INN1N11.1NN uN11N11111N1111111111111111111111U111N1111111111111111111111111DD11111111111111111111111111111111111111111D111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111RN1111111111111111131111111111111111111111111111111D111111.11111111111 1111M1MI1111 '• '4 --�'-- :, ___,__+—--N":t---=--7-- --- .,•'�—-V---E�•—=r. -" L�F+--1V`—-1Y—-to--117 L'�Ft tD"oTj-I�u'i='"-D-S[A�••f—_ - I 1:1 A EultMl��hy9� MICE G arICL NMI SDr arlC[ alMi WU BMX R Of=I Orra arCC : I ma's,#'s''%is s I I I I • to, M. 11] C s•.z''. h A I I I I R C IN ^ A xINIMND I I n I R I I ;8 I 1It(:III1'ELTI:flF: .'V(%% ' ' .r r sr R r l sr r r l .r r .. o r r I r I i 1 • ' PP R 1 I I I I 9 ! 4A' ~' __ A sar I • I R 77s I I _ V1 i UMSDNG {Y" I I 4A'DOCK Iµv II.1 I i�'1 �.w�: t 7R I061A SF�1400 :14 � RAMP RALP L - Iw+ 'v Red,.CA 6004 J ...........aLu 41 St +u ezz6 00 DATER WJN EASEMENT b 425S2E2116F. TRUCK COURT 1 ;,A; j tpl / Alf ..1. I J P MOP I 1 I P RAN I'^1^� "1 !/ PRYER %'$ ''.-% RAMP wl i.. ( I IF f� li, 1�11 '• v. :ICJ I 1 II i ZELMAN RENTON LLI: .'DOCK .•ODCR I I .•0OCF 'I hit..-..I.......1 I E_ KAAXMORI. • 529' I 1 • I • I 61.• aslu .'1- /� /1 ( .11 • 707 LOS AMOEI[],CO 00017 D..3036 ERs7F1D" ,' I ' I I I ��' ,J I i 1! I f nyloy `' k 1 k I i•j ,/I I I 1 s••r v sr s 5r sr I r Sr !-r ! Sr Sr I fT » sr a k v Sr I Sr r r r 1 ' •:�/ //1 I I!t. • I. 1 t,. I I I I k P ,'r / / I V) I k I I I I I k II I. � '' / / I W orrltE• • s>o, arc[ arcs ara 1 anDL arcE OrT1CC 0 P'"��-'. -- / I SWIM"SLAT EASEIRNI _ .-j I. I I III:.. 1 ....... .... 'II i•.3131. ` --.. .. I LLI I C•J Or: i 0 : Cal •• t.1J III CL•% /,;�. e..r ...911430.W.OCIUMON PEWS I i ¢ i C) 0 ILL, I'� -; • Ay�� J f eD • i IRASIP I k __' s CBEEK .......---+ I •i t i.i RpOK ----- I N I l R+NOH _ I i Y I r R aea a1EN roN.. I __ I Q i I ! ! ! Sr ! ! 'I :I:i.. I /' /�13•tram EASEMENT O IS ]Oy I NOT• IN RCEL J 1 1 w 11 w. R a71� I I I /' I NOT INCLUDED IN PROPOSAL I I I.,J 1 E 1 ` I /' 1I—I 1 • I I '1 i NA 0.0 Ivw R E / �'� L I : rl I I' I Revision 5O'COu EFCFL SHORELINE SLTMCK /; .� 1' sows J� / 15 MiU�'USLUENt I I . R J -- .c-. ' SUB-PARCEL H I I • I I.- I.AAA." •-I R � I 15 UnET E SEUENl ,..I SUB-PARCEL G I NOT INCLUDED IN PROPOSAL 1 1 �..'� • � / NOT NOT IN PROPOSAL I I I I i „ i 395 I I 006 arcs R /.� --—--— I • Pmi.n Re. • 'yd'/�6 /' 1 1 I Due �/06/OS l 1 I I v tr. A, ; I I ; FCC / PROPERTY NOT INCLUDED tNArEF w,N rA:E.ENr I 1I la...Dl j�' / I IN PROPOSAL I• i� RIR�� ; I SUB-PARCEL K I 1 '' I NOT INCLUDED IN PROPOSAL bI I I • // uVtR-CELL OE1EN,.N POND I i NI • �. J / 1 F 1 ISM 75'R'ETUND DUECR►, ; t3' RE.I SNOREUNE II 5i0"F ' OAKSDA'LE BUSINESS CAMPUS I SITE PLAN APPROVAL RERAN()RE UAW RRU / SO'COuvERLVL INE SET.•<R I • SUBMISSION li /OUTM EST PARCEL I I 'A r Nor I LUDED IN PROPOSAL s I PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN 1:60 ue W / / '" s 20'UN NMED ERONT YAK SETBACK — `'2. I _ __ L � a; ®,��SLOPE EASEMENT - .-., _._ _... _. MR110.0.m. S.W. 43RD STREET o ;o .N11 w :it,„-1 Tb 1 I SDor aev:SS I— I --- - -- '•---� f ih, awn. _,--:*--1, P. iPtIE a - -I .__..;_________ V I ,II O 41:,• 11 0 ,(. . .-- MIL , - a if del ! '11 I�-. .��'� f mu ASCIIITECTIPE BUILDING B EAST ELEVATION BUILDING_B_ NORTH ELEVATION • ROD.taw,SSA' --.---- —? _ ... r_ -.—.. .. .._ . .. --- _-- i =A-- w11111111 -__ 1. I _f 7 I . , f �I,(SIw� • 41,10. i '..- I;��... I'-- 2i.5 -- �_ ....-_ -_ _.. I 1.�:.. I,I �1.. .; 1 /_/ I��1" 2 2ELMAN RENTON . WILSHIRE07 WSHIRE SOULEVARO,•SOOS y LOS ANGELIS.CA 900/1 BUILDINGB SOUTHEAST ELEVATION BUILDING_E EAST ELEVATION ROOK E:EV•$5.2•• _ ___ _ F 1' ----_ __ r__-_ •» -- -i - �P�V�S nL ,..W•:I.S IN IB I I Y' ,'1 '- BUILDING E SOUTHEAST ELEVATION BUILDING E SOUTH ELEVATION PAINTED METAL EQUIPMENT SCREEN- - ' (AROUND THREE SIDES( >w ` :,,'V\rll_lt.. ". 5.1'�^� .`<vt�•.. .\',.1.�::<_1c✓ncv_.YIISIY`� .. <'N,vV`v-rF OTTICE TRACK COURTWAREHOUSE ..... � ` N. Da“ INN 1 1 I---_ 1 ^ emu i :rrrlA1 IT nri BUILDING_A SECTION LOOKING WEST THROUGH OFFICE AND WAREHOUSE • Lam'- _ a • , e9". A. , D....BT RCC . ' = ,� y --- _/ ---JIB 11. -- Rents•• .- 3 � • ( i�• SITE PLAN APPROVAL SUBMISSION • 'i T',— "�.,. ' ..,.. . ,N. Al- e ..\ -_ i II II E -"i S ��%Mwnw+sRIRr_ --l■.-:.y I is I ....... i,� - t `` 1/ 1 .'-_E.�an.7 I 1 I (lulS��eSIP�I-EI. ,{� I 1..: 1 ;t i. /(" � •-- \a, ? .... �,• Al ill -i t - '! -Fi: � - sag ,rrr. ibila'1 -II � dNClll T E(T L.N E BUILDI A NORTH ELEVATION D)(EAST EN --� -NG m IlES NE MOO -T l.l,...WA 96001 1 426.622 6700 mi----- ---4.14 ••••- • - sombri_:_- .. 4251U/69116 EA. — — • k . — iiirilit ic'N E IR 9 II JI 1�� !�\�!S ZELMAN RENTON LLC _ LOT ANnElEW CA goon BUILDING A NORTH ELEVATION(WEST END) .--'- ■M._pl Frsii.,16, .... . , .--i. 11#. - -.- #4....., iimg,. 1. , --!.7 BUILDING A.. EAST 'AWN — -.. - 1 _ E ' M a p_ - - - 0 _ dog iw ^ . = E�,�,a.,. �. �! 11.4 -imm!A ., - . .6,1..,,--!.!,, --.,.....i.-1., BUILDING A SOUTH ELEVATION(WEST ENO) No__, ...-.--- . D•u___ _ , r i________,______T__.__.....:____ , ,....._,__Fc. 1 I ---Lt-- 7-1 - --.---r. 1 r ....._ - - _w .. Kw .,LS APPROVAL 1 'tV I � ui. �ffr is14;•.. ^ �A TnL '1. SITE PLAN ... ... -.- -. - _ • • , ,m - I�f SUBMISSION 3 __ _ _ rJi ,' •— .. l�, dI ,no A-1d BUILDING A SOUTH ELEVATION(EAST END) CITE OF RENTON Fiat ea I Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator April 16, 1998 State Department of Ecology Northwest Regional Office 3190 160th Ave. SE Bellevue, WA 98008-5452 SUBJECT: Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permit for the Oakesdale Business Campus-File No. LUA-98-021, SA-H, SM, ECF To Whomever it May Concern: Enclosed is the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for the above referenced project. The permit was issued by the City of Renton on April 15, 1998. We are filing this action with the Department of Ecology and the Attorney General per WAC 173-14-090. Please review this permit and attachments and call me at (425) 235-2719 if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, Peter Rosen Project Manager Enclosures: Copy of Original Application Affidavit of Public Notice/Publication Site Plan SEPA Determination cc: Office of Attorney General City of Renton, Transportation Systems City of Renton,Utility Systems Applicant DOELTR.DOC 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 [�]Thic nnnor rnniaine Fill%rarvrlari malarial 9f1%nnct rnncumar CITY OF RENTON SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1971 PERMIT FOR SHORELINE MANAGEMENT SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION NO.: LUA98-021, SA-H, SM, ECF DATE RECEIVED: February 17, 1998 DA—E OF PUBLIC NOTICE: February 20, 1998 DA-"E APPROVED: April 15, 1998 DATE DENIED: NA TYPE OF ACTION(S): [X] Substantial Development Permit [ ] Conditional Use Permit [ ] Variance Permit PurE;uant to Chapter 90.58 RCW, the City of Renton has granted a permit: Thi!, action was taken on the following application: APPLICANT: Zelman Renton L.L.C. PROJECT: Oakesdale Business Campus DEVELOPMENT DESCRIPTION: Proposal for five warehouse/office structures ranging from approximately 62,300 sq. ft. to 151,800 sq. ft. for a total of 576,887 sq.ft. in gross floor area. The buildings would be one story tilt-up concrete structures with a maximum building height of 35 feet. The buildings may include mezzanine or two story office areas. Truck maneuvering and loading dock areas are located internally on the site, with office areas facing adjacent streets. Parking spaces are provided for 591 vehicles around the perimeters of the buildings. Access is proposed from one driveway off SW 43rd Street and via two driveways off Oakesdale Ave. SW. The south driveway off Oakesdale Avenue SW is intended for truck access and is aligned with SW 41st Street. This driveway would bridge Springbrook Creek. There is an on-site remediation action plan that is in the process of development and review under a Consent Decree with the State of Washington Department of Ecology (DOE). This remediation action plan will include leveling and mitigating the two on-site auto fluff piles. There are three small delineated wetlands on the site which will be cleaned up and filled under the Consent Decree. Wetland mitigation is proposed along Springbrook Creek. SHR,_PERM.DOC L . City of Renton P/B/PW Department Shoreline Substantial Development Permit • Page 2 of 2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Attached separately to report. SEC-TWNP-R: Section 36 and 25, Township 23 North, Range 4 East. WITHIN SHORELINES OF: Springbrook Creek APPLICABLE MASTER PROGRAM: City of Renton The following section/page of the Master Program is applicable to the development: Section Description Page 5.04 Urban Environment page 22. 7.07 Industrial Development page 30. 7.17 Trails page 39. Development of this project shall be undertaken pursuant to the following terms and conditions: 1. The applicant shall provide a trail easement and construct a trail on the south side of Springbrook Creek. The trail corridor shall be located within the 50 foot stream buffer wherever possible. The trail alignment and construction details shall be subject to the approval of the Development Services Division and the Park's Department. This permit is granted pursuant to the Shoreline Management Action of 1971 and pursuant to the following: 1. The issuance of a license under the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 shall not release the applicant from compliance with federal, state, and other permit requirements. 2. This permit may be rescinded pursuant to Section 14(7) of the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 in the event the permittee fails to comply with any condition hereof. 3. A construction permit shall not be issued until thirty (30) days after approval by the City of Renton Development Services Division or until any review proceedings initiated within this thirty (30) day review period have been completed. J4 l W4 tf//4/q � Planning/ uilding/Public Works Administrator Date SHRLPERM.DOC CIT ..OF;RENTONI........ f1::.RE.::.TLAKtI .IVG pl:...S CAN..... .... AFFIDAVIT OF;S�RVI;�E BY MAILING ;;; On the I'll./ day of Wpnl.. , 1998, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing 51,no re\t he -VW1 documents. This information was sent to: Name Representing DeFst of Esc ologl fkkkotnr1c,.-i G evteta L 7-e-1 l evv1tm ftC- "Rolav,d Coll avdcv (Signature of Sender) SavNaiveL,LL . STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that (-- � 9 �g, ���„ signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the Crises and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: ,3O) 19 c/lrQrh Notary Public and for the State of W gton Notary (Print) My appointment ex it s. OMMISSION EXPIRES 6P29199 Project Name:Oaysesck '13.uStvkess Cavvvptts Project Number: LUTAt, `�$ •021 t SW -N , SIM NOTARY.DOC CITY OF RENTON CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING >' On the 1 ' day of Ppnl, , 1998, I deposited in the mails of the United States a sealed envelope containing Re?o ram' to -the +nnut EvunAt Ke1r'' documents. This information was sent to: Name Representinq \av,d C.6itv&vvder civet A ifie e Z.s:1w‘0,v‘ 1�evAwn LLC. _ Lzt.Nor .i C eP C 11avo avatAorle_ 1--)L.S1 '4 1 R;ci,,,,avd k�' u yr want ay.4 —Tew‘ka v‘ (Signature of Sender) 511.4dd• a- K-• Se-,.....yeX STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that ,a.-y\A-t-A._ signed this instrun-ent and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act fail the uses and purposes mentio led in the instrument. Dated: 0 `1- �, /`► �. �� 1.---'1-')}1 Notary Public' and fo he State of Was ' on Notary (Print) My appointment eMblkRILYN KAMCH FEE COMMISSION EXPIRES 6/29/99 Project Name C)akesdale tihrss aJANpui Project Number: Ljr.t 96. 02_3 5 .. t, SVh NOTARY.DJC AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION Charlotte Ann Kassens, being first duly sworn on oath states that he/she is the Legal Clerk of the SOUTH COUNTY JOURNAL 600 S. Washington Avenue, Kent, Washington 98032 a daily newspaper published seven (7)times a week. Said newspaper is a legal for this project will run concurre folect hel comment/appeal periods for this p 1 S newspaper of general publication and is now and has been for more than six months end at 5:00 PM on April 6, 1998. Written prior to the date of publication, referred to, printed and published in the English language comments shall be forwarded to the Development Services Division Land Use continually as a daily newspaper in Kent, King County, Washington. The South County Review Supervisor.Information on the pro Journal has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the jest file and the mitigation measures m State of Washington for King County. impOSed by the City of Renton's Environmental Review Com ISeeviare The notice in the exact form attached, was published in the South County available at the Develop ce Division, Third Floor, Municipal Building, Journal (and not in supplemental form)which was regularly distributed to the subscribers Renton, Washington 98055. Phone: 235- during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a 2550. Appeal procedures are available in the City Clerk's office First Floor,Municipal Oakesdale Business Campus BuildPu. A Public Hearingwill be held by the Renton Hinearing Examiner at his regular as published on: 3/23/98 meeting the Council Chamber ontth second floor of CityHall, Washington, on April 14, 1998 at 9:00 AM royal. If the The full amount of the fee cha ed for said foregoing publication is the sum of$60.1fJ to consider the Site Plan APP Baled, Legal Number 4389 - Environmental Determination is app NOTICE OFENV IV RONMENTAL the appeal will be heard as part of this pub DETERMINATION lic hearing.Interested parties are invited to attend the public hearing. Journal 7 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE Published in the South County RENTON,WASHINGTON �t March 23,1998.4389 The Environmental Review Committee Legal le County Journal (ERC)has issued a Determination of Non Significance - Mitigated for the following t �j p' project under the authority of the Renton Subscribed and sworn before me o This o/- Yday of / Gyl , 19 7D Municipal Code. OAKESDALE BUSINESS CAMPUS LUA-98-021,SA-H,SM,ECF ``"„'f f 1"/''' Environmental Review fore five ware house/office struct r tilt-up concrete)sV gc ,„ A E• N y �/i� would be one story5 ••�` �y $ION yG/�i tures with a maximum building height of 3d si go ''• /••.J' ��� Notary Public of the State of Washington feet. Location: NW corner of SW North •• .. 9 Street and Oakesdale Avenue SW, �'' residing in Renton of Springbrook Creek. 4 *sanity eal period s = King County. Washington The 15 day comment and app .-�� N: i d►s;! O; Z* IIIl11111111O CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMIN PUBLIC HEARING .......: . ::.... ......... APRIL 14, 1998 AGENDA COMMENCING AT 9:00 AM, COUNCIL CHAMBERS, SECOND FLOOR, RENTON MUNICIPAL BUILDING Th= application(s) listed are in orde(Of application number only and not necessarily the order in which the y will be heard. Items will be called for hearing at the discretion of the Heantig E miner PF OJECT NAME: Oakesdale Business Campus PEOJECT NUMBER: LUA-98-021,ECF,SA-H,SM PF.OJECT DESCRIPTION: Proposal for five warehouse/office structures ranging from approximately 62 300 sq. ft. to 151,800 sq. ft. for a total of 576,887 sq.ft. in gross floor area. The buildings would be on a story tilt-up concrete structures with a maximum building height of 35 feet. The buildings may include mezzanine or two story office areas. Truck maneuvering and loading dock areas are located internally on the site, with office areas facing adjacent streets. Parking spaces are provided for 591 vehicles around the perimeters of the buildings. Ac cess is proposed from one driveway off SW 43rd Street located in the southwest corner of the site and via two driveways off Oakesdale Avenue SW. The south driveway off Oakesdale Avenue SW is intended for truck access and is aligned with SW 41st Street. This driveway would cross Springbrook Creek with a concrete box bridge. Tt ere is an on-site remediation action plan that is in the process of development and review under a Consent Decree with the State of Washington Department of Ecology (DOE). This remediation action plain will include leveling and mitigating the two on-site auto fluff piles. There are three delineated wetlands on the site which will be cleaned up and filled under the Consent Decree. Wetland mitigation is proposed along Springbrook Creek, adjacent to the stormwater pond facilities, and off-site on City-owned pr)perty. AGNDA.DOC City of Renton PUBLIC Department of Planning/Building/Public Works HEARING PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER A. SUMMARY AND PURPOSE OF REQUEST: Public Hearing Date: April 14, 1998 Project Name: Oakesdale Business Campus Applicant/ Zelman Renton L.L.C. Address: 707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 3036 Los Angeles, CA. 90017 Owner/ Same as above Address: File Number: LUA-098-021, ECF, SA-H, SM Project Manager: Peter Rosen 400 Project Description: Proposal for five warehouse/office structures ranging from approximately 62,300 sq. ft. to 151,800 sq. ft. for a total of 576,887 sq.ft. in gross floor area. The buildings would be one story tilt-up concrete structures with a maximum building height of 35 feet. The buildings may include mezzanine or two story office areas. Truck maneuvering and loading dock areas are located internally on the site, with office areas facing adjacent streets. Parking spaces are provided for 591 vehicles around the perimeters of the buildings. Access is proposed from one driveway off SW 43rd Street located in the southwest corner of the site and via two driveways off Oakesdale Avenue SW. The south driveway off Oakesdale Avenue SW is intended for truck access and is aligned with SW 41st Street. This driveway would cross Springbrook Creek with a concrete box bridge. There is an on-site remediation action plan that is in the process of development and review under a Consent Decree with the State of Washington Department of Ecology (DOE). This remediation action plan will include leveling and mitigating the two on-site auto fluff piles. There are three delineated wetlands on the site which will be cleaned up and filled under the Consent Decree. Wetland mitigation is proposed along Springbrook Creek, adjacent to the stormwater pond facilities, and off-site on City-owned property. Project Location: Northwest corner of SW 43rd Street and Oakesdale Avenue SW, north of Springbrook Creek. T 4 j It�o l� �l r �I i : j� •--- -1 J III :! ...a. �'. // ,�r+ • Y`1' _. . ... il- -1•00l 'I i*:,/r e , I I 1 j/0_ ,1. ;!0- '1! ' t, -- 1 ., [-/ . • City of Renton P/B/PW Department Preliminary Report to the Heating Examiner OAKESDALE BUSINESS PARK LUA-98-021, SA-H, SM, ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE:APRIL 14, 1998 Page 2 of 11 B. GENERAL INFORMATION: 1. Owner of Record: Zelman Renton L.L.C. 2. Zoning Designation: Medium Industrial (IM) 3. Comprehensive Plan Employment Area -Valley (EAV) Land Use Designation: 4. Existing Site Use: Seven buildings are present on the site-four associated with the prior auto wrecking yard and three with previous agricultural uses. 5. Neighborhood Characteristics: North: Railroad tracks, Burlington Northern terminal. East: Boeing warehouses, Ikea. South: Springbrook Business Park- Commercial, office, business uses. West: City-owned undeveloped parcel with wetlands, railroad track corridor. 6. Access: SW 43rd Street, Oakesdale Avenue SW. 7. Site Area: 32.72 acres 8. Project Data: area comments Existing Building Area: Not provided by applicant. New Building Area: 576,887 s.f. Total Building Area: 576,887 s.f. C. HISTORICAL/BACKGROUND: Action Land Use File No. Ordinance No. Date Annexation 1745 4/14/59 Annexation 1764 5/19/59 Annexation 1928 2/19/61 Annexation 4040 2/9/87 Comprehensive Plan 4498 2/20/95 Zoning Code 4405 6/7/93 D. PUBLIC SERVICES: • 1. Utilities: Water: Adequate water utilities are available to serve the proposed development. Sewer: Adequate sewer facilities are available to serve the proposed development. HEXRPT.DOC I City of Renton PB/PW Department Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner OAKESDALE BUSINESS PARK LUA-98-021, SA-H, SM, ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE:APRIL 14, 1998 Page 3 of 11 Surface Water/Storm Water: The proposed drainage control plans and water quality facilities will be required to conform to the King County Surface Water Design Manual. The applicant is responsible for obtaining approvals of other agencies with jurisdiction for the proposed work along Springbrook Creek (State Fish & Wildlife, Dept. of Ecology, Drainage District No. 1, Corps of Engineers, etc.). 2. Fire Protection: Provided by the City of Renton Fire Prevention Bureau. 3. Transit: The site is served by Metro bus route 155 which operates along SW 43rd Street. E. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE: 1. Zoning Code- Chapter 31, 4-31-11.2 Medium Industrial Zone 2. Wetlands Management Ordinance- Chapter 32 3. Parking and Loading Ordinance- Chapter 14 F. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: LAND USE ELEMENT 1. Employment Area Valley: Objective LU-EE.a: Provide for a mix of employment-based uses, including commercial, office and industrial development to support the economic development of the City of Renton. Policy LU-212.1 Develop the Renton Valley and the Black River Valley areas as a place for a range and variety of commercial, office, and industrial uses. Policy LU-212.2 Compatible and related land uses should be encouraged to locate in proximity to one another. Policy LU-212.3 Development standards should promote an increased intensity and quality of development. Policy LU-212.6 Developments should be encouraged to achieve greater efficiency in site utilization and result in benefits to users with techniques including: a. shared facilities such as parking and site access, recreation facilities and amenities; b. an improved ability to serve development with transit by centralizing transit stops; and c. an opportunity to provide support services (e.g. copy center, coffee shop or lunch facilities, express mail services) for nearby development that otherwise might not exist. Policy LU-212.8 Recognize viable existing and new industrial uses in the Valley, while promoting the gradual transition of uses on sites with good access and visibility to more intensive commercial and office use. Policy LU-212.9 Commercial uses may be located in proximity to existing industrial uses when reasonable buffering between the uses can be accomplished and when adequate accommodation of deliveries and loading to industrial areas can be maintained. Objective LU-EE.c: Ensure quality development in Employment Area-Valley. HEX R PT.DOC City cif Renton P/B/PW Department Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner OAKESDALE BUSINESS PARK LUA-98-021, SA-H, SM, ECF PUBa..IC HEARING DATE:APRIL 14, 1998 Page 4 of 11 Policy LU-212.19 Street trees and landscaping should be required for new development within the Valley to provide an attractive streetscape in areas subjected to a transition of land uses. Policy LU-212.20 When more intensive new uses are proposed for locations in close proximity to less intensive existing uses, the responsibility for mitigating any adverse impacts should be the responsibility of the new use. Policy LU-212.21 Vehicular connections between adjacent parking areas are encouraged. Incentives should be offered to encourage shared parking. Policy LU-212.22 Create a logical and harmonious working environment in mixed-use developments thro.igh the application of appropriate development standards, emphasizing landscaping, setbacks and sidewalk treatment for all uses. Policy LU-212.23 Site design for office uses should consider ways of improving transit ridership through siting, locating of pedestrian amenities, walkways, parking, etc. Policy LU-212.24 Site plan review should be required for all new projects in the Renton Valley and Black River areas pursuant to thresholds established in the City's development regulations. G. DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS: 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND The applicant requests site plan approval for five warehouse/office structures ranging in size from approximately 62,300 sq. ft. to 151,800 sq. ft. for a total of 576,887 sq.ft. in gross floor area. The applicant estimates that approximately 70% of the floor area would be for warehouse use, 20% for manufacturing, and 10% used for office. The buildings would be one story tilt-up concrete structures with a maximum building height of 35 feet. The buildings may include mezzanine or two story office areas. Truck maneuvering and loading dock areas are located internally on the site, with office areas facing adjacent streets. Parking spaces are provided for 591 vehicles around the perimeters of the buildings. Access is proposed from one driveway off SW 43rd Street located in the southwest corner of the site and via two driveways off Oakesdale Avenue SW. The south driveway off Oakesdale Avenue SW is intended for truck access and is aligned with SW 41st Street. This driveway would cross Springbrook Creek with a concrete box bridge. A drive goes around the perimeter of the site with perpendicular parking for cars. The drive is landscaped with street trees and would have sidewalks in several locations to create a "boulevard" character and distinguish auto circulation from the truck court. The site was previously used for an auto wrecking yard, which ceased operation in 1985. There is an on-site remediation action plan that is in the process of development and review under a Consent Decree with the State of Washington Department of Ecology (DOE). This remediation action plan will include leveling and mitigating the two on-site auto fluff piles. There are three delineated wetlands on the site which will be cleaned up and filled under the Consent Decree. Wetland mitigation is proposed along Springbrook Creek, adjacent to the stormwater pond facilities, and off-site on City-owned property. 2. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and SEPA (RCW 43.21 C, 1971 as amended), on March 17, 1998 the Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non-Significance, Mitigated. The mitigation measures are listed below. The comment/appeal period for the SEPA determination ended on April 6, 1998 and there were no comments or appeals filed. HEXRPT.DOC City of Renton PB/PW Department Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner OAKESDALE BUSINESS PARK LUA-98-021, SA-H, SM, ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE:APRIL 14, 1998 Page 5 of 11 3 COMPLIANCE WITH ERC MITIGATION MEASURES Based on an analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, the following mitigation measures were issued for the Determination of Non-Significance, Mitigated. 1. Temporary Erosion Control shall be installed and maintained to the satisfaction of the representative of the Development Services Division for the duration of the project. Weekly reports shall be submitted on the status and condition of the erosion control plan with any recommendations of change or revision to maintenance schedules or installation submitted by the Project Engineer of record to the Public Works Inspector. Certification of the installation, maintenance and proper removal of the erosion control facilities shall be required prior to Temporary Certificate of Occupancy. 2. The design of the concrete box bridge over Springbrook Creek shall meet the requirements of the 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton. A hydraulic analysis shall demonstrate that the proposed project would not increase the 100-year water surface elevations in Springbrook Creek. The analysis must use the 100-year flows listed in the City's East Side Green River Watershed Project Plan dated September 1997. The 100-year flow just upstream of Oakesdale Avenue is 1165 cfs (Plan Table 8-2). The City will provide the HEC-RAS hydraulic model for the applicant's Engineer to use in designing the box and assessing hydraulic impacts of the project on Springbrook Creek flows and elevations. The suitability of the proposed final project design shall be confirmed using the City's FEQ hydraulic model. The design of the concrete box bridge shall be subject to the approval of the Renton Stormwater Utility prior to issuance of building permits. 3. Wetland A in the northwest corner of the site meets the City's definition of a Class I wetland and requires a 100 foot buffer width. The proposal includes only a 50 foot buffer width. The applicant shall modify the site plan and wetland mitigation plan to comply with the buffer width requirement or with alternative provisions as allowed under the Wetland Management Ordinance. Revisions to the site plan and wetland mitigation plan shall be subject to the approval of the Development Services Division prior to the issuance of building permits. 4. The applicant shall revise the site plan and the wetland mitigation plan to provide the required wetland replacement mitigation ratio of 1.5:1. Alternatively, the applicant may use a Wetlands Evaluation Technique (or recognized equivalent method) to establish that the functions and values of the impacted wetland are being replaced in lieu of mitigation according to the required replacement ratio, consistent with Section 4-32-6.C.7. The final wetland mitigation plan shall be subject to the approval of the Development Services Division prior to the issuance of building permits. 5. The wetland mitigation plan indicates a created wetland area proposed on the City-owned property to the west of the subject site. This created wetland connects to Wetland A (Orillia Pond wetland). The final wetland mitigation plan shall address the potential environmental impacts of creating a wetland connected to the existing Class I wetland. In addition, the design of the wetland mitigation shall not result in creating a new overflow route for overbank flooding of the creek that could impact Wetland A or other properties to the north. The final wetland mitigation plan shall provide an analysis of these potential impacts. 6. The final wetland mitigation plan shall be revised to indicate the existing box culvert buried under SW 43rd Street and note that the box culvert may be made operational under a separate, future City of Kent project to function as an overflow route for high flows. 7. The proposed wetland bench adjacent to the north side of Springbrook Creek is within the right-of-way of Drainage District No.1. In order to successfully establish a wetland in this area, it would need to be excluded from the District's vegetation maintenance program. The applicant shall provide evidence of formal approval from the District commissioners to exclude this area from the District's vegetation maintenance program. 8. The final wetland mitigation plan shall incorporate the following comments: HEXHPT.DOC City f Renton P/B/PW Department Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner OAKESDALE BUSINESS PARK LUA-98-021, SA-H, SM, ECF PUB,.IC HEARING DATE:APRIL 14, 1998 Page 6 of 11 1. The wetland mitigation plan shall include a revegetation plan for all areas along the creek up to the edge of the parking lots. All revegetation south of the parking lot, including landscaping of the storm water ponds, shall merge seamlessly with the wetland plantings. The revegetation along the entire riparian corridor shall be subject to the same 5 year monitoring program and performance standards as required for the wetland areas, in accordance with the Wetland Management Ordinance. 2. The maximum slope along the creek shall be revised to a maximum of 3 to 1, up to the level of the 100-year flood or to the upper edge of the proposed wetland buffer, which ever is farthest upslope. The wetland mitigation plan must be designed to avoid fish stranding. 3. Fish habitat improvements (woody debris) shall be installed along the creek. These improvements are to be shown on the plans and activities that would disturb the improvements must be avoided. 4. The created wetland areas shall be constructed low enough to be inundated by backwater from normal lows in the creek and shall be designed to avoid fish stranding. Normal flow levels at a stream gage just upstream of SW 43rd Street are generally around 11.5 feet (NAVD 1988 datum). 5. The applicant must meet all the requirements of the Wetland Management Ordinance for mitigations plans (Section 4-32-6H) including a monitoring program, contingency plan, posting of performance and maintenance surety devices, and other requirements. 9. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee at a rate of $0.52 per square foot of new construction. The Fire Mitigation Fee is payable prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 10. The applicant shall be required to pay a Traffic Mitigation Fee of $75 for each average daily trip associated with the project. The traffic mitigation fee is estimated at $268,125 (3,575 trips x $75 = $268,125.00). This fee is payable prior to issuance of Building Permits. 11. The applicant shall provide a fair share contribution toward the cost of a new traffic signal at the intersection of SW 41st Street and Oakesdale Avenue SW. The determination of the cost shall be subject to the approval of the Planning/Building/Public Works Department, prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 12. The Construction Mitigation Plan shall be revised to restrict haul hours to between 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. unless approved in advance by the Development Services Division. The revised Construction Mitigation Plan shall be submitted for approval prior to issuance of Construction Permits. 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. HE>RPT DOC City c.f Renton P/B/PW Department Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner OAKi=SDALE BUSINESS PARK LUA-98-021, SA-H, SM, ECF PUB, IC HEARING DATE:APRIL 14, 1998 Page 7 of 11 5. CONSISTENCY WITH SITE PLAN APPROVAL CRITERIA Section 4-31-33 (D.) "The Hearing Examiner and City staff 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 any one 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:" GENERAL CRITERIA: (1) CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, ITS ELEMENTS & POLICIES The proposed industrial development is located within the Employment Area-Valley (EAV) Comprehensive Plan designation. The EAV land use designation was adopted for the entire Green River Valley area by the City Council in August 1996. The overall objective of the Comprehensive Plan amendment was to allow for a range of employment-based industrial, office and commercial uses. There were policies adopted that identified specific areas as appropriate for a transition to commercial development. In response to the policy direction of the Comprehensive Plan, the applicant has applied for a rezone to Commercial Arterial (CA) on a separate portion of their property south of Springbrook Creek, fronting SW 43rd Street. The subject proposal for industrial development is on the property north of Springbrook Creek, approximately 32.72 acres. Industrial development is consistent with the EAV Comprehensive Plan policies, which emphasize employment-based uses. The subject site is particularly appropriate for industrial development. The large size of the site allows for a scale and intensity of development envisioned by Comprehensive Plan policies. The site is separated from surrounding development by a railroad corridor to the north, Springbrook Creek on the south, and a wetland on the west. These features would buffer the industrial development and promote compatibility with other surrounding uses. The proposed development includes several design features to respond to policy direction. The office uses are oriented toward the street frontage of Oakesdale Avenue SW and the truck loading and maneuvering area is located within an interior truck court screened from view by the buildings. The parking and circulation on the site is coordinated and the auto circulation is kept separate from truck routes. (2) CONFORMANCE WITH EXISTING LAND USE REGULATIONS The following requirements and development standards contained in Section 4-31- 11.2 Medium Industrial Zone (IM) of the Zoning Code (adopted June 1993] are applicable to this proposal Permitted Uses The subject site is zoned Medium industrial (IM). Manufacturing and warehouse uses are allowed as primary permitted uses in the IM zone. Offices are permitted as a secondary use where 1) these offices are associated with a primary permitted use on the same site, 2) the office use is developed in conjunction with or subsequent to the industrial use, and 3) the office uses may serve the administrative needs of employees company-wide including those employees on other sites. The proposal includes 70% warehouse use, 20% HEXI:PT.DOC City cif.Renton P/B/PW Department 1reurninary Report to the Hearing Examiner OAKESDALE BUSINESS PARK LUA-98-021, SA-H, SM, ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE:APRIL 14, 1998 Page 8 of 11 manufacturing, and 10% office use. The proposal complies with the permitted uses of the IM zone. Setbacks -The IM zone requires a front/street building setback of a minimum of 20 feet along all streets designated as principal arterials. Both Oakesdale Avenue SW and SW 43rd Street are identified as principal arterials. The proposed site plan indicates a 20 foot wide landscaped front yard setback along both street frontages. There are no side or rear yard setback requirements in the IM zone. There are no special setback requirements because the subject property is not adjacent to or abutting any residentially zoned lots. Height - The IM zone does not specify a maximum building height. The proposed maximum building height is 38 feet. Parking Requirements-The City's Parking and Loading Ordinance requires 1 parking space per 1,500 square feet for warehouse uses, a minimum of 1 and maximum of 1.5 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet for manufacturing uses, and a minimum of 3 and maximum of 4.5 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet for office uses. Based on the proposed mix of uses, (70% warehouse, 20% manufacturing, and 10% office), the proposal would require between 557 and 702 parking spaces. The site plan includes 591 parking spaces which complies with requirements. The parking spaces are located around the periphery of the site, separate from truck circulation on the site. Landscaping - The IM zone requires a 20 foot wide landscape strip along arterial streets. The proposal includes a 20 foot wide landscape strip abutting Oakesdale Avenue SW and SW 43rd Street. The Parking and Loading Ordinance requires that large parking lots over 10,000 square feet in size have a minimum of 5% interior landscaping. The proposal includes approximately 16,180 square feet of interior parking lot landscaping which equates to 6.7% of the total parking lot area. Additional landscape areas are provided around the site access drives and the building entries to the office areas. The landscape plan (Sheet L-2) includes a legend specifying the selected plantings, quantities, size and spacing. The landscape plan is appropriate for the site and the proposal. The subject site is located within the Green River Valley and the code requires a natural landscape area equal to 2% of the gross site area. The site plan submittal does not indicate the location of the required natural landscape area. The applicant has indicated plans to provide for the natural landscape area as enhancement plantings along Springbrook Creek. The landscape plan should be revised to indicate the location of the required natural landscape area. Wetlands - Wetland issues were addressed in detail in the environmental review process. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) imposed mitigation measures addressing changes to the wetland mitigation plan necessary to comply with the Wetland Management Ordinance. The following discussion is intended to update information from the time of the environmental analysis. Three wetlands on the site (Wetlands B, C, and D) would be filled by grading required as part of the cleanup efforts under the Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE) Consent Decree. The total wetland area to be filled would be 43,844 square feet. The Consent Decree requires the applicant to comply with the substantive requirements of the City but not the procedural requirements. The wetland mitigation plan submitted with the application did not meet the required wetland mitigation replacement ratio of 1.5:1 nor the 100 foot wetland buffer required for Wetland A in the northwest corner of the site. The SEPA mitigation measures require revisions to the wetland mitigation plan to comply with the code requirements. HEXI!PT.DOC City )f Renton P/B/PW Department Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner OAi(ESDALE BUSINESS PARK LUA-98-021, SA-H, SM, ECF PUB_IC HEARING DATE:APRIL 14, 1998 Page 9 of 11 The applicant is proposing wetland mitigation in three areas on-site: 1) a 10-foot wide floodplain bench that would be constructed along the north side of Springbrook Creek (17,600 square feet), 2) 10,625 square feet adjacent to the northern retention/detention stormwater ponds, and 3) approximately 5,600 square feet of wetland would be created in the southwest corner of the site between Building E and SW 43rd Street. This would provide a total wetland mitigation area of 33,825 square feet on-site. Therefore, an additional 31,941 square feet of mitigation area would be required assuming a 1.5:1 replacement ratio. The initial application proposed to create the additional wetland mitigation area on City- owned property to the west of the site. This property is presently owned by the Renton Stormwater Utility and is intended for surplus sale. However, during the surplus process the Renton Transportation Division identified a need to reserve some of the City property (approximately 200 feet) north of SW 43rd Street to accommodate a railroad grade separation project. Therefore, it is uncertain that the applicant would be able to use the property to satisfy the additional mitigation area required. The applicant has revised the proposal agreeing to off-site mitigation using wetland mitigation bank property owned by the City. The applicant would be required to meet the code requirements for 1.5:1 mitigation ratio or justify a reduced ratio with a functions and values analysis (WET technique) as allowed by the code. To satisfy the required 100 foot buffer around Wetland A, the applicant and the Renton Stormwater Utility have agreed in concept to an easement which would allow the applicant to use the City property to the west to accomplish the necessary buffer averaging. Streams - Springbrook Creek flows diagonally across the site from the southwest corner to the east property line. Springbrook Creek is a shoreline of the City and regulated under the Shorelines Master Program. The City issued a Shorelines Substantial Development Permit which has been forwarded to the Department of Ecology. To satisfy shoreline requirements for public access, a condition of the shoreline permit requires the applicant to provide a trail easement and construct a trail along Springbrook Creek. The proposed development would not directly impact Springbrook Creek. The applicant is proposing a concrete box bridge over Springbrook Creek in order to construct a driveway access off Oakesdale Avenue SW. The bridge is necessary in order to align the driveway with SW 41st Street. The creek would flow through the box bridge into the four existing 72- inch culverts which convey the creek under Oakesdale Avenue SW. The design of the box bridge must meet the requirements of the 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton. (3) MITIGATION OF IMPACTS TO SURROUNDING PROPERTIES AND USES; The subject site is separated from surrounding properties by a railroad corridor to the north, Springbrook Creek on the south, and a large wetland on the west. These features would function to buffer the industrial development from surrounding uses. Generally, the surrounding area is developed with a mix of industrial warehouse/manufacturing uses and business park development. The proposed development would not adversely impact existing uses in the vicinity of the site. The proposal has been designed with a truck court located between the buildings in the interior of the site. Thus, truck loading and maneuvering would be screened from surrounding streets and properties. Office uses are oriented toward the street frontage. (4) MITIGATION OF IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN TO THE SITE; The proposal would convert a mostly undeveloped site to an intensive industrial development with a high percentage of impervious surfacing. The conversion of the site to an industrial development is not an impact that can be effectively mitigated. However, the HEXI',PT.DOC City if Renton P/B/PW Department Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner OAk ESDALE BUSINESS PARK LUA-98-021, SA-H, SM, ECF PUB_IC HEARING DATE:APRIL 14, 1998 Page 10 of 11 proposed development is consistent with and is anticipated by the City's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code. The applicant is conducting an on-site remediation plan to level and mitigate two auto fluff piles related to past auto wrecking yard activities on the site. The remediation action plan is in the process of development and review under a Consent Decree with the State of Washington Department of Ecology (DOE). Remediation efforts on the site represent a significant investment on part of the applicant and would mitigate a costly impediment to developing the site. The wetlands on the site will be cleaned up and filled under the Consent Decree. Mitigation for the wetland impacts is discussed in other sections of this report. The Renton Shoreline Master Program requires a minimum 25 foot setback from the highwater mark of Springbrook Creek for industrial development. The proposal complies with the required setback. The applicant is proposing to locate stormwater facilities near the creek and to create a wetland bench for required mitigation which would also function as compensatory flood storage. A SEPA mitigation measure requires the applicant to enhance the stream buffer and to coordinate revegetation of the all areas between the creek and edge of the parking lots. (5) CONSERVATION OF AREA-WIDE PROPERTY VALUES; The proposed industrial development is expected to conserve or strengthen area-wide property values. (6) SAFETY AND EFFICIENCY OF VEHICLE AND PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION; Access is proposed from one driveway off SW 43rd Street located in the southwest corner of the site and via two driveways off Oakesdale Ave. SW. The south driveway off Oakesdale Avenue SW is intended for truck access leading into the interior truck court and it is aligned with SW 41st Street which connects directly to SR 167. The applicant is proposing a concrete box bridge to cross Springbrook Creek in order to align this driveway with SW 41st Street. The design of the box bridge must meet the requirements of the 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton. The internal circulation on the site is designed to segregate truck and car traffic. A separate truck court is located between the buildings for maneuvering and loading at the building docks. Circulation around the site allows car traffic to avoid conflicts with truck movement. A drive around the perimeter of the buildings is separate from the truck circulation and includes perpendicular parking for cars, and landscaping with street trees and sidewalks in several locations on one side to create a "boulevard" character. The City is presently improving Oakesdale Avenue SW as a major north/south connection through the Valley. The Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Entranco states that by the year 2010, operations at the SW 41st Street/Oakesdale Avenue SW intersection will deteriorate enough to warrant signalization. A SEPA mitigation measure was imposed to require the applicant to contribute a fair share toward the cost of a new traffic signal at this intersection. (7) PROVISION OF ADEQUATE LIGHT AND AIR; The proposed building heights, building setbacks and landscaping are appropriate for the provision of adequate light and air on the site. HEXRPT.DOC City )f Renton P/B/PW Department Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner OAN ESDALE BUSINESS PARK LUA-98-021, SA-H, SM, ECF PUB.IC HEARING DATE.'APRIL 14, 1998 Page 11 of 11 (8) MITIGATION OF NOISE, ODORS AND OTHER HARMFUL OR UNHEALTHY CONDITIONS; Noise, dust and odors would result with construction of the project. These impacts would be mitigated through measures described in the Construction Mitigation Plan and with best management practices. After completion of the project there would be noise associated with the truck traffic. This noise is not expected to adversely impact surrounding uses. No specific users have been identified for the industrial project. Noise, odors or unhealthy conditions that could result from future tenants would be mitigated by applicable regulations. (9) SERVICES AND FACILITIES TO ACCOMMODATE THE PROPOSED USE; AND There are adequate utilities and roads available to serve the proposed industrial development. Police and Fire have indicated that adequate resources exist to serve the proposed uses. (10) PREVENTION OF NEIGHBORHOOD DETERIORATION AND BLIGHT. The applicant plans to invest in remediation of the site and develop it with industrial uses which are compatible with the zoning and surrounding development in the area. This would serve to prevent neighborhood deterioration and blight. H. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Oakesdale Business Park File No. LUA-98-021, SA-H, SM, ECF subject to the following conditions: (1) Compliance with ERC Mitigation Measures: The applicant is required to comply with the Mitigation Measures which were required by the Environmental Review Committee Threshold Determination, prior to the issuance of a building permit. Site Plan Approvals (SA): Two (2) years from the final approval (signature) date. HEXRPT.DOC CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-098-021, SA-H, SM, ECF APPLICANT: Zelman Renton L.L.0 PROJECT NAME: Oakesdale Business Campus DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Proposal for five warehouse/office structures ranging from approximately 62,300 sq. ft. to 151,800 sq. ft. for a total of 576,887 sq.ft. in gross floor area. The buildings would be one story tilt-up concrete structures with a maximum building height of 35 feet. The buildings may include mezzanine or two story office areas. Truck maneuvering and loading dock areas are located internally on the site, with office areas facing adjacent streets. Parking spaces are provided for 591 vehicles around the perimeters of the buildings. Access is proposed from one driveway off SW 43rd Street from the southwest corner of the site and via two driveways off Oakesdale Ave. SW. The south driveway off Oakesdale Avenue SW is intended for truck access and is aligned with SW 41st Str(et. This driveway would bridge Springbrook Creek LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: Northwest corner of SW 43rd Street and Oakesdale Avenue SW, north of Springbrook Creek MITIGATION MEASURES: 1. Temporary Erosion Control shall be installed and maintained to the satisfaction of the representative of the Development Services Division for the duration of the project. Weekly reports shall be submitted on the status and condition of the erosion control plan with any recommendations of change or revision to maintenance schedules or installation submitted by the Project Engineer of record to the Public Works Inspector. Certification of the installation, maintenance and proper removal of the erosion control facilities shall be required prior to Temporary Certificate of Occupancy. 2. The design of the concrete box bridge over Springbrook Creek shall meet the requirements of the 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton. A hydraulic analysis shall demonstrate that the proposed project would not increase the 100- year water surface elevations in Springbrook Creek. The analysis must use the 100-year flows listed in the City's East Side Green River Watershed Project Plan dated September 1997. The 100-year flow just upstream of Oakesdale Avenue is 1165 cfs (Plan Table 8-2). The City will provide the HEC-RAS hydraulic model for the applicant's Engineer to use in designing the box and assessing hydraulic impacts of the project on Springbrook Creek flows and elevations. The suitability of the proposed final project design shall be confirmed using the City's FEQ hydraulic model. The design of the concrete box bridge shall be subject to the approval of the Renton Stormwater Utility prior to issuance of building permits. 3. Wetland A in the northwest corner of the site meets the City's definition of a Class I wetland and requires a 100 foot buffer width. The proposal includes only a 50 foot buffer width. The applicant shall modify the site plan and wetland mitigation plan to comply with the buffer width requirement or with alternative provisions as allowed under the Wetland Management Ordinance. Revisions to the site plan and wetland mitigation plan shall be subject to the approval of the Development Services Division prior to the issuance of building permits. 4. The applicant shall revise the site plan and the wetland mitigation plan to provide the required wetland replacement mitigation ratio of 1.5:1. Alternatively, the applicant may use a Wetlands Evaluation Technique (or recognized equivalent method)to establish that the functions and values of the impacted wetland are being replaced in lieu of mitigation according to the required replacement ratio, consistent with Section 4-32-6.C.7. The final wetland mitigation plan shall be subject to the approval of the Development Services Division prior to the issuance of building permits. Oak esdale Business Campus LUA-98-021,SA-H,SM,ECF Miti,tation Measures (Continued) Page 2of2 5. The wetland mitigation plan indicates a created wetland area proposed on the City-owned property to the west of the subject site. This created wetland connects to Wetland A (Orillia Pond wetland). The final wetland mitigation plan shall address the potential environmental impacts of creating a wetland connected to the existing Class I wetland. In addition, the design of the wetland mitigation shall not result in creating a new overflow route for overbank flooding of the creek that could impact Wetland A or other properties to the north. The final wetland mitigation plan shall provide an analysis of these potential impacts. 6. The final wetland mitigation plan shall be revised to indicate the existing box culvert buried under SW 43rd Street and note that the box culvert may be made operational under a separate, future City of Kent project to function as an overflow route for high flows. 7. The proposed wetland bench adjacent to the north side of Springbrook Creek is within the right- of-way of Drainage District No.1. In order to successfully establish a wetland in this area, it would need to be excluded from the District's vegetation maintenance program. The applicant shall provide evidence of formal approval from the District commissioners to exclude this area from the District's vegetation maintenance program. 8. The final wetland mitigation plan shall incorporate the following comments: 1. The wetland mitigation plan shall include a revegetation plan for all areas along the creek up to the edge of the parking lots. All revegetation south of the parking lot, including landscaping of the storm water ponds, shall merge seamlessly with the wetland plantings. The revegetation along the entire riparian corridor shall be subject to the same 5 year monitoring program and performance standards as required for the wetland areas, in accordance with the Wetland Management Ordinance. 2. The maximum slope along the creek shall be revised to a maximum of 3 to 1, up to the level of the 100-year flood or to the upper edge of the proposed wetland buffer, which ever is farthest upsiope. The wetland mitigation plan must be designed to avoid fish stranding. 3. Fish habitat improvements (woody debris) shall be installed along the creek. These improvements are to be shown on the plans and activities that would disturb the improvements must be avoided. 4. The created wetland areas shall be constructed low enough to be inundated by backwater from normal lows in the creek and shall be designed to avoid fish stranding. Normal flow levels at a stream gage just upstream of SW 43rd Street are generally around 11.5 feet (NAVD 1988 datum). 5. The applicant must meet all the requirements of the Wetland Management Ordinance for mitigations plans (Section 4-32-6H) including a monitoring program, contingency plan, posting of performance and maintenance surety devices, and other requirements. 9. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee at a rate of$0.52 per square foot of new construction. The Fire Mitigation Fee is payable prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 10. The applicant shall be required to pay a Traffic Mitigation Fee of$75 for each average daily trip associated with the project. The traffic mitigation fee is estimated at $268,125 (3,575 trips x $75 = $268,125.00). This fee is payable prior to issuance of Building Permits. 11. The applicant shall provide a fair share contribution toward the cost of a new traffic signal at the intersection of SW 41st Street and Oakesdale Avenue SW. The determination of the cost shall be subject to the approval of the Planning/Building/Public Works Department, prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 12. The Construction Mitigation Plan shall be revised to restrict haul hours to between 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. unless approved in advance by the Development Services Division. The revised Construction Mitigation Plan shall be submitted for approval prior to issuance of Construction Permits. CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) ADVISORY NOTES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-098-021, SA-H, SM, ECF APPLICANT: Zelman Renton L.L.0 PROJECT NAME: Oakesdale Business Campus DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Proposal for five warehouse/office structures ranging from approximately 62,300 sq. ft. to 151,800 sq. ft. for a total of 576,887 sq.ft. in gross floor area. The buildings would be one story tilt-up concrete structures with a maximum building height of 35 feet. The buildings may include mezzanine or two story office areas. Truck maneuvering and loading dock areas are located internally on the site, with office areas facing adjacent streets. Parking spaces are provided for 591 vehicles around the perimeters of the buildings. Access is proposed from one driveway off SW 43rd Street from the southwest corner of the site and via two driveways off Oakesdale Ave. SW. The south driveway off Oakesdale Avenue SW is intended for truck access and is aligned with SW 41st Street. This driveway would bridge Springbrook Creek LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: Northwest corner of SW 43rd Street and Oakesdale Avenue SW, north of Springbrook Creek 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. FIRE 1. The maximum fire flow required is 5,750 gpm. Six fire hydrants are required. One fire hydrant is . required within 150 feet of the proposed structures and five fire hydrants are required within 300 feet of the structures. A looped water main is required to be installed around the building. The available fire flow in this area is approximately 5,184 gpm. The applicant shall modify the project in order to meet the required fire flow. 2. An approved fire sprinkler system is required to be installed throughout all structures. 3. An approved fire alarm system may be required to be installed throughout the structures. PLAN REVIEW Transportation 1. Oakesdale Avenue SW-A five (5) foot sidewalk is required with the back edge located at the property line with the planter strip between the curb and sidewalk. The planter strip must be a minimum of five (5) feet or greater. 2. Construction plans to be per City of Renton specifications ar:d drafting standards. Water 1. The System Development Connection charge for water is $210,736.75. The fee is based on the total site acreage of 43.932 acres. A fee segregation could be requested to just cover phase II and III which would reduce the fee based on 31.631 acres. 2. The required fire flow per the Fire Department is 5750 gpm. The only available fire flow is approximately 5100 gpm. The applicant will need to work with the Fire Department to lower the fire flow requirement for the buildings. Construction plans cannot be approved without a lower fire flow requirement. 3. A 15 foot minimum utility easement required for the water on-site system. Oakesdale Business Campus LUA-98-021,SA-H,SM,ECF Advisory Notes (Continued) Page 2 4. The applicant is to insure the buildings are not built over the existing 12-inch water line. 5. Construction plans are to meet City of Renton drafting standards and specifications. Wastewater 1. The System Development Connection charge for waste water is$ 145,464.31. The fee is based on the total site acreage of 43.932 acres. A fee segregation could be requested to just cover phase II and III which would reduce the fee based on 31.631 acres. 2. The Developer is to insure no buildings are built over the existing east west Metro sewer line. The existing utility easement to be shown on the construction plans. 3. If the project produces fats, oils or grease then the applicant must provide an appropriate removal system. 4. Warehousing and manufacturing facilities with a fire sprinkler system must install floor drains that are tightlined to the sanitary sewer system. 5. Show vertical clearances where utility lines cross. Stormwater 1. The Surface Water System Development Connection charge is$138,460.86. Show utility vertical crossing separations on construction plans. 3. Floor elevation of proposed buildings must be 1 foot above the 100-year flood elevation. 4. The plans need to show and label all wetland and stream buffers and the shoreline boundary. 5. It seems that the elevation datum used is between the NAVD 1988 and NGVD 1929 datums. The benchmarks upon which the existing and design elevations are based need to be included on the cover sheet. An elevation relating the site datum to NAVD 1988 must be shown in the space provided on the Renton title block. 6. The applicant is responsible for obtaining approvals of other agencies with jurisdiction for the proposed work along the creek (State Fish &Wildlife, Department of Ecology, Drainage District No. 1, Corp of Engineers, etc.). 7. The storm drainage report needs to show the amount of 100-year floodplain storage filled by the project is less than the amount of compensatory storage created. 8. A permit will be required from Drainage District No.1 for any work within the District's right-of-way along the creek. The District will want to work with the applicant to revise their 40 foot right-of-way so that it follows the centerline of the existing creek and not diverge away from the creek as the plans currently show. Plan Review- General 1. All plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards. 2. A construction permit is required. When plans are complete three copies of the drawings, two copies of the drainage report, a construction estimate, application and appropriate fee shall be submitted to the fourth floor counter. POLICE Police estimate 298 calls for service annually, based on the size of the business. This area of Renton reports a high number of commercial burglary, auto theft and thefts from vehicles. To help prevent these types of crimes, recommend the applicant to install security lighting in the parking lots around the buildings, use heavy-duty, solid-core doors with deadbolt locks, install an alarm system. During the construction phase, this business will probably experience thefts of construction materials, tools, generators, and burglary. Recommend security fencing be placed around the site during the construction phase, and posted with the correct"No Trespassing" signs. Oakesdale Business Campus LUA-98-021,SA-H,SM,ECF Advisory Notes (Continued) Page 3 Businesses in this area of Renton reported 37% of all commercial burglaries in 1997. The preferred items to steal were cash, tools and computers. All office equipment and tools will need to have the model and serial numbers recorded in the event of theft,to aid in recovering the property. If a portable construction trailer is used as an office during construction, it will need heavy-duty metal doors with dead-bolt locks. Any windows should be covered by metal bars or grills to help prevent breakage and illegal entry. The construction site needs to be fully lighted during the hours of darkness. The applicant might also consider the use of private security or off-duty police officers to secure the property. Construction sites accounted for 9% of all burglary in 1997. PARKS Parks recommends an easement and construction of a 10 foot wide asphalt trail located on the north side of Springbrook Creek, within the 25 foot Shoreline setback area. The trail is identified on the site in the Comprehensive Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan -Trails Master Plan as the Springbrook Creek Trail. The requirement for a trail will be addressed as part of the Shorelines Substantial Development Permit. PLANNING The applicant shall receive approval of a Forest Practices Permit from the Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) prior to clearing trees from the site. City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: paakd COMMENTS DUE: MARCH 4, 1998 APPLICATION NO: LUA-98-021,SA-H,SM,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: FEBRUARY 18, 1998 APPLICANT: Zelman Renton L.L.C. PROJECT MANAGER: Peter Rosen PROJECT TITLE: Oaksdale Business Campus WORK ORDER NO: 78340 LOCATION: NW corner of SW 43rd Street and Oaksdale Ave. SW, north of Springbrook Creek. SITE AREA: 31.631 acres; 1,377,870 sq.ft. I BUILDING AREA NEW(gross): 576,887 sq.ft. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Proposal for five warehouse/office structures totaling 576,887 sq.ft. in gross floor area. Truck maneuvering and loading dock areas are located internally,with office areas facing adjacent streets. Parking spaces are provided for 591 vehicles around the perimeters of the buildings. Access is proposed from one driveway off SW 43rd Street and via two driveways off Oaksdale Ave. SW. The south driveway off Oaksdale Ave. SW is aligned with SW 41st Street and it would be required to bridge Springbrook Creek. The proposal will require a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (SM). 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 cv e,� cos ac a 70'/ci/ cx��� { eaed Ge2/7; -c . �,- >�G Gar - 12eed a r,; 2-Pc-r &, cu-l. B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS caYr72rru r/c ,7, 04e rney-Z'G�i,-,o✓� /0 4r-e-a--ea �k xxe_j`; -/zaz _,cam to e S ��'/` >. -73' �oY � - Trzc /mac, t I"lu�rv� Vi21Cs 1&C x. �` 7 car`rrr c ✓� �-x �P�`' -��c� lo- -, 5Ice ce -el 7q,b c-ot- it cca` s W6 -PallOQ C. CODE-RELAD_cOMMENTS G' -P/C a—c/ .t�YJze/Z -C ► 1 05; c�• -9/� gyp`e 9ak7sc�/cl�e.��& � 6- e�--r7 .moo a`'� z.% ee--7X- i cam- 1cz )-2 We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have Identified are of probable impact or areas where additional Information is nnneeded to properly assess this proposal. .0 (95/ • Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date DEVAPP.DOC Rev.10/93 ‘( 1( 0 CITY OF RENTON r+ FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU MEMORANDUM DATE: February 23, 1998 TO: Peter Rosen, Assoociate Planner FROM: Corey Thomas, Plans Review Inspector SUBJECT: Code-Related Comments for Oakesdale Business Campus 1. The maximum fire flow required is 5,750 gpm. Six fire hydrants are required. One fire hydrant is required within 150-feet of the proposed structure and five fire hydrants are required within 300-feet of the structure. A looped water main is required to be installed around the building. The available fire flow in this area is approximately 5,184 gpm. The applicant shall modify the project in order to meet required fire flow. 2. The fire mitigation fees are applicable at the rate of$0.52 per square foot of building: 576,887 square feet x $0.52 = $299,981.24. This fee is payable at the time of building permit issuance. The applicant may be able to reduce the fire mitigation fees if the square footage of the existing buildings are made available to the Fire Prevention Bureau. 3. An approved fire sprinkler system is required to be installed throughout all structures. 4. An approved fire alarm system may be required to be installed throughout the structures. CT:ct oakesbus City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: rd t cce COMMENTS DUE: MARCH 4, 1998 APPLICATION NO: LUA-98-021,SA-H,SM,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: FEBRUARY 18, 1998 APPLICANT: Zelman Renton L.L.C. PROJECT MANAGER: Peter Rosen PROJECT TITLE: Oaksdale Business Campus WORK ORDER NO: 78340 LOCATION: NW corner of SW 43rd Street and Oaksdale Ave. SW, north of Springbrook Creek. SITE AREA 31.631 acres; 1,377,870 sq.ft. I BUILDING AREA NEW(gross): 576,887 sq.ft. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Proposal for five warehouse/office structures totaling 576,887 sq.ft. in gross floor area. Truck maneuvering and loading dock areas are located internally, with office areas facing adjacent streets. Parking spaces are provided for 591 vehicles around the perimeters of the buildings. Access is proposed from one driveway off SW 43rd Street and via two driveways off Oaksdale Ave. SW. The south driveway off Oaksdale Ave. SW is aligned with SW 41st. Street and it would be required to bridge Springbrook Creek. The proposal will require a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (SM). A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water LighVGlare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health ' Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet :stimate 298 Police Calls for Service annually, based on the size of the business. This area of ,nton reports a high number of commercial burglary, auto theft and thefts from vehicles . To help 'event these types of crimes ,recommend the applicant to install security lighting in the parking its and around the buildings , use heavy-duty, solid-core doors with deadbolt locks , install an arm system. During the construction phase, this business will probably experience thefts of )nstruction materials , tools , generators and burglary. Recommend security fencing be placed around le site during the construction phase, and posted with the correct "No Trespassing" signs (a copy the Trespass Ordinance flier, with correct phrasing needed for the signs , is attached to this) . H(X Xgnri4XPM4I 44(Y�(�F9l� isinesses in this area of Renton reported 37% of all Commercial Burglaries in 1997 . The preferred :ems to steal were cash, tools and computers . All office equipment and tools will need to have the idel and serial numbers recorded in the event of theft, to aid in recovering the property. If a )rtable construction trailer is used as an office during construction, it will need heavy-duty �tal doors with dead-bolt locks . Any windows should be covered by metal bars or grills to help event breakage and illegal entry. The construction site needs to be fully lighted during the )urs of darkness . The applicant might also consider the use of private security or off-duty )lice officers to secure the property. Construction sites accounted for 9% of all burglary in 1997 . C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have Identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information Is needed to properly assess this proposal. v UdajAi Signature of Directo or A horized Representative Date DEVAPP.DOC Rev.10/93 OAKESDALE BUSINESS CAMPUS SW 43RD Street & Oakesdale Ave. Sw. EIS Review March 3, 1998 WATER: 1. The System Development Connection charge for water is $210,736.75. The fee is based on the total site acreage of 43.932 acres. A fee segregation could be requested to just cover phase II and III which would reduce the fee based on 31.631 acres. 2. The required fire flow per the Fire Department is 5750 gpm. The only available fire flow is approximately 5100 gpm. The Developer will need to work with the Fire Department to low the fire flow requirement for the buildings. Construction plans cannot be approved without a low fire flow requirement. 3. A 15-ft.minimum utility easement required for the water on-site system. 4. The Developer is to insure the buildings are not built over the existing 12-inch water line. 5. Construction Plans are to meet City of Renton drafting standards and specifications. 98cm037w 98CM037W.DOC\ OAKESDALE BUSINESS CAMPUS SW 43RD Street & Oakesdale Ave. Sw. EIS Review March 4, 1998 Storm Drainage: 1. The Surface Water System Development Connection charge is$ 138,460.86. 2. Show utility vertical crossing separations on construction plans. 3. Floor elevation of proposed buildings must be 1-ft. Above 100 year flood elevation. 4. The plans need to show and label all wetland and stream buffers and the shoreline boundary. 5. It seems that the elevation datum used is between the NAVD1988 and NGVD 1929 datum's. The benchmarks upon which the existing and design elevations are based needs to be included on the cover sheet. An equation relating the site datum to NAVD 1988 must be show in the space provided on the Renton title block. 6. The applicant is responsible for obtaining approvals of other agencies with jurisdiction for the proposed work along the creek (State Fish & Wildlife, Dept. Of Ecology, Drainage District No.1, Corps of Engineers, etc.). 7. The storm drainage report needs to show the amount of 100-year floodplain storage filled by the project is less than the amount of compensatory storage created. Wetland mitigation and planting along Springbrook Creek: 8. The existing riparian vegetation along the north bank of the creek will be removed to create the proposed 10' wide wetland bench and 25' buffer. The revegetation plan must include all areas along the creek up to the edge of the parking lots of the proposed development to minimize the potential for undesirable plant species to become established and spread into the adjacent proposed wetland bench and its buffer. All revegetation south of the parking lot, including landscaping of the storm water ponds, should merge seamlessly with the wetland plantings. The applicant must also be made responsible for ensuring that all revegetation along the creek is successful for a minimum period of 5 years for the entire riparian corridor, not just the wetland areas. The Developer is to meet all conditions of the Renton Code (Section 4-32-6H) for monitoring program, contingency plan, posting of performance and maintenance surety devices, and other requirements. 9. The maximum slope along the creek should be 3 to 1 up to the level of the 100-year flood or to the upper edge of the proposed wetland buffer, which ever is farthest upslope. The soils will be prone to sloughing at the proposed 2 to 1 slope. The wetland mitigation must be designed to avoid fish stranding. 10. It is our understanding that fish habitat improvements (woody debris) will be installed along the / creek after contaminated sediments are removed from the creek as part of the cleanup work 98CM037D.DOC1 • authorized under Ecology's consent decree. These improvements are to be shown on the plans and activities that would disturb the improvements must be avoided. 11. Advisory Note to Applicant: A permit will be required from Drainage District No. 1 for any work within the District's right- :\ of-way along the creek. The District will want to work with the applicant to revise their 40' ,' right-of-way so that it follows the centerline of the existing creek and not diverge away from the creek as the plans currently show. The DARPA application submitted states that the District has agreed to exclude the proposed wetland bench from their vegetation maintenance program to allow the wetland to develop properly. We suggest that the applicant make sure this has been formally agreed to by the District commissioners as soon as possible. Use of City property west of the Oakesdale Business Park for wetland mitigation: 12. Environmental impacts of constructing the wetland mitigation on the City owned property west of the Oakesdale Business Park do not appear to have been addressed. The wetlands report needs to identify the extent of existing wetlands on the City property, if any, that would be affected to create the mitigation area. The location of the proposed mitigation may also conflict with a railroad grade separation project for SW 43rd Street that may need a portion of the City property along SW 43rd Street to accommodate the grade separation and/or a detour road to maintain traffic flow on SW 43rd Street during construction. Transportation Division staff have identified the need to reserve the south 200 feet of the City property for the grade separation project. Also, if the City property were purchased for the Oakesdale Business Park project we are interested in retaining a conservation or open space easement over the north 500 feet of the property to ensure that the Category 2 Orillia Pond wetland may remain under public ownership. 13. There is an existing 10' x 50' box culvert buried under SW 43rd Street west of the existing CMP culvert that currently conveys the creek flows(see attached Plan). The proposed wetland mitigation plan must show the existing box culvert and note that the box culvert may be made operational under a separate,future City of Kent project to function as a overflow route for 'N/ high flows. This is important so that all permitting agencies are aware of the potential for the box culvert to be connected, making the wetland mitigation proposed under the Oakesdale Business Park a part of the overflow route. 14. Advisory Note to the Applicant: Design of the wetland mitigation must not result in creating a new overflow route for overbank flooding of the creek. The overflow would be permissible if it can be confined to the proposed wetland mitigation area and not result in overflows to the north of the Oakesdale Business Park that are currently protected from overbank flooding of the creek during the 100-year flood. 15. Advisory Note to the Applicant: The proposed wetland mitigation should be constructed low enough so that it is inundated by backwater from normal flows in the creek. Normal flow levels at a stream gage just upstream of SW 43rd Street are generally around 11.5 feet (NAVD 1988 datum). Otherwise fish standing may become an issue. 98CM037D.DOC\ Proposed Box Bridge: 16. More information on the proposed concrete box bridge is needed as soon as possible. The applicant also must conduct whatever studies are needed to show that the proposed box segment will allow for future extension of the box across Oakesdale to replace the four 6' diameter CMP culverts. 17. The box design must meet the requirement of the 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton. A hydraulic analysis will be required to show that the completed project will not increase the 100-year water surface elevations in Springbrook Creek. The analysis must use the 100-year flows listed in the City's East Side Green River Watershed Project Plan dated September 1997. The 100-year flow just upstream of Oakesdale Avenue is 1165 cfs (Plan Table 8-2). The City will provide the HEC-RAS hydraulic model for the applicant's Engineer to use in designing the box and assessing hydraulic impacts of the project on Springbrook Creek flows and elevations. The suitability of the proposed final project design must be confirmed using the City's FEQ hydraulic model. 18. Advisory Note to the Applicant: The Storm Division will be available to meet with the applicant to help define the scope of the box design work. One of the design issues that needs to be addressed is the potential of the proposed structure to settle because of the presence of silts and loose sands in the underlying soil. It is likely that the box will need to be pile supported. Foundation recommendations must be provided by a Geotechnical Engineer. Other issues to discuss with the applicant include: Maintenance access and responsibility, easement right, hydraulic impacts, state and federal permitting issues, utility impacts, coordination with King County regarding the nearby large diameter sewers, and other construction issues(dewatering, stream bypass). 19. Advisory Note: Since the applicant is considering purchasing the City owned property west of the Oakesdale Business Park, the Storm Division would like to explore the feasibility of applying the cost of the purchase towards constructing the remaining portion of the box bridge across Oakesdale Avenue. If the cost of extending the box across Oakesdale Avenue was more than the purchase price, then the City could also use a portion of our Surface Water Utility System Development Charge to make up the difference. 98cm037D 98CM037D.DOC\ OAKESDALE BUSINESS CAMPUS SW 43RD Street & Oakesdale Ave. Sw. EIS Review March 3, 1998 SEWER: 1. The System Development Connection charge for waste water is $ 145,464.31. The fee is based on the total site acreage of 43.932 acres. A fee segregation could be requested to just cover phase II and III which would reduce the fee based on 31.631 acres. 2. The Developer is to insure no buildings are built over the existing east west Metro sewer line. The existing utility easement to be shown on the construction plans. 3. If the project produces fats, oils or grease then the applicant must provide an appropriate removal system. 4. Warehousing and manufacturing facilities with a fire sprinkler system must install floor drains that are tightlined to the sanitary sewer system. 5. Show vertical clearances where utility lines cross. 98cm037s 98CM037S.DOC\ OAKESDALE BUSINESS CAMPUS SW 43RD Street & Oakesdale Ave. Sw. EIS Review March 2, 1998 TRA NSPORTATION: 1 . Oakesdale Ave. SW -- A five(5) foot sidewalk is required with the back edge located at the property line with the planter strip between the curb and sidewalk. The planter strip must be a minimum of five(5) feet or greater. 2. The traffic mitigation fee is $75 per trip generated by the project. Estimated trips are 3575 per the traffic impact analysis. 3573 X $75 = $268,125. The amount of $268,125 to be paid when the Building permit is issued. 3. Intersection of Oakesdale Ave. SW & SW 41 Street: The Developer to contribute a share of the cost with the city of a new traffic signal at this referenced intersection of Oakesdale Ave..SW & SW 41st St. A project is underway now by the City to make Oakesdale Ave. SW a through arterial which will bring the intersect up to a Traffic Signal warrant. The shared cost is one-half of $100,000 or $50,000. The amount of $50,000- to be provided at the time a Building permit is issued or a security device provided acceptable to the City. 4. Construction plans to be per City of Renton specifications and drafting standards. 98c m037 98C1.1037.DOC\ t'A.11 4.8-. ! 0 \ - 7.7„..- Ii. ,.,:'7 ''s, �1N ag li l e ; a ��` �I ' 1 1 111..: rj 'y It m r LJ - ..,. N.<r.r. ..e+t / 1 a - t�= - z a �' m , J: i _/� Itr Z I - Ill„ i- �� q c?. J / , I :'� i j 7 s.w NTN • _� %..� \ irq: /j 0 O ET. Z Q sw \ • NTN 3T. 1 rD. 'I r-- I , \� i _ }"S /1 Z s � F- i J �4 c _ I. _ wtTua - p EIIMI 1 -31.50 - 1i s ND ARy �_ - iLL Z • � H a �. �z ;I ` $ .�_ s e»I IM ZONE I ;I e w w W > �s , e yIry 6 z • I E1*^i �p Itcc i 0: __-_— --_.w__�-Ig."_-fir -'•'ri �' t /, '\ _. i:.r<�#:_� ... - _ -Z-'- ' '� ' 1 / ' 2 1 ti 0 4 sI1 c i p s ,J : W Z BURLINGTON11 1 'w ;, - --- iu —.1 o e I- 9 c 5::. 3aTN li Z STl rq RC ZONE ' . • IL ZONE N I SOUTNCE NT£R.' v' D.> on z -...j 'O Cr s�;;�" ,J J O R T M E R N �' ,p., �. � Fi z � o: IM ZONE � „r � �'/ 1 �_._ ..� �i :ThP".; HIr11 l• � `� <Q zT T0: a Z / . ' I - i T4u N �ALLEY K - I I a6.W �� �.�' 1 ,. .a... '3 ND" r,�• ,.s�.< W~ �' ._____ a� _ aU51NE95 YARNl-W \ ' 'lw 39TN 3T. '>•' „uN-.__ _ o o � m •IL ZONE i t; IL ZONE =1 ri I l I ^�00 Ares o III' ` +. — .. s- Mf t I'L - .,I I ,., • ' j I. �,'� 4,0107 �� - --__ - '� • • BURL,NGT OM NORTNER,1, NOR TNEPN • - j L a= lj. IM ZONE ®4 (M ZONE •�oRILL,A INDUSTRIAL'PRIM, l : \ w-- .e---- a TUKWILA a tc F'--- - Sw----- asr 1 S` . SW - .. ,. .s- J^` -N- .,- _ r OF RENTON D, - oakadaN Business t'.. I I North of S s Sr. •1ST sT_� I WI.twm / «F+•- _-.AEA._.. _•////if/// f.< j / f //.- IM ZONE �/ e1fIMZONE tP� j fC ENT'E R / R E N T Oe N is P II I I t m a Tg .. °"• I e u o 0 - Q I IJ _ I tv O • „ Z 1 i 9 1 t. .,,` �' _,)] 1I ... I ...... ALL PROPERTIES NORTH OF CITY LIMIT �; 0! + ..r---- ,N. ', -- °e3Rbs -Sr. --- ,.r .- - ----- -_ _EMPLOYMENT AREA VALLEY ti, 0 '� � IN OY T / a �4U^IL��e�� RILLIA " ...-.�.�'-.`.�.�.�.- - �. �.� Y 4r•L A3RD . ��. .4. ,., EA a'1•.. g I - N L 9 5 I A N N T''Y't'"� ,XO ,A S.W. r, .<Y'zo • • q 'I R 1 V E a ➢ .^n <„ q<<.�o.' . _I II a s r�1RL NGTJNE NO ERN NOP�AC it _--- 1 -. y r r :Al'fi m •Vans O R sirara•.s•. • I 1 ` - IN�ISTnseL DI TRI T A0.1 DIV2 I 11 __ I• i cY lam' `� s, :,n. rs ® ft !7"DU 57R 1 A • ➢ Mi Nre<.,. I _ € € €I s iT) e s n ram• --i - 8 1 I. "--z--�L 1 I y ... I �A . "..0 2 . 8 \ , as 1;!i " ::NO ,. a < J , ,n ARK n, < - "Taw �'.� '0 Ill AS:fiii k i;1 "• 1• T oR I'RAlE F I a / , K� i.- •A 2 s NDR N �e'� .• pj �..c e N k I T "q I J-• T 4 1 e. �I fI�LL KEN � '4 I���''t! !t, e r N w w aD z, I � \ a T © N • . o a• :0`- ,zp� I } + a s ' s z , aP!n, 1 .. —i— \ , �, �.r a'�` tl �_ � • t�.L�'�; _ �W � '� -,jig A ;8 =1 _. _ a e P• 1- ,�L a .r ay"g�D �.. 1_ 1 1. f !� F o ,. �� —- - '.` •,,, NEIGHBORHOOD DETAIL MAP r f f 1 �" 8� "° o z - ..<r, •"<" . ° ° - - • 1 Oaksdale Business Campus N z o o dd '; �€ _ Z .�k , North of Springbrook Creek •� ?lrlimoo avo !-- .. o _ a.._—s.- - 9, I _ _ 't'-;,..T. / 1 ,., .i s': Al i i 3 S i •,;fi^fIRI y °i < - N, .f'® 'YET 1 i _ now ON NA.cla `ONN rung ` •�•www.sw ems' I- .s � �.�, f e row«V TWO Q R EAD�Y COVER SHEET I ~ i N.w OR T 0T e.q•mlml s•N on0000 0T(1M too No 9Na.cG 01.0004. IX I -•�+ e6o.paz p n m.1.cl..c wB n NUNpK.I 11011 NN-TIN eonn••"`"roo-. NM TNO NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 36, u n of rw`m,ut urunu113 iacma Ce,„unm a N.c9 TO PRIG l.T N .S.aNA `� f a N»ef N3mNml PLA .031 NS OE aW IAN oe NA tens»DE;oo nee,o„K NO ;a TOMRJSFF 23 NORTH RANCE 4 EAST AND THE NORTHEAST QUARTER gig Snort u. c l uto WOE"THE e�K c f it 0.OUR90 ro` .•o. ••OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 36,TOWNS.*'23 NORTH, a Our: :.040 N a 1a01-TOW RANGE 4 EAST,WM A a mwTN,ffOI,NI W.I.ON,1,0..r,o...M CITY CF RENTON,WASHNGTON a p C000.4 99.f.K.rf1.De n.RDt,..AND Dime,AT MI M NO CALL BEFORE YOU DIG Of IN COMO lE MHO.TO MST wD»,ves .014541enTa 1.40.1•0011.'a Tb MENIeNunol.TwE Nonww III Q 4. 5 Alt 60o a2a sees _ w �� 1 O co 6 ; LEGAL DESCRIPTION --- T 200 w z 110 WALE Y The Moron 330 feet or Ow following*„rlbe tract. qy +T�•'�" I UO To. t..of the..!hues, tee of the Norst !ter•M onto Nor.„.putts of me •. .P2_,,,'E_!' .._...,J -.�...T3:1 ... MAPVICINITY O wah.°'e,t er t•ction O.lan.h.D 23 North.+lore••E•sa,V, watt werin°n, ,n N,ng q1 C� 'i Q6 Z t W cw.,ty.w.100o,,ersc.lw as follows, ^�6___, \ 1 INDEX TO SHEETS O ff ¢ KO N ING at Ow..tw..t cam.or one Heary Mery Daw..Ew Clain Mow •33l , = Z THENCE East. ythe cm«..of South lean Street or..1y a county roe , 114 feet. EI'-- CI OF n COVER SHEET Q THENCE..M 6Ti)D a M +.TRUE POINT IV REGIME. Jr�I P '..,SE 1�1-��. ,• =�11'- �- C2 OF 17 GRADING AND STORM DRAINAGE PLAN8 ,1010E..lwrly...••Mlpn ,in.parallelto Ow East I me of Noethern r•crf,<al leer Canoe, • rOnt-of-way• to mow..M I Ine Or sale f„tiaN 1, A ,1' 11 !a .�, r,-,-- ,1•^--,f, C3 OF 17 GRADING AND STORM DRAINAGE PLAN J 1 Ow Is,along aw OwN I.ne.sole r of M•east quarter Mleh..De1.37 feet Nut _` • : - C4 OF 17 GRADING AND STORM DRAINAGE PLAN a Ow..tweet cant of me..an..fe toner a one...east w.rl.r ehar.or, _- I THENCE SORT 03•3a Oa West, )30.09 feet, , C5 OF 17 GRADING AND STORM DRAINAGE PLAN 1000E..m N'34'Or West N9.PO fees.Wes.r less, to the TRUE POINT Q KGIMIIMn - 1••r-pe-Tq.Tor - /� .,. ( E 1.1 SHEET C10 '.:., C6 FO 17 GRADING AND STORM DRAINAGE PLAN The wen 330 reel of w following*scribed tract. _ 1 / C7 OF 17 WATER TER AND SANK SEWER EARY SEWER XTENSION PLAN NSION PLAN +� It. That portion of the Nranw«porter of the Nrt.o.1 carter a Section 36. Township n.... T,~„ I _ e ,n Xing es folly.. �7. "� s C9 OF 17 WATER AND SANITARY SEWER EXTENSION PLAN .erg.Cost.Y.11w01 ..tab,. p County....peon*untie . D Z y • C10 OF 17 WATER AND SANITARY SEWER EXTENSION PLAN j Cp North w et a pone m the..o he of tarp cWoolforn Slough Ma lneq Ditch ono. 1,330.,.for! I a_ Norma•M 1.Dann r..e E..e of w..<w.sa corner or teary ae.ne ane<.m Land cl..w N0. 1 H��_.. -L�1 1 C:ii OF 17 WATER AND SANITARY SEWER EXTENSION PLAN x g L 1 �,. •Il'L..:.:.i:_. rE >1Z THENCE won or•r ar Eowl Don.91 reel.nee.ar I„ t ear cam line w se.Tee....... -� I I I C12 OF 17 GRADING AND STORM DRAINAGE Q $ �� 4b �hHENu..M er er ar West,etop se...m line,zit.°9 twee ore Or 1..s, to•Doha I .rl. I NOTES AND DETALS n• o �q which row MI.37 feet case of the Nrtfeest quarter or».e wiheest porter or the..ttwsa 1 V C - I I I I i C13 OF 17 GRADING AND STORM DRAINAGE t'3 ~ p 1KTr.`CE«ISe°M ar w•ar Nest 9n 69 feet to aw<meer+ln•or sere.lags+ - ',EASE 1E�i C7 7 3 .KNEE alo,D»Ie m:m,lnr a ale slo,y,,ewer.6.•3r la O.ID•.)1 nowt, I . i > 4 - • POND AND DETALS w 0 Z 8 mE K.wan 1r 26'0a East 70 rya, •THENCE cam sr la OW E..t 3n 52 feel a the POINT v KN MIw � ' I o C t4 OF 17 GRADING AND STORM DRAINAGE N Q u) II I t I POND CROSS SECTIONS 7 w a TM.. E Parcel con 33o feet a w fallowing I I C35 OF 17 WATER AND SANITARY SEWER EXTENSION m 1 3 ng....IV.aracav � 1 Z of me Northwest p.raar of the Northwest quarter of Section 36. Township 23..the /I = I�r - ` Cis OF 17 NOTES AN DETAILS CREEK CROSS SECTION ¢ _ z E� I Range That i:st.YI„wtl.N.luw in r D co.•ty.w.nl seo *»treed..folly.. �} o CT7 OF 17 SPRIN(BROOK CREEK CROSS SECTIONS O If I ,I KGINNI..•point on tar.0.1 ire of taro troy Slag„Drelrwq Mich No. 1, 1.000.27 feet ---- 1 Y w East pro 530.n feet..M I,.e or the Northeast owner of Henry Mena Dawalm Ear Cloln 10 3l CC n HENCE Norm 07•r ar East 007.91 feet,ware or •s, to air North I Ina of sere b<e.vlslw Q THENCE,along w»le Norm Ilse, South er 2.' 37 Test 62D a feet to the East line of sale EARTHWORK QUANTITIES CUTS 55,000 C.Y. O �4 Teel..s�w KNIT. e'N sale E•r l n.. .. . 13. 37 East•3 fret e�Ow 01.01colter,In.or».e.le.,yu FLL 55,000 C.Y. TWICE.•u. w<m ns W» s„eiy,. 21'N'pro' „ DOT.01 teas Greet 0. THENCE Sou.756'5.34' 3a'I on.24430 f I I parcel N• .Il T10NE Swm of 3r ar wet ten 3 feet to the POINT 0'K41MIIw. That poet..tt trVillanelle the Nor...p.rtm` 1 C hay,V•s gwaee M Oct..%, ,loess D 23..the That port..of Sin..36. Tomsh.D 23 cam.Rape.Cast,Y wtte Mw.a•n, In 0.Canty, Y 311 tarp•Get, w M...e.•.. rn Ip CO1I1tY.W.Ipton,anon rb•e„fel,owa, u EXCEPT Tent-of-eeY for».e M.neq VISc. Wes...,* nbe as follows. 7 KGINIIW•e•went on M•centerline of Spring Droa4 SWAP,?•lneq Ditch No. 1. .n Is S`ill p.rc•I I. 1.sonny„t t.„...n reel wen M aw..lwoet corner of ear wrr Mows oawctim EeM KGGIM11.at•point M.ch.s 114 feet Last and 30 net Norm fran the..tweet corner of wry El El Cl•.n Mar 3. r Donation EeM Clam No. u, • That portrm e1 the..theast quarter o1 the North..ester oM of the Northeast tousle..of the THENCE win ar.r ar East DO).91 feet to OW Nor.line oI H. wl.m's tract. THENCE North 644.70 fret. ..aheest porter of Section%. To.nin.p 23..th,Rape.East,Y.11•neaa•Her lam. In Xing THENCE or.lop said Tara Una,5O.91 Sr tt•3a Get 62D 0 r••t to east It.er»'e FL THENCE South N•34'CO.East NATO f„01 Co......ngaon,deur..•.fol lows, 'f trub TKKE Sow.04'37'ar Vest 170 feet, T01CC,•w toe fest line.South ar 1T 3a Eat 290 rye to the 1I.r of.a THENCE m e••34•ar eel 470 KGIMIiw ore Or. tar trot of the Here,Mar ppn•`1m tend Clem 110 . TI[00C.alaN true cm4rl.ne W 13 s aqR Saul.21•N'ar West 301.x!„t. Ie slaps, 71000E Scam to tar calong sne Spring 40a.,Spoint pr11.wr O.Kn Me I. t ,{ .. HENCE Os!, aq three „I. f Sarah IP.Str„4 oe.rr y•coney row, Ile feet. TKMCC Toutn.esterl7 along»Ie cmtmllne a point Ceea er ton POINT R K41Nflw. i +E Y 7 a THENIC cam 67a.7s •rt lac W TRUE POINT 01 00 011(w THENCE San.x• • 30•out 2.4 3e feet, )KwC Wert 13n K feet to t+e n1N1 O'KGil111NG, r.'g 1000E mother lye m a steep.line peat,let East Inn•of wtMrn aerie a.lo,0.0.1 M.foe.Tee.0'00•wet"0.3 feet b....M."Ce KGIMIIN.. an ,a, 6 v yrt - r,pro aM won I »I s«':se a (CLOT r,pM of.oy »Ie D a.cape 01010 ono •M W 1 cr.E•sa„I f,s rp eon won .m a.a sect.m. a •pot.thereon wrleh s 001.37 feet vest EINEn ef.cam 3x feet tMrref,W y a w Northeast onto CA w Northwest werlm of the..twos!puartm , EXCEPT Net potion o!said neon tract lung.IM.n m.rallying*»need proerty. EXCEPT thata marmot caae...n ring County S.pr,w Cart Luse Pub,01-2-00117, 8 11000E Sou.Or a 00'Nest 730.69 fret. far.Iemupoofof S V. are Street. <h ,y_S «g THENCE cam B••34' 00 Vest 00 70 feet,ware or less, to the TRUE POINT 0'KGIM11w, KGINN1w et the wan..0 corner of t0..tweet quarter of Section x.TwnenlD 23 cam. `j EXCEPT the..M 330 feet thereof. are 4 pet II w • Kim, In Xing Count). .Ingio. 1' Parcel 16 �Ir net n o re Parcel E. )HENCE Mtn Dr TT•x•Get I,Nna feel, T.W.0.0 W SeCt..36. 1O0,.I0 23 North.Nang•E..t,V to..loan, r NI.Caney 2 w O Lit THENCE Swan 01' 2Y Wet 33n n feet, ....V.,Vera lb.of follow n 3 N H Ow Northwest port«of tar..Meet p...ler of Sue,on 36.TerrirM 3...tn, 10NCc Seuen Dr 31' %'West Eon 0 r«<to ear TIME POINT Q KGi.wlw W M gg a That poetic.st of „c ton. K4111tiw as a ,n<Mien.s.1.feet Cut end 30 feet w rm tar..*.east comer of Newry _ •�� a.Nr. et.YII lanett•..Toren. !n Wing Cantr...Ingta. TK7CC.Swtn er]I' x•wet 460.0 feet. Mar wneti.point Clem No J, ne W Ir 4 Describe as follows. THENCE Swan Or 27 24'Lest 19).0 feet, THENCE cam 644.70 feet. m Y...... g 11000E wan Br 31'36'E•9t•600 feet, THENCE South 0••34'ar East N9.70 feet, GTNMIw oe a po.nl m aw centerline of Sw.rrqq►'oW Slagn Oro.neq O.am xe 1.330.n feed 1000E N..07 2r 2e.West 197.0 feet to Ow TRUE POINT or KGIMIING of this THENCE South q'3)'OW 00 l 170 feel to the TOTS POINT or KGIMfINW • h N ear I. 2)feet Eeet o1 aw..ewe..owner ,wiry Mew anaa.on EeM ..r4 w. ...„lion!•M 1000E won e.'N'OCT Vest 470 feet. 43. THKNCE wu.e..ath'centerline of S��eo.SI..DrsIne3e Dstch..I! Y.B.1 I$+OM1. THENCE won 07 ar ar Ost KO.91 feet.row.a I„ to the Mtn Iire W».e sv6el.I..ae EXCEPT rlpht-or-wsy far»le tolneq auto. �q M ° ,f1 V iTH Na cam er ee. ar wee,awae se.wow line.252.9 feet car•ar lee o. b .mSouth q•3T OW Vest the TRUE PINT Of K6IWIw. a p1 j t 1 ' �J 4.0 .m twee MI.37 rut wee of wawast corer N se.0 wtneest porter less, to btheast Part.,re THENCE q•37'OCT East 23 r nee or .s to w TRUE POINT pf ��\f, J , Or KGIMIIMW }S....0.:' Q 'ENCE tam 07•a ar West 123tbh•9 f a tee of ewe .w0h.f portion f the Norrttnmt ester W taw..ewEaet pouter of Section%, /oMsn.D n cam. ow,n,,„_..y far»re Or•.nep e.ac. 11 / 111,•' _ 4-/ HENCE,slang».e centerline of slo`w" ll.N• 17 East 1. 1 ere, Range•East. . w Nor.V 6n, .n N.p County. ..peon*scribe au rolloss. rU h THENCE won)r es.OCT East 70 feet, ? OVUM Mtn..is Oa East A x feet to the POINT K KGINtI001 KG1NIIw•e Ow wth..comer.the...Meta w raer of Sutler%. T.m.to N won. parcel D •'� ,itar l� v Range 4 Ease,V.,wale Nerle1m• In King County. M,pam,*scribe oe o y. south IS feet of the Southwest pouter ,r>'+7W11 tb•\ b(/,c - EXCEPT tar won 330 fee!4wr.e1,:M 1 e..sn the n ow The the South.. re s he south ton. BEGINNING ore Northwest caner of the..ew..e pwrem of Section x, Township z3 won. e I nDwct q(ti19+1 I EXCEPT that portion of Wel neon er V,.IM.n the following**celbe property. Borg East.ea llweb Neru.°n. I King Cant,,Washington, feet of he east 06..feet e f the Swaw•:t quay a the Southwest KGIMIING et aw Northwest corner of Ow Nrm««A.M.of Seea.m x, r Ip 23 cam. THENCE..M er 37 %•East 1.340.0 feet, on a.Tom.p n Nor.,u'e 16DIB� CITY OF RENTON g Reno.•Cast,Vrl Janette Mr.., In I.Canty.Ve.,ptau THENCE Sarah 01••r 27 West 33nn feet, .Cast.YI Ilwat.1....•n, FOR DA1109K OETAwy.afileT OR PUB,.W01003 THENCE South 07•31' %•West 260.0 reel to the TRUE POINT 07 KOIMII., in Kirg Canty...peon THENCE w.er 31' x•Eesa 1.340 93 feet. THENCE South Br 31' 36'vest 460.0 feet, M THENCE Sol.,01'•r Cr Vest 330 01 fort, THENCE Swan 02'2r 24•C•et 1„.0 feet. DI COVER SHEET O 11010E farm Sr%'%•wee 2600 I•.1 to Ow lsl[POINT Q KGIf111w of M.• THENCECE Mworto Sr. 27 La'E.a!10.0 TKt't•the TRUE POINT IT KG1+111w Z THENCE Sou.Sr 31' %' .46n 0 rent. v. p /HENCE Sow.02.2r 27 E•se 197.0 fort. K00E wan sr 31' %'Eeet.60.0 feet. onto All -av _ TWICE wan 07 2r 24'West 197.0 feet to W TRUE POINT or KG1wlw et M.r F ..opal w•M o .ere w wrlw oN,f memo ON !a ... 0.._: fors 1� CIIEI1 right-el-wY for»Ie Mlneq auto. memo 9 amve 1••KD' rCI V Q�an m Tv.1,oDa00f1ST1,„0.1010.»I,1a.Ve1 po/Tf-0/0/I109 ITN OS 1.3004ewn 0N.• 7»n0,3f•tlttl39,Irt, GRADING AND STORM DRAINAGE PLAN I r 71r z ,n N a N ri T-40' 1 a ?. Zr: It 3 r'rz3xi_r r Ti.. . r rrTz_rx +'. zWi�iz.rr_zisitzic -r -ti r�r sai �rri r i : Lz z r`.rarr z ,.r �xz o � g. r -ILL �o ,l am _'"'"°� fie " �.z ,T`�""i �, TA _ 0,' I I I� ! �. a r FZW I ¢ 'e^ ' jay l�' • :, / ,iiii •.ITT--+_ - .-_.-__ -wi 4- - 4 .-- 1 .. .t1 , 211/ J tl y. ..[•[.. y T �s4 z:.• 1' !:zr": r p LI >Z •aW i. , (* BFUIDN(7 a, ip' FBl BUILDING I r1S w �i Uw F252 • r w Z a = V� ` ��.' 1 \ ,I 7 N Q 7 41 ',..1,,.! .-K'. i illr. N, m FII, _ ( l .'�i�111, t '` `/ ®� ' /1I „. n' 1 i j ,, .4' .2I zelfeY C I i12� , _ i _ t {� .0,'.— ' 1 1 / ei... 40• 1 f� M E C.424 1)1 v,Y f0•0Mt `I1 1 - /'- t , .'C., •,raw. f, '' f.�_„; , •,.,11 f °rn� "st " .4a,�j�I. 1-3,111 .r! T�..// l ,• � --- ��rl �_ `_ rt_+i �_ �114* ►ii+� ��... � w rL;'�, � +-y�h._rl,11 `x. JJ{1:I'`' -�hl T} i ) ��1 . !S�) o 4 5 a"a J' �3' A , 'i? "I•l�'f �rIli i u,v,P it (fle x 11 Ili r A'CBn6 . ---3-1..sty \' ", ' ,f 1 , I ::.:1 jI —..S t-J • MATCHLJNE SEE SHEET C4 g CATCH BASIN SCHEDULE.E' I.' , we nz).R GMT W n),wc. p MI WOE. Ce IN lt.F i 1'� I _.fiar ) • � W s1.s.a•.o,�rt CO Ite MI 1 a In)Art x-a- :-231 7/stb...m t-x; rpu, c.F,�"��' d'8.e"•eJ- "�) .//W*0 MIL "V 57,•owm OUR _x 1.r•Es�: E-1e 19 E.,Efx E-17.90 E.Iase CO lu rc CITY OF RENTON a Its note Wl,f).xi ap,).'E GPIs- [ .t/7.01 c.Art /Sa.4.•wrt [:.iy.ono Wrt 31 u.ex..oaD wrz FOP APROVAL oer/nFIT.ENT OF FOIE,.WORKS ea•Ax 24 [_,).a GRADING AM)STORM DRAINAGE PLAN S CO l,e ME LB H9,..F 1 R —._ .w/swo.m wrt .dry/I wrt .�sEinso.m W.rt "pe/.:is.3'R''rt n - W I21,eE, a lb WIN 1 a 11f=i _, a.�•, �' • 'Mi.. ra "sEwlxas a dart .111 �/surov mn "1-19.99 •i.sis1.20.3.[wo Dart AOi I ns I 9 . .....1so..,.w,\s+„u:.0.EF.e\Wimp.pc ...n*m/an[ww 0313 s...t.w,..w wow an,tsxf.tt ase..tw -- -- ------ __ —� - .a.n .. PPP-SS TTTTT f — w '""' �1�] CITY OF GRADING AND STORM DRAINAGE PLAN • -— "" \ ±1� RENTON IN 4vann+rg/Bukl�nq/V.Eiic Works Dept. No. REVISION WV DATE ArvW +'.. on No Lmmoman v.E..Iam��avmm I RENTON,WASHINGTON x I 9 x d 8 MAT HUE SEE SHEET C2 — — p"' x x;,gi9t x - ivy � i '�1 11 -01! "I! Itw ."� is +v'. }-----------r -- l 47: � �r r",„,,,,„:, 1114ft 5,ti ";a:g ^NSF "N� p " I � HN ` •� _ . 1 4 1 7 I �I ''' • , .''' i. ;_j I : ?, 4 ...1i.. ):::. -, 1 I+ z G I "" "',. 1: o one rS �"1i� A: I K"-' • _ � 1 (� • Rr _ ,: .. _ 1t..r -71 is IN 0 .n . ..A4•,34I14t,-;4,-.--'e'.,.4 ct. ; l i 4 11 • y •• ,Ql �FwL I I J I N II, 7, �. 6,� Tram!� � I `' r 8 :lie'k. ..Z.., 1 _ -`t #,KSDAtE AVE. S.W`. I- ': , 9 4 4 il ,'• \',,., .. .4' ,m4:::2.29,-,- '' , 1 - "''' 1 fe I+ I 1' E -. .. 1 ill 111 :. f m Cv OZ P GHA`S� t8215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH E. LOCATION- i KENT,WA 98032 OAKSDALE BUSINESS PARK N.W.CORNER OAKSDALE AVE.S.W. n 0 _-��- Z (206)251-6222 �' m $ (208)281-8282 FAX PHASE 2 AND 3 AND S W.43RD ST. c - "- RENTON,WASHINGTON 1• aft ENOIKENNc.wm PLANNING.Z SINIEVT C.ENARO NTSd.SEAwttS BC.E.J DB NO. 5911 • GRADING AND STORM DRAINAGE PLAN a In Id t y co a f•417 2 ., ig. OO ai a w z Z a MATCHLAE SEE SHEET C2 U I 8 /I ,I \ :a` ,, ,d°' f.r(...r\,'._ \ .1 Y1 1 I ^ 1' .! % ;,-; .." / zs BUILDING B '\ 1 X /_:,,•ss '' --"_ -� j /e `y•-'- -'ew- - s,, / FF.-252 \ 001E .. , in Vt...,:. 3 ♦ - �'' .pn..,ru^ (n,LDS.SIOPS .._--_ .mt 1w fIrPC�\ . a.-, I W _ 11 �.-s±/1•, (1...> s.[.• �sacs 1011408 - I . IS 4 1� `` 1 g 51, Il �=1M® y _ 'tea"�tai. �tZt"'v N J c 6 :Lin I M'v R ' : o_ r.I..enr. w H rr k i rw :[r rr zer[e�w r, Ekre _ itAt�+�� av g P �P'1A lliw.rlil�\. . I�IN�1 I ,ri Ylil _I ffRAW i: A, '.'w `,' �'i`4"— w II Ur F T cc ai f J \\ ' , �� :. 1111 ``1 1 I'�I" I�i I I���� II �J��t�.i iI — h mort .'s' - -� , +k __r+IY tic,,— I sawn slcdss�/ f.y' N it .i....P ♦Ma A 1 •a.a 1a..1u • Q vt FBFFDPIG E-, . �. NI It wo. ♦ 'ice"_..i J` _, 4 4 el / § P uiri.v s b 1- ♦ noN./s� 1,1 i MATCFLPE SEE SHEET C6 V , 181011.w0 n[n C13 oSm P. 1 K ^3 v v g a CATCH BASIN▪. 1tia:SCHEDULE. 6! AI0+.♦out[ .n♦ f 1440 1.4gt.;- ..(1424 ♦,•lill•IID oYrz ♦ PMR „.41 011 / ..L JV �Pd=1�♦-,r^r, `ME 0.140 8413N os\ M:i. Z o •�anio♦m sort ♦/nar♦w curt 'n'/r s1c•` . [.na 8.1044 '+a:1 id`�` abB...,„ 11.s:-.r a��a1..0:-..' I[00 yhh 1 wow aarz ♦lI riMP w¢ u:0 8412 3 0 Cm,.s�RENTON WORKS a(�//a 11rt a-a' a/ _ PM APP17001 ♦/n.1dID Wrz ♦�n4r,.V aurz • R OT r-n. [.1.�1 w GRADING AND S 1 oRM DRAINAGE PLAN 9� [.11I1 1 . • 01 aw 1/f1/a uJ • �, w 1•4c1 as A� .. o.,. -�.r,�...'— Caen_ m r.a..\Syy1400A5.11W014 [\a111i♦a.1A. M/i.n:02/00/10a 1100 Se.1.40...Mr 1a111,1a1111.1.111R .., ^a.,., 'L.,u„ "' `... PPP—SS—TTTT ^— ...... .K AS alum .• 7." Up CITY OF 9ADING AND STORM DRAINAGE PLAN , J°' + RENTON +w wrul ew i Pbnni tumor onP E.. Ww4a Deal. �. RE'SOW DATE APPx �,.. Gregg merman P.E..AMn,niaValw I RENTON,WASHINGTON `-'" • x i I i 8 a O F MATCHLINE SEE SHEET C4 IT at A $' p ail S I 1/ 'y7' p 7� .III i 88 99 00 �' � �x I II i•} . ; 1 Teri a _ 1y'Or1!\! M • ?11 - P \ ' $ `is i';. •LTI N I DJ\ _\ i 1 , \,` , ( I I % 1 , d 1\ 'I I 0. '''\ '\ '‘,\21,.,1,‘. 1 '!,?. \\ la Z •.k\\\\' ` �k, \ I -I 1 • ',,.•"' 's ''-'-', s>.'N,\ \ 4.N..7 -I----,---.••,--I \ ; \ `' , ;,,\,,,,,. \ .,, -.; \\, ,,,,",.. - , ‘,:.,c\-\:\. 's.,1\,\\, .: ‘,\\.,,.,‘ ' '''.47.,.c...*'' : Z 1 ;1 ♦a\ r- ..I1 I �1 i _ �•=:_ 1 • 1 e ;. AKSDALE:AVE SS.W. 9 a s .T---i-- . ".,.�I -1 F I I . r:R ,s iI! - I • v < -) a � 9 i -s. —�—� GHA(� 18215 TITLE: LOCATION a 6 OJ j ,LL,u,,��y KENT.WA 98032NUE SOUTH OAKSDALE BUSINESS PARK N.W.CORNER OAKSDALE AVE.SW. a 1 n (2o6)2s1-6222 PHASE 2 AND 3 m Y (2a)2sr-=FAx AND SW.43RD ST. ,o o 1(•(` F RENTON,WASHINGTON j • a CMILOIIKC100.WC P Nr.1Nc. Q Y ao#aa a SIM EVNC.C nin061 44.SEANCES B.C.E.JOB NO. 5911 ^^ ^°"` mu., .e... PPP-SS-TTTT p— — .- ''"'s " 's"=W. CITY OF FADING AND STORM DRAINAGE PLAN .. • Jp -III. RENTON i i .�. - e £ ra- ETYMON BY DATE Avert Gregg rrnmenPon ve.."°"';"""'"• RENTON.WASHINGTONx no i I I II 1 `l ',° '1 'I r -F n ,4V 'r','. %, & I , x .Sn. �gna = ` aI ; a:fqna. t _.I . _ Mirk,PG. a a a 1\ y $ x; EIS :P ! wv - • -k �.,. 1: yet 0j k� I �'r� ®M �.f 4 $ R , ', 414 .l'CS1,�MM1i1g�KYSife41.v.L.� i I •l d A=i ce,, Aitil ?" J a 8 p — \ T 11 J I '.1 'T•P . -�'\ m II 0 V 5,, 1 D et , Ii 11r< , , , r '�' � '. I : z F { It 2 I 1. ' \\\ \1 t II.�.'I 1 MI M It i �I. Il \ \,\•<r z i� .`,:—__ `I .•e: sl' ` I ' N, \\\'. \ \\ \ +I 7]i I II —�+ I � � \ \\ '` \., \\ '.,C �. f ` M - I ij sty_ !ax �\ \ • \I1 I $ D \ \`\ `1 f Z u F ; • ,,�;Fl p /t I_ ,. \ \\\ `1\\\t\ �., '�_• \ 1 i! c i 1e I i 1•\E•1( _4._-._.—.-._ w _-•14�--._..i.{.-.:: \ \ I ii • GHA(� TITLE: LOCATION- PQ• s, 18213 72N0 AVENUE SOUTH VENT,WA 98032 OAKSDALE BUSINESS PARK NW.CORNER OAKSDALE AVE.SW. n; a y f 41 Z (2°6)251-6222 PHASE 2 AND 3 AND S.W.43RD ST. �j (206)2s1-8782 fAz II v o Y RENTON,WASHINGTON 144,' CM.EKIPEE1..C.IN,O PLUMING. R e.e.•'1'' SVIWWIC,ENVAOW1EMTN.SETM1KES w B.C.E.JOB NO. `TI WATER AND SANTITARY SEWER EXTENSION PLAN 3 w a a ; � � s- - z_i3_z i �i d C 11�TJ� _ _I.S1-L - SOT _ :TST-T: • 'i-y-Y :..' _:57.-t3�S S cc 0 W Z V T ° - - T-TrYSS_iI L_S_ _. _r- ]0' .. a !•. ') ..rn o —fir j a C. IIIII IliiiML 1" 1 IIIIMMIONEr r \ \ 424 • CL , - .. f Ou .S T S2 '.:�.- i-1 - o i.irirtow.c IwN -/.z �, t�W. -- s-e'an vrn lsuN 3-Z` -ISL-L17'I_l -'001110M cart.MT_nr;. r )17 s'n :i-1.2T-:'3=': ne usiti� _ 4 . t n Yru,u} vm arc a f[ax sos � uf).i. �r- [.,[p(s•q U IN - s.OR.no< E ' - '.F e'auf) I S pp on o.stos. .,: v-a 1 w. I �122 I °r V 0 a I `` .c _ I I I ii,rii v- Eoca $ ° Z �� s FF• i w a E. .. _ 1 is e ,.:•- ._. _ _ ._. __- -_ _. ._. _. __ '. 1 1-- I W CO N W \ �, fA w W Q E 1 I N • t yl s� I • I '=il urt•vli`v�lrwN -. -_. _- _�� O sms PER MICR aw s of cc g !� I _ we saaa.l) —__ t • t, a 1 I� �.�, I w III I il •� i - 11 'TIIVMiNNgWI rtX.0.Y 1.112 b•MI' _ 1Op110M a 6 rRIW'. i ' o fi� S , N i _____Y[onra Lel) 1 '� q W 3 i - CPC.aou.c 1 I 1 ' w„ 3 / 2' .^ T .., , I, I ^;nn 5 PM.■l)O.Il) 1 Ilk —_ -�. _ Iy� f=S `V w ry if • r fhil � ___-- 1 UI 0 I '_ IMpTCFLt`E$�sC9 _ a 6 ) 0 - - j - s - — pu.[ �Nf .,.. PP mn SKr ROOM � J 'O COW KOONING conpcfa TO fell)MOP �-t 1 Q 11 Lovfn,a P.rsrtx,s.. I `r rorn f. 8 a c�' CITY OF RENTON laoaRscm cePART...)+*of PUf IC WOBLO m. w WATER AND SAMTARY SEWER EXTENSION -��_ . .. ---- "� IIIIB �,� �. ,,,) �.,.p �.,,, ,.,,.,�,.,,,. _ - WATER AND SANITARY SEWER EXTENSION PLAN ._ . ._ . ._ . ld §v, , a.. T-40' L1.1 0, a_ z , 1 < 0 ..- .al Ne ig I 0 Co _._ ' , ----r-r-r--/-7-r-r-t _rfr i_.=__. r-r-r-r-T-ILT_:._,_"11=111:171-21-..1...- 1 __1•:. RR Liti, :.14. TARATIO ILL CC (;) .. Z 0 I* * 9 et umve!!LY LL"i....• • . . , i — . _ .1 .r T . 4 •_•:. g ih _0.OCMtO-TMteCIOI.W R ToCE uOOOtORf T WOALV ET KIMAMAM I MIR If AL IY II I 1 i I I:I I I 1 I I I /el I en6i I 1 I I 1 1 !rj-Lij--7' - . i-Hliiillii I 1 I lid I I 1 I I ' ill IA t 'at l'1 ! < Z ' II I 1 " t 1 , ! It I I j • i t.", "741 YEE(WO ,=,'.,, ,,,,,,411 1 li :--- : ,,,......r.1, , t_r- :1-1-1:1=zr-_-:=.1-__maz._t-r _i_lis..cor ,--.1:-t-s-r:t7s:_=:=7: -•-.7 , -.- • :1:_---; 1 111 1• • POI or ._., 1 ---------171:7-17-r-z---. -_*-1-_.1--tq-, .1:tit -s1-.r:-..•.71 ..-..-3--- .11 11 : ...t. Re•,.....'' - .. t 0 0 f c I 1.---/- V7r.7"-':X.:;---------Mgc...V 4.f I E-. -1_1:-, r ,,,,, ,. i i 1 ,..m ME(..1) i _ . 6 tli Dil. _. ,. 4-Z--T ........'. ,. 6 - Qr4 g.g -.-1---1:1:14' -1 --IBIALCIP421--A'i-- --;-=',--r-r---r----E—T-I*4Pe22%--:s.rmem..." — ,, ' 11 1111 __. 1 ........t-•' z ..i 0-±" g I 111. az 01 < E li i g NI I I 1 1 1 - -S 1 r.,-.7cgo.1) i g 6 1-r WI vM.vE(ELMO - r ,Pi Al 1-r CATE vALYE(11-4.): •.1-6.CAM Tat(11.) ' ,I ' I D h tmEl t 111 . AS LI r DI I-FIRE InDIEMB ASSEMBLY t-fiRE TIMM ASSOLERY .',.. .LL'":'(, AS Lf r 01 1-RRE MORRO moo, ''. .11 'ilI .git`t.:•‘';:: ::::.'":47'.6-:::.:: ::';'":?" i2 11 IF §I PER COY Of REMIT OM , SEE OM TES . ' COMO BLCCRAIG . REM CRY Or ROOM SOS ...„ -, SCE SEMI.TUT COMC.BLOCTC . ':(.' PER CT CC REMIT SlOS SEE OCTO4 TEEL ETC FROMM •.. 0 'Y.. I , - . ,ILL.,---'4 -74:..?... ItE, •.w•Fr' _ . I 0:1 I i t f.ft•ti,f f, IL -i 1,4490 ff,4 V X fla!1 :i i — I .--4-4- . I . , —'--.-'--.-.- 't 7';'1--.—•"; . 11 t '--: -.---1 -- 111 _ r _i ; ‘,.,.g_e_!.• _ t .1 - ' 1 -4, ,I 'r-'''. '-' '- berwimm' 11 '',.. .i r ,, , ..--. -V—,."------- '5 V " I I, .i .... , , / ,,,,T,.; ..•9,. " I 1 i I 11 \ I p .,.Ey(.414,,m, ' 1- -' .. 1'1 I 1" Till I ' l'I" I ..1.--.,....."'.4.444,- -........ ..,,..., ...... .-.-,-....-.......1..........4-..1-...--re-.....,-y-.-m ' ' R. •OT , I IIIIII / f" Ul i II I,i I 1 ft I ..i!, 1 iiiiiiiiIiiiliiiiii'.--. r• Ill IN „ ..,,, ..,_ .E,L.:2,..s(A'-• I N ,— ..... _ _ t.-!,• ,,-- !:::!..ii: 15"1/i. 5 LI , r.(2 pt4,1 _ _ ... — l .—. — — t MATCHLINE SEE SHEET CIO s#".% 4' • ..43 :7 I t;'11 M .-,„71,": .1-.1, °,$,. FECOMEICIED I E.RES n'i i CITY OF RENTON 1 FOR APPROVAL OelmARTMENE1-OT PLIELL-1.WORKS BY to WATER AND SANITARY SEWER g • EXTENSION PLAN moo Aim OTTO AS________ TALe I,AY FELD•001, PPM _ U4 t . 2 L.•\SOSTROATIIVAIRTESITS\WIWI". 00w/1...0E/00PRT 11.E. T............4 ET1.T.T.1111.ISTLTI. E 2 WATER AND SANITARY SEWER EXTENSION PLAN I }P� I's N V) rn n. f40' a_ , w a_ mod! a Vi o 0 w o rnz 3 • Zdx Oz - - i _ MATCHLRE SEE SHEET C7 - T. - g O W 0 3 a ,./•, c: ' „�„ - r BUILDNa.D--a wZ �x �_s. .3 ,. pp - FF.'252'. --II 5 OF �3 I\�; i --- . •. s --- - g FW �/ Iv O r - -b` .i lr u-o.L a"F.'` I� 1- ill 5 \E .t3nll 1-1.11 ,F1) I43-6.6rtUWO((ILaLI) . ,ego, . COZ olE ; IIt..1) - 2 G)E DX'Hr 11L+ILl) RR MY OF NE111M SIDS _ E t'.5')•)••r - [.11 lL I"' arsw Ga -12•Grz viL.((RatU) «.([I[;0.0Ut [11.}. i `c S t v RLW(ER(11) __'_ _ . 2 .I 3R OEM 3REn ���3 L�[�2 I W N 3 PP stm MAY) ^^ -_ •- —. P��f��A.9Ej�2�.�.Jn ..4 J, 3 V tY°L - ._.-'fT) L� j su 23 LE 6"ILI. / - I 1 3 _;ti_l CONC.BL00016 PHASC O CM OF IM MR.and0.T ( (N.rl.•�. - •� - y _ CE III B CONC.0.CdK T �_ a' I}— '1 � • '. E�{�.-� I 1.�' _ -.. �r .L- ...a § ti.i i PT IT-}- -V+i.l� 1��' I 1.1I.l ^2Tad 1 I et jI !~-+- l� 1i_ @ W I +Yu anvkh lJ f ii I 9}, _ ___ `R: -ML I-*1'�.1 �-�� �. - I I rr[N. 7I l i t i ii i I�' �>_., ' 1 I 1 y j _ _ {F c .,liuv.,i� _{T{ ' ♦2-1•G,�[vr({(EiMrof -s'CAN x¢.((n,.p 111 '�' , ION r..rc} L- - • -- I _.. L._-- I...1 — - - I'1 rt or u wEwr041 nPCO'lf`inonw,asE,eL. F FF?P52- .---_ mr�r`..Ln REllra.s°. li g MATCHUNE SEE SHEET CI1 o i r Fo i _ g ^s� E . Qy�N IP '3ro.LLt)LC" I �vb Co• 8 A I E6«[3 �1 leoll}tam CITY OF RENTON obi POI OPTIMAL OEPAR)MEVT of r()eu0 WORKS « - 111 - WATER AND SANITARY SEWER «-- EXTENSION PLAN SAS...MA 6,t\E.ER[ER.\SP111.55D.E WW1*.2/«/Ilea II, So..,...,..,,...0.. 25.t,16.061,1,.Z5«t1.. --.._,...._ -- C9_..n. m l .,w" ... ^°"`" ..o..e. - ^ PPP SS TTTT 4 2°." �' CITY OF WATER AND SANITARY SEWER —--- fa - J° \ RENTON EXTENSION PLAN no Rensio� • er RATE /PPN •/.+ o�R NI �+vi tea^P.E..Mm'maul RENTON,WASHINGTON x ri I 2 ,o.-L _ `- , air% _ _ _ _ E $ 1 s T Ate _ I1 7.1 -- t, aaAtI5 ---I 1 S Yr� 1 a i•r "t I`\ I r u III - , e1 > - I m 1 i cN _ I,` �� it N w i t ---I JJ 11 g s, Iq. I > I S c G g� `-! 1 Z F 1al $ , I Y £ll � y ,a I 03 r I 1 I = > 1 - I 'I Z I i P4 DJ � -<i « 1 \ I' tt _ \ i,� -IEn CO b g a :. I I �\ _ Ig DJti � • 1 \ I m E . < L.�- L� Qf6 \ '' / I M \ 1 4r. / . s' l ' \141 I °� s /// m co 1 - 6. p X • E I I \ N)C 9Q)) `� • c E E \ °&:1,T, •1 Z .A. I 'A1 �A5 1I1 o) } J T 144. IIs r r . yam` • m' 1 — .. . ,, — O ICSDAL�A . . . • r. j ' —ggrt _- 1 • IRA TITLE LOCATION: P„.. a4. 18215 72N0 AVENUE SOUTH KENT,WA 98032 OAKSDALE BUSINESS PARK N.W.CORNER OAKSDALE AVE.S.W. igQ d m. (206)251-6222 PHASE 2 AND 3 AND S.W.43RD ST. f (206)251-6222 FAX a a .` -+� Y CM. � INC nee. RENTON,WASHINGTON b No E..a..- SU VERPC.IM'WONIENI.LL SE MOSS • B.C.E.JOB NO. 5911 WATER AND SANITARY SEWER EXTENSION PLAN n 1, , 1 --,_- -- cn (1) csi a • 1AATCHL9E SEE SI-EET C9 g , 5 - __________,._______:___77______.....-.... .......-i-. - -,),.i i -1,..-. 7 -s,r,„. ,- =IN ii . *3.• I I • • •091 La.,. --- g,La . - --''' 241,,,-- .---- ...•. . Wn ----4. - i . '._ . ..0„.' ' . GO. -----. F • , . `,.. ..... .- i • :i' 7„/".. 8 1-6.•O.TE 61,S(f11.64 ---- ." 6'.'•' ....... '. 1 JO LI 6 0. , .• OFC. - , -• . • 1.-flir MONO MOW. - oio • 100011 SIDS. ' A t ' ..' L. . .i E •P,Iiiit* / / .'''' 14 6-•'. E 1_N't XL 16•6666 14 '. / - ''• tr,:tc.-,......, • . : C- 1-12.RUG(*J) •S'eqr,"'-', , 6 6..'Z 6.6 i : 6. • ,-.•OTC MOE .,,,„CP'' . 27,..•.-..., i 0 g li II II 6'01 fI': ' '1 "-gr4 '0•66.66 635011,-.( , • , - rctlitt 00.i v-12.urz...s 01.4 1-fIlf MOM , ,/ POI Off Cf -"" •,'''6• \ AC VI 167613 I i I 1 I • • COC // , _ii-, /‘ .....6••• ' I 1E . , •'" . ;/ . -• ..,•'' .•..- , , ,,,---' 4,4' , . , 1.• , 1 i igil 449') i'- ,-- A g ...,...-,I I •, , 1 4 AI t 1 11111 Illiiit--:' .„. , ..-• ,.! ,_._. . h 1 , . : . 4. •••• 6 , / ..' . ,.0-'9 .4.i., ! ) ,p /' • ,„ r --- , , .., , 4 r • . . • • , •,i • >, •c••••, ,, / /.,<., -:-7 , • • :,• , , -,•••.•P ..... ._, .• : ,..1"' , , 0'* i III! - • t 1 .• e / :,..,:t[4,7 ,..„. -T-C•Mart 1 I I:1 . : . . . • C.0,4 r, / ; ' ./ --• I 1 •066...C.?Oat "......„ • i if 6.1 . ' ...„1:; ---, 3•C KW. 66. 3 vi / /._ . '' '' r"'-'"fr- 1`,.. - , 1 ..,-,,,e, ,--,-... - --,, , ,: , ,1 i lij .0,6.,6.01Cf:l . • • WSW. 6;.6.-6,• R ...? / / 63,16*:01.166(.3, Ii \ii / •-CI 6.6,6', .., , • • ' 1.n nA ,,,,, 4.'' It' ---"'"..- / / ,r":;:trt.,,7".1,) --.., " \ r”.„,... , __J.Vc 4_ ,___ ,,. WE / ..' - . Z i i / / 1:;11 Z Va't:..i ../- '''''""'/ \ i.-5,..,4...e.,c. , 7:1-'..e12 . 1. 1 .-L . 1' 1i !rt 3-606-N. : • • . -..--......". ' \ ? / 13;' .66.MV.......Th-066.... . • • -,•-- -.„ .71 1 ',, I i --.........___ A wrelt ....,,, 1.---..1- . ...,:.,., -1 .01 'ir ' , , .-- .181731M1111 ____26tA 0/17Z e•-•61369 60.3LI r -.....'6. 4 ___ ____ __ -- -76, i,..,rj• -- .. „... Swo---,==.•.,-11.7-•---- - • --• ---:::1-1,-- Ter*-.....-- 1 8 , ..,,,,,,,-.FT - .........-.-.-.--- :=_______-*---- - --6--- - - ' '- - ,r...^1626f%•666.66676611 ''---- , g r•:;n;;;Faiiik-0 Se:19-4,-..C."2..-:;.-----------1-: ''''''''' '''''''' ''''''''',-,....;,,,,,, 11..----,......„.11,Av 7-_ '''' -' -.Pe__ - _ - - __-- L___ __L - __ - _ \ ' _----SW -. .t __3rci S E. TR ETr- '`:7;15E9' gi_ :'-63:011.12•°. ,1:33n13:5..°' ". . ---:... . . : •,-,,Et S Or CO.) i ...1, COMUCTOP 10 IICID MON 15 Ift, ::117, 3 LOW.Of O.IMAR0Will X,1„25663,1e.:1, , 4.• . .4:5 S. 4' 1.. I COWS 11"1,91 I ., 006,611.164E wortic.' "I"- MCCAIN= CITY.,,CF„REZIT2N.. ftil APINZNA. ' g, WATER NC SANTRAY SEWER 2 . EXTENSION PLAN = :',____-... ,pv. .... 1 9 asap 4___ saa rt.E. _ 603330666 6666 _ .. wa ...... f*. ;II:21 S 60 \606000.1\Sell\MINOR.\SOM.]OM Del•rire.02/06/1•96 e.: 6 Awn 6••I6 1161116.2561111,61/I/0. •• arra am ......-.,.,,,.., - ,• --paeral • er17 (2, . . A AREA N SITE SUMMARY 31.631 ACRES (7 NORTH OF SPARCEL OOK CREEEK j090 ACRES U SOUTHWEST PARCEL 11.210 ACRES SOUTHEAST PARCELS(G• H•J.K) 43.931 ACRES TOTAL PARCELS ARCHITECTURE BUILDING SUMMARY PARK AREA BUILDING 157 170,500 SF BUILDING - A 120 120,632 SF ®.aawd.=�� "°°°^'"'"" _-�_ •=0::: - C-- U I BUILDING - C 132 159,995 SF ,p&y NE.e+oo =°^=mww.�w,�W,��„.�W.w,.,w„W..,,,.e,,..,.. ,-�� ._-. __�i�b3�_ -'�: -�,..0- - ` �'0, (0� UILDING - E 320 SF 75 576.887 SF e7/MBv�_ �•� ,> BUILDING 125150.b W •J- tl > hY_ _--_.°I.._ m �n• • TOTAL BUILDING AREA eaE.9 a � _ tli... .. �� O 1 a m I 35,940 SF 001 ,v µ' AREA 9.500 SF .•tiN Q el I I I I DETENTION POND TO REMAIN 43,130 SF m - e m I ' EXISTING WETLAND AREA ,.,y1s,�> e e I I a WETLANDS AT CREEK •1 yE'3@ Oi � I e A I I e„ REPlACE0 f i's'est. • ' - -e - .I . 136 C 9 . PARKING SPACES REQUIRED: -eo}�� O _ 4 e WAREHOUSE: 384 `'s''43 5 Ie• I �) MAUNFACTURING: 87 �y � t _ - ' a-- 1 co) S,W. 41 st ST OFFICE: 591 Chs` d! sor _ 1.°0f" '�^' 9� O 4,1pp SF kM `•( 1 ry PARKING SPACES PROVIDED: LNG 400 SF a 1,•O -- ,.srrc"' '■ orlon �' INTERIOR PARKING LOT LANDSCAP 127, 4;,1, O. a ,s E.-" !Ord 1 LANDSCAPING AREA: 88.400 SF GENERAL OSCAPING NO REQUIREMENT 4 ti 0 �- - '- O �;rT yy� WETLAND BUFFER LAN 38' MAXIMUM I N % „; Q- a InuiP ;.14. ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHT: n;��!' µn �, CX r I1\ PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT: CODE: ;x% 0 " � �y1.coot "µo `p- N 811. & ! BUILDING SETBACKS REQUIRED BY 20 FEET MINIMUM '„t;le ;QIA 1•Dock - /� FRONT YARD: NO REQUIREMENT 4i%i ssa• I e • .' 1 SIDE/BACK YARD: 1 ; PROPOSED BUILDING SETBACKS: :+gs,' O ' € - g e I ( ''VV��/ v, FRONT YARD ARD BSETBACK. 75' nil t'I c . D I z I SIDE�RFAR • "?I m 0 m _ � � .. ... I ••- •�®' Q KEY NOTES -' sxa• -q .G40 '�}9 .,.... ,-0�- ��/� I Boas W.COMMERCIAL SHOMIlmE 5E1W ._" .. ,> u • "- �J^ __�'__ yµT-CELL eErcarga NOT SMVM,) SMACK 030.000, R41F , • f--'-------- J/ �e.rueeal 'I 0 REv++o nEwcEUEar u,u;b `�00 i e m ❑ 1 0 �' 11 Fj fl ii ©E%5M>C aE UCEm.mas EU 1.1. bulls , j-;. • i� A. Q".•cru+w"'" " ,YL ev_._�� —�—� . I 1 -��� I O%V eEnM,e eaEEER 0 MY 4005CAKO FRONT yr.ScmtK T / 0 IsOO. nwn Docks AND dmE_m nw,,s N �� �4°5•— — I m mmwK WRY-51006^"r/ma.. RN.n.K. }}K(//,JJ���� R , ,.0- 1 p919.00eLR j'I, I NS,SEWER EASEMENT 1jy) •a /, r1 SLOPE FASEWER YY e1M1Rb■ 1I 0 WOW uua EwsP,Ear b .m 'o ;y' �1 on WWI. ~"'�" I j Ri I I ®.W R n A re/E a Eo ;1 v i- • '1 j J 1 l m IS a �E�E^ GREEN ..so auw oE* KA I o oe n/ �� s/q*rfiy�we I 3as a O / _CI S.W. 43RD STREET ROC . SDALE BUSINESS CAMPUS I ,as OAK 1:100 PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN A-1a NE I NOR SUMMARY_ AREA NORTH OFFSPRSPRINGBROOK CREEEK 31.631 ACRES SOUTHWEST PARCEL 1.090 ACRES SOUTHEAST PARCELS(C, H.J,K) 11.210 ACRES TOTAL PARCELS 43.931 ACRES lIILOMO SUMMARY 11111111117 BUILDING PARKINS AREA ARCHITECTURE '^........ BUILDING -A 157 170,500 SF s� --—--— -CF..„--a—--0—-r— GT--CP LT--a- o-^ g - -Cr DX- -Q---O .- , BUILDING -C 107 110,440 SF O toT BUILDING - D .132 115,320 SF s s*sN. 10• O .- SIP.2. Q „ I :+ .:. ...• I ". —ILO ••• _ ■ ...•1 " OJ [0•_ BUILDING - E 75 59,995 SF %M _RD m m _so*,_ m� m m m m m m5 O 6 + F 5 +-r-I--�-} t + } I -I-•-t-1--I 1 + F-I- -+-F- Ie • TOTAL BUILDING AREA 578,887 SF Ws'+1;i +-I-S-1-+-I- -I-+-I- +-I--I 1--1--I-+-I_-1-1-} • O M IO W NB 0/00 E', J§z t -~ Imo_ . -� DETENTION POND AREA 35,940 SF yW-WA g0001 - +-I-S--I-+-I--I--I-} - {_+-_I__I_ -1--I-1-+-I--I-1-+-F- i'.s,',„A li, +-I--5--A-+C I--I-+-} _! +-}-I--I-t-I--I A-I-+-I--1--I-+-I- : E y REPLACEDING WWET WETLANDS ATAT CREEK TO E�N 43,130 SF auass.911 9,500 SF 6Fu c /"' "+`F-5-�'+=1-'-I'-ii+-" g "i'}'-I'-I-'11'-.I-=1-�'+'I-.1-1'+.1- a0.x„ e 5 N;414 O +-I--II--I-+-I--I--+-+ I - i-4--I--I-+-I--I--+-+-1--I-1-+-I- •K' PARKING SPACES REQUIRED: „s„ I __. OOr _ - 77V - WAREHOUSE: O 70% O 1/1500SF: 272 'k'%y 0 w a •. 4I R.ORS f �,�_ ,j�p a•COX Rik a•Root y� • O MANUFACTURING: O 20%O 1/10003F: 117164 ?' SIT1/4'pi OFFlCE: O 10%O 3/1000SF: 1714 fj, O IMP n S1Y. 41st ST MINIMUM PARKINGREQUIRED:MINI U SPACES Q 562 r,a,, o <,nx( O PARKING SPACESARRKI PG LO OT LANDSCAPING: 16,1805SF t � ,w,,,: OP O 11h u- l ... 11 ® i eu_*-.•O f ii7 y// GENERALIR LANDSCAPING AREA: 128,400 SF ... A h a•Rou A - h d + d [OoeO;.e. .,;s's — - . ��' ,� WETLAND BUFFER LANDSCAPING 87,500 SF •••M 3 sIr = • ®�� ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHT: NO REQUIREMENT p ew v"' + -H-- -+--F--I- = I-+-}-I--I-+�+--I--I-+-ti-I O� oe PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT: 38' MAXIMUM i _I_if_+_I--I--I-+_I-_I- I_-I_}_I-_I_+_}_I_-I_+-I-_I_ x . BUILDING SETBACKS REWIRED BY FRONT YARD:° SIDE/BACK YARD: NO REQUIREMENT ''slG. q -I +-I--I-1-+II- //, W PROPOSED BUILDING SETBACKS: .5 • �. III- >��/ FRONT YARD SETBACK: 90' I-1-+-F--I-1 + f- I +-I-- I 1 + " '" O '� V % :' W sir m m m - 3s1, m / SIDE/REAR YARD SETBACK: 75' Tr ::,tt N"r '6• t a. t 'lei ta: . ��..s i tier ,4 O Q. , ! LOar O '� •r4%. Q' ,-' 01 g L___NOTES I_ .L 1 1 1 1 1 .. --® •f. Sd p u o-wl or onv MO p ••`l' to ©ss•.ws,nui snlm,le a,R.`x cea„nwr POT vnw0 ,s• p `t.1"t`+'+ fr •'""" 1 %%' t," - `P' u ' o Q so mrxncva snw.c Screrac •I I I H _2- s,,.„ J;:;. to `el•Mes. ammo Is»r2cE9tpr MU L 1 •I 1E 1 I f, ,?„z,'" , � , 6IF p n•Rm.2m OUEvi ' TL RRy I •I I I I - 0.;r"�"; -/T'_ ,• .+L-+1 L. ,:. ',� ••tt^^ I k. I m•uwscw,n mwr rum s s.cK 16 I I I - ' 0 is.wmsurm Sn[/xrue v. sE,wac A . I , 0,wac caw v a• =S Alm oert-M MAPS BI`i, e11 1 // �,a wwra• ------a---:-� tINVR o„er-srolos•5ur meow 1 LOT u `' 0 rllsen Off worell ••M • I ® ��R B..t.-. ...nn O '•0•0'•� I I ,Iw•00•e I WPM KW usmn E) z, cl / i .� m tom,un Ron ro a xmanm o:I, „� `� - I m t(61 mtwnr muwa Om CRP. ' 1 "s':'/' e ' - m Nor 5•ME CONCRETE woo.t9 srrtrr Raw. I_-'!' �•� a ^—__�•'_—__1__-�__�-------?m----- � �IC aim lwa,EASEMENT t � VO Q 101 RICE.41.10 PEC611.2118NL S.W. 43RD STREET + imam Eurnr/eur/Nro4.2a WO.. Pui.a No. 605 ) r willu. Dar 3(24I93 0 75 150• x, t 4D, FCC OAKSDALE BUSINESS CAMPUS ' --!--4 • PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN MOO �� ,,... • SNP A-la • • • m,. MU 71777. 107E7 KC-7/24/98-2-OPTS aw ,�c. ' ...................................... mu-wn~imult mmnn�wuuuuuwuwmwuwmmuumau�wuuww,wwuwuuuunuwwuwuuu,unwwuunuwuluuwlwwuuuuwuRlumuuunuuuuuumwumuunuwuuumnnmuumuuuuuuu0wiwumuuummuluuBll�nw r` ° o 0 9Ni �� o 0 0 '� : I O N A E ? OFTCE A OFFICE I OFFICE 802' I OFFICE OFFICE I A - Ofr10E OFFICE ]]5• I ORICE 1 I OFFICE OFFICE , , ti,,; 18 I I I I to'_ �_�' : I I C %*A ( I _ I I • Bn BERgi A I C I I A I y::'S •_ ,> R ST 5r sr Sr ,: ,r „ v u k u u u ARCHITECTURE EFI Q 8' l�t31 ° ° I I I R • I I I0 '-if((,i�''s 1 A 502' A I I I I ;A 1 J 1'DOCK : 1'DOCK I I ti p MCI( I I -- .oocA — •„:21 E%51WG 44,, .our P RAMP �-./ TTF 10891 NE 6400 „E 'i O RAMP roar •t 1 Bellevue VA 98001 DRIVEWAY OVER CRE N 41$l 115.822.6700 ('1 WATER BAN EASEMENT 425.828.9116 Fax 'S V �P. TRUCK COURT .I� :ld D BUFFER kJ 1'COCK r ow< 1•DOa I`] /'DOCK ?•'i 'F� REPLACEMENT ZELMAN RENTON LLC �gfVg��ii I' I I I yI•,F 107 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD.•8088 Il • 329' 611' E f1. '�'/ • /1 LOS ANOELES,CO 00011 E0SRND;Fy I I A 1`�./T) I u-e ,r• a ,r „ srD „ „ ar „ ,._. m Y sr sr ,r Y B A ,r ,r I M• r r C v )6t�% / 1 x'.EliNyf+11YFER J• ry �, I A I /� %/ :•r / • '�1 �+ vi OFFICE 529' OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE oRICE F., 381' OFFICE l OFFICE x - "-'Vj"""" / I Z • /� SANRNM SEWER EASFMENF :.. u 6 I;iii. w 1 � •" I Q u _" i�"% DEIEHf10N MHOS K —� " RhNIRRI I i- SpR�NGBROo�at ' /- I a DE f - _ Y I 15'I ]IY /" _ /— 15' IJ•IY EASEMENT I O t r_1 A OFFICE ,.., I — NOTSUB INCCELLUDED J 1I /" I NOT IN PROPOSAL ' ^ I J— V ;I N. Due lum R `50'COw ERCtu SIgREUNE SETBACK 1 Miime WWSCAPFA SIDE/RENT -._ / /S'ARADY EASEMENT I I I n j I I I ' II Y FRAw SUB-PARCEL H ` NOT INCLUDED IN PROPOSAL `IS'110LRY EASEMENT /, ��� SUB-PARCEL 0 I CI n �" I NOT INCLUDED IN PROPOSAL I I b OFFICE A ,� j"" I I --__- 3H5 __—- , P,aien W. �6 I — • PROPERTY NOT INCLUDED WATER NAM EASEMENT I Drama er NCt: / IN PROPOSAL 25'MEANO BUFFER` SUB•PARCEL K I k I r '' ' / / I I I NOT INCLUDED IN PROPOSAL I �i [J _ //'/ I will-CELL OETENT0N POND I I • 25'REFUND BUFFER.—s J j VA'•�••,'^�SHORELINE N I TJe 'VWO RE'LCEUFM''''''A----.. J -` _-- —.- - SITE PLAN APPROVAL 50'COUYERC,u SNptFl1NE SETBACK OAKSDALE BUSINESS CAMPUS i SUBMISSION / SOUTH EST PARCEL 1 i I I . �1 F NOT I LUDED IN PROPOSAL I �� I PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN 1:60 A-lb 20'uN swED FRONT YARD sETBACR -- 250_ 262' 385' Sheet ne. - SLOPE EASEMENT _ __-_. -—--- __- _- S.W. 43RD STREET 75' Aso 300' NLI ,_ _EA,>,a 1e _� clog 1 1 mnnnu miummmmmmnmmutimnunrrnnmmtinunnmmmmmmmmtmmmtrumtmmutumtnutt mttntttuuntnummtmmmrtmnmtrmnnntnuuutnntnuunuunmntnmtmrmmunmmtmmnnnntrmn intuit —-`O't— ?� , e t - ',''+ — — �—— —— - ' 15' ANp APED SIDE/ YARD SET9i IC , / - *--- `s". T,--I----N.-�:.--__C,..;~--....1'---. . L-C� — ..i 5,. -----'G.,7--- -�--'T,-:---=.,...r A a 1 - i' .; 1 IF I � OFFICE OFFICE I OFFICE n I OFFICE• I OFFICE 775 OFFICE g I I I """; ARCHITECTURE - i R I 1 I 10', 64' ;3', I R A b I T7 I086 All.HUO N I I Bellevue WA VAU01 N CV 15.0216700 6 425.828.9110 Fu 52' 52' 44' 47' 52' 52' 52' 52'k 52' 52' 52' 52' 52' 52' 52' 52' 52' srI R {yI - I " I I I "'�I i 775' ZELMAN RENTON LLC I I 707 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD,•3030 --- ` L LOS ANGELES,CA 80017 I I I�- 4' DOCK 4' DOCK /""'" �,I iiJ �� - -7 ' .A RAMP CRAMP I RAMP ,,m.1,- --' RAMP I .I I- DRIVEWAY OVER CRE EK 41 st WATER MAIN EASEMENT o TRUCK COURT 1 /" / / RAMP I RAMP RAMP {� "'i-,e: -,,r„w,_•��'""` LAND BUFFER 4' DOCK � 4' DOCKri II j__- I-I 4' DOCK -1 } Hilt{j j'ri��i'' i���-"� Wa LA R8PIAC��.IENT tt I I 644' I OFFICE) t t ! I • I I . .M.�°" •, / / / I 1 : ,/ / //' w 52' 52' 56'-6' 20' 52' 52' 52' 52' 52' 52' 52' 52' S2' 52" 52 52' '' II .:.� a / , N.. r m B I i / W w voe. I N " /�v //-ETLAND -EPLAZEMEM Q t I I o I ,.i 0' WI I, / ' ,' , 1 1 I I �..r.:. •< 7 7 J , 1 OFFICE i" 364' OFFICE OFFICE X / `S OFFICEI / _ _ _ a Rwea Nu. I I 1 i' a0 III: '`: /�. SANIL" SEW EASEMEf$Y I Doe 2�MS / DETENTION PONDS Q Drew* i10C ���25' I 4RELINE SET. '� lco _ 1 =.- _ t... i _ t,,, E a /r y _. 5' W r'9F?� I t _ — - SITE PLAN APPROVAL r ✓�� OpR i GBR C •AKSDA BUSINESS CAMPUS SUBMISSION r I I �� 1 ,, _ —R L'IMINARY SITE PLAN 1:40Sheet� _tD 1 1 I / p 75' 150' 300' --� 1 1 .III ,AL, x1RII .". Roo.REV.553 __ "-- oilir _WillINDirli Kiwi iF� =__;r Mt ak ■�Sr r _�a_� O. " AM III .I- a�.-■■� .. I-- I/F..—>•.�P --1.1..d_—� /' ARCHITECTURE W. s Ir��,{11 n �E/ 16e.lBrl�.�iiri��l•:_L.._L.��� BUILDING A NORTH ELEVATION(EAST END) TT7 10&6 NE MOO _1 _ Bellevue VA 94001 ROOF l— 550- - _ �_ � 425.ST2.6700 , VIIIIIs _�_B_ W ."�Rr - Ti{c A� r �4 ..tea g lLvTL ,wmmiN•I#:mE.4Ni@iowi.mous,wail", '‘ "MI 1,,.. ...1ffle.. tk. 42522&9116 ha y it NM ,i . lit,��LV� l Al :I�ITI I- IIIIII UMW VII �,��1 ' ( —Ne.. .7 ZELMAN RENTON LLC Ifs . - 11. ] nwEIW1 rti %- .M _1♦�J�tr�r�.: ��I: ""``wV'M'�rN 707 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD.•3039 I-_'I. --..__I_ 'I _--I LOS ANOELE4,CA 9O011 BUILDING A NORTH ELEVATION(WEST END) ADO'ELEV.55.V i ill Ai* - --- ilifil - it, r ,Ii __1 .1%,rigirlre .• ,,e, in, ii111111111F SW linkidiV -Eve.as BUILDING A EAST ELEVATION ROOF ELEV WE ----- _ - _ .--- -- • - -_ --- -- Rewwu I a' _. �� �_ , •.= �� .� -� ... MIST:mOE GRACES rr•' .III mi Air At i # BUILDING A SOUTH ELEVATION(WEST END)_ pdeNNo. SBS D. zroaALB Dove Br RCC on ROD.ELev:n.a--� - — - — -- •uie �_ 1 i �� rr - .�w_ Irl/r7A.5 SITE PLAN APPROVAL I-- = =n=h lr�1��--tM 311 0 iE.,I,$.I�� litle SUBMISSION Mee No. A-1d _..--BUILDING A SOUTH ELEVATION(EAST END) -. - _.- VOW ELEV.5E.2--\ I ----'t I �— A im�a.■■■I .p P. ,,. T--- N al. It •� it l , Op ��He s w 1 imp , - ,_-Fuck coca .I:NI �. � ilk)" .f,.v. ��j^���.^'�,'� III '! 'eE�B�wn - �P� _ - '� '� �.weEv.2 . _3 11 I.F„,„,,,,,, 911.._IlSill +� yl•� - a, ARCIIITECTCRE BUILDING 8 EAST ELEVATION BUILDING_B_-_NORTH ELEVATION . ROOF ELEV.RUE—. - r----..:::--- ----- _ 12582591i°F. Bellevue VA 9WN1 i-—- 1 k! Al A3VW �I .�_. # _ 125.8T2.6T110 ■i'� n j � �y�s 1MBILIM78k _Nli 1i 7■ r7t its I •I _ _,-.,N: 1 �■� -y,BBlfiilrIl��E..•1__1 ■1 rrrL�`+nEBil`r i----- ZELMAN RENTON LLC TOT WLSIERE BOUL •3080 LOS ANGELES.CA 90017 BUILDING B SOUTHEAST ELEVATIONBUILDING E EAST ELEVATION ROOF ELEV:55.2� F i "11 - — IA - - -- ,`� • _ 111 AIL _ E -- ---- - rEW,24.5 I III !B1 !pm WWII emailu •I.,WNIs i______.so BUILDING E SOUTH ELEVATION BUILDING_E SOUTHEAST ELEVATION PANTED METAL EOUWMENT SCREEN---_— (AROUND THREE SIDES) bT ��.� 1_. n ar�r�tvr ... el4...- .�T t t ,� OFRCE N.. D.N N— TRACK COUNT WAREIIDWE Purl ,111 yy�••• . ___. - - OFFICE R.•1o.• 14- • BUILDING A SECTION LOOKING WEST THROUGH OFFICE AND WAREHOUSE F.1•e No. S03 D. 2/0UUS D. Uo ROC Tile SITE PLAN APPROVAL SUBMISSION Rum No A-1 e ,os „p° N y ,I/ • y 4 (I): - :r.:..**51I III-I itII_IIIIII IdiI IIIII _I O !O°'III J111 III il 1 111 1 111 111 1 111 1 III:•• 1111 1lI II I I III I II I O,: j00_ .,� .. ;; ..:f'•••E4:11 . a--T �ls: Eli ii "Z:r~ .:r--vk-:x.r^ra:-4it 4 y-°�- T - -1- - '� - - r - -I- - 7 - -(- - ,- - r _ - 7 - -I- - 1 - -r - -I- - T - -1- - T --r - -I- - T - -1- - -I - - I- - _ • ffYt :4- =I _ 1 _ _I_ _ J - _ L _ _I_ _ 1 _ _I_ - J_ _ L _ _ _1 _ 1 _ _I_ _ J _ _L• _ J _ _L _ _I_ _ 1 _ _1_ _ J _ _ L_ _ - _ _ �{Il[{ e 1 I I I I 1 1 I 1 - -1 1 III I 1 I I II II I I - §13 e.� 1 1 -- - 1-- - I - - 1- - -I- - T - -1- - 1 - - r - _ - 7 - -1- - 1 - -r - -I- -1- - 1 - - r- r - T - I- - T- -I- - -I- - T - ' ' 'pa 1 - I I _ I . -I _ _ 1 _I. J _ -.. L _ 1- _ 1 ._ _1_ _ _1 _ _ L_ _ _I _ L _ _I_ _ J _ _. L _ _I_ _ 1 _ _I_ _ J _ _ I. _ `$ _- " A I I 1 1 I I I I I I-_ __ I I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I I i ...... .o -, _ T - _1__ _ .1 _ _ r _ _I- _ r _ -1_ __ , _ _ 1 _. - _ _ T _ _1_ _ -1 _ _I- - _I_ _ T _ _I_ _ -1 - _r _ -I_ _ T _I_ _ -I I_ __ °o. -I _ 1 _ _I_ _ J _ _ L _ _I_ _ 1 _ _I_ _ J_ _ L _ _ -1 _ 1 _ _I_ _ _I _ _ L _ _I__ 1 _ _I_ _ J _ _L _ _I_ _ 1 _ _1_ _ J _ _ L_ y■ - -.v l/I((1�)G I I I I I 1 I I I I- _, I I I I I I I I I I 11= e //�`�uQ1� .1„....17,,,..=. - . L, I �_r • 'o w err o r e* A..`ir,. ili JUl ' : .: 1rr: �,.- ',gyp4,� Z L - _ _I_ _ J _ _L _ _I_ _ 1 _ _I_ _ J _ _ L _ _I_ _ I_ _ L I I L I III I I /�'O % i • . .d9 _ I 1 I II I I 1 I i - = 1 I I I I 1 I 1 ^ �\ /.P�ri'_ 1 r I T I l r I -I- - r - -I- - 1 - r- -1 ` w . . .4 a a-1- _ J _ _L - -I- - 1 - -I- - J- - L - -1- - 1- L - -1 1 J L I I 1 I I I 0 ✓''- / )��-•°1DI - I I I I f I I I I 1 • /°J`' / / • �= I I 1 I I I I I ^p (/) C° = r - -I- T -I- - 1 - - r - - - - -1 I r T I- r I -t r ,�a' / All - _ I- - J - -L - -1- - 1 _ _1_ - J _ _ L - -1- - -I- —1 L - - - - 1 - -1- - J- - L - _1- - '...- //'_y_ / / D 3Z `_.:. ° - I I I I I I I I i _ I • r�">, ..�'o 's'/•/ I N eo� 1 - r - I T -I l r - I r - I _ - ��•• e� i ? r I l fl l /O p m z z •rp sli,,.,.47/::11._Jr_t .1r t ..1'.1--.../1* 11.•':!•'.'8ti. 19r_'.'�-_1f *. ,flr'-y /�i c' „ /// _ I ,1 >3 0� •'I I Stl I I '1 111- 1 O 1 IIIII WWII 11 O.••'•111 IIII 1 1111..000 0€€111 -I I I O I 111111 III 1•Ilq `Ie° • - - �- I jJ.� w 3 O=Or 1.. 'o11167.1gt, t.c r 11 1111 I I I I I • 1 I 1 I 1111111111 0 I I I I _ I _ tpi cful ✓.+ ``_'s-"° ktislteSeD CS I Q �� m Z I 11 IIII 10_f1 �_ I I I I- �5.,'. -..°..Q.o°�gpoov^...5°� o..o`o Fvo 0 I Veo°p.c 1 I-I ` ,- EEK _ / LI p Li I IIIII„ I,J 1 I I -•:_ -=fif. :':':':•:''Icy j. ---- 0 _I_.J._I_._._I_ _Ioo . . :. � I 1 I I 1 I — oo /- I I I I •O p' - - SCALE r env i —I- t -I- 1 -I' Lo l�ol..°. �+ .� DATE asae I.: _I I I I ` ,e 4 ,4 1 i puwra BY c.r 01 I ; I CHECKED eV NJ. 1 —11 — 1 1 I T ,Jo°°/ ..reKr•Ec c.,,a,ice .up e. I I I Ao F ( -� �., •in. r -___ . REVISIONS. ef-IIIIIIIIIII;o" 4,:%--/ jiiliiilliliillfa b , ' iv1 !o ^"/ _ I Via::.; /: ,, I I d,:.,:_ ,, �/ I -See Sheet L-2 for Landscape Leg_nd and Planting Det its . . . J - - - -----_---- PRELIMINARY CAAII)SCAPE PLAN SHEET N Ep S.W.43RD STREET PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE SCHEDULE ^ IN SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZES CONDITRON j' IN Shade Is- .rimsPeorrmn P e...v N.EMS Ia..s.e. II :; Rim® Aur j! Auegnaw..u.. u..un vim whrvpr I...we.°.° T 2 TogEgn s. a . P.v...R TTN rag CFR, "ll in EvND°..n Troop MA INS.,NW.I..ry -IA, a. . Ili a0 u'°p.m. w. �wl...C... to Warw.NG • .v..nw um.. RANT. 'l torus Shrub. MK A•..L.m.e...... ......... Agg_ mog •rgll ew• Dwarf...my T "�+° DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTING I.J.pwluu O NTS �VyG e.w Mlot • .....ray, I2 .war Dw.0. PN.. I Pen.g.I L.., STATE II Sisal Shut.gowns M. H E M..,amoor a G..J2 bp, Mr.'.way°m.c....... T.,- u Yawn Ie., Erg Dig A.p..r....y ulna... Ownelma...woo. Rag...01...e. Q 00 Fug.I.'°"°Wf..' Otto L.f..Lw.I II OroundeovM up.Yw.w.. a.. c w a-from.e g. C s r NMi of cal, r'along ge \...".... • I.'.'I Rough ems S..G S...p.pITK.KO. >-- ww..e... AL s..aw orsogaw Lawn us speculum.r. WV . EVERGREEN TREE PLANTING 1 • ,(•I Existing Significant Iron To S.RN.IAN '.....•..b preu. Ca Ili Q _ W `o J `~ PLANTING NOTES y °¢ Yw ALL.EW LAfDSCAPE AREAS ARE TO SE WATERED Win..AYTONATIC ,It WATER CONSERVE.MR.ATION SYSTEM 1 ALL NEW YnWG AND G T E M 1.COFER ARE.A TO SE LC TE W D ..i ; 0 A EODr•ua x"DEFT.W S.gOpIFD MLC.. i W .. __ .........m.. I/L ERE GIW OCOVER I.PROVIDED.IT.MALL OE MADDED AT T t-1 4:..I u, SPECIRED.PAC..T.IV✓v.'*IT TE EEO.SP TO SOLI FROM TREE.AND IS'MEM SLAGS.START FIRST ROE IV FROM EDGE OF MO ..REFER TO"'"D.ICATIONS p0R ADDITuwL REOJIRE.IESTS O Si-RUB PLANTING C MS 0 SCALE. .S No,Eo DATE: 2 .0 DRAWN BY .AP CHECKED RV ..AW " REVISIONS. L LANDSCAPE LEGEND AND PLANTING DETAILS SHEER NUMBER • CITY OF RENTON CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION ..... AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 1941 day of tAllkil , 1998, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing P.cc deltniAt o-ttc t documents. This information was sent to: Name Representing Department of Ecology Don Hu-ter WSDOT KC Wastewater Treatment Division Larry Fisher Washington Department of Fisheries David F. Dietzman Department of Natural Resources Shirley Lukhang Seattle Public Utilities Duwamish Indian Tribe Rod MaIcom Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Joe Jai iga Puget Sound Energy (Signature of Sender) dyA F• s{ STATE OF WASHINGTON ) SS COUN IY OF KING I certify/ that I know or have satisfactory evidence that 1 4fLa. signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for--the uses and purposes mentioned inthe instrument. Dated: /r ) -/by/C(-1 - `T 1 r ; , <�9- Notary Publi in and for the State of hington Notary (Print) ,AARILVN KAMCWFFF My appointment ex Projec Name: Oak.csdale 'ems RUSS CaMPUI Project Number: LUPt • 9$ OZI SSA EC.#?, sw- NOTARY.[)0C • CIT` OF RENTON NIL I Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator March 18 1998 Washington State Department of Ecology Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia, NA 98504-7703 Subject: Environmental Determinations Transmitt:d herewith is a copy of the Environmental Determination and Environmental Checklist for the following project reviewed Dy the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) on March 17, 1998: DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED O4KESDALE BUSINESS CAMPUS/LUA-98-021,SA-H,SM,ECF P oposal for five warehouse/office structures ranging from approximately 62,300 sq. ft. to 151,800 sq. ft. for a tctal of 576,887 sq.ft. in gross floor area. The buildings would be one story tilt-up concrete structures with a maximum building height of 35 feet. The buildings may include mezzanine or two story office areas. Truck maneuvering and loading dock areas are located internally on the site, with office areas facing adjacent streets. P irking spaces are provided for 591 vehicles around the perimeters of the buildings. Access is proposed from one driveway off SW 43rd Street from the southwest corner of the site and via two driveways off Oakesdale Ave. S N. The south driveway off Oakesdale Avenue SW is intended for truck access and is aligned with SW 41st S.reet. This driveway would bridge Springbrook Creek. Location: NW corner of sW 43rd Street and Oakesdale A.tenue SW, North of Springbrook Creek. Commen s regarding the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM April 6, 1998. Ani aggrieved person feeling that the environmental determination of the Environmental Review Committee is based on ;3rroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence that could not be reasonably available at the time of the determination may submit written comments. After review of the comments, if the Envirc nmental Review Committee finds there is not sufficient evidence to amend its original determination, then there will be no further extension of the appeal period. Any person wishing to take further action would need to file a formal appeal within the original 15-day timeframe. Written comments must be filed with: Jana Huerter, Land Use Review SI ipervisor, City of Renton Development Services Division, 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals of the environmental determination [RCW 43.21.0075(3), WAC 197-11-680] must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM April 6, 1998. If no appeals are filed by this date, the action will become final. Appeals must be filed in writing toc ether with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, V''A 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11 B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 235- 2501. If you have questions, please call me at (425) 235-2719. For the Environmental Review Committee, 670+ Peter Rosen Project Manager cc: King County Wastewater Treatment Division LUirry Fisher, Department of Fisheries David F. Dietzman, Department of Natural Resources Dnn Hurter, Department of Transportation SI iirley Lukhang, Seattle Public Utilities D�iwamish Tribal Office Rigid Malcom, Fisheries, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe (Ordinance) Jc a Jainga, Puget Sound Energy AGNCYLTR.)OC\ 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 CIT' OF RENTON ..u. Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator March 19, 1998 Mr. Roland C)Iliander CNA Architecture 777 - 108th NE#400 Bellevue, WA 98004-5118 SUBJECT: Oakesdale Business Campus Project No. LUA-98-021,SA-H,SM,ECF Dear Mr. Coll ander: This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) and is to advise you that they have completed thoir review of the subject project. The ERC, on March 17, 1998, issued a threshold Determination of Non- Significance-Mitigated with Mitigation Measures. See the enclosed Mitigation Measures document. Comments regarding the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM April 6, 1998. Any a;lgrieved person feeling that the environmental determination of the Environmental Review Committee is based on errs neous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence that could not be reasonabl!; available at the time of the determination may submit written comments. After review of the comments, if the Environrr ental Review Committee finds there is not sufficient evidence to amend its original determination, then there will be further extension of the appeal period. Any person wishing to take further action would need to file a formal appea within the original 15-day timeframe. Written comments must be filed with: Jana Huerter, Land Use Review Sup( rvisor, City of Renton Development Services Division, 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals of the environmental determination [RCW 43.21.0075(3), WAC 197-11-680] must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 F'M April 6, 1998. 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, 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 235- 2501. A Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner at his regular meeting in the Council Chambers on the second floor ill City Hall, Renton, Washington, on April 14, 1998 at 9:00 AM to consider the Site Plan Approval (SA). The applicant or representative(s) of the applicant is required to be present at the public hearing. A copy of the staff report will be mailed to you one week before the hearing. If the Environmental Determination is appealed, the appeal will be heard as part of this public hearing. 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) 235-2719. For the Environmental Review Committee, Ce*L_ Peter Rosen Project Mana]er cc: Zelm:rn Renton LLC/Owners Enclosure DNSMI TR nob 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055. CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-098-021, SA-H, SM, ECF APPLICANT: Zelman Renton L.L.0 PROJECT NAME: Oakesdale Business Campus DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Proposal for five warehouse/office structures ranging from approximately 62,300 sq. ft. to 151,800 sq. ft. for a total of 576,887 sq.ft. in gross floor area. The buildings would be one story tilt-up concrete structures with a maximum building height of 35 feet. The buildings may include mezzanine or two story office areas. Truck maneuvering and loading dock areas are located internally on the site, with office areas facing adjacent streets. Parking spaces are provided for 591 vehicles around the perimeters of the buildings. Access is proposed from one driveway off SW 43rd Street from the southwest corner of the site and via two driveways off Oakesdale Ave. SW. The south driveway off Oakesdale Avenue SW is intended for truck access and is aligned with SW 41st Street. This driveway would bridge Springbrook Creek LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: Northwest corner of SW 43rd Street and Oakesdale Avenue SW, north of Springbrook Creek MITIGATION MEASURES: 1. Temporary Erosion Control shall be installed and maintained to the satisfaction of the representative of the Development Services Division for the duration of the project. Weekly reports shall be submitted on the status and condition of the erosion control plan with any recommendations of change or revision to maintenance schedules or installation submitted by the Project Engineer of record to the Public Works Inspector. Certification of the installation, maintenance and proper removal of the erosion control facilities shall be required prior to Temporary Certificate of Occupancy. 2. The design of the concrete box bridge over Springbrook Creek shall meet the requirements of the 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton. A hydraulic analysis shall demonstrate that the proposed project would not increase the 100- year water surface elevations in Springbrook Creek. The analysis must use the 100-year flows listed in the City's East Side Green River Watershed Project Plan dated September 1997. The 100-year flow just upstream of Oakesdale Avenue is 1165 cfs (Plan Table 8-2). The City will provide the HEC-RAS hydraulic model for the applicant's Engineer to use in designing the box and assessing hydraulic impacts of the project on Springbrook Creek flows and elevations. The suitability of the proposed final project design shall be confirmed using the City's FEQ hydraulic model. The design of the concrete box bridge shall be subject to the approval of the Renton Stormwater Utility prior to issuance of building permits. 3. Wetland A in the northwest corner of the site meets the City's definition of a Class I wetland and requires a 100 foot buffer width. The proposal includes only a 50 foot buffer width. The applicant shall modify the site plan and wetland mitigation plan to comply with the buffer width requirement or with alternative provisions as allowed under the Wetland Management Ordinance. Revisions to the site plan and wetland mitigation plan shall be subject to the approval of the Development Services Division prior to the issuance of building permits. 4. The applicant shall revise the site plan and the wetland mitigation plan to provide the required wetland replacement mitigation ratio of 1.5:1. Alternatively, the applicant may use a Wetlands Evaluation Technique (or recognized equivalent method) to establish that the functions and values of the impacted wetland are being replaced in lieu of mitigation according to the required replacement ratio, consistent with Section 4-32-6.C.7. The final wetland mitigation plan shall be subject to the approval of the Development Services Division prior to the issuance of building permits. Oakesdale Business Campus LUA•98-021,SA-H,SM,ECF Mitigation Measures (Continued) Page 2 of 2 5. The wetland mitigation plan indicates a created wetland area proposed on the City-owned property to the west of the subject site. This created wetland connects to Wetland A (Orillia Pond wetland). The final wetland mitigation plan shall address the potential environmental impacts of creating a wetland connected to the existing Class I wetland. In addition, the design of the wetland mitigation shall not result in creating a new overflow route for overbank flooding of the creek that could impact Wetland A or other properties to the north. The final wetland mitigation plan shall provide an analysis of these potential impacts. 6. The final wetland mitigation plan shall be revised to indicate the existing box culvert buried under SW 43rd Street and note that the box culvert may be made operational under a separate, future City of Kent project to function as an overflow route for high flows. 7. The proposed wetland bench adjacent to the north side of Springbrook Creek is within the right- of-way of Drainage District No.1. In order to successfully establish a wetland in this area, it would need to be excluded from the District's vegetation maintenance program. The applicant shall provide evidence of formal approval from the District commissioners to exclude this area from the District's vegetation maintenance program. 8. The final wetland mitigation plan shall incorporate the following comments: 1. The wetland mitigation plan shall include a revegetation plan for all areas along the creek up to the edge of the parking lots. All revegetation south of the parking lot, including landscaping of the storm water ponds, shall merge seamlessly with the wetland plantings. The revegetation along the entire riparian corridor shall be subject to the same 5 year monitoring program and performance standards as required for the wetland areas, in accordance with the Wetland Management Ordinance. 2. The maximum slope along the creek shall be revised to a maximum of 3 to 1, up to the level of the 100-year flood or to the upper edge of the proposed wetland buffer, which ever is farthest upslope. The wetland mitigation plan must be designed to avoid fish stranding. 3. Fish habitat improvements (woody debris) shall be installed along the creek. These improvements are to be shown on the plans and activities that would disturb the improvements must be avoided. 4. The created wetland areas shall be constructed low enough to be inundated by backwater from normal lows in the creek and shall be designed to avoid fish stranding. Normal flow levels at a stream gage just upstream of SW 43rd Street are generally around 11.5 feet (NAVD 1988 datum). 5. The applicant must meet all the requirements of the Wetland Management Ordinance for mitigations plans (Section 4-32-6H) including a monitoring program, contingency plan, posting of performance and maintenance surety devices, and other requirements. 9. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee at a rate of$0.52 per square foot of new construction. The Fire Mitigation Fee is payable prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 10. The applicant shall be required to pay a Traffic Mitigation Fee of$75 for each average daily trip associated with the project. The traffic mitigation fee is estimated at $268,125 (3,575 trips x$75 = $268,125.00). This fee is payable prior to issuance of Building Permits. 11. The applicant shall provide a fair share contribution toward the cost of a new traffic signal at the intersection of SW 41st Street and Oakesdale Avenue SW. The determination of the cost shall be subject to the approval of the Planning/Building/Public Works Department, prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 12. The Construction Mitigation Plan shall be revised to restrict haul hours to between 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. unless approved in advance by the Development Services Division. The revised Construction Mitigation Plan shall be submitted for approval prior to issuance of Construction Permits. CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) ADVISORY NOTES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-098-021, SA-H, SM, ECF APPLICANT: Zelman Renton L.L.0 PR?JECT NAME: Oakesdale Business Campus DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Proposal for five warehouse/office structures ranging from approximately 62,300 sq. ft. to 151,800 sq. ft. for a total of 576,887 sq.ft. in gross floor area. The buildings would be one story tilt-up concrete structures with a maximum building height of 35 feet. The buildings may include mezzanine or two story office areas. Truck maneuvering and loading dock areas are located internally on the site, with office areas facing adjacent streets. Parking spaces are provided for 591 vehicles around the perimeters of the buildings. Access is proposed from one driveway off SW 43rd Street from the southwest corner of the site and via two driveways off Oakesdale Ave. SW. The south driveway off Oakesdale Avenue SW is intended for truck access and is aligned with SW 41st Street. This driveway would bridge Springbrook Creek LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: Northwest corner of SW 43rd Street and Oakesdale Avenue SW, north of Springbrook Creek 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. FIRE 1. The maximum fire flow required is 5,750 gpm. Six fire hydrants are required. One fire hydrant is required within 150 feet of the proposed structures and five fire hydrants are required within 300 feet of the structures. A looped water main is required to be installed around the building. The available fire flow in this area is approximately 5,184 gpm. The applicant shall modify the project in order to meet the required fire flow. 2. An approved fire sprinkler system is required to be installed throughout all structures. 3. An approved fire alarm system may be required to be installed throughout the structures. P N REVIEW T nsportation 1. akesdale Avenue SW-A five (5) foot sidewalk is required with the back edge located at the property Iin with the planter strip between the curb and sidewalk. The planter strip must be a minimum of five (5) fe t or greater. 2. Construction plans to be per City of Renton specifications and drafting standards. Water 1. The System Development Connection charge for water is $210,736.75. The fee is based on the total site acreage of 43.932 acres. A fee segregation could be requested to just cover phase II and III which would reduce the fee based on 31.631 acres. 2. The required fire flow per the Fire Department is 5750 gpm. The only available fire flow is approximately 5100 gpm. The applicant will need to work with the Fire Department to lower the fire flow requirement for the buildings. Construction plans cannot be approved without a lower fire flow requirement. 3. A 15 foot minimum utility easement required for the water on-site system. Oakesdale Business Campus LUX 98-021,SA-H,SM,ECF Advi ,ory Notes (Continued) PagE 2 4. The applicant is to insure the buildings are not built over the existing 12-inch water line. 5. Construction plans are to meet City of Renton drafting standards and specifications. Wastewater 1. The System Development Connection charge for waste water is $ 145,464.31. The fee is based on the total site acreage of 43.932 acres. A fee segregation could be requested to just cover phase II and III whic i would reduce the fee based on 31.631 acres. 2. Tt e Developer is to insure no buildings are built over the existing east west Metro sewer line. The exist ng utility easement to be shown on the construction plans. 3. If he project produces fats, oils or grease then the applicant must provide an appropriate removal systE m. 4. Warehousing and manufacturing facilities with a fire sprinkler system must install floor drains that are tight)fined to the sanitary sewer system. 5. St ow vertical clearances where utility lines cross. Star nwater 1. Tt e Surface Water System Development Connection charge is$138,460.86. Show utility vertical cros::ing separations on construction plans. 3. Fl)or elevation of proposed buildings must be 1 foot above the 100-year flood elevation. 4. Tt e plans need to show and label all wetland and stream buffers and the shoreline boundary. 5. It seems that the elevation datum used is between the NAVD 1988 and NGVD 1929 datums. The benchmarks upon which the existing and design elevations are based need to be included on the cover sheet. An elevation relating the site datum to NAVD 1988 must be shown in the space provided on the Renton title block. 6. Tt e applicant is responsible for obtaining approvals of other agencies with jurisdiction for the proposed work along the creek (State Fish &Wildlife, Department of Ecology, Drainage District No. 1, Corp of Engi leers, etc.). 7. Tt e storm drainage report needs to show the amount of 100-year floodplain storage filled by the project is less than the amount of compensatory storage created. 8. A permit will be required from Drainage District No.1 for any work within the District's right-of-way along t the creek. The District will want to work with the applicant to revise their 40 foot right-of-way so that t follows the centerline of the existing creek and not diverge away from the creek as the plans currE ntly show. Plan Review- General 1. 411 plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards. 2. A construction permit is required. When plans are complete three copies of the drawings, two copies of the drainage report, a construction estimate, application and appropriate fee shall be submitted to the fourth floor counter. POLICE Police estimate 298 calls for service annually, based on the size of the business. This area of Renton repo is a high number of commercial burglary, auto theft and thefts from vehicles. To help prevent these type:, of crimes, recommend the applicant to install security lighting in the parking lots around the build ngs, use heavy-duty, solid-core doors with deadbolt locks, install an alarm system. Durirg the construction phase, this business will probably experience thefts of construction materials, tools generators, and burglary. Recommend security fencing be placed around the site during the construction phase, and posted with the correct "No Trespassing" signs. Oakesdale Business Campus LUA-98-021,SA-H,SM,ECF Advisory Notes (Continued) Page 3 Businesses in this area of Renton reported 37% of all commercial burglaries in 1997. The preferred items to steal were cash, tools and computers. All office equipment and tools will need to have the model and serial numbers recorded in the event of theft, to aid in recovering the property. If a portable construction trailer is used as an office during construction, it will need heavy-duty metal doors with dead-bolt locks. Any windows should be covered by metal bars or grills to help prevent breakage and illegal entry. The construction site needs to be fully lighted during the hours of darkness. The applicant might also consider the use of private security or off-duty police officers to secure the property. Construction sites accounted for 9% of all burglary in 1997. PARKS Parks recommends an easement and construction of a 10 foot wide asphalt trail located on the north side of Springbrook Creek, within the 25 foot Shoreline setback area. The trail is identified on the site in the Comprehensive Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan -Trails Master Plan as the Springbrook Creek Trail. The requirement for a trail will be addressed as part of the Shorelines Substantial Development Permit. PLANNING The applicant shall receive approval of a Forest Practices Permit from the Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) prior to clearing trees from the site. • CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-098-021, SA-H, SM, ECF APPLICANT: Zelman Renton L.L.0 PROJECT NAME: Oakesdale Business Campus DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Proposal for five warehouse/office structures ranging from approximately 62,300 sq. ft. to 1!:1,800 sq. ft. for a total of 576,887 sq.ft. in gross floor area. The buildings would be one story tilt-up concrete structures with a maximum building height of 35 feet. The buildings may include mezzanine or two story office areas. Truck maneuvering and loading dock areas are located internally on the site, with office areas facing adjacent streets. Parking spaces are provided for 591 vehicles around the perimeters of the buildings. Access is proposed from one driveway off SW 43rd Street from the southwest corner of the site and via two driveways off Oakesdale Ave. SW. The south driveway off Oakesdale Avenue SW is intended for truck access and is aligned with SW 41st Street. This driveway In ould bridge Springbrook Creek LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: Northwest corner of SW 43rd Street and Oakesdale Avenue SW, north of Springbrook Creek LEAD AGE NCY: City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section The City cf Renton Environmental Review Committee has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21 C.030(2)(c). Conditions were imposed as mitigation measures by the Environmental Review Committee under their authority oi` Section 4-6-6 Renton Municipal Code. These conditions are necessary to mitigate environmental impacts identified during the environmental review process. Comment:; regarding the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM April 6, 1998. Any aggrieved person feeling that the environmental determination of the Environmental Review Committee is based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence that could not be reasons bly available at the time of the determination may submit written comments. After review of the comments, if the Environmental Review Committee finds there is not sufficient evidence to amend its original determination, then there will b; no further extension of the appeal period. Any person wishing to take further action would need to file a formal appeal within the original 15-day timeframe. Written comments must be filed with: Jana Huerter, Land Use Review Supervisor, City of Renton Development Services Division, 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals o"either the environmental determination [RCW 43.21.0075(3), WAC 197-11-680] and/or the land use decision n rust be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM April 6, 1998. If no appeals are filed by this date, both actions will becom, final. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, 'City of Renton, 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Mu licipal Code Section 4-8-11 B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton Cit r Clerk's Office, (425) 235-2501. PUBLICATION DATE: March 23, 1998 DATE OF DECISION: March 17, 1998 SIGNATUF;ES: lcy 111 Gregg Zi r , Ad Inistrator DATE/ Depart enof annin /Buildin /Public Works P9 9 / Jim Sheph�r DATE 7 Facilities Department ��� �� �1 /7 ,- t eWheeler, re Chief DATE Renton Fire Department DNSMSIG.DC C CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) AP PLICATION NO(S): LUA-098-021, SA-H, SM, ECF AP PLICANT: Zelman Renton L.L.0 PF OJECT NAME: Oakesdale Business Campus DE SCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Proposal for five warehouse/office structures ranging from ap)roximately 62,300 sq. ft. to 151,800 sq. ft. for a total of 576,887 sq.ft. in gross floor area. The bu Idings would be one story tilt-up concrete structures with a maximum building height of 35 feet. The bu Idings may include mezzanine or two story office areas. Truck maneuvering and loading dock areas arE located internally on the site, with office areas facing adjacent streets. Parking spaces are provided for 591 vehicles around the perimeters of the buildings. Access is proposed from one driveway off SW 43 d Street from the southwest corner of the site and via two driveways off Oakesdale Ave. SW. The south driveway off Oakesdale Avenue SW is intended for truck access and is aligned with SW 41st Street. This driveway would bridge Springbrook Creek LC CATION OF PROPOSAL: Northwest corner of SW 43rd Street and Oakesdale Avenue SW, north of Springbrook Creek MITIGATION MEASURES: 1. Temporary Erosion Control shall be installed and maintained to the satisfaction of the representative of the Development Services Division for the duration of the project. Weekly reports shall be submitted on the status and condition of the erosion control plan with any recommendations of change or revision to maintenance schedules or installation submitted by the Project Engineer of record to the Public Works Inspector. Certification of the installation, maintenance and proper removal of the erosion control facilities shall be required prior to Temporary Certificate of Occupancy. 2. The design of the concrete box bridge over Springbrook Creek shall meet the requirements of the 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton. A hydraulic analysis shall demonstrate that the proposed project would not increase the 100- year water surface elevations in Springbrook Creek. The analysis must use the 100-year flows listed in the City's East Side Green River Watershed Project Plan dated September 1997. The 100-year flow just upstream of Oakesdale Avenue is 1165 cfs (Plan Table 8-2). The City will provide the HEC-RAS hydraulic model for the applicant's Engineer to use in designing the box and assessing hydraulic impacts of the project on Springbrook Creek flows and elevations. The suitability of the proposed final project design shall be confirmed using the City's FEQ hydraulic model. The design of the concrete box bridge shall be subject to the approval of the Renton Stormwater Utility prior to issuance of building permits. 3. Wetland A in the northwest corner of the site meets the City's definition of a Class I wetland and requires a 100 foot buffer width. The proposal includes only a 50 foot buffer width. The applicant shall modify the site plan and wetland mitigation plan to comply with the buffer width requirement or with alternative provisions as allowed under the Wetland Management Ordinance. Revisions to the site plan and wetland mitigation plan shall be subject to the approval of the Development Services Division prior to the issuance of building permits. 4. The applicant shall revise the site plan and the wetland mitigation plan to provide the required wetland replacement mitigation ratio of 1.5:1. Alternatively, the applicant may use a Wetlands Evaluation Technique (or recognized equivalent method) to establish that the functions and values of the impacted wetland are being replaced in lieu of mitigation according to the required replacement ratio, consistent with Section 4-32-6.C.7. The final wetland mitigation plan shall be subject to the approval of the Development Services Division prior to the issuance of building permits. OE kesdale Business Campus LU A-98-021,SA-H,SM,ECF Mi igation Measures (Continued) Pa,je2of2 5. The wetland mitigation plan indicates a created wetland area proposed on the City-owned property to the west of the subject site. This created wetland connects to Wetland A (Orillia Pond wetland). The final wetland mitigation plan shall address the potential environmental impacts of creating a wetland connected to the existing Class I wetland. In addition, the design of the wetland mitigation shall not result in creating a new overflow route for overbank flooding of the creek that could impact Wetland A or other properties to the north. The final wetland mitigation plan shall provide an analysis of these potential impacts. 6. The final wetland mitigation plan shall be revised to indicate the existing box culvert buried under SW 43rd Street and note that the box culvert may be made operational under a separate, future City of Kent project to function as an overflow route for high flows. 7. The proposed wetland bench adjacent to the north side of Springbrook Creek is within the right- of-way of Drainage District No.1. In order to successfully establish a wetland in this area, it would need to be excluded from the District's vegetation maintenance program. The applicant shall provide evidence of formal approval from the District commissioners to exclude this area from the District's vegetation maintenance program. 8. The final wetland mitigation plan shall incorporate the following comments: 1. The wetland mitigation plan shall include a revegetation plan for all areas along the creek up to the edge of the parking lots. All revegetation south of the parking lot, including landscaping of the storm water ponds, shall merge seamlessly with the wetland plantings. The revegetation along the entire riparian corridor shall be subject to the same 5 year monitoring program and performance standards as required for the wetland areas, in accordance with the Wetland Management Ordinance. 2. The maximum slope along the creek shall be revised to a maximum of 3 to 1, up to the level of the 100-year flood or to the upper edge of the proposed wetland buffer, which ever is farthest upslope. The wetland mitigation plan must be designed to avoid fish stranding. 3. Fish habitat improvements (woody debris) shall be installed along the creek. These improvements are to be shown on the plans and activities that would disturb the improvements must be avoided. 4. The created wetland areas shall be constructed low enough to be inundated by backwater from normal lows in the creek and shall be designed to avoid fish stranding. Normal flow levels at a stream gage just upstream of SW 43rd Street are generally around 11.5 feet (NAVD 1988 datum). 5. The applicant must meet all the requirements of the Wetland Management Ordinance for mitigations plans (Section 4-32-6H) including a monitoring program, contingency plan, posting of performance and maintenance surety devices, and other requirements. 9. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee at a rate of$0.52 per square foot of new construction. The Fire Mitigation Fee is payable prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 10. The applicant shall be required to pay a Traffic Mitigation Fee of$75 for each average daily trip associated with the project. The traffic mitigation fee is estimated at $268,125 (3,575 trips x$75 = $268,125.00). This fee is payable prior to issuance of Building Permits. 11. The applicant shall provide a fair share contribution toward the cost of a new traffic signal at the intersection of SW 41st Street and Oakesdale Avenue SW. The determination of the cost shall be subject to the approval of the Planning/Building/Public Works Department, prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 12. The Construction Mitigation Plan shall be revised to restrict haul hours to between 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. unless approved in advance by the Development Services Division. The revised Construction Mitigation Plan shall be submitted for approval prior to issuance of Construction Permits. CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) ADVISORY NOTES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-098-021, SA-H, SM, ECF APPLICANT: Zelman Renton L.L.0 PROJECT NAME: Oakesdale Business Campus DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Proposal for five warehouse/office structures ranging from aF proximately 62,300 sq. ft. to 151,800 sq. ft. for a total of 576,887 sq.ft. in gross floor area. The b�ildings would be one story tilt-up concrete structures with a maximum building height of 35 feet. The bi ildings may include mezzanine or two story office areas. Truck maneuvering and loading dock areas are located internally on the site, with office areas facing adjacent streets. Parking spaces are provided fo_ 591 vehicles around the perimeters of the buildings. Access is proposed from one driveway off SW 4:rd Street from the southwest corner of the site and via two driveways off Oakesdale Ave. SW. The scuth driveway off Oakesdale Avenue SW is intended for truck access and is aligned with SW 41st Street. This driveway would bridge Springbrook Creek LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: Northwest corner of SW 43rd Street and Oakesdale Avenue SW, north of Springbrook Creek A'ivisory Notes to Applicant: Ti le 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. FIRE 1. The maximum fire flow required is 5,750 gpm. Six fire hydrants are required. One fire hydrant is required within 150 feet of the proposed structures and five fire hydrants are required within 300 feet of the structures. A looped water main is required to be installed around the building. The available fire flaw in this area is approximately 5,184 gpm. The applicant shall modify the project in order to meet the required fire flow. 2. An approved fire sprinkler system is required to be installed throughout all structures. 3. An approved fire alarm system may be required to be installed throughout the structures. PLAN REVIEW Transportation 1. Oakesdale Avenue SW-A five (5) foot sidewalk is required with the back edge located at the property lire with the planter strip between the curb and sidewalk. The planter strip must be a minimum of five (5) feet or greater. 2. Construction plans to be per City of Renton specifications ar.d drafting standards. V ater 1. The System Development Connection charge for water is $210,736.75. The fee is based on the total si e acreage of 43.932 acres. A fee segregation could be requested to just cover phase II and III which would reduce the fee based on 31.631 acres. 2. The required fire flow per the Fire Department is 5750 gpm. The only available fire flow is approximately 5100 gpm. The applicant will need to work with the Fire Department to lower the fire flow requirement for the buildings. Construction plans cannot be approved without a lower fire flow requirement. 3. A 15 foot minimum utility easement required for the water on-site system. C akesdale Business Campus L JA-98-021,SA-H,SM,ECF Aivisory Notes (Continued) Page 2 4 The applicant is to insure the buildings are not built over the existing 12-inch water line. 5 Construction plans are to meet City of Renton drafting standards and specifications. Vastewater 1 The System Development Connection charge for waste water is $ 145,464.31. The fee is based on tt e total site acreage of 43.932 acres. A fee segregation could be requested to just cover phase II and III which would reduce the fee based on 31.631 acres. 2 The Developer is to insure no buildings are built over the existing east west Metro sewer line. The existing utility easement to be shown on the construction plans. 3 If the project produces fats, oils or grease then the applicant must provide an appropriate removal system. 4 Warehousing and manufacturing facilities with a fire sprinkler system must install floor drains that are ti lhtlined to the sanitary sewer system. 5 Show vertical clearances where utility lines cross. S tormwater 1 The Surface Water System Development Connection charge is $138,460.86. Show utility vertical c ossing separations on construction plans. 3 Floor elevation of proposed buildings must be 1 foot above the 100-year flood elevation. 4 The plans need to show and label all wetland and stream buffers and the shoreline boundary. 5 It seems that the elevation datum used is between the NAVD 1988 and NGVD 1929 datums. The b 3nchmarks upon which the existing and design elevations are based need to be included on the cover sleet. An elevation relating the site datum to NAVD 1988 must be shown in the space provided on the Fenton title block. 6 The applicant is responsible for obtaining approvals of other agencies with jurisdiction for the proposed work along the creek (State Fish & Wildlife, Department of Ecology, Drainage District No. 1, Corp of Engineers, etc.). 7 The storm drainage report needs to show the amount of 100-year floodplain storage filled by the p.oject is less than the amount of compensatory storage created. 8 A permit will be required from Drainage District No.1 for any work within the District's right-of-way a ong the creek. The District will want to work with the applicant to revise their 40 foot right-of-way so tt at it follows the centerline of the existing creek and not diverge away from the creek as the plans c irrently show. Flan Review- General 1 All plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards. 2 A construction permit is required. When plans are complete three copies of the drawings, two copies of the drainage report, a construction estimate, application and appropriate fee shall be submitted to the fourth floor counter. POLICE Police estimate 298 calls for service annually, based on the size of the business. This area of Renton reports a high number of commercial burglary, auto theft and thefts from vehicles. To help prevent these types of crimes, recommend the applicant to install security lighting in the parking lots around the buildings, use heavy-duty, solid-core doors with deadbolt locks, install an alarm system. Curing the construction phase, this business will probably experience thefts of construction materials, tools, generators, and burglary. Recommend security fencing be placed around the site during the construction phase, and posted with the correct "No Trespassing" signs. C akesdale Business Campus L.JA-98-021,SA-H,SM,ECF Advisory Notes (Continued) Page 3 BLisinesses in this area of Renton reported 37% of all commercial burglaries in 1997. The preferred it ems to steal were cash, tools and computers. All office equipment and tools will need to have the model and serial numbers recorded in the event of theft, to aid in recovering the property. If a portable c)nstruction trailer is used as an office during construction, it will need heavy-duty metal doors with d ad-bolt locks. Any windows should be covered by metal bars or grills to help prevent breakage and illegal entry. The construction site needs to be fully lighted during the hours of darkness. The applicant rr ight also consider the use of private security or off-duty police officers to secure the property. Construction sites accounted for 9% of all burglary in 1997. PARKS Parks recommends an easement and construction of a 10 foot wide asphalt trail located on the north side o Springbrook Creek, within the 25 foot Shoreline setback area. The trail is identified on the site in the Comprehensive Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan - Trails Master Plan as the Springbrook Creek Trail. The requirement for a trail will be addressed as part of the Shorelines Substantial Development Permit. PLANNING Tie applicant shall receive approval of a Forest Practices Permit from the Washington State Department o`Natural Resources (DNR) prior to clearing trees from the site. • NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE RENTON, WASHINGTON Th, Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has issued a Determination of Non-Significance - Mil igated for the following project under the authority of the Renton Municipal Code. OAKESDALE BUSINESS CAMPUS LUA-98-021,SA-H,SM,ECF Environmental Review for five warehouse/office structures. The buildings would be one story tilt-up concrete structures with a maximum building height of 35 feet. Location: NW corner of SW 43rd Street and Oakesdale Avenue SW, North of Springbrook Creek. Thr' 15 day comment and appeal period for this project will run concurrently. The comment/appeal periods for this project will end at 5:00 PM on April 6, 1998. Written comments shall be forwarded to the De.relopment Services Division Land Use Review Supervisor. Information on the project file and the mitigation measures imposed by the City of Renton's Environmental Review Committee are available at the Development Services Division, Third Floor, Municipal Building, Renton, Washington 98055. Phone: 235-2550. Appeal procedures are available in the City Clerk's office, First Floor, Municipal Building. A Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner at his regular meeting in the Council Chambers on the second floor of City Hall, Renton, Washington, on April 14, 1998 at 9:00 AM to cor Sider the Site Plan Approval. If the Environmental Determination is appealed, the appeal will be herd as part of this public hearing. Interested parties are invited to attend the public hearing. Publication Date: March 23, 1998 Account No. 51067 dnsr)pub.dot NOTICE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: OAKESDALE BUSINESS CAMPUS PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-98-021,SA-H,SM,ECF Proposal for five warehouse/office structures ranging from approximately 62,300 sq,ft.to 151,800 sq,ft.for a total of 576,887 sq.ft.in gross floor area. The buildings would be one story lilt-up concrete structures with a maximum building height of 35 feel. The buildings may Include mezzanine or two story olflce areas. Truck maneuvering and loading dock areas are located internally on the site,with office areas facing adjacent streets. Parking spaces are provided for 591 vehicles around the perimeters of the buildings. Access is proposed from one driveway off SW 43rd Street from the southwest corner of the site and via two driveways oil Oakesdale Ave. SW. The south driveway off Oakesdale Avenue SW is Intended for truck access and is aligned with SW 41st Street. This driveway would bridge Springbrook Creek.Location:NW comer of sW 43rd Street and Oakesdale Avenue SW,North of Springbrook Creek. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. Comments regarding the environmental determination must be riled in writing on or before 5:00 PM April 6, 1998.Any aggrieved person feeling that the environmental determination of the Environmental Review Committee Is based on erroneous procedure,errors of law or fact,error in judgment,or the discovery of new evidence that could not be reasonably available at the time of the determination may submit written comments.After review of the comments,it the Environmental Review Committee finds there is not sufficient evidence to amend Its original determination,then there will be no further extension of the appeal period.Any person wishing to take further action would need to file a formal appeal within the original 15-day timeframe.Written comments must be filed with:Jana Wiener,Land Use Review Supervisor,City of Renton Development Services Division,200 Mill Avenue South,Renton,WA 98055. Appeals of the environmental determination[RCW 43.21.0075(3),WAC 197-11.680]must be Bled In writing on or before 5:00 PM April 6,1998.If no appeals are filed by this date,the action will become final.Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required 575.00 application fee with:Hearing Examiner,City of Renton,200 Mill Avenue South, Renton,WA 98055.Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11B. Additional Information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office,(425)235- 2501. A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON THE SECOND FLOOR OF CITY HALL,RENTON, WASHINGTON,ON APRIL 141998 AT 9:00 AM TO CONSIDER THE SITE PLAN APPROVAL(SA). IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION IS APPEALED,THE APPEAL WILL BE HEARD AS PART OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING. .. / - - r i .`---r • . R ' FOR FURTHER INFORMATION,PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON,DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION AT(425)235-2550. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION IPlease include the project NUMBER when calling for proper file identification. I CERTIFICATION I, Sa hd vj Mk n Y1 t k t , hereby certify that 3 copies of the above document were posted by me in 3 conspicuous places on or nearby the described property on 11/11.Yth 26, 19 8 Signed: S6 rICNT,MAAA/14 tti ATTEST: Subcribed ancj,sworn before me, a Nortary Public, in and for the State of �/ Washington residing in,(M' -.A. , on the Q5�1` day of����._ l' 0 1/4 .--Y'Vil ((Ay._ --k-77-v - dce-75--17___ MARILYN KAMCHEFF COMMISSION EXPIRES 6/28189 NOfiQE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJEC1 NAME: OAKESDALE BUSINESS CAMPUS PROJEC1 NUMBER: LUA-98-021,SA-H,SM,ECF Proposal f:)r five warehouse/office structures ranging from approximately 62,300 sq. ft. to 151,800 sq. ft. for a total of 573,887 sq.ft. in gross floor area. The buildings would be one story tilt-up concrete structures with a maximum building height of 35 feet. The buildings may include mezzanine or two story office areas. Truck maneuver ig and loading dock areas are located internally on the site,with office areas facing adjacent streets. Parking sr aces are provided for 591 vehicles around the perimeters of the buildings. Access is proposed from one drive"ay off SW 43rd Street from the southwest corner of the site and via two driveways off Oakesdale Ave. SW. The south driveway off Oakesdale Avenue SW is intended for truck access and is aligned with SW 41st Street. Th's driveway would bridge Springbrook Creek. Location: NW corner of sW 43rd Street and Oakesdale Avenue S1'V,North of Springbrook Creek. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT]. Comments regarding the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM April 6, 1998. Any aggrie%ed person feeling that the environmental determination of the Environmental Review Committee is based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact,error in judgment,or the discovery of new evidence that could not be reasonably ava fable at the time of the determination may submit written comments.After review of the comments,if the Environmental Review Committee finds there is not sufficient evidence to amend its original determination,then there will be no fur her extension of the appeal period. Any person wishing to take further action would need to file a formal appeal with n the original 15-day timeframe. Written comments must be filed with: Jana Huerter,Land Use Review Supervisor,City of Renton Development Services Division,200 Mill Avenue South,Renton,WA 98055. Appeals of the en vironmental determination[RCW 43.21.0075(3),WAC 197-11-680]must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM April 6,1998. 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,200 Mill Avenue South, Renton,WA 9805f. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11 B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office,(425)235- 2501. A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON THE SECOND FLOOR OF CITY HALL, RENTON, WASHINGTON ON APRIL 14 1998 AT 9:00 AM TO CONSIDER THE SITE PLAN APPROVAL (SA). IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION IS APPEALED, THE APPEAL WILL BE HEARD AS PART OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING. lirk • xr r 7 Tilt. r • 'I ` • t 5�� I f I • I y : rr • �" t 1 / •'r' ram. , • 1 //, 7 I rt I I .1 , FOR FURTHI=R INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION AT(425)235-2550. DO NC T REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION Please include the project NUMBER when calling for proper file identification. STA V City of Renton REFORT Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE A. BACKGROUND ERC MEETING DATE March 17, 1998 Project Name Oakesdale Business Campus Applic ant Zelman Renton L.L.C. File N imber LUA-098-021, SA-H, SM, ECF Project Manager Peter Rosen Project Description Proposal for five warehouse/office structures ranging from approximately 62,300 sq. ft. to 151,800 sq. ft. for a total of 576,887 sq.ft. in gross floor area. The buildings would be one story tilt-up concrete structures with a maximum building height of 35 feet. The buildings may include mezzanine or two story office areas. Truck maneuvering and loading dock areas are located internally on the site, with office areas facing adjacent streets. Parking spaces are provided for 591 vehicles around the perimeters of the buildings. Access is proposed from one driveway off SW 43rd Street from the southwest corner of the site and via two driveways off Oakesdale Ave. SW. The south driveway off Oakesdale Avenue SW is intended for truck access and is aligned with SW 41st Street. This driveway would cross Springbrook Creek with a concrete box bridge. There is an on-site remediation action plan that is in the process of development and review under a Consent Decree with the State of Washington Department of Ecology (DOE). This remediation action plan will include leveling and mitigating the two on- site auto fluff piles. There are three delineated wetlands on the site which will be cleaned up and filled under the Consent Decree. Wetland mitigation is proposed along Springbrook Creek, adjacent to the stormwater pond facilities, and off-site on property that the applicant plans to acquire from the City. Project Location Northwest corner of SW 43rd Street and Oakesdale Avenue SW, north of Springbrook Creek. Exist. Bldg. Area gsf Several small metal frame buildings Proposed New Bldg. 576,887 s.f. and outbuildings. Area gsf Site A'ea 32.72 acres Total Building Area gsf 576,887 s.f. RECC MMENDATION Staff recommends that the Environmental Review Committee issue a Determination of-Non-Si.nificance. Mitioated_ ;:.?. 1 ., , .• . L.in.- i , , : , 1 MO . l.)0 i ' . ._ .. ~ a g. -- i_ b `-"ram ... . .. ., 1 • t . i� .. . I . .� 1 V I �l 1 Project Location Map J „'. , Ir"i` er — 6�..'... �.a; +�: , ERCRPT.DOC City of Renton P/B/PW Department Environm 'Review Committee Staff Report OAKESC ALE BUSINESS CAMPUS LUA-98-021, ECF, SA-H REPORT OF MARCH 17, 1998 Page 2 of 11 B. iRECOMMENDATION Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommend that the Responsible Officials make the following Environmental Determination: DETERMINATION OF DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE NON- SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED. Issue DNS with 15 day Appeal Period. X Issue DNS-M with 15 day Comment Period with Concurrent 15 da A••eal Period. Issue DNS with 15 day Comment Period Issue DNS-M with 15 day Comment Period with Concurrent 15 day Appeal Period. followed by a 15 day Appeal Period. C. 11ITIGATION MEASURES 1. Temporary Erosion Control shall be installed and maintained to the satisfaction of the representative of the Development Services Division for the duration of the project. Weekly reports shall be submitted on the status and condition of the erosion control plan with any recommendations of change or revision to maintenance schedules or installation submitted by the Project Engineer of record to the Public Works Inspector. Certification of the installation, maintenance and proper removal of the erosion control facilities shall be required prior to Temporary Certificate of Occupancy. 2. The design of the concrete box bridge over Springbrook Creek shall meet the requirements of the ' 990 King County Surface Water Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton. A hydraulic analysis shall demonstrate that the proposed project would not increase the 100-year water surface elevations in Springbrook Creek. The analysis must use the 100-year flows listed in the City's East Side Green River Watershed Project Plan dated September 1997. The 100-year flow just upstream of Oakesdale Avenue is 1165 cfs (Plan Table 8-2). The City will provide the HEC-RAS hydraulic model for the applicant's Engineer to use in designing the box and assessing hydraulic impacts of the project on Springbrook Creek flows and elevations. The suitability of the proposed final project design shall be confirmed using the City's FEQ hydraulic model. The design of the concrete box bridge shall be subject to the approval of the Renton Stormwater Utility prior to issuance of building permits. 3. Wetland A in the northwest corner of the site meets the City's definition of a Class I wetland and requires a 100 foot buffer width. The proposal includes only a 50 foot buffer width. The applicant shall modify the ite plan and wetland mitigation plan to comply with the buffer width requirement or with alternative provisions as allowed under the Wetland Management Ordinance. Revisions to the site plan and wetland mitigation plan shall be subject to the approval of the Development Services Division prior to the issuance of building permits. 4. The applicant shall revise the site plan and the wetland mitigation plan to provide the required wetland replacement mitigation ratio of 1.5:1. Alternatively, the applicant may use a Wetlands Evaluation Technique (or recognized equivalent method) to establish that the functions and values of the impacted wetland are being replaced in lieu of mitigation according to the required replacement ratio, consistent with Section 4-32-6.C.7. The final wetland mitigation plan shall be subject to the approval of the Development Services Division prior to the issuance of building permits. 5. 1 he wetland mitigation plan indicates a created wetland area proposed on the City-owned property to the west of the subject site. This created wetland connects to Wetland A (Orillia Pond wetland). The final wetland mitigation plan shall address the potential environmental impacts of creating a wetland connected to the existing Class I wetland. In addition, the design of the wetland mitigation shall not r:sult in creating a new overflow route for overbank flooding of the creek that could impact Wetland A or c ther properties to the north. The final wetland mitigation plan shall provide an analysis of these F otential impacts. ERCRPT.0 DC City of Renton P/B/PW Department Environrr 1 Review Committee Staff Report OAKESD ALE BUSINESS CAMPUS LUA-98-021, ECF, SA-H REPORT(,F MARCH 17, 1998 Page 3 of 11 6. - he final wetland mitigation plan shall be revised to indicate the existing box culvert buried under SW ,L3rd Street and note that the box culvert may be made operational under a separate, future City of Kent l)roject to function as an overflow route for high flows. 7. he proposed wetland bench adjacent to the north side of Springbrook Creek is within the right-of-way of I)rainage District No.1. In order to successfully establish a wetland in this area, it would need to be Hxcluded from the District's vegetation maintenance program. The applicant shall provide evidence of l ormal approval from the District commissioners to exclude this area from the District's vegetation i naintenance program. 8. The final wetland mitigation plan shall incorporate the following comments: 1. The wetland mitigation plan shall include a revegetation plan for all areas along the creek up to the edge of the parking lots. All revegetation south of the parking lot, including landscaping of the storm water ponds, shall merge seamlessly with the wetland plantings. The revegetation along the entire riparian corridor shall be subject to the same 5 year monitoring program and performance standards as required for the wetland areas, in accordance with the Wetland Management Ordinance. 2. The maximum slope along the creek shall be revised to a maximum of 3 to 1, up to the level of the 100-year flood or to the upper edge of the proposed wetland buffer, which ever is farthest upslope. The wetland mitigation plan must be designed to avoid fish stranding. 3. Fish habitat improvements (woody debris) shall be installed along the creek. These improvements are to be shown on the plans and activities that would disturb the improvements must be avoided. 4. The created wetland areas shall be constructed low enough to be inundated by backwater from normal lows in the creek and shall be designed to avoid fish stranding. Normal flow levels at a stream gage just upstream of SW 43rd Street are generally around 11.5 feet (NAVD 1988 datum). 5. The applicant must meet all the requirements of the Wetland Management Ordinance for mitigations plans (Section 4-32-6H) including a monitoring program, contingency plan, posting of performance and maintenance surety devices, and other requirements. 9. Ihe applicant shall pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee at a rate of$0.52 per square foot of new ;onstruction. The Fire Mitigation Fee is payable prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 10. Ihe applicant shall be required to pay a Traffic Mitigation Fee of$75 for each average daily trip associated with the project. The traffic mitigation fee is estimated at $268,125 (3,575 trips x $75 = $268,125.00). This fee is payable prior to issuance of Building Permits. 11. Ihe applicant shall provide a fair share contribution toward the cost of a new traffic signal at the ntersection of SW 41 st Street and Oakesdale Avenue SW. The determination of the cost shall be subject to the approval of the Planning/Building/Public Works Department, prior to the issuance of 3uilding Permits. 12. The Construction Mitigation Plan shall be revised to restrict haul hours to between 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Jnless approved in advance by the Development Services Division. The revised Construction Mitigation Alan shall be submitted for approval prior to issuance of Construction Permits. ERCRPT.")OC City of Re ton P/B/PW Department Environrr I Review Committee Staff Report OAKESD.4LE BUSINESS CAMPUS LUA-98-021, ECF, SA-H REPORT C F MARCH 17, 1998 Page 4 of 11 Advisor'Notes to Applicant: The folic•wing 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. FIRE 1. The rr aximum fire flow required is 5,750 gpm. Six fire hydrants are required. One fire hydrant is required within 150 feet of the proposed structures and five fire hydrants are required within 300 feet of the structures. A looped water min is required to be installed around the building. The available fire flow in this area is approximately 5,184 gpm. Tr e applicant shall modify the project in order to meet the required fire flow. 2. An approved fire sprinkler system is required to be installed throughout all structures. 3. An approved fire alarm system may be required to be installed throughout the structures. PLAN REVIEW Transpc rtation 1. Oake::dale Avenue SW- A five (5) foot sidewalk is required with the back edge located at the property line with the planter s trip between the curb and sidewalk. The planter strip must be a minimum of five (5) feet or greater. 2. Const suction plans to be per City of Renton specifications and drafting standards. Water 1. The S ystem Development Connection charge for water is $210,736.75. The fee is based on the total site acreage of 43.93;t acres. A fee segregation could be requested to just cover phase II and III which would reduce the fee based on 31.621 acres. 2. The required fire flow per the Fire Department is 5750 gpm. The only available fire flow is approximately 5100 gpm. The applicant will need to work with the Fire Department to lower the fire flow requirement for the buildings. Construction plans cannot be approved without a lower fire flow requirement. 3. A 15 loot minimum utility easement required for the water on-site system. 4. The applicant is to insure the buildings are not built over the existing 12-inch water line. 5. Construction plans are to meet City of Renton drafting standards and specifications. Wastewater 1. The F.ystem Development Connection charge for waste water is $ 145,464.31. The fee is based on the total site acreage of 43.932 acres. A fee segregation could be requested to just cover phase II and III which would reduce the fee basE d on 31.631 acres. 2. The Developer is to insure no buildings are built over the existing east west Metro sewer line. The existing utility easeme to be shown on the construction plans. 3. If the project produces fats, oils or grease then the applicant must provide an appropriate removal system. 4. Ware lousing and manufacturing facilities with a fire sprinkler system must install floor drains that are tightlined to the sani ary sewer system. 5. Show vertical clearances where utility lines cross. Storm,ater 1. The ; urface Water System Development Connection charge is $138,460.86. Show utility vertical crossing separati)ns on construction plans. 3. Floor elevation of proposed buildings must be 1 foot above the 100-year flood elevation. 4. The Flans need to show and label all wetland and stream buffers and the shoreline boundary. 5. It seems that the elevation datum used is between the NAVD 1988 and NGVD 1929 datums. The benchmarks u•on which the existing and design elevations are based need to be included on the cover sheet. An elevation ERCRPT.DOC City of Rey Pton P/B/PW Department Environrr l Review Committee Staff Report OAKESDALE BUSINESS CAMPUS LUA-98-021, ECF, SA-H REPORT C=MARCH 17, 1998 Page 5 of 11 relating tl ie site datum to NAVD 1988 must be shown in the space provided on the Renton title block. 6. The applicant is responsible for obtaining approvals of other agencies with jurisdiction for the proposed work along the creek (State Fish & Wildlife, Department of Ecology, Drainage District No. 1, Corp of Engineers, etc.). 7. The st)rm drainage report needs to show the amount of 100-year floodplain storage filled by the project is less than the amoi nt of compensatory storage created. 8. A perr iit will be required from Drainage District No.1 for any work within the District's right-of-way along the creek. The District will want to work with the applicant to revise their 40 foot right-of-way so that it follows the centerline of the existiig creek and not diverge away from the creek as the plans currently show. Plan Review- General 1. All rlans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards. 2. A cc nstruction permit is required. When plans are complete three copies of the drawings, two copies of the drai iage report, a construction estimate, application and appropriate fee shall be submitted to the fourth floor cou ger. POLICE Police e!4imate 298 calls for service annually, based on the size of the business. This area of Renton reports a high number of commercial burglary, auto theft and thefts from vehicles. To help prevent these types of crimes, recommlmd the applicant to install security lighting in the parking lots around the buildings, use heavy-duty, solid-core doors wil h deadbolt locks, install an alarm system. During tt,e construction phase, this business will probably experience thefts of construction materials, tools, generatc rs, and burglary. Recommend security fencing be placed around the site during the construction phase, and posted H ith the correct "No Trespassing" signs. Business es in this area of Renton reported 37% of all commercial burglaries in 1997. The preferred items to steal were ca:h, tools and computers. All office equipment and tools will need to have the model and serial numbers recordec in the event of theft, to aid in recovering the property. If a portable construction trailer is used as an office during construction, it will need heavy-duty metal doors with dead-bolt locks. Any windows should be covered by metal be rs or grills to help prevent breakage and illegal entry. The construction site needs to be fully lighted during the hour; of darkness. The applicant might also consider the use of private security or off-duty police officers to secure tl ie property. Construction sites accounted for 9% of all burglary in 1997. PARKS Parks recommends an easement and construction of a 10 foot wide asphalt trail located on the north side of Springbiook Creek, within the 25 foot Shoreline setback area. The trail is identified on the site in the Comprehensive Parks, F ecreation, and Open Space Plan - Trails Master Plan as the Springbrook Creek Trail. The requirement for a trail will )e addressed as part of the Shorelines Substantial Development Permit. PLANNING The app icant shall receive approval of a Forest Practices Permit from the Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) prior to clearing trees from the site. ERCRPT.HOC City of Re Eton P/B/PW Department Environrr 11 Review Committee Staff Report OAKESD ALE BUSINESS CAMPUS LUA-98-021, ECF, SA-H REPORT C F MARCH 17, 1998 Page 6 of 11 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. Whether•the applicant has adequately identified and addressed environmental impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development? 1. Earth Impacts: The site topography is relatively flat ranging from elevation 20 to 24 feet, except within the Springbrook Creek ct annel which is at approximately an elevation of 12 feet. There are two existing auto fluff piles which reach an elevation of 40 feet and have slopes ranging between 15% to 30%. These piles are to be leveled under the remE diation action plan under the Consent Decree with the Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE). According to the Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earth Consultants, Inc., the site is typically underlaii i by 35 to 40 feet of interfingering and poorly stratified silty sands and sandy or clayey silts. Occasional lenticula•peat interbeds 4 to 5 feet thick have been noted at depths 10 to 15 feet under certain parts of the site. The site would be graded to allow for positive drainage into the multi-cell detention ponds along the creek. The site will he graded to allow the interior truck courts to service 4 foot high docks at the warehouse/manufacturing building:. The applicant intends to balance cut and fill grading activities with on-site materials. Some imported structure I fill will be required. The application does not include an estimate of the amount of structural fill to be importec to the site, nor has the source been identified at this time. The geo echnical study concludes the proposed buildings could be supported on conventional spread and continuous footing foundation systems bearing on at least 2 feet of structural fill, following the successful completi'xn of a pre-load program or surcharge program in areas where minimal raising of site grades is required. Slab-on-grade floors could be supported directly on fills required to bring the site to grade. The site would be cleared of surface vegetation for the building and pavement areas. Erosion could occur during the construction phase of the project. Potential erosion impacts would be mitigated by City Codes which require the applicant to provide a Construction Mitigation Plan and require a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control flan (TESCP) prior to issuance of Construction Permits. Because of the presence of environmentally sensitive areas on the site, staff recommends a condition to ensure that Temporary Erosion Control measures are mair tained throughout the duration of construction on the site. Weekly reports should be submitted on the status aid condition of the erosion control plan with any recommendations of change or revision to maintenance schedul(s or installation submitted by the Project Engineer of record to the Public Works Inspector. Certification of the in ;tallation, maintenance and proper removal of the erosion control facilities should be required prior to Temponiry Certificate of Occupancy. Mitiqaticn Measures: Temporary Erosion Control shall be installed and maintained to the satisfaction of the represer tative of the Development Services Division for the duration of the project. Weekly reports shall be submitted on the status and condition of the erosion control plan with any recommendations of change or revision to maintenance schedules or installation submitted by the Project Engineer of record to the Public Works lnspectcr. Certification of the installation, maintenance and proper removal of the erosion control facilities shall be requi•ed prior to Temporary Certificate of Occupancy. Policy N Oxus: Environmental Ordinance. 2) Air Impacts Impacts to air quality can be anticipated during construction and after occupancy of the proposed project. Impacts during construction would include increased levels of airborne particulates (especially dust) from dis urbance of exposed soils. Construction impacts would be short term in nature and would be mitigated through Dest management practices of the required TESCP and with the Construction Mitigation Plan. Emissio is from construction equipment exhaust would have a minor impact on local air quality. Exhaust from construction vehicles is regulated by State and City Codes. After construction the impacts would be associated primarily with vehicle exhaust from truck and employee traffic. Vehicle emissions are regulated by the State of Washington. ERCRPT.DOC City of Re iton P/B/PW Department Environrr I Review Committee Staff Report OAKESD,ILE BUSINESS CAMPUS LUA-98-021, ECF, SA-H REPORT C F MARCH 17, 1998 Page 7 of 11 Mitigation, Measures No further mitigation is recommended. Policy NE xus NA 3) Water Impacts: Springbrook Creek flows diagonally across the site from the southwest corner to the east property line. Springbrook Creek is a shoreline of the City and regulated under the Shorelines Master Program and the proposal will require a Shorelines Substantial Development Permit. The proposed development would not directly impact Springbrook Creek. The applicant is proposing a concrete box bridge over Springbrook Creek in order to l;onstruct a driveway access off Oakesdale Avenue SW. The bridge is necessary in order to align the driveway with SW 41st Street. The creek would flow through the box bridge into the four existing 72 inch culverts which convey the creek under Oakesdale Avenue SW. The design of the box bridge must meet the requirements of the 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton. A hydraulic analysis will be required to show that the proposed project will not increase the 100-year water surface elevations in Springbrook Creek. The analysis must use the 100-year flows listed in the City's East Side Green River Watershed Project Plan dated September 1997. The 100-year flow just upstream of Oakesdale Avenue is 1165 cfs (Plan Table 8-2). The City will provide the HEC-RAS hydraulic model for the applicant's Engineer to use in designing the box and assessing hydraulic impacts of the project on Springbrook Creek flows and elevations. The suitability of the proposed final project design must be confirmed using the City's FEQ hydraulic model. There are four wetlands on the site. Wetland A is in the northwest corner of the site and includes 7,012 square feet on the subject property before extending onto City-owned property adjacent to the west. Wetland A meets the City':;definition of a Class I wetland according to the wetland delineation report prepared by Watershed Dynamics, Inc. The proposal would avoid direct impacts to Wetland A. Class I wetlands require a 100 foot buffer width. The proposal includes only a 50 foot buffer width. The applicant will be required to modify the site plan to comply with the buffer width requirement. Alternatively, the applicant may be able to use buffer width averagir g to comply with code requirements. The othE r three wetlands on the site (Wetlands B, C, and D) would be filled by grading required as part of the cleanup efforts under the Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE) consent decree. The total wetland area to be filled would be 43,844 square feet. The applicant has submitted a conceptual wetland mitigation plan to address the impacts. The wetland mitigation plan proposes to create a total of 48,750 square feet which equals a replacer lent ratio of 1.1 to 1. The impacted wetlands are all considered Class III wetlands. The code requires a replacer lent ratio of 1.5:1 to mitigate for impacts to Class III wetlands. The applicant will need to revise the site plan anc/or wetland mitigation plan to accomplish the required mitigation ratio, needing to create approximately 17,016 square feet of additional wetland area. The app icant is proposing wetland mitigation in three areas on-site and then intends to acquire City-owned property to the west for creating additional wetland mitigation area. The three on-site wetland mitigation areas include: 1) a 10-foot wide floodplain bench that would be constructed along the north side of Springbrook Creek (17,600 square feet), 2) 10,625 square feet adjacent to the northern retention/detention stormwater ponds, and 3) approxir lately 5,600 square feet of wetland would be created in the southwest corner of the site between Building E and S N 43rd Street. This area would be connected to Springbrook Creek, but is not within the direct flow line. The site plan and wetland mitigation plan indicate a 25 foot buffer width would be established around the created wetland Class III wetlands require a 25 foot buffer width. The applicant proposes to acquire City-owned property adjacent to the west in order to create 14,925 square feet of wetla id mitigation area. The plans show the created wetland would connect to a south finger of the off-site portion of Wetland A (Orillia Pond wetland). The wetland mitigation plan should address potential environmental impacts to this existing Class I wetland. The Renton Transportation Division has identified a need to reserve some of the City property (approximately 200 feet) north of SW 43rd Street to accommodate a railroad grade separati)n and/or a detour road to maintain traffic flow on SW 43rd Street during construction. This could reduce the area available to the applicant for wetland mitigation on the City property. If the applicant proceeds with the purchase of the City property, the City is interested in retaining a conservation or open space easement over the north 5C 0 feet of the property. The wetland mitigation area in the southwest corner of the subject property would be connected to the City- owned property proposed for mitigation via a 20 foot wide box culvert under the driveway access off SW 43rd Street. Design of the wetland mitigation should not result in creating a new overflow route for overbank flooding ERCRPT.)OC City of Renton P/B/PW Department Environm Review Committee Staff Report OAKESD ALE BUSINESS CAMPUS LUA-98-021, ECF, SA-H REPORT C F MARCH 17, 1998 Page 8 of 11 of the creek. The overflow would be permissible if confined to the proposed wetland mitigation areas. However, overflows should be avoided that could impact Wetland A (Orillia Pond wetland) or other properties to the north that are l:urrently protected from overbank flooding of the 100-year flood. On the s:)uth side of SW 43rd Street, across from where Springbrook Creek enters the southwest corner of the subject site, there is an existing 10 foot by 50 foot box culvert buried under SW 43rd Street. The box culvert is not presently utilized, it is located just west of the existing CMP culvert that conveys creek flows under SW 43rd Street. "'he box culvert may be made operational under a separate, future City of Kent project to function as a overflow route for high flows. The proposed wetland mitigation area on the City-owned property north of SW 43rd Street could then become a part of the overflow route. The wetland mitigation plan should show the existing )ox culvert and note the potential that it may be connected, so that permitting agencies are aware of the potential that the proposed wetland mitigation could become part of the overflow. The pror osed wetland bench adjacent to the north side of Springbrook Creek is within the right-of-way of Drainag( District No.1. In order to successfully establish a wetland in this area, it would need to be excluded from the District's vegetation maintenance program. The applicant will need to obtain formal approval from the District commissioners to achieve this. Staff recommends that the final wetland mitigation plan incorporate the following comments: 1. 1 he existing riparian vegetation along the north bank of the creek will be removed to create the proposed 10' wide wetland bench and 25' buffer. The wetland mitigation plan should include a revegetation plan for all ;areas along the creek up to the edge of the parking lots, in order to minimize the potential for undesirable plaid species to become established and spread into the adjacent proposed wetland bench and its buffer. All •evegetation south of the parking lot, including landscaping of the storm water ponds, should merge sea mlessly with the wetland plantings. The revegetation along the entire riparian corridor should be subject to tie same 5 year monitoring program and performance standards as required for the wetland areas, in acc ordance with the Wetland Management Ordinance. 2. 1 he maximum slope along the creek should be 3 to 1 up to the level of the 100-year flood or to the upper edc e of the proposed wetland buffer, which ever is farthest upsiope. The soils will be prone to sloughing at the proposed 2 to 1 slope. The wetland mitigation must be designed to avoid fish stranding. 3. Fish habitat improvements (woody debris) should be installed along the creek after contaminated sec iments are removed as part of the cleanup work authorized under Ecology's consent decree. These improvements are to be shown on the plans and activities that would disturb the improvements must be avoided. 4. —he proposed wetland mitigation should be constructed low enough so that it is inundated by backwater from normal lows in the creek. Normal flow levels at a stream gage just upstream of SW 43rd Street are ger erally around 11.5 feet (NAVD 1988 datum). The wetland mitigation must be designed to avoid fish standing. 5. -"he applicant must meet all the requirements of the Wetland Management Ordinance for mitigations pla is (Section 4-32-6H) including a monitoring program, contingency plan, posting of performance and ma ntenance surety devices, and other requirements. Mitiqatic n Measures 1. The design of the concrete box bridge over Springbrook Creek shall meet the requirements of the 1990 King Co inty Surface Water Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton. A hydraulic analysis shall demons rate that the proposed project would not increase the 100-year water surface elevations in Springbi ook Creek. The analysis must use the 100-year flows listed in the City's East Side Green River Waters!ed Project Plan dated September 1997. The 100-year flow just upstream of Oakesdale Avenue is 1165 cf: (Plan Table 8-2). The City will provide the HEC-RAS hydraulic model for the applicant's Engineer to use it designing the box and assessing hydraulic impacts of the project on Springbrook Creek flows and elevatio is. The suitability of the proposed final project design shall be confirmed using the City's FEQ hydrauli model. The design of the concrete box bridge shall be subject to the approval of the Renton Stormwiter Utility prior to issuance of building permits. 2. Wetla nd A in the northwest corner of the site meets the City's definition of a Class I wetland and requires a 100 fool buffer width. The proposal includes only a 50 foot buffer width. The applicant shall modify the site plan and wetland mitigation plan to comply with the buffer width requirement or with alternative provisions allowed ERCRPT.DOC City of Re-icon P/B/PW Department Environrr I Review Committee Staff Report OAKESD ILE BUSINESS CAMPUS LUA-98-021, ECF, SA-H REPORT C F MARCH 17, 1998 Page 9 of 11 under the. Wetland Management Ordinance. Revisions to the site plan and wetland mitigation plan shall be subject to the approval of the Development Services Division prior to the issuance of building permits. 3. The applicant shall revise the site plan and the wetland mitigation plan to provide the required wetland replacerr ent mitigation ratio of 1.5:1. Alternatively, the applicant may use a Wetlands Evaluation Technique (or recogniz)d equivalent method) to establish that the functions and values of the impacted wetland are being replaced in lieu of mitigation according to the required replacement ratio, consistent with Section 4-32-6.C.7. The final wetland mitigation plan shall be subject to the approval of the Development Services Division prior to the issuance of building permits. 4. The w+++:tland mitigation plan indicates a created wetland area proposed on the City-owned property to the west of the subject site. This created wetland connects to Wetland A (Orillia Pond wetland). The final wetland mitigatio plan shall address the potential environmental impacts of creating a wetland connected to the existing Class I wetland. In addition, the design of the wetland mitigation shall not result in creating a new overflow route for overt ank flooding of the creek that could impact Wetland A or other properties to the north. The final wetland mitigatio i plan shall provide an analysis of these potential impacts. 5. The final wetland mitigation plan shall be revised to indicate the existing box culvert buried under SW 43rd Street and note that the box culvert may be made operational under a separate, future City of Kent project to function :as an overflow route for high flows. 6. The fi )al wetland mitigation plan shall incorporate the following comments: 1. The wetland mitigation plan shall include a revegetation plan for all areas along the creek up to the edge of tie parking lots. All revegetation south of the parking lot, including landscaping of the storm water ponds, shall merge seamlessly with the wetland plantings. The revegetation along the entire riparian corridor shall be :subject to the same 5 year monitoring program and performance standards as required for the wetland areas, in accordance with the Wetland Management Ordinance. 2. l he maximum slope along the creek shall be revised to a maximum of 3 to 1, up to the level of the 100- year flood or to the upper edge of the proposed wetland buffer, which ever is farthest upslope. The wetland mitgation plan must be designed to avoid fish stranding. 3. F ish habitat improvements (woody debris) shall be installed along the creek. These improvements are to be ;hown on the plans and activities that would disturb the improvements must be avoided. 4. 1 he created wetland areas shall be constructed low enough to be inundated by backwater from normal lows in the creek and shall be designed to avoid fish stranding. Normal flow levels at a stream gage just upstream of SW 43rd Street are generally around 11.5 feet (NAVD 1988 datum). 5. The applicant must meet all the requirements of the Wetland Management Ordinance for mitigations plans (Section 4-32-6H) including a monitoring program, contingency plan, posting of performance and ma ntenance surety devices, and other requirements. 6. 1 he proposed wetland bench adjacent to the north side of Springbrook Creek is within the right-of-way of Dr2inage District No.1. In order to successfully establish a wetland in this area, it would need to be excluded from the District's vegetation maintenance program. The applicant shall provide evidence of fort gal approval from the District commissioners to exclude this area from the District's vegetation ma ntenance program. Policy Al axus Environmental Ordinance, Wetlands Management Ordinance 4) =ire Protection Impacts The proposal would add new construction to the City which would potentially impact the City's Fire Departrr ent. A Fire Mitigation Fee applies to all new construction. The required mitigation fee is based on a rate o1 $0.52 per square foot of new construction. For the proposed development the fee is estimated to be $299 981.24. The applicant may be able to reduce the fire mitigation fee if the square footage of the existing buildings are made available to the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire Mitigation Fee is payable at the time that Building Permits are issued. ERCRPT.I)OC City of Rs-ton P/B/PW Department Environm 'Review Committee Staff Report OAKESD4LE BUSINESS CAMPUS LUA-98-021, ECF, SA-H REPORT C F MARCH 17, 1998 Page 10 of 11 Mitigation Measures The applicant shall pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee at a rate of$0.52 per square lc of of new construction. The Fire Mitigation Fee is payable prior to the issuance of Building Permits. Policy Nexus Fire Mitigation Fee Resolution and adopting Ordinance, Environmental Ordinance. 5) ;"ransportation Impacts: Access is proposed from one driveway off SW 43rd Street located in the southwest corner of the site and via t vo driveways off Oakesdale Ave. SW. The south driveway off Oakesdale Avenue SW is intended for truck acc ess into the interior truck court and it is aligned with SW 41st Street. This driveway would bridge Springbn►ok Creek and is discussed in this report under the Water element. The inter ial circulation on the site is designed to segregate truck and car traffic. A separate truck court is located between the buildings for maneuvering and loading at the building docks. Circulation around the site allows car traffic to avoid conflicts with truck movement. Driveways with perpendicular parking for cars are separate from the truck driveways and are landscaped with street trees and will have sidewalks in several locations on one side to create a "boulevard" character around the perimeter of the buildings. The City is presently improving Oakesdale Avenue SW as a major north/south connection through the Valley. The Traf is Impact Analysis prepared by Entranco states that by the year 2010, operations at the SW 41st Street/ Oakesda e Avenue SW intersection will deteriorate enough to warrant signalization. The applicant should contribut a fair share toward the cost of a new traffic signal at this intersection. The proposal would result in an increase in traffic trips and therefore would be subject to the City's Transportation Mitigation Fee. The Transportation Mitigation Fee is calculated to be $75 per each average daily trip attributable to the project. City staff has estimated that the project would generate a total of 3,575 new ave]age daily trips. Therefore, the Traffic Mitigation Fee is estimated to be $268,125 (3,575 trips x $75 = $268,' 25.00). The appl cant has submitted a Construction Mitigation Plan which discusses the hauling and transportation routes to the site and states that construction would be limited to between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Cor struction-related truck traffic could impact traffic flows if occurring during AM or PM peak traffic flows. This truck traffic should be limited to off-peak hours. Mitigatioi i Measures: The applicant shall be required to pay a Traffic Mitigation Fee of$75 for each average daily trip associated with the project. The traffic mitigation fee is estimated at $268,125 (3,575 trips x$75 = $268,12! .00). This fee is payable prior to issuance of Building Permits. The appl cant shall provide a fair share contribution toward the cost of a new traffic signal at the intersection of SW 41st Street and Oakesdale Avenue SW. The determination of the cost shall be subject to the approval of the Plan'ling/Building/Public Works Department, prior to the issuance of Building Permits. The Con ;truction Mitigation Plan shall be revised to restrict haul hours to between 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. unless approve(; in advance by the Development Services Division. The revised Construction Mitigation Plan shall be submittei i for approval prior to issuance of Construction Permits. Policy Nexus: Environmental Ordinance, Transportation Mitigation Fee Ordinance. 6) I.and and Shoreline Use Impacts The subject site is zoned Medium Industrial (IM) and the proposed warehouse/manufacturing use is a primary permitted use in the IM zoning designation. The proposal is consistent with adopted zoning and the Compret ensive Plan. There are no land use impacts anticipated to result with the proposal. The proposed development is within 200 feet of Springbrook Creek. Springbrook Creek is a shoreline of the City and regulated under the Shorelines Master Program. The proposal will require a Shorelines Substantial Development Permit. Springbrook Creek is designated as an "urban" environment on the subject property. The Shoreline Master Program requires a 25 foot setback for the proposed industrial use, as measured from the ordinary nigh water mark of the creek. The proposal complies with the setback requirement. Mitigation Measures No further mitigation is recommended. ERCRPT.0 CC City of Renton P/B✓PW Department Environm Review Committee Staff Report OAKESDALE BUSINESS CAMPUS LUA-98-021, ECF, SA-H REPORT OF MARCH 17, 1998 Page 11 of 11 Policy Nexus NA 7) Environmental Health Impacts: The subject site has been previously used for an automobile wrecking yard. There are two auto fluff piles on 1 he site from the previous auto wrecking use that require remediation. An on-site remediation action plan is in the process of development and review under a Consent Decree with the State of Washington Department of Ecology. The remediation action plan includes leveling and mitigating the two on-site auto fluff piles. Tt e piles would either be removed during site preparation or may be treated with cement and utilized on- site as fill material. Three existing wetlands would be filled during the grading associated with the remediation activities and this is included under the Consent Decree. Impacts to the wetlands are discussed in this report under the Water element. Mitigatioi i Measures No further mitigation is recommended. Policy Nh xus NA E. COMMENTS OF REVIEWING DEPARTMENTS The prof)osal has been circulated to City Departmental/Divisional Reviewers for their review. Where applicatle, these comments have been incorporated into the text of this report as Mitigation Measures and/or!' otes 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 Comment Process Comments regarding the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM April 6, 1998. Any aggrieved person feeling that the envinnmental determination of the Environmental Review Committee is based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence that could not be reasonably available at the time of the determination may submit written comments. After review of the comments, if the Environmental Review Committee finds there is not sufficient evidence to amend its original determination, then there will be no further extension of the appeal period. Any person wishing to take further action would need to file a fort appeal within the original 15-day timeframe. Written comments must be filed with: Jana Huerter, Land Us(: Review Supervisor, City of Renton Development Services Division, 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, WA 980!5. Environmental Determination Appeal Process Appeals of the environmental determination [RCW 4:121.0075(3), WAC 197-11-680] must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM April 6, 1998. 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, 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, WA 98055. i,ppeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11 B. Additional informati)n regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 235-2501. ERCRPT.E OC CI' 7 OF RENTON '. I Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator . March 18, 1998 Mr. Roland Colliander CNA Architecture 777- 108th NE#400 Bellevue, WA 98004-5118 SUBJECT: Oakesdale Business Campus Project No. LUA-98-021, SA-H, SM, ECF Dear Mr. Colliander: The City of Renton Shorelines Master Program requires public access and trails along shorelines of the City. For the Oakesdale Business Campus project, the Park's Department has requested provision of a 14 foot wide trail easement and construction of a 10 foot wide asphalt trail along the north side of Springbrook Creek, located within the required 25 foot shoreline setback. Please revise the site plan to indicate the trail easement and improvements. The revision shall be necessary for approval of the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. Please contact me, at (425) 235-2719, if you have any questions. Sincerely, Peter Rosen Project Manager cc: Richard Burr Jana Huerter TRAIL.DOC 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 Oaksdale Business Campus 3/2/98 Parking Analysis Actual Provided Total Required Interior Landscaping Number of Parking Lot Parking Lot 5% of Total Area Area Provided on Parking Stalls Number Area in Landscaping Revised Site Plan Provided Al 35,100 1,755 1,920 66 A2 16,545 827 1,060 52 B1 19,395 970 2,100 51 B2 5,310 0 300 11 B3 7,650 0 600 15 B4 7,110 0 480 14 Cl 17,460 873 940 42 C2 23,850 1,193 1,340 45 CA 18,700 935 1,080 60 DB 18,700 935 1,080 60 01 13,600 680 900 26 D2 28,625 1,431 1,920 73 El 4,540 0 450 6 E2 9,060 0 1,050 26 E3 15,100 755 960 43 Total Area Parking Lots 240,745 Total Interior Parking Lot Landscaping Required 10,354 Total Interior Parking Lot Landscaping Provided 16,180 Total Parking Stalls Provided 590 Total Parking Stalls Required 562 DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON MAR 03 i s RECEIVED zel-pk-n0.xls Page 1 • Oaksdale Business Campus 3/2/98 Parking Analysis Requirements Use City of Renton Parking Space Requirements Industrial minimum 1 stall/1000 sf gross floor area 0.001 maximum 1.5 stalls/1000 sf gross floor area 0.0015 Warehouse 1 stall/1500 sf 0.00067 Office 3 stalls/1000 sf 0.003 NUMBER USE TOTAL AREA RATIO SF/USE STALLS/SF OF STALLS Industria 579,855 0.2 115,971 0.001 116 Warehouse 579,855 0.7 405,899 0.00067 272 Office, main 579,855 0.1 57,986 0.003 174 minimium parking stalls required 562 DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON MAR 03 19 RECEIVED zel-prk1 .xls Page 1 City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWIN(9 DEPARTMENT: Pa ,,d COMMENTS DUE: MARCH 4, 1998 APPLICATION NO: LUA-98-021,SA-H,SM,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: FEBRUARY 18, 1998 APPLICANT: Zelman Renton L.L.C. PROJECT MANAGER: Peter Rosen PROJECT TITLE: Oaksdale Business Campus WORK ORDER NO: 78340 LOCATION: NW corner of SW 43rd Street and Oaksdale Ave. SW, north of Springbrook Creek. SITE AREA: 31.631 acres; 1,377,870 sq.ft. I BUILDING AREA NEW(gross): 576,887 sq.ft. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Proposal for five warehouse/office structures totaling 576,887 sq.ft. in gross floor area. Truck maneuvering and loading dock areas are located internally, with office areas facing adjacent streets. Parking spaces are provided for 591 vehicles around the perimeters of the buildings. Access is proposed from one driveway off SW 43rd Street and via two driveways off Oaksdale Ave. SW. The south driveway off Oaksdale Ave. SW is aligned with SW 41 st Street and it would be required to bridge Springbrook Creek. The proposal will require a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (SM). A. ENVIRDNMENTAL IMPACT(e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of th r 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 Lancl/Shorelinf Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet 62-07061;;Led 42.-Zee...-,4.0"e.- Vv)a4_ 01'2 eitx._ G� e4, /2,e tC� ez ale / cx��� 7 • ' '/ u.)-c'-frLa7v7 /7.-e e d VC) 2 cc, �4 B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS c a r-)..eazte i-ne leG? )-7od c c /0l o-r.xea,,c .'`; ." ,Ces.c &u-�c�z.� .44-7-ce d-=c,J S.!�• 4 -_ --- #7oze - - ' J 7 a 2—ocla.� /�r� Oyu ue- d-r7 vt�� ur�s�, fir. 0 , 1 e' rd1 .eo �,o��E GY ? Ica �`"1� jaes f �v, O /.PCO 2 2rZI7, -. 15:7 -r ad s. al,er 1.cr7 c crop. �ii-etv- -I '. �- l�� c7 ixP . � 6I . %y J C. CODE-RELAT _cOMMENT lam-/'!G Qi���/ y � �-� ce e , �r moo cam- 1cz� We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified are s of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date D E APP.DOC P Rev.10/93 City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: ytARreoedvotufr\ COMMENTS DUE: MARCH 4, 1998 APPLICATION NO: LUA-98-021,SA-H,SM,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: FEBRUARY 18, 1998 9 c APPLICANT Zelman Renton L.L.C. PROJECT MANAGER: Peter Rosen PROJECT TITLE: Oaksdale Business Campus WORK ORDER NO: 78340 j► LOCATION: NW corner of SW 43rd Street and Oaksdale Ave. SW, north of Springbrook Creek. SITE AREA: 31.631 acres; 1,377,870 sq.ft. I BUILDING AREA NEW(gross): 576,887 sq.ft. SUMMARY )F PROPOSAL: Proposal for five warehouse/office structures totaling 576,887 sq.ft. in gross floor area. Truck manwuvering and loading dock areas are located internally, with office areas facing adjacent streets. Parking spaces are provided for 591 vehicles around the perimeters of the buildings. Access is proposed from one driveway off SW 43rd S reet and via two driveways off Oaksdale Ave. SW. The south driveway off Oaksdale Ave. SW is aligned with SW 41 st Street and it would be required to bridge Springbrook Creek. The proposal will require a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (SM). A. ENVIR DNMENTAL IMPACT(e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of th) Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water LighVGlare Plants Recreation Land/Shorelinr Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resou ces Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLIC Y-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE RELATED COMMENTS rA,c2,9 21Z-31/9 We have reviE wed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additior al information is needed to properly assess assess this proposal. 7 2 -2.7-A1-3 2 Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date DEVAPP.DOC Rev.10/93 �Y CITY OF RENTON o rJ�, FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU .1R ; rod MEMORANDUM DATE: February 23, 1998 TO: Peter Rosen, Assoociate Planner FROM Corey Thomas, Plans Review Inspector SUBJECT: Code-Related Comments for Oakesdale Business Campus 1. The maximum fire flow required is 5,750 gpm. Six fire hydrants are required. One fire hydrant is required within 150-feet of the proposed structure and five fire hydrants are required within 300-feet of the structure. A looped water main is required to be installed around the building. The available fire flow in this area is approximately 5,184 gpm. The applicant shall modify the project in order to meet required fire flow. 2. The fire mitigation fees are applicable at the rate of $0.52 per square foot of building: 576,887 square feet x $0.52 = $299,981.24. This fee is payable at the time of building permit issuance. The applicant may be able to reduce the fire mitigation fees if the square footage of the existing buildings are made available to the Fire Prevention Bureau. 3. An approved fire sprinkler system is required to be installed throughout all structures. 4. An approved fire alarm system may be required to be installed throughout the structures. CT:ct oakesbus • City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIPONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: ro U4_0 COMMENTS DUE: MARCH 4, 1998 APPLICATICN NO: LUA-98-021,SA-H,SM,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: FEBRUARY 18, 1998 APPLICANT: Zelman Renton L.L.C. PROJECT MANAGER: Peter Rosen PROJECT T TLE: Oaksdale Business Campus WORK ORDER NO: 78340 LOCATION: NW corner of SW 43rd Street and Oaksdale Ave. SW, north of Springbrook Creek. SITE AREA: 31.631 acres; 1,377,870 sq.ft. I BUILDING AREA NEW(gross): 576,887 sq.ft. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Proposal for five warehouse/office structures totaling 576,887 sq.ft. in gross floor area. Truck manE uvering and loading dock areas are located internally, with office areas facing adjacent streets. Parking spaces are provided for 591 vehicles around the perimeters of the buildings. Access is proposed from one driveway off SW 43rd Sireet and via two driveways off Oaksdale Ave. SW. The south driveway off Oaksdale Ave. SW is aligned with SW 41 st Street and it would be required to bridge Springbrook Creek. The proposal will require a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (SM). A. ENVIR')NMENTAL IMPACT(e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of th, 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/Shorellne Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ HistorfdCultural Natural Resou ces Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet Estimate 298 Police Calls for Service annually, based on the size of the business . This area of Zenton reports a high number of commercial burglary, auto theft and thefts from vehicles . To help )revent these types of crimes ,recommend the applicant to install security lighting in the parking lots and around the buildings , use heavy-duty, solid-core doors with deadbolt locks , install an alarm system. During the construction phase, this business will probably experience thefts of :onstruction materials , tools , generators and burglary. Recommend security fencing be placed arounc :he site during the construction phase, and posted with the correct "No Trespassing" signs (a copy )f the Trespass Ordinance flier, with correct phrasing needed for the signs , is attached to this ) . Ek X ?R APFPXMAMPW 3usinesses in -,his area of Renton reported 37% of all Commercial Burglaries in 1997 . The preferred items to steal were cash, tools and computers . All office equipment and tools will need to have the nod el and serial numbers recorded in the event of theft, to aid in recovering the property. If a )ortable const-uction trailer is used as an office during construction , it will need heavy-duty netal doors wi :h dead-bolt locks . Any windows should be covered by metal bars or grills to help )revent breakage and illegal entry. The construction site needs to be fully lighted during the lours of darkness . The applicant might also consider the use of private security or off-duty )olice officers to secure the property. Construction sites accounted for 9% of all burglary in 199, c. RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additio-ial informationis needed to property assess this proposal. Gdaft:V. ) /7 Ai Signature of Directo or Authorized Representative Date DEVAPP.DOC Rev.10/93 I1 ��U.�.. Trespass iJ ai V1� •Atta,AEech„ft..t.t. USINES Enforcement WATCH Quite often, business owners and managers are faced with crimes that occur on the property after the businesses are closed and the employees have gone home. Some of the crimes that occur are burglary, vandalism, graffiti, trespassing, drug dealing and robbery in the parking lots. There is a way for police and business owners to discourage these types of crimes from taking place on private property, and that is by enforcing the City of Renton's Municipal Trespass Code 6-18-10. In order for police to be able to make an arrest for Trespass, business owners or managers need to purchase signs and display them in conspicuous areas on the property. These signs need to include the following language: 1. Indicate that the subject property is privately owned and; 2. Uninvited presence on the specified property is not permitted during the hours the business is closed, and; 3. Violators will be subject to criminal sanctions pursuant to Renton City Code 6-18-10. MOST IMPORTANTLY-THE SIGNS SHOULD BE CONSPICUOUS FROM ALL POSSIBLE POINTS OF ENTRY TO THE PROPERTY, AND ALSO BE PLACED ON THE EXTERIOR OF THE BUILDINGS. This way when a suspect is arrested, he/she will not be able to claim as a defense that he/she did not know he or she was trespassing. EXAMPLES FOR TRESPASS SIGNS: NO TRESPASSING NO TRESPASSING This is private property. Persons without specific No Trespassing after business hours business are not authorized to be on the premises between (insert specific times). Anyone on the the hours of(insert the hours your business is closed). premises after business hours is subject to Violators are subject to arrest and/or citation for criminal arrest and/or citation for Criminal Trespass pursuant to Renton City Code #6-18-10.. Trespass and/or impoundment of vehicle. Per Renton City Code #6-18-10. By enforcing the Trespass Ordinance, business owners and police will be sending a message to criminals that they are not allowed to conduct criminal activity on the property. In making arrests for Trespass, police may be preventing the more serious crimes from taking place. c` r,� COURTESY OF RENTON POLICE DEPARTMENT • ; ` CRIME PREVENTION UNIT N 235 - 2571 r SOUTH RENTONI CRIME PREVENTION us ness Watc UNIT 235-2571 March, 1998 Dear South Renton Merchants, I recently completed an analysis of Commercial Burglary in Renton for 1997, and found several interesting patterns to share with you concerning this crime. Last year there were 302 Commercial Burglaries reported in the City limits of Renton. In 70% of these cases, the burglars gained entry to the businesses by using various types of force. The most common ways to break into a building in 1997 were: • Pry a door. • Smash/break a window. • Climb the fence surrounding a construction site or business. • Cut or pry off locks or padlocks. The 5 most common types of businesses to steal from were: • Offices 18% of all burglaries • Retail 15%of all burglaries • Restaurants 10% of all burglaries • Construction sites 9% of all burglaries. The most popular items to steal from a business during a burglary were: • Nothing stolen 31% (possibly because alarms activated) • Cash 21% • Tools 14% • Computers 11% Businesses in the South Renton Business Watch newsletter group reported the most instances of Commercial Burglary, at 37% of all crimes reported. This area's preferred locations to burglarize are: • 2200 -3600 blocks of East Valley Road. 27 burglary reports, 1997. • 800 -2700 Lind Ave SW block. 8 burglary reports, 1997. Citizens and Police: Partners for a Safe Community. SOUTH RENTON BUSINESS-RELATED CRIMES RECAP FOR THE MONTH OF FEBRUARY, 1998. CRIME/LOCATION: DESCRIPTION: $LOSS: AUTO THEFT: 100 SW 7th St. block White '98 Toyota 4-Runner stolen. No license plates. $27,000. 100 SW Grady Way block White '97 Suzuki 4-door stolen, license#709 HUZ. $12,800. 200 SW 41st St. block '82 Toyota truck stolen in King County/found in Renton. 600 Naches Ave SW block '91 Honda Civic stolen from Issaquah/found in Renton. 1100 SW 16th St.block '84 Datsun truck stolen/found 3 days later by Federal Way Police. $ 2,500. 1100 SW 16th St. block '81 Toyota Corolla stolen from Kent/found in Renton. 3900 East Valley Rd. block White '94 Chevy Camaro convertible stolen, license#466FFT. $16,000. COMMERCIAL BURGLARY: 300 SW 43rd St. block Door glass smashed/cash stolen from cash register. $340.00 3700 East Valley Rd.block Window pried/headphones stolen. $ 130.00 CRIMINAL TRESPASS: 1000 SW 34th St. block 11 adults arrested for trespassing on business property that was posted with the correct No Trespassing signs. (For sign info, call 425-235-2571). FRAUD: 400 S. 43rd St. block Prescription forgery reported. Case under investigation. 4100 Lind Ave SW block 1 adult employee arrested for using a company credit card machine and transferring money into a personal bank account. MALICIOUS MISCHIEF: 600 SW 13th St. block Parked vehicle's door and window struck with a pellet gun. $600.00 4200 East Valley Rd. block Window smashed out of a parked vehicle. $ 100.00 THEFTS: 41st SW/Oakesdale Ave SW Car Prowl/window smashed/stereo stolen. $1495.00 300 SW 43rd St.block Cash stolen from unsecured cash drawer in an open business. $ 150.00 600 SW 43rd St. block Car Prowl/window smashed/stereo stolen. $ 100.00 600 SW 43rd St. block Wallet stolen from locker in an unsecured area of a business. $ 55.00 1100 SW 16th St. block Car Prowl/door lock punched/unknown losses. $ 200.00 1100 SW 16th St. block Car ProwUvinyl top entry/unknown losses. 1100 SW 16th St. block Car Prowl/door lock punched/unknown losses. $ 200.00 1600 Lind Ave SW block Car ProwUunknown entry/wallet,climbing gear and backpack taken. $1350.00 3700 East Valley Rd. block Shoplift/1 adult arrested/misc.tools stolen. $ 40.00 4200 East Valley Rd. block Car Prowl/window smashed/CD player and CD's stolen. $1665.00 DRUG/ALCOHOL ARRESTS: There was 1 DUI arrest and two drug related arrests in the South Renton area, in February, 1998. • 400 - 600 Monster Rd SW block. 7 burglary reports, 1997. • 500 - 1600 SW 16th St. block. 7 burglary reports, 1997. • 20 - 1000 SW 7th St. block. 6 burglary reports, 1997. • 800 - 1400 SW Grady Way. 6 burglary reports, 1997. • 900 Powell Ave SW block. 5 burglary reports, 1997. The South Renton Business Watch area also reports the highest number of repeat-victim burglaries. This means that businesses in this part of town report 68% of all the crimes where the same business gets victimized more than once annually. This information is intended to assist you in estimating your risk to be the victim of a Commercial Burglary in Renton. By knowing that burglars primarily use force by prying or breaking a window to gain entry to the business, you know that you need to strengthen the security of all your doors and windows. This analysis also shows that burglars prefer to steal unsecured cash, tools and computers left on the premises. You should consider locking up all cash and tools, and using wire cables to secure your computers to your office areas. You also know now which streets in your area are preferred targets by burglars. If you are located on one of these streets, and your business is an office, retail, restaurant or construction site, you need to take a hard look at the physical security of your business. The Renton Police Department offers free Security Survey's to any business which calls to make the request. A Security Survey is when a member of the Crime Prevention Unit comes out to your business to check your security and offer suggestions on how to strengthen your property to keep the criminals out. If you are interested in this free service, please give me a call. Sincerely, fit'eedneet Nome Business Watch Coordinator Renton Police Department, (425) 235-2571 City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: � COMMENTS DUE: MARCH 4, 1998 APPLICATIC N NO: LUA-98-021,SA-H,SM,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: FEBRUARY 18, 16itiP OF nrMTON APPLICANT Zelman Renton L.L.C. PROJECT MANAGER: Peter Rosen PROJECT T TLE: Oaksdale Business Campus WORK ORDER NO: 78340 i-h'B 2 3 1998 LOCATION: NW corner of SW 43rd Street and Oaksdale Ave. SW, north of Springbrook Creed„„ -.v 1-+If0N SITE AREA: 31.631 acres; 1,377,870 sq.ft. I BUILDING AREA NEW(gross): 576,887 sq.ft. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Proposal for five warehouse/office structures totaling 576,887 sq.ft. in gross floor area. Truck manE uvering and loading dock areas are located internally, with office areas facing adjacent streets. Parking spaces are .provided for 591 vehicles around the perimeters of the buildings. Access is proposed from one driveway off SW 43rd Street and via two driveways off Oaksdale Ave. SW. The south driveway off Oaksdale Ave. SW is aligned with SW 41 st Street and it would be required to bridge Springbrook Creek. The proposal will require a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (SM). A. ENV/RI)NMENTAL IMPACT(e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of flu' 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 i/ Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resoun;es Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet 1 Y cf_ / /G CaJ k"L'Q Lf C YG yY1 Firs �� l}X /17 l/cula!1 e B. POLIC'/-RELATED COMMENTS �e e : i�d C vyi 0Av21 y i e U/ 2) Cdr3--V7 -e 45 C. CODE-"RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. 1� , Signature of Di-ector or Authorized Representative Date / DEVAPP.DOC Rev.10/93 OAKESDALE BUSINESS CAMPUS SW 43RD Street & Oakesdale Ave. Sw. EIS Review March 3, 1998 V%ATER: 1. The System Development Connection charge for water is $210,736.75. The fee is based on the total site acreage of 43.932 acres. A fee segregation could be requested to just cover phase II and III which would reduce the fee based on 31.631 acres. 2. The required fire flow per the Fire Department is 5750 gpm. The only available fire flow is approximately 5100 gpm. The Developer will need to work with the Fire Department to low the fire flow requirement for the buildings. Construction plans cannot be approved without a low fire flow requirement. 3. A 15-ft. minimum utility easement required for the water on-site system. 4. The Developer is to insure the buildings are not built over the existing 12-inch water line. 5. Construction Plans are to meet City of Renton drafting standards and specifications. 98 cm037w 98C M037W.DOC\ City id, .,enton Department of Planning/Building/P....,.,, Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT:St isce 1 arkurtt..v- COMMENTS DUE: MARCH 4, 1998 APPLICATION NO: LUA-98-021,SA-H,SM,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: FEBRUARY 18, 1998 APPLICAN1: Zelman Renton L.L.C. PROJECT MANAGER: Peter Rosen PROJECT 1 ITLE: Oaksdale Business Campus WORK ORDER NO: 78340 LOCATION: NW corner of SW 43rd Street and Oaksdale Ave. SW, north of Springbrook Creek. SITE AREA: 31.631 acres; 1,377,870 sq.ft. l BUILDING AREA NEW(gross): 576,887 sq.ft. SUMMARY )F PROPOSAL: Proposal for five warehouse/office structures totaling 576,887 sq.ft. in gross floor area. Truck maneuvering and loading dock areas are located internally, with office areas facing adjacent streets. Parking spaces are provided for 591 vehicles around the perimeters of the buildings. Access is proposed from one driveway off SW 43rd Street and via two driveways off Oaksdale Ave. SW. The south driveway off Oaksdale Ave. SW is aligned with SW 41 st Street and it would be required to bridge Springbrook Creek. The proposal will require a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (SM). A. ENVIR DNMENTAL IMPACT(e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of th Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics _ Water LighVGlare Plants Recreation LandlShorelint Use Utilities Animals Transportation _ Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resou ces Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet S hjccfeY Ia5 lk) o /SSA/ e deirrs5 B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS f� �j s Q !�1 -2 t., Y .e G' C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have revie ved this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where addition,1 information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Signature of Di ector or Authorized Representative Date DEVAPP DOC Rev 10/93 OAKESDALE BUSINESS CAMPUS SW 43RD Street & Oakesdale Ave. Sw. EIS Review March 4, 1998 Storm Drainage: 1. The Surface Water System Development Connection charge is $ 138,460.86. 2. Show utility vertical crossing separations on construction plans. 3. Floor elevation of proposed buildings must be 1-ft. Above 100 year flood elevation. 4. The plans need to show and label all wetland and stream buffers and the shoreline boundary. 5. It seems that the elevation datum used is between the NAVD1988 and NGVD 1929 datum's. The benchmarks upon which the existing and design elevations are based needs to be included on the cover sheet. An equation relating the site datum to NAVD 1988 must be show in the space provided on the Renton title block. 6. The applicant is responsible for obtaining approvals of other agencies with jurisdiction for the proposed work along the creek (State Fish & Wildlife, Dept. Of Ecology, Drainage District No.1, Corps of Engineers, etc.). 7. The storm drainage report needs to show the amount of 100-year floodplain storage filled by the project is less than the amount of compensatory storage created. 'Wetland mitigation and plantine along Springbrook Creek: 8. The existing riparian vegetation along the north bank of the creek will be removed to create the proposed 10' wide wetland bench and 25' buffer. The revegetation plan must include all areas along the creek up to the edge of the parking lots of the proposed development to minimize the potential for undesirable plant species to become established and spread into the adjacent proposed wetland bench and its buffer. All revegetation south of the parking lot, including landscaping of the storm water ponds, should merge seamlessly with the wetland plantings. The applicant must also be made responsible for ensuring that all revegetation along the creek is successful for a minimum period of 5 years for the entire riparian corridor, not just the wetland areas. The Developer is to meet all conditions of the Renton Code (Section 4-32-6H) for monitoring program, contingency plan, posting of performance and maintenance surety devices, and other requirements. 9. The maximum slope along the creek should be 3 to 1 up to the level of the 100-year flood or to the upper edge of the proposed wetland buffer, which ever is farthest upslope. The soils will be prone to sloughing at the proposed 2 to 1 slope. The wetland mitigation must be designed to avoid fish stranding. 10. It is our understanding that fish habitat improvements (woody debris) will be installed along the creek after contaminated sediments are removed from the creek as part of the cleanup work 98CM037D.DOC\ authorized under Ecology's consent decree. These improvements are to be shown on the plans and activities that would disturb the improvements must be avoided. 11. Advisory Note to Applicant: A permit will be required from Drainage District No. 1 for any work within the District's right- of-way along the creek. The District will want to work with the applicant to revise their 40' right-of-way so that it follows the centerline of the existing creek and not diverge away from the creek as the plans currently show. The JARPA application submitted states that the District ��� has agreed to exclude the proposed wetland bench from their vegetation maintenance program to allow the wetland to develop properly. We suggest that the applicant make sure this has been formally agreed to by the District commissioners as soon as possible. Use of City property west of the Oakesdale Business Park for wetland mitigation: 12. Environmental impacts of constructing the wetland mitigation on the City owned property west of the Oakesdale Business Park do not appear to have been addressed. The wetlands report /' needs to identify the extent of existing wetlands on the City property, if any, that would be affected to create the mitigation area. The location of the proposed mitigation may also conflict with a railroad grade separation project for SW 43rd Street that may need a portion of the City property along SW 43rd Street to accommodate the grade separation and/or a detour road to maintain traffic flow on SW 43rd Street during construction. Transportation Division staff have identified the need to reserve the south 200 feet of the City property for the grade separation project. Also, if the City property were purchased for the Oakesdale Business Park project we are interested in retaining a conservation or open space easement over the north 500 feet of the property to ensure that the Category 2 Orillia Pond wetland may remain under public ownership. 13. There is an existing 10' x 50' box culvert buried under SW 43rd Street west of the existing CMP culvert that currently conveys the creek flows(see attached Plan). The proposed wetland mitigation plan must show the existing box culvert and note that the box culvert may be made operational under a separate,future City of Kent project to function as a overflow route for \\1. high flows. This is important so that all permitting agencies are aware of the potential for the box culvert to be connected, making the wetland mitigation proposed under the Oakesdale Business Park a part of the overflow route. 14. Advisory Note to the Applicant: Design of the wetland mitigation must not result in creating a new overflow route for overbank flooding of the creek. The overflow would be permissible if it can be confined to the proposed wetland mitigation area and not result in overflows to the north of the Oakesdale Business Park that are currently protected from overbank flooding of the creek during the 100-year flood. 15. Advisory Note to the Applicant: The proposed wetland mitigation should be constructed low enough so that it is inundated by backwater from normal flows in the creek. Normal flow levels at a stream gage just upstream of SW 43rd Street are generally around 11.5 feet (NAVD 1988 datum). Otherwise fish standing may become an issue. 98CM037D.DOC\ Proposed Box Bridge: 16. More information on the proposed concrete box bridge is needed as soon as possible. The applicant also must conduct whatever studies are needed to show that the proposed box segment will allow for future extension of the box across Oakesdale to replace the four 6' diameter CMP culverts. 17. The box design must meet the requirement of the 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton. A hydraulic analysis will be required to show that the completed project will not increase the 100-year water surface elevations in Springbrook Creek. The analysis must use the 100-year flows listed in the City's East Side Green River Watershed Project Plan dated September 1997. The 100-year flow just upstream of Oakesdale Avenue is 1165 cfs (Plan Table 8-2). The City will provide the HEC-RAS hydraulic model for the applicant's Engineer to use in designing the box and assessing hydraulic impacts of the project on Springbrook Creek flows and elevations. The suitability of the proposed final project design must be confirmed using the City's FEQ hydraulic model. 18. Advisory Note to the Applicant: The Storm Division will be available to meet with the applicant to help define the scope of the box design work. One of the design issues that needs to be addressed is the potential of the proposed structure to settle because of the presence of silts and loose sands in the underlying soil. It is likely that the box will need to be pile supported. Foundation recommendations must be provided by a Geotechnical Engineer. Other issues to discuss with the applicant include: Maintenance access and responsibility, easement right, hydraulic impacts, state and federal permitting issues, utility impacts, coordination with King County regarding the nearby large diameter sewers, and other construction issues(dewatering, stream bypass). 19. Advisory Note: Since the applicant is considering purchasing the City owned property west of the Oakesdale Business Park, the Storm Division would like to explore the feasibility of applying the cost of the purchase towards constructing the remaining portion of the box bridge across Oakesdale Avenue. If the cost of extending the box across Oakesdale Avenue was more than the purchase price, then the City could also use a portion of our Surface Water Utility System Development Charge to make up the difference. 98cm037D 98CM037D.DOC\ , . c'Aior.. Pyy e.-fr hiouc . ,, f ' . • I . l'Avelcil -w' wsit 1 Z Ito' in v-) ! t t pa\ 1i'" �)N W Itti NIl'I, tAA_;, . _. 4� v " tn I W w lt l 4 ' r r•I/op. vt.. .-.(- / c eS c!a (4).0444 , , _ i 0 i1 4:-.1 ti-) Alt;$4-4 i LC) •u fi y1 H c I;T ���� 1 12� ti. �, / 1 N1 ' f (� N ? I • Li)/ / 4 ��. limt r �� M):kn REMO • CONC,f*IDCE v .� - S1RUCIURE ANk3' EPu10E 1-- • a ' C. T/('t-. 1 ti.J Air is . 4,, • • . 3 1c N.i iiii i i NEW 12"Dl WATER { r S)— — -- - a .... dam_ _„__ _ if&pj. tad,,' .11- A11.1 1 34 ` y C.)1YlE i �-Yde- / � ir\ro,M ,.� .r . . ._ . . _ .-._ I • 1.''h(.I"il! d,.1�uf�7 441 L � , I., RM • () , rIJIl iE.Y1;C.)1 • I,u II, i_-_. r .tXIS�. 641;4/44\: q .. cJ ' 1,1.9 �� 1, \ 9.. 1- a ' is.k 4 i J ,$I . X4.'•kfo, .S Irk "N_ tV` , li ..., ,• ,!: (e.I Potre,4 �,� 0 '� z fl _ . • 1 " .1r1 ,, l7 g r� ` I ,�` If C. ., 'P • N I L.,IDrimi both £set.4s t) : refeftfia IA t j I/ ‘4.0 t,, :( . . 1� atrclau A I I-` airs oA _, c• 't' I � Nn7C OAKESDALE BUSINESS CAMPUS SW 43RD Street & Oakesdale Ave. Sw. EIS Review March 3, 1998 SEWER: 1. The System Development Connection charge for waste water is $ 145,464.31. The fee is based on the total site acreage of 43.932 acres. A fee segregation could be requested to just cover phase II and III which would reduce the fee based on 31.631 acres. 2. The Developer is to insure no buildings are built over the existing east west Metro sewer line. The existing utility easement to be shown on the construction plans. 3. If the project produces fats, oils or grease then the applicant must provide an appropriate removal system. 4. Warehousing and manufacturing facilities with a fire sprinkler system must install floor drains that are tightlined to the sanitary sewer system. 5. Show vertical clearances where utility lines cross. 9F cm037s 98CM037S.DOC\ i City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIF ONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: 1-vaus, actlayt COMMENTS DUE: MARCH 4, 1998 APPLICATIO'J NO: LUA-98-021,SA-H,SM,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: FEBRUARY 18, 1998 APPLICANT: Zelman Renton L.L.C. PROJECT MANAGER: Peter Rosen PROJECT TI rLE: Oaksdale Business Campus WORK ORDER NO: 78340 LOCATION: NW corner of SW 43rd Street and Oaksdale Ave. SW, north of Springbrook Creek. SITE AREA: 31.631 acres; 1,377,870 sq.ft. I BUILDING AREA NEW(gross): 576,887 sq.ft. SUMMARY C F PROPOSAL: Proposal for five warehouse/office structures totaling 576,887 sq.ft. in gross floor area. Truck maneJvering and loading dock areas are located internally, with office areas facing adjacent streets. Parking spaces are provided for 591 vehicles around the perimeters of the buildings. Access is proposed from one driveway off SW 43rd Sti eet and via two driveways off Oaksdale Ave. SW. The south driveway off Oaksdale Ave. SW is aligned with SW 41:4 Street and it would be required to bridge Springbrook Creek. The proposal will require a Shoreline Substantial )evelopment Permit (SM). 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/Shorellne Jse Utilities Animals Transportation • Environmental l lealth Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resoun es Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet 7 . / air 1 p-z„ F � ; r» 1, B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. BELATED COMMENTS / 'y/ vevi / el- We have ved this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Signature of Director or Authorized Representative' Date DEVAPP.DOC / Rev 10/93 • OAKESDALE BUSINESS CAMPUS SW 43RD Street & Oakesdale Ave. Sw. EIS Review March 2, 1998 T 3ANSPORTATION: 1 Oakesdale Ave. SW -- A five(5) foot sidewalk is required with the back edge located at the property line with the planter strip between the curb and sidewalk. The planter strip must be a minimum of five(5) feet or greater. 2 The traffic mitigation fee is $75 per trip generated by the project. Estimated trips are 3575 per the traffic impact analysis. 3573 X $75 = $268,125. The amount of $268,125 to be paid when the Building permit is issued. 3 Intersection of Oakesdale Ave. SW & SW 41 Street: The Developer to contribute a share of the cost with the city of a new traffic signal at this referenced intersection of Oakesdale Ave..SW & SW 41st St. A project is underway now by the City to make Oakesdale Ave. SW a through arterial which will bring the intersect up to a Traffic Signal warrant. The shared cost is one-half of $100,000 or $50,000. The amount of $50,000- to be provided at the time a Building permit is issued or a security device provided acceptable to the City. 4 Construction plans to be per City of Renton specifications and drafting standards. 9;3cm037 98 1;M037.DOC\ City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENTIl APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING. DEPARTMENT:l��5fiyu c7l ttM SeAtthcLQ COMMENTS DUE: MARCH 4, 1998 APPLICATION NO: LUA-98-021,SA-H,SM,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: FEBRUARY 18, 1998 APPLICANT Zelman Renton L.L.C. PROJECT MANAGER: Peter Rosen PROJECT TITLE: Oaksdale Business Campus WORK ORDER NO: 78340 LOCATION: NW corner of SW 43rd Street and Oaksdale Ave. SW, north of Springbrook Creek. SITE AREA: 31.631 acres; 1,377,870 sq.ft. I BUILDING AREA NEW(gross): 576,887 sq.ft. SUMMARY I)F PROPOSAL: Proposal for five warehouse/office structures totaling 576,887 sq.ft. in gross floor area. Truck mane'uvering and loading dock areas are located internally, with office areas facing adjacent streets. Parking spaces are provided for 591 vehicles around the perimeters of the buildings. Access is proposed from one driveway off SW 43rd S reet and via two driveways off Oaksdale Ave. SW. The south driveway off Oaksdale Ave. SW is aligned with SW 41 st Street and it would be required to bridge Springbrook Creek. The proposal will require a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (SM). A. ENVIR.3NMENTAL IMPACT(e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of th,; Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/ShorelinE Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resou ces Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLIC(-RELATED COMMENTS //o L4V14 kite NNT$ C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS A 76 Colktoilv7-75 We have revie ed 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 property assess this proposal. 3 l; fg Signature of Direct�Authonzed Repre entative / ate D DEVAPP.DOC Rev.10/93 CITY OF RENT ON DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION [ MST OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS within 300 feet of the subject site PROJECT NAME: '.KSL -a f.lE65 CAMPJ ' NOK1N OF SP C42-6EK _ APP._ICATION NO: LUA• 93 •021 , SA-* $ 5VY1IEC.r The following is a list of property owners within 300 feet of the subject site. The Development Services Division will notify these individuals of the proposed development. NAME ADDRESS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER L-(S� aT tf*Ckie,P • • • FIVkr) 71998 `fC yL'LJr iorLiY CITY OF Ate ONNING (Attach additional sheets, if necessary) (Continued) NAME ADDRESS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER Applicant Certification I, r<oLAIJD G• Cc J_tP'r1Cee- , hereby certify that the above list(s) of adjacent property (Print Name) owr ers and their addresses were obtained from: ❑ City of Renton Technical Services Records 321, Title Company Records ❑ King County Assessors Records 0unumuunim0„0/,,,,,, Date lI_� / /'i IAEJrt ....ft Signed Mt/ter/16i' d►' (Applicant) 41r1‘01Aer .• 2 NOTARY p� j = ATTESTED: Subscribed and sworn before me, a Notary Public, in and fo fill. .; • .a, residing at 1,,,,:3 ,.Q.Ii on the i,1"- day of . - , '1_'•. ,1 ; Mr- °F wAst‘ Sigr e i, nR aa.AZ 7 (Notary Public) ****For City of Renton Use**** CERTIFICATION OF MAILING I, t A+ l`,.. .+ , " 'hereby certify that notices of the proposed application were mailed to (C.ty mpioyea) eaci listed property owner on 1,-- I) _ i `iqr ed `' t. ltt,..t.> : °" Date: 2:- j'9 i 1 NOTARY AT«ST: ';:subscribed and sworn before me, a Notary Public, in_and REV or the State of Washin.ton residing at4(i .-. - , 4Jf's . on the .<-//& day of ?�6.-- , 1 '�'='': �S�gred , : g.------ e ? �' `_ r5t ra�d� R ;,� MARILYN KAMCHEFF COMMISSION EXPIRES 6/29/99 1 • • P * ** OLD REPUBLIC TITLE r1i,, Prospecting List ** AND ESCROW I1* 4 Parcel: 125371 0010 Phone: Map Page: 685 J1 Year Blt: 1985 Assessment: $3,732,800 Name: SEATTLE FIRST NATIONAL BANK QSTR: NE-36-23-04 View: NONE 97 Taxes: $51,750.35 Site: 7611 S 180th St Kent WA 98032 Zoning: M1 Bldg SqFt: 79312 Sale Price: $4,500,000 Mail: 1301 5th Ave#3636 Seattle WA 98101 Bed/Bath: 0/0 Lot Size: 5.31 Ac Date-Doc: 11/14/96-179 Use: 525 IND-PARK5OK TO 100K SQFT Lender: Loan Amt: Parcel: 125371 0050 Phone: Map Page: 686 Al Year Blt: 1982 Assessment: $4,775,300 Name: SEATTLE-FIRST NATIONAL BANK QSTR: NE-36-23-04 View: NONE 97 Taxes: $66,171.06 Site: 7835 SW 43rd St Kent WA Zoning: M1 Bldg SqFt: 18302 Sale Price: $5,300,000 Mail: 1301 5th Ave#3636 Seattle WA 98101 Bed/Bath: 0/0 Lot Size: 5.81 Ac Date-Doc: 3/1/96-0239 Use: 526 IND-PARK100K+SQFT Lender: Loan Amt: Parcel: 125371 0050 Phone: Map Page: 686 Al Year Blt: 1982 Assessment: $4,775,300 Name: SEATTLE-FIRST NATIONAL BANK QSTR: NE-36-23-04 View: NONE 97 Taxes: $66,171.06 Site: 7835 SW 43rd St Kent WA Zoning: M1 Bldg SqFt: 18302 Sale Price: $5,300,000 Mail: 1301 5th Ave#3636 Seattle WA 98101 Bed/Bath: 0/0 Lot Size: 5.81 Ac Date-Doc: 3/1/96-0239 Use: 526 IND-PARK100K+SQFT Lender: Loan Amt: Parcel: 125371 0050 Phone: Map Page: 686 Al Year Blt: 1982 Assessment: $4,775,300 Name: SEATTLE-FIRST NATIONAL BANK QSTR: NE-36-23-04 View: NONE 97 Taxes: $66,171.06 Site: 7835 SW 43rd St Kent WA Zoning: M1 Bldg SqFt: 68356 Sale Price: $5,300,000 Mail: 1301 5th Ave#3636 Seattle WA 98101 Bed/Bath: 0/0 Lot Size: 5.81 Ac Date-Doc: 3/1/96-0239 Use: 526 IND-PARK100K+SQFT Lender: Loan Amt: Parcel: 362304 9001 Phone: Map Page: 655 J7 Year Blt: 1979 Assessment: $38,242,800 Name: RENTON BUILDING 1-7 QSTR: NE-36-23-04 View: NONE 97 Taxes: $534,238.12 Site: 1001 SW 41st St Renton WA 98055 Zoning: IM Bldg SqFt: 371070 Sale Price: Mail: PO Box 565048 Dallas TX 75356 Bed/Bath: 0/0 Lot Size: 58 Ac Date-Doc: 11/22/94-056 Use: 526 IND-PARK100K+SQFT Lender: Loan Amt: Parcel: 362304 9001 Phone: Map Page: 655 J7 Year Blt: 1979 Assessment: $38,242,800 Name: RENTON BUILDING 1-7 QSTR: NE-36-23-04 View: NONE 97 Taxes: $534,238.12 Site: 1001 SW 41st St Renton WA 98055 Zoning: IM Bldg SqFt: 377258 Sale Price: Mail: PO Box 565048 Dallas TX 75356 Bed/Bath: 0/0 Lot Size: 58 Ac Date-Doc: 11/22/94-056 Use: 526 IND-PARK100K+SQFT Lender: Loan Amt: Parcel: 362304 9001 Phone: Map Page: 655 J7 Year Blt: 1979 Assessment: $38,242,800 Name: RENTON BUILDING 1-7 QSTR: NE-36-23-04 View: NONE 97 Taxes: $534,238.12 Site: 1001 SW 41st St Renton WA 98055 Zoning: IM Bldg SqFt: 373714 Sale Price: Mail: PO Box 565048 Dallas TX 75356 Bed/Bath: 0/0 Lot Size: 58 Ac Date-Doc: 11/22/94-056 Use: 526 IND-PARK100K+SQFT Lender: Loan Amt: Parcel: 362304 9001 Phone: Map Page: 655 J7 Year Blt: 1979 Assessment: $38,242,800 Name: RENTON BUILDING 1-7 QSTR: NE-36-23-04 View: NONE 97 Taxes: $534,238.12 Site: 1001 SW 41st St Renton WA 98055 Zoning: IM Bldg SqFt: 219288 Sale Price: Mail: PO Box 565048 Dallas TX 75356 Bed/Bath: 0/0 Lot Size: 58 Ac Date-Doc: 11/22/94-056 Use: 526 IND-PARK100K+SQFT Lender: Loan Amt: Property Information Center, 1201 Third Ave#1410,Seattle,WA 98101 (206)521-8530 Fax: (206)689-8548 File Name: colli15 The information provided is deemed reliable,but is not guaranteed. Parcel: 362304 9032 Phone: Map Page: 686 Al Year nit: 1968 Assessment: $653,200 Name: Renton Llc Zelman QSTR: NE-36-23-04 View: NONE 97 Taxes: $10,121.00 Site: 1600 SW 43rd St Renton WA 98055 Zoning: IM Bldg SqFt: 2640 Sale Price: $3,000,900 Mail: 707 Wilshire Blvd#3036 Los Angeles CA 90017 Bed/Bath: 0/0 Lot Size: 4.95 Ac Date-Doc: 12/2/97-1529 Use: 261 OFF1-3 STORY-LESS THAN 5K SQFT Lender: Loan Amt: Parcel: 362304 9033 Phone: Map Page: 686 Al Year Blt: 1974 Assessment: $1,338,600 Name: Renton Llc Zelman QSTR: NE-36-23-04 View: NONE 97 Taxes: $18,640.13 Site: 1600 SW 43rd St Renton WA 98055 Zoning: IM Bldg SqFt: 13440 Sale Price: $3,000,900 Mail: 707 Wilshire Blvd#3036 Los Angeles CA 90017 Bed/Bath: 0/0 Lot Size: 9.91 Ac Date-Doc: 12/2/97-1529 Use: 503 IND-WAREHOUSE10K TO 25K SQFT Lender: Loan Amt: Parcel: 362304 9042 Phone: 425-251-8168 Map Page: 686 Al Year Blt: 1916 Assessment: $266,300 Name: Beth Campbell QSTR: NE-36-23-04 View: NONE 97 Taxes: $3,767.75 Site: 1508 SW 43rd St Renton WA 98055 Zoning: IM Bldg SqFt: 2000 Sale Price: Mail: 1508 SW 43rd St Renton WA 98055 Bed/Bath: 2/ 1 Lot Size: 1.73 Ac Date-Doc: 4/6/93-1537 Use: 105 RES-APARTMENT Lender: Loan Amt: Parcel: 362304 9071 Phone: Map Page: 686 Al Year Blt: 1971 Assessment: $1,417,600 Name: Renton Llc Zelman QSTR: NE-36-23-04 View: NONE 97 Taxes: $20,077.46 Site: 1600 SW 43rd St Renton WA 98055 Zoning: IM Bldg SqFt: 4800 Sale Price: $3,000,900 Mail: 707 Wilshire Blvd#3036 Los Angeles CA 90017 Bed/Bath: 0/0 Lot Size: 10.83 Ac Date-Doc: 12/2/97-1529 Use: 502 IND-WAREHOUSE2K TO 10K SQFT Lender: Loan Amt: Parcel: 362304 9086 Phone: Map Page: 685 Jl Year Blt: 1974 Assessment: $1,589,200 Name: BARBER ASSOCIATES QSTR: NE-36-23-04 View: NONE 97 Taxes: $22,026.64 Site: 7979 S 180th St Kent WA 98032 Zoning: M1 Bldg SqFt: 51960 Sale Price: $1,500,000 Mail: 7979 S 180th St Kent WA 98032 Bed/Bath: 0/0 Lot Size: 2.06 Ac Date-Doc: 10/3/91-1087 Use: 504 IND-WAREHOUSE25K TO 50K SQFT Lender: SELLER Loan Amt: $1,500,000 Parcel: 362304 9096 Phone: 206-284-5156 Map Page: 686 Al Year Blt: 1994 Assessment: $950,100 Name: CASCADE FEDERAL CREDIT UNIO QSTR: NE-36-23-04 View: NONE 97 Taxes: $13,158.12 Site: 18020 80th Ave S Kent WA 98032 Zoning: M1 Bldg SqFt: 13464 Sale Price: $200,000 Mail: 4035 23rd Ave W Seattle WA 98199 Bed/Bath: 0/0 Lot Size: 1.2 Ac Date-Doc: 6/1/92-1176 Use: 262 OFF1-3 $TORYSK TO 15K SQFT Lender: Loan Amt: Parcel: 362304 9100 Phone: Map Page: 686 Al Year Blt: 1987 Assessment: $1,878,000 Name: WACKER ASSOC QSTR: NE-36-23-04 View: NONE 97 Taxes: $25,999.87 Site: 8009 S 180th St Kent WA 98032 Zoning: M1 Bldg SqFt: 24069 Sale Price: Mail: 415 Baker Blvd#200 Tukwila WA 98188 Bed/Bath: 0/0 Lot Size: 1.89 Ac Date-Doc: Use: 242 COM-RETAIL STRIP10K TO 25K SQFT Lender: Loan Amt: Property Information Center,1201 Third Ave#1410,Seattle,WA 98101 (206)521-8530 Fax: (206)689-8548 File Name: collil5 The information provided is deemed reliable,but is not guaranteed. 7 IT# *� OLD REPUBLIC TITLE Prospecting List(itt ii�* 4 * * AND ESCROW SEATTLE FIRST NATIONAL SEATTLE-FIRST NATIONAL SEATTLE-FIRST NATIONAL BANK BANK BANK 1301 5th Ave#3636 1301 5th Ave#3636 1301 5th Ave#3636 Seattle,WA 98101-2637 Seattle,WA 98101-2637 Seattle,WA 98101-2637 SEATTLE-FIRST NATIONAL RENTON BUILDING 1-7 RENTON BUILDING 1-7 BANK PO Box 565048 PO Box 565048 1301 5th Ave#3636 Dallas,TX 75356-5048 Dallas,TX 75356-5048 Seattle,WA 98101-2637 RENTON BUILDING 1-7 RENTON BUILDING 1-7 Renton LIc Zelman PO Box 565048 PO Box 565048 707 Wilshire Blvd #3036 Dallas,TX 75356-5048 Dallas,TX 75356-5048 Los Angeles,CA 90017-3512 Renton Llc Zelman Beth Campbell Renton Llc Zelman 707 Wilshire Blvd #3036 1508 SW 43rd St 707 Wilshire Blvd#3036 Los Angeles,CA 90017-3512 Renton,WA 98055-4826 Los Angeles,CA 90017-3512 BARBER ASSOCIATES CASCADE FEDERAL CREDIT WACKER ASSOC 7979 S 180th St UNION 415 Baker Blvd#200 Kent,WA 98032-1051 4035 23rd Ave W Tukwila,WA 98188-2906 Seattle,WA 98199-1208 NOTICE OF APPLICATION PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS DATE: FEBRUARY 20,1998 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. caudate Business CamPu-9 PROJECT NUMBER/NAME: LUA-98-021,SAa1,SM,ECF DESCRIPTION: Proposal for five warehouse/office structures ranging from approximately 62,300 sq.f.to 151,800 sq.ft.for a total of 576,887 sq.ft.in gross floor area.The buildings would be one story tilt-up concrete structures with a maximum building height of 35 feel. The buildings may include mezzanine or two story office areas. Truck maneuvering and loading dock areas are located internally on the site,with office areas lacing adjacent streets. Parking spaces are provided for 591 vehicles around the perimeters of the buildings. Access is proposed from one driveway off SW 43rd Street and via two driveways off Oaksdale Ave.SW. The south driveway off Oaksdale Avenue SW Is intended for truck access and is aligned with SW 41st Street.This driveway would bridge Springbrook Creek. There is an on-site remediatlon action plan that is in the process of development and review under a Consent Decree with the State of Washington Department of Ecology(DOE). This remedialion action plan will include leveling and mitigating the two on-site auto fluff piles.There are three small delineated wetlands on the site which will be cleaned up and filled under the Consent Decree.Wetland mitigation is proposed along Springbrook Creek. The proposal will require a Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permit. Location'.NW comer of SW 43rd Street and Oaksdale Ave.SW,north of Springbrook Creek. GENERAL LOCATION: NW corner of SW 43rd Street and Oaksdale Ave.SW,north of Springbrook Creek STUDIES REQUIRED/OR AVAILABLE: Geotechnical Study,Traffic Impact Study,Wetland Report,Drainage Report, Cleanup Action Plan. PUBLIC APPROVALS: Environmental Review(ECF) Site Plan Approval(SA) Shoreline Substantial Development Permit(SM) Building Permit Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Peter Rosen,Project Manager,Development Services Division.200 Mill Avenue South,Renton,WA 98055,by 5:00 PM on April 6,1998.This matter is also scheduled lore public hearing on April 14,1998 at 9:00 AM,Council contact the DevelopmentFloor Municipal uildin ng,20(00 Mill Ave.South.If you are interested in attending the hearing,please 277-5582,to ensure that the hearing has not been rescheduled.If comments cannot be submitted before theling by Hearingthe hate indicated above,you may still appear at the hearing and present your comments on the proposal Examiner.If you have questions about this proposal.or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional information by mail,contact Mr.Rosen at(425)235-2719.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 • DATE OF APPLICATION: FEBRUARY 17,1998 • ; NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: FEBRUARY 18,1998 /�. 1)`,l: '�-;_ • f DATE OF NOTICE OF APPLICATION: FEBRUARY 20,1998 1t I, IIIiji GENMALOT.DOC / r 1 CERTIFICATION • I, S ri(l 9 I n h I ki , hereby certify that ? copies of the above document were posted by me in 3 conspicuous places on or nearby the described property on Fe.brl Vv\ , V1'1 Signed: v i wl,v1 k-I'1 ATTEST: Subcribed and sworn before me, a Nortary Public, in an for;he State of Washington residing m` per,.,(g- 'r , on the '3, day ofzirn • •.J �iyyt • MARILYN KAMCHEFF COMMISSION EXPIRES 6/29/99 c*Nrro� NOTICE OF APPLICATION PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS DATE: FEBRUARY 20, 1998 A Master Application has been filed and accepted with the Development Services Division of the City of Renton. The following briefly de scribes the application and the necessary Public Approvals. oaksdsle i3uslness Cernru.s PROJECT NUMBER/NAME: LUA-98-021,SA-H,SM,ECF DESCRIPTION: Proposal for five warehouse/office structures ranging from approximately 62,300 sq.ft.to 151,800 sq.ft.for a total of 576,887 sq.ft. in gross floor area. The buildings would be one story tilt-up concrete structures with a maximum building height of 35 feet. The buildings may include mezzanine or two story office areas. Truck maneuverin and loading dock areas are located internally on the site, with office areas facing adjacent streets. Parking spaces au provided for 591 vehicles around the perimeters of the buildings. Access is propose i from one driveway off SW 43rd Street and via two driveways off Oaksdale Ave. SW. The south driveway off Oaksdale Avenue SW is intended for truck access and is aligned with SW 41st Street. This driveway would bridge SpringbrooF Creek. There is an on-site remediation action plan that is in the process of development and review under a Consent Decree with the State of Washington Department of Ecology (DOE). This remediation action plan will include leveling and mitigating the two >n-site auto fluff piles. There are three small delineated wetlands on the site which will be cleaned up and filled under thi Consent Decree. Wetland mitigation is proposed along Springbrook Creek. The proposal will r!quire a Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permit. , Location: NW comer of SW 43rd Street and Oaksdale Ave.SW,north of Springbrook Creek. GENERAL LOCA"ION: NW corner of SW 43rd Street and Oaksdale Ave.SW,north of Springbrook Creek STUDIES REQUIFIED/OR AVAILABLE: Geotechnical Study,Traffic Impact Study,Wetland Report, Drainage Report, Cleanup Action Plan. PUBLIC APPROVALS: Environmental Review(ECF) Site Plan Approval(SA) Shoreline Substantial Development Permit(SM) Building Permit Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Peter Rosen,Project Manager, Development Services Division,200 Mill Avenue South,Renton,WA 98055,by 5:00 PM on April 6, 1998. This matter is also scheduled for a public hearing on April 14, 1998 at 9:00 AM,Council Chambers,Second Floor Municipal Building,200 Mill Ave.South. It you are interested in attending the hearing,please contact the Development Services Division,(425) 277-5582,to ensue that the hearing has not been rescheduled. If comments cannot be submitted in writing by the date indicated above,y:>u may still appear at the hearing and present your comments on the proposal before the Hearing Examiner. If you Dave questions about this proposal,or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional information by ma I,contact Mr. Rosen at(425)235-2719. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. PLEASE INCLU)E THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION ' , ;'. DATE OF APPLICATION: FEBRUARY 17, 1998 at =,yes i ! 1 x a .J; .\ 1I i - • NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: FEBRUARY 18, 1998 ; i • 10 DATE OF NOTICI OF APPLICATION: FEBRUARY 20, 1998 ' ls . . ;L A ai y _, - :: li 11'• = ...;.-Ni'. it. ti I . �t I I " . GENMALOT.DOC • • �1•_ .r •( � ,t,., a , CITY OF RENTON ..u. I Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse T inner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator February 19, 1998 Mr. Roland Colliander CNA Architecture 777- 108th NE#400 Bellevue, WA 98004-5118 SUBJECT: Oaksdale Business Campus Project No. LUA-98-021,SA-H,SM,ECF Dear Mr. Coliiander: The Development Planning Section of the City of Renton has determined that the subject application is complete according to submittal requirements and, therefore, is accepted for review. It is tentatively scheduled for consideration by the Environmental Review Committee on March 17, 1998. Prior to that review, you will be notified if any additional information is required to continue processing your application. The date of Tuesday, April 14, 1998, at 9:00 a.m., has been set for a public hearing to review the above-referenced matter. The hearing, before Mr. Fred Kaufman, Renton Hearing Examiner, will be held in the Council Chambers on the second floor of City Hall, Renton, Washington. The applicant or representative(s) of the applicant is required to be present at the public hearing. A copy of the staff report will be mailed to you one week before the hearing. Please contact me, at (425) 235-2719, if you have any questions. Sincerely, n � Peter Rosen Project Manager cc: Zelman Renton L.L.C./Owners ACCPTITR.DOC 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 CITY OF RENTON DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION MASTER APPLICATION F ROPERTY OWNER(S) PROJECT INFORMATION Note: If there is more,than one legal`,owner, please attach an additional notarized Master Aoalication for each owner. PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: l NAME: ZELMIN RENTOINI L.L.G. OAKSDPLE 130SI 1`I CPMPUS e� PROPERTY/PROJECT ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION: ADDRESS: 7O-1y WILSHIR.E LEVIO NG 1H OF STREET NORTH OF SU1 T E 50%, SPRI Ne45Rook CREEK, a M ►NEST cF KDP�-.E PVENUE S.W. CITY: LOS PNI&C LEST GA ZIP: jC017 KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S, � ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): P�J�I- QO 6✓ TELEPHONE NUMBE`.R: (213) 533- gI Is EXISTING LAND USE(S): WMMERGIPL/ 1NDUSTRIPL APPLICANT (if other than owner) PROPOSED LAND USES:NAME: CCMME-gCIPL/INDUSTRI/�/� L- PANY (if appli(able): EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: EMPL NMENT PREP - VALLEY ADDRESS: PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION (if applicable): NO cHPNee PK.CroSED CITY: ZIP: EXISTING ZONING: I-M MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL TELEPHONE NUMBER: PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): NO C4-1PNC'E PRO ED CONTACT PERSON SITE AREA (SQ. FT. OR ACREAGE): NAME: RoLFqND G. GOLLIANDER 1,3771no SJtPT' 31.631 PGRES PPeC,EL.S P4,B,GI D,E, F1 K A/F D COMPANY (if applicable): G.N.P•. /-'Rc `ITICTURE: PROJECT VALUE: 101`i3I EB 1 7 1998 ADDRESS: T77 Ioa+4, NE t zlon JEVEL:.NN,iENT PLANNING IS THE SITE LOCATED IN THE AQUIFER PROTreflf6K NO : BELLE'/UEi WP ZIP: 41sOc -5Ile) IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY OTHER TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA? TELEPHONE NUMBER: 42.5- S-335S NO LEGAL DESCRIPTII OF PROPERTY (Attach separat feet if necessary) TYPE OF APPLICATION & FEES Check all application types that apply--City staff will determine fees. — ANNEXATION $ SUBDIVISION: — COMP. PLAN AMENDMENT $ — REZONE $ _ LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT $ _ SPECIAL PERMIT $ _ SHORT PLAT $ _TEMPORARY PERMIT $ _TENTATIVE PLAT $ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT $ _ PRELIMINARY PLAT $ $, SITE PLAN APPROVAL $ 1000.eD _ FINAL PLAT $ _GRADE & FILL PERMIT $ (NO. CU. YDS: 1 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: $ _ VARIANCE $ (FROM SECTION: 1 _ PRELIMINARY _ WAIVER $ _ FINAL _WETLAND PERMIT $ — ROUTINE VEGETATION MOBILE HOME PARKS: $ MANAGEMENT PERMIT $ _ BINDING SITE PLAN $ SHORELINE REVIEWS: SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT $ 1t006''*' !;Gei. - _ CONDITIONAL USE $ _ VARIANCE $ EXEMPTION $No Charge X ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ?o _ ,0,-- — REVISION $ AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP I, (Print Name) %CJih0-44- L.('i' ,declare that I am (please check one)_the owner of the property involved in this application, X the authorized sentative to act for the property owner(please attach proof of authorization), and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contain the 'nf ion herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. RI p-RED L. I5,URR ATTEST: Subscribed a d sworn to before me, a Notary Public, in a_n) Z M ELAN REI4TON LLG fssa�,the tate of 1i, residing at 12gZZ S£ I"77L'PL (Nam f wner/Re resentative) ��l�vu e Jt}- on the S day of (Si nature of Owner/Representative) c.e — (Signature of Notary Public) (This secti to be'c mpleted by City Staff.) 1 City File Number:. 1//34 'ac?4 ECF.. r. • ' R SHPL CU LLA PP FP TP SP RVMP V AAD W FP V SME MHP BSP A CPA TOTAL FEES: $ UUO1.- TOTAL POSTAGE PROVIDED: $ 4-.0.0 MASTERAP.DOC REVISED 9196 )6 J•.a NOTICE TO APPLICANTS Pursuant to Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 77, Subchapter 8, all applicants who prc:pose any of the following activities shall notify the FAA of the proposed project: (1) Any construction or alteration of more than 179' in height above sea level or any construction or alteration more than 200' above the ground level at its site. (2) Any construction or alteration of greater height than an imaginary surface exi ending outward and upward at a slope of 100 to 1 for a horizontal distance of 20 000 feet from the nearest point of the nearest runway of the Renton Municipal Airport. If tie object constructed or altered would be shielded by existing structures of a permanent and substantial character or by natural terrain or topographic features of equal or greater height, and would be located in the congested area of the city wl-ere it is evident beyond all reasonable doubt that the structure so shielded will not adversely affect safety in air navigation, the applicant is exempt from this notice requirement. Each person who is required to submit a notification shall send one executed form set of FAA Form 7460-1, Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration, to the Manager, Air Traffic Division, FAA Regional Office having jurisdiction over the area within which the construction or alteration will be located. Copies of FAA Form 7460-1 may be obtained from the headquarters of the Federal Aviation Ac:ministration and the regional offices. Notice must be submitted to the FAA at least 30 days before an application for a ccnstruction permit is to be filed or proposed construction or alteration is to begin, whichever is earliest. Send your notification to the following address: Manager: Air Traffic Division ANM-530 FAA Northwest Mountain Regional Office 1601 Lind Avenue Southwest Renton, WA 98055-4050 (206) 431-2530 A,rspace associated with the Renton Municipal Airport extends outward 14,000 feet, see attached diagram entitled Airport and Zoning Designations. This airspace is used by all types of aircraft for the landing, taking off, and maneuvering at very low altitudes in connection with their operation at or on the airport and/or the associated seaplane base. While within this airspace area the aircraft may operate at very low altitudes and cause noise, vibrations, and other effects. FA ANOTIC REVISED 6/96 Feb-05-98 03 : 25P ZELMA" TXEC DEPT 213 ''"'3 8134 P . 02 THE ZELMAN COMPANIES ;o7 WIL2L'IRt: ISUI'I EVARD. F.;.11rF 3o3O • LOS PUC3ELFS ;-.A -?f;lil' • TEL11'HCNE (21'31 33 (!1D,, •FAX (21'ii ',3:' foul February 5, 1998 VIA FAX NO. 425/277-4455 Ms. Jana Huerter City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 Re: Former Sterna:, Site Renton, Washington Dear Ms. Huerter: This letter shall authorize Dick Burr to execute the SEPA application on behalf of Zelman Renton, LLC. Sincerely, ZELMAN RENTON, LLC By: ZELMAN INDUSTRIAL PARTNERS, INC. e-----+-)„,___ By: .4 Brett M. Foy Vice President BRiam cc: Ben Reiling Paul T Casey Dick Burr bmt:hooter renton 0205 ZELMAN DEVELO MEN T CC ZELMAN INDUSTRIAL PARTNERS, NC. ZELMAN RETAIL PARTNERS,'!NC. 1 ':/II 11•.la •:.I l'.')FA I()'1 ! C::'11.Cr411. `ION A 'AI It afJi4 is 1 �<iH.fivN Zelman Renton LLC ' ':eFIVU Property Description: Oaksdale Business Campus-North of Springbrook Creek °! 1 1998 LEGAL DESCRIPTION '�w►Parcel A: PLANNING CITY OF RENTON The North 330 Feet of the following described tract: That portion of the Northwest quarter of the Northeast quarter and of the Northeast quarter of the Northwest quarter of Section 36, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, Willamette Meridian, in King County, Washington, described as follows: BEGINNING at the Northeast corner of the Henry Adams Donation Land Claim No. 43; THENCE East, along the centerline of South 180th Street (formerly a county road), 114 feet; THENCE North 674.78 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE Northerly, on a straight line parallel to the East line of Northern Pacific Railway Company right-of-way, to the North line of said section; THENCE Easterly, along the North line of said Section, to a point thereon which is 881 .37 feet West of the Northeast corner of the Northwest corner of the Northeast quarter thereof; THENCE South 03' 40' 00' West, 730.69 feet; THENCE North 84' 34' 00' West 649.70 feet, more or less, to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. Parcel B: The North 330 feet of the following described tract: That portion of the Northwest quarter of the Northeast quarter of Section 36, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, Willamette Meridian, in King County, Washington, described as Follows: BEGINNING at a point on the centerline of Spring Brook Slough Drainage Ditch No. 1, 530,25 feet North of and 1,000.27 feet East of the Northeast corner of Henry Adams Donation Land Claim No. 43; THENCE North 03' 49' 00' East 807.91 feet, more or less, to the North line of said subdivision; THENCE North 89' 24' 30' West, along said North line, 252.9 Feet, more or less, to a point which lie'S 881 .37 feet West of the Northeast quarter of said Northwest quarter of the Northeast quarter; THENCE South 03' 40' 00' West 923.69 Feet to the centerline of said slough; THENCE along said centerline of the slough, North 64' 32' 10' East 184.71 feet; THENCE North 73' 26' 00' East 70 feet; THENCE North 63' 10' 00' East 30.52 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Parcel C: The North 330 feet of the following described tracts: That portion of the Northwest quarter of the Northeast quarter of Section 36, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, Willamette Meridian, in King County, Washington, described as follows: BEGINNING at a point on the centerline of Spring Brook Slough Drainage Ditch No. 1, 1, 000.27 feet East and 530.25 feet North line of the Northeast corner of Henry Adams Donation Land Claim No. 43; THENCE North 03' 49' 00' East 807.91 feet, more or less, to the North line of said subdivision; THENCE, along the said North line, South 89' 24' 30' East 628.47 Feet to the East line of said subdivision; THENCE, along said East line, South 00' 13' 30' East 290 feet to the centerline of said slough; THENCE, along the centerline of said slough, South 21' 34' 00' West 301 .01 feet; THENCE South 56' 44' 30' West 246.38 feet; THENCE South 75' 38' 00' West 370.3 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; EXCEPT right-of-way for said drainage ditch. Parcel D: That portion of the Northwest quarter of the Northeast quarter and of the Northeast quarter of the Northwest quarter of Section 36, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, Willamette Meridian, in King County, Washington, described as follows: BEGINNING at the Northeast corner of the Henry Adams Donation Land Claim No. 43; THENCE East, along the centerline of South 180th Street (Formerly a county road), 114 feet; THENCE North 674.78 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE Northerly, on a straight line parallel to the East line of Northern Pacific Railway Company right-of-way, to the North line of said section; THENCE Easterly, along the North line of said section, to a point thereon which is 881 .37 feet West of the Northeast corner of the Northwest quarter of the Northeast quarter thereof; THENCE South 03' 40' 00' West 730.69 feet; THENCE North 84' 34' 00' West 649.70 feet, more or less, to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; EXCEPT the North 330 Feet thereof. Parcel E: That portion of the Northwest quarter of the Northeast quarter of Section 36, Township 34 North, Range 4 East, Willamette Meridian, ;n King County, Washington, Described as follows: BEGINNING at a point on the centerline of Spring Brook Slough Drainage Ditch No. 1, 530.25 feet North of and 1,000.27 feet East of the Northeast corner of Henry Adams Donation Land Claim No. 43; THENCE North 03' 49' 00' East 807.91 feet, more or less, to the North line of said subdivision; THENCE North 89' 24' 30' West, along said North line, 252.9 feet, more or less, to a point which lies 881 .37 feet west of the Northeast corner of said Northwest quarter of the Northeast quarter; THENCE South 03' 40' 00' West 923.69 feet to the centerline of said slough; THENCE, along said centerline of the slough, North 64' 32' 10' East 184.71 feet; THENCE North 73' 26' 00' East 70 feet; THENCE North 63' 10' 00' East 30.52 feet to the POINT ❑F BEGINNING; EXCEPT the North 330 feet thereof; and EXCEPT that portion of said main tract lying within the following described property: BEGINNING at the Northwest corner of the Northeast quarter of Section 36, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, Willamette Meridian, in King County, Washington; THENCE North 87' 31 ' 36' East 1,340.95 feet; THENCE South 01' 47' 23' West 330.03 feet; THENCE South 87' 36' 36' West 260.0 feet to the TRUE POINT ❑F BEGINNING of this exception;, THENCE South 87' 31 ' 36' West 460. 0 feet; THENCE South 02' 28' 24' East 197.0 feet; THENCE North 87' 31 ' 36' East 460.0 feet; THENCE North 02' 28' 24' West 197. 0 Feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING of this exception, and EXCEPT right-of-way for said drainage ditch. Parcel F: That portion of the Northwest quarter of the Northeast quarter of Section 36, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, Willamette Meridian, ;n King County, Washington, described as follows; BEGINNING at a point on the centerline of Spring Brook Slough Drainage Ditch No. 1, which is 1,000.27 feet East and 530.25 feet North of the Northeast corner of the Henry Adams Donation Land Claim No. 43; THENCE North 03' 49' 00' East 807.91 feet to the North line of H. Nelson's tract; THENCE, along said north line, South 89' 24. 30' East 628.47 feet to the east line of said H. Nelson 's tract: THENCE, along said East line, South 00' 13' 30' East 290 feet to the centerline of said slough; THENCE, along the centerline of said slough, South 21' 34' 00' West 301 .02 feet; THENCE South 56' 44' 30' West 246.38 feet; THENCE South 75' 38' 00' West 370.3 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; EXCEPT the North 330 feet thereof; and EXCEPT that portion of said main tract lying within the following described property: BEGINNING at the Northwest corner of the Northeast quarter of Section 36, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, Willamette Meridian, in King County, Washington; THENCE North 87' 31 ' 36' East 1,340.95 Feet; THENCE South 01' 47' 23' West 330. 03 feet; THENCE South 87' 31 ' 36' West 260. 0 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING of this exception; THENCE South 87' 31 ' 36' West 460.0 feet; THENCE South 02' 28' 24' East 197. 0 feet; THENCE North 87' 31 ' 36' East 460. 0 feet; THENCE North 02' 28' 24' West 197. 0 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING of this exception; and EXCEPT right-of-way for said drainage ditch. Parcel K: That portion of Section 36, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, Willamette Meridian, in King County, Washington, described as follows: BEGINNING at a point which is 114 feet East and 30 feet North from the Northeast corner of Henry Adams Donation Land Claim No. 43; THENCE North 644.78 feet; THENCE South 84' 34' 00' East 649.70 feet; THENCE South 04' 37' 00' West 170 Feet; THENCE North 84' 34' 00' West 470 Feet; THENCE South to the centerline of Spring Brook Slough Drainage Ditch No. I; THENCE Southwesterly along said centerline to a point East of the POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE West 130.86 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; EXCEPT right-of-way for said Drainage Ditch No. 1; and EXCEPT that portion thereof condemned ;n King County Superior Court Cause Number 81-2-08117-7 for widening of S.W. 43rd Street. Parcel M; That point of Section 36, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, Willamette Meridian, in King County, Washington, described as follows: BEGINNING at a point which is 114 feet East and 30 feet North From the Northeast corner of Henry Adams Donation Land Claim No. 43; THENCE North 644.78 feet; THENCE South 84' 34' 00' East 649.70 feet; THENCE South 04' 37' 00' West 170 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE North 84' 34' 00' West 470 feet; THENCE South to the centerline of Spring Brook Slough Drainage Ditch No. 1; THENCE Northeasterly, along said drainage ditch centerline, to a point which bears South 04' 37' 00' West from the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE North 04' 37' 00' East 23 feet, more or less, to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; EXCEPT right-of-way for said Drainage Ditch. Parcel 0: The south 15 feet of the Southwest quarter of the Southeast quarter and the south 15 feet of the east 196.64 feet of the Southeast quarter of the Southwest quarter, all in section 25, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, Willamette Meridian, in King County Washington. t February 03, 1998 MEMO RE: Oaksdale Business Campus- North of Springbrook Creek Site Plan Approval Submittal Requirements Item 7. Project Narrative Project Narrative: The proposed Oaksdale Business Campus site is located in the southwest corner of the City of Renton. It is located within the Employment Area -Valley as described in the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The site lies north of SW 43`d Street which is a major east-west arterial street which crosses over state highway 167 on the east and extends to 1-5 to the west, and is located west of Oaksdale Avenue SW, on approximately 49 acres. Springbrook Creek crosses the site from southwest to northeast. This proposal is for Site Plan Approval of the Oaksdale Business Campus north of Springbrook Creek. There is a total of eight parcels on the portion north of Springbrook Creek. The area north of Springbrook Creek is approximately 31.6 acres. The site is currently unoccupied. There are no active businesses nor residents using the site. In the past the site has been used for light industrial uses, and auto wrecking activities. Several small one-story metal frame buildings currently exist. The other structures include small sheds and out-buildings, fences, asphalt pavement, concrete slabs and gravel roads. There are a few gravel paved access roads, and utility poles and lines. No other significant structures exist on the site. The site is covered with a variety of trees, shrubs, and grasses. Existing vegetation will be removed, and replaced with new landscaping throughout the site. A row of tall poplars along the north property line is expected to be retained. The site is relatively level. Both Oaksdale Avenue SW and SW 43rd Street are relatively flat. The site is slightly lower in elevation than the adjacent streets. Springbrook Creek along the south edge of the site is the lowest elevation on the site, and is about 8 to 12 feet below the average site elevation. There are three small delineated wetlands on the site. These wetlands will be relocated to the Springbrook Creek north bank, and adjacent to the detention ponds. There are no bodys of water on the site. A small portion of the site is included in "slope easements" established by Superior Court Cause no. 81-2-08117-7. It is located adjacent to the street right-of-way along SW 43`d Street and is approximately 18 to 24 feet in width, and about 130 feet in length. Much of this steep slope will be eliminated with the construction of site access from 43`d The proposed uses within Oaksdale Business Campus- North of Springbrook Creek is commercial/industrial. Commercial/industrial use is encouraged in the"Employment Area - Valley". Five warehouse/office structures are proposed. The five buildings will be one-story, tilt- up load bearing concrete structures, with office character facing the adjacent streets. Exterior walls will be finished with different color bands and reveals which will reduce the scale of the structures. At the entrances awnings, storefronts and other concrete forms will be included to define office areas and break down the scale of the buildings. Each of the five buildings will have RECEIVED FEh 1 7 1998 ni;vas_WiviENT PUNNING f the same architectural character and will have the same building height. The lengths of the buildings will vary. The proposed development should not effect neighboring properties views. The maximum height of the buildings will be 35' above grade. The total gross floor area of the five buildings is 576,887 square feet. The lot coverage is 42%. Parking is provided for 578 cars. Truck maneuvering and loading dock areas are located internally and not viewed from the adjacent streets. Truck access is from the driveway in line with SW 41st Street at Oaksdale Ave. SW. Passenger vehicles will access the site from either driveway entrance on Oaksdale, and from the driveway on SW 43`d Street. The driveway at SW 43'can be used by both trucks and passenger vehicles. RCC-rcc Narrative-N.doc February 5,1998 MEMO FROM: Roland Colliander, CNA Architecture TO: City of Renton, Development Services Division RE: Proposed Oaksdale Business Campus- North of Springbrook Creek Item 8 in Site Plan Approval Submittal Requirements Construction Mitigation Description The following comments are in response to item 8 which requests information regarding construction activities: 1. Proposed construction dates: Pre-Construction Phase: Clean-up site under Consent Decree February 1998 Demolition of buildings/improvements March 1998 Wetland Relocation May 1998 Phase I: Construction of Buildings A and B Starting Summer 1998 Phase II: Construction of Buildings C, D, & E Starting in Spring 1999 2. Hours of operation: All construction activities will take place during "normal" business hours for the construction industry. Generally, construction hours will be from 6:00 AM to 6:00 PM. Weekend and evening construction activities are not expected. 3. Proposed hauling/transportation routes: During the Pre-Construction Phase several site preparation activities will occur on the site including grading, placing of fill material, wetland relocation, and mitigation of existing on-site materials. Large earth moving equipment and hauling trucks will be used on-site to reshape the grades. A small number of deliveries of off-site fill materials will be transported to the site over the major arterial streets leading to the site. During the construction of buildings and site improvements construction materials and products will be delivered to the site. Delivery trucks will use the major arterial streets leading to the site. Primary truck access to the site will be located at the northeast corner of the site on Oaksdale Avenue SW. Construction access may also be provided at the southwest corner of the site on SW 43rd Street. 4. Measures to minimize construction dust, traffic, mud, noise, etc.: Dust: During dry weather water will be applied to the exposed earth areas as needed to prevent dust from being blown off-site. Mud: At construction access to public streets temporary paving or rock sub-base will be provided at the driveways and contractor will provide other management activities to prevent the deposit of mud and dirt on the adjacent public streets. Noise: There will be no excessively noisy construction activities on this site. Normal construction equipment will used to construct tilt-up concrete structures and to construct paving, etc. There are no noise-sensitive facilities in the neighborhood that would be ;`E 1 ? 1998 DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON disturbed by these activities. The surrounding properties are all IM - Medium Industrial zone. Proposed hauling/transportation routes: Access to this site will be from the west and the east. SW 43f° Street provides access from the Valley Highway to the west, and from State Route 167 to the east. SW 41st provides direct access from State Route 167 from he east. Oaksdale Boulevard does not currently connect to the north and will not be a transportation route until the extension is completed. Traffic trips will be at a relatively low level and will not require traffic mitigation other than control at the access points. Other noxious characteristics: There are no noxious materials other than normal construction materials expected to be utilized in the construction of this project. During the Pre-Construction Phase existing automobile wrecking and "wire fluff"waste materials will be incorporated in the filling materials or removed from the site. The site preparation construction contract will include remediation activities related to the existing piles of waste materials. 805memo3.doc February 5,1998 MEMO FROM: Roland Colliander, CNA Architecture 0: City of Renton, Development Services Division ICE: Proposed Oaksdale Business Campus- North of Springbrook Creek Item 18 in Site Plan Approval Submittal Requirements Floor Plans The following comments are in response to item 18 which requests floor plans as a part of the submittal for Site Plan Review. =1oor plan drawings are not included in this submittal package because of the nature of the aroject. All interior tenant improvements will be provided by the future tenants. This is a speculative project and the Owner will not be providing finished spaces other than for utilities. Tenant improvements are not included in this proposal. 805memo2.doc 7 1998 � vLLUrtvudl PLANNING CITY OF RENTON ebruary 6,1998 MEMO FROM: Roland Colliander, CNA Architecture TO: City of Renton, Development Services Division RE: Proposed Oaksdale Business Campus - North of Springbrook Creek Item 17 in Site Plan Approval Submittal Requirements Architectural Elevations The following comments are in response to item 17 which requests information regarding the exterior architectural character of the buildings: 1. Existing and proposed ground elevations: refer to the grading plan for existing grade elevations, and the exterior elevations for elevations of finish floor levels and building height. 2. Existing average grade level underneath proposed structure: Building A approximately 25' FFL 25.2' Building B approximately 25' FFL 25.2' Building C approximately 24' FFL 25.2' Building D approximately 21' FFL 25.2' Building E approximately 22' FFL 25.2' 3. Height of existing and proposed structures: There are no existing structures to remain. Building elevations are shown on the building exterior elevation sheets. 4. Building and sign materials and colors including roof, walls or other enclosures: Building colors are: as shown on the colored exterior elevation sheets. The main wall color will be a light warm gray 1555 (Benjamin Moore Moor-O-Matic Color System). The second exterior wall color will be a medium gray 1551 (Benjamin Moore Moor-O-Matic Color System). The awning and accent strip color will be a green 642 (Benjamin Moore Moor-O-Matic Color System). The glazing is a green tinted glass. The storefront system will be a green similar to the awning/accent color. Building Materials are: Exterior walls of tilt-up site-cast concrete. Aluminum storefront systems. Metal wall coping/flashings. Metal awnings over the truck dock doors. Retaining walls will be concrete. The roof will be three-ply built-up roofing. Miscellaneous items such as fences, enclosures, etc.: Trash enclosures will be site-cast concrete walls with metal gates. Roof-top equipment enclosures will be panted metal panels, painted to match one of the exterior wall colors. Retaining walls will be painted to match the building exterior colors. 5. Existing and proposed building signs: There is no existing signage. All new signage will be: At the two site entry points there will be an illuminated monument signs. A directory will be included. There may be internal directional signs to identify building locations, which will be small monument signs placed in the landscaping FE9 1 7 1999 DEVELONMEN1 PLANNING CITY nr at critical locations. The buildings will be identified with 24" high painted address signs at approximately 25' above finish floor level on the exterior wall, at each office/entry location. Individual tenants will be allowed to install name identification signs at approximately 15' above finish floor level. Only the name of the company will be allowed, and all signs will be required to fit within a minimum height of 20" and a width of 20'. A detailed signage program will be established for tenant signs. 6. Architectural design of on-site lighting fixtures: The site lighting concept is to have wall mounted exterior light fixtures as the primary exterior lighting source. At the truck dock areas the wall fixture will be similar to GE Walllighter 175 Luminaire, high pressure sodium or metal halide with an internal glare shield. At the office/entry sides of the buildings, and all side facing the east and south, the fixtures will be similar to GE Decashield Ill Luminaire, wall mounted down-light, high pressure sodium or metal halide, with light cut-off shield. Catalog sheets are attached. 805memo4.doc y �z�y5 3.. c aa-.0.• Ni1G/1 - .P ++. .l S.�s la.etka ....€ { •X,c,7.-y;,� a �. :4 T 1 J T ' y r = GEEighirng Systems .ry'�L ._rt,�:ea.... _, _ ... .. _... .. :t•. -. t •' � . .... _ . - GUIDE FORM SPECIFICATIONS • WALLIGHTER 175 LUMINAIRE GENERALDESCRiPTION The totally enclosed,weather-resistant luminaire designated (identify) shall be a GE WALLIGHTER 1 75 luminaire. ordering number (specifi•Wi LRXXXXXXXXXXXXX. WiSRXXXXXXXXXXXXX. Wi LGXXXXXXXXXXXXX or W1SGXXXXXXXXXXXXX). or approved equal. to operate one (specify [50, 70, 100 or 150(55V)] watt high pres- sure sodium (HPS] or 175 watt metal halide or mercury mogul base or(70, 100 Or 150(55V)] watt HPS or(70, 100 or 175] watt metal halide or 175 watt mercury medium base) lamp _ a from a nominal (specifi 120.208,240,277.347 or i;IIIVpl6 il'1 II—'`�— 480) volt. BO Hertz power source.The luminaire shall include •��nnih�m II!III�� �p, II � a completely prewired integral ballast and an optical assemble liiii�;r that shall provide an IES Distribution Type (specify to photometric selection table).The luminaire shall he ULI572 Listed SUITABLE FOR WET LOCATIONS and CSA Certified.Standard construction is IP55. OPTICAL ASSEMBLY MECHANICALCONSTRUCTiON The optical assembly shall include a precisely molded pris- matic (specifi acrylic or poivcarbonate resin) refractor The luminaire shall include a two-piece die-cast aluminum and top and rear aluminum reflectors with an Alzak'finish. housing with an eiectrocoat dark bronze paint finish and The optical assembly shall contain a (spectb.single (specifi acrylic or polcarbonate resin) refractor. shell.cantilever,mogul base socket with superior lamp There shall he weatherproof neoprene gaskets around the gripping,without lamp (Wi LRXXXXXXXXXXXXX]. or a . refractor edge and the wiring and mounting holes. Mounting medium base socket with specified medium base lamp sup- shall be by two 3/S-inch bolts through provided back holes or plied [WISRXXXXXXXXXXXXX]).The mogul base socket to a 4-inch (102 min) outlet box.There shall he 3/4-inch shall have added insulation,giving it the ability to handle the conduit entrance's with built-in clamps provided on the sides higher pulse ratings of newer HID systems. for through-feed wiring.The luminaire shall have standard The optical assembly may contain an optional,factory • and vandal-resistant screws provided to secure the refractor to installed glare control shield. the housing. Removal of the refractor shall allow direct fr tt access to the lamp. socket,ballast and reflector.The luminaire The top reflector shall be drilled so as to accept field shall have provisions for a field-installed photoelectric control installation of an internal glare control shield IGS-WL175. kit and internal glare shield. BALLAST OPERATION • . The luminaire shall have a standard (specify) ballast'". ;%'' The ignitor (for HPS only) and ballast shall be prewired to the lamp socket requiring connection of power supply leads only.The ballast shall be in full compliance with lamp-ballast *REFER TO PRODUCT PAGE FOR BALLAST SELEC- specifications available to the fixture manufacturer from the TIONS. FOR MORE DEFINITIVE INFORMATION, REFER lamp manufacturers at the time of fixture manufacture. TO BALLAST SPECIFICATIONS IN TECHNICAL DATA The ballast shall reliably start and operate the lame in ambi- SECTION. ent temperatures down to-20'F for mercury and metal halide and-40'F for HPS. The luminaire and ballast shall be from the same manufac- turer. PROM!: ?IFS HUSIIESS PXR% TYPE DESCRIPTIOS HPS2 GE :,IGETTI G iili,115SOHILSN416 • Proonotary term of aurt,rnum Company of 3n,eric3 - r��C ' + ",;:i- v ..: -^ Y }r4' .e >a -r+ y r y >: e• at' . e � y. 3 fi2' 'q4 ! 't"� i. '�.e ri'at w "'41- � -2 . 5, iL,4 �,n • Caf'�' o 6 ' ir' iXP. i".. "Csifr �j (sf 4d,';: '�� lc ��, cp +sr�� . CS . .F417• ;,er�, Q '#• • , i :4•1 7�/f/R V� sw .• t qr1+5p +CL. ,- ..- G:.. T 5 � .d.* � C `^`-^' :, ' 4 a 4' ! st Y�. "�w >"y ��Y'�iM`b;ti 1 -!�1' u , ! titiFr w °X �.z 4i ` � ff :N -,.5." .4 yer J„ .. As, + sI trgttr ; ' *.•i'-' r ,+.iC .. y,tPoz-1 • • r` t".+X.w 7 44.'4'�! ... ,;-nr Y_ �u. - v 't`.,r'' —w- t 'Y ,, z i h63r'r e.H,rr > .*- r � ._ .., - 3•.rx- ,. I.+`..,.. <.— , �rr'sF 6.-- -. WALLI GH i ER 175 L UMINAIRE •APP uCATION _ • = r Building perimeters, entrances, walkways, residential yards, loading docks and many other wall mounted arealighting applications. SPED,t CATIOPLFEATURES .- • UL1572 Listed SUITABLE FOR WET LOCATIONS •CSA Certified suczemaz •Standard construction is IP55 'llll , •Two-piece die-cast aluminum housing `—---___ � •Acrylic refraOtor or vandal-resistant polycar- `� bonate refractor ;uwi •Mogul or medium base lamps I�'I'l'11 II\IIh 11 1 1'10 IIIIII II' ", •Standard and tamper resistant hardware ,Iq1!111. included /,- •Thru-feed conduit entrance on side with built-in conduit clamps • Front access to ballast when mounted • For field installed Internal Glare Shield (IGS-WL175)see Accessories. URDERININUMBER LIIIG1%, co aI W1LR 10 S 0 H 1 A S !V 4 DB F LIGHT IES OISTRI- i PRODUCT ID. WATTAGE SOURCE VOLTAGE BALLAST TYPE PE FUNCTION LENS TYPE BUTION TYPE COLOR OPTIONS XXXX XX X X X • X X X X X XX XXX 1LR= See See See Ballast See Ballast and 1=None Nil=Acrylic I I I '08=Dark B=Time Oelay Wallighter Ballast Ballast and Photo- Photometric For PE Kit,see L=Polycar- See Ballast Bronze Automat- 175(Mogul and and Pho- metric Selection Table Accessories bonate and cally Base Socket Photo- tometric Selection A =Autoreg Photometric Switched Standard metric Selectio Table G =Mag-Reg Selection Quartz without Selec'•n Table 0=120/208/ with Table F=Fusing(Not Lamp) Table —, =HPS 240/277 Gruonded available W1SR= 05=50 M=MH or Multi Socket Shell with Wallighter 07=70 Merc 1=120 H =HPF Reactor multivolt or 175(Mediu '=100 (with 2=208 or Lag 120X347V) Base Socket 15=150 175W 3=240 K =Hot Restart Q=Non-Time Standard (55V) only) Delay with Lamp) 4=277 M=Mag-Reg Automati- W1LG= 17=175 5=480 N =NPF Reactor ♦ tally Wallighter 0=347 or Lag ' M=Medium Switched 175(Mogul F=120X347 S =Short Quartz Base without y lamp with i N=Non-Cutoff 1 Internal 1 1 S=Semi-Cutoff I y Glare Shield) W1SG= 12=Type II I Wailighter 4443=Type III I 175(Medium 14=Type IV I Base with 1 Lamp and iInternal PROJECT: FIFE 3USIIISS PART; Glare Shield) TYPE !111HC QRER DESCRIPTIOI HPS2 GE LIMING 1111215SOH1LSN4iiH SP Q5=iiHITE PAINTED FINISH The eatatog numbers.ob[rons and moadicanons On,M,s Doge are Ul L,sted unless oth.rwtSe noted Oara suorecr ro change werhour nonce ffogyt • •f .4 Attae`e:s ` e a*:::p tig t -r 4,a, ::t4� ' 414,, Y. lZ:, sA tii 7e- a ' � ghtiQ 1. {-7 g. ..�. i h r ri w',•.w l..Jdt-+t3'ra`+h:1''�A+�d - <ft r 3. rei h <y �iy'psr. :. �k'r:...Qe: -r�r GUIDE FORM SPECIFICATIONS DECASHIELD III LUMINAIRE GENERAL DESCRIPTION. The luminaire designated (identify) shall be a GE DECASHIELD° III luminaire ordering number (specify DSMTXXXXXXXXXXXXX or DSMFXXXXXXXXXXXXX), or approved equal, co operate one (specify (70, 100, 150(55V),250,400 or 750) watt high pressure sodium (HPS) , • or (175,250 or 400] watt metal halide lamp from a nominal (specify 120,208,240. 277,347 or 480) volt, 60 Hertz power source and shall be capable of starting and operating the specified lamp within the limits specified by the lamp manufacturer.The luminaire shall contain a completely prewired integral ballast and an optical assembly that shall provide an IES Distribution Type (specify MC2, MC3. SC2,HTV or FWT according to photometric selection table). The luminaire shall be UL1572 Listed SUITABLE FOR WET LOCATIONS and CSA Certified. Standard construction is IP55. OPTICAL ASSEMBLY MECHANICAL CONSTRUCTION The cutoff optical assembly shall have a (specify one- The luminaire shall be shipped complete, including mount- piece formed aluminum reflector with a chemically bonded ing arm, in one carton. lightweight non-breakable AL.GLASz finish on all surfaces or The luminaire shall have a die-cast aluminum housing and forward throw reflector with an anodized finish and field one-piece die-cast aluminum door. The door shall be hinged rotatable 90' in either direction) and heat/impact resistant and removable without the use of tools, and shall be held shut tempered flat glass lens.The optical assembly shall contain a with two stainless steel thumb latches for no-rool access to single shell, cantilever. mogul base socket with superior lamp both optical and ballast compartments. gripping. The socket shall have added insulation,giving it the ability to handle the higher pulse ratings of newer HID sys- All exposed die-cast surfaces shall have a (specify dark terns.The optical shall be sealed by a standard dacron felt bronze [standard], black,white or aluminum) polyester gasket. (There shall be an optional charcoal filtered optical powder paint finish.There shall be a prewired photoelectric available.) control receptacle available or photoelectric control receptacle with shorting cap. * REFER TO PRODUCT PAGE FOR BALLAST SELEC- BALLAST OPERATION TIONS. FOR MORE DEFINITIVE INFORMATION, REFER TO BALLAST SPECIFICATIONS IN TECHNICAL DATA • The luminaire shall have a (specify) type ballast*with SECTION. an electrical quick disconnect.The plug-in type ignitor (for HPS only) and ballast shall be prewired to the lamp socket requiring connection of power supply leads only.The ballast shall be .n full compliance with lamp-ballast specifications available to the fixture manufacturer from the lamp manufac- turers at the time of fixture manufacture. The ballast shall reliably start and operate the lamp in ambient temperatures down to-20'F for metal halide and-40'F for HPS. The luminaire and ballast shall be from the same manufac- turer. PROJECT,: FIFE BUSINESS ?AU TYPE IAIUFACTURER DESCRIPTION PS3 ;,i: ;,iviiTiNG DS;1T25S0A1GMC3VH - GALL HUNT ARY Reg stared Trademark of General Electric Company Sara suotect ro_flange.vrrnour.+ante 1 J r. .- - r L. .`. -Tr.'K --' ' .T..g -` o i isk.•' C .r -..a ,4 i t .F.4'i•i`,. n A Y< 4' gg 7:" " �t ^1 t'i • �• � 445 + t7- t o r !4y'3 `ye i +Y ? w` .t "s .' Y mail+' i►i,4ii r tom' Rl � 7a ;W-, VA11 IT, - • rs Pi .' . Y .;. '•'T., M _ 1:. a9 `7E' ` 4 y,fi •& _� +t :7!.t.c f • 1:• ri11(• UriUllgr s s 4 u`t. vt, t . r t , + : ,r e c r t 7 Z i'7.y'.�tr{ Y tath�2 crA5;t�t0ix YfC�:t fi � o K�irit - t `mr ' :C N ; _ + ait "+ . . ;? !t*- ,.„ va zt ;us r'A4.41 F d$ 4t:41 e; 5:414kws+ ti ,. .wr DECASHIELD® III LUMINAIRE _ APPLICATIONS:' . W . . - Walkways, driveways, tennis courts, malls, shopping centers, commercial and industrial complexes, and residential areas. ;:SPECIFICATION FEATURES - - - • UL1572 Listed SUITABLE FOR WET LOCATIONS • CSA Certified • Standard construction is IP55 • Heavy-duty die-cast aluminum housing and door • Polyester powder paint finish standard for dark bronze,black and white • No-tool access stainless steel latch design • Heat and impact resistant tempered flat glass lens •ALGLASt finish on Type II,Type III and Type V reflectors, anodized finish on Forward Throw reflector •Type II,Type III metal halide, and all Forward Throw reflectors are field rotatable • Enclosed and gasketed optical • Decorative Mounting Arm standard(Grilling templates are the same for the Decashield 1000 and Dimensionr""luminaires.) • Mogul base socket • Plug-in ignitor • Unit shipped complete in one carton(Ballast secured to housing) — • Removable ballast tray(DSMT only) ORDERING:NUMBER LOGIC SP ®LISTED DSMT 40 S 0 A 1 G M ç 3 D Q C LIGHT IES DISTAI- PRODUCT ID. WATTAGE SOURCE VOLTAGE BALLAST TYPE PE FUNCTION LENS TYPE BUTION TYPE COLOR OPTIONS 41/441 XXXX XX .. X X X - X X X X XX XXX DSMT= 07=70 S =HPS =120/208/ I See Ballast and 1=Nane G=Glass See Ballast and AL =Alumi- A=Lightning Decashield 10=100 M=MH 240/277 Photometric 2=PE Recep- - Photometric num Arrester III Lumi- NOTE: Standard: Multivo Selection Table tacle Selection Table BL =Black C=Charcoal naire with HPS Mogul 1=120 A=Autoreg 4=PE Recap- SC2 = Short 08=Dark alter(Not Ballast only base 2=208 G=Mag-Reg tacle and Cutoff Bronze available Tray 15=150 lamp not 3=240 with Shorting Type II \ (Stan- with FWT) DSMF= (55V) included. Grounded Cap MC2= Medium dard) F=Fusing(Not Decashield 17=175 4=277 Socket Shell NOTE: Re- Cutoff WH = available III Lumi- 24250/ 5=480 = H =HPF Reactor ceptacles Type II White with naire with 400 0=347 or Lag connected MC3= Medium multivolt or Internal s F=120X347 M=Mag-Reg same voltage Cutoff 120X347V) Slipfitter, 25=250 g g as unit. adjustable 40=400 NOTE: p =CWI with I Type III R=No for 1.660 120X347 Grounded F1IVT= Forward Mounting 75=150 connected Socket Shell Throw Arm to 2.375 NOTE: for 120V in. (42 to 250/400 HTV = Horizontal Gomm) OD connected Type V pipe for:50W mounted. S A N. ,�'1 The catalog numbers,options ara modifications PROJBCT• FIFE 3IISIRBSS PIRI ._:,on ttns page are Ul listed unless otherwise noted. -.Traaemark of General Electric Company TYPE 1I1IIFACTURBR DESCRIPTIOR 9 Registerea Trademark of General Electric Company •7ata subject ro cnange wubour nonce 3PS3 GE i,IGHTI?iG DSMT2550A1GMC3ifH - iiALL IOUHT ARM • .e Z 5120 Dec..i995` . OP 161 NA-L ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Purpose of Checklist The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW. requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the qua ity of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the Age ncy 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 Thi:, 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 pro )osal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most pre ;ise information known, or give the best description you can. Yoi must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to I ire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or"does not apply." Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems the governmental agencies can ass st you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of tin or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. USE of Checklist for Nonproject Proposals: Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apr ly". IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTION (part D). For nonproject actions, 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. 7i 061, 1998 REYytoAl ,vG p:12 4/805/805S EPA-n:kp 5 A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Oaksdale Business Campus- North of Springbrook Creek for Zelman Development Company 2. Name of applicant: Zelman Renton LLC 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Applicant: Zelman Renton LLC 707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 3036 Los Angeles, CA 90017 (213) 533-8120 Contact Person: Roland C. Colliander CNA Architecture 777 108th Avenue NE, Suite 400 Bellevue, Washington 98004 (425) 822-6700 (425) 828-9116 (FAX) 4. Date checklist prepared: January 13, 1998 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Renton p:124'805/805SEPA-n:kp 6 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Pre-construction Phase Clean up-site under Consent Decree February, 1998 Demolition March, 1998 Wetland Relocation May, 1998 Phase I Construction of 2 to 4 buildings north of Springbrook Creek Starting Summer 1998 Phase II Construction of 2 to 3 buildings north of Springbrook Creek Starting Spring 1999 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. None other than to complete phased work per A. 6 above. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. An on-site remediation action plan is in the process of development and review under a Consent Decree with the State of Washington Department of Ecology. This remediation action plan will include leveling and mitigating the two on-site auto fluff piles. There are existing scattered wetlands which will be cleaned up and relocated along Springbrook Creek under the Consent Decree. The Creek will not be modified. The site has several existing buildings which will be demolished in conjunction with the Consent Decree. The following documents relate to this proposal: a.) Geotechnical Engineering Study, Southwest 43rd Street and Oaksdale Avenue SW, Renton, Washington, December 8, 1997, prepared for Zelman Development Company, by Earth Consultants, Inc., Bellevue, Washington. b.) Traffic Impact Study Report for Oaksdale Business Campus, Renton, Washington, by Entranco, Bellevue, Washington. c.) Wetland Inventory Report and Wetland Mitigation Plan for Oaksdale Business Campus, Renton, Washington, by Watershed Dynamics, Inc., Auburn, Washington. d.) Drainage Report for Oaksdale Business Campus, Renton, Washington, Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc., Kent , Washington. e.) Supplemental Remedial Investigation/Supplemental Feasibility Study, by Hart Crowser, Inc., May 12, 1997, Revised July 2, 1997. This document is available to the public at the Northwest Regional Office of the WS Dept of Ecology. f.) Cleanup Action Plan, by Hart Crowser, Inc., June 30, 1997, Revised July 2, 1997. This document is available to the public at the Northwest Regional Office of the WS Dept of Ecology. p:124 805/805SEPA-n:kp 7 g.) Final Engineering Design Report, OHM Remediation Services, Corp., December 1997. This document is available to the public at the Northwest Regional Office of the WS Dept of Ecology. h.) Prospective Purchaser Consent Decree, Re: Sternco Property, Renton, Washington, No. 97- 2-17988-2SEA, July 22, 1997. This document is available to the public at the Northwest Regional Office of the WS Dept of Ecology 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. Consent Degree with State of Washington, Department of Ecology. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. • Consent Degree with State of Washington, Department of Ecology, which includes demolition and wetland relocation. • SEPA • Shoreline Permit (To be verified) • Site Plan Approval • Building Permits 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the site of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.) The Oaksdale Business Campus project site consists of 43.931 acres in several parcels including 31.631 acres north of Springbrook Creek, 11.21 acres south of Springbrook Creek at the corner of SW 43rd Street and Oaksdale Avenue and 1.09 acres southeast of Springbrook Creek along S.W. 43rd Street. This proposal relates only to the 31.631 acres north of springbrook Creek. The property is zoned I-M, Medium Industrial. The proposed use for the buildings is within those allowed in I-M zone, including primary permitted uses of manufacturing, warehousing, administrative office associated with primary uses, and conditional uses of general business services, personal offices, gasoline service stations, retail uses which are incidental and occupy no more than thirty three percent of the gross floor area of primary use. The project will consist of five large tilt-up concrete buildings on the north portion of the site ranging from approximately 62,300 sq. ft. to 151,800 sq. ft, for a total of 597,855 sq. ft. The south portion of the site will be developed by others and is not included in this proposal. The maximum building height will be 35 feet north of the creek. plus roof top mechanical equipment set back from the perimeter of the buildings. The buildings may have mezzanines or two story office areas. The walls will have reveals and interesting painting concepts to provide scale. The buildings will meet all requirements of the current Uniform Building Code and Washington State Amendments, including the State Regulation for Barrier-Free Facilities. Three types of surface driveways are to be developed for vehicular site traffic north and west of Springbrook Creek. • There are two entrance driveways 30 feet wide which serve both trucks and cars. These driveways have limited associated parking stalls. • Separate truck courts for maneuvering and loading are provided at the building docks. p:124.305/805S E PA-n:kp 8 • A separate driveway with perpendicular parking for cars are segregated from the driveways which are required to be used by trucks. The driveways designated for cars are landscaped with street trees and will have sidewalks in several locations on one side to create a "boulevard" character around the perimeter of the buildings. The site will be graded to allow for positive drainage into multi-cell detention ponds along the creek. The site will be designed to meet 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual requirements for control of storm water. Provisions for temporary erosion control and interim storm water management will be installed and maintained during construction. The site will be graded to allow for the truck courts to service four foot high truck-docks, and drive-up docks at the warehouse/manufacturing buildings. The site will be landscaped and irrigated to meet City of Renton Standards. All utilities will be placed underground including electrical and telephone service. The site will have fire hydrants and fire flow as required by the City. The site will have light fixtures as required for security and safety. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information fora 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 project site consists of 31.631 acres north of Springbrook Creek and north of SW 43rd Street, and west of Oaksdale Avenue. The site is located in Section 36, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, Willamette Meridian, in King County. A site survey drawing, legal description and vicinity map are attached to the Master Application. p:124'805/805SEPA-n:kp 9 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT: B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. IIARTH a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other: The site topography is relatively flat ranging from elevation 20 to 24 feet except within Springbrook Creek channel which is at approximately at elevation 12 feet and at the two auto fluff piles which reach elevation 40. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? The two auto fluff piles which are to be leveled under the remediation action plan under the Consent Decree. Slopes vary from a maximum of 30% to about 15%. This pile will be removed in the site preparation phase. c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, mulch)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. According to Earth Consultants Inc. December 8, 1987 Geotechnical Engineering Study, the site is typically underlain by thirty five (35) to forty (40) feet of interfingering and poorly stratified silty sands and sandy or clayey silts. Occasional lenticular peat interbeds four to five feet thick have also been noted at depths of ten (10)to fifteen (15) feet under certain parts of the site. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. No. e. Describe the purpose, type and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. The site will be graded to allow for positive drainage into multi- cell detention ponds along the creek. The site will be designed to meet 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual requirements for control of storm water. The site will be graded to allow truck courts to service four foot high docks at the warehouse/manufacturing buildings. Refer to the Grading Plan by Beghausen. The intent is to cut and fill with onsite material to balance the site grading. Some imported structural fill will be required. (Fill source and any off site disposal of existing material has not been identified at this time. p:124/805/805S E PA-n:kp 10 f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Typically no, since the site is relatively flat. Provisions for temporary erosion control and interim storm water management will be installed and maintained during construction to the approved methods of City of Renton. At the completion of work, disturbed areas will be landscaped. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Total Site Area: 1,377,846 SF (31.631 Acres) Building Area 579,855 SF (13.310 Acres) Impervious Surfaces 493,485 SF (11.320 Acres) subtotal impervious surfaces 1,073,340 SF Site Coverage percentage 77.9 % h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth if any: Provisions for temporary erosion control and interim storm water management will be installed and maintained during construction to the approved methods of City of Renton. At the completion of building construction work non-impervious areas will be landscaped. 2. AIR a. What type of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e. dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known During Construction: • Dust associated with earthwork • Construction vehicle emissions • Possible emission from build-up roof installation. After Construction: • Normal HVAC exhaust • Truck and automobile emissions. 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: During Construction: • To sprinkle site to reduce dust particles. After Construction: • None, except to meet air quality regulations. p:124 805/805SEPA-n:kp 11 3. WATER a. Surface: 1. Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. Yes, Springbrook Creek flows diagonally across the site from the southwest corner to the east side. At the northwest corner of the site is a Category 2 Wetland. There are other Category 3 Wetlands on the site which will be relocated under the Consent Degree. 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, there will be a 25 ft. setback for industrial uses and 50 ft. setback for commercial uses from ordinary high water line of Springbrook Creek. Reference Preliminary Site Plan. The Creek location will not be changed. Relocated wetlands will be placed adjacent to the creek. Refer to Wetland Mitigation Plan. 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. There are existing scattered wetlands which will be cleaned up and relocated along Springbrook Creek under the Consent Decree. Springbrook Creek will not be dredged nor filled. The approximate volume of fill will be about 3700 cubic yards. The source of fill will be off-site select fill materials and existing site materials as described in the geotectnical report. 4. Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No 5. Does the proposal lie within a 100 year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. No. p:124 805/805SEPA-n:kp 12 • 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, wastewater will be discharged into the municipal sanitary system and not directly to surface waters. b. Ground: 1. Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No. 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) area expected to serve. None. c. Water Runoff(including storm water): 1. Describe the source(s) of runoff(including storm water) and method of collection, and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. Run-off sources: -Buildings' roof area -Parking, driveways and truck court areas -Other Impervious pavement surfaces. The site will be graded to allow for positive drainage. The source of runoff will be from rainfall only. Storm drainage runoff will be collected with a storm drainage system and drain into multi-cell detention ponds along the creek. The site will be designed to meet the requirements of 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual for control of storm water. 2. Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. No, the new development is not expected to impact groundwater. p:124,305/805SEPA-n:kp 13 d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, or runoff water impacts, if any: Specific details of the stormwater detention system design and maximum storage volume will be developed and documented for agency review during permitting of construction documents. 4. PLANTS: a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: x deciduous tree: alder,maple,aspen,other x evergreen tree: fir,cedar,pine,other x shrubs x grass pasture crop or grain x wet soil plants: cattail,buttercup,bulrush,skunk cabbage,other unknown water plants: water lily,eelgrass,milfoil,other other types of vegetation(please list) b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Trees, shrubs and grasses. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None are known. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: All disturbed areas are to be fully landscaped to meet the requirements of the City of Renton's Zoning and Landscaping Codes. Landscaping plans will be developed for agency review during permitting of construction documents. Native plants and/or adapted species will be used in the landscaping plans. Some existing vegetation and trees may be retained on the north and west property edges. 5. ANIMALS: a. Circle any birds and animals that have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other. None known. b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. p:1240 805/805SEPA-n:kp 14 None are known. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. None are known. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Wetlands will be relocated and stormwater detention cells/ponds will be located along Springbrook Creek, which may accommodate small animals and birds. 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. Natural gas and electricity will be used to meet the facility's energy needs. 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: Engineering details related to the project have not been determined at this time. However, buildings will be insulated to meet the requirements of the Washington State Energy Code. 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. None, known at this time. 1. Describe special emergency services that might be required. None known at this time. 2. Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: None at this time. b. Noise 1. What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment operation, other)? None. p:1241'305/805SEPA-n:kp 15 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 site. • Noise associated from construction. • Noise associated from truck and vehicular traffic from normal purposed on site operations. • Noise associated from HVAC mechanical equipment. 3. Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: • Noise associated from construction will occur only between the hours allowed or agreed with the City of Renton. • Noise associated from truck traffic will be mitigated by the site layout of facing docks internally away from streets or neighboring properties on the north side of Springbrook Creek. • Noise associated from mechanical equipment will be mitigated by the placement of rooftop units away from the perimeter of the buildings. 8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Current Site Use: • The site north of the Creek had been previously used for an automobile wrecking yard. The automobile wrecking yard ceased operation in 1985. • The site south of the Creek had been previously used for agriculture; unknown when last used for agriculture. The adjacent properties: • To the north is a vehicle storage/staging yard, and railroad tracks. • To the east is warehousing, manufacturing, offices. • To the south is warehousing and manufacturing. • To the west is railroad right of way and wetlands. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. The site north of the Creek has been previously used for agriculture prior to the automobile wrecking yard prior to 1950's- 1960. The site south of the Creek has been previously used for agriculture, unknown when last used for agriculture. c. Describe any structures on the site. North of the Creek there are seven buildings, four are associated with the prior automobile wrecking yard and three are associated with the original agricultural uses. p 124 805/805SEPA-n:kp 16 d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? Yes all the existing structures will be demolished. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? The property is zoned I-M Medium Industrial. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Employment Area - Valley. g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Springbrook Creek requires a 25 ft. setback for industrial uses and 50 ft. setback for commercial uses from ordinary high water line of Creek h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive"area? If so, specify. No i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? There will be no residential use on this site. Approximately 2 to 3 hundred people might work on this site. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: None required. I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and project land uses and plans, if any: The site is designated as an employment area, which the proposed development will provide. 9. HOUSING a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing? None will be provided. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low income housing? None will be eliminated. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: p:124.805/805SEPA-n:kp 17 None required. 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? 40 ft. maximum height. The exterior walls will be painted tilt-up concrete panels with reveals and will be articulated with a minimum of two base colors and a third accent color. Storefront systems will be provided at office and entry areas, and overhead doors will break-up the truck dock area exterior walls. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any? The truck courts are to be placed internally within the development or baffled by recesses in the massing of the building. The exterior walls exposed to Oaksdale and 43`d will receive storefronts and awnings to reduce the scale and create interest. 11. LIGHT AND GLARE a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Site lighting to support normal operations, security and safe circulation. All fixtures will be provided with shields to prevent glare. No day-time glare will be produced. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No. Very minimal, concrete will have natural finishes and the glass will not be highly reflective. 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 be designed to reflect down from a horizontal and will be shielded away from adjacent property and public streets. p:124 805/805S E PA-n:kp 18 12. RECREATION a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? None. 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. 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. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None known. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: None. 14. TRANSPORTATION a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe the proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. The site will be served by SW 43rd Street between West Valley Highway and State Route 167, and SW 41st Street from State Route 167 and eventually Oaksdale Avenue from the north when the extension is completed. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop. The site is served by Metro Route 155 bus service along SW 43rd Street. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? In the approximate range of 550 to 600 parking stalls. No formal parking facilities currently exist on-site. No parking stalls would be eliminated. p:124 1805/805S EPA-n:kp 19 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). None. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. There are Burlington Northern freight rail lines in the vicinity, but the project will not use them. Railroad tracks are located on the adjacent property to the north, and about 400'to the west. Water and air transportation do not exist in the immediate area. Existing rail lines on-site will be removed. f. How many vehicular trips (two-way) per day would be generated by the completed project? Refer to Attachment: Oaksdale Business Campus Traffic Impact Study, by Entranco, January 1998. The site will generate 3,575 daily trips, or about 1,788 trips into the site and 1,787 trips out of the site. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any. The Owner and tenants will implement required transportation management programs to encourage employees to use public transit and car pool to work. 15. PUBLIC SERVICES a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. The additional buildings. building area will increase the need for fire and police protection. It is expected that most of the employees at the new facility will be local residents and will not increase the need or public services. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. None at this time. 16. UTILITIES a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural qas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. p:12 4/805/805SEPA-n:kp 20 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. Electrical: Puget Sound Energy Natural Gas: Puget Sound Energy Telephone: Sewer: King County/Metro Water: City of Renton C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: ,( 101( ( , Date Submitted: r'L(.6 l3 /99.6 p:12,'805/805SEPA-n:kp 21 Jan- 13-98 04 : 17P ZELMAN EXEC DEPT 21? 33 8134 P . 01 t ED CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY 1800 COLUMBIA CENTER, 701 5TH AVE, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104 Order No.: 445622 Unit: U-06 Property Address:AS DESCRIBED IN COMMITMENT Your No.: STERNCO RENTON CENTER/BENAROYA 445622-SDS SEATTLE, WASHINGTON ZELMAN RENTON, LLC 707 WILSHIRE BLVD, SUITE 3036 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017 Attn: PAUL CASEY Enclosed are your materials for the above transaction. If you have any questions regarding these materials, please contact us. Thank you for this opportunity to serve you. TITLE UNIT 6 PHONE 206-628-5610 TOLL FREE 800-627-0530 FAX 206-628-9717 DARYL SAVIDIS SENIOR TITLE OFFICER AND UNIT MANAGER ROGER TERRIERE SENIOR TITLE OFFICER BARBARA WAGNER SENIOR TITLE OFFICER PAUL STARIHA TITLE OFFICER FLORENCIA BESIN TITLE TECHNICIAN REC 1VFr) FED 1 7 1998 OEVELo,.fvicfvT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY TITLET/,o 17 9,;SC Jan- 13-98 04 : 17P ZELMP^t EXEC DEPT 21.7 -33 8134 P . O2 AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION 1.1 OWNER'S POLICY • ,` (10-17-92) G 1;1 CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY ~' SUBJECT TO THE EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE, THE EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE CONTAINED IN SCHEDULE B AND THE CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS, CHICAGO TITLE 7 INSURANCE COMPANY,a Missouri corporation,herein called the Company,insures,as of Date of Policy shown in Schedule A, against loss or damage, not exceeding the Amount of Insurance stated in Schedule A, sustained or \ incurred by the insured by reason of: j I. Title to the estate or interest described in Schedule A being vested other than as stated therein: i lit 2. Any defect in or lien or encumbrance on the title; 3. Unmarketability of the title; 4. Lack of a right of access to and from the land. ,, The Company will also pay the costs, attorneys' fees and expenses incurred in defense of the title, as insured, but i only to the extent provided in the Conditions and Stipulations. i' 1 In Witness Whereof,CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY has caused this policy to be signed and sealed as of Date of Policy shown in Schedule A,the policy to become valid when countersigned by an authorized signatory. IS IN. N; r� N. 10. N 2 Issued by: CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY ' CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY By: Nk 1800 COLUMBIA CENTER 701 FIFTH AVENUE SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104 4u'� �ri ,,,, L-. (206) 628-5632 - �� President f 4 1,1 By: '... ..irr VeLPVNA.4.4.."/ CaitdriA.4....."' :'‘,. .N 3 Secretary ,11 ALTA Owner's Policy(10-17-92) Jan- 13-98 04 : 17P ZELMAN EXEC DEPT 213 33 8134 P . 03 ,,.JJCAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPAN 1800 COLUMBIA CENTER, 701 5TH AVE SEATTLE, WA 98104 Policy No.: 445622 EXTENDED OWNER POLICY SCHEDULE A Amount of Date of Policy: DECEMBER 29, 1997 at 4:09 PM Insurance: $3, 001, 000.00 I. Name of Insured: ZELMAN RENTON, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY 2. The estate or interest in the land which is covered by this policy is: FEE SIMPLE 3. Title to the estate or interest in the land is vested in: ZELMAN RENTON, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY 4. The land referred to in this policy is described as follows: SEE ATTACHED DESCRIPTION CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY Jan- 13-98 04 : 18P ZELMAN EXEC DEPT 213 8134 P . 04 �.rIICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPArd Policy No.: 445622 EXTENDED OWNER POLICY SCHEDULE A (Continued) LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL A: THE NORTH 330 FEET OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED TRACT: THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER AND OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE HENRY ADAMS DONATION LAND CLAIM NO. 43; THENCE EAST, ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF SOUTH 180TH STREET (FORMERLY A COUNTY ROAD) , 114 FEET; THENCE NORTH 674.78 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTHERLY, ON A STRAIGHT LINE PARALLEL TO THE EAST LINE OF NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY RIGHT OF WAY, TO THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION; THENCE EASTERLY, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION, TO A POINT THEREON WHICH IS 881.37 FEET WEST OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER THEREOF; THENCE SOUTH 03°40' 00" WEST, 730.69 FEET; THENCE NORTH 84°34' 00" WEST 649.70 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL B: THE NORTH 330 FEET OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED TRACT: THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE CENTERLINE OF SPRING BROOK SLOUGH DRAINAGE DITCH NO. 1, 530.25 FEET NORTH OF AND 1, 000.27 FEET EAST OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HENRY ADAMS DONATION LAND CLAIM NO. 43; THENCE NORTH 03°49' 00" EAST 807.91 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION; THENCE NORTH 89°24' 30" WEST, ALONG SAID NORTH LINE, 252.9 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A POINT WHICH LIES 881.37 FEET WEST OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE SOUTH 03°40' 00" WEST 923 .69 FEET TO THE CENTERLINE OF SAID SLOUGH; THENCE ALONG SAID CENTERLINE OF THE SLOUGH, NORTH 64°32' 10" EAST 184 .71 FEET; THENCE NORTH 73°26' 00" EAST 70 FEET; THENCE NORTH 63°10' 00" EAST 30. 52 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL C: CHICAGO TITLE INSURANC} COMPANY Jan- 13-98 04 : 18P ZELMAr -XEC DEPT 213 ""'3 8134 P . 05 CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY • Policy No.: 445622 EXTENDED OWNER POLICY SCHEDULE A (Continued) LEGAL DESCRIPTION THE NORTH 330 FEET OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED TRACT: THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE CENTERLINE OF SPRING BROOK SLOUGH DRAINAGE DITCH NO. 1, 1, 000.27 FEET EAST AND 530.25 FEET NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HENRY ADAMS DONATION LAND CLAIM NO. 43; THENCE NORTH 03°49' 00" EAST 807.91 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION; THENCE, ALONG THE SAID NORTH LINE, SOUTH 89°24' 30" EAST 628 .47 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION; THENCE, ALONG SAID EAST LINE, SOUTH 00°13' 30" EAST 290 FEET TO THE CENTERLINE OF SAID SLOUGH; THENCE, ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF SAID SLOUGH, SOUTH 21°34' 00" WEST 301. 02 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 56°44' 30" WEST 246 .38 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 75°38' 00" WEST 370.3 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; EXCEPT RIGHT OF WAY FOR SAID DRAINAGE DITCH. PARCEL D: THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER AND OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE HENRY ADAMS DONATION LAND CLAIM NO. 43; THENCE EAST, ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF SOUTH 180TH STREET (FORMERLY A COUNTY ROAD) , 114 FEET; THENCE NORTH 674 .78 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTHERLY, ON A STRAIGHT LINE PARALLEL TO THE EAST LINE OF NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY RIGHT OF WAY, TO THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION; THENCE EASTERLY, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION, TO A POINT THEREON WHICH IS 881 .37 FEET WEST OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER THEREOF; THENCE SOUTH 03°40' 00" WEST 730.69 FEET; THENCE NORTH 84°34' 00" WEST 649.70 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; EXCEPT THE NORTH 330 FEET THEREOF. PARCEL E: THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: CHICAGO T1TLE INSURANCE COMPANY Jan- 13-98 04: 18P ZELMAP' TXEC DEPT 213 8134 P . 06 CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY Policy No.: 445622 EXTENDED OWNER POLICY SCHEDULE A (Continued) LEGAL DESCRIPTION THENCE SOUTH 75°38' 00" WEST 370 .3 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; EXCEPT THE NORTH 330 FEET THEREOF; AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION OF SAID MAIN TRACT LYING WITHIN THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; THENCE NORTH 87°31' 36" EAST 1, 340 . 95 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 01°47'23" WEST 330.03 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 87°31' 36" WEST 260.0 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THIS EXCEPTION; THENCE SOUTH 87°31' 36" WEST 460. 0 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 02°28'24" EAST 197. 0 FEET; THENCE NORTH 87°31' 36" EAST 460.0 FEET; THENCE NORTH 02°28' 24" WEST 197. 0 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THIS EXCEPTION; AND EXCEPT RIGHT OF WAY FOR SAID DRAINAGE DITCH. PARCEL G: THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; THENCE NORTH 87°31' 36" EAST 1,340.95 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 01°47' 23" WEST 330.03 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 87°31' 36" WEST 260.0 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 87°31'36" WEST 460.0 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 02°28'24" EAST 197.0 FEET; THENCE NORTH 87°31' 36" EAST 460.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 02°28' 24" WEST 197.0 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL H: THE WEST 85 FEET IN WIDTH OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY: THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, CHICAGO"nri.F.INSURANCE COMPANY Jan- 13-98 04 : 18P ZELMA1- EXEC DEPT 213 -33 8134 P . 07 CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY PolicyNo.: 445622 EXTENDED OWNER POLICY SCHEDULE A (Continued) LEGAL DESCRIPTION DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE NORTH SIDE OF S.W. 43RD STREET WHICH IS 943 . 04 FEET EAST OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HENRY ADAMS DONATION LAND CLAIM NO. 43, IN SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; THENCE EAST 353 . 04 FEET, ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF SAID STREET; THENCE NORTH 562 . 16 FEET TO SPRING BROOK SLOUGH DRAINAGE DITCH NO. 1; THENCE WESTERLY, ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF SAID DITCH, 334 .12 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF A 5-ACRE TRACT DEEDED TO WINSTON AS RECORDED IN VOLUME 580 OF DEEDS, PAGE 207, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; THENCE SOUTHERLY, ALONG SAID LINE, 472 .1 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF CONDEMNED IN KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CAUSE NUMBER 81-2-08117-7 FOR WIDENING OF S.W. 43RD STREET. PARCEL I: THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE NORTH SIDE OF S.W. 43RD STREET WHICH IS 943 .04 FEET EAST AND 30 FEET NORTH OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HENRY ADAMS DONATION LAND CLAIM NO. 43, IN SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; THENCE EAST 353.04 FEET, ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF SAID STREET; THENCE NORTH 562.12 FEET TO SPRING BROOK SLOUGH DRAINAGE DITCH NO. 1; THENCE WESTERLY, ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF SAID DITCH, 334 .12 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF A 5-ACRE TRACT DEEDED TO WINSTON AS RECORDED IN VOLUME 580 OF DEEDS, PAGE 207, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; THENCE SOUTHERLY, ALONG SAID LINE, 472 . 1 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; EXCEPT THE WESTERLY 85 FEET THEREOF IN WIDTH; AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF CONDEMNED IN KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CAUSE NUMBER 81-2-08117-7 FOR WIDENING OF S.W. 43RD STREET. PARCEL J: THE EAST 393-1/2 FEET OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, LYING SOUTH OF SPRING BROOK SLOUGH DRAINAGE DITCH NO. 1; EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF FOR S.W. 43RD STREET RIGHT OF WAY; AND EXCEPT THE SOUTH 20 FEET OF SAID PREMISES CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF RENTON FOR WIDENING OF S.W. 43RD STREET BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 5895689; AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF CONDEMNED IN KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CAUSE NUMBER 81-2-08117-7 FOR WIDENING OF S.W. 43RD STREET. CHICA( O IT11.1:INSURANCE("()MI'ANY Jan- 13-98 04 : 19P ZELMAN EXEC DEPT 213 33 8134 P , 08 _ICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPAi • Policy No.: 445622 EXTENDED OWNER POLICY SCHEDULE A (Continued) LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL K: THAT PORTION OF SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT WHICH IS 114 FEET EAST AND 30 FEET NORTH FROM THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HENRY ADAMS DONATION LAND CLAIM NO. 43; THENCE NORTH 644 .78 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 84°34' 00" EAST 649.70 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 04°37' 00" WEST 170 FEET; THENCE NORTH 84°34' 00" WEST 470 FEET; THENCE SOUTH TO THE CENTERLINE OF SPRING BROOK SLOUGH DRAINAGE DITCH NO. 1; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CENTERLINE TO A POINT EAST OF THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE WEST 130.86 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; EXCEPT RIGHT OF WAY FOR SAID DRAINAGE DITCH NO. 1; AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF CONDEMNED IN KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CAUSE NUMBER 81-2-C8117-7 FOR WIDENING OF S.W. 43RD STREET. PARCEL L: THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER AND OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT WHICH BEARS EAST 556 FEET AND NORTH 30 FEET FROM THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE HENRY ADAMS DONATION LAND CLAIM NO. 43 BEING PARTS OF SECTIONS 35 AND 36 IN TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; THENCE NORTH 308 . 10 FEET TO THE CENTERLINE OF SPRING BROOK SLOUGH DRAINAGE DITCH NO. 1; THENCE, ALONG SAID CENTERLINE OF DITCH, SOUTH 64°45' 00" WEST 89 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 48°45' 00" WEST 97 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 37°24' 50" WEST 259.59 FEET TO A POINT WHICH IS DUE WEST OF THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE EAST, ALONG THE NORTH MARGIN OF COUNTY ROAD, 311 . 14 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; EXCEPT RIGHT OF WAY FOR SAID DRAINAGE DITCH RIGHT OF WAY; AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF CONDEMNED IN KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CAUSE NUMBER 81-2-08117-7 FOR WIDENING OF S.W. 43RD STREET. PARCEL M: THAT PORTION OF SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE i COMPANY Jan- 13-98 04 : 19P ZELMAN EXEC DEPT 213 33 8134 P. O9 _._1ICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPAA. Policy No.: 445622 EXTENDED OWNER POLICY SCHEDULE A (Continued) LEGAL DESCRIPTION BEGINNING AT A POINT WHICH IS 114 FEET EAST AND 30 FEET NORTH FROM THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HENRY ADAMS DONATION LAND CLAIM NO. 43; THENCE NORTH 644 .78 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 84°34' 00" EAST 649.70 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 04°37' 00" WEST 170 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 84°34' 00" WEST 470 FEET; THENCE SOUTH TO THE CENTERLINE OF SPRING BROOK SLOUGH DRAINAGE DITCH NO. 1; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY, ALONG SAID DRAINAGE DITCH CENTERLINE, TO A POINT WHICH BEARS SOUTH 04°37' 00" WEST FROM THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 04°37' 00" EAST 23 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; EXCEPT RIGHT OF WAY FOR SAID DRAINAGE DITCH. PARCEL N: THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING ON THE NORTH LINE OF THE COUNTY ROAD AT A POINT WHICH IS 943 . 04 FEET EAST AND 30 FEET NORTH OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HENRY ADAMS DONATION LAND CLAIM NO. 43 IN SAID TOWNSHIP AND RANGE; THENCE NORTH 03°49' 00" EAST 495.8 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE CENTERLINE OF THE DRAINAGE DITCH; THENCE, ALONG SAID DITCH LINE, SOUTH 66°03' 00" WEST 209. 93 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 409.46 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF SAID COUNTY ROAD; THENCE EAST, ALONG SAID ROAD LINE, 158 .85 FEET TO POINT OF BEGINNING; EXCEPT RIGHT OF WAY FOR SAID DRAINAGE DITCH; AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF CONDEMNED IN KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CAUSE NUMBER 81-2-08117-7 FOR WIDENING OF S.W. 43RD STREET. PARCEL 0: THE SOUTH 15 FEET OF THE WEST 1, 341 .56 FEET OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER AND THE SOUTH 15 FEET OF THE EAST 196 .64 FEET OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER, ALL IN SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, IN KING COUNTY WASHINGTON. CHICAGOTITI,E INSURANCE;COMPANY Jan- 13-98 04: 20P ZELMAN EXEC DEPT 213 33 8134 P . 10 _._IICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPArr I • Policy No.: 445622 EXTENDED OWNER POLICY SCHEDULE B EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE This policy does not insure against loss or damage (and the Company will not pay costs,attorneys'fees or expenses) which arise by reason of: GENERAL EXCEPTIONS: C5 A. TAXES OR SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS WHICH ARE NOT SHOWN AS EXISTING LIENS BY THE PUBLIC RECORDS. B. ANY SERVICE, INSTALLATION, CONNECTION, MAINTENANCE OR CONSTRUCTION CHARGES FOR SEWER, WATER, ELECTRICITY OR GARBAGE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL. C. RESERVATIONS OR EXCEPTIONS IN PATENTS OR IN ACTS AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE THEREOF; INDIAN TRIBAL CODES OR REGULATIONS, INDIAN TREATY OR ABORGINAL RIGHTS, INCLUDING EASEMENTS OR EQUITABLE SERVITUDES. D. WATER RIGHTS, CLAIMS, OR TITLE TO WATER. CT E. ANY LIEN, OR RIGHT TO A LIEN, FOR SERVICES, LABOR OR MATERIALS RESULTING FROM CONTRACTS ENTERED INTO BY ZELMAN RENTON LLC BETWEEN DECEMBER 2, 1997 AND THE DATE OF THE POLICY. CI ICAGO'ITFLL INSURANCE COMPANY oMwNectis/2-1341/EK Jan- 13-98 04 : 20P ZELMAN EXEC DEPT 212 33 8134 P . 12 k.rIICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPAri Y Policy No.: 445622 EXTENDED OWNER POLICY SCHEDULE B (Continued) SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS RECORDED: JULY 19, 1974 RECORDING NUMBER: 7407190570 J 5. EASEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: GRANTEE: CITY OF RENTON, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION PURPOSE: ROADWAY AND PUBLIC UTILITIES (INCLUDING WATER AND SEWER) WITH NECESSARY APPURTENANCES AREA AFFECTED: A STRIP OF LAND 10 FEET IN WIDTH OVER, THROUGH, ACROSS AND UPON AN EASTERLY PORTION OF PARCEL J RECORDED: JULY 19, 1974 RECORDING NUMBER: 7407190572 CT 6. THE RIGHT OF THE TRACK OWNER TO THE SPUR TRACKS AND REMOVAL OF SAME, WHICH ARE LOCATED ON SAID PREMISES. L 7. EXCEPTIONS AND RESERVATIONS CONTAINED IN DEED: FROM: GLACIER PARK COMPANY, A MINNESOTA CORPORATION RECORDED: AUGUST 24, 1966 RECORDING NUMBER: 6073134 AS FOLLOWS: EXCEPTING AND RESERVING UNTO THE GRANTOR, ITS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS FOREVER, ALL IRON, NATURAL GAS, COAL, OIL AND ALL MINERALS OF ANY NATURE WHATSOEVER UPON OR IN THE LANDS ABOVE DESCRIBED, TOGETHER WITH THE SOLE, EXCLUSIVE AND PERPETUAL RIGHT TO EXPLORE FOR, REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF THE SAME BY ANY MEANS OR METHODS SUITABLE TO THE GRANTOR, ITS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS, BUT WITHOUT ENTERING UPON OR USING THE SURFACE OF SAID LANDS OR TO INTERFERE WITH THE USE THEREOF BY THE GRANTEES, THEIR HEIRS AND ASSIGNS. M AFFECTS: PARCELS A AND D Q AFFECTS: PARCELS A, B, C, D, E, F, G, I AND J 5 8 . RIGHT TO MAKE NECESSARY SLOPES FOR CUTS OR FILLS UPON PROPERTY HEREIN DESCRIBED AS CONDEMNED IN KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CAUSE 81-2-08117-7. CHICAC;O TIII,L'INSURANCE CuMI'ANY Jan- 13-98 04: 20P ZELMAN EXEC DEPT 213 R33 8134 P. 11 ...UICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPAIN Policy No.: 4 4 5 62 2 EXTENDED OWNER POLICY SCHEDULE B (Continued) SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS A 1 . EASEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: DISCLOSED BY: DEED PURPOSE: RIGHT OF THE PUBLIC TO MAINTAIN DRAINAGE DITCH AFFECTS: NORTHERLY PORTION OF PARCELS L AND N; AND OTHER PROPERTY RECORDED: APRIL 10, 1907 RECORDING NUMBER: 479017 G 2 . EASEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: GRANTEE: CITY OF RENTON, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION PURPOSE: PUBLIC UTILITIES (INCLUDING WATER AND SEWER) , WITH NECESSARY APPURTENANCES AREA AFFECTED: A 15 FOOT WIDE STRIP OF LAND AND A 25 FOOT STRIP OF LAND OVER, THROUGH, ACROSS AND UPON PORTIONS OF PARCELS B, E, G AND N RECORDED: APRIL 25, 1974 RECORDING NUMBER: 7404250404 H 3 . EASEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: GRANTEE: CITY OF RENTON, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION PURPOSE: ROADWAY AND PUBLIC UTILITIES (INCLUDING WATER AND SEWER) WITH NECESSARY APPURTENANCES AREA AFFECTED: A STRIP OF LAND 15 FEET IN WIDTH OVER, THROUGH, ACROSS AND UPON PORTIONS OF PARCELS D, E, F, J AND K RECORDED: JUNE 17, 1974 RECORDING NUMBER: 7406170474 4. EASEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: GRANTEE: CITY OF RENTON, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION PURPOSE: ROADWAY AND PUBLIC UTILITIES (INCLUDING WATER AND SEWER) WITH NECESSARY APPURTENANCES AREA AFFECTED: A STRIP OF LAND 15 FEET IN WIDTH OVER, THROUGH, ACROSS AND UPON A NORTHWESTERLY PORTION OF PARCEL K CHICAno-1-rri INSURANCIi C)MPANY OWNEXIBS/2-13.91/GK Jan- 13-98 04: 21P ZELMAN EXEC DEPT 213 533 8134 P . 13 HICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMP....-. Policy No.: 4 4 5 6 2 2 EXTENDED OWNER POLICY SCHEDULE B (Continued) SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS 7 AFFECTS: PARCELS H, I, J, K, L AND N U 9. ANY QUESTIONS RELATING TO THE TRUE LOCATION OF THE DRAINAGE DITCH AS IT PRESENTLY EXISTS IN RELATION TO THE RIGHT OF WAY BOUNDARIES ESTABLISHED BY DECREE ENTERED IN KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CAUSE NUMBER 32912. SW 10. TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF CONSENT DECREE FILED IN KING COUNTY UNDER SUPERIOR COURT CAUSE NUMBER 97-2-17988-2 REGARDING CLEANUP OF CONTAMINATION. CD 11 . THE EFFECT OF ANY VIOLATION OF LAWS, ORDINANCES OR REGULATIONS RELATING TO ENVIRONMNETAL PROTECTION AS DISCLOSED BY INFORMATION CONTAINED IN KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CAUSE NUMBER 97-2-17988-2 AND/OR OTHER COURT FILES RELATED THERETO. CG 12 . PENDING ACTION IN KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT: CAUSE NUMBER: 97-2-17988-2 FILED: JULY 18, 1997 BEING AN ACTION FOR: ENTER CONSENT DECREEE PLAINTIFF: STATE OF WASHINGTON, DEPARTMENT CF ECOLOGY DEFENDANT: ZELMAN RENTON L.L.C. ATTORNEY FOR THE PLAINTIFF: MARK C. JOBSON CK 13 . MATTERS DISCLOSED BY A SURVEY OF THE PREMISES BY BARGHAUSEN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. , DATED OCTOBER 22, 1996, JOB NO. 5911 : A. ENCROACHMENT BY CARPORT INTO AREA BETWEEN PARCELS L AND N. B. ENCROACHMENT BY SATELLITE DISH APPURTENANT TO HOUSE ON PARCEL L INTO AREA BETWEEN PARCELS L AND N. C. CHAIN LINK FENCE ALONG NORTH LINE MEANDERS ALONG EITHER SIDE OF LINE BY APPROXIMATELY 1 FOOT. D. ANY ADVERSE RIGHTS RESULTING FROM THE EXISTENCE OF (4) 72" CULVERTS LOCATED ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID PREMISES. E. ANY ADVERSE RIGHTS RESULTING FROM THE EXISTENCE OF A RAILROAD BUILDING LOCATED AT THE EAST END OF PARCEL O. OD 14 . EXCEPTIONS AND RESERVATIONS CONTAINED IN DEED: FROM: GLACIER PARK COMPANY RECORDED: SEPTEMBER 8, 1978 CHICAGO I'ITI,E INSURANCE COMPANY Jan- 13-98 04: 21P ZELMAN EXEC DEPT 213 533 8134 P . 14 IIICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMP)__. Policy No.: 445622 EXTENDED OWNER POLICY SCHEDULE B (Continued) SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS RECORDING NUMBER: 7809080987 AS FOLLOWS: SAVING AND RESERVING, HOWEVER, UNTO SAID GRANTOR, ITS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS, ALL OF THE COAL, OIL, GAS, CASINGHEAD GAS AND ALL ORES AND MINERALS OF EVERY KIND AND NATURE UNDERLYING THE SURFACE OF THE PREMISES HEREIN CONVEYED, TOGETHER WITH THE FULL RIGHT, PRIVILEGE AND LICENSE AT ANY AND ALL TIMES TO EXPLORE, OR DRILL FOR AND TO PROTECT, CONSERVE, MINE, TAKE, REMOVE AND MARKET ANY AND ALL SUCH PRODUCTS IN ANY MANNER WHICH WILL NOT DAMAGE STRUCTURES NOR DISTURB THE SURFACE NOR INTERFERE WITH THE USE OF THE PREMISES HEREIN CONVEYED. DS AFFECTS: PARCEL 0 er DM OF SCI€DUIE B 1* AUTHORIZED IGNATORY Loan Policy Endorsements: N/A Owner' s Policy Endorsements: 103.7; 116 .4; 100.29 CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY Jan- 13-98 O4: 22P ZELMAN EXEC DEPT 213 33 8134 P . 15 Your rcfcrcncc. • ENDORSEMENT Attached to and forming a part of Policy No. 445622 Issued By CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY Dated: December 29, 1997 ENDORSEMENT 100.29 (MODIFIED) The Company insures the Insured against loss which the Insured shall sustain by reason of: Damage to existing and future improvements, including lawns, shrubbery or trees, resulting from the exercise of any right to use the surface of said land for the extraction or development of the minerals excepted from the description of said land or shown as a reservation in Schedule B. The total liability of the Company under said Policy and any endorsements therein shall not exceed, in the aggregate, the face amount of said Policy and costs which the Company is obligated under the conditions and stipulations thereof to pay. This endorsement is made a part of the policy and is subject to the schedules, conditions and stipulations therein, except as modified by the provisions hereof. Au rized Signatory Note: This endorsement shall not be valid or binding until countersigned by an authorized signatory EN DUP/3-21-42/NU Jan- 13-98 04 : 22P ZELMAN EXEC DEPT 212 33 8134 P. 16 Your reference. „CRNCO RENTON CENTER/BENAROYA ENDORSEMENT Attached to and forming a part of Policy No. 445622 Issued By CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY Dated: December 29, 1997 ENDORSEMENT 116.4 THE COMPANY ASSURES THE INSURED THAT PARCELS H, I, J AND N DESCRIBED IN SCHEDULE A ARE CONTIGUOUS TO EACH OTHER ANC PARCELS A, B, C, D, E, F, G, K, M AND 0 DESCRIBED IN SCHEDULE A ARE CONTIGUOUS TO EACH OTHER. THE COMPANY HEREBY INSURES THE INSURED AGAINST LOSS WHICH SAID INSURED SHALL SUSTAIN IN THE EVENT THAT THE ASSURANCE HEREIN SHALL PROVE TO BE INCORRECT. This endorsement is made a part of the policy and is subject to all the terms and provisions thereof and of any prior endorsements thereto. Except to the extent expressly stated, it neither modifies any of the terms and provisions of the policy and prior endorsements, if any, nor does it extend the effective date of the policy and prior endorsements or increase the face amount thereof. ..ram Au orized Signatory Note: This endorsement shall not be valid or binding until countersigned by an authorized signatory EN DOrC/3-A A2/Sc Jan-13-98 04 : 22P ZELMAN EXEC DEPT 213 33 8134 P . 17 Your reference: S-, 0 RENTON CENTER/BENAROYA ENDORSEMENT Attached to and forming a part of Policy No. 445622 Issued By CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY Dated: December 29, 1997 ENDORSEMENT 103.7 The Company hereby assures the Insured that said land abuts upon physically open streets known as SOUTHWEST 43RD STREET AND OAKESDALE AVENUE S.W. and the Company hereby insures said Assured against loss which said Assured shall sustain in the event said assurances herein shall prove to be incorrect. The total liability of the Company under said policy and any endorsements therein shall not exceed, in the aggregate, the face amount of said policy and costs which the Company is obligated under the conditions and stipulations thereof to pay. This endorsement is made a part of this policy and is subject to the Schedules and the Conditions and Stipulations therein, except as modified by the provisions hereof. Aut orized Signatory Note: This endorsement shall not be valid or binding until countersigned by an authorized signatory ENDOPC/7.21.92/SC 0o © CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY H • 1800 COLLMBIA CENTER, 701 STH AYE, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104 a IMPORTANT: Thu is not a Survey. It is furnished as a convenience to locate the land indicated hereon with reference to streets and other land. No liability is assumed by reason of reliance hereon. (CO 11 'I. ....II 7-1 HCO iL--. •12.1:11_1.1. 0. 1 In I 0 I 1 11 b. 1 (1111) 0N m ` I 1 1 iI ; ili i C.& / A I 440 ‘it I, a/ lI a Iii"1 ts• 0 \J f o I �� I - N XLii e ... :10 V i ilr; :7 s.,,-0-'-- v ` • 0 i0• i' IJ.I r O. l 1 1, O. 1 /� I I�lte) t Nor°. H 0 II/ 1'I 11 I T i1 • ./ ,4 ♦ J , /w/�/ �,/. I D , y. ' .r►r 1 .��s1� INS_,��� '1 r Ip M Illlj•�' ,M Y. r rn rI •tg. , . it_t_ . ......, SW 43 PM / St ' �=� -- 13$41.51 -Y I 6 Jan- 13-9E" 04 : 23P ZELMAN EXEC DEPT 213 533 8134 P _ 19 • EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy and the Company will not pay loss or damage,costs,attorneys'fees or expenses which anse by reason of: 1. (a) Any law, ordinance or governmental regulation (Including but not limited to building and zoning laws, ordinances, or regulations) restricting, regulating, prohibiting or relating to (I) the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the land; (Ii) the character, dimensions or location of any Improvement now or hereafter erected on the land;(ill)a separation in ownership or a change in the dimensions or area of the land or any parcel of which the land is or was a part;or(Iv)environmental protection,or the effect of any violation of these laws,ordinances or governmental regulations,except to the extent that a notice of the enforcement thereof or a notice of a defect,lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy. (b) Any governmental police power not excluded by(a)above,except to the extent that a notice of the exercise thereof or a notice of a defect,lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy. 2. Rights of eminent domain unless notice of the exercise thereof has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy,but not excluding from coverage any taking which has occurred prior to Date of Policy which would be binding on the rights of a purchaser for value without knowledge. 1. Defects,liens,encumbrances,adverse claims or other matters: (a) crested,suffered,assumed or agreed to by the insured claimant; (b) not known to the Company,not recorded in the public records at Date of Policy,but known to the insured claimant and not disclosed in writing to the Company by the Insured claimant prior to the date the insured claimant became an insured under this policy; (c) resulting in no loss or damage to the insured claimant; (d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy;or (a) resulting In loss or damage which would not have been sustained If the insured claimant had paid value for the estate or interest insured by this policy. 4. Any claim,which arises out of the transaction vesting In the insured the estate or interest insured by this policy,by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy,state insolvency,or similar creditors'rights laws,that is based on: (I) the transaction creating the estate or interest Insured by this policy being deemed a fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent transfer;or (ii) the transaction creating the estate or interest insured by this policy being deemed a preferential transfer except where the preferential transfer results from the failure: (a) to timely record the instrument of transfer;or (b) of such recordation to Impart notice to a purchaser for value or a judgment or lien creditor. Jan— 13-98 04 : 23P ZELMAr"-XEC DEPT 213 53 8134 P . 20 CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS 1. DEFINITION OF'"ERMS (c)Whenever the Company shall have brought an action or interposed a The following tear s when used in this policy mean: defense as required or permitted by the provisions of this policy,the Company "insured":the nsured named in Schedule A.and,subject to any rights may pursue any litigation to final determination by a court of competent fur+s- (a) diction and expressly reserves the right.in its sole discretion,to appeal from or defenses the Company would have had against the named insured,those anyadverse ud merit or order. who succeed to the interest of the named insured by operation of law as I g distinguished from purchase including,but not limited to,heirs,distributees. (d)In all cases where this policy permits or requires the Company to prose- devisees, survivors, personal representatives, next of kin, or corporate or secure e or provide Compe any defense ri right to so prosecute or proceeding, providedefense in shall fiduciary successors. p y gp (b)"insured claimant":an insured claiming loss or damage. action or proceeding, and all appeals therein, and permit the Company to (c)"knowledge" or "known": actual knowledge. not constructive knowl- use, at its option, the name of the insured for this purpose. Whenever requested by the Company,the insured,at the Company's expense,shall give edge or notice which may be imputed to an insured by reason of the public records as defined in this policy or any other records which impart Construc- the Company all reasonable aid (1) in any action or proceeding, securing rive notice of matters affecting the land. evidence.obtaining witnesses, prosecuting or defending the action or pro- ceeding, or effecting settlement, and(ii)in any other lawful act which in the (d)"land":the land described or referred to in Schedule A.and improve- opinion of the Company may be necessary or desirable to establish the title to ments affixed thereto which by law constitute real property.The term "land" the estate or interest as insured.If the Company is prejudiced by the failure of does not include any property beyond the lines of the area described or the insured to furnish the required cooperation,the Company's obligations to referred to in Schedule A, nor any right,title,interest,estate or easement in the insured under the policy shall terminate,including any liability or oblige- abutting streets,roads,avenues,alleys,lanes,ways or waterways.but noth- lion to defend,prosecute,or continue any litigation,with regard to the matter ing herein shall modify or limit the extent to which a right of access to and from or matters requiring such cooperation. the land Is insured by this policy. (e)"mortgage": mortgage. deed of trust, trust deed, or other security B. PROOF OF LOSS OR DAMAGE instrument. In addition to and after the notices required under Section 3 of these Condi- t)"public records": records established under state statutes at Date of Lions and Stipulations have been provided the Company, a proof of loss or Policy for the purpose of imparting constructive notice of matters relating to damage signed and sworn to by the insured claimant shall be furnished to the real property to purchasers for value and without knowledge.With respect to Company within 90 days after the insured claimant shall ascertain the facts Section 1(a)(iv)of the Exclusions From Coverage,"public records"shall also giving rise to the loss or damage.The proof of loss or damage shall describe include environmemal protection liens filed in the records of the clerk of the the defect in. or lien or encumbrance on the title, or other matter insured United States district court for the district in which the land is located. against by this policy which constitutes the basis of loss or damage and shall (g)"unmarketability of the title": an alleged or apparent matter affecting stale,to the extent possible,the basis of calculating the amount of the loss or the title to the land, not excluded or excepted from coverage, which would damage.If the Company is prejudiced by the failure of the insured claimant to entitle a purchaser of the estate or interest described in Schedule A to be provide the required proof of loss or damage.the Company's obligations to released from the obligation to purchase by virtue of a contractual condition the insured under the policy shall terminate,including any liability or oblige- requiring the delivery of marketable title. tion to defend,prosecute,or continue any litigation,with regard to the matter or matters requiring such proof of loss or damage. 2. CONTINUATION OF INSURANCE AFTER CONVEYANCE OF TITLE In addition,the insured claimant may reasonably be required to submit to The coverage of his policy shall continue in force as of Date of Policy in examination under oath by any authorized representative of the Company favor of an insured only so long as the insured retains an estate or interest in and shall produce for examination, inspection and copying,at such reason- the land,or holds an indebtedness secured by a purchase money mortgage able times and places as may be designated by any authorized representative given by a purchaser from the insured. or Only so long as the insured shall of the Company,all records, books, ledgers, checks, correspondence and have liability by rea:+on of covenants of warranty made by the insured in any memoranda, whether bearing a date before or after Date of Policy, which transfer or conveyance of the estate or interest.This policy shall not continue reasonably pertain to the loss or damage.Further,if requested by any autho- in force in favor of any purchaser from the insured of either(i)an estate or rized representative of the Company, the insured claimant shall grant its interest in the land, or(ii) an indebtedness secured by a purchase money permission,in writing,for any authorized representative of the Company to mortgage given to the insured. examine, inspect and copy all records, books, ledgers, checks, correspon- dence and memoranda in the custody or control of a third party,which reason- 3. NOTICE OF CLAIM TO BE GIVEN BY INSURED CLAIMANT ably pertain to the loss or damage.All information designated as confidential The insured shall notify the Company promptly in writing(i)in case of any by the insured claimant provided to the Company pursuant to this Section litigation as set forth in Section 4(a)below,(ii)in case knowledge shall comet() shall not be disclosed to others unless, in the reasonable judgment of the an insured hereunder of any claim of title or interest which is adverse to the Company, it is necessary in the administration of the claim. Failure of the title to the estate or interest,as insured,and which might cause loss or dam- insured claimant to submit tor examination under oath,produce other reason- age for which the Cc mpany may be liable by virtue of this policy,or(iii)if title to ably requested information or grant permission to secure reasonably neces- the estate or interest,as insured,is rejected as unmarketable.If prompt notice sary information from third parties as required in this paragraph shall term+- shall not be given to the Company,then as to the insured all liability of the nate any liability of the Company under this policy as to that claim. Company shall terminate with regard to the matter or matters for which prompt notice is required;provided,however,that failure to notify the Company shall 6. OPTIONS TO PAY OR OTHERWISE SETTLE CLAIMS; TERMINATION in no case prejudice the rights of any insured under this policy unless the OF LIABILITY Company shall be prejudiced by the failure and then only to the extent of the In case of a claim under this policy,the Company shall have the following prejudice. additional options: (a)To Pay or Tender Payment of the Amount of Insurance. 4. DEFENSE AND PROSECUTION OF ACTIONS; DUTY OF INSURED To pay or tender payment of the amount of insurance under this policy CLAIMANT TO COOPERATE together with anycosts,attorneys' (a)Upon written request by the insured and subject to the options con- claimant, fees and expenses incurred by the insured twined in Section 6 of these Conditions and Stipulations,the Company,al its claimant,which were authorized by the Company,up to the time of payment or own cost and without unreasonable delay,shall provide for the defense of an tender of payment and which the Company is obligated to pay. insured in litigation i n which any third party asserts a claim adverse to the title Upon the exercise by the Company of this option,all liability and obligations or interest as insured,but only as to those slated causes of action alleging a to the insured under this policy,other than to make the payment required,shall defect,lien or encumbrance or other matter insured against by this policy.The terminate, including any liability or obligation to defend, prosecute, or con- Company shall have the right to select counsel of its choice(subject to the tinue any litigation,and the policy shall be surrendered to the Company for right of the insured to object for reasonable cause)to represent the insured as cancellation. to those stated causes of action and shall not be liable for and will not pay the (b)To Pay or Otherwise Settle With Parties Other than the Insured or fees of any other counsel. The Company will not pay any fees, costs or With the Insured Claimant. expenses incurred by the insured in the defense of those causes of action (i)to pay or otherwise settle with other parties for or in the name of an which allege matters not insured against by this policy. insured claimant any claim insured against under this policy,together with any (b)The Company shall have the right, at its own cost. to institute and costs.attorneys'fees and expenses incurred by the insured claimant which prosecute any action or proceeding or to do any other act which in its opinion were authorized by the Company up to the time of payment and which the may be necessary c r desirable to establish the title to the estate or interest,as Company is obligated to pay;or insured,or to prove-it or reduce loss or damage to the insured.The Company (ii)to pay or otherwise settle with the insured claimant the lOSs or damage may take any appropriate action under the terms of this policy,whether or not provided for under this policy, together with any costs, attorneys' fees and it shall be liable hereunder,and shall not thereby concede liability or waive any expenses incurred by the insured claimant which were authorized by the provision of this policy. If the Company shall exercise its rights under this Company up to the lime of payment and which the Company is obligated to paragraph.it shall do so diligently. pay. Jan-13-98 04: 25P ZELMAN EXEC DEPT 213 533 8134 P . 21 • Upon the exercise by the Company of either of peons provided for in (b)When liability and tf ant of loss or damage has been definitely fixed paragraphs(b)(I)or(ii),the Company's obligations to the insured under this in accordance with these Conditions and Stipulations, the loss or damage policy for the claimed foss or damage,other than the payments required to be shall be payable within 30 days thereafter. made,shall terminate, including any liability or obligation to defend, prose- cute or continue any litigation. 13. SUBROGATION UPON PAYMENT OR SETTLEMENT 7. DETERMINATION,EXTENT OF LIABILITY AND COINSURANCE (a)The Company's Right of Subrogation. This policy is a contract of indemnity against actual monetary loss or dam- Whenever the Company shall have settled and paid a claim under this age sustained or incurred by the insured claimant who has suffered loss or Policy,all right of subrogation shall vest in the Company unaffected by any act damage by reason of matters insured against by this policy and only to the of the insured claimant. extent herein described. The Company shall be subrogated to and be entitled to all rights and (a)The liability of the Company under this policy shall not exceed the least remedies which the insured claimant would have had against any person or of: property in respect to the claim had this policy not been issued.If requested by (i)the Amount of Insurance stated in Schedule A;or, the Company, the insured claimant shall transfer to the Company ail rights (ii)the difference between the value of the insured estate or interest as and remedies against any person or property necessary in order to perfect insured and the value of the insured estate Or interest subject to the defect, this right of subrogation.The insured claimant shall permit the Company to lien or encumbrance insured against by this policy. sue,compromise or settle in the name of the insured claimant and t0 use the (b)In the event the Amount of Insurance stated in Schedule A at the Date of name of the insured claimant in any transaction or litigation involving these Policy is less than 80 percent of the value of the insured estate or interest or rights or remedies. the full consideration paid for the land.whichever is less,or if subsequent to If a payment on account of a claim does not fully cover the loss of the the Date of Policy an improvement is erected on the lend which increases the insured claimant,the Company shall be subrogated to these rights and reme- value of the insured estate or interest by at least 20 percent over the Amount of dies in the proportion which the Company's payment bears to the whole Insurance stated in Schedule A.then this Policy is subject to the following: amount of the loss. (i)where no subsequent improvement has been made, as to any partial If loss should result from any act of the insured claimant,as stated above, loss,the Company shall only pay the loss pro rata in the proportion that the that act shall not void this policy, but the Company, in that event, shall be amount of insuran re at Date of Policy bears to the total value of the insured required to pay only that part of any losses insured against by this policy which estate or interest a t Date of Policy;or shall exceed the amount,if any,lost to the Company by reason of the impair- (ii)where a su osequent improvement has been made, as to any partial ment by the insured claimant of the Company's right of subrogation. loss,the Company shall only pay the loss pro rata in the proportion that 120 (b)The Company's Rights Against Non-insured Obligors. percent of the Amount of Insurance stated in Schedule A bears to the sum of the Amount of Insurance staled in Schedule A and the amount expended for The Company's right of subrogation against non-insured obligors shall the improvement. exist and shall include,without limitation,the rights of the insured to indem- The provisions•3f this paragraph shall not apply to costs, attorneys' fees miles.guaranties,other policies of insurance or bonds,notwithstanding any and expenses for which the Company is liable under this policy,and shall only terms or conditions contained in those instruments which provide for subroga- apply to that portion of any loss which exceeds,in the aggregate.10 percent of tion rights by reason of this policy. the Amount of Insurance stated in Schedule A. 14. ARBITRATION (c)The Company will pay only those costs,attorneys'tees and expenses incurred in accordance with Section 4 of these Conditions and Stipulations. Unless prohibited by applicable law,either the Company or the insured may demand arbitration pursuant to the Title Insurance Arbitration Rules of the 8. APPORTIONMENT Amencan Arbitration Association.Arbitrable matters may include,but are not If the land described in Schedule A consists of two or more parcels which limited to,any controversy or claim between the Company and the insured are not used as a s ngle site,and a loss is established affecting one or more of arising out of or relating to this policy,any service of the Company in conned- the parcels but ricc all.the loss shall be computed and settled on a pro rata lion with its issuance or the breach of a policy provision or other obligation.All basis as if the amoi.lnt of insurance under this policy was divided pro rata as to arbitrable matters when the Amount of Insurance is$1.000.000 or less shall the value on Date of Policy of each separate parcel to the whole,exclusive of be arbitrated at the option of either the Company or the insured.All arbitrable any improvements made subsequent to Date of Policy, unless a liability or matters when the Amount of Insurance is in excess of$1,000,000 shall be value has otherwise been agreed upon as to each parcel by the Company and arbitrated only when agreed to by both the Company and the insured.Arbitra- the insured at the t me of the issuance of this policy and shown by an express Lion pursuant to this policy and under the Rules in effect on the date the statement or by an endorsement attached to this policy. demand for arbitration is made or,at the option of the insured,the Rules in 9. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY effect at Date of Policy shall be binding upon the parties. The award may (a)i1 the Company establishes the title,or removes the alleged defect,lien include attorneys'fees only if the laws of the state in which the land is located or encumbrance,cr cures the lack of a right of access to or from the land,or permit a court to award attorneys'fees to a prevailing party.Judgment upon cures the claim o unmarketability of title, all as insured, in a reasonably the award rendered by the Arbitrator(s)may be entered in any court having diligent manner by any method,including litigation and the completion of any jurisdiction thereof. appeals therefrom it shall have fully performed its obligations with respect to The law of the situs of the land shall apply to art arbitration under the Title that matter and shall not be liable for any loss or damage caused thereby. Insurance Arbitration Rules. (b)In the event of any litigation,including litigation by the Company or with A copy of the Rules may be obtained from the Company upon request. the Company's consent,the Company shall have no liability for loss or dam- age until there has been a final determination by a court of competent jurisdic- 15. LIABILITY LIMITED TO THIS POLICY;POLICY ENTIRE CONTRACT tion,and dispositic n of all appeals therefrom,adverse to the title as insured. (a)This policy together with all endorsements,if any,attached hereto by the (c)The Compary shall not be liable for loss or damage to any insured for Company is the entire policy and contract between the insured and the Com. liability voluntarily assumed by the insured in settling any claim or suit without pany.In interpreting any provision of this policy,this policy shall be construed the prior written cc nsent of the Company. as a whole. 10. REDUCTION OF INSURANCE; REDUCTION OR TERMINATION OF (b)Any claim of loss or damage,whether or not based on negligence,and LIABILITY which arises out of the status of the title to the estate or interest covered All payments under this policy,except payments made for costs,attorneys' hereby or by any action asserting such claim,shall be restricted to this policy. fees and expenseti,shall reduce the amount of the insurance pro tanto. (c)No amendment of or endorsement to this policy can be made except by a writing endorsed hereon or attached hereto signed by either the President.a 11. LIABILITY NONCUMULATIVE Vice President.the Secretary,an Assistant Secretary,or validating officer or It is expressly uiderstood that the amount of insurance under this policy authorized signatory of the Company. shall be reduced by any amount the Company may pay under any policy insuring a mortgage to which exception is taken in Schedule B or to which the 18. SEVERABILITY insured has agreed, assumed, or taken subject, or which is hereafter ex- In the event any provision of the policy is held invalid or unenforceable ecuted by an insured and which is a charge or lien on the estate or interest under applicable law,the policy shall be deemed not to include that provision described or refer-ed to in Schedule A, and the amount so paid shall be and all other provisions shall remain in full force and effect. deemed a payment under this policy to the insured owner. 12. PAYMENT OF LOSS 17. NOTICES,WHERE SENT (a)No payment shall be made without producing this policy for endorse- All notices required to be given the Company and any statement in writing ment of the payment unless the policy has been lost or destroyed,in which required to be furnished the Company shall include the number of this policy case proof of loss or destruction shall be furnished to the satisfaction of the and shall be addressed to the Company at the issuing office or to: Company. Chicago Title Insurance Company Claims Department 171 North Clark Street Reorder Fain Na.3236 Rev.10-i7-92) Chicago, Illinois 80801-3294 **************************************************************** City of Renton WA Reprinted: 02/17/98 14 : 08 Receipt **************************************************************** Receipt Number: R9800919 Amount : 3 , 000 . 00 02/17/98 14 : 08 Payment Method: CHECK Notation: #41955 CNA ARCH Init : LMN Project # : LUA98-021 Type: LUA Land Use Actions Total Fees : 3 , 004 . 80 This Payment 3 , 000 . 00 Total ALL Pmts : 3 , 000 . 00 Balance : 4 . 80 **************************************************************** Account Code Description Amount 000 . 345 . 81 . 00 . 0007 Environmental Review 500 . 00 000 . 345 . 81 . 00 . 0016 Shoreline Subst Dev 500 . 00 000 . 345 . 81 . 00 . 0017 Site Plan Approval 2 , 000 . 00 **************************************************************** City of Renton WA Reprinted: 02/17/98 14 : 08 Receipt **************************************************************** Receipt Number: R9800920 Amount : 4 . 80 02/17/98 14 : 08 Payment Method: CHECK Notation: #41927 CNA ARCH Init : LMN Project # : LUA98-021 Type: LUA Land Use Actions Total Fees : 3 , 004 . 80 This Payment 4 . 80 Total ALL Pmts : 3 , 004 . 80 Balance: . 00 **************************************************************** Account Code Description Amount 000 . 05 . 519 . 90 .42 . 1 Postage 4 . 80 Lupa .9 6 - OZ-� St4 �y14114G H-1031-01 DEVC�pi!bF REN. pN G R WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN Oakesdale Business Campus Renton, Washington September 1998 Zelman Development Company 707 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 3036 Los Angeles, California 90017 Q3AI33j j 9661 a d3S NOINM3 AO ADO N1NNyld INdWdQI�&9Q NRCNATURAL RESOURCE CONSULTING Assessment,Management and Regulatory Permitting P.O.BOX 7208 TACOMA,WASHINGTON 98407 (253)756-0370 FAX: (253)756-0155 TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.) TABLE Table No. Functions and Values Summary LIST OF FIGURES Figure No. 1 Vicinity Map 2 Wetland Impact Map 3a Wetland Mitigation Plan, W-1 3b Wetland Mitigation Plan, W-2 4 Wetland Buffer Planting Plan, W-3 5 Wetland Mitigation Details and Notes, W-4 6a Cross Sections, C-10 6b Cross Sections, C-11 LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX A Watershed Dynamics Function and Value Assessment APPENDIX B City of Renton Function and Value Assessment H-1031-01 111 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Scope of Services 2 1.2 Site Location and Description 2 1.3 History 2 2.0 WETLAND FUNCTION AND VALUES 3 2.1 Wetland Categories 4 2.2 Biological Support 4 2.3 Water Quality 5 2.4 Flood and Storm Water Desynchronization 5 2.5 Groundwater Exchange 5 2.6 Support of Base Flow 6 2.7 Cultural Value 6 2.8 Shoreline Stabilization 6 3.0 ON-SITE MITIGATION GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 6 3.1 Proposed Compensatory Wetland Mitigation 8 4.0 WETLAND MITIGATION AND BUFFER PLANTING PLAN 8 5.0 IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURES 9 6.0 MONITORING PLAN 10 6.1 Performance Standards 11 6.2 Success Criteria 12 7.0 CONTINGENCY PLAN 12 8.0 CLOSURE 14 H-1031-01 ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The findings and conclusions presented in this study are based on an interpretation of information currently available to Natural Resource Consulting. This summary is for introduction purposes and should only be used with the full text of this report. The Zelman Development Company proposes to complete a wetland mitigation plan for impacts to three wetlands resulting from cleanup of contamination under a Consent Decree entered in King County Superior Court. The total wetland area impacted is 43,844 square feet. Wetland mitigation is proposed along Springbrook Creek for 27,911 square feet of wetland mitigation. The remaining 15,933 square feet of wetland impact will be mitigated in the City of Renton Wetland Mitigation Bank. A function and value assessment has been completed that indicates that the wetland mitigation areas will have much higher functioning Category 1 wetlands in comparison to the impacted Category 3 wetlands. Therefore, we propose to replace the wetlands at 1.0 times the area impacted.- Wetland and stream buffers impacted by the cleanup are also proposed to be enhanced with native vegetation and habitat features. The wetland and buffer mitigation areas on-site will be monitored for five years to determine if the mitigation has been successful. Success of the mitigation areas will be based on the growth of a viable community of self-sustaining native vegetation at the end of the five year monitoring program. Observation of the mitigation areas for excessive erosion, scour and sedimentation that may affect the health and diversity of the overall mitigation areas, and wildlife use of the areas are also proposed. ) I , 2 H-1031-01 i WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN OAKESDALE BUSINESS PARK BOTHELL, WASHINGTON 1.0 INTRODUCTION Natural Resource Consulting completed this Wetland Mitigation Plan for impacts to three wetlands resulting from cleanup of contamination under a Consent Decree entered in King County Superior Court. The cleanup remediation exempts the site from certain requirements, but substantive procedures, particularly wetland mitigation, are still applicable. Total impact to the three wetlands is 43,844 square feet. To offset unavoidable wetland impacts the following has been proposed. • Construction of a 10-foot wide, 17,600 square foot bench along the north side of Springbrook Creek. • Construction of a 7,266 square foot area located directly east of the storm water facility near Springbrook Creek. • Construction of a 3,045 square foot area in the southwest corner of the site near Springbrook Creek. • Pay into the City of Renton Wetland Mitigation Bank Fund at $3 per square foot to compensate for the 15,933 square feet of wetland not accounted for in the on-site mitigation proposal. The total wetland mitigation fee would be $47,899. Wetland and stream buffers impacted by the cleanup are also proposed to be enhanced with native vegetation and habitat features. Prior to issuing this wetland mitigation plan, several wetland studies have been conducted. These studies have been initiated upon the advice of pertinent regulating agencies, to either concentrate on one of several aspects of the regulatory process or to gain understanding about the natural resources in the vicinity of the proposed project. A Wetland Evaluation and Delineation Report dated November 1996 and a Proposed Wetland Mitigation Plan dated February 1998 were H-1031-01 1 completed by Watershed Dynamics, Inc. On May 4, 1998, the Corps provided a Nationwide 38 Permit authorizing the cleanup of hazardous and toxic waste subject to a 1997 Washington State Department of Ecology Consent Decree. The Nationwide 38 Permit also states that the proposed cleanup will include mitigation for wetlands impacted by the cleanup activities. 1.1 Scope of Services The scope of work for this project included writing this wetland mitigation plan for submittal to the City of Renton for review and approval prior to acquisition of building permits for the site. 1.2 Site Location and Description The Oakesdale Business Campus is located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of SW 43`d Street and Oakesdale Avenue SW in Renton, Washington(Section 36, Township 23N, Range 4E, W.M.) (Figure 1). The site has been cleared except for some vegetation along Springbrook Creek. There are no structures remaining on the site. Four wetlands are located on the site, Wetlands A, B, C, and D. Wetland A is a Category 1 wetland and will remain on the site. Wetlands B, C, and D are Category 3 wetlands that are contaminated and will be excavated and filled during the cleanup activities(Figure 2). The 32.72 acre parcel is triangular in shape and bordered on the south for approximately 1,760 feet by Springbrook Creek. The west property line is 1,307 feet long and is bounded by City of Renton property containing wetlands. The north property line is 1,402 feet long and is bounded by City of Renton Property, and the Burlington Car Yard. 1.3 History Historical uses of the site included metals recycling, meat packing, fueling of vehicles, roofing material storage, and pasture. These activities contaminated the site with hazardous materials that the prior property owners were ordered to cleanup. The current property owner Zelman Development Company is fulfilling the requirements of the Consent Decree issued by the Washington State Department of Ecology in the King County Superior Court. Cleanup will include grading of the site including the three Lower Quality Category 3 Wetlands(Figure 2). A H-1031-01 2 Category 1 Wetland located in the northwest corner of the site will remain although its buffers will be impacted. 2.0 WETLAND FUNCTION AND VALUES Wetland replacement for the Category 3 wetlands would normally be provided at 1.5 times the area impacted. However, Section 4-32-6C.7 of the Wetland Management Ordinance allows the use of a functions and values evaluation to reduce this ratio to as low as 1.0 times the area impacted. We propose to replace the wetlands at 1.0 times the area impacted. We understand that a third party review of the functions and values of the proposed wetland mitigation shall occur. The Category 3 wetlands will be replaced on-site in the Springbrook Creek Channel(a Category 1 System), and within the City of Renton Wetland Mitigation Bank(a Category 1 System). The City of Renton Wetland Mitigation Bank is proposed to be constructed in the Spring of 2001. Therefore, there will be a short-term loss of wetland functions in the overall watershed between 1999 (when cleanup of the site, including impacts to the wetlands will be completed) and the year 2001. Wetlands B, C and D have been cleared and will soon be undergoing remediation in accordance with the Consent Decree. Since the wetlands have already been impacted, the function and value assessment completed by Watershed Dynamics has been included in Appendix A of this report. To remain consistent the functions and values are described below using the same function and value assessment method as Watershed Dynamics, namely guidelines compiled by Adamus (1987) and Reppert (1979). The off-site functions and values are described in the City of Renton 1995 Wetland Mitigation Bank Program and Plan. The function and value section from the City's report is located in Appendix B of this report. A summary of the functional evaluations is shown in Table 1. H-1031-01 3 2.1 Wetland Categories The on-site wetlands to be impacted were determined to be Lower Quality Category 3 Wetlands. The mitigation wetlands on the site and in the City of Renton Wetland Mitigation Bank are proposed to be Very High Quality Category 1 Wetlands. The mitigation wetlands on-site and within the City Mitigation Bank would be considered Category 1 Wetlands because they will both be greater than ten acres in size and have three or more vegetation classes, one of which is open water. The on-site wetland mitigation will be connected to Springbrook Creek and its associated wetlands. The City Wetland Mitigation Bank will establish 26.12 acres of diverse wetland habitat with four wetland classes. 2.2 Biological Support The existing wetlands contain low biologic support, due to the small size of the wetlands. Low plant diversity and low vegetative complexity as a result of past disturbance and the presence of contamination. The proposed mitigation on-site and within the mitigation bank will increase the number of habitat types, provide habitat interspersion, increase structural diversity, and provide a direct connection to Springbrook Creek which is a salmon spawning stream. Proposed vegetation and root wads would increase habitat suitable for fish, other aquatic life and riparian- dependent wildlife species. Wildlife expected to use the wetland and buffer mitigation areas due to species planted within the mitigation area include the following: • Buds and fruit from red osier dogwood is known to be used as food by band-tailed pigeon, grouse, crow, chat, grosbeak, robin, thrush, vireo, and cedar waxwing. • Ninebark is known to provide seeds, nesting sites, and cover for songbirds. • Black cottonwood trees over time provide nest and roost trees for raptors, and cavities for birds such as woodpeckers and chickadees. Cottonwoods also attract insectivorous birds including flycatchers, kinglets, wrens, vireos, and warblers. • Willows are known to provide important food, cover and nesting habitat for bushtits, chickadees, grouse, and grosbeaks. Willow flowers can also provide early spring food for honeybees. H-1031-01 4 • Western red cedar is known to provide protective and nesting cover for grosbeaks and cedar waxwings, forage sites for kinglets,brown creepers, red-breasted nuthatch, chickadee, and juncos. 2.3 Water Quality The existing wetlands contained low water quality benefits, due to there urban location, the fact that they are shallow depressions and appear to retain less than twenty-five percent of local runoff. The plant communities have been manipulated and are dominated by invasive species. The proposed mitigation on-site and within the mitigation bank would allow water to be temporarily stored in the wetlands and released into adjacent surface waters, thereby allowing contaminants to be filtered. Trees planted in and along Springbrook Creek will ultimately fill out, providing a canopy and shade over the channel. Shade would help decrease water temperature leading to an increase in dissolved oxygen. Removal of contaminated sediments from the channel adjacent to the site will also provide a long-term benefit of improved water quality. Channel improvements, including the bench and wetland mitigation areas, would, in the long-term reduce stream velocity and soil erosion during floods. 2.4 Flood and Storm Water Desynchronization The existing wetlands are small, and intermittently saturated by seasonal storm events but are hydrologically isolated from other wetlands and waters. Proposed mitigation on-site and within the mitigation bank will establish a direct connection to Springbrook Creek and allow storm and flood waters to be attenuated and temporarily stored. 2.5 Groundwater Exchange The existing wetlands are small, and underlain by compacted fill and clay soils. The presence of the compacted soils severely limits groundwater exchange. Proposed mitigation on-site will establish a direct connection to Springbrook Creek which overall has a high groundwater exchange rate. The City mitigation bank has not determined if the groundwater exchange function will be increased. H-1031-01 5 2.6 Support of Base Flow The existing wetlands are intermittently saturated, thus are not capable of augmenting base flow of the local drainage systems. The on-site mitigation and the mitigation bank will establish direct connectivity with Springbrook Creek increasing the ability of the mitigation projects to augment base flow of Springbrook Creek. 2.7 Cultural Value Cultural value of the existing wetlands were not evaluated by Watershed Dynamics. However, the wetlands are isolated on private property that is contaminated. Therefore, the cultural value of the wetlands as they exist is low. Cultural values of the on-site mitigation and the mitigation bank would increase by incorporating public access and a trail system. The on-site project proposes a sidewalk near the parking lot above the Springbrook Creek buffers, and a trail interconnected to the City trail system on the south side of Springbrook Creek. 2.8 Shoreline Stabilization This function is not applicable to the existing on-site wetlands. The on-site wetland mitigation project will be constructed along the north bank of Springbrook Creek which currently has a two to one slopes. The mitigation plan will create a ten foot wide bench with a five percent slope and a three to one slope above the bench. The two wider wetland mitigation areas along Springbrook Creek will have a two percent slope with three to one side slopes. Vegetation and habitat structures will provide stabilization of the newly created bench and slope. 3.0 ON-SITE MITIGATION GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Unavoidable impacts to three wetlands resulting from cleanup of contamination under a Consent Decree entered in King County Superior Court will occur on the site. The cleanup remediation exempts the site from certain requirements, but substantive procedures, particularly wetland mitigation, are still applicable. H-1031-01 6 Total impact to the three wetlands is 43,844 square feet. To offset unavoidable wetland impacts construction of a 10-foot wide bench and two mitigation areas adjacent to the bench will occur along the north side of Springbrook Creek. The bench and wetland areas will become part of the high flow channel for Springbrook Creek. The bench will contain 17,600 square feet of area and the two mitigation areas will contain 10,311 square feet of area(Figures 3a and 3b). Compensation for the additional 15,933 square feet of required mitigation will occur in the City of Renton Wetland Mitigation Bank via a mitigation fee. Wetland and stream buffers impacted by the cleanup are also proposed to be enhanced with native vegetation and habitat features. The proposed on-site wetland and buffer mitigation areas are shown in Figures 3a, 3b and 4. Buffer associated with Wetland A have been averaged as allowed by Section 4-23-3I of the City of Renton Wetland Management Ordinance. The goals and objectives to protect on-site wetlands and to create the wetland mitigation project include the following: ► Establish non-invasive, native vegetation in the buffers associated with Wetland A and Springbrook Creek that will be disturbed by cleanup of contamination. Buffer vegetation will be designed to result in higher functions and values than originally existed in the disturbed buffer areas. This will be accomplished by providing a greater diversity of native plant material with more layering, edges, and cover for wildlife. ► Create new wetlands to replace wetlands impacted by the cleanup of contamination. Created wetlands will be located as indicated on Figures 3a and 3b in areas believed to be most able to sustain the hydrologic conditions necessary for wetlands. ► Provide a scrub-shrub and emergent wetland plant communities with inundated and seasonally saturated hydrologic conditions. Based on the natural flow of the existing system(Springbrook Creek)that will be providing hydrology to the on-site wetland mitigation project, we anticipate that the created wetland will be temporarily flooded several times during the early growing season(March, April and May). It is anticipated that the wetland mitigation site will be saturated for the remainder of the growing season. The silt loam soils within Springbrook Creek will continue to hold water when the Creek is contained in the low flow channel. • Implement effective temporary erosion control measures to avoid soil erosion during and after construction of the new wetlands until permanent erosion control is achieved. H-1031-01 7 3.1 Proposed Compensatory Wetland Mitigation The site chosen for wetland replacement is presently the two to one slope and top-of-bank area along the north side of Springbrook Creek. This area will be impacted during cleanup of contaminated soils on the site. This location was selected to provide mitigation for the following reasons: ► It is an upland area adjacent to Springbrook Creek and its associated wetlands . ► There is an available water source. ► Much of the area will be unavoidably impacted by cleanup activities; therefore, loss of habitats that would normally be in place will not occur due to wetland mitigation construction. ► Excavation for the wetland mitigation project will increase the capacity of the high flow channel, thereby reducing flooding in the local area. The general objective for wetland creation on site is to excavate a ten foot wide bench and two other areas associated with the bench along Springbrook Creek. Figures 6a and 6b show cross sections of the bench and wetland mitigation areas. Water from Springbrook Creek will provide saturated and inundated conditions that will sustain non-invasive, native, shrub and emergent vegetation planted for the project. Excavation will not occur below the ordinary high water mark which is at an elevation of thirteen feet. Habitat features, including logs and root wads, will be added to the buffer and wetland mitigation area(Figures 3 through 5). The buffer area to remain adjacent to Wetland A will be planted with non-invasive, native trees, and shrubs, and seeded with a native shrub and herb mix. The vegetation proposed for planting is listed on Figures 3a, 3b and 4. 4.0 WETLAND MITIGATION AND BUFFER PLANTING PLAN The plant species selected for the mitigation area are native to the Puget Sound region. They display a high degree of success in similar wetland and wetland-buffer-creation projects in the vicinity. All of the species selected are present within the local wetlands. The planting plan proposes the establishment of emergent and scrub-shrub wetland vegetation intermixed with H-1031-01 8 some tree species. The buffer will also be planted with tree and shrub species to create a shrub buffer community transitional to a forested community over time. Species to be planted and seeded, and their locations in the wetland and buffers are shown on Figures 3a, 3b and 4. Side slopes constructed adjacent to the wetland mitigation area will be stabilized through careful compaction and through vegetation using native upland and wetland species, depending on the area. To discourage the introduction of non-native grass and herb species on these slopes, initial stabilization will be accomplished by seeding the upland areas with the seed mix identified on Figure 5. A hydro mulch layer of 100 percent wood fiber will be placed over the broadcast seed to further limit slope erosion. The hydro mulch layer will encourage germination and discourage seed predation by wildlife. Sterile straw can be used for erosion control where necessary on a short-term basis during construction. Other erosion control methods, if required, should be placed to ensure health of the planted and seeded species. 5.0 IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURES During all phases of site construction and implementation of the wetland mitigation project, construction procedures and techniques will be monitored so that adequate precautions are taken to protect existing and created wetlands, buffer areas, and associated vegetation. A professional wetland biologist, will visit the site regularly during construction of the mitigation and enhancement project to observe the placement of erosion control measures and to monitor creation activities during construction. After wetland construction has been completed and vegetation has been established, the biologist will provide an as-built/baseline monitoring report to the City of Renton for approval. The biologist will document the following implementation criteria: ► During grading of the wetland mitigation area and buffer area, all existing vegetation outside of the impact areas indicated on the grading plan will be protected. A filter fabric fence will be placed between the edges of the areas to be graded and the adjacent wetlands or buffers. The fence will remain in place until the planted vegetation in the wetland, buffer, and landscape areas are established. H-1031-01 9 ► In order to ensure that construction activities do not disturb Wetland A a temporary barrier fence should be placed between Wetland A and the construction activities. ► Grades within the wetland creation project will be even, smooth, and related to adjacent surfaces, as indicated on the grading plan. 1. Planting will occur during the cool season months (October to March) to take advantage of seasonal rains. Other planting times, if authorized, may require plant substitutions and irrigation. ► Planting the vegetation and placing habitat features will occur as specified on Figures 3 through 5 of this report. ► After planting of the wetland mitigation area is completed, maintenance by the landscape contractor will include regular visits, at least quarterly, for the purpose of weeding, supplemental watering, and other items necessary to maintain planted areas in a healthy condition. Weeding is to be performed throughout the site to discourage aggressive, non-native plant introductions. No spraying of herbicides or other chemicals, or application of fertilizers is to occur within the upland buffer or the mitigation area unless authorized. No pruning is to occur unless authorized. The maintenance period will be for a period of one year from the date of acceptance of the plantings. 6.0 MONITORING PLAN The primary purpose of the monitoring program is to document the degree of success or failure in achieving the performance objectives and to identify remedial action. A five-year monitoring program will be implemented to assess the completed wetland mitigation and buffer enhancement project. The goal of the wetland mitigation is to provide emergent and scrub-shrub wetland plant communities per the landscape plan(Figures 3a and 3b), inundated and seasonally saturated hydrologic condition for the wetland plant establishment, and enhancement of the wetland buffers with native shrub and tree plant communities(Figures 3a, 3b, and 4). To achieve the stated goals of the wetland mitigation site, the following will be monitored regularly: ► Survival of the tree and shrub plantings. ► Cover of emergent plant species in the seeded wetland area. ► Inundation and saturation of the soils achieved during final grading. H-1031-01 10 Within one month after the wetland construction is complete and the vegetation is established, an as-built/baseline monitoring report will be provided to the City of Renton for review and approval. This report will document wetland construction and buffer enhancement activities, and any deviation from the approved mitigation plan. After the initial assessment, the mitigation project will be monitored early in growing season and at the end of the growing season for five years. Monitoring will be completed using methodology described as follows: ► Establishment of permanent vegetation plots and transects to monitor survival, changes in plant species composition, percent cover by species over time, and hydrologic conditions. The canopy coverage method of Daubenmire will be used for herbaceous plants, and small shrubs and trees less than three feet tall. Tree and shrub density will be evaluated using line- intercept sampling methods along transects until the species are greater than six feet tall then a belt transect method will be utilized. ► Establishment of photo stations to collect a sequence of photographs. These photographs will be used to evaluate vegetation community response over time. ► Measurement of water levels in the early and late growing seasons to determine if inundation is present at the permanent sampling plots. If the area is not inundated, an auger hole will be dug to determine if water or saturated soils are near the surface. ► Observation of the wetland mitigation area for excessive erosion, scour, or sedimentation that may affect the health and/or diversity of the overall wetland mitigation area. ► Observation and reporting of wildlife use in the wetland mitigation area. Monitoring reports will be submitted to the City of Renton by December of each of the monitoring years. 6.1 Performance Standards Performance standards provide measurements to gage the progress of the project periodically, and to identify remedial actions necessary to meet the final success criteria. For this mitigation project, we propose to use the health of vegetation and the presence of water to gage the progress of the project. The planted wetland and buffer species will be monitored for vigor and H-1031-01 11 survival. The overall target survival rate per year will be 80 percent of planted shrub and tree species, as measured in representative plots and transects. If it is determined that planted shrub species are being replaced or out-competed by native wetland shrubs or trees that grow voluntarily, the success criteria will be met only if the number of volunteer and planted shrub and tree species in the mitigation area meet or exceed the number of shrub and tree plants required in the area for that year. The wetland area must contain inundated or saturated soils during a portion of the growing season. If these performance standards are not met, the cause of the failure to meet the performance standard will be evaluated, and action will be taken to rectify the problem until the objectives are achieved. 6.2 Success Criteria The wetland mitigation and buffer areas should have an 80 percent areal cover of self-sustaining, noninvasive, native wetland vegetation at the end of the five-year monitoring program. Cover estimates at the permanent monitoring transects will be the sole source for determining appropriate vegetative cover for the project. If the performance standards are met each monitoring year, and the success criteria are met at the end of five years, the project should be released from regulatory purview and liability by the City of Renton. 7.0 CONTINGENCY PLAN If any of the performance standards are not being met during the monitoring period, a contingency plan will be prepared and implemented. Prior to implementing a contingency plan, the regulatory agencies will be contacted for approval. Three events that commonly occur in new mitigation areas and could affect the success of the wetland mitigation project follow. Event No. 1: Mortality of planted wetland vegetation in accordance with performance standards. Contingency: The planting contractor must conduct quarterly monitoring of the health of all the newly introduced plant material for one year after the date of accep- tance of the planted material. Replace planted material as necessary during the appropriate planting seasons. After the first year, plant survival will be monitored by the wetland biologist, and the causes for observed plant H-1031-01 12 mortality will then be evaluated. If performance standards have not been met, replacement plant material will be prescribed based on this evaluation. The contractor is responsible for replacing plant material during the first year after implementation. After year one, the project proponent is responsible for plant replacement. Event No. 2: Non-availability of specified native plant materials. Contingency: Plant species substitutions other than those listed in Figure 5 must first be authorized by a wetland biologist and the regulatory agencies. Replacement species will be specified at a schedule appropriate and consistent with species planting requirements and the overall wetland creation objectives. Event No. 3: Hydrologic conditions necessary for maintenance of wetland vegetation are not present. Contingency: Surface and subsurface hydrologic conditions must be identified. It must also be determined whether regrading the mitigation project is warranted, or if alternative means of surface water diversion must be identified so that wetland functions remain vital. H-1031-01 13 8.0 CLOSURE The findings and conclusions documented in this report have been prepared for specific applica- tion to this project. They have been developed in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill normally exercised by members of the environmental science profession currently practicing under similar conditions in the area. The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are professional opinions based on interpretation of information currently available to us and made within the operational scope, budget, and schedule constraints of this project. No warranty, either express or implied, is made. Please contact us if you have any questions. NATURAL RESOURCE CONSULTING Theresa R. Henson Natural Resource Ecologist 9-25-98/H 1031-01.RPT-trh H-1031-01 14 REFERENCES American Association of Nurserymen, 1990, American Standard for Nursery Stock, American Association of Nurserymen, Washington, D.C. Harza, 1995, Comprehensive Fisheries Assessment of the Mill Creek, Garrison Creek and Springbrook Creek System, final report prepared for the City of Kent Environmental Engineering Division, June. Hitchcock, C.L., A. Cronquist, 1977, Flora of the Pacific Northwest, University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington. Renton, 1992, Ordinance No. 4346, Chapter 32 Wetland Management, Renton, Washington.. Renton, 1995, Wetland Mitigation Bank Program and Plan, Final Draft 55-1779-07, January. Renton, 1997, East Side Green River Watershed Project Plan and Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 1, Final, September. Renton, 1998, Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance, Oakesdale Business Campus, March 19. Renton, 1998, Decision from the Office of the Hearing Examiner for Oakesdale Business Campus, April 27. Watershed Dynamics, Inc., 1996, Wetland Evaluation and Delineation Report, Zelman Properties Company Project Site, Renton, King County, Washington., November. Watershed Dynamics, Inc., 1998, Oakesdale Business Park Proposed Wetland Mitigation Plan, Renton, Washington: prepared for Zelman Development Company, February. H-1031-01 15 TABLE 1: FUNCTION AND VALUE SUMMARY EXISTING PROPOSED ON-SITE CITY MITIGAT. BANK Wetlands Category 3 Category 1 Category 1 Biologic Support Low Medium to High Medium to High Water Quality Low High High Flood & Storm Desynchronization Low High Medium to High Ground Water Exchange Low High Unknown Support of Base Flow Low High Medium to High Cultural Value Low High High Shoreline Stabilization N/A Medium to High Medium to High H-1031-01 34TH zS O 38TH Z 39TH yN 0 41$T Site RIEENF50I- 43Rp cf,y N Oakesdale Business Campus A Renton, Washington Approximate Scale 1 inch l0 4800 feet VICINITY MAP September 1998 H-1031-01 Natural Resource Consulting FIG. I Assessment, Note: Map adapted from The Thomas Guide, 1995. a" """and x every""I"'t""g 0l, 11 1 1 I WC114•04c. A To REmMla I i / / 1 Srn?A cTE 0 i f WETL PAP lb .1 ((O.'. � TA LTFD k S/�0► �� WtTt tD C. ,0 �1' _. • .././K • �e, ta o sotc... 4� / � ,A,, ..--- 417-...- izi .- -.-. ,,„, ...--;,,,..] r„,........ ///df,1 s, , /, 1 .(Pacioncr.f ealkomel N Oakesdale Business Campus A Renton, Washington Approximate Scale 1-incb=200 feet WETLAND IMPACT MAP September 1998 H-1031-01 Natural Resource Consulting FIG. 2 Assessment,Management and Regulatory Permitting - - | grATE | ` | ! BUILDING B \ ---�� ~~~ 0 aa 00 No No I I - ° FW IV o o ! 4 x IJ I Mo, / � 3V \ ' ! 0 � " ° Scala / ~~. ~= *~ / | ---'----' / | ƒ DM Drawn By � om,*edur °= mx�*= SCALE 7 = 30 NORTH _ n 30 90 M � 15 -'60 -~~- VV-1 umWw=w� | | WETLAND LANDSCAPE PLAN MATCH LINE SHEET W-3 _ yy MATCH UNE SHEET W-S li: II c 0r,:. ) 1 1 c. I ------ - - : - • lilt HI .J.`©rfl8., \ % ii,fFI.E A K © -. . If ..7r, / it � :%) �� ;%. . .. 7� �0�1w� V� ��'y/ y ,: arr`)E Gad. y3 I. ry"D4 j 0scI� G( � t _ -, )z- , ' 10-— e • `: ._ 1 r Y Y Y Y Y Y a Y 1 Y.Y 072: t� r, l`i r,l/.0•♦i♦. 4 ii► Y Y Y Y Y - _--•--41W v' J . v1,. .1.1 r.•> W.ff. ° gl Y 0,0 Y Y fl p \\ �a'R Wi 07 Y Y- W Y * Y Y .i I Y ` ��'- I qS 1 '�lI �`• '�«, I �I ili�',I II 1 .9 . I it,44$ t. —4 Y Y r 1 Y Y Y Y r% i i1//p�p 1 ^r. ♦ +�� ♦ O� f / g�rt`l Y . Y Y j� Y a. Y Y Y y'' Y i W I O p f'-+•r�A' • ��f ,r i 1� zp / S�{{y'_�A• Y " Y - Y / r 7 0. / Y Y Y Y 4. % `C'� Y Y Yi Y IW '6y�^ �I �a-J'+ .?I�!" ‘+ ". ,,,,• �p` // iP4VY Y Y Y Y Y Y Y/Y Y Y Y .} � + 1 0, I �'' ,,CJ ;osy Y Y Y /Y Y / �r, III \ ,'_ ,r.`. �%' ��a 1 ©, 0 ' 7r_ Y Y Y Y Y Y Y •, Y Y Y Y Y Y / /f yw,y,-�. 3` . !.,- t_ ; V i T i ;,,• BUILDING E , o Y Y Y Y Y Y rr� if a� c. • -/ A L � Y Y Y 1 I Y C) .v ./ , tz, (....._,., . \ /� 1�{�11 Y Y Y Y �rcv' lr .r i .i�j j /// - . _ , NN ::. f / '�t' /J /- ' li .. _A___r—' -t p:'zO'X'jc'4.:i1'..'.,,3.,'',DlV'ens6.,.:-.;tt•.)..i.:.". ...";•.8:.r,-:':.•e:0::4.wr..'v......'...-,-'.;;::.•,,.:•:•,‘r-(;'.•I,i.l-it:.,:..1.•.:;.'....,...4,"-,:,-':•,-:,,::_:-•:,v 7....;--,:-:,,-,,_.__-,:_: OI�, .......dR •I1 1;1,, .I t,'\r\,.•. .-•-'. 041\I.4\ (\- -, ..,,--7,.--- ' ? cw \ t,,,,,...0.,„„.:,........:;,;4,-.,:,--s•-• . .... ...-.....,-,;--- --- ,i 1(J� r .�� w :y �� / / WILLOW-" ' re.:r•-n:-,--:.,-•.,..-'':... •..•„•":„-.e:,::,-;::.;E•?-e-e.";r,.c-',-,,--___-_-_-,--.-.-.,---._.--_----...-.---_--,---.-,.,A- 13: . / FASCNE//// / V % wRI[ :fir..:rx•/j i: 0woew_„_ _ Ct I I' ref �...1.. // // i Cn . /wit' /.4.41,4:4.4.„- -,-) •..:.....:::./..x. -;,,__,/--- ►_/( L uu{{ y,J�1��� r's��":'� (�!)} ; may /l I = "/I� T r , c 3' +; x / il ! ' SIDE •LK / ,.�. �', */ h , ! r / c i �i i ,,,!F 9rowir•'ice';.IiCa `.' / /2,/ // I O G��1Lr,�lr �'` II ♦.:' a r+ao-.4.h .- Ea,"'+.y0 $/ // -71 ' Jt/ / } ! n. -.e tip /�% / / 1 U ,c F:G.-�., ?::? .�.♦�.:0 ,41 t ..// �//// / ,/ /!' '- _.- I ,,•••Oise S':i:i '/ i Q `1 :•:�:!j•-�,r�'31 I) 'AY."' $ /�/�• / / / / Scale: r-3a / 7 I Dates 0:,.' ''.90 s,:;r . / /,' Drawn By mk // f itot,.,01,:c.,i0, ''I ;'/•j " //, Checked by MAW I / / �pnsI 1 : .f /; j� , / ,/ e r F // �, / / rr rr n 7 r CEO 1 SCALE 1" = 30' NORTH 1 111111111111130 111111111111111111111111111190 All .cJ u r e 3 6 mini IIIIIIINIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINIiI M.• W_2 I WETLAND LANDSCAPE PLAN Sheet Number 1 \ b 1 I rr \ \-,• \\�• \�• Q®n® �{� �\ 20---'i MATCH LINE THIS SHEET - - 11.4--;m ' !NON'I ilmo mi mmi . ... . V14- r 1 ` ''. ,ti 1► 1 1, !111 _ .\�— . • . . fir; ra�� .. . •o I. \_- _ ,1/1' ' ill \ . I JCy' 1 � i I I I\t\�\\. _BUILDING C , -,�, •,, (D° ' e., •. \\ C'plMt--,4 j .�• I'. � / \ \\\\w __ems— 1� + ©W t O ��y. �. - 1 fry, eV rc.'�I \ \\ \ oc :� '..y r� �aoa • C r - I {Et 6,A1 t 0 .— \ 4U_� 1 t\\ I i i / / `� .- (14.•• r 4v� ,4 •'4 \\ oasTrS .; . } / - - �`�•` :�r i BUILDING C �. wET�ano / - ca ©� A� / 'Y+' �' r. // / i C=, �C srn,E of \''\: • - •i;hR �© :, `-mac `` • �{�r'"a ' _ • - 'I , • .1: 7. .ia.,- - .? ��`"` // f t i(� \ { © a dd '��'� ' '"''� , \\\ji ®mc>E NO XII i ; f,II . I ( III 'v 1 - �. „ _� '1 II _ _ _ 010 —/ I \ •. . . �I. �. -. I *� _i� I `n'A'w\-. :':' _ \ III , MATCH UNE� !SHEET �� 4�..q!' 0 r I I I 1 `'\ ' \\ Et . . - ��It,-„ NN Otic'..a./.::-.• / ._ r1 \, \\ o o.: \ 0.. N .. i . 0- i ` \ \ N VI :;.:4:,,..4iti.-...:-!..:..: _L� , ,� Z 8 o. .: a,v.' \(tl , tip' — O c9 . r �� . z ?c,4- ;',.).:�YC�3. U) etc 1,,,,,,,,,. .,• i w ' CO `.CoC; ,t' Cl g J p w ct. \` 0�G � 0. i i BUILDING D 1 U) J oo jA0�.' - - ` ,, ®*_':. qa . 10 \ \ / 0 ,/ PI iL`(�< 10-5 G`I r orate rya t�; G c.'-' r aa' I / Date: srorse . .cam... '' Drawn By GirkfO tr �" /i Checked by num __-.T-•\ ► _ f% �� \, i c+ — .mo SCALE 1" = 30' NORTH . o_ - � —— , �, � — . 30MATCH LINE SHEET W-2 0 I Ilk IIIIIIIIIIII11IIIII11IIIIII111 90 ..... — �-, F,9..Lt-e_ 9 Mr 15 i 0 W-3 1 Sheet Nun ter: er: WETLAND LANDSCAPE PLAN t OQ iC 3' PLANT SCHEDULE PLANTING NOTES �'i R � r, ,a WETLAND MITIGATION AREA I.Planting is to occur during the cool season months(October I to March 31). Other y O� planting times must have prior authorization from the wetland specialist. $F * 24 Populw trI ocerpa Black Contoruood I gallon pots 20 P•ue plicate cate olds» t2teltSg Aspen I gallon pots a 2.Selected lame,planting, seeding activities shall conform the Code of 0 43 T)N3 Dilute Wrtarrr sated Ceder 5 gallon pots p p 9 g Standards of the American Association of Nurserymen. Plant material to be used will be• ii ct lit SANDBAGS 3 Q ID �• Sallx IeNandre Pacific Mlles I gallon pots,5'on canter native to the Pacific Northwest. • '1) i$ Live Roars / o �¶1 .111�62 eats.sledvrla Sot.AV/ow I gallon pot..5'on canter lie 3.Nurseryrowsplants shall be sound,healthy,vigorous plants Free of defects,disease CABLE-TES 'P:4'lIL:6` lie Lantana Invol eat. B/sot'bindery I gallon pots,4'on timer g ••' 9 CONCRETE BLOCK kYaa.ry g Poand infestation. The wetland specialist will review plant material prior to planting to 135 Ptsysocarpte caphatw Nembert I gallon pots.4'on caller ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK I Q 125 Come•toanlre•a Ie.d aver Oag'eraod I gallon pots,a'on can: verify conformance to the plant schedule and to plant characteristics and reserves the BENCH 3 right to require replacement or substitution of plants that are deemed unsuitable. Seed nix IS 4.Plant material layout and staking shall be completed by the contractor and NOTES: Cip20% Glycenie elate reanweag et.a Seed at rate or 12 lb•per Ace approved by the wetland specialist prior to installation of plants. Plant material may M(�(�tt, L LOG 10% Poe palwtris Fora/B4tag.5a. entire wetland mitigation end not be installed prior to the written verification and approval of theplant layout by �((J�ud T% Carex rostrata Beaked bench areapp y �% I. LOGS TO BE 10-I5'LONG,20-30"DIAMETER WITH ROOT WADS tro ATTACHED, PLACE LOGS WITH ROOT WADS PONYING DOWNSTREAM. ivii4n° 11an 1% Care.abrupte Slough sedge the wetland specialist. t� 2. ANCHOR POSTS TO BE 12-15"DIAMETER 6'LC era Airje r)INTO 8% .Aelew.e'elrollw De Leaved RUMr STREAM BED TO MINIMUM 4'DEPTH. SECURELY CCMNECT TO LOGS WITH 8% ,hao..bufeta. Toad Rush 5.The contractor shall dig,pack.transport and handle plants with care to ensure 1R"GABLE WRAPPED ENTIRELY AROUND LOG. p ' 3. CONCRETE BLOCK TO SE SOLID WALL WIT SUCH A5 KEYSTONE. B% 5cirpw nicrourpw Snell Pruned Buiteh protection from Injury. Store plants in the manner necessary to accommodate their SECURE BLOCK TO LOGS WITH la"GABLE WRAPPED AROUND LOGS B% Ranunculus ragas reap.Ng Buttarcyo horticultural requirements. Neel-in plants is necessary to keep them From drying out. AND THROUGH BLOCK USE MINIMUM 4 BLOCKS PER STRUCTURE, 10% Pote tills paiwtrus I-Web Cinquefoil plants saturated and shaded until actual time of Installation. Do not let them sit STATE OF Keep W.- TON BLOCKS TO ENTIRELY DERGROUND. 4. in the sun or dry out during planting, 4, SANDBAGS UN TO DE MINIMUM 80 LB9 EACH. INSTALL aH DOLLNSTREAM =r='�• SIDE OF STRUCTURE IN 2 LAYERS USING MINIMUM 10 BAGS PER ' t /I -• STRUCTURE. BACIrFILL AROUND BAGS WITH NATIVE SOILS. 6.Existing soli on the site shall be used for topsoil and planting soil requirements. A three-inch layer of medium,soft wood,weed-Free mulch or organic compost shall be c ATE PCam ai placed around the base of all new trees(36"diameter ring)and shrub plantings(24" OStreambank Log Structure WETLAID& eND STREAM S AREAS diameter ring)for erosion,weed control,and moisture retention. A not to scale 00 15 Auer clrclnatun vhenap/e I gallon pots T.Excavate plant pits with vertical sides and install plants as shown on the planting aS Acrmecophylun Sig Leaf ropi gallon pots detail. Bac ill with native soil. After planting immediately saturate the plating ara 145 Pesudot•uga menxlesli Dorgbe� 5 gallon pots to avoid capillary stress. 0 126 Thtta plicate tartan Read Cedar 5 gallon pots 9.The contractor shall warrant all plant material to remain alive and healthy For a period © 265 Come•tolonlrare Red Beg Dogwood I gallon pots of one year after completion and final written acceptance of planting, The contractor a� © n2 Hoodl.cw discolor Ocean Sores gel on pots shall replace dead or unhealthy plants per plans ands ecification as directed bythe ,tar p n4 Owlets Cara.lfamis Indian Pharr I gallon pots p G 122 Physocalpw capitatw Wxrebant I gallon pots wetland specialist. (0 146 Ribes sagrulnwm Red Flows-g arrant 1 gallon pots •• NJ ( 131 Symphorlcarpte albus anoatany 1 gallon pots 9.The wetland specialist will provide construction management services for landscaping a �'• ' 4 i' b SI-IRUB or TREE 0 Si vacoInWn Ovate Evergrwr Fanweberry I gallon pots activities including but not limited toplant locations,Field modifications and planting I_# ./2(h/ n9 p 8 y b"'Iir l/,/A ' PLANT AT SAME no 300 Gaultherla*halloo Sale! I gallon pots,louts as directed by techniques. ►/� .�y R GRADE AS .ynbol 200 Polytich.n mullion Sword Fun Owner's Representative ,/, ate NURSERY 10.The contractor shall provide maintenance For at least one year to include at least en rn Willow FaecMw(both«) See Detail C,sliest W-4 quarterly inspections and removal of weed species From the mitigation site. The Lii j Sail.sp. 7L+1/oes Meancontlnuolrly inhere Indicated, contractor shall provide other services to assure survival of planted material. Pruning, W _ ORGANIC MULCH approximately 2080 linear Feet fertilizing,and mechanical maintenance must be approved bythe wetlands specialist. Z aP AS SPECIFIED g: pp p Z O= / etosuphylos wa-anal Klmechn/ot Arta 4•pots•18"an center ��i N Plant first 8'adjeoant sld adjacent on .^ South side of property adjacet to CONTAINER stream corridor. Q AS SPECIFIED ' W NATIVE SOILS • Seed Mix•2 Seed at rate shown woke 3:1 M Q • _ per Ada Briargreen Native SITub Mix: .treas.buffer and wetland buffer area w 2000 lbs. Mulc40% % Ci Z tit I-- I0 80 lbs. 40%Par Rye,40 Creeping Red Fescue,%Colonial Banters***10%Clover C 6 lbs. 33%Oregon Grape,33%Elderberry,33%Serviceberry 250 lbs. 18-15-IS FenillZar O 401bs. Tac Container Planting '' m IT Stream Log seeure Locate par dkeetion or wetlands biologist and per Q B Detail A,ehset W-4 r^ not to scale 5 Wetland Buffer Log Structure I2-24"die.10-15'long log with root wad attached. V, Locate In approximate location shown on plan Partially bury log to insure stability. IrYie Q 0 OBTIE,nON POND 6•j, CD as req'd Datentlon Pond Seeding Rough Gass Seed, may:,.. See specincauam rc ^'_'^ .1'�•p 3:i SLOPE Scale: AS NOTED =11 ."DEPTH TPPNCH Dale: erol9s s _ Drawn By M K lL � = a "_.�'Ilslt�111 -.1�4i BENCH ---R 1 a 71 well ""It m -tt Checked by: nncw ll �, r u 1 n .wart k Rev sions. WILLOW FA9!l 1 - r 1 r',I11( i f.-n 1 F-u,,z-LT I- NOTES: I, WILLOW TWIGS TO BE 36"-48"LENGTH and APPROXIMATELY 2"DIAMETER 2. OVERLAP TWIGS SO THERE ARE AT LEAST 2 TWIGS PRESENT IN TRENCH N ALL LOCATIONS. 3. BURY FASCNE AT 6"DEPTH ALCNG ENTIRE 3:1 SLOPE INCLUDING SLOPES AROUND WETLAND MITIGATION AREAS. LOCATIONS ARE SHOW ON PLAN. OWillow Faacine not to scale -%Iguce 5 W-4 Sheet Number WETLAND SCHEDULE AND DETAILS a SPRINGBROOK CREEK CROSS SECTIONS 13 , ' 3 g SCALE: 1-20' HORIZ. 1'=5' VERT. ' N 3 I Z 0+00 Ui 4+00 w - 25' , Q1.—: W _ _ '� i 1p: a di 2 z_ co 24 ill / 24 24 6.Bou1 ;\ BEncr - - 24 \ I = / STORM DRN E WATER \ ; Y 0 Z 20 , e / 20 20 STOMA 0 POND r - 20 a w a / , \ I su p 3 16 / 16 16 \ / 16 Z Q 81 CC t4.5 Icr 0 0 12 I \�, o0 12 12 \ O P I j .� o o_ i 12 3 - I ---...----- 0 � Z. -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 20 40 60 80 O 0- 1 +00 5+00 J 25' 25' .m _ ` n i 24 6 ARM_ I I BUFFER I 24 24fi 24 -- — I K v o d STORM TANNAGE WATER \ s z o: ; _ 20 otlAuryoETEx wN Po m 1\ e _ -- - 20 O O 3 g • 20 R'Ei1�D /• _ 20 I ' — CO E-• MmcA TON \ \ ,/ D ARFA / EW aa'a \ / 16 I I / 16 2 Z c 16 \ I Q O (Zr' 0 2.oz \ / 116 1I' \ 0 I-' 1 3° I ift• I. Z/ I 12 I ( \ o o � ' 12 NWu) Z E •m S 12 \ - -' 4. I 1 12 I "i CO 11 c CV N I -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 Q aS -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 �0^ 20 . 40 60 80 CO a 6+00 w 0 3i I 2+00 B 2uF 0 Q 11 e e 25' I _ __ ( I w I 'l -, %Mg (` 24 61 BERM yp 24 a it 241 BtNOt1 t i 24 .\; O II d sIroaM?RNNAGE WATER y s .- _ I gUALffY/DETENTION FOND 20 20 ei i 20 I , I, - - I 16/ 1 � ' � \ � C 1fi WI 16I I / II-- \ I-16 i t/ 12 I -I I I \ r` ¢�i 1'r i 12 1n 7 12 \ _� / 12 I ' � �. I z ^, 0 20 40 60 80 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 v) -80 -60 -40 -20 i z x za Yl ERM 7+00 W N gz I ! i� g 3+00 f` 25' ¢o N �� 24 BU25ER o N - zS' I I 10' 0 24 o i w \f oaBUFFt Q 1111. ^ , 3 u�In Z�i0 '.ye°CH ,� W MrtIG1TpN d:: , ? e r }} I 20 16 r 16 K Bq� 0,0 ' �N,ss f ,4. � ,�'zlll`= I QV �' �,'i� w 16 I I \ / 16 12 3 Utz _ .0 t I t I I t I I ; �/F a��l fiifA�'��•"''�/ �� a 14.5 \ I I -120 -100 -80 '60 -40 '20 20 40 60 80 I cxP RENA4 Z#'9, 1.13 O GON�'J I I 12 .- _ 12 " ^ Oaloetlek Bums'Campus CITY OF RENTON rn -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 Resou.WssWagtoe IcEPARTTAENT OF PUBLIC WOf7Y,S to p, to I CROSS SECTIONS SPRINGBROOK CREEK CROSS SECTIONS O IR SECTIONS September,998 H-1031-0I Z I co HORIZ.-2O' VERT...5' - Natural Resource Consulting FIG.6a OEsor® 4D- -- DATE 1/4. ---- ME NO O s • Z CHECKED AS 9CAEE AS NOTED HELD BOOK -_ PACE _ w — RETISICR [eT I A'PR I DATE APPROVED , Clo .15 0 EI] pale o _ y cpn., .9I 1 EMGIAEEAI^N1'59111 D4.DWG Dote/Lmr 09/08/1998 '4.20 ,cots '=20,ason Preis. :591!18, • II h SPRINGBROOK CREEK CROSS SECTIONS i I I s I? 1!h ' SCALE: 1"-20' HORIZ. 1"-5 VERT. to 0 co I 0 8+00 3 —____ 25' Q 111 110 n = i `4 BUFFER W ~ — � 1 0 cr F_ 20 1W10 _ W -- - - 20 24 B iH d 1 ' I 24 Q V U Z J AREA I `� s i I 3 i t Q 3 Y 1 s i V �j 20 20 O CO W Q ---29* \ /I 16 / Z U2- 14,5/ 2 t / 16 \ / 16 CCQ 14.5/J� U W -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 12 ? 12+00 �, 1 I 12 Q Z 8 25' o U Z 9+0 0 _�- BUFFER rJ O �, 0. c I '- '- O cc 24 18 CH-n - - / I 8 �I^ 8 J CO I BUFFER I - d / 24 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 •. 24 �l_J n i 24 I / 20 20 3. 1 I _ I 16+00 20 \ 4 I 20 \ / I 25 - - 16 � —_ / 1 —,—i 16 I au��tt E"1 3$ i / / I / I 24 ! BENCH I I 24 Was 16 / 16 I 145 co / I I I ! Z U{Y �E 14.5 \ o // 12 I I 1�_r.J L_ , 1 12 20 H _ e / \ U I- \E 12 \ iri Vcsi I 12 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 i I I l\ V '-, 20 co CV = 9i v -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 76 \ a� 13+00 1 I j I 16 CO 1 •.a I ` / I W O i 25' I I I 14.5 "' 10+00 28 I I BUFFER (2I I ' 28 12 I \ - %I 12 J f- - I 24 OS IT ir 25' aladialIMMI 1-1 I C d I -80 -60 -40 -20 �0^ 20 40 60 80 X 10' c BENCH ! 24 24 ` i I I 24 i Q T d I O !I 1 a ■■I= ■■ III 20 / 20 3; r 20 — — ,— 20 —I 17+0 0 \ / 16 - _ �11 I I I -J 16 - - 1 6 5 J ' 16 24 o ff o I I H I �' = m ■ 14' I / j d j I 24 I- o 4 12 12 \ i t I 1 12 ; i j z , _ 12 "'" 20 o i -- - i 20 N c '; I a i ■ ■_ I o10 1 I � -80 -60 -40 -20 •0 20 40 60 80 8 I I I^ I 8 - j I s o cx 1 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 i j j wh.a I i i oC� m 9r o I a 16 f \ I / I t 16 > r-T tv CA 0 11 +00 Q L. 25' 14.5 I .0`l\ i I I Z rn o a0 rcw BUFFER ' \ I j n 2 �I � 1 14+00 ! ! 3rT � Z m I t 10. ' 25 12 i 4 i i 12 ' F w 24 BENCH. d 24 I BUFFERO Ii� i ! I 1 , ! .0 z o o _ / 3EnCH 1 1 I I -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 V u y' � ` a 24 1 -N 24 i i d o I 20 i g I i 20 i -TT s --f NA Sy MF lY srip> d� 1 I 20 o I '/ 20 OPti " b Q Ja, ` A o 16 � I. / 16 a V ''.. rhy Z o .• s �� 1 r I� I —y ,- i ���. 5e72\p ��e C '�/SiER a o 14s /' I is oz, i I 16 soxA1 ap`,-8-18 b8 'co' 1 cn 12 I \ I / 12 I 1 EXPIRES rdA�• r „II� 12 1 14,5 j oatesaak Business Campus CITY OF RENTON rn 0, I �, _ 12 Prn oa Washington DEPARTMENT OF PVBLIC WORKS I 8 I ai,a' I 8 j I - I I ! CROP - -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 SECTIONS SPRINGBROOK CREEK CROSS SECTIONS O September 1998 H-1031-01 Z Y j °®0°E° JOH SECTIONS m Natural Resocrce Consulting FIG.bb DATE 1Lt1913 r"-e HO 0 p m HORIZ.-20' VERT.-S' ....eawrew. ORAWN JOH Zermaiho 45_ .. WALE AS BONS) _, rltow.w, eAae W • nF ra. ietoro rr 0 ay I APPR 1 DATE APPIgr 5' ...:w-Y—...F--.------_- r C.C 11 e _D-P°pJ'.5911'C.INEEF:NG`,59111 D5 D9G ^ate,Tlme-09JO0 1958 'a 18 >cae- 1=20 mon Xrefs: Z591118. APPENDIX A WATERSHED DYNAMICS FUNCTION AND VALUE ASSESSMENT H-1031-01 WETLAND FUNCTION AND VALUE ASSESSMENT Wetlands are known to perform significant roles in the ecosystem, some of which are of immediate value to society. These roles vary greatly with the size, type, hydrology, vegetation, and location of wetland areas. Although the ecological functions performed by these wetlands are complex, interrelated, and difficult to assess and quantify, methods have been developed for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Adamus et al. 1987: Reppert et al. 1979). The values provided by wetlands include: hydrologic support, shoreline protection, stormwater and floodwater storage, water quality, groundwater recharge, and provision of wildlife habitat (Table 2). The HYDROLOGIC SUPPORT FUNCTION is defined by the measure of hydrologic stability and environmental integrity which the wetland provides. This function is measured by the frequency of inundation and saturation by tidal actions, stream flow, runoff, and precipitation. Wetlands permanently inundated or saturated, or intertidal wetlands are valued as high. Medium valued wetlands are seasonally flooded or are open water systems that remain saturated during most of the growing season. Wetlands that are intermittently flooded or hydrologically isolated are considered of low value. The SHORELINE PROTECTION FUNCTION is defined by the measure of shielding from wave action, erosion, or storm damage which a wetland provides. This function is measured by the location and width of the wetland along shoreline areas, types of vegetation present, and the extent of development along the shoreline. A high value is given to wetlands along a shoreline that have a width greater than 200 yards and dense woody vegetation. A medium value is given to a wetland with a width of 100 to 200 yards, sparse woody vegetation, and dense emergent vegetation. Wetlands less than 100 yards in width and emergent or lacking vegetation are considered of low value. The STORMWATER AND FLOODWATER STORAGE FUNCTION is defined by the ability of a wetland to store water and retard flow during periods of flood or storm discharge. Wetlands of larger size are generally considered to have greater ability to provide this function. In addition, wetlands nearer to urban or potentially develop-able areas are also considered to provide greater flood protections than wetlands which are in undeveloped areas. The WATER QUALITY FUNCTION is defined by the physical, biological, and chemical processes which wetlands provide to naturally purify water. This function removes organic and mineral particulates through natural filtration. In general, wetlands of greater size, more dense vegetation, and those which are close to point sources of pollution are considered to be of higher value. Wetlands which are small (<5 acres), lacking dense vegetation, and not close to point or non-point sources of pollution are considered of low value. The GROUNDWATER RECHARGE FUNCTION is defined by the interaction of the underlying geology and soils, and the surface topography. This function provides for the movement of surface water into groundwater systems. Important to this function is wetland size, period of inundation, and depth of standing water within the wetland. High value is given to permanently inundated wetlands greater than 10 acres in size. Medium value is given.to wetlands which are seasonally flooded and 5 to 10 acres is size. Wetlands less than 5 acres in size, isolated, and temporarily saturated are considered of low value. The NATURAL BIOLOGICAL FUNCTION is defined by the complexity of physical habitats and biological species within the wetland area. The value given to a wetland depends upon its ability to provide habitat for nesting (spawning), incubation, feeding, rearing, and cover of aquatic and teffe5lflal aili(C1al and fish species. In addition, the ability of a wetland to provide support for Zetman Properties- 12 Wetland Report - 96121A varying food chains is an important element in value assessment. Wetlands of high species diversity, three or more habitat types, unique habitat features, large in size, and associated with a permanent stream or tidal marsh are considered of high value. Wetlands with moderate species diversity, two habitat types, moderate in size, and associated with an intermittent stream or high salt marsh are considered of medium value. A low value is given to wetlands of low species diversity, small size, and isolated. These six functions are rated low, moderate, or high, based on the criteria outlined in Table 2. These criteria are guidelines compiled from Adamus (1987) and Reppert (1979) and professional judgment must be exercised in assessing these criteria. Overall values for a wetland are assigned, based on a synthesis of individual values. In addition to intrinsic functions, extrinsic functions are also recognized. These extrinsic functions provide social values that have indirect benefits to wetlands. Education and recreational opportunities are most often mentioned as extrinsic functions. Associated values are often in the eye of the beholder and are thus difficult to evaluate.' As such, these functions are not rated, but are nonetheless important when considering creation, restoration, or enhancement projects. ONSITE WETLAND VALUATION The wetland areas identified within the Site were evaluated following the functional value assessment process noted above. The valuation form is provided in Appendix D ,,kw As identified in this assessment wetlands B, C, D, and E exhibited-an overall value rating of LOW. The primary features that achieve the overall LOW function and value rating for these wetlands are in association with the following attributes: • Water Quality Benefits - These wetlands are located in a developed portion of the City of Renton. These wetlands are shallow depressions and appear to retain less than 25% of the runoff which occurs in adjacent areas. The plant community has been manipulated and is dominated by invasive/pioneer species. The primary water quality benefit provided by these wetlands appears to be a limited amount of biofiltration of surface stormwater from onsite and adjacent areas. • Hydrologic Support - These wetland areas are intermittently saturated by seasonal storm events and appeared hydrologically isolated from upslope wetland areas. • Natural Biological Function - These wetlands exhibit low plant diversity and low vegetative complexity as a result of past disturbances. The number of habitat types and features is limited. • Groundwater Recharge - These wetlands are small and appear only temporarily flooded or saturated by stormwater. In addition, these wetlands appear as isolated depressions and are independent of near surface hydrology from other wetland areas. Zelman Properties- 13 Wetland Report- 96121A As identified in this assessment Wetland A (both onsite and offsite area) exhibited an overall value rating of HIGH. The primary features that achieve the overall high function and value rating for this wetland are in association with the following attributes: • Water Quality Benefits - This wetland is located in a developed portion of the City of Renton. This wetland appeared to retain greater than 50% of the runoff which occurs. The onsite plant community appears well established. The primary water quality benefit provided by this wetland appears to be that of biofiltration of surface stormwater from onsite and adjacent areas. • Hydrologic Support - Parts of this wetland appear permanently flooded by seasonal storm events and appeared hydrologically connected to offsite upslope and downslope areas. • Natural Biological Function - This wetland exhibits moderate to high plant diversity and high vegetative complexity. The number of habitat types and features is moderate and includes an upland edge composed of mature deciduous trees. • Groundwater Recharge -This wetland continues offsite and is fairly large in size. The wetland appears permanently flooded and hydrologically connected with offsite wetland areas along the railroad right-of-way corridor. Zelman Properties-14 Wetland Report -96121A TABLE 2. WETLAND VALUE CRITERIA FUNCTION J LOW RATING MODERATE HIGH RATING RATING HYDROLOGIC * intermittently flooded seasonally flooded or intertidal or SUPPORT *hydrologically isolated open water permanently flooded wetland width <100 yds wetland width 100-200 wetland width >200yds SHORELINE from shoreline yds from shoreline from shoreline PROTECTION emergent or lacking sparse woody and dense woody . vegetation dense emergent vegetation N a- undeveloped shoreline vegetation highly developed moderately developed shoreline shoreline STORMWATER *<5 acres in size 5-10 acres in size >10 acres in size AND in remote areas in rural areas .. in urban or FLOODWATER A<10%woody cover 10-30%woody cover developable areas STORAGE _ >30%woody cover A <5 acres in size 5-10 acres in size >10 acres in size WATER QUALITY ,k <50% vegetation 50-80%vegetation >80% vegetation density density density dE intermittently flooded downstream from non- downstream from point no proximity to point pollutants pollutants pollutants retains 25-50% runoff retains >50% runoff * retains <25% runoff GROUNDWATER 'I'< <5 acres in size 5-10 acres in size >10 acres in size RECHARGE A isolated depressions seasonally flooded permanently inundated 4 temporarily saturated water depth to several impermeable substrate feet NATURAL low plant diversity moderate plant high plant diversity BIOLOGICAL j low wildlife diversity diversity three or more habitat CHARACTER 14 habitat features lacking two habitats types types 1' one vegetation several vegetation large wetland size community communities unique habitat small wetland area moderate wetland size features, plants, or isolated associated with animals present intermittent stream associated with or high salt marsh permanent stream of tidal marsh a information synthesized from Reopen et.al,1979 and Adamus et.at, 1987 WETLAND IDENTIFICATION: Wet CO,,,d WETLAND SIZE: 32-16q t s 4- -Ff DATE ASSESSED: (o vo,r q(o TABLE 2. WETLAND VALUE CRITERIA FUNCTION LOW RATI MODERATE - HIGH RATING 1 RATING HYDROLOGIC -A intermittently flooded seasonally flooded or intertidal or SUPPORT hydrologically isolated open water permanently flooded wetland width <100 yds wetland width 100-200 wetland width >200yds SHORELINE from shoreline yds from shoreline from shoreline PROTECTION emergent or lacking sparse woody and dense woody A vegetation dense emergent vegetation 1\ undeveloped shoreline vegetation highly developed moderately developed shoreline shoreline STORMWATER 4( <5 acres in size 5-10 acres in size >10 acres in size AND in remote areas in rural areas 4 in urban or FLOODWATER <10%woody cover 10-30%woody cover developable areas STORAGE_ _ .4E >30%woody cover <5 acres in size 5-10 acres in size >10 acres in size WATER QUALITY <50% vegetation 50-80% vegetation >80%vegetation density �" density density intermittently flooded IC downstream from non- downstream from point no proximity to point pollutants pollutants pollutants retains 25-50% runoff retains>50% runoff * retains <25% runoff , GROUNDWATER - <5 acres in size 5-10 acres in size >10 acres in size RECHARGE 4 isolated depressions 4 seasonally flooded permanently inundated t temporarily saturated water depth to several impermeable substrate feet NATURAL low plant diversity moderate plant high plant diversity BIOLOGICAL ,4 low wildlife diversity diversity three or more habitat CHARACTER habitat features lacking two habitats types types one vegetation several vegetation large wetland size community communities unique habitat small wetland area moderate wetland size features, plants, or isolated associated with animals present intermittent stream associated with or high salt marsh permanent stream of tidal marsh information synthesized from Reppert et.al,1979 and Adamus et.al,1987 WETLAND IDENTIFICATION: vie- (a►\A G WETLAND SIZE: 9(t 585- 5t? -(1f DATE ASAE5SE6: lkloo qL. TABLE 2. WETLAND VALUE CRITERIA FUNCTION OW RATING MODERATE HIGH RATING RATING HYDROLOGIC 4 intermittently flooded seasonally flooded or intertidal or SUPPORT hydrologically isolated open water permanently flooded wetland width <100 yds wetland width 100-20.0 wetland width >200yds SHORELINE from shoreline yds from shoreline from shoreline PROTECTION emergent or lacking sparse woody and dense woody vegetation dense emergent vegetation IC A - undeveloped shoreline vegetation highly developed moderately developed shoreline shoreline STORMWATER ,k <5 acres in size 5-10 acres in size >10 acres in size AND in remote areas in rural areas 4 in urban or FLOODWATER <10%woody cover 10-30%woody cover developable areas STORAGE - >30%woody cover 4t <5 acres in size 5-10 acres in size >10 acres in size WATER QUALITY <50% vegetation 50-80% vegetation >80% vegetation density density density - Ifs intermittently flooded ,fc downstream from non- downstream from point no proximity to point pollutants pollutants pollutants retains 25-50% runoff retains>50% runoff C retains <25% runoff GROUNDWATER <5 acres in size 5-10 acres in size >10 acres in size RECHARGE isolated depressions lit seasonally flooded permanently inundated ;e temporarily saturated water depth to several impermeable substrate feet NATURAL low plant diversity moderate plant high plant diversity BIOLOGICAL ,fie low wildlife diversity diversity three or more habitat CHARACTER ., habitat features lacking two habitats types types 4:- one vegetation several vegetation large wetland size community communities unique habitat 4 small wetland area moderate wetland size features, plants, or ,ft isolated associated with animals present intermittent stream associated with or high salt marsh permanent stream of tidal marsh information synthesized from Reppert t feal,1979 and Adamus et.al,1987 WETLAND IDENTIFICATION: WALA1 WETLAND SIZE: 151 Q gi- -C* DATE ASSESSED: 6 NoJ % APPENDIX B CITY OF RENTON FUNCTION AND VALUE ASSESSMENT H-1031-01 3. EXISTING CONDITIONS AND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT OF MITIGATION BANKING SITES A 1993 field assessment of the two mitigation banking sites indicated that both sites contain relatively low-value seasonally perched wetlands that are generally composed of cottonwood, Populus balsamifera; red alder,Alnus rubra; salmonberry, Rubus spectabilis; willow, Salix spp.; and reed canarygrass, Phalaris arundinaceae. The wildlife habitat value of the mitigation banking sites is limited by lack of habitat structure, wetland classes, and buffers; although the wildlife habitat value of the large wetland on Mitigation Banking Site 1 appears to be greater than that value at Mitigation Banking Site 2. Both sites support deciduous trees that are developed but not mature. Consequently, opportunities for cavity-feeding and nesting birds, for example, are limited. The relatively young age of the forested portions of both sites and the relatively low species diversity within the plant communities limit the value of these sites for wildlife. In addition, there are few, if any, permanently wet areas on either site. The existing wetlands are seasonal in character and possess relatively low functional values for flood water abatement and storage, and water purification. The wetlands are also poorly developed and artificial (i.e. developed on pans in isolated depressions on top of fill), and occur at elevations 5 to 9 feet higher than neighboring water bodies (e.g., Springbrook Creek) Both sites have large areas in which reed canarygrass and introduced blackberry species (Rubus discolor-procera, R. lacianatus) have become established. Both sites also have areas in which Scot's broom(Cytisus scoparius)grows. These plant species will continue to expand their ranges unless shaded by taller vegetation, removed, or otherwise controlled manually or chemically. Mitigation Banking Site 2 does not show evidence of human intrusion, but Mitigation Banking Site 1 is frequently used as a sport off-road vehicle area, an activity that has resulted in significant disturbance to the landscape despite efforts by the City to restrict entry for this purpose. A significant amount of fill has been placed on both sites, and the depth of fill appears to be as great as 10 ft in some places. This material generally has low organic content and consists of relatively permeable sandy soil. Although soils in the wetland areas show signs of mottles, the soils may not have been hydric when deposited. Using a backhoe, three soil test technician dug holes on Mitigation Banking Site 1 and five on Mitigation Banking Site 2. The soil test locations are shown in Figures 7 and 8, and the results are presented in Figures 9 and 10. Photographs of the soil test locations are provided in Appendix C. 3.1 MITIGATION BANK SITE 1 Mitigation Banking Site 1 is 30.97 acres; its northwest corner is within the 100-year Green River floodplain. Approximately one-third of the site has been cleared, or cleared and filled, over the past several years. In about 1975 the site was cleared of all trees, and a former Green River City of Renton -FINAL DRAFT 35 55-1779-07 January 1995 1 2 3 18 SURFACE ELEVATION SURFACE — — a,l-,,�.�; _r,• ,ice ra !' i 16 -2 — , sk; rtr ;rye:' • ' : � �' r s� ?.I'y rye a v N s T ' f t -f'''�f'` — 14 4. rx e rYRyx'%e t: �.,+fit?, a ,,:`{: Ca -8 _ — 10 -1 0 — — 8 J• -12 — — 6 -14 -- — 4 ='cia. ': - Sandy Silty Fill l: ; .r' Silty Sand with Mottles and Fill Figure 9. IIMEM Fine Silty Sand %.-A.M.�.• seepage Soil Test Location Characteristics \\\\� Iron Oxide Layer Wood Debris of Mitigation Banking Site 1 SURFACE SURFACE SURFACE SURFACE SURFACE 1 ELEVATION 2 ELEVATION 3 ELEVATION 4 ELEVATION 5 ELEVATION SURFACE — # • — 16 -- 15.5 — 16 : r yS -2 — :'"f. ;;f —17.5 x �. — 14.5 t?X,roysi1 ` — 14, S r rt — 13.5 — 14 l SK T f+ t S i. .. .. ',-;,,,':'.',-;,,,':'.:6-� 2 ` h a +` y` jay a ay.i+iar, .!n! rti� t t:';. G^YYy / 'a I ; > s — 12.5 ,I. i;,: : , — 12 — 11.5 , — 12 Y h:: i.Y r. ~ 6 ;�; —13.5 n?�z 10.5 10 } 9.5 10 + J:a :Y"M :`ray, ':� 43.%:yi'x 9f Y .SS..• }}fY� •'i •i3: iC:<i a. •/r 7+- -:y iY Wits * ; I- 8.5 — 8 :si: — — va. a- At. tiY' •..�• -10 9.5 6.5 6 '. — 5.5 — 6 I / ! / / / / ' / / / / I . ♦ \ \ \ \ \ 1 ;`„j •♦ \ \ \ \ \ ♦ 101001 • \ ♦• \ 1 \ \ \• 1 \ 1 ♦ \ \ \ 1 1 1 \ \ • -12 — —7.5 '-'.�• ././././ — 4.5 — 4 •▪. . / / . . . . . . . /• ,— 4 . \ . . , \ -- 3.5 \ \ 11 \ \ 1 \•• \ 11 \ 11 \ \ 11 \ / / 1 . / / / / . . / , \ 1 \ 1 \ \ 1 \ \ 1 \ . \ .•/•. . . . I , , , , , \ 1 \ 1 \ 1 \ 1 \ 11 \ 1 I , , , , / . / / / . / \ 111 ♦ 1100000 1111 . \ 1 \ \ 11 \ ♦ \ . \ \ \ 11 -14 -- —5.5 — 2.5 — 2 — 1.5 — 2 ;,;:;�J Sandy Silty Fig .�/../♦..v Seepage L,,, , Silty Sand Fill with Mottles Concrete Figure 10. Mit Fine Sand Clay t�;�,,�, Black Sand Soil Test Location Characteristics — Iron Oxide Layer Sandy Silt/Silty Clay . . . . Historic A Horizon of Mitigation Banking Site 2 meander through the site was filled in, creating localized wetlands (Hart Crowser 1991a). Fanning appeared to be the predominant activity on the site until the early 1980s. 3.1.1 Wetland Delineation Three wetland communities were identified and delineated on Mitigation Banking Site 1; they ranged from 0.14 to 17.91 acres in size (David Evans and Associates 1991a; Figure 7). The wetland communities typically occur in the relatively undisturbed areas, and the majority of upland communities occur in elevated areas that have been more recently filled. Topography on the site ranged from an elevation of 18 to 20. Wetland J is a 0.14-acre scrub-shrub wetland, Wetland L is a 0.73-acre scrub-shrub wetland, and wetland M is a 17.91-acre emergent, and scrub-shrub, and shrub-young-forested wetland. 3.1.2 Vegetation Communities Several vegetation communities occur on the site; these include upland meadow and shrub communities, a wet meadow, and scrub-shrub and shrub-young-forested wetland (see Figure 7). The upland meadow communities are variable in species composition, but in general are dominated by upland and facultative upland species. Species common to the upland meadow community include: creeping bentgrass, Agrostis stoloneifera; English plantain, Plantago lanceolata; velvet grass, Holcus lanatus; common tansy, Tanacetum vulgare; hairy cats-ear, Hypochoeris radicata; soft chess, Bromus mollis; and Canada thistle, Cirsium arvense. (David Evans and Associates 1991a). The upland shrub community consists primarily of Himalayan blackberry and Scot's broom (David Evans and Associates 1991a; personal observation, Parametrix 1993). The Himalayan blackberry stands are almost impenetrable and reach up to 15 ft tall. The blackberry stands have overgrown vegetation described above in the upland meadow community, and below in the seasonally wet meadow community. The seasonally wet meadow portions of on-site wetlands are dominated almost exclusively by reed canarygrass (David Evans and Associates 1991a; personal observation, Parametrix 1993). Secondary vegetation within the wet meadows includes creeping bentgrass and common velvet grass. The scrub-shrub and shrub-young-forested wetland community is dominated by young willows and black cottonwood with some western crab apple, Malus fusca; red-osier dogwood, Cornus stolinifera; and Douglas spirea, Spirea douglasii. The herbaceous layer consists of creeping bentgrass, creeping buttercup, Ranunculus repens, soft rush, Juncus effusus, and common horsetail, Equisetum arvense. City of Renton -FINAL DRAFT 40 55-1779-07 January 1995 3.1.3 Soils 3.1.3.1 Previous Characterization Approximately one-third of the site has either been cleared, or cleared and filled with gravel and sand from 12 to 48 inches in depth. A 4-foot-high mound of fill material covers approximately 1 acre in the southeast portion of the site. In addition to the fill material, the site is also characterized by three soil types: Puyallup fine sandy loam (non-hydric), Woodinville silt loam (hydric), and Puget silty clay loam (hydric). Puyallup fine sandy loam is a well-drained soil formed in alluvium. This soil is found on natural terraces adjacent to streams in valleys. The A horizon ranges from fine sandy loam to very fine sandy loam and silty loam. The upper portion of the C horizon is very fine sandy loam. Non-hydric inclusions of Briscot, Newberg, Nooksack, Oridia, and Renton soils and hydric inclusions of Woodinville and Puget soils can occur. The central portion of the site was mapped as Puyallup fine sandy loam (Snyder et al. 1973). Woodinville silt loam is a hydric soil composed of poorly drained material that formed in alluvium on stream bottoms. The A and B horizons range from silt loam to silty clay loam. Thin lenses of very fine sandy loam and loamy sand or peat occur within the horizons. Non- hydric inclusions of Puget, Snohomish, Oridia, Briscot, Puyallup, Newberg, and Nooksack soils can occur. David Evans and Associates' (1991a) on-site soil investigation indicated that the western, northwestern,and eastern portions of the site are representative of this mapped soil unit, and that the depth of the hard pan ranged from 3 to 14 inches. The last mapped soil unit, Puget silt clay loam, occurs on less than one percent slopes. The A horizon ranges from silty clay loam to silt loam. The B horizon is silty clay loam stratified with silt loam, silty clay, and fine sand. This soil unit is mapped in a small portion of the site along the western edge. David Evans and Associates (1991a) did not evaluate this soil type. 3.1.3.2 Hazardous Materials A preliminary environmental site assessment indicated that the source of fill material brought onto Mitigation Banking Site 1 to fill the meander is unknown without further investigation (Hart Crowser 1991a). The chemical constituents of this fill material are also unknown. A second environmental site assessment,prepared by Golder and Associates(1992),observed that there was no obvious evidence of significant dumping or related chemical contamination. 3.1.3.3 Recent Soil Characterization The City of Renton and the project team evaluated soils at three locations on Mitigation Banking Site 1 in the summer of 1993. Soil test location 1 was excavated near wetland flag M-51 (David Evans and Associates 1991 a; see Figure 7) at a ground elevation of approximately 18 ft (see City of Renton -FINAL DRAFT 41 55-1779-07 January 1995 Figure 9). Fill occurred from the surface to an elevation of about 16 ft. Silty sand, with heavy mottles mixed with fill, extended to an elevation of approximately 16 ft below the surface layer of fill. Fine silty sand occurred below the silty sand. Active slumping of sediments was evident at an elevation of approximately 9 ft, indicating the depth where water was actively entering the test location. Depth of fill was estimated to be at least 2 feet. Soil test location 2 was excavated in the northwest corner of the site at a ground elevation of approximately 18 ft (see Figure 7). Its characteristics were similar to those observed in soil test location 1 (see Figure 9). Fill occurred from the surface to an elevation of about 16 ft. Saturated silty sand mixed with mottles and fill occurred below 16 ft. At an elevation of about 11 ft the sediment was primarily silty sand. The depth of fill was estimated to be at least 5 ft. Soil test location 3 was excavated in the southeast corner of the site at a ground elevation of approximately 18 ft (see Figures 7 and 9). Fill occurred from the surface to an elevation of 16 ft. Below 16 ft was a 3/4 inch deep iron oxide layer followed by a silty fine sand fill layer. Woody debris (natural) was observed at 14 ft. Water seepage was evident at 7 ft. The depth of fill was estimated to be at least 4 ft. Additional Soil Investigations Additional information on soil characteristics on Mitigation Banking Site I is needed. The City has contracted with a consultant to further evaluate the feasibility of creating wetlands on the site. The evaluation will assess the permeability of the soils, and soil and groundwater conditions underlying the site, by excavating five soil test pits. Specifically, two piezometers will be installed for long-term groundwater monitoring, and 3 in situ subsurface infiltration tests will be performed according to the King County Surface Water Design Manual. Laboratory tests will be conducted to assess the moisture, gradation, and compaction characteristics of the soils. This information will be used to evaluate the likelihood of using groundwater as a source of hydrology for the created wetlands. In addition, the permeability of the soil near the bottom of the wetlands will be evaluated. Data on the permeability of the soils will provide information regarding the need for an impermeable liner. Finally, the suitability of the on-site soils for use as on-site and/or off-site fill materials will be evaluated. An opportunity to sell on-site soils as a source of suitable fill material would help off-set some of the costs associated with site construction. 3.1.4 Hydroloav The primary source of hydrology for the existing wetlands on Mitigation Banking Site 1 is precipitation and surface runoff from bordering uplands. These wetlands are in depressional areas that hold precipitation prior to evapotranspiration and infiltration. A potential secondary source of hydrology for the wetlands on Mitigation Banking Site 1 is a drainage ditch along the western and northern border of the site. However, the elevations of the wetlands and uplands appear to be considerably higher (at least 3 to 4 to 6 feet) than the ditch, and overflow of the ditch banks City of Renton - FINAL DRAFT 42 55-1779-07 January 1995 is unlikely. Surface water flows through the north-south drainage ditch located just inside the western boundary of the site, enters into an east-west drainage ditch, then flows east through a culvert across Metro's gravity sewer system and into the City of Renton wetlands. Once water enters into the City of Renton wetlands, it is retained and leaves the site through evapotranspiration and infiltration. There is no direct outlet (i.e. culvert or day-Iighted stream or ditch) from the City of Renton wetlands to Springbrook Creek. Under current conditions, there is no surface connection between the wetlands on Mitigation Banking Site 1 and Springbrook Creek. 3.1.5 Existing Fauna David Evans and Associates (1991a) did not observe unique or water-dependent species during a site investigation in winter. Several varieties of songbirds were seen and/or heard in summer 1993. Coyote also occurred on the site as evidenced by the presence of fecal droppings. 3.1.6 Functional Assessment A functional assessment of Mitigation Banking Site I was prepared using the functional evaluation methodology described in Appendix B. A summary of findings relative to the evaluation methodology is presented in Table 4. A completed data form is provided in Appendix D. The results of the functional evaluation provide information on the functions that the existing wetlands provide, and identifies functions that are absent, degraded, or that could be provided with the proposed site plans for the mitigation banking sites. These results provide the basis for determining the value of the functions established by creating additional wetland habitat, and the baseline information that will be used to compare the success of the mitigation wetlands. Table 4. Summary of functional evaluation, Mitigation Banking Site 1. Rating Existing Conditions Proposed Conditions Characteristic/Function Low Medium High Low Medium High Wetland Condition X X Buffer Condition X X to X Biological Support X to X X to X Water Quality X X Flood and Storm Water Desynchronization X X to X Ground Water Exchange X Support of Base Flow X X to X Cultural Value X X Shoreline Stabilization N/A N/A City of Renton - FINAL DRAFT 43 55-1779-07 January 1995 3.1.6.1 Wetland Condition A high rating for wetland condition indicates that the wetland has been subject to human disturbance. Mitigation Banking Site 1 has been cleared and filled and several invasive vegetation communities occur on the site. The condition of Mitigation Banking Site 1 could be ranked low by controlling exotic and invasive species, reestablishing wetland vegetation communities and hydrologic conditions affected by clearing, fill, and other human activities (i.e. motorized vehicle impacts), and protecting the site from inappropriate uses. 3.1.6.2 Buffer Condition Some of the current buffer area around Mitigation Banking Site 1 cannot be increased due to existing conditions (i.e. the BN railroad track west of the site and Oakesdale Avenue to the east). The north buffer area consists of scrub-shrub and forested wetland communities and the Boeing Longacres wetlands. Undeveloped land provides a buffer to the south of the site. Adding vegetated buffer along the southern and western perimeter of the site will increase the buffer capacity. 3.1.6.3 Biological Support The biological support function is considered to be low to moderate. All three wetland communities have somewhat limited species and structural diversity. No unique or water- dependent species and few indications of animals, other than song birds,were observed by David Evans and Associates(1991a). The large young-forested, scrub-shrub, and emergent wetland has greater species and structural diversity than the small scrub-shrub wetlands. It may provide cover and nesting or perching sites for small mammals and birds. The upland and seasonally wet meadow areas provide habitat for small mammals that are prey to larger mammals (e.g., coyote) and raptors (e.g., red-tailed hawks). The functional evaluation indicates that the value of the biological support function would be higher by increasing the habitat structure and interspersion of habitats and habitat types (creating greater edge effects) and adding habitat features as proposed. 3.1.6.4 Water Quality Improvement Although the functional evaluation indicates a high potential for improving water quality, the three wetlands do not contribute to improving downstream water quality and filtering of contaminants and other toxicants from adjacent non-point and point source pollutants because there is no inlet into or outlet from the mitigation banking site. The wetlands' usefulness in providing significant water quality function would increase by creating an inlet at the southwest City of Renton - FINAL DRAFT 44 55-1779-07 January 1995 zorner of the site, diverting the drainage ditch along the western border of the site into the site, and creating an outlet at the northwest corner of the site. 3.1.6.5 Storm Water and Flood Water Desynchronization All three wetlands have a seasonal hydroperiod and over 30 percent dense woody plant cover, factors that are important to impeding surface flows from surrounding developed and undeveloped land. Although the functional evaluation indicates that the wetlands (primarily Wetland M) have the potential to store, and slowly release storm and flood waters, flood and storm waters do not currently enter the site. The value of this function would be high by incorporating the existing drainage ditch to the west and north into the mitigation design. Upstream storm and flood waters that enter this drainage could be attenuated on this site. 3.1.6.6 Groundwater Exchange Although a potential aquifer occurs deep below the site, the three wetlands are underlain by slowly permeable consolidated till (and fill) and appear to be temporarily or seasonally saturated. These factors limit their ability to provide significant groundwater recharge functions. Additional groundwater investigations will provide data to evaluate the potential for created wetlands to contribute to groundwater exchange. 3.1.6.7 Support of Base Flow All three wetlands have characteristics that indicate seasonal hydrology and ponding. Thus, the site is capable of augmenting base flow of the drainage system along the western boundary of the site. Establishing direct connectivity between the mitigation banking site and the City of Renton wetlands and Springbrook Creek could increase the value of this function. 3.1.6.8 Cultural Value The opportunity for Mitigation Banking Site 1 to provide recreational and visual opportunities, or aesthetic appreciation for the natural environment, is low because of the existing conditions of the site (i.e. lack of habitat diversity, and lack of access). Opportunities for cultural values associated with wetlands would increase by incorporating public access and a trail system into the City of Renton's open space and parks program. 3.1.6.9 Shoreline Stabilization This function is not applicable to Mitigation Banking Site 1. City of Renton - FINAL DRAFT 45 55-1779-07 January 1995 3.1.7 Wetland Rating 3.1.7.1 City of Renton Under the City of Renton's wetland classification system, the wetlands qualify as Category 3 wetlands because they are disturbed from (1) clearing and filling, (2) hydrologic alterations, and (3) the presence of fill. 3.1.7.2 Washington Department of Ecology Wetland M on Mitigation Banking Site 1 is classified as a Category II wetland according to the Washington State Wetlands Rating System, Western Washington (Washington Department of Ecology 1993). Wetlands J and L are Category III wetlands. 3.2 MITIGATION BANK SITE 2 Mitigation Banking Site 2 is 13.93 acres, of which 6.69 acres are wetland and 7.24 acres are upland. The site consists primarily of herbaceous perennial grasses and forbs, annual forbs, and a fairly large shrub-young-forested wetland community consisting mostly of cottonwoods (see Figure 8; David Evans and Associates 1991b). The entire site was filled within the past 20 years and, with a few minor exceptions, the topography is relatively flat (elevation ranges from 15 to about 18 ft.) with small depressions formed by heavy equipment conducting grading work. The site is not within the 100-year floodplain (City of Renton 1993). 3.2.1 Wetland Delineation Two wetlands totalling 6.69 acres were identified and delineated by David Evans and Associates (1991b). The northern wetlands are dominated by willow, black cottonwood, and Himalayan blackberry. The wetlands are classified as palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands. 3.2.2 Vegetation Community The shrub community is dominated in a canopy layer by black cottonwoods and willows. Black cottonwood and willow saplings comprise most of the shrub canopy along with salmonberry and Himalayan blackberry. Herbaceous cover within the shrub-young-forested community is sparse, but grasses and forbs occur occasionally. The emergent wetlands are shallow depressions in a topographically level area; they are dominated by bentgrass; foxtail,Alopecurus geniculatus; soft rush; and reed canarygrass. Upland forbs and grasses include clover, Tripholim repens; Kentucky bluegrass, Poa pratensis; tall fescue, Festuca arundinacea; quackgrass, Agropyron repens; and hairgrass, Aira caryophyellea. City of Renton - FINAL DRAFT 46 55-1779-07 January 1995 3.2.3 Soils 3.2.3.1 Previous Characterization The soils on the site are mapped as Woodinville silt loam, a hydric soil (Snyder et al. 1973). However, the majority of the site consists of fill material. The site has been driven on and the compactions, coupled with the type and nature of the fill material, have resulted in a relatively dense, hard surface, especially in the areas where wetlands have formed on top of the fill. 3.2.3.2 Hazardous Materials A preliminary environmental site assessment made by Kennedy/Jenks/Chilton (1989) indicated that a small potential existed for contamination to enter the site via groundwater. However, a site reconnaissance did not identify significant potential for environmental contamination from current or past site use. A second environmental site assessment made by Hart Crowser (1991 b) indicated that sediment samples collected from Springbrook Creek south of SW 27th between Lind Avenue and Oakesdale Avenue SW had levels of petroleum hydrocarbon identified as oil (57 mg/kg), low levels of benzene (0.06 mg/kg), toluene (0.17 mg/kg), ethylbenzene (0.087 mg/kg), xylenes (0.17 mg/kg), and low concentrations of chromium (100 mg/kg) and lead (15 mg/kg). These levels and concentrations are below the Model Toxic Control Act Method A cleanup levels,and below the WAC Sediment Criteria. No remedial activities were recommended for this area. 3.2.3.3 Recent Characterization Five soil test locations were evaluated at Mitigation Banking Site 2. Soil test location 1 was excavated on a topographic high point in an upland area adjacent to Springbrook Creek at an elevation of about 19.5 ft (see Figure 8). In general, the soils were uniform from the surface to an elevation of about 10.5 ft (see Figure 10). The soils consisted of sandy, silty fill. A blue-gray saturated clay layer was observed at an elevation of about 10.5 ft and extended down to an elevation of about 9 ft. Concrete debris was observed at 4 ft 5 inches. No standing water was observed. The depth of fill was estimated to be approximately 9 ft. Soil test location 2 was also excavated in an upland area adjacent to an emergent wetland community at a surface elevation of approximately 16.5 ft (see Figure 10). From the surface to an elevation of 12 ft, the soil was sandy and lightly mottled with a thin, silty, clay layer observed at an elevation of about 14.5 ft. At an elevation of 11.5 ft, the silty clay sediment was saturated and mottled. Blue clay was observed at an elevation of 10 ft, followed by saturated silty clay to an elevation of 7 ft. A lens of organic material with woody debris and black wet sand was observed below elevation 6.5 ft. Water was evident at elevation 5.2 ft and seepage was evident at elevation 7 ft. Plant roots were evident as deep as an elevation of 5.5 ft. City of Renton - FINAL DRAFT 47 55-1779-07 January 1995 Soil test location 3 was excavated in a stand of young cottonwoods, in a wetland delineated by David Evans and Associates (1991b), at a surface elevation of 16 ft (see Figure 9). Mottled sandy silt was evident at an elevation of 15 ft. The soils had more sandy texture above elevation 15 ft and were siltier below elevation 15 ft. An oxidized iron zone was observed at elevation 14 ft. At elevation II ft, the soils consisted of damp clay with bright mottles. The depth of fill was estimated to be 4.5 to 5 ft. Soil test location 4 was excavated in an upland area with a surface elevation of 15.5 ft (see Figure 10). The soil consisted of sand and gravel fill with silt from the surface to an elevation of 11.5 ft. The historic A horizon, composed of silty clay with mottles, occurred within a 10- to 12-inch band below the fill. Below the historic A horizon was a 4-inch gleyed layer with strong mottles. Water seepage was observed at 7.5 ft. Clay was the dominant sediment to about elevation 4.5 ft. Below 4.5 ft the sediment was black, wet sand. The depth of the fill was estimated to be 4 to 4.5 ft. Soil test location 5 was excavated in an upland area; it had a similar profile to test location 4, and a surface elevation of 16 ft. Fill occurred from the surface to an elevation of about 13 ft (see Figure 10). This soil horizon showed no wetland characteristics. The historic A horizon was observed to 12 inches below the fill. Clay was the dominant soil below the historic A horizon. The sides of the soil test location were glistening, and seepage was evident at 8 ft. Black sand was observed at an elevation of 5.5 ft. The depth of the fill was estimated to be 3 ft. Virtually no difference was observed in the soil texture or composition within the top 3 to 4 ft between wetland and upland areas. Wetlands appear to have developed as a result of fine textured fill material gradually sealing the soils in the topographic depressions on the site, resulting in soil compaction. Once compacted, the soils were able to hold rain water for a short time prior to evapotranspiration and infiltration. 3.2.3.4 Additional Soil Characterization The additional soil investigations to be conducted at Mitigation Banking Site 1 will also be conducted at Mitigation Banking Site 2, except that 1 piezometer will be installed on Site 2. 3.2.4 Hydrology The source of hydrology for the existing wetlands on Mitigation Banking Site 2 is precipitation. Wetlands on this site do not have an inlet or outlet, and the elevation of the wetlands is at least 6 to 7 feet higher than the low-flow water elevation of Springbrook Creek (about 7.8 feet). Evidence of temporary saturation to the surface and inundation to a depth of 1 inch were observed by Jones and Stokes (1993) in the depressional perched wetland areas. The duration of this inundation or ponding is not known. During the site visit in August 1993, inundation and City of Renton -FINAL DRAFT 48 55-1779-07 Januar" 1995 saturation were not observed; however, wetland hydrology was assumed based on depressional topography and marginal hydric soil characteristics. The City of Renton is conducting (under contract to a consultant) a preliminary hydrologic analysis of Springbrook Creek which immediately borders Site 2. Preliminary modeling of current and future land use of Springbrook Creek will be modified to account for additional storage proposed in Mitigation Banking Site 2. Long-term simulation for water years 1961 to 1991 will be performed and flood frequencies (i.e. 2, 10, 25, and 100-year) will be determined for Springbrook Creek upstream of SW 34th Street with the additional off-channel storage proposed at Mitigation Banking Site 2. These results will be compared to flood frequency for the existing conveyance system. In addition, an inundation analysis of the wetland mitigation banking site will be conducted. The simulation will be performed under existing conditions, and with the mitigation bank, with two land use scenarios. 3.2.5 Existing Fauna Sightings from about 1989 to 1991 yielded little information on animal species using the wetland (David Evans Associates 1991b). A few song birds were sighted and/or heard during the site visits in summer 1993. 3.2.6 Functional Assessment The functions of the existing wetlands on Mitigation Banking Site 2 were assessed using the functional evaluation in Appendix B. A summary of the results is shown in Table 5. A completed data form is in Appendix D. Table 5. Summary of functional evaluation, Mitigation Banking Site 2. Rating Existing Conditions Proposed Conditions Characteristic/Function Low Medium High Low Medium High Wetland Condition X X Buffer Condition X X to X Biological Support X to X X to X Water Quality X X Flood and Storm Water Desynchronization X X Ground Water Exchange X Support of Base Flow X X Cultural Value X X Shoreline Stabilization N/A X to X City of Renton - FINAL DRAFT 49 55-1779-07 January 1995 Wetland Condition The general condition of the wetland was rated as high,indicating that the site has been impacted for more than 3 years. Alterations (i.e. filling) to the site have been documented over the past 20 years. The wetland would receive a low rating under the proposed plan because fill material would be removed, human impacts would not be allowed, and hydrologic conditions could be improved. Buffer Condition The condition of the buffer is considered moderate. Oakesdale Avenue constitutes the western buffer of the site. However, the presence of Springbrook Creek along the south and west sides of the site provides a fairly good buffer area. Undeveloped industrially zoned land provides a buffer to the north. The rating for the buffer condition would improve slightly over existing conditions by increasing the buffer area between Oakesdale Avenue and the new wetlands, and along Springbrook Creek. Biological Support The ability of the existing wetlands to provide biological support is low to moderate, due to the size of the wetlands, low plant species diversity, lack of habitat interspersion, and lack of hydrologic connectivity with Springbrook Creek. In addition, observations by David Evans Associates (1991 b) indicated that very few animals were using the site. The proposed plan for Mitigation Banking Site 2 would increase the number of habitat types, provide habitat interspersion, increase structural diversity,and provide a direct connection to Springbrook Creek. Water Quality The on-site wetlands are relatively densely vegetated, and there appears to be no, or little, water flow through the site. This suggests that the ability of the wetlands to improve water quality is high. However, the fact that storm and flood waters do not enter the site (the elevation of the dike along Springbrook Creek was designed for a 100-year flood event) means that currently,the site does not provide any water quality functions. The proposed plan would allow water to be temporarily stored on-site and slowly released to adjacent surface waters, thereby allowing potential contaminants to be filtered by the wetland vegetation. Flood and Storm Water Desynchronization The evaluation methodology rated this function as low for the site. This rating means that the wetlands have the ability to provide the function. However, the on-site wetlands do not provide flood or storm water attenuation due to their size, tributary area,relative elevation to Springbrook Creek, and lack of an inlet into and outlet from the wetlands. Thus, a low rating was given for City of Renton - FINAL DRAFT 50 55-1779-07 January 1995 existing conditions. Based on the proposed site plan, the site would receive a high rating for this function. Establishing a direct connection to Springbrook Creek would allow storm and flood waters to be attenuated and temporarily stored on-site. Ground Water Exchange The wetlands are underlain by slowly permeable (due to compaction) consolidated fill, and compact clay. Although a potential aquifer is under the site, the presence of a confining layer of consolidated clay and fill over the aquifer significantly limits the groundwater exchange function. Additional data collected in 1995 will provide information to determine if the created wetlands can contribute to ground water exchange. Support of Base Flow The existing wetlands are isolated from a surface water system and do not support the base flow of Springbrook Creek. The proposed plan would allow flood and storm waters to be temporarily stored on the site and slowly released to Springbrook Creek. The slow release would augment summer and winter base flows. Cultural Values The functional evaluation rating for cultural values was low. The low rating is for those attributes (e.g., scenic diversity, open water, and access) missing from the site. The proposed plan would provide for passive recreation, educational opportunities, and a trail link to the City of Renton's park system. Shoreline Stabilization The site currently does not provide any shoreline stabilization. Thus, there is no rating for this function because the wetlands are not connected to Springbrook Creek. A direct connection would be established between Springbrook Creek and the site under the proposed plan. The site would attenuate energy from flood and storm water in the creek, and help in preventing downstream stream bank erosion. 3.2.7 Wetland Rating 3.2.7.1 City of Renton The wetlands on Mitigation Banking Site 2 are classified as Category 3 wetlands (City of Renton 1990). City of Renton - FINAL DRAFT 51 55-1779-07 January 1995 I OAKESDALE BUSINESS PARK PROPOSED WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN prepared for Zelman Development Company 707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 3036 Los Angeles, CA 90017 • prepared by Watershed Dynamics, Inc. P.O. Box 1957 Auburn, WA 98071-1957 TEL 1.253.735.4288 FAX 1.253.735.4289 February 12, 1998 . _ i TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 Site Description 1 Historical Context 1 Document Purpose 2 MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS 3 Permitting Implications 3 Conceptual Mitigation Plan 3 Grading 4 Planting 5 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS 7 General Conditions 7 Plant Materials 8 Plant Installation 9 Guarantee and Replacement 10 Site Specific Conditions 10 Final Acceptance 11 Maintenance 11 Monitoring 11 FIGURES ATTACHMENTS Watershed Dynamics, Inc. INTRODUCTION Site Description The proposed Oakesdale Business Park (SITE) is located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection formed by SW 43rd Street and Oakesdale Avenue SW in Renton, Washington (see Figure 1). The SITE, which is 40 acres in size, is divided into two pe rts by Springbrook Creek, a channelized flood conveyance system that flows to the Black River, a tributary to the Green River. Springbrook Creek runs west to east from nearly the southwest corner of the property along SW 43rd Street to nearly the northeast cc rner along Oakesdale Avenue SW On the west, the SITE is bordered by an 80-foot wide road easement belonging to the City of Renton. Approximately 300 feet west of the SITE's west property line is the eestern edge of the Burlington Northern Railroad right-of-way. From about 350 north of SW 43rd Street northward, a Class II Wetland dominates this corridor. This wetland cc mplex extends onto the western portion of the SITE and was identified as Wetland "A" in the Wetland Delineation Report prepared by Watershed Dynamics, Inc. (WDI) in J�nuary, 1998. On the north, the proposed project property is bordered by railroad tracks, which are side-tracks off the Burlington Northern mainline. The SITE was accessed by side-tracks that served the industrial operations that were once located on the SITE. Historical Context Until recently, the SITE was used for a variety of industrial operations. The most significant of these recent activities was the automobile stripping and recycling facility that was located on the north portion of the property, north of Springbrook Creek. That activity left the northern portion of the SITE contaminated with hazardous materials that the prior owners were ordered to cleanup. The Zelman Development Company (ZELMAN) elected to fulfill the requirements of an order issued by the Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE). Under the conditions of this order (Consent Decree), ZELMAN is required to complete a cleanup prior to development of the northern portion of the SITE. This requires a complete grading of the SITE including three Class III Wetlands identified by WDI (see Figure 2). There is also some cleanup required in Springbrook Creek in two small locations. As a result of the cleanup activity, the three of the four identified wetlands will be obliterated. The total wetland area to be filled is 43,844 square feet. The three wetlands affected are Wetlands B, C, and D. Zelman Development Company The Oakesdale Business Park— Project#97064AT Conceptual Wetland Mitigation Plan — Page 1 Watershed Dynamics, Inc. Wetland A, referenced above, will have some hazardous materials removed along the eastern edge of the wetland where it extends onto the SITE. The hazardous material wil be removed and replaced with clean, organic soils. Both the wetland edge and the bu-fer will be replanted following the hazardous materials removal. Document Purpose The purpose of this document is to present information regarding the permitting issues and mitigation efforts associated with the filling of the three on-site wetlands. This document will provide the conditions and specifications of the proposed wetland mitigation plan. In addition, a copy of the Conceptual Mitigation Plan showing the proposed location of the mitigation, the conceptual grading plan)(in plan view), and the suggested planting schedule. Finally, this document discusses performance monitoring requirements covering the three to five year period following construction of the mitigation area. Zelman Development Company The Oakesdale Business Park— Project#97064AT Conceptual Wetland Mitigation Plan— Page 2 1 Watershed Dynamics, Inc. MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS Permitting Implications The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch (CORPS), is charged with the management of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Under that authority, the CORPS regulates all dredge and fill permits in waters of the United States. Normally, since the SITE is the headwaters and considered associated with the Green River, the CORPS would require and individual permit to fill wetlands as is being proposed with this project. There is, however, a Nationwide Permit #38 that allows the filling of wetlands in an area under court or agency order to cleanup hazardous or toxic wastes. This project will be requesting permission from the Corps to exercise its right to fill wetlands within the cleanup area. Zelman has prepared and will submit a JARPA to the Corps for review, distribution to other reviewing agencies, and approval. The Washington Department of Ecology will review this project prior to issuing a Section 401 permit. Zelman will be requesting permission to temporarily exceed water quality standards both during the hazardous materials cleanup and while constructing the floodplain bench adjacent to the Springbrook Creek channel. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife will be contact for the purpose of acquiring a Hydraulic Project Approval for both the cleanup actions and the construction of the mitigation wetland areas. The City of Renton will review the both the cleanup and mitigation plan. The City will, upon approving the proposed project, issue a clearing and grading permit to allow construction. The City has set the mitigation ratio for this project at 1:1. For this project, 43,844 square feet of wetland will be obliterated and 48,750 will be replaced. That is a ratio of 1.1 to 1. Once all plans are reviewed and approved, Zelman can move forward with construction and mitigation. Conceptual Mitigation Plan Note that all buffer creation or enhancement will be done by the Weisman Group. Review of the attached conceptual mitigation plan will reveal that a 10-foot wide floodplain bench will be constructed along the north side of the Springbrook Creek channel. Due to the need to assure adequate flood flow conveyance, trees and shrubs will not be planted in the portion of the mitigation. Instead, the area will be seeded with Seed Mix #2 and irrigated as necessary. This constitutes 17,600 square feet of wetland mitigation area. Zelman Development Company The Oakesdale Business Park— Project#97064AT Conceptual Wetland Mitigation Plan — Page 3 Watershed Dynamics, Inc. An additional 10,625 square feet of mitigation wetland will be created adjacent to the northern retention detention pond. As with the floodplain bench, this area will be primarily seeded with Seed Mix #2. There will be some trees and shrubs planted along the outer wetland edge, outside the main flow area (see Conceptual Mitigation Plan — �heet W1). Approximately 5,600 square feet of wetland will be constructed between Building E and SW 43rd Street. This area will be connected to Springbrook Creek but not within the direct flow line. This allows more planting along the edge (see Conceptual Mitigation Flan — Sheet W1). Finally, an additional 14,925 square feet of mitigation wetland will be created west of the west access road on property currently owned by the City of Renton. Zelman has nearly completed its negotiations with the City to acquire the property needed to develop the mitigation wetland and necessary wetland buffer. Grading The proposed final grading is shown on the Conceptual Mitigation Plan. Material excavated from the mitigation areas will be disposed of on site as part of the cleanup activities still to be completed. The grading was designed to create a long contiguous wetland between the southern end of Wetland A to Springbrook Creek. Zelman Development Company The Oakesdale Business Park— Project#97064AT Conceptual Wetland Mitigation Plan — Page 4 Watershed Dynamics, Inc. Planting The following is a list of the proposed planting a seed mixes to be placed in the mitigation wetland area once the final grading is inspected and accepted by the Owner (or Owner's Representative): TABLE 1: PROPOSED PLANT LIST FOR CONCEPTUAL WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN Common Name Scientific Name Quantity Size Spacing Notes Oregon ash Fraxinus latifolia 44 8'— 10' 12' O.C. B&B tall Pacific willow Salix lasiandra 20 6'—8' 12' O.C. B&B; mutli-stem (3 stems tall min.) Scouler's willow Salix scouleriana 96* 4' 4' O.C. Fresh cut; plant w/in 24 cuttings hours of cutting; 'A"to 'h" dia. cutting; bark intact. Sitka willow Salix sitchensis 63* 3' 4' O.C. Fresh cut; plant w/in 24 cuttings hours of cutting; %." to %" dia. cutting; bark intact. Pacific ninebark Physocarpus capitatus 6 3'—4' 6' O.C. 5 gal container(min); tall multi-stem (3 stems min.) sweet gale Myrica gale 65 3'—4' 5' O.C. 5 gal container(min); tall multi-stem (3 stems min.) red-osier dogwood Corpus stolonifera 120 3' Fresh cut; plant w/in 24 cuttings hours of cutting; %."to '/2" dia. cutting; bark intact. Common cattail Typha latifolia 120 4"—6" 12"-18" 3 tubers planted in vicinity tubers O.C. of each location shown on plan. 'NOTE: When planting cuttings or canes, each planting location receives a minimum of 3 cuttings or canes per site. Seed Mix#1: This mix is intended to be used in the upland area (buffer) adjacent to a wetland or stream channel. The species mix is intended to fix nitrogen and prevent erosion. This mix may be difficult to find with all of the species listed. Spread rate is 20 pounds to 25 pounds per acre. At a minimum, the mix should contain the grasses and legumes listed below: redtop bentgrass Agrostis alba 20%of seed mix red fescue Festuca rubra 20% of seed mix white Dutch clover Trifolium repens 25% of seed mix American vetch Vicia americana 25%of seed mix Salal (seed) Gaultheria shallon 5% of seed mix Oregon grape (seed) Mahonia nervosa 3% of seed mix Sword fern (spores) Polystichum munitum 2% of seed mix Zelman Development Company The Oakesdale Business Park— Project#97064AT Conceptual Wetland Mitigation Plan— Page 5 Watershed Dynamics, Inc. Seed Mix#2: This mix is intended to be used in the newly disturbed areas of a created wetland or stream channel. The species mix is intended to control erosion and reduce strength of invasive species. This mix may be difficult to find with all of the species listed. Spread rate is 10 pounds to 15 pounds per acre. At a minimum, the mix should contain the grass and sedge species listed below: tall mannagrass Glyceria elata 20% of seed mix fowl bluegrass Poa palustris 10% beaked sedge Carex rostrata 7% slough sedge Carex obnupta 7%of seed mix dagger-leaved rush Juncus ensifolius 8% of seed mix toad rush Juncus bufonius 8% of seed mix small flowered (fruited) bulrush Scirpus microcarpus 15% of seed mix creeping butter-cup Ranunclus repens 15% of seed mix marsh cinquefoil Potentilla palustrus 10% of seed mix Zelman Development Company The Oakesdale Business Park— Project#97064AT Conceptual Wetland Mitigation Plan— Page 6 Watershed Dynamics, Inc. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS The following information is information intended to provide direction to the mitigation contractor regarding the expectations of the owner (ZELMAN) related to this aspect of the overall project. Typically, both the CORPS and CITY would require ZELMAN to complete construction of the mitigation wetlands prior to impacting the existing on-site wetlands. In this case, however, the fill being excavated from the wetland mitigation areas is being used to cap some of the on-site hazardous material. Normally, the mitigation plan requires the placement of on-site hydric soils extracted from the existing wetlands to be placed in the mitigation wetlands prior to planting. Since some of the on-site wetland areas will be capped, those hydric soils will nit be available for use in the mitigation area. Those wetlands not being capped have contaminated soils that will be removed from the site for disposal. As a result, those soils will not be available for use in the mitigation area. General Conditions 1. All construction must be performed in accordance with applicable agency permit conditions and all other applicable codes, ordinances, standards, and policies. 2. The applicant is responsible for obtaining any and all related or required permits prior to beginning construction. 3. A copy of the approved plans must be on-site whenever construction is in progress. 4. A qualified wetland consultant from Watershed Dynamics Inc. will be on-site, when necessary or as requested by the Owner, to monitor construction and approve minor plan revisions. 5. In the mitigation area, the contractor shall remove all weedy or exotic invasive species (e.g. Scotch broom, Himalayan and evergreen blackberry, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, morning glory, Japanese knotweed, and creeping nightshade) by manual or chemical means (as approved by the City of Renton) prior to plant installation. 6. Any plants installed in undisturbed areas shall be integrated into any existing native vegetation. 7. The Contractor shall verify, field locate, and stake planting areas and configurations prior to planting. Watershed Dynamics, Inc. shall review field staking and approve locations prior to planting. 8. The Contractor shall stake the proposed location of all trees and shrubs with a logical coding system. The codes will be made available to Watershed Dynamics, Inc. prior to requesting a field inspection. For large groupings of a single species of shrub, Contractor may stake the boundaries. Watershed Dynamics, Inc. shall review and approve locations prior to planting. Zelman Development Company The Oakesdale Business Park— Project#97064AT Conceptual Wetland Mitigation Plan— Page 7 Watershed Dynamics, Inc. 9. If required, an irrigation system shall be installed upon completion of final grading and prior to installation of plantings within the mitigation wetland areas and buffers. For the wetland areas, the irrigation system may be temporary to facilitate easy removal after acceptance of the project by the City of Renton. Irrigation requirements in the buffer will be specified by Weisman Design Group. P Materials 1 . Plant materials shall be healthy, bushy, in vigorous growing condition, locally grown (western WA, OR< or BC only) or gathered, and be guaranteed true to size, name and variety. If replacement of plant material is necessary due to construction damage or plant failure within one year of installation, size and quality shall be equal to existing plants or as indicated on the plans. 2. Unless otherwise specified or agreed to by contract modification, all plants shall be nursery grown, freshly dug (or well rooted if balled and burlapped), if normal growth and habit, and free from disease or infestation. Watershed Dynamics, Inc. reserves the right to require replacement or substitution of plants that are deemed unsuitable. 3. Trees will have uniform branching, single straight trunks (unless specified as multi-stem), and the central leader intact and undamaged. Ball and burlap stock shall have been root pruned at least once in the last three years. Container stock shall be fully rooted but not root-bound. Plant material with damaged root zones or broken root balls will not be accepted. 4. All coniferous trees will be nursery grown with uniform branching and a natural non-sheared form. Original central (terminal) leaders must be healthy and undamaged. Maximum gap between branching not to exceed 9", length of top leader not to exceed 6". 5. All shrubs have a minimum of three canes and shall be at least 24' tall unless noted otherwise (see Plant Schedule). 6. Within 30 days of award of the landscape contract, contractor shall submit documentation that all specified plant materials have been ordered and secured. A list of the supplier names, addresses, phone numbers and the storage/growing location of the materials shall be submitted to Watershed Dynamics, Inc. 7. Contractor is responsible to verify plant locations and quantities of plants listed on the Plant Schedule with those represented on the plan. 8. Actual plant quantities on Sheet W1 of 2 and W2 of 2 to prevail over quantities shown on Plant Schedule in the event of a discrepancy. 9, Watershed Dynamics, Inc. will inspect all plant material at the job site, including previously tagged trees, for compliance with requirements for plant size and quality prior to planting. This includes but is not limited to size and condition of rootballs, rootsystems, insects, latent injuries and defects. Trees must be untied and separated for inspections. Zelman Development Company The Oakesdale Business Park— Project#97064AT Conceptual Wetland Mitigation Plan — Page 8 Watershed Dynamics, Inc. 10.Watershed Dynamics, Inc. reserves the right to refuse any/all plant material, which does not meet the requirements of the drawings and specifications at any time prior to final acceptance. Rejected material shall be immediately removed from project site. 11. Plants will be stored in the manner necessary to accommodate their horticultural requirements. Protect rootballs covering with moist soil, mulch or sawdust. Water as required to keep rootballs moist. 12. Keep all specimens moist (wetland species saturated) and shaded until the actual time of installation. After planting, immediately saturate the soils in the planting area to prevent capillary stress. 13.Substitutions of plant species or sizes may be permitted based on plant availability, but only with the approval of Watershed Dynamic, Inc. and the City of Renton. 14. Bareroot stock of equal size to specified container or B&B plantings can be substituted for container B&B deciduous plantings when available, but only with prior approval by Watershed Dynamics, Inc. Plant Installation 1. Planting locations shown on planting plan are approximate and are based upon anticipated site conditions and location of existing vegetation. Nevertheless, any variations from the planting plan require prior written approval by Watershed Dynamics, Inc. 2. Plant spacing for all species listed is to be random (naturalistic), and not in a regular grid pattern. On-center spacing called out on plant list indicates and average spacing dimension. For example, when the plan calls for 24" O.C., spacing will vary from 18-30"O.C.,with an average spacing of 24" 3. Backfill planting pits with a 50/50 mix of imported weed-free compost and native soil. 4. Fertilize in the spring after woody plantings bud with a slow-release (8 month), high nitrogen granular fertilizer (21-3-7), with application rates as specified by manufacturer. 5. A 3" layer of medium, softwood, weed-free mulch or organic compost shall be placed around the base of all new tree (36" dia. ring) and shrub plantings (24" dia. ring) for erosion, weed control, and moisture retention. 6. Stake all trees. All stakes shall be % the height of the tree. 7. Contractor shall remove all stakes at the end of the one year guarantee period. 8. Existing natural or landscaped areas that are damaged during construction shall be restored to their original condition, unless improvements or modifications are specified for those areas. 9. Contractor shall exercise care to protect from injury to trunk, roots, or branches, any trees or shrubs that are to remain. Any living woody plant that is damaged during construction shall be treated immediately. Notify Watershed Dynamics, Inc., and prune wounded portions of plant immediately after damage occurs. Zelman Development Company The Oakesdale Business Park— Project#97064AT Conceptual Wetland Mitigation Plan — Page 9 Watershed Dynamics, Inc. 10.Water plants thoroughly and implement any additional measures necessary to aid in plant survivability following damage repair. 11. Following planting of all trees and shrubs, hand seed all remaining bare areas with the appropriate mix specified on the Plant Schedule. Do not apply seed in shrub groupings. 12.The contractor shall be responsible for the removal of all on-site construction materials and debris. Guarantee and Replacement 1. The Contractor will guarantee all materials and workmanship for one year following the date of final acceptance by Watershed Dynamics, Inc. and the City of Renton. 2. The Contractor will remove and replace any dead damaged, diseased, dying or missing plant materials, immediately following discovery, at no cost to the Owner during the guarantee period. 3. Except for loss due to excessively severe climatological conditions (substantiated by 10-year recorded weather charts), installed plant materials are required to be guaranteed for one year against defects and unsatisfactory growth, except for cases of neglect by Owner or abuse/damage by others. 4. All replacement plants shall be the same size and species shown on the drawings. 5. All plants replaced shall be guaranteed for one year following the date of installation. 6. Any changes or modifications to this plan must receive written approval from Watershed Dynamics, Inc. and/or the City of Renton prior to implementation. Site Specific Conditions 1. During construction, the contractor must use materials and construction methods, which prevent toxic material and other pollutants from entering existing wetlands, buffers, and water bodies. 2. Preventative measures shall be used to protect existing storm drainage systems, all existing utilities, and roads. 3. All Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control BMP's will be implemented and inspected prior to initiation of construction. Zelman Development Company The Oakesdale Business Park— Project#97064AT Conceptual Wetland Mitigation Plan — Page 10 Watershed Dynamics, Inc. Final Acceptance 1. Upon completion of planting, a site inspection will be conducted by Watershed Dynamics, Inc. to confirm that the mitigation plan was properly implemented. If items are to be corrected, Watershed Dynamics, Inc will prepare a punch list for the Contractor to follow in correcting any noted deficiencies. 2. Prior to final acceptance of the work, the contractor shall provide Watershed Dynamics, Inc. with a set of clearly marked prints designating the actual locations of all mitigation elements. Contractor shall keep a complete set of plans and shall update said information on a daily basis. 3. Upon completion of the punch list items, the Contractor will request Watershed Dynamics, Inc. to set up a final site inspection. At the final site inspection, Watershed Dynamics, Inc., and all applicable agencies, will review construction for final acceptance and approval. 4. The date of final acceptance shall constitute the beginning of the one-year guarantee period. Maintenance 1. The Contractor shall review landscape maintenance recommendations and specifications. 2. The Contractor may contact Watershed Dynamics, Inc. to discuss these specifications with a qualified wetland biologist familiar with the stated goals and objectives of the wetland buffer enhancement drawings and report. 3. The Contractor shall maintain all trees and shrubs, as needed, in a healthy condition thereby assuring appropriate plant growth and habitat diversity. This shall include, but not be limited to tightening and repairing tree stakes, resetting plants to proper grades and upright positions, and correcting drainage problems. 4. The Contractor shall be responsible for watering all plants immediately upon installation, and again over the entire planting area upon completion for landscape installation. Irrigation, if required by Weisman Design Group, within the wetland buffer enhancement should be operated and maintained for at least one year following planting to ensure adequate establishment. Watershed Dynamics, Inc. recommends placement of a permanent irrigation system within the buffer area as well as a temporary system for use within the mitigation wetlands. Monitoring 1. Following the implementation of the mitigation plan, a performance monitoring program will be implemented for a period of a minimum of three years to five years. The Owner will contract with a qualified wetland restoration specialist to complete this task. Zelman Development Company The Oakesdale Business Park— Project#97064AT Conceptual Wetland Mitigation Plan — Page 11 Watershed Dynamics, Inc. 2. The individual conducting the on-site inspections shall do so one time in the spring and again in the fall each year for the first two years (see schedule below). Photo points and transects will be established and clearly marked at the site and on a base map. One copy of the base map will be sent to the Owner and the City of Renton within 10 working days following the initial inspection visit. 3. Written inspection reports submitted to all applicable agencies according to the following schedule: a) 30 days after construction completion, b) beginning and end of the growing season for the first and second years, and c) annually for the third, fourth and fifth years. 4. Monitoring will include photo documentation from fixed reference points; counts of healthy plantings, and general plant cover surveys. 5. Vegetation will be evaluated for presence of stress, damage, or disease as well as for signs of new growth, flower, and fruit production. Measurements of growth will be compared to native plants growing in similar conditions in close proximity to the site. Strict numeric growth goals do not consider seasonal variations in site conditions and climate. 6. Wildlife use, including observations of mammals, birds, amphibians, reptiles, and their sighs, will also be noted. 7. Any deficiencies or problems on the site will be photo-documented. Copies of the written report and any photos will be forwarded to the Owner and the City of Renton within 10 working days following the field inspection. I Zelman Development Company The Oakesdale Business Park- Project#97064AT Conceptual Wetland Mitigation Plan- Page 12 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 Site Description 1 Historical Context 1 Document Purpose 2 MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS 3 Permitting Implications 3 Conceptual Mitigation Plan 3 Grading 4 Planting 5 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS 7 General Conditions 7 Plant Materials 8 Plant Installation 9 Guarantee and Replacement 10 Site Specific Conditions 10 Final Acceptance 11 Maintenance 11 Monitoring 11 FIGURES ATTACHMENTS FIGURES 1 FIGURE1-Vicir &(Map Q m continuo,,, �► m m ; 9. ',. } ��r i � ' tin: .J \.,-",1�,_. 1]�/a ox ��,,a .L-I. _ '9 _5 /,J , _ rf • 4 / I . .1 1 �,'� 1" �7 ..�}•r �,, ���� ,n. {� "'J°'jam;, ®�' T7 ` � I$ '-� •a , p, , �/�.- . Iwl�i 4 ���lt 'Ij` �t w �r. j u,xl�v. Y. .� ' 4. : . it; ',- �{ I I aL I, / ® ���I '7' ;; _ p -� 1� ��F`} � 1 4-,1 I. '��' .1� / sin�� ,.J 1, tI' u � 1a 1S1FF,, I � ' 1 d ilk-::., , _ , :►��,, (�'7- ,I 1 �1_1 I fir I 1,J," , c1Si. }r� LPL . (', ... ? t. I ..i 1)' , ...r - J �'�_.1' J/ d , v. 1 : A ilk . iy; d 11 11 -- -'''''2144) --Y''' -1--1;1-1- -..— -1 ' ' .'A- • ti--“-Its" ••',-` ,, : .? ' 1 n - '• 1 i lar ' : :, - - ,--\,,, - ,- ..,* /...,-' • _ ., .-n . A. - '° Nn -r In ,i"� i .1`,._ 11.,_ .._.1.1., ... :�.. ti d '. rn. '�-q l acn • _ V1 y- 0 1_r 1 1- - L 1lam)•"y of` - i rF I - �. �. r. 7! [ • i`, . ,✓ c 1 1 o ,In,i -(' -r )if '` V _ 1.r• _ i.l,( „i:�lhi r7' oW �I„ " � - o 1 i I Ill_, _tll ZC J 1 _ _.I 1 ,. 1,c ,. "6 - _ 0 , 1 V.-�. f,) ri,''.-• .-. _ f ��f� r,�q.' ��•- • h I 1, ILL . ll.-,v s, y I- „1 - It r _I h �_r'T 111 r' l -t1' v'•�'� i _ _ I - �L....__... p... l !I u1. �• 'e 1• IP , . l' fri �r ► n rA„). ,1., i 1 ,' pf _ �1//�yy _c 1 . 7 ,ry C tC i ,. ■L c'L yl• i 1f,_' 1 'J l �- --rfli... 1 1•-.� I. ‘r.:'' 1.1^, Lit:• '� 'I " 4^ - / d 11t al ,, , is i 3\ •as ��. i1� . 1 I L uum, NN v "mod • r^ha�co- �. I rr �1!t�II • , 1 y.'I ill' 41 a • 114 II 4I 111.IW 1 -I.-- ,�. SY �� .'Il' ' -L , . I - $ ' i,..f,, f: —1- i'' 1:1 , ,-ti, 1 . .7.: r .., • , , A.„, _,,!,,,, -1_1 ,i \ 0 1 I , ) !k .r ,r Y i- _ , iI ioo� J ^.t. zl{ ,1 �u. 1-s d 1 C JImp .t .L ei s._=+ :pia` , 'vma ' -I fill1.14 i .,!. , A— ilik, ua .- = ::, °2!- +- ill a...Mr....4i' .� ��iII�[�' E: Z i h•-- _�I t .� 1134r �� FP 11. � •1•�janib 1 v ai�k _1 �IU.�:lE:V �`�`^ -,�� ;�.�` ��.,1, ;1rLL ® 1,1 M`5;��/7.�i �irw L� 13 - y . 46 ®®I 1, rFi Y i ' i. ,f 4 - � �x ��i�u',I C9 1�1 t -(•6Lti 1. :3 -1-' 1.!',.. --__ l• - : ,,.", ilpoiri,,.): % ,, 11,1,. .,,,)_\ pri 1/41 y t111 i, r: -.. '11,1 I l 4F,i ..D .9e*14 : 41 110 ' jd ,� Y�{Ili)•T� IT J- ,if, i , .=,1 4,..... , .. , ill - .q i 1\:". I s I.A.. ., ,,, y, a {_{ r-,•�� r s n J' 1 #1.S1 r /• /• J f , el- e_ i' 1 2 / W L �.1 4 I „7 0`, a }� r' ill_.� f I' 4y ��\ f l�r d II) rf / 1 !, k j : G ., , •�oy n ,tl `1 / I O 1 t V)(1) . q q �. 1 lI __ _.I__ --`^- '.,y,�w^..a. . -_ ,,._:..._,,,„, n'tt I,ItIIau;.:11I' n 'Y to I da° kb i rrtt�'I�' ►� ).zlyoN roO ).3:2 11d T a /,` w1 ooZ=„{ E-i cn IL . + / Z/1 H t7i..1 1 .•••°..#.1.;• ......•°.. / < i:t ) � � - / 7 a14Y11VM y L6��`OJ5 • \�� �/ :'-) � ( t y/ Sal ds y (• 11 ci Ot41/ 3M.✓� I I / / 1 1 t . 1 J 1 i 1 ATTACHMENTS • 9 g,aa4 THERESA R. HENSON CONSULTING Assessment, Management and Regulatory Permitting P.O. BOX 7208 • TACOMA,WASHINGTON 98406 • (253)756-0370 FAX(253)756-0155 LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL Date y - /`l Df CDD Job No. H - I v 3 )-0Q- To e ; o'c �e(\`-c.)v1 p k nn %Ai Attention Pe 4-e r 1,-0 S e vi . .00 ()i: 11 ,4ue _So,- RE: 0o-ke5Ao_le tLks;✓LSS C -'i S Ren`Fr) n , LuA . cr8oS5 We are sending the following items: Copies Date Description 1 (1-00 F;rs1 year (1on ;+ r;r13 pe foc-1- {. ; o&kesdoit -6, s rt, S S C cl r,-1 LL S • y y � Ds. ���C These are transmitted: Q ❑For your retention For your use 0 As requested .4 ,ale co-- ❑For review and comment 0 For action specified below 0 With corrections ❑Please return by 0 ❑its ed after use by us Message: �� \. , D\ _YI O `. 6\t "1 Copies sent to: ct w 1 C L S e i t -- 7 e )man 1)e 0. Co , iik:l SLkne ,Jeer -- (.)A, lie ri. FI5 ), W , 1A1;-(-Q. Sent by: ► UiL 5 0L K . He-f S II H-1031-02 FIRST YEAR MONITORING REPORT OAKESDALE BUSINESS CAMPUS Renton, Washington September 2000 Zelman Development Company 707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 3036 Los Angeles, California 90017 MEN N OIr VIZZ S R NATURAL RESOURCE CONSULTING Assessment,Management and Regulatory Permitting P.O. BOX 7208 TACOMA, WASHINGTON 98406 (253)756-0370 FAX: (253)756-0155 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 1 3.0 ANNUAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS 2 4.0 METHODS 3 4.1 Vegetation Sampling 3 4.2 Hydrology 4 4.3 Permanent Photo Stations 4 5.0 RESULTS 4 5.1 Vegetation Sampling 5 5.2 Hydrology 5 5.3 Permanent Photo Stations 6 5.4 Habitat Conditions and Wildlife Use 6 6.0 CONCLUSIONS 6 7.0 CLOSURE 7 LIST OF TABLES Table No. 1 Herbaceous Species Quadrat Data 2 Hydrologic Data LIST OF FIGURES Figure No. 1 Vicinity Map 2 Monitoring Layout APPENDICES Appendix A Monitoring Data Sheets(A-1 to A-20) Appendix B Photographs (B-1 to B-8) H-1031-02 FIRST YEAR MONITORING REPORT OAKESDALE BUSINESS CAMPUS RENTON,WASHINGTON 1.0 INTRODUCTION Natural Resource Consulting has completed the first year monitoring at the Oakesdale Business Campus located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of SW 43' Street and Oakesdale Avenue SW in Renton,Washington(Figure 1). This report presents the results of the first year conditions along Springbrook Creek, and observed compliance with agreed performance standards for this wetland mitigation project. The Wetland A buffer area has not been planted due to delays in cleanup on the site, and construction access and schedules. The buffer area will be planted upon construction of Building C. Construction of the wetland mitigation portion of this project began July 16th, 1999 and final planting along Springbrook Creek was completed on October 18th, 1999. Twelve of the logs placed below the ordinary highwater mark but above the summer water levels in the stream have been moved into the water. Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife and the King County Drainage District staked the logs to be moved and where they were to be moved. Approximately 27,911 square feet of wetland has been created along Springbrook Creek, 17,600 square feet along a ten-foot wide bench and 10,311 square feet in two wetland mitigation areas adjacent to the bench. The area along Springbrook Creek was cleared after placement of a silt fence along the ordinary high water mark of the creek. Some trees were retained along the ordinary high water mark between 150 and 350 feet down the creek. The bench and two mitigation areas were excavated. The log and root wad habitat features were placed, the entire area was planted with shrub, and tree vegetation as indicated on the plans, and the area was seeded. 2.0 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The goal of this wetland mitigation project is to create 27,911 square feet of wetland and associated buffer that will transition over time to a multistory forested, shrub-scrub, and emergent plant community. To achieve this goal for the mitigation site, monitoring in 2000 and the next four years will be conducted for: 1. Survival of tree and shrub plantings. 2. Cover of emergent plant species in the seeded wetland area. 3. Inundation or saturation of the soils achieved during final grading. H-1031-02 1 Monitor was completed in September of 2000 using the methods described in Section 4.0 of this report and will include. 1. Establishment of permanent vegetation plots to monitor survival, changes in plant species composition, percent cover by species over time, and hydrologic conditions. The canopy coverage method of Daubenmire will be used for herbaceous plants. Tree and shrub density will be evaluated using plots that were established within the wetland mitigation areas, the bench, and the buffer slopes. Plot sizes were determined by establishing a goal of sampling 10 percent of the mitigation area. Plot locations were established in the field and located to reflect differences in hydrologic regime, plant distribution, and overall mitigation area conditions. 2. Establishment of photo stations to collect a sequence of photographs. These photographs will be used to evaluate vegetation community response over time. 3. Measurement of water levels in the early and late growing seasons to determine if inundation is present at the permanent sampling plots. If the area is not inundated, an auger hole will be dug to determine if water or saturated soils are near the surface. 4. Observation of the wetland mitigation area for excessive erosion, scour, or sedimentation that may affect the health and/or diversity of the overall wetland mitigation area. 5. Observation and reporting of wildlife use in the wetland mitigation area. 3.0 ANNUAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS The five-year monitoring program prescribed for this wetland mitigation project includes two site visits in the first year and one visit in each of the following four years. A report documenting the findings of the monitoring efforts will be completed and submitted to the City of Renton and the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife by December of each of the monitoring years. Performance standards provide measurements to gage the progress of the project periodically, and to identify remedial actions necessary to meet the final success criteria. For this mitigation project,we propose to use the health of vegetation and the presence of water to gage the progress of the project. The planted wetland and buffer species will be monitored for vigor and survival. The overall target survival rate per year will be 80 percent of planted shrub and tree species, as measured in representative plots. If it is determined that planted tree and shrub species are being replaced or out-competed by native wetland shrubs or trees that grow voluntarily,the success criteria will be met only if the number of volunteer and planted shrub and tree species in the H-1031-02 2 mitigation area meet or exceed the number of shrub and tree plants required in the area for that year. The wetland area must contain inundated or saturated soils during a portion of the growing season. If these performance standards are not met, the cause of the failure to meet the performance standard will be evaluated, and action will be taken to rectify the problem until the objectives are achieved. An annual breakdown of the performance standards for the project includes: Year 1 80 percent survival of planted species Year 2 80 percent survival of species that survived the first year Year 3 80 percent survival of species that survived the second year Year 4 80 percent survival of species that survived the third year Year 5 80 percent areal cover of self-sustaining, non-invasive wetland species 4.0 METHODS Field observation took place on March 28, 2000,to observe flood indicators and impact on planted vegetation. Field monitoring and recording took place on September 10th, 2000. During this time,the weather conditions were cool and rainy. Vegetation and hydrologic conditions were measured in twenty plots. Plot 20 was added to monitor the kinnikinnick that had not been planted last year. Photographs were taken from eight permanently marked locations. 4.1 Vegetation Sampling Tree and shrub vegetation was sampled in twenty plots. Six of the plots were within the wetland, five were on the bench, and nine were on the wetland buffer slopes. Herbaceous vegetation was also monitored within the wetland and bench plots. The location of each plot was chosen to reflect observed differences in plant communities and topography on the site. The corners of each of the plots were permanently marked with rebar posts hammered into the ground. The upper left rebar post of each plot was then tagged with a plot number. Figure 2 details the layout for the twenty plots. During baseline monitoring the number of each species originally planted is noted and the number of species present during monitoring was counted and recorded for each plot. During subsequent years the number of each species planted, the number of each species counted that year, and the percent cover of each species will be determined for each plot. Mortality, survival rate and total cover will be calculated for the project as prescribed for the success criteria. H-103 1-02 3 Herbaceous vegetation was monitored using 1-square meter quadrats. The quadrats used for this analysis were rectangular, 1-square meter in area, PVC frames constructed on a 2:1 dimensional ratio. The short side of the rectangle measured 0.71 meter and the long side measured 1.42 meters. The upper left corner of the quadrat was placed at the tagged rebar post with the short side of the rectangle approximately parallel with Springbrook Creek. Herbaceous vegetation was monitored within the wetland and bench areas at Plots 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15, 17, and 19. Cover was visually estimated at each of the 1-square meter quadrats and assigned a cover class designation. Only plants rooted within the quadrat were included in coverage estimates. Since leaf surfaces may overlap, even when measuring a single vegetative stratum, the summation of cover values for a single quadrat may be greater than 100 percent. A total of eight cover class designations were chosen for this estimate. Coverage class designations are presented below. These designations also correspond to numbers indicated on Table 1. 0=No individual plants observed in plot 4=26 to 50 percent cover 1 =One individual plant observed in plot 5 = 51 to 75 percent cover 2 = 1 to 5 percent cover 6= 76 to 90 percent cover 3 = 6 to 25 percent cover 7= 91 to 100 percent cover 4.2 Hydrology Water level readings were taken in the upper left corner of each of the wetland and bench plots identified on Figure 2. If the area was not inundated, an auger hole was dug to determine if water or saturated soils were near the surface. 4.3 Permanent Photo Stations Eight permanent photo stations were established at this site and are marked with rebar(Figure 2). The photo stations include views up and down Springbrook Creek and at representative plots. Photographs taken from these photo stations are included in Appendix B of this report. 5.0 RESULTS This report is to be used primarily for comparative purposes and as a report outline for subsequent monitoring years. Data presented in Appendices A and B may be directly compared with data gathered during successive growing seasons. H-1031-02 4 5.1 Vegetation Sampling Appendix A presents data gathered for the shrub and tree species for each of the monitoring plots. The monitoring plots showed that salal was not represented in the wetland buffer area. Further investigation indicated that salal has not survived in the wetland buffer throughout the site. Salal will either be replanted by the landscape contractor or replaced with another native species such as hazel, or elderberry. All species planted within the wetland mitigation site were represented. Seeded shrub species were not observed within the plots. Elderberry seedlings were observed outside of the plots in several areas. Oregon grape and service berry seedings were not observed during monitoring but may be present in future years. Kinnikinnick was planted in the areas where the sidewalks are completed. Monitoring Plot 20 was added to this report to represent the Kinnikinnick which is planted at the top of the buffer slope. Data gathered in the first year study indicates that the planted vegetation is surviving quite well and more than meets the 80% survival for the first year. The overall survival of the planted species in the monitoring plots for the first year was 88%. Red Alder(Abets rubra) and two Cottonwood (Popldus trichocarpa)were the only volunteer species observed within the plots. The dozens of alders noted on the data forms were not counted for the survival rate. Table 1 presents the species, cover of each species, and percent frequency in the herbaceous monitoring quadrats. Originally, the wetland and bench areas were seeded with Glyceria elata, Poa palustris, Carex rostrata, Carex obnupta, Juncus ensifolius, Juncus bufonius, Scirpus microcarpus, Ranunculus repens, and Potentilla palustris. Wildlife had been grazing on the herbaceous species present in the mitigation area; therefore, we were unable to distinguish specific species of Carex, and Juncus. Scirpus may have been present but may have not been distinguished from Carex. Overall the seeded species were well represented in the quadrats with the exception of Glyceria. Glyceria did not appear to be present in the mitigation area, and may not have found this site suitable for growth. Trifolium repens(white clover) was seeded on the slopes above the wetland and bench areas, and is present in every quadrat. Over time it is expected that the wetland species planted will increase in frequency in the quadrats and the clover will decrease. Four other species are also present in the quadrats Agrostis spp., Holcus lanatus, Lotus corniculatus, and Polygonum persicaria. 5.2 Hydrology The created wetland system was designed to have the bench and wetland areas inundated during flood events and the site soils saturated for at least the first three to four months of the growing season(March, April, May and possibly June). The water depth and the degree of fluctuation throughout the year will dictate the survival rate of the planted species and the nature of any volunteer species that take root in the wetland. During the March 28, 2000, site visit it was noted that the benches and wetlands were underwater during the late winter and early spring floods. H-1031-02 5 Water on the benches was between one to three feet in depth(based on debris on the log structures and trees). Flooding did not dislodge the log structures nor the planted vegetation. During the September 10, 2000, monitoring, water levels within the wetland and bench varied from two inches of inundation to soil saturation at a depth of ten inches below the surface(Table 2). Several areas within the wetland mitigation project appear to be inundated or saturated to the surface year round. 5.3 Permanent Photo Stations The eight photographs taken during baseline monitoring clearly show the completed wetland through systematically selected stations. The eight photographs taken during the first year of monitoring show the healthy growth of the planted species. Station location are identified on Figure 2. The baseline and first year photographs taken from these photo stations are included in Appendix B of this report. 5.4 Habitat Conditions and Wildlife Use Habitat conditions are rudimentary within the created wetland and its buffer at this time but will diversify as the plant communities develop. Song birds and red legged frogs were observed in the mitigation area in September. Canadian geese and mallards were also observed in the vicinity of the created wetland during monitoring. Use of the created wetland by wildlife is not the focus of this monitoring program,but observations of species in this mitigation area will be included in subsequent reports. 6.0 CONCLUSIONS Overall, the wetland and bench areas presently display wetland conditions. Sufficient surface saturation is promoting the dominance of hydrophytic vegetation. The overall plant cover is greater than 80 percent and the mitigation site meets the annual success criteria. Some of the species of plants observed were prescribed in the initial wetland mitigation plan, and others have established on their own in this area. This natural invasion of native species is considered beneficial to the long-term stability of this wetland mitigation effort, since these species may display a particular propensity to thrive in the newly created environment. H-1031-02 6 7.0 CLOSURE The findings and conclusions documented in this report have been prepared for specific applica- tion to this project. They have been developed in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill normally exercised by members of the environmental science profession currently practicing under similar conditions in the area. The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are professional opinions based on interpretation of information currently available to us, and are made within the operational scope, budget, and schedule constraints of this project. No warranty, either express or implied, is made. Please contact us if you have any questions. NATURAL RESOURCE CONSULTING Theresa R. Henson Natural Resource Ecologist 9-00/H1031-02.RP1-t h H-1031-02 7 TABLE 1 HERBACEOUS SPECIES QUADRAT DATA Species Year Plot Plot Plot ; Plot Plot Plot Plot Plot Plot Plot Plot Percent 2 3 5 7 9 11 12 13 15 17 19 Frequency Agrostis 2000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 36 Carex spp. 2000 0 2 2 1 0 0 2 0 2 2 2 64 Holcus lanatus 2000 2 2 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 2 64 Juncus spp. 2000 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 0 91 Lotus corniculatus 2000 0 2 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 36 Poa palustris 2000 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 2 64 Polygonum persicaria 2000 0 1 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 36 Potentilla pacifica 2000 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 27 Ranunculus repens 2000 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 27 Trifolium repens 2000 3 3 3 3 3 4 2 2 3 3 3 100 Note: Only wetland plots were monitored for herbaceous cover. Plots not included here are wetland buffer plots. 0=No individual plants observed in plot 4 = 26 to 50 percent cover 1 = One individual plant observed in plot 5 = 51 to 75 percent cover 2 = 1 to 5 percent cover 6 = 76 to 90 percent cover 3 = 6 to 25 percent cover 7 = 91 to 100 percent cover H-1031-02 8 TABLE 2 HYDROLOGIC DATA YEAR 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 One slope 10"S 2"I slope 8"S slope 9"S slope 10"S slope 2"I 1"I 1"I slope 1"S slope 6"S slope 10"S Baseline slope 1"S 1"I slope 6"S slope 8"S slope 6"S slope 1"I 2"I 2"I slope 1"I slope 2"S slope 8"S Note: S =saturated below ground surface, I=inundated, slope=no data gathered within buffer. H-1031-02 9 iteS a'.77Y 9 8 4i iia.t ri i 6i84141 F airs- , rifiliRi' T z E c i ii ifia a e a Y.1 55 aaaii iaaeai xzz 14 ip?,.:za Ian, i.ieiz,i i.#za es 5e ea `a i,R 1 ee 7 :7' lti a 7igiaeisa t 4 4i frOli'lr .,1 ' S ii. a¢sizg i 6ae eea .aiaa'z ;„p iez ,,z . ,_9 , .r ad 'a.,-n a� a B+ s noes e,"t&�6a z 3 eti lgarx i1L45nr s; 11°.iipe zr s ie a, z e•' t e e za p z 8fia gdaaz!n.r 4 e i iia i ` lit°y" i i 't It Ellierz° nt u;at I. z;r 4 N ` z aai a ` ' SON AP " e 39p i F' en iaaasr� ii gl a' .y a it e_ 7 aa.J 1,f AC IXK" a..7iiii ua ti V T vn1(1/ C F/F0 t" 5 ',,64A.t' is `a a r yam+ A .. - Jet—.:2 4PRD Ai 1 A 4,10_T J 3 r 1 , i 1e5TH •t,- idelli .t / N Oakesdale Business Campus A Renton,Washington Approximate scale 1 inch to 4,800 feet VICINITY MAP September 2000 H-1031-02 Natural Resource Consulting FIG. I Assessment.M.me.®eert end wptw«y p.iisiNg N►te: Map adapted from The Thomas Guide, I995. 8 (/: 3N2 +y4 • i 111 illl i i Oakesdale Business Campus Renton, Washington MONITORING LAYOUT September 2000 H-1031-02 /� Natural Resource Consulting FIG. 2 _ ;' Assessment,Management and Regulatory Permitting APPENDIX A MONITORING DATA SHEETS H-1031-02 FIRST YEAR MONITORING DATA SHEET OAKESDALE BUSINESS PARK Plot#: 1, slope Date: September 10, 2000 Examiner: TRH Plot Size: 20'x30' Species #Planted # Counted % Cover Big leaf maple (Acer macrophylum) Cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) 1 1 Trace Douglas fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii) 2 2 10 Oregon ash(Fraxinus latifolia) Quaking aspen(Populus tremuloides) Vine maple(Acre circinatum) Western red cedar(Thuja plicata) Pacific willow(Salix lasiandra) Sitka willow(Salix sitchensis) Black twinberry(Lonicera involucrata) Evergreen huckleberry(Vaccinium ovatum) Indian plum(Oemieria cerasiformis) Kinnikinnick (Arctostaphylos uva-ursi) Ninebark(Physocarpus capitatus) 9 7 10 Oceanspray(Holodiscus discolor) Red flowering currant(Ribes sagnuineum) 2 2 Trace Red-osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera) Salal (Gaultheria shallon) 1 0 Snowberry(Symphoricarpus albus) Sword fern (Polystichum munitum) Total: 15 12 20 NOTES: H-1031-02 A-1 FIRST YEAR MONITORING DATA SHEET OAKESDALE BUSINESS PARK Plot#: 2,wetland Date: September 10, 2000 Examiner: TRH Plot Size: 10'x30' Species # Planted #Counted % Cover Big leaf maple(Acer macrophylum) Cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) 6 6 20 Douglas fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii) Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia) Quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) Vine maple(Acre circinatum) Western red cedar(Thuja plicata) 3 3 20 Pacific willow(Salix lasiandra) Sitka willow(Salix sitchensis) 1 1 Trace Black twinberry(Lonicera involucrata) 1 1 Trace Evergreen huckleberry(Vaccinium ovatum) Indian plum(Oemieria cerasiformis) Kinnikinnick(Arctostaphylos uva-ursi) Ninebark(Physocarpus capitatus) 2 2 Trace Oceanspray(Holodiscus discolor) Red flowering currant(Ribes sagnuineum) Red-osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera) Salal (Gaultheria shallon) Snowberry(Symphoricarpus albus) Sword fern(Polystichum munitum) Total: 13 13 40 NOTES: 1 alder volunteer 14 total with volunteer H-1031-02 A-2 FIRST YEAR MONITORING DATA SHEET OAKESDALE BUSINESS PARK Plot#: 3,wetland Date: September 10, 2000 Examiner: TRH Plot Size: 20'x30' Species #Planted # Counted % Cover Big leaf maple(Acer macrophylum) Cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) 5 4 15 Douglas fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii) Oregon ash(Fraxinus latifolia) Quaking aspen(Populus tremuloides) 2 2 5 Vine maple(Acre circinatum) Western red cedar(Thuja plicata) Pacific willow(Salix lasiandra) 2 2 5 Sitka willow(Salix sitchensis) Black twinberry(Lonicera involucrata) 8 8 20 Evergreen huckleberry(Vaccinium ovatum) Indian plum(Oemieria cerasiformis) Kinnikinnick(Arctostaphylos uva-ursi) Ninebark(Physocarpus capitatus) 15 15 20 Oceanspray(Holodiscus discolor) Red flowering currant(Ribes sagnuineum) Red-osier dogwood(Cornus stolonifera) 3 3 5 Salal (Gaultheria shallon) Snowberry(Symphoricarpus albus) Sword fern(Polystichum munitum) Total: 35 34 70 NOTES: Dozens of alder volunteers H-1031-02 A-3 FIRST YEAR MONITORING DATA SHEET OAKESDALE BUSINESS PARK Plot #: 4, slope Date: September 10, 2000 Examiner: TRH Plot Size: 20'x30' Species # Planted #Counted % Cover Big leaf maple(Acer macrophylum) Cottonwood(Populus trichocarpa) 1 volunteer Douglas fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii) 2 2 10 Oregon ash(Fraxinus latifolia) Quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) Vine maple(Acre circinatum) Western red cedar(Thuja plicata) 2 2 5 Pacific willow(Salix lasiandra) Sitka willow(Salix sitchensis) i Black twinberry(Lonicera involucrata) Evergreen huckleberry(Vaccinium ovatum) i Indian plum(Oemieria cerasiformis) Kinnikinnick(Arctostaphylos uva-ursi) Ninebark(Physocarpus capitatus) 5 4 5 Oceanspray(Holodiscus discolor) Red flowering currant (Ribes sagnuineum) 2 1 Trace Red-osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera) Salal (Gaultheria shallon) 3 0 Snowberry(Symphoricarpus albus) Sword fern (Polystichum munitum) 1 1 Trace Total: 15 10 20 NOTES: 11 total with the cottonwood volunteer H-1031-02 A-4 FIRST YEAR MONITORING DATA SHEET OAKESDALE BUSINESS PARK Plot #: 5, bench Date: September 10, 2000 Examiner: TRH Plot Size: 10'x30' Species # Planted #Counted % Cover Big leaf maple(Acer macrophylum) Cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) Douglas fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii) ' Oregon ash(Fraxinus latifolia) Quaking aspen(Populus tremuloides) 4 4 10 Vine maple (Acre circinatum) Western red cedar(Thuja plicata) 2 2 10 Pacific willow(Salix lasiandra) Sitka willow(Salix sitchensis) Black twinberry(Lonicera involucrata) Evergreen huckleberry(Vaccinium ovatum) Indian plum(Oemieria cerasiformis) Kinnikinnick(Arctostaphylos uva-ursi) Ninebark(Physocarpus capitatus) Oceanspray(Holodiscus discolor) Red flowering currant(Ribes sagnuineum) Red-osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera) Salal (Gaultheria shallon) Snowberry(Symphoricarpus albus) Sword fern(Polystichum munitum) Total: 6 6 20 NOTES: H-1031-02 A-5 FIRST YEAR MONITORING DATA SHEET OAKESDALE BUSINESS PARK Plot#: 6, slope Date: September 10, 2000 Examiner: TRH Plot Size: 20'x30' Species #Planted # Counted % Cover Big leaf maple (Acer macrophylum) Cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) Douglas fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii) 1 1 5 Oregon ash(Fraxinus latifolia) Quaking aspen(Populus tremuloides) Vine maple(Acre circinatum) 1 0 Western red cedar(Thuja plicata) 2 2 10 Pacific willow(Salix lasiandra) Sitka willow(Salix sitchensis) Black twinberry(Lonicera involucrata) Evergreen huckleberry(Vaccinium ovatum) 2 0 Indian plum (Oemieria cerasiformis) Kinnikinnick(Arctostaphylos uva-ursi) Ninebark(Physocarpus capitatus) Oceanspray(Holodiscus discolor) Red flowering currant (Ribes sagnuineum) Red-osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera) 3 3 5 Salal(Gaultheria shallon) 4 0 Snowberry(Symphoricarpus albus) Sword fern(Polystichum munitum) 2 2 Trace Total: 15 8 20 NOTES: H-1031-02 A-6 FIRST YEAR MONITORING DATA SHEET OAKESDALE BUSINESS PARK Plot#: 7, bench Date: September 10, 2000 Examiner: TRH Plot Size: 10'x30' Species #Planted #Counted % Cover Big leaf maple(Acer macrophylum) Cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) Douglas fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii) Oregon ash(Fraxinus latifolia) 2 2 5 Quaking aspen(Populus tremuloides) 3 3 10 Vine maple(Acre circinatum) Western red cedar(Thuja plicata) 2 2 10 Pacific willow(Salix lasiandra) Sitka willow(Salix sitchensis) Black twinberry(Lonicera involucrata) Evergreen huckleberry(Vaccinium ovatum) Indian plum(Oemieria cerasiformis) Kinnikinnick(Arctostaphylos uva-ursi) Ninebark(Physocarpus capitatus) Oceanspray(Holodiscus discolor) Red flowering currant(Ribes sagnuineum) Red-osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera) Salal (Gaultheria shallon) Snowberry(Symphoricarpus albus) Sword fern(Polystichum munitum) Total: 7 7 25 NOTES: 9 H-1031-02 A-7 FIRST YEAR MONITORING DATA SHEET OAKESDALE BUSINESS PARK Plot#: 8, slope Date: September 10, 2000 Examiner: TRH Plot Size: 20'x30' Species # Planted #Counted % Cover Big leaf maple(Acer macrophylum) Cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) Douglas fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii) 2 2 10 Oregon ash(Fraxinus latifolia) Quaking aspen(Populus tremuloides) Vine maple(Acre circinatum) Western red cedar(Thuja plicata) 1 1 5 Pacific willow(Salix lasiandra) Sitka willow(Salix sitchensis) Black twinberry(Lonicera involucrata) Evergreen huckleberry(Vaccinium ovatum) Indian plum(Oemieria cerasiformis) 4 4 5 Kinnikinnick(Arctostaphylos uva-ursi) Ninebark(Physocarpus capitatus) Oceanspray(Holodiscus discolor) 1 0 Red flowering currant (Ribes sagnuineum) Red-osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera) Salal (Gaultheria shallon) 4 0 Snowberry(Symphoricarpus albus) Sword fern(Polystichum munitum) 1 1 Trace Total: 13 8 20 NOTES: H-1031-02 A-8 FIRST YEAR MONITORING DATA SHEET OAKESDALE BUSINESS PARK Plot#: 9, bench Date: September 10, 2000 Examiner: TRH Plot Size: 10'x30' Species # Planted #Counted % Cover Big leaf maple (Acer macrophylum) Cottonwood(Populus trichocarpa) Douglas fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii) Oregon ash(Fraxinus latifolia) 4 4 10 Quaking aspen(Populus tremuloides) 4 4 10 Vine maple (Acre circinatum) Western red cedar(Thuja plicata) 1 1 5 Pacific willow(Salix lasiandra) Sitka willow(Salix sitchensis) Black twinberry(Lonicera involucrata) Evergreen huckleberry(Vaccinium ovatum) Indian plum(Oemieria cerasiformis) Kinnikinnick (Arctostaphylos uva-ursi) Ninebark(Physocarpus capitatus) Oceanspray(Holodiscus discolor) Red flowering currant (Ribes sagnuineum) Red-osier dogwood(Cornus stolonifera) Salal (Gaultheria shallon) Snowberry(Symphoricarpus albus) Sword fern (Polystichum munitum) Total: 9 9 25 NOTES: H-1031-02 A-9 FIRST YEAR MONITORING DATA SHEET OAKESDALE BUSINESS PARK Plot#: 10, slope Date: September 10,2000 Examiner: TRH Plot Size: 20'x30' Species #Planted #Counted % Cover Big leaf maple(Acer macrophylum) 1 1 Trace Cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) Douglas fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii) Oregon ash(Fraxinus latifolia) Quaking aspen(Populus tremuloides) Vine maple(Acre circinatum) 1 1 Trace Western red cedar(Thuja plicata) 1 1 Trace Pacific willow(Salix lasiandra) Sitka willow(Salix sitchensis) Black twinberry(Lonicera involucrata) Evergreen huckleberry(Vaccinium ovatum) Indian plum(Oemieria cerasiformis) 1 1 Trace Kinnikinnick (Arctostaphylos uva-ursi) Ninebark(Physocarpus capitatus) Oceanspray(Holodiscus discolor) 1 0 Red flowering currant (Ribes sagnuineum) 3 3 Trace Red-osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera) 2 2 Trace Salal (Gaultheria shallon) 4 0 Snowberry(Symphoricarpus albus) Sword fern(Polystichum munitum) 4 2 Trace Total: 18 11 about 5 NOTES: H-1031-02 A-10 FIRST YEAR MONITORING DATA SHEET OAKESDALE BUSINESS PARK Plot#: 11,wetland Date: September 10, 2000 Examiner: TRH Plot Size: 10'x30' Species # Planted #Counted % Cover Big leaf maple(Acer macrophylum) Cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) 1 1 Trace Douglas fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii) Oregon ash(Fraxinus latifolia) Quaking aspen(Populus tremuloides) Vine maple(Acre circinatum) Western red cedar(Thuja plicata) 2 2 10 Pacific willow(Salix lasiandra) Sitka willow(Salix sitchensis) 0 8 sprouts 5 Black twinberry(Lonicera involucrata) Evergreen huckleberry(Vaccinium ovatum) Indian plum(Oemieria cerasiformis) Kinnikinnick(Arctostaphylos uva-ursi) Ninebark(Physocarpus capitatus) 1 1 Trace Oceanspray(Holodiscus discolor) Red flowering currant (Ribes sagnuineum) Red-osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera) 10 5 5 Salal(Gaultheria shallon) Snowberry(Symphoricarpus albus) Sword fern (Polystichum munitum) Total: 14 17 20 NOTES: H-1031-02 A-11 FIRST YEAR MONITORING DATA SHEET OAKESDALE BUSINESS PARK Plot#: 12,wetland Date: September 10, 2000 Examiner: TRH Plot Size: 20'x30' Species #Planted #Counted % Cover Big leaf maple(Acer macrophylum) Cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) 1 1 Trace Douglas fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii) Oregon ash(Fraxinus latifolia) Quaking aspen(Populus tremuloides) 2 2 5 Vine maple(Acre circinatum) Western red cedar(Thuja plicata) 2 2 5 Pacific willow(Salix lasiandra) Sitka willow(Salix sitchensis) 3 3 10 Black twinberry(Lonicera involucrata) 7 7 15 Evergreen huckleberry(Vaccinium ovatum) Indian plum(Oemieria cerasiformis) Kinnikinnick(Arctostaphylos uva-ursi) Ninebark(Physocarpus capitatus) 14 14 30 Oceanspray(Holodiscus discolor) Red flowering currant (Ribes sagnuineum) Red-osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera) 9 9 15 Salal(Gaultheria shallon) Snowberry(Symphoricarpus albus) Sword fern(Polystichum munitum) Total: 38 38 80 NOTES: H-1031-02 A-12 FIRST YEAR MONITORING DATA SHEET OAKESDALE BUSINESS PARK Plot#: 13,wetland Date: September 10,2000 Examiner: TRH Plot Size: 20'x30' Species # Planted #Counted % Cover Big leaf maple(Acer macrophylum) Cottonwood(Populus trichocarpa) 3 1 Trace Douglas fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii) Oregon ash(Fraxinus latifolia) 4 4 10 Quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) 3 3 10 Vine maple(Acre circinatum) Western red cedar(Thuja plicata) 2 2 10 Pacific willow(Salix lasiandra) Sitka willow(Salix sitchensis) 3 3 Trace Black twinberry(Lonicera involucrata) 10 10 20 Evergreen huckleberry(Vaccinium ovatum) Indian plum (Oemieria cerasiformis) Kinnikinnick(Arctostaphylos uva-ursi) Ninebark(Physocarpus capitatus) 4 4 5 Oceanspray(Holodiscus discolor) Red flowering currant(Ribes sagnuineum) Red-osier dogwood (Corpus stolonifera) 7 7 15 Salal (Gaultheria shallon) Snowberry(Symphoricarpus albus) Sword fern(Polystichum munitum) Total: 36 34 70 NOTES: Dozens of alder volunteers ti H-1031-02 A-13 FIRST YEAR MONITORING DATA SHEET OAKESDALE BUSINESS PARK Plot#: 14, slope Date: September 10, 2000 Examiner: TRH Plot Size: 20'x30' Species # Planted #Counted % Cover Big leaf maple (Ater macrophylum) 1 0 Cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) Douglas fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii) 1 1 5 Oregon ash(Fraxinus latifolia) Quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) Vine maple(Acre circinatum) 1 1 Trace Western red cedar(Thuja plicata) 1 1 5 Pacific willow(Salix lasiandra) Sitka willow(Salix sitchensis) Black twinberry(Lonicera involucrata) Evergreen huckleberry(Vaccinium ovatum) Indian plum(Oemieria cerasiformis) Kinnikinnick(Arctostaphylos uva-ursi) Ninebark(Physocarpus capitatus) Oceanspray(Holodiscus discolor) 2 2 Trace Red flowering currant(Ribes sagnuineum) Red-osier dogwood(Corms stolonifera) Salal (Gaultheria shallon) Snowberry(Symphoricarpus albus) Sword fern (Polystichum munitum) Total: 6 5 10 NOTES: H-1031-02 A-14 FIRST YEAR MONITORING DATA SHEET OAKESDALE BUSINESS PARK Plot#: 15,wetland Date: September 10, 2000 Examiner: TRH Plot Size: 10'x30' Species # Planted #Counted % Cover Big leaf maple(Acer macrophylum) Cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) 1 0 Douglas fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii) Oregon ash(Fraxinus latifolia) Quaking aspen(Populus tremuloides) Vine maple (Acre circinatum) Western red cedar(Thuja plicata) Pacific willow(Salix lasiandra) Sitka willow(Salix sitchensis) 1 1 Trace Black twinberry(Lonicera involucrata) Evergreen huckleberry(Vaccinium ovatum) Indian plum(Oemieria cerasiformis) Kinnikinnick(Arctostaphylos uva-ursi) Ninebark(Physocarpus capitatus) 1 1 Trace Oceanspray(Holodiscus discolor) Red flowering currant (Ribes sagnuineum) Red-osier dogwood (Corms stolonifera) 8 7 20 Salal (Gaultheria shallon) Snowberry(Symphoricarpus albus) Sword fern (Polystichum munitum) Total: 11 9 20 NOTES: H-1031-02 A-15 FIRST YEAR MONITORING DATA SHEET OAKESDALE BUSINESS PARK Plot#: 16, slope Date: September 10, 2000 Examiner: TRH Plot Size: 20'x30' Species # Planted #Counted % Cover Big leaf maple(Acer macrophylum) Cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) Douglas fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii) 2 2 10 Oregon ash(Fraxinus latifolia) Quaking aspen(Populus tremuloides) Vine maple(Acre circinatum) Western red cedar(Thuja plicata) 1 1 5 Pacific willow(Salix lasiandra) Sitka willow(Salix sitchensis) Black twinberry(Lonicera involucrata) Evergreen huckleberry(Vaccinium ovatum) 3 1 Trace Indian plum(Oemieria cerasiformis) Kinnikinnick(Arctostaphylos uva-ursi) Ninebark(Physocarpus capitatus) Oceanspray(Holodiscus discolor) 1 0 Red flowering currant (Ribes sagnuineum) 3 2 Trace Red-osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera) Salal (Gaultheria shallon) Snowberry(Symphoricarpus albus) 4 3 Trace Sword fern(Polystichum munitum) 2 2 Trace Total: 16 11 20+ NOTES: H-1031-02 A-16 FIRST YEAR MONITORING DATA SHEET OAKESDALE BUSINESS PARK Plot#: 17, bench Date: September 10, 2000 Examiner: TRH Plot Size: 10'x30' Species # Planted # Counted % Cover Big leaf maple (Acer macrophylum) Cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) Douglas fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii) Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia) 5 4 10 Quaking aspen(Populus tremuloides) 3 3 10 Vine maple(Acre circinatum) Western red cedar(Thuja plicata) Pacific willow(Salix lasiandra) Sitka willow(Salix sitchensis) Black twinberry(Lonicera involucrata) Evergreen huckleberry(Vaccinium ovatum) Indian plum (Oemieria cerasiformis) Kinnikinnick(Arctostaphylos uva-ursi) Ninebark(Physocarpus capitatus) Oceanspray(Holodiscus discolor) Red flowering currant (Ribes sagnuineum) 1 Red-osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera) Salal (Gaultheria shallon) Snowberry(Symphoricarpus albus) Sword fern(Polystichum munitum) Total: 8 7 20 NOTES: H-1031-02 A-17 FIRST YEAR MONITORING DATA SHEET OAKESDALE BUSINESS PARK Plot#: 18, slope Date: September 10, 2000 Examiner: TRH Plot Size: 20'x30' Species #Planted #Counted % Cover Big leaf maple(Acer macrophylum) Cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) Douglas fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii) 2 2 10 Oregon ash(Fraxinus latifolia) Quaking aspen(Populus tremuloides) Vine maple(Acre circinatum) 3 3 5 Western red cedar(Thuja plicata) 2 2 5 Pacific willow(Salix lasiandra) Sitka willow(Salix sitchensis) Black twinberry(Lonicera involucrata) Evergreen huckleberry(Vaccinium ovatum) Indian plum(Oemieria cerasiformis) Kinnikinnick(Arctostaphylos uva-ursi) Ninebark (Physocarpus capitatus) 4 3 Trace Oceanspray(Holodiscus discolor) Red flowering currant (Ribes sagnuineum) 2 2 Trace Red-osier dogwood(Corms stolonifera) Salal (Gaultheria shallon) 2 0 Snowberry(Symphoricarpus albus) Sword fern(Polystichum munitum) 6 4 Trace Total: 21 16 20+ NOTES: H-103 1-02 A-18 FIRST YEAR MONITORING DATA SHEET OAKESDALE BUSINESS PARK Plot#: 19, bench Date: September 10, 2000 Examiner: TRH Plot Size: 10'x30' Species #Planted #Counted % Cover Big leaf maple(Acer macrophylum) Cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) 0 1 volunteer Trace Douglas fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii) Oregon ash(Fraxinus latifolia) 4 4 10 Quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) 5 5 15 Vine maple(Acre circinatum) Western red cedar(Thuja plicata) Pacific willow(Salix lasiandra) Sitka willow(Salix sitchensis) Black twinberry(Lonicera involucrata) Evergreen huckleberry(Vaccinium ovatum) Indian plum(Oemieria cerasiformis) Kinnikinnick(Arctostaphylos uva-ursi) Ninebark(Physocarpus capitatus) Oceanspray(Holodiscus discolor) Red flowering currant (Ribes sagnuineum) Red-osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera) Salal (Gaultheria shallon) Snowberry(Symphoricarpus albus) Sword fern(Polystichum munitum) Total: 9 10 25 NOTES: H-1031-02 A-19 FIRST YEAR MONITORING DATA SHEET OAKESDALE BUSINESS PARK Plot#: 20, slope Date: September 10, 2000 Examiner: TRH Plot Size: 5'x10' Species # Planted #Counted % Cover Big leaf maple(Acer macrophylum) Cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) Douglas fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii) Oregon ash(Fraxinus latifolia) Quaking aspen(Populus tremuloides) Vine maple(Acre circinatum) Western red cedar(Thuja plicata) Pacific willow(Salix lasiandra) Sitka willow(Salix sitchensis) Black twinberry(Lonicera involucrata) Evergreen huckleberry(Vaccinium ovatum) Indian plum(Oemieria cerasiformis) Kinnikinnick(Arctostaphylos uva-ursi) 12 12 40 Ninebark(Physocarpus capitatus) Oceanspray(Holodiscus discolor) Red flowering currant (Ribes sagnuineum) Red-osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera) Salal (Gaultheria shallon) Snowberry(Symphoricarpus albus) Sword fern (Polystichum munitum) 12 Total: 12 12 40 NOTES: H-1031-02 A-20 APPENDIX B PHOTOGRAPHS H-1031-02 • y tI 'ii r dm, •' `', �{ +tXt-.,. •_- • - fit..l• '{ � 'le i! +.:, �,_�}�: v '.. .r$;, `- y • r yr :� ,}yt•- • 110. • -, ..., . ,' I,.r '. 1. 4• i ~ y110,y. • W �. r..: 7' Photo 1: From Photo Station 1 looking northeast down Springbrook Creek, baseline. . A ;. * . ♦ •4, ilip, •• t , i • .. r -sue ..h ` 4 •• ,, ,.�. I,•••�rF +y Illalliblikralkilla... ...41 4 Photo 2: From Photo Station 1 looking northeast down Springbrook Creek,year one. B -1 H-1031-02 ti -`N .. i madam•. .l•' , • . - '. f ......4 • ., I tikz. . ,. . . ; ._:ti.v.,,, . ,J, ..... .44.41bia.._ , „ _ • i.•.�r' 1- .�+ r - oaf• .1� - • ear. '- a ...f,,}.. • ...�� . ��r h ��. wailw _.*il .tit ., . . . . ._ _ �.- art ! .•. .:au. r P •' . a `� Photo 3: From Photo Station 2 looking south over the westerly wetland mitigation triangle, baseline. • i . �r { 1 t t. ,0. � t * •.a -•t. . ,.,�• a .w.. *' + O. 4. ;; _ , � •, j • , ` - • ` •I T. • . .. 3-N - ii �r • Photo 4: From Photo Station 2 looking south over the westerly wetland mitigation triangle, year one. B -2 H-1031-02 .'..,•,.,,ir.. -'- - • - ! . .0.s- • .7 i - , -4 44 4--..- ' •• k -....7.. ; 'Vit'f''," • IA. t'"' '11 4!•: •••- . 1. • • :, - • J , .. --, ;- • •,'. -- 'I- '‘,""1111111411et"-, ' '-.4'- • ••. ..,... .-•,.. . , ... lit 1 v 4.•• ....- 4 .i • ,,. . , ' • k . %--4r-- ' . - • z*,,,., 4 , yit. "- : •* 1%1' I . ' 4 0 « • ' e: •.... , \ • ' " 4 '4- - .. --t. -t'#4.:.4• ...:.; ' , ''''-c. , . , ' ' 1.-z+,,V.4•-- t-..110......2,.1 1. --.‘ . -.. • ."14 Aikr•,..-4-_- J tr- --"A 'eA.;., • .'' - .. . ' -0:-4''s -1 /ZW--•••K- -,IEL 1C-.46- Ku' •.% r tiliz2re 4 1.,•••riri. ' r=.:,'' - -,A;otd 11 -". ' ,....— ''' ,iiiit : ..- . ;•eist. 4::.'s •S-...-.is.- .-4 er'.• 4;.- 4. --... s' - - -'''' ti.."ft., ;-,--..., "`"• ... .... .. .7 2._ . "‘..". . , 7+1" - • _ ... ""..4 '.- • '.a ' .:- , ' ... , , 400-. ..r.i•Jt?.#1,,:tra,e., -...-1'....,4ii".--7,_ ••_.4,._. _ 4 . .... i..,,i 4 • S , .,•-e•.,.. , -, ,,,.... ).. ....e•- 4.3.r„,..9,s ,..,ek._, %le ... •Z... .....;,N,...4. • - • .., '7:V.P.,..; . 2.74, . ' . .'41111.* ..'''''-. ' - ...' • file. ' ..' ''. •4. ...110-'44, —.-,. ,.r...-3..-"" . t..c! .4.- •;:, . _ - - — ...-- -!-- ,r,... .-4- , ,,t• 41..‘,... ,, -4, `..•.:. - • t'Ae•-• ...•..c... -,. , ... ..... -•--- ... • " •-•"'-. 4 - •‘:,:b!":11- " ;44 •-••••• . -.4, -4..- —,.u. ...„ . . 41 'pit ::‘•Al C.. si , :r .0e,,' ).--. /' :-..iec' ,., '• .. ... .... • • _ . • 4_IL - :.Ike"( •' ;: - '` - • <--- 11 -" C!" .. "..... ',, .. _ .. ., . • .e. Photo 5: From Photo Station 3 looking east towards Monitoring Plot 4 (slope) and Plot 5 (bench), baseline. - ` -- _ • t• , S . . • • , 444 ' v •.•111 `.-0, • iimo , ,• .- , .-,,• . .0-zr. _._ • ,.. r. r. . ...„,_,. .,.. .._ AI 1 , . . . ,.. . •. ? , vh -74/ •••••0‘ ..„ •-. • •11.4- ire -, * 0 . •. . . •sy . . ,. • . , , 4.4 ar '-... 4' # ... - , Photo 6: From Photo Station 3 looking east towards ' onitonng 'ot a s ope an i ' o (bench),year one. B -3 H-1031-02 • . II' , .`4 'Tow . I 4. t - - — Ell EIS ti 1 I . -1 IT IF j1,111 1110 i,.....•j Is . 1 1 4.... , A .. 4AL: .1:1)11,A ; ,,. • - • ...- - - , . _ ..,. - -. -.,, 1p, -, , • k 1 , . .... . , . .1."..*" '''. .. ewittur,.....„.... ,- I '. f.,f• .. ' . • V '11.4w'. . N.. .4. * a. I •..- • Tr _ 4. ,. .„r-„t...... ..IC ' ',-. )••••;"Xie.''. Pet".. 1:,. " • -. *• -- ..‘- ." • AL-;;;',"...*._ ... Z! 'IP- Al* - 4-.",‹...^.', Vli::" • sv., '1/4._.-'"' ".• . .,....roN.., 14 Sh•". 'a. -'' ii.:•7`. *.V.34,A.Z.'"Ii&N„._ x 11,t. ,"•,...... •106, - c,. .." • - •. '4, 1 ---...-.0 ,. • , ..._ , _ _ 41 • . Il r : -.- - • . 11 "01. ...•14..,k - .. A_ ,........ • --1, -, ,-...r . ,„ _..-• •-k•',4.....e 1 - IP ''' .-. Sto ...__ ,- • airrs, .... ,•_=`-' C. •- ... Nb.- .- .. ... •Ii • 4 . 113m. or--0- •.„. q,'••-•• ...... `tr'fir '0,.• "...An.. :'‘• " 4 *''"' it -* r • *AP - • 11` .- ... ': • .4_2• ' ....,-•- - /-• - - ..„,r,„. •-• 1 • ' 1/..•,... ..1 '„.... ., _ • 's• ..., ., ,- - 11 .0,..iit • 40. •.• ,., ,. Ir. 1111.4. • % ,• "-- 47 ' '' ' .. "..:, '41' o • ft ." . ' 's 4.‘... -g" . ic..• •-1*. i - lb. 41 *k * VI.. k ...• Photo 7: From Photo Station 4 looking east towards Monitoring Plot 6 (slope) and Plot 7 (bench), baseline. . liC 117411/ V s t... 4 'a . • • -.,..... . • —is " st e. , .. -ai , - '' 411/4. • ' .." • Nfbe1••••"-. t' 4' i • ...., . . t P Po - rot .... • • • ., r_ * At .. • 441(6; 4t, e':"Ittir: -.- , _- 0, •%4X4' -1 's A ir 4 -; ..7 t . . . . yo.. ..". i...,, 4•, •• ....i. . . • ... 'al - alP : 4"*.' lir 1 Photo 8: From Photo Station 4 looking east towards • onttonng ''ot . s ope an i ' ot (bench), year one. B -4 H-103 1-02 4r 4q. •\ ji, - -, , • t 3 1 1 I • 'S, t,y l..=. .t. +1l a , i''it;47:44"t4k.. .."` :.i.-- i 41‘n '4'*: •` oc 'y,_ , ., - e)'r-- , . "' ,,44.,,. ... , • ti. 1 Photo 9: From Photo Station 5 looking east towards Monitoring Plot 8 (slope) and Plot 9 (bench), baseline. AO 1 v 1 -44 rI! TTvv I_o :. "'�`ter 411:111p1t0#10 .,,., 7 _ _ , . - - .., A- . - . t Photo 10: From Photo Station 5 looking east towards Monitoring Plot 8 (slope) and Plot 9 (bench),year one. B -5 H-1031-02 ,.. tc 'I' lilL7W ' ^ IVA►"XY ,.- Iq�' , � ��Mr .rs..4a +. as r . ,'4 a w► fit 43jil3 410 . 1 Ow- "Cil '+" .�- 'E'' . �10 "Iiiiik„ lir its 'a,r1... "111.4. a:4 . ,,> :.fit,,y _-._ _. . • . ..„,:.'- :_ — -"-. -- ill. -, .... r, .., ...a, It, ."1 ,,r.s. -4-•. i 0111mlibb . . or ,t Photo 11: From Photo Station 6 looking south over the easterly wetland mitigation triangle, baseli • ,., . ..#4'114,C , 11 .',• - `,` a _ i s MP ■ ' w .fI4.' Photo 12: From Photo Station 6 looking south over the easterly wetland mitigation triangle, year one. B -6 H-1031-02 ►a.� . - .. ---.. .1" ' 1-,'s' '.. ' i:vv.t.i -...,'*: ...'ic:. , -,1:-...\....,',....'4' 44',•i.,,,;„, :,. -1,....4.......:*-,*::.- 40* i • ' —i'..a G1i. - 1' • -. 4 -ram"'�'S � aa-" .t._ .a,��- - +\1 •4. N�. -,� _Mom. ��1'�M�,�}`U'x`* - y • .. .itt . - -7. -Aiit. _ I* 1 t = . 0 f: o t Photo 13: From Photo Station 7 looking east towards Monitoring Plot 14 (slope) and Plot 15 (bench baseline. i -. + r + 1i, N. ,. sT e I •# te' ai . �" N �`t ' L t '. yI /fix. -- .:( # 1 : .11 mu 41e. Photo 14: From Photo Station 7 looking east towards Monitoring Plot 14 (slope) and Plot 15 (bench),year one. B -7 1 H-1031-02 iti j fi :. _ r, {.►E. . ,.4 ,.., 47:74irlft_iypr. tf .p_iii4,1,.. _.--,._=.• ,‘ ,f.-.-,6,-,,_,,,,...--.44-.,, trA rrijr„.14_,, Photo 15: From Photo Station 8 looking west up Springbrook Creek, baseline. * ` ..may,, • .w{,'�4r � . • - h:•. -.. _ •`y 4 4 - ,� .+ •,' "..f. % t • tt r1 'tip Y r 41 : • (_•__• • ra r Photo 16: From Photo Station 8 looking west up Springbrook Creek,year one. B -8 - H-1031-02 (11 H-1031-02 SECOND YEAR MONITORING REPORT OAKESDALE BUSINESS CAMPUS Renton, Washington November 2001 Zelman Development Company 707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 3036 Los Angeles, Califirnia 90017 • • DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON NOV 28 2001 RECEIVED THERESA R. HENSON CONSULTING Assessment, Management and Regulatory Permitting P.O. BOX 7208 TACOMA, WASHINGTON 98406 (253)756-0370 FAX:(253)756-0155 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 1 3.0 ANNUAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS 2 4.0 METHODS 3 4.1 Vegetation Sampling 3 4.2 Hydrology 4 4.3 Permanent Photo Stations 4 5.0 RESULTS 4 5.1 Vegetation Sampling 4 5.2 Hydrology 5 5.3 Permanent Photo Stations 5 5.4 Habitat Conditions and Wildlife Use 6 6.0 CONCLUSIONS 6 7.0 CLOSURE 6 LIST OF TABLES Table No. l Herbaceous Species Quadrat Data 2 Hydrologic Data LIST OF FIGURES Figure No. 1 Vicinity Map 2 Monitoring Layout APPENDICES Appendix A Monitoring Data Sheets(A-1 to A-22) Appendix B Photographs (B-1 to B-9) H-1031-02 SECOND YEAR MONITORING REPORT OAKESDALE BUSINESS CAMPUS RENTON, WASHINGTON 1.0 INTRODUCTION The name of my company has changed from Natural Resource Consulting to Theresa R. Henson Consulting, therefore, this and future reports will use the new company name. Theresa R. Henson Consulting has completed the second year monitoring at the Oakesdale Business Campus located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of SW 43'Street and Oakesdale Avenue SW in Renton, Washington(Figure 1). This report presents the results of the second year conditions along Springbrook Creek, and observed compliance with agreed performance standards for this wetland mitigation project. The Wetland A buffer was planted this spring. Construction of the wetland mitigation portion of this project began July 16th, 1999 and final planting along Springbrook Creek was completed on October 18th, 1999. Twelve of the logs placed below the ordinary highwater mark but above the summer water levels in the stream have been moved into the water. Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife and the King County Drainage District staked the logs to be moved and where they were to be moved. Approximately 27,911 square feet of wetland has been created along Springbrook Creek, 17,600 square feet along a ten-foot wide bench and 10,311 square feet in two wetland mitigation areas adjacent to the bench. The area along Springbrook Creek was cleared after placement of a silt fence along the ordinary high water mark of the creek. Some trees were retained along the ordinary high water mark between 150 and 350 feet down the creek. The bench and two mitigation areas were excavated. The log and root wad habitat features were placed,the entire area was planted with shrub, and tree vegetation as indicated on the plans, and the area was seeded. 2.0 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The goal of this wetland mitigation project is to create 27,911 square feet of wetland and associated buffer that will transition over time to a multistory forested, shrub-scrub, and emergent plant community. To achieve this goal for the mitigation site, monitoring in 2000 and the next four years will be conducted for: 1. Survival of tree and shrub plantings. 2. Cover of emergent plant species in the seeded wetland area. 3. Inundation or saturation of the soils achieved during final grading. Monitor was completed in October of 2001 using the methods described in Section 4.0 of this report and will include. H-1031-02 1 1. Establishment of permanent vegetation plots to monitor survival, changes in plant species composition, percent cover by species over time, and hydrologic conditions. The canopy coverage method of Daubenmire will be used for herbaceous plants. Tree and shrub density will be evaluated using plots that were established within the wetland mitigation areas, the bench, and the buffer slopes. Plot sizes were determined by establishing a goal of sampling 10 percent of the mitigation area. Plot locations were established in the field and located to reflect differences in hydrologic regime, plant distribution, and overall mitigation area conditions. 2. Establishment of photo stations to collect a sequence of photographs. These photographs will be used to evaluate vegetation community response over time. 3. Measurement of water levels in the early and late growing seasons to determine if inundation is present at the permanent sampling plots. If the area is not inundated, an auger hole will be dug to determine if water or saturated soils are near the surface. 4. Observation of the wetland mitigation area for excessive erosion, scour, or sedimentation that may affect the health and/or diversity of the overall wetland mitigation area. 5. Observation and reporting of wildlife use in the wetland mitigation area. 3.0 ANNUAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS The five-year monitoring program prescribed for this wetland mitigation project includes two site visits in the first year and one visit in each of the following four years. A report documenting the findings of the monitoring efforts will be completed and submitted to the City of Renton and the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife by December of each of the monitoring years. Performance standards provide measurements to gage the progress of the project periodically, and to identify remedial actions necessary to meet the final success criteria. For this mitigation project, we propose to use the health of vegetation and the presence of water to gage the progress of the project. The planted wetland and buffer species will be monitored for vigor and survival. The overall target survival rate per year will be 80 percent of planted shrub and tree species, as measured in representative plots. If it is determined that planted tree and shrub species are being replaced or out-competed by native wetland shrubs or trees that grow voluntarily, the success criteria will be met only if the number of volunteer and planted shrub and tree species in the mitigation area meet or exceed the number of shrub and tree plants required in the area for that year. The wetland area must contain inundated or saturated soils during a portion of the growing season. If these performance standards are not met, the cause of the failure to meet the performance standard will be evaluated, and action will be taken to rectify the problem until the objectives are achieved. H-1031-02 2 An annual breakdown of the performance standards for the project includes: Year 1 80 percent survival of planted species Year 2 80 percent survival of species that survived the first year Year 3 80 percent survival of species that survived the second year Year 4 80 percent survival of species that survived the third year Year 5 80 percent areal cover of self-sustaining, non-invasive wetland species 4.0 METHODS Field monitoring and recording took place on October 10t, 2001. During this time, the weather conditions were cool and rainy. Vegetation and hydrologic conditions were measured in twenty- two plots. Plots 21 and 22 were added to monitor the Wetland A buffer that was planted this spring. Photographs were taken from ten permanently marked locations. 4.1 Vegetation Sampling Tree and shrub vegetation was sampled in twenty-two plots. Six of the plots were within the wetland, five were on the bench, nine were on the wetland buffer slopes, and two were in the Wetland A buffer. Herbaceous vegetation was also monitored within the wetland and bench plots. The location of each plot was chosen to reflect observed differences in plant communities and topography on the site. The corners of each of the plots were permanently marked with rebar posts hammered into the ground. The upper left rebar post of each plot was then tagged with a plot number. Figure 2 details the layout for the twenty-two plots. During baseline monitoring the number of each species originally planted is noted and the number of species present during monitoring was counted and recorded for each plot. During subsequent years the number of each species planted, the number of each species counted that year, and the percent cover of each species will be determined for each plot. Mortality, survival rate and total cover will be calculated for the project as prescribed for the success criteria. Herbaceous vegetation was monitored using 1-square meter quadrats. The quadrats used for this analysis were rectangular, 1-square meter in area, PVC frames constructed on a 2:1 dimensional ratio. The short side of the rectangle measured 0.71 meter and the long side measured 1.42 meters. The upper left corner of the quadrat was placed at the tagged rebar post with the short side of the rectangle approximately parallel with Springbrook Creek. Herbaceous vegetation was monitored within the wetland and bench areas at Plots 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15, 17, and 19. Cover was visually estimated at each of the 1-square meter quadrats and assigned a cover class designation. Only plants rooted within the quadrat were included in coverage estimates. Since leaf surfaces may overlap, even when measuring a single vegetative stratum, the summation of cover values for a single quadrat may be greater than 100 percent. A total of eight cover class H-1031-02 3 designations were chosen for this estimate. Coverage class designations are presented below. These designations also correspond to numbers indicated on Table 1. 0 =No individual plants observed in plot 4 = 26 to 50 percent cover 1 = One individual plant observed in plot 5 = 51 to 75 percent cover 2 = 1 to 5 percent cover 6 = 76 to 90 percent cover 3 = 6 to 25 percent cover 7 = 91 to 100 percent cover 4.2 Hydrology Water level readings were taken in the upper left corner of each of the wetland and bench plots identified on Figure 2. If the area was not inundated, an auger hole was dug to determine if water or saturated soils were near the surface. 4.3 Permanent Photo Stations Ten permanent photo stations were established at this site and are marked with rebar (Figure 2). The photo stations include views up and down Springbrook Creek and at representative plots. Photographs taken from these photo stations are included in Appendix B of this report. 5.0 RESULTS This report is to be used primarily for comparative purposes and as a report outline for subsequent monitoring years. Data presented in Appendices A and B may be directly compared with data gathered during successive growing seasons. 5.1 Vegetation Sampling Appendix A presents data gathered for the shrub and tree species for each of the monitoring plots. The monitoring plots showed that salal was not represented in the wetland buffer area. Further investigation indicated that salal has not survived in the wetland buffer throughout the site. All species planted within the wetland mitigation site were represented. Seeded shrub species were not observed within the plots. Elderberry seedlings were observed outside of the plots in several areas. Oregon grape and service berry seedings were not observed during monitoring. Kinnikinnick was planted in the areas where the sidewalks are completed. Data gathered in the second year study indicates that the planted vegetation is surviving quite well and more than meets the 80% survival for the first year. The overall survival of the planted species in the monitoring plots for the first year was 96%. Red Alder (Alnus rubra) and two Cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) were observed as volunteer species within several of the plots. The dozens of alders noted on the data forms were not counted for the survival rate. Plots 10 (55%) and 14 (80%) had the lowest percent survival. They also had the lowest percent cover Plot 10, 5%, and Plot 14, 15%. Some fir trees have been donated to my mitigation projects and at least 10 will be planted in or near each of these plots in the winter of 2001. H-1031-02 4 Table 1 presents the species, cover of each species, and percent frequency in the herbaceous monitoring quadrats. Originally, the wetland and bench areas were seeded with Glyceria elata, Poa palustris, Carex rostrata, Carex obnupta, Juncus ensifolius, Juncus bufonius, Scirpus microcarpus, Ranunculus repens, and Potentilla palustris. Wildlife had been grazing on the herbaceous species present in the mitigation area; therefore, we were unable to distinguish specific species of Carex, and Juncus. Overall the seeded species were well represented in the quadrats with the exception of Glyceria and Scirpus. Glyceria and Scirpus did not appear to be present in the mitigation area, and may not have found this site suitable for growth. Trifolium repens (white clover) was seeded on the slopes above the wetland and bench areas, and is present in all of the quadrats but has less cover than in the previous year, as expected. Over time it is expected that the wetland species planted will increase in frequency in the quadrats and the clover will decrease. Overall the Agrostis and Holcus have decreased in frequency and the Carex, Poa, and Ranunculus have increased in percent frequency. Four other species are also present in the quadrats Agrostis spp., Holcus lanatus, Lotus corniculatus, and Polygonum persicaria. The quadrats and project site are being monitored for the presence of Reed Canarygrass. Reed Canarygrass is not present within the actual project site. It is present along the lower banks of Springbrook Creek as it was at the beginning of the project. 5.2 Hydrology The created wetland system was designed to have the bench and wetland areas inundated during flood events and the site soils saturated for at least the first three to four months of the growing season(March, April, May and possibly June). The water depth and the degree of fluctuation throughout the year will dictate the survival rate of the planted species and the nature of any volunteer species that take root in the wetland. During the March 28, 2000, site visit it was noted that the benches and wetlands were underwater during the late winter and early spring floods. Water on the benches was between one to three feet in depth(based on debris on the log structures and trees). Flooding did not dislodge the log structures nor the planted vegetation. During the October 10, 2001, monitoring, water levels within the wetland and bench varied from three inches of inundation to soil saturation at a depth of eight inches below the surface (Table 2). Several areas within the wetland mitigation project appear to be inundated or saturated to the surface year round. A drive by of the site on November 19, 2001, during heavy rain storms indicated that up to two feet of water was present in the wetland and within the bench areas. 5.3 Permanent Photo Stations The ten photographs taken during baseline monitoring clearly show the completed wetland through systematically selected stations. Two photo stations were added to the Wetland A buffer planted this spring.. The ten photographs taken during the second year of monitoring show the healthy growth of the planted species. Station location are identified on Figure 2. The photographs taken from these photo stations are included in Appendix B of this report. H-1031-02 5 5.4 Habitat Conditions and Wildlife Use Habitat conditions are rudimentary within the created wetland and its buffer at this time but will continue to diversify as the plant communities develop. Song birds and red legged frogs were observed in the mitigation area. A Great Blue Heron and mallards were observed feeding in the created wetland during monitoring. A Muskrat was also observed in the western portion of the wetland. Use of the created wetland by wildlife is not the focus of this monitoring program, but observations of species in this mitigation area will be included in subsequent reports. 6.0 CONCLUSIONS Overall, the wetland and bench areas presently display wetland conditions. Sufficient surface saturation is promoting the dominance of hydrophytic vegetation. The overall plant cover is greater than 80 percent and the mitigation site meets the annual success criteria. Some of the species of plants observed were prescribed in the initial wetland mitigation plan, and others have established on their own in this area. This natural invasion of native species is considered beneficial to the long-term stability of this wetland mitigation effort, since these species may display a particular propensity to thrive in the newly created environment. 7.0 CLOSURE The findings and conclusions documented in this report have been prepared for specific applica- tion to this project. They have been developed in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill normally exercised by members of the environmental science profession currently practicing under similar conditions in the area. The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are professional opinions based on interpretation of information currently available to us, and are made within the operational scope, budget, and schedule constraints of this project. No warranty, either express or implied, is made. Please contact us if you have any questions. THERESA R. HENSON CONSULTING li . Theresa R. Henson Natural Resource Ecologist I1-01/H 1031-02.RP2-trh H-1031-02 6 TABLE 1 HERBACEOUS SPECIES QUADRAT DATA Species Year Plot Plot Plot Plot Plot Plot Plot Plot Plot Plot Plot Percent 2 3 5 7 9 11 12 13 15 17 19 Frequency Agrostis 2001 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 55 Carex spp. 2001 0 2 2 1 0 0 3 0 2 2 0 55 Holcus lanatus 2001 3 2 3 2 0 1 2 1 1 2 2 91 Juncus spp. 2001 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 3 2 2 0 91 Lotus corniculatus 2001 0 2 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 36 Poa palustris 2001 2 0 0 3 4 2 2 2 5 0 2 73 Polygonum persicaria 2001 0 1 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 36 Potentilla pacifica 2001 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 27 Ranunculus repens 2001 2 3 0 3 2 0 4 4 2 2 5 82 Trifolium repens 2001 3 4 4 2 3 3 1 1 1 2 2 100 Note: Only wetland plots were monitored for herbaceous cover. Plots not included here are wetland buffer plots. 0 =No individual plants observed in plot 4 =26 to 50 percent cover 1 =One individual plant observed in plot 5 = 51 to 75 percent cover 2 = 1 to 5 percent cover 6 = 76 to 90 percent cover 3 =6 to 25 percent cover 7 = 91 to 100 percent cover H-1031-02 7 TABLE 2 HYDROLOGIC DATA YEAR 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Two slope 8"S 2"I slope 6"S slope 8"S slope 8"S slope 2"I 3"I 2"I slope 1"S slope 4"S slope 4"S One slope 10"S 2"I slope 8"S slope 9"S slope 10"S slope 2"I 1"I 1"I slope 1"S slope 6"S slope 10"S Baseline slope 1"S 1"I slope 6"S slope 8"S slope 6"S slope 1"I 2"I 2"I slope 1"I slope 2"S slope 8"S Note: S = saturated below ground surface, I = inundated, slope=no data gathered within buffer. H-1031-02 8 27TH iii .1� 3 29THp a 14:1ei r t LL►� 33RD �k� .„ S34TH a-�s'c a ,. ' �. :J: : i lz/ 38TH s 5 r E �.- O �',�� W z z 4 39TH -a ....... i 0 41sT r 685 `i rr � It V N 68 3RLJ l/ N- 181ST r ,. tom 182ND _lfitt 5- W4 .. CP r 184TH y- g C] a4 cv 18&THz \\.: z ,ri'�'�#�-,� 188TH �: 87TH a:= :vim -€y, ' + N Oakesdale Business Campus A Renton,Washington Approximate scale 1 inch to 4,800 feet VICINITY MAP September 2000 H-1031-02 PP FIG. 1 anageNatural Resource Consulting Note: Map adapted from The Thomas Guide, 1995. wa � o��c and Regu�uory r�mnmg 8 / r Pei er%i lonitosy 3.4 4 • 2 *4 Oakesdale Business Campus Renton, Washington MONITORING LAYOUT September 2000 H-1031-02 Natural Resource Consulting FIG. 2 Assessment,Management and Regulatory Permitting 1• �� q is' N a O Approximate Scale L !0 Photo Station • Monitoring Plot Oak dale Business Campus Renton,Washington W e-1-10_,\A A U (e c� MONITORING LAYOUT September 2000 H-1031-02 Natural Resource Consulting FIG. 2!} es.e.sooml.Neeyeost mad ResplMnfr-_. uR APPENDIX A MONITORING DATA SHEETS H-1031-02 SECOND YEAR MONITORING DATA SHEET OAKESDALE BUSINESS PARK Plot#: 1,slope Date: October 10,2001 Examiner: TRH Plot Size: 20'x30' Species Planted Counted Counted % Cover Year Two Year One Year Two Big leaf maple(Acer macrophylum) Cottonwood(Populus trichocarpa) 1 1 1 Trace Douglas fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii) 2 2 2 10 Oregon ash(Fraxinus latifolia) Quaking aspen(Populus tremuloides) Vine maple(Acre circinatum) Western red cedar(Thuja plicata) ' Pacific willow(Salix lasiandra) Sitka willow(Salix sitchensis) Black twinberry(Lonicera involucrata) Evergreen huckleberry(Vaccinium ovatum) Indian plum(Oemieria cerasiformis) Kinnikinnick(Arctostaphylos uva-ursi) Ninebark(Physocarpus capitatus) 9 7 6 15 Oceanspray(Holodiscus discolor) Red flowering currant(Ribes sagnuineum) 2 2 2 Trace Red-osier dogwood(Corpus stolonifera) Salal (Gaultheria shallon) 1 0 0 Snowberry(Symphoricarpus albus) Sword fern(Polystichum munitum) Total: 15 12 11 25 NOTES: 5%cover increase since year one. 99%survival year 1 to year 2. H-1031-02 A -1 SECOND YEAR MONITORING DATA SHEET OAKESDALE BUSINESS PARK Plot#: 2,wetland Date: October 10,2001 Examiner: TRH Plot Size: 10'x30' Species Planted Counted Counted % Cover Year Two Year One Year Two Big leaf maple(Acer macrophylum) Cottonwood(Populus trichocarpa) 6 6 3 15 Douglas fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii) Oregon ash(Fraxinus latifolia) Quaking aspen(Populus tremuloides) Vine maple(Acre circinatum) Western red cedar(Thuja plicata) 3 3 3 20 Pacific willow(Salix lasiandra) Sitka willow(Salix sitchensis) 1 1 6 20 Black twinberry(Lonicera involucrata) 1 1 1 Trace Evergreen huckleberry(Vaccinium ovatum) Indian plum(Oemieria cerasiformis) Kinnikinnick(Arctostaphylos uva-ursi) Ninebark(Physocarpus capitatus) 2 2 2 5 Oceanspray(Holodiscus discolor) Red flowering currant(Ribes sagnuineum) Red-osier dogwood(Cornus stolonifera) Salal (Gaultheria shallon) Snowberry(Symphoricarpus albus) Sword fern(Polystichum munitum) Total: 13 14 with 16 with Alder 60 NOTES: 20%cover increase since Alder volunteer year one. Willow have sprouted from volunteer fascine,therefore,>100% survival. H-1031-02 A -2 SECOND YEAR MONITORING DATA SHEET OAKESDALE BUSINESS PARK Plot#:3,wetland Date: October 10,2001 Examiner: TRH Plot Size: 20'x30' Species Counted Counted % Cover Year Two Planted Year One Year Two Big leaf maple(Acer macrophylum) Cottonwood(Populus trichocarpa) 5 4 4 20 Douglas fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii) Oregon ash(Fraxinus latifolia) Quaking aspen(Populus tremuloides) 2 2 2 5 Vine maple(Acre circinatum) Western red cedar(Thuja plicata) Pacific willow(Salix lasiandra) 2 2 2 10 Sitka willow(Salix sitchensis) Black twinberry(Lonicera involucrata) 8 8 8 20 Evergreen huckleberry(Vaccinium ovatum) Indian plum(Oemieria cerasiformis) Kinnikinnick(Arctostaphylos uva-ursi) Ninebark(Physocarpus capitatus) 15 15 15 25 Oceanspray(Holodiscus discolor) Red flowering currant(Ribes sagnuineum) Red-osier dogwood(Cornus stolonifera) 3 3 3 5 Salal(Gaultheria shallon) Snowberry(Symphoricarpus albus) Sword fern(Polystichum munitum) Total: 35 34 34 85 NOTES: Dozens of alder volunteers. 15% cover increase since year one. 100% survival year 1 to year 2. H-1031-02 A-3 SECOND YEAR MONITORING DATA SHEET OAKESDALE BUSINESS PARK Plot#: 4,slope Date: October 10,2001 Examiner: TRH Plot Size: 20'x30' Species Planted Counted Counted % Cover Year Two Year One Year Two ' Big leaf maple(Acer macrophylum) Cottonwood(Populus trichocarpa) 1 volunteer 1 Douglas fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii) 2 2 2 15 Oregon ash(Fraxinus latifolia) Quaking aspen(Populus tremuloides) Vine maple(Acre circinatum) Western red cedar(Thuja plicata) 2 2 2 5 Pacific willow(Salix lasiandra) Sitka willow(Salix sitchensis) Black twinberry(Lonicera involucrata) Evergreen huckleberry(Vaccinium ovatum) Indian plum(Oemieria cerasiformis) Kinnikinnick(Arctostaphylos uva-ursi) Ninebark(Physocarpus capitatus) 5 4 4 10 Oceanspray(Holodiscus discolor) Red flowering currant(Ribes sagnuineum) 2 1 1 Trace Red-osier dogwood(Cornus stolonifera) Salal (Gaultheria shallon) 3 0 0 Snowberry(Symphoricarpus albus) Sword fern(Polystichum munitum) 1 1 0 Trace Total: 15 11 with 10 with 30 NOTES: 10%cover increase since year volunteer volunteer one. 90% survival year 1 to year 2. H-1031-02 A-4 SECOND YEAR MONITORING DATA SHEET OAKESDALE BUSINESS PARK Plot#: 5,bench Date: October 10,2001 Examiner: TRH Plot Size: 10'x30' Species Planted Counted Counted % Cover Year One Year Two _ Big leaf maple(Acer macrophylum) Cottonwood(Populus trichocarpa) Douglas fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii) Oregon ash(Fraxinus latifolia) Quaking aspen(Populus tremuloides) 4 4 4 20 Vine maple(Acre circinatum) Western red cedar(Thuja plicata) 2 2 2 15 Pacific willow(Salix lasiandra) Sitka willow(Salix sitchensis) Black twinberry(Lonicera involucrata) Evergreen huckleberry(Vaccinium ovatum) Indian plum(Oemieria cerasiformis) Kinnikinnick(Arctostaphylos uva-ursi) Ninebark(Physocarpus capitatus) Oceanspray(Holodiscus discolor) Red flowering currant(Ribes sagnuineum) Red-osier dogwood(Cornus stolonifera) Salal (Gaultheria shallon) Snowberry(Symphoricarpus albus) Sword fern(Polystichum munitum) Total: 6 6 6 35 NOTES: 15%cover increase since year one. 100%survival year 1 to year 2. H-1031-02 A-5 SECOND YEAR MONITORING DATA SHEET OAKESDALE BUSINESS PARK Plot#: 6,slope Date: October 10,2001 Examiner: TRH Plot Size: 20'x30' Species Planted Counted Counted % Cover Year Two Year One Year Two Big leaf maple(Acer macrophylum) Cottonwood(Populus trichocarpa) Douglas fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii) 1 1 1 5 Oregon ash(Fraxinus latifolia) Quaking aspen(Populus tremuloides) Vine maple(Acre circinatum) 1 0 0 Western red cedar(Thuja plicata) 2 2 2 15 Pacific willow(Salix lasiandra) Sitka willow(Salix sitchensis) Black twinberry(Lonicera involucrata) Evergreen huckleberry(Vaccinium ovatum) 2 0 0 Indian plum(Oemieria cerasiformis) Kinnikinnick(Arctostaphylos uva-ursi) Ninebark(Physocarpus capitatus) Oceanspray(Holodiscus discolor) Red flowering currant(Ribes sagnuineum) Red-osier dogwood(Cornus stolonifera) 3 3 3 10 Salal (Gaultheria shallon) 4 0 0 Snowberry(Symphoricarpus albus) Sword fern(Polystichum munitum) 2 2 2 Trace Total: 15 8 8 30 NOTES: 10%cover increase since year one. 100% survival year 1 to year 2. H-1031-02 A-6 SECOND YEAR MONITORING DATA SHEET OAKESDALE BUSINESS PARK Plot#: 7, bench Date: October 10,2001 Examiner: TRH Plot Size: 10'x30' Species Planted Counted Counted % Cover Year Two Year One Year Two Big leaf maple(Acer macrophylum) Cottonwood(Populus trichocarpa) Douglas fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii) Oregon ash(Fraxinus latifolia) 2 2 2 10 Quaking aspen(Populus tremuloides) 3 3 3 15 Vine maple(Acre circinatum) Western red cedar(Thuja plicata) 2 2 2 10 Pacific willow(Salix lasiandra) Sitka willow(Salix sitchensis) Black twinberry(Lonicera involucrata) Evergreen huckleberry(Vaccinium ovatum) Indian plum(Oemieria cerasiformis) Kinnikinnick(Arctostaphylos uva-ursi) Ninebark(Physocarpus capitatus) Oceanspray(Holodiscus discolor) Red flowering currant(Ribes sagnuineum) Red-osier dogwood(Corms stolonifera) Salal (Gaultheria shallon) Snowberry(Symphoricarpus albus) Sword fern(Polystichum munitum) Total: 7 7 7 35 NOTES: 10%cover increase since year one. 100% survival year 1 to year 2. H-1031-02 A-7 SECOND YEAR MONITORING DATA SHEET OAKESDALE BUSINESS PARK Plot#: 8,slope Date: October 10,2001 Examiner: TRH Plot Size: 20'x30' Species Planted Counted Counted % Cover Year Two Year One Year Two Big leaf maple(Acer macrophylum) Cottonwood(Populus trichocarpa) Douglas fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii) 2 2 2 15 Oregon ash(Fraxinus latifolia) Quaking aspen(Populus tremuloides) Vine maple(Acre circinatum) Western red cedar(Thuja plicata) 1 1 1 5 Pacific willow(Salix lasiandra) Sitka willow(Salix sitchensis) Black twinberry(Lonicera involucrata) Evergreen huckleberry(Vaccinium ovatum) Indian plum(Oemieria cerasiformis) 4 4 4 5 Kinnikinnick(Arctostaphylos uva-ursi) Ninebark(Physocarpus capitatus) Oceanspray(Holodiscus discolor) 1 0 0 Red flowering currant(Ribes sagnuineum) Red-osier dogwood(Cornus stolonifera) Salal(Gaultheria shallon) 4 0 0 Snowberry(Symphoricarpus albus) Sword fern(Polystichum munitum) 1 1 1 Trace Total: 13 8 8 25 NOTES: 5%cover increase since year one. 100%survival year 1 to year 2. H-1031-02 A -8 SECOND YEAR MONITORING DATA SHEET OAKESDALE BUSINESS PARK Plot#: 9, bench Date: October 10,2001 Examiner: TRH Plot Size: 10'x30' Species Planted Counted Counted % Cover Year Two Year One Year Two Big leaf maple(Acer macrophylum) Cottonwood(Populus trichocarpa) 1 volunteer Trace Douglas fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii) Oregon ash(Fraxinus latifolia) 4 4 4 15 Quaking aspen(Populus tremuloides) 4 4 4 15 Vine maple(Acre circinatum) Western red cedar(Thuja plicata) 1 1 1 5 Pacific willow(Salix lasiandra) Sitka willow(Salix sitchensis) Black twinberry(Lonicera involucrata) Evergreen huckleberry(Vaccinium ovatum) Indian plum(Oemieria cerasiformis) Kinnikinnick(Arctostaphylos uva-ursi) Ninebark(Physocarpus capitatus) Oceanspray(Holodiscus discolor) Red flowering currant(Ribes sagnuineum) Red-osier dogwood(Cornus stolonifera) Sala] (Gaultheria shallon) Snowberry(Symphoricarpus albus) Sword fern (Polystichum munitum) Total: 9 9 10 35 NOTES: 10%cover increase since year one. >100%survival year 1 to year 2. H-1031-02 A-9 SECOND YEAR MONITORING DATA SHEET OAKESDALE BUSINESS PARK Plot#: 10,slope Date: October 10,2001 Examiner: TRH Plot Size: 20'x30' Species Planted Counted Counted % Cover Year Two Year One Year Two Big leaf maple(Acer macrophylum) 1 1 1 Trace Cottonwood(Populus trichocarpa) Douglas fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii) Oregon ash(Fraxinus latifolia) Quaking aspen(Populus tremuloides) Vine maple(Acre circinatum) 1 1 1 Trace Western red cedar(Thuja plicata) 1 1 1 Trace Pacific willow(Salix lasiandra) Sitka willow(Salix sitchensis) Black twinberry(Lonicera involucrata) Evergreen huckleberry(Vaccinium ovatum) Indian plum(Oemieria cerasiformis) 1 1 0 Kinnikinnick(Arctostaphylos uva-ursi) Ninebark(Physocarpus capitatus) Oceanspray(Holodiscus discolor) 1 0 0 Red flowering currant(Ribes sagnuineum) 3 3 0 Red-osier dogwood(Cornus stolonifera) 2 2 2 Trace Salal (Gaultheria shallon) 4 0 0 Snowberry(Symphoricarpus albus) Sword fern(Polystichum munitum) 4 2 1 Trace Total: 18 11 6 about 5 NOTES: 0%cover increase since year one. 55% survival year 1 to year 2. Some fir trees have been donated to my mitigation projects and at least 10 will be planted on this slope in the winter of 2001. H-1031-02 A-10 SECOND YEAR MONITORING DATA SHEET OAKESDALE BUSINESS PARK Plot#: 11,wetland Date: October 10,2001 Examiner: TRH Plot Size: 10'x30' Species Planted Counted Counted % Cover Year One Year Two Big leaf maple(Acer macrophylum) Cottonwood(Populus trichocarpa) 1 1 1 Trace Douglas fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii) Oregon ash(Fraxinus latifolia) Quaking aspen(Populus tremuloides) Vine maple(Acre circinatum) Western red cedar(Thuja plicata) 2 2 2 10 Pacific willow(Salix lasiandra) Sitka willow(Salix sitchensis) 0 8 sprouts 8 30 Black twinberry(Lonicera involucrata) Evergreen huckleberry(Vaccinium ovatum) Indian plum(Oemieria cerasiformis) Kinnikinnick(Arctostaphylos uva-ursi) Ninebark(Physocarpus capitatus) 1 1 1 Trace Oceanspray (Holodiscus discolor) Red flowering currant(Ribes sagnuineum) Red-osier dogwood(Cornus stolonifera) 10 5 5 10 Salal (Gaultheria shallon) Snowberry(Symphoricarpus albus) Sword fern(Polystichum munitum) Total: 14 17 17 50 NOTES: 30%cover increase since year one. 100% survival year 1 to year 2. H-1031-02 A-11 SECOND YEAR MONITORING DATA SHEET OAKESDALE BUSINESS PARK Plot#: 12,wetland Date: October 10,2001 Examiner: TRH Plot Size: 20'x30' Species Planted Counted Counted % Cover Year One Year Two Big leaf maple(Acer macrophylum) Cottonwood(Populus trichocarpa) 1 1 1 Trace Douglas fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii) Oregon ash(Fraxinus latifolia) Quaking aspen(Populus tremuloides) 2 2 2 5 Vine maple(Acre circinatum) Western red cedar(Thuja plicata) 2 2 2 5 Pacific willow(Salix lasiandra) Sitka willow(Salix sitchensis) 3 3 3 15 Black twinberry(Lonicera involucrata) 7 7 7 15 Evergreen huckleberry(Vaccinium ovatum) Indian plum(Oemieria cerasiformis) Kinnikinnick(Arctostaphylos uva-ursi) Ninebark(Physocarpus capitatus) 14 14 14 35 Oceanspray(Holodiscus discolor) Red flowering currant(Ribes sagnuineum) Red-osier dogwood(Cornus stolonifera) 9 9 9 20 Salal (Gaultheria shallon) Snowberry(Symphoricarpus albus) Sword fern(Polystichum munitum) Total: 38 38 38 95 NOTES: 15%cover increase since year one. 100% survival year 1 to year 2. H-1031-02 A -12 SECOND YEAR MONITORING DATA SHEET OAKESDALE BUSINESS PARK Plot#: 13,wetland Date: October 10,2001 Examiner: TRH Plot Size: 20'x30' Species Planted Counted Counted % Cover Year One Year Two Big leaf maple(Acer macrophylum) Cottonwood(Populus trichocarpa) 3 1 1 Trace Douglas fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii) Oregon ash(Fraxinus latifolia) 4 4 4 10 1 Quaking aspen(Populus tremuloides) 3 3 3 10 Vine maple(Acre circinatum) Western red cedar(Thuja plicata) 2 2 2 10 Pacific willow(Salix lasiandra) Sitka willow(Salix sitchensis) 3 3 3 10 Black twinberry(Lonicera involucrata) 10 10 10 30 Evergreen huckleberry(Vaccinium ovatum) Indian plum(Oemieria cerasiformis) ' Kinnikinnick(Arctostaphylos uva-ursi) Ninebark(Physocarpus capitatus) 4 4 4 5 Oceanspray(Holodiscus discolor) Red flowering currant(Ribes sagnuineum) Red-osier dogwood(Cornus stolonifera) 7 7 7 15 Salal (Gaultheria shallon) Snowberry(Symphoricarpus albus) Sword fern(Polystichum munitum) Total: 36 34 34 90 NOTES: Dozens of alder volunteers. 20% cover increase since year one. 100% survival year 1 to year 2. H-1031-02 A-13 SECOND YEAR MONITORING DATA SHEET OAKESDALE BUSINESS PARK Plot#: 14,slope Date: October 10,2001 Examiner: TRH Plot Size: 20'x30' Species Planted Counted Counted % Cover Year One Year Two Big leaf maple(Acer macrophylum) 1 0 0 Cottonwood(Populus trichocarpa) Douglas fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii) 1 1 1 5 Oregon ash(Fraxinus latifolia) Quaking aspen(Populus tremuloides) Vine maple(Acre circinatum) 1 1 0 Western red cedar(Thuja plicata) 1 1 1 5 Pacific willow(Salix lasiandra) Sitka willow(Salix sitchensis) Black twinberry(Lonicera involucrata) Evergreen huckleberry(Vaccinium ovatum) Indian plum(Oemieria cerasiformis) Kinnikinnick(Arctostaphylos uva-ursi) Ninebark(Physocarpus capitatus) Oceanspray(Holodiscus discolor) 2 2 2 5 Red flowering currant(Ribes sagnuineum) Red-osier dogwood(Cornus stolonifera) Salal(Gaultheria shallon) Snowberry(Symphoricarpus albus) Sword fern(Polystichum munitum) Total: 6 5 4 15 NOTES: 5%cover increase since year one. 80% survival year 1 to year 2. Some fir trees have been donated to my mitigation projects and at least 10 will be planted on this slope in the winter of 2001. H-1031-02 A -14 SECOND YEAR MONITORING DATA SHEET OAKESDALE BUSINESS PARK Plot#: 15,wetland Date: October 10,2001 Examiner: TRH Plot Size: 10'x30' Species Planted Counted Counted % Cover Year One Year Two Big leaf maple(Acer macrophylum) Cottonv*ood(Populus trichocarpa) 1 0 0 Douglas fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii) Oregon ash(Fraxinus latifolia) Quaking aspen(Populus tremuloides) Vine maple(Acre circinatum) Western red cedar(Thuja plicata) Pacific willow(Salix lasiandra) Sitka willow(Salix sitchensis) 1 1 2 10 Black twinberry(Lonicera involucrata) Evergreen huckleberry(Vaccinium ovatum) Indian plum(Oemieria cerasiformis) Kinnikinnick(Arctostaphylos uva-ursi) Ninebark(Physocarpus capitatus) 1 1 1 Trace Oceanspray(Holodiscus discolor) Red flowering currant(Ribes sagnuineum) Red-osier dogwood(Cornus stolonifera) 8 7 7 30 Salal(Gaultheria shallon) Snowberry(Symphoricarpus albus) Sword fern(Polystichum munitum) Total: 11 9 10 40 NOTES: 20%cover increase since year one. 100%plus survival year 1 to year 2. H-1031-02 A -15 SECOND YEAR MONITORING DATA SHEET OAKESDALE BUSINESS PARK Plot#: 16,slope Date: October 10,2001 Examiner: TRH Plot Size: 20'x30' Species Planted Counted Counted % Cover Year One Year Two Big leaf maple(Acer macrophylum) Cottonwood(Populus trichocarpa) Douglas fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii) 2 2 2 10 Oregon ash(Fraxinus latifolia) Quaking aspen(Populus tremuloides) Vine maple(Acre circinatum) Western red cedar(Thuja plicata) 1 1 1 5 Pacific willow(Salix lasiandra) Sitka willow(Salix sitchensis) Black twinberry(Lonicera involucrata) Evergreen huckleberry(Vaccinium ovatum) 3 1 1 Trace Indian plum(Oemieria cerasiformis) Kinnikinnick(Arctostaphylos uva-ursi) Ninebark(Physocarpus capitatus) Oceanspray(Holodiscus discolor) 1 0 0 Red flowering currant(Ribes sagnuineum) 3 2 2 5 Red-osier dogwood(Corms stolonifera) Salal(Gaultheria shallon) Snowberry(Symphoricarpus albus) 4 3 3 5 Sword fern(Polystichum munitum) 2 2 1 Trace Total: 16 11 10 25+ NOTES: 5%cover increase since year one. 91%survival year 1 to year 2. H-1031-02 A -16 SECOND YEAR MONITORING DATA SHEET OAKESDALE BUSINESS PARK Plot#: 17,bench Date: October 10,2001 Examiner: TRH Plot Size: 10'x30' Species Planted Counted Counted % Cover Year Two Year Two Big leaf maple(Acer macrophylum) Cottonwood(Populus trichocarpa) Douglas fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii) Oregon ash(Fraxinus latifolia) 5 4 4 15 Quaking aspen(Populus tremuloides) 3 3 3 15 Vine maple(Acre circinatum) Western red cedar(Thuja plicata) Pacific willow(Salix lasiandra) Sitka willow(Salix sitchensis) Black twinberry(Lonicera involucrata) Evergreen huckleberry(Vaccinium ovatum) Indian plum(Oemieria cerasiformis) Kinnikinnick(Arctostaphylos uva-ursi) Ninebark(Physocarpus capitatus) Oceanspray(Holodiscus discolor) Red flowering currant(Ribes sagnuineum) Red-osier dogwood(Cornus stolonifera) Salal(Gaultheria shallon) Snowberry(Symphoricarpus albus) Sword fern(Polystichum munitum) Total: 8 7 7 30 NOTES: 10%cover increase since year one. 100% survival year 1 to year 2. H-1031-02 A-17 SECOND YEAR MONITORING DATA SHEET OAKESDALE BUSINESS PARK Plot#: 18,slope Date: October 10,2001 Examiner: TRH Plot Size: 20'x30' Species Planted Counted Counted % Cover Year One Year Two Big leaf maple(Acer macrophylum) Cottonwood(Populus trichocarpa) Douglas fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii) 2 2 2 10 Oregon ash(Fraxinus latifolia) Quaking aspen(Populus tremuloides) Vine maple(Acre circinatum) 3 3 3 10 Western red cedar(Thuja plicata) 2 2 2 10 Pacific willow(Salix lasiandra) Sitka willow(Salix sitchensis) Black twinberry(Lonicera involucrata) Evergreen huckleberry(Vaccinium ovatum) Indian plum(Oemieria cerasiformis) Kinnikinnick(Arctostaphylos uva-ursi) Ninebark(Physocarpus capitatus) 4 3 3 5 Oceanspray(Holodiscus discolor) Red flowering currant(Ribes sagnuineum) 2 2 2 5 Red-osier dogwood(Cornus stolonifera) 3 have cover 5 in plot Salal(Gaultheria shallon) 2 0 0 Snowberry(Symphoricarpus albus) Sword fern(Polystichum munitum) 6 4 4 5 Total: 21 16 16 50 NOTES: 30%cover increase since year one. 100%survival year 1 to year 2. Dogwood is rooted outside the plot but has cover in the plot. H-1031-02 A -18 SECOND YEAR MONITORING DATA SHEET OAKESDALE BUSINESS PARK Plot#: 19,bench Date: October 10,2001 Examiner: TRH Plot Size: 10'x30' Species Planted Counted Counted % Cover Year One Year Two Big leaf maple(Acer macrophylum) Cottonwood(Populus trichocarpa) 0 1 1 5 volunteer Douglas fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii) Oregon ash(Fraxinus latifolia) 4 4 4 15 Quaking aspen(Populus tremuloides) 5 5 5 15 Vine maple(Acre circinatum) Western red cedar(Thuja plicata) Pacific willow(Salix lasiandra) Sitka willow(Salix sitchensis) Black twinberry(Lonicera involucrata) Evergreen huckleberry(Vaccinium ovatum) Indian plum(Oemieria cerasiformis) Kinnikinnick(Arctostaphylos uva-ursi) Ninebark(Physocarpus capitatus) Oceanspray(Holodiscus discolor) Red flowering currant(Ribes sagnuineum) Red-osier dogwood(Cornus stolonifera) Salal(Gaultheria shallon) Snowberry(Symphoricarpus albus) Sword fern(Polystichum munitum) Total: 9 10 10 35 NOTES: 10%cover increase since year one. 100%survival year 1 to year 2. H-1031-02 A-19 SECOND YEAR MONITORING DATA SHEET OAKESDALE BUSINESS PARK Plot#: 20,slope Date: October 10,2001 Examiner: TRH Plot Size: 5'x10' Species Planted Counted Counted % Cover Year One Year Two Big leaf maple(Acer macrophylum) Cottonwood(Populus trichocarpa) Douglas fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii) Oregon ash(Fraxinus latifolia) Quaking aspen(Populus tremuloides) Vine maple(Acre circinatum) Western red cedar(Thuja plicata) Pacific willow(Salix lasiandra) Sitka willow(Salix sitchensis) Black twinberry(Lonicera involucrata) Evergreen huckleberry(Vaccinium ovatum) Indian plum(Oemieria cerasiformis) Kinnikinnick(Arctostaphylos uva-ursi) 12 12 12 50 Ninebark(Physocarpus capitatus) Oceanspray(Holodiscus discolor) Red flowering currant(Ribes sagnuineum) Red-osier dogwood(Cornus stolonifera) Sala!(Gaultheria shallon) Snowberry(Symphoricarpus albus) Sword fern(Polystichum munitum) Total: 12 12 12 50 NOTES: 10%cover increase since year one. 100% survival year 1 to year 2. H-1031-02 A-20 SECOND YEAR MONITORING DATA SHEET OAKESDALE BUSINESS PARK Plot : 21,Wetland A buffer Date: October 10,2001 Examiner: TRH Plot Size: 60'x 80' Species Planted Year One Counted % Cover unplanted Year Two Big leaf maple(Acer macrophylum) 2 2 trace Cottonwood(Populus trichocarpa) Douglas fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii) 5 5 5 Oregon ash(Fraxinus latifolia) Quaking aspen(Populus tremuloides) Vine maple(Acre circinatum) Western red cedar(Thuja plicata) 4 4 5 Pacific willow(Salix lasiandra) Sitka willow(Salix sitchensis) Black twinberry(Lonicera involucrata) Evergreen huckleberry(Vaccinium ovatum) Indian plum(Oemieria cerasiformis) Kinnikinnick(Arctostaphylos uva-ursi) Ninebark(Physocarpus capitatus) Oceanspray(Holodiscus discolor) Red flowering currant(Ribes sagnuineum) Red-osier dogwood(Cornus stolonifera) 9 9 15 Salal(Gaultheria shallon) Snowberry(Symphoricarpus albus) 6 6 10 Sword fern(Polystichum munitum) Total: 26 26 35 NOTES: 100% survival since planting in the spring. H-1031-02 A -21 SECOND YEAR MONITORING DATA SHEET OAKESDALE BUSINESS PARK Plot: 22,Wetland A buffer Date: October 10,2001 Examiner: TRH Plot Size: 60'x 80' Species Planted Counted Counted % Cover Year One Year Two Big leaf maple(Acer macrophylum) 2 2 trace Cottonwood(Populus trichocarpa) Douglas fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii) 4 4 5 Oregon ash(Fraxinus latifolia) Quaking aspen(Populus tremuloides) Vine maple(Acre circinatum) Western red cedar(Thuja plicata) 2 2 trace Pacific willow(Salix lasiandra) Sitka willow(Salix sitchensis) Black twinberry(Lonicera involucrata) Evergreen huckleberry(Vaccinium ovatum) Indian plum(Oemieria cerasiformis) Kinnikinnick(Arctostaphylos uva-ursi) Ninebark(Physocarpus capitatus) 6 6 5 Oceanspray(Holodiscus discolor) 6 6 5 Red flowering currant(Ribes sagnuineum) Red-osier dogwood(Corpus stolonifera) 6 6 10 Salal(Gaultheria shallon) Snowberry(Symphoricarpus albus) 5 5 trace Sword fern(Polystichum munitum) Total: 31 31 25+ NOTES: 100% survival since planting in the spring. H-1031-02 A -22 APPENDIX B PHOTOGRAPHS H-1031-02 -war-iir - „0. „i . .•••-....4 - --.- . 4.- • .., •. .IA -* .di:1..t. , • ki 4 f 3. • , . • -' „ ,:.•.,,,••.4.7 . • lir IP '•4IF - ' . ' •. .4/,„ .,.. s' "•.., x ... ,, ...,..... - ,,,, . 1,111 ' ir - as 11.10. • ii. t .W--N * e'VA:;.:t • • .41N 1!•.. *" ' ...' • *.... lb,.'•Yj. ..'" Nog. ' 7 • A. * *. • r...*. . ...L. CO' .. , .: ... hilill•,.... 'dr ,o 4. . • ... - , .41 4 , port • .06 ' A •li" •hio ..ty.).. , - ,. -%.. Nit... , + , 4,„ , •••,-'4;4.44.. 4%... t .rilliar• *aft .,ft 10 ,it ••mot or_ ' ilf . • 4 .•• •. 47.... . 4‘ s,•*„.••., .r .iihi.,.. 4*... - 1 - i - 4 4* .3M44‘..,.• ''T 400- ...* • AI . 4 • ' . 44 a* • 1* ' • , ,, *•....'4, ON, a 4. . . 7.... a , . 44..‘,.• .. ... ' • •- - 41116 It ... "ilk. _ . _ , • . 4, 1--. ..... . .,. .,. ‘ •, pci,e-C, _ • .. 4- k 4. lin 0 . ... • ..g... .- • A'4- . • ' • Photo 1: Photo Station 1 looking northeast down Springbrook Creek, year one. , .. • .,., , • . , -IC-;-• ' ' 4,• ri, , '. ,. . ,,,.. . 4-,.•k 1:, '..4 ' \' i I • - ''' '' 014.I ''.-. . • 1 1 • / ,'•MIN 4 .,',..•...- v s4 1 !fri"•••- . I ; - 4 r. .. ‘.. :' . \ ' . •I •• ‘ , hi„ , ; ,. • ,e. MI ..-s. „ . ,,,„„•11,";%.. * * ri of".. • *.• .1,,_ •..k ' '.; ' • = . - Th',',N i 4 -• ' . ;$•' • • . • '1 4•• t /fp .4., .. t' • ,.. 44I 4 ' ••MEI l•"' I .• ''''*,/,'.•"14::iiiit, , . ,. ".' ' -:"" '-•'•"' ' ' , ' ..- . .4141411PF ',. . . .. • , • . - • , • - - . . „t..., fit .• r,- ',.' • , ., N 41110 . i, , ..•c---14,, f -, • Photo 2: Photo Station 1 looking northeast down Springbrook Creek, year two. B-1 H-1031-02 .•vim -i -: . � 2 `" t f w0 • I + .d , 1 4 _ . -p •� • Phy o 3: Photo Station 2 looking south over the westerly wetland mitigation triangle, year one. 1 , - • 7 i ,, . (.14....v,,,:•,. • ill . l " " y, `r ±i � lilt. y 1 ~tier ....4 MP I, 0f i` ' oto 4: ' oto to ion oo g sou over e we er y we . • • iga ion riang e, year two. B-2 H-1031-02 pr . ' 1.-. t , ., • . f # , -tf. r 40 • is • Photo 5: Photo Station 3 looking east towards Plot 4 (slope) and Plot 5 (bench), year one. r:'. \ I':4..14,ele.'..P4*:.$4,..?.,"'A. ,..!.1,4'.na...f...::if,t.•;- ,0;4,7:i '...,.. .,41.... , s Photo 6: Photo Station 3 looking east towards Plot 4 (slope) and Plot 5 (bench), year two. B-3 H-1031-02 j a t ~ la. a �. _ . s a" . Photo 7: Photo Station 4 looking east towards Plot 6 (slope) and Plot 7 (bench), year one. " �, tit i Photo 8: Photo Station 4 looking east towards Plot 6 (slope) and Plot 7 (bench), year two. B-4 H-1031-02 a I 40: Ni I •7 lb I, *414 NI -- "4311 I . f _ of .. ._ •-,, 4,-- .IP . r.''':t,' A ..• - - i,.1 - - _ . , V. .•'',..l • c4/4 'is* ...% ' . a... ,1914,4 ' :,- • ---2--- - s — . . .... • • . a ""'"Oil, . 111/ 4.. ,....1*-: ..' .*** "1117itne 4 a -..' % r . g -`ib.44-21 o'r • OM, ,....` * .. Photo 9: Photo Station 5 looking east towards Plot 8 (slope) and Plot 9 (bench), year one. • ,i•or".•' * :.., '.• ' - , " . ...... 4 ..;„ .„, . ., ..et ... •,,,.... '+i .:,.- .. - -- i ' . I. .',..„- ' ...„ I. ' -.., ' .. Irwv •• • - ...r... . • - 4.ir° Is.. ar ; ' • ' •4.?t, :4044 k4, ' ..0, - •-41/Pir - _ . • , _ . ._•4. ., '1- .._, 0 Photo 10: Photo Station 5 looking east towards Plot 8 (slope) and Plot 9 (bench), year two. B-5 H-1031-02 * 401. 441.0.1101rVilt. 1111*'W-4:414, ! 44111f411 1- . it$6. Oi .. syll11111 '`1 _ t _ `. tj } <- ` w� • • 'A• '., . ' -. 1µr sr V Lh , 1 - • a y •' 01;ii..77-. Iiii64... lir •. *Aft. . "'1 • 4 Photo 11: Photo Station 6 looking south over easterly wetland mitigation triangle, year one. -sr •ftreo ''Ctk .. .#,i i f:r . 1 I . d it • r, 1. -f • Photo 12: Photo Station 6 looking south over easterly wetland mitigation triangle, year two. B-6 H-1031-02 '.4; 4 . .A. •> , .... I - , • y 4.' fiti. . t,I 1 ] + K, • al �!. .R'.' Nip ♦ ♦ ~ •.. * -. f Photo 13: Photo Station 7 looking east towards Plot 14 (slope) and Plot 15 (bench), year one. !� - , i. Photo 14: Photo Station 7 looking east towards Plot 14 (slope) and Plot 15 (bench), year two. B-7 H-1031-02 dews ' !�. ! .... tir . l Photo 15: Photo Station 8 looking west up Springbrook Creek, year one. e 1. - '.4 • • •tfti�.. 44. - Photo 16: Photo Station 8 looking west up Springbrook Creek, year one. B-8 H-1031-02 lir . ,. .., 11 r rl1i as. _ Via:; • ..��� ' - �?. c,AA. it.rt �• `. i.K . a , itM G^�j' • ,y"'Ifly. .ae.. .1 '.; �'1 a L.1r' - 2 -• Photo 17: Photo Station 9 looking southwest towards Plot 21. t 477 1 • r . ./' ` . • - * t Photo 18: Photo Station 10 looking southwest towards Plot 22. B-9 H-1031-02 96 - o2t H-1031-02 AS-BUILT/BASELINE MONITORING REPORT OAKESDALE BUSINESS CAMPUS Renton, Washington December 1999 t Zelman Development Company 707 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 3036 Los Angeles, California 90017 OpME NEON u artOF ge AN 13 2p* i.eGoveD NRCNATURAL RESOURCE CONSULTING Assessment,Management and Regulatory Permitting P.O.BOX 7208 TACOMA,WASHINGTON 98407 (253)756-0370 FAX: (253)756-0155 I I TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 AS-BUILT CONDITIONS 1 3.0 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 2 4.0 ANNUAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS 3 5.0 METHODS 4 5.1 Vegetation Sampling 4 5.2 Hydrology 4 5.3 Permanent Photo Stations 4 6.0 RESULTS 4 6.1 Vegetation Sampling 5 6.2 Hydrology 5 6.3 Permanent Photo Stations 5 6.4 Habitat Conditions and Wildlife Use 5 7.0 CLOSURE 6 LIST OF TABLES Table No. 1 Hydrologic Data LIST OF FIGURES Figure No. 1 Vicinity Map 2 Wetland A Buffer Plan 3 Site Plans(3a and 3b) 4 Monitoring Layout APPENDICES Appendix A Monitoring Data Sheets (A-1 to A-19) Appendix B Photographs (B-1 to B-4) H-1031-02 AS-BUILT/BASELINE MONITORING REPORT OAKESDALE BUSINESS CAMPUS RENTON, WASHINGTON 1.0 INTRODUCTION Natural Resource Consulting has completed the as-built/baseline monitoring at the Oakesdale Business Campus located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of SW 43rd Street and Oakesdale Avenue SW in Renton, Washington(Figure 1). This report presents the results of the as-built conditions, baseline monitoring, and observed compliance with agreed performance standards for this wetland mitigation project. Construction of the wetland mitigation portion of this project began July 16th, 1999 and final planting along Springbrook Creek was completed on October 18th, 1999. Planting of the wetland buffer in the northwest corner of the site will be completed in the spring of 2000 (Figure 2). Hazardous waste cleanup was still ongoing in the wetland buffer area. Approximately 27,911 square feet of wetland has been created along Springbrook Creek, 17,600 square feet along a ten-foot wide bench and 10,311 square feet in two wetland mitigation areas adjacent to the bench. The area along Springbrook Creek was cleared after placement of a silt fence along the ordinary high water mark of the creek. Some trees were retained along the ordinary high water mark between 150 and 350 feet down the creek(Figure 3b). The bench and two mitigation areas were excavated. The log and root wad habitat features were placed, the entire area was planted with shrub, and tree vegetation as indicated on the plans, and the area was seeded. 2.0 AS-BUILT CONDITIONS The project was performed and completed in accordance with the Natural Resource Consulting Wetland Mitigation Plan for the Oakesdale Business Campus, Renton, Washington dated September 1998. Three minor modification were made during construction of the wetland mitigation project. Modification to the wetland mitigation planting plan included the following. 1. The small, narrow wetland area proposed between the detention pond and water pipeline was not excavated. The wetland acreage was made up by excavating a larger area in the mitigation triangle directly east of the pipeline. Figure 3b shows the location that was not excavated and Figure 3a shows where the acreage was made up by excavating a larger area in the eastern portion of the wetland triangle. H-1031-02 1 2. The 500 black cottonwood whips were replaced with five foot tall tree species including 222 Oregon ash, 222 quaking aspen, and 56 western red cedar. The species change was made at the request of the King County Drainage District. This change created a more diverse vegetation community composed of larger trees along the bench. 3. The seed mix for the bench and mitigation areas was modified because the quantity of seed specified was not available. Water parsley and Sitka rush were added to the mix to balance the quantity of seed required for the bench and mitigation areas. 3.0 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The goal of this wetland mitigation project is to create 27,911 square feet of wetland and associated buffer that will transition over time to a multistory forested, shrub-scrub, and emergent plant community. To achieve this goal for the mitigation site, monitoring over the next five years will be conducted for: 1. Survival of tree and shrub plantings. 2. Cover of emergent plant species in the seeded wetland area. 3. Inundation or saturation of the soils achieved during final grading. Monitoring will be completed using the methods described in Section 5.0 of this report and will include. 1. Establishment of permanent vegetation plots to monitor survival, changes in plant species composition, percent cover by species over time, and hydrologic conditions. The canopy coverage method of Daubenmire will be used for herbaceous plants. Tree and shrub density will be evaluated using plots that were established within the wetland mitigation areas, the bench, and the buffer slopes. Plot sizes were determined by establishing a goal of sampling 10 percent of the mitigation area. Plot locations were established in the field and located to reflect differences in hydrologic regime, plant distribution, and overall mitigation area conditions. 2. Establishment of photo stations to collect a sequence of photographs. These photographs will be used to evaluate vegetation community response over time. 3. Measurement of water levels in the early and late growing seasons to determine if inundation is present at the permanent sampling plots. If the area is not inundated, an auger hole will be dug to determine if water or saturated soils are near the surface. H-1031-02 2 4. Observation of the wetland mitigation area for excessive erosion, scour, or sedimentation that may affect the health and/or diversity of the overall wetland mitigation area. 5. Observation and reporting of wildlife use in the wetland mitigation area. 4.0 ANNUAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS The five-year monitoring program prescribed for this wetland mitigation project includes two site visits in the first year and one visit in each of the following four years. A report documenting the findings of the monitoring efforts will be completed and submitted to the City of Renton by December of each of the monitoring years. Performance standards provide measurements to gage the progress of the project periodically, and to identify remedial actions necessary to meet the final success criteria. For this mitigation project, we propose to use the health of vegetation and the presence of water to gage the progress of the project. The planted wetland and buffer species will be monitored for vigor and survival. The overall target survival rate per year will be 80 percent of planted shrub and tree species, as measured in representative plots. If it is determined that planted tree and shrub species are being replaced or out-competed by native wetland shrubs or trees that grow voluntarily, the success criteria will be met only if the number of volunteer and planted shrub and tree species in the mitigation area meet or exceed the number of shrub and tree plants required in the area for that year. The wetland area must contain inundated or saturated soils during a portion of the growing season. If these performance standards are not met, the cause of the failure to meet the performance standard will be evaluated, and action will be taken to rectify the problem until the objectives are achieved. An annual breakdown of the performance standards for the project includes: Year 1 80 percent survival of planted species Year 2 80 percent survival of species that survived the first year Year 3 80 percent survival of species that survived the second year Year 4 80 percent survival of species that survived the third year Year 5 80 percent areal cover of self-sustaining, non-invasive wetland species H-1031-02 3 5.0 METHODS The field monitoring took place on November 20th, 1999. During this time, the weather conditions were cool and rainy. Vegetation and hydrologic conditions were measured in nineteen plots. Photographs were taken from eight permanently marked locations. 5.1 Vegetation Sampling Tree and shrub vegetation was sampled in nineteen plots. Six of the plots were within the wetland, five were on the bench, and eight were on the wetland buffer slopes. The seed placed in the wetland and bench areas had just begun to sprout and was not able to be identified; therefore, herbaceous data was not collected during baseline monitoring. The location of each plot was chosen to reflect observed differences in plant communities and topography on the site. The corners of each of the plots were permanently marked with rebar posts hammered into the ground. The upper left rebar post of each plot were then tagged with a plot number. Figure 4 details the layout for the nineteen plots. During baseline monitoring the number of each species planted and counted was recorded for each plot. During subsequent years the number of each species planted, the number of each species counted that year, and the percent cover of each species will be determined for each plot. Mortality, survival rate and total cover of each plot will be calculated. 5.2 Hydrology Water level readings were taken in the upper left corner of each of the wetland and bench plots identified on Figure 4. If the area was not inundated, an auger hole was dug to determine if water or saturated soils were near the surface. 5.3 Permanent Photo Stations Eight permanent photo stations were established at this site and are marked with rebar(Figure 4). The photo stations include views up and down Springbrook Creek and at representative plots. Photographs taken from these photo stations are included in Appendix B of this report. 6.0 RESULTS This report is to be used primarily for comparative purposes and as a report outline for subsequent monitoring years. Data presented in Appendices A and B may be directly compared with data gathered during successive growing seasons. H-1031-02 4 6.1 Vegetation Sampling Appendix A presents data gathered for each of the monitoring plots. The monitoring plots showed that all species planted within the wetland mitigation site and its buffers were represented. Kinnikinnick will not be planted until the sidewalks are completed; therefore, was not represented in the baseline monitoring vegetation plots. Data gathered in the baseline study indicates that the planted vegetation is surviving. No volunteer species were observed within the plots. 6.2 Hydrology The created wetland system was designed to have the bench and wetland areas inundated during flood events and the site soils saturated for at least the first three to four months of the growing season(March, April, May and possibly June). The water depth and the degree of fluctuation throughout the year will dictate the survival rate of the planted species and the nature of any volunteer species that take root in the wetland. During the baseline monitoring period on November 20, 1999, the water levels within the wetland and bench varied from two inches of inundation to soil saturation at a depth of eight inches below the surface. 6.3 Permanent Photo Stations The eight photographs taken during baseline monitoring clearly show the completed wetland through systematically selected stations. Station location are identified on Figure 4. No volunteer plant species have yet been observed within the wetland. Comparison of these photographs with those taken at the same location during future monitoring efforts will allow for an assessment of the growth and health of vegetation within the created wetland and its buffer. Photographs taken from these photo stations are included in Appendix B of this report. 6.4 Habitat Conditions and Wildlife Use Habitat conditions are rudimentary within the created wetland and its buffer at this time but will diversify as the plant communities develop. A red tail hawk was observed capturing a small mammal in the created wetland on November 20, 1999. Steller's jays, black capped chickadees, and mallards were also observed in the vicinity of the created wetland during baseline monitoring. Use of the wetland by these birds and other species may increase as habitat conditions mature. Use of the created wetland by wildlife is not the focus of this monitoring program, but observations of species in this mitigation area will be included in subsequent reports. H-1031-02 5 7.0 CLOSURE The findings and conclusions documented in this report have been prepared for specific applica- tion to this project. They have been developed in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill normally exercised by members of the environmental science profession currently practicing under similar conditions in the area. The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are professional opinions based on interpretation of information currently available to us, and are made within the operational scope, budget, and schedule constraints of this project. No warranty, either express or implied, is made. Please contact us if you have any questions. NATURAL RESOURCE CONSULTING L9, Theresa R. Henson Natural Resource Ecologist 12-3-99/H 1031-02.RPT-trh H-1031-02 6 Table 1 HYDROLOGIC DATA YEAR 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Baseline slope 1"S 1"I slope 6"S slope 8"S slope 6"S slope 11 2"I 2"I slope 1"I slope 2"S slope 8"S Note: S=saturated below ground surface, I=inundated, slope=no data gathered within buffer. H-1031-02 7 conu ' to , if 7 r- r r 27TH 29TH 4'' 30TH 33RD WWJ > 34TH J \-1-_-) fi 3641 , 38TH 3fiy 0 _Z 39TH —� S,ke- • 413T /1 43RD �' 43RD 43RD I , P 71182ND r 45TH 184TH ���, _ k R TO1� 1 es rH O 188TH 87TH _ m N Oakesdale Business Campus Approximate Scale 1 inch to 4800 feet A Renton, WashingtonVICINITY MAP December 1999 H-1031-02 Natural Resource Consulting FIG. 1 Assessment,Note:Map adapted from The Thomas Guide, 1995. Regulatory Permitting"'d R • ♦, `• 1- I 1 is 1 Ri \ �` ` . MATCH LINE THIS SHEET -- - !� - cil?"'1 tt s .ram. \ P - ..AriJ. r t!- -- d 1. 1 i , i . .,•i.,,, c 1 1 ( ,� � I ..„) 11,1 l i:. 't •t it 1 's I �� C ���� \ _ , 1 Leke+ : gyp (� I i` I 1 '�,\ --- , � '.ag:: .. '-e4e i. _ \J 1 �o IV _ - - r,C, 'G.�1 0' ¢o-� \\, , it//i/ / • ' a IXISTING r ---- WETLAND . 1 • 4D,, J +, ( �l ` ©`= �'�' BUILDING �, °I� fic \ ,,ty \\�/� 1l1 / / ; /� © �� C6 \��V�_ 1 I \ �ws _ - '`°°' ®v��41 an i i I*� �� w� w� ff - I - t.'� I1. ----- � ' i � \ ? MATCH UNE T 18 SHEET - - - .64 if tli_ti , N... ••G././I.V 4 oo ., , N icic Od© r \ iir s._ .2.....N N27: U) wt-,3 c�,Airt • 2 / /, :m...f fps. �'-, ' / ' 3 g(0) / . - '` 0 BUILDING D ! u - I''' AC* .030 . . / 0 4 _: .v , •::;. l9.Ey Scale rao 'CI •.i.-ec'° \ / Date srz+ge 011igripi 'Iv' X / Checked by MAW Revisions: '\ �.4°� 4799:;6 ---- / ,' ,;41,1.4), ,/ - __;.--iN1:- i G / SCALE 1" = 30' NORTH ww. .� . .so� /;� rt ' 0 30 90 MATCH UNE SHEET W-2 IOW ININININNIIIIN , , ..,_Pl‘ e ii. 11111111 NININNNIIIIIIINIIDI „ W-3 Sheet " `e' WETLAND LANDSCAPE PLAN • • • MATCH UNE SHEET W-2 . ) \ \ \\\ s .'"1,'":4194.44S)04.124 'AR --/di/ 7/ • / ‘ \ 1 \\. , \k\itigt.::40:11 in ' . _ . .....___, 1 i , ...„ . , 7 , \ \ \ \\\ \ 1.!'.' .0,--,1,- .kt-A41' •W 1 . .---- . A , t \ \ ' ) , 'ICJ Q;J, --.' . `- I . i \\ ,..:;:.::,:.1 e .....,p, ., Li • _ •. ,„ „, I .. . \\ , ,\ ,:,,„,. . .„,, 1 \, \ \ I \ i `! 1 0 .g I C \\\ �� 1If .,, I 1 \\\ \\�% \\ \ \'\ \`\ \� \ \ \ fro, W �,. i I n 1 • \\ \‘ \ \\ + \ I'4 r�4 ,; \ \ % \ � \ \ \\1a AV I • \\\\, \\\ \, \\\\ \\\\\ \\ k. , I Cr 1 \ \ \ \ \ \ 1 \ la I \, t ! � \\\ \ \ \ \\ \1 \iinaa_11°A I • \\\ \\ \ \ \\ \\ \\\, , �`,, \\\ I : • r \ U� - \\\\ \\ \\\\\\\ \ \`,'� ,e l\'\ \ 1. a \\\ \ \\ \\ ., \ 1 i'' \ \ \ \ • \\ \\\ \ \\ \-' M�v fS�\ \\ \ . ,4 • i \\ \ \ . \\ \\ \ i 1 „ \ \\ \ \\ \ \ ��\1.i\ .,'. .F..A,�• 1 \ \\ `\\ \ \\ \ \ n ` off \' : M.(D \ \ �\ \ \ \\ \ \ .\ 1 '.,rt_ 'r.. ,.. F--' ' 1 . \\\\\\ \ \\ \\ I '• r .; .,.. y`� \ • t / / \\\ .'t \ i X\Cry �R;�. t • r \\V \ \ \\ \ \ Nk.. ' A3Q,\ } \ \‘‘\ \ \ \\\\\ \ ;, C;:i')Zi:� 1 , ‘,-,-2p \ \\\\ \ s \ \\\V I \\Ark, \ \--.., \,,,/-..-"--..„ — • : \ Imo ' -� •:' . M . \\ v\\ I \VA\� \ \ �'��. i ;,1; v \ \ \ \ \` ""�`'�� .• \ 4 1 I I \\\ \ \\\\\\ \i ll 4 i . \ • \ �x O rib @l.� r - CIS !' - \ \ •# So - ,� � ` = . \� \ _ Dw r �� -��___—_'per ��__-_____- _ _ _ __ -'� ��\\�� —`_ _ '\` �a�\ z O f T1 _..--� '- -ram-------- P — --—— �----1-�__—__--_�'\ \ � • ~� _ `� ``� u . ^i ;. D d N __ - p D O d —� 20 --r--_ ` —__ -` _ — 73 'dmoump u i -- II D 0 II u 0 i) . Z , _ ♦ ___ \ • Q W. nay' OAFCSDALE BUSINESS PARK f We _• G J 1 4 g OAKREENTON. ENUE SOUTHWEST 141 ± (� p • MATCH LINE SHEET W-3 MATCH LINE SHEET W-3 I • • • • — �- moo -mono I- .Eimei —. — In m -I ti. = — m/_ ••—. v - m 'mow —•• IN. — — - — =� =M , 7 ii \\ • I- ! I I �. r �+Fii U�"v}•' Sa,/w�i �(�%�t? ,t�) �� l.� t0 '3 .OaC G �.lr ck 1 ,. dit I; I 0., ' `' 1 A —/ i a Y• a ry i . • Y ♦ I+ f a�V •• � • i ��' t t Sif�'.• �:• l l . ' • / \ .p0. I ) .J i! ,�j:� +• W . + . �- I eJ� i' (1 - J"��, 1 i�i� ,III_Iw• ,l • 1 1t _ . . . . . . ��, , .,t � I. . Iii : I W . . . . W WEv I421(1' � � ." • ,-r. I se. �_; BUILDING E . . . . lip. . r . r id�V, �� f -7 jI W . W, . ra�ww I ..C'• !1Y' ./ " iI � 3�� Tpr� t�- 'r�"x / 'rj% //�/ ./�/'i / / _ # • ea r'r c.a.., r'w 's. YVIlOW j /�/ , •e .- ! ••; ,...„.•*-.7-V'' ....;;;.::sc;k:,--- _..,. , J i .., alimillmi-% 4lit4,745;... ..;:•:kW :::' u l++ sn, C :s:.J: �� f cn I ii . �F' 'r 1 s . // I • { i 3 I I I ,? ''/ / / ' Q t I�y�a0 q`At Y: ti / I % 5 I SIDE LK Ape, �� / / / /// / r i I g c iOb%�'p''Ct�laCt` M'A Ss Q C.i t x 26 / /1-144, i ! ++ ry.�� V 3r 1 EI ozi.. . :L lye ° i .r0p• ;`�j:.�.�0�{I•t �r nE..r y ss.,•�P rY�/�1 /i/ / / :- -:..�� 1 I -Q.oh'iu -�%Q..",..; .I 1i ./ /�7' i/ i, Srap T,ap ,,-; �� •: '5::: triAii:�;'`-:?-'% // // / / r� i Dates WON I tQ..A A..gli Z o::;"��:./:-- / -/. / i/ / • ' , ,� I t ;:°,-if y.`',i ' _ ' /;,/,/ // / a try NNW ff .. ,I"i. :j / /'j / ReJsiona • €7, /T.,/ / // .1 , - I SCALE 1" = 30' NORTH 0 30 90 i 1110111 111111111111111111111 F,gre 3 6 TEIT IIII11II 1111 IIIIN' fs .0 W-2 I WETLAND LANDSCAPE PLAN Nulbe. I 13 ....7.." 0 7 /8 ----------- ' ----------"-------7 • De.1-e A-1-:on S — ,511 1 - Cr ee)r< 14- fo n A 0 br°° 0 410„) 7 6 ; 3 14 i 4 ,..• 4 1 .-3 N Oakesdale Business Campus \:1 0' 100' Approximate Scale l___________i A Renton,Washington Monitoring Layout I December 1999 H-1031-02 •-) Photo Station . • Monitoring Plot Natural Resource Consulting FIG. 4 Assessment,Management and Regulatory Permitting fil .1 .1* 11-1— (1-1 i -11: '', -t 1 - , i--1 t .. , . , _I! , , ! ____1 _ 1_1_-_.1_ L_4_,.:__a_i _l__I .J__i_.1 ....__i :_i_.....1., 4 APPENDIX A MONITORING DATA SHEETS H-1031-02 BASELINE MONITORING DATA SHEET OAKESDALE BUSINESS PARK Plot#: 1, slope Date: November 20, 1999 Examiner: TRH Plot Size: 20'x30' Species # Planted # Counted % Cover Big leaf maple (Acer macrophylum) Cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) 1 1 Douglas fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii) 2 2 Oregon ash(Fraxinus latifolia) Quaking aspen(Populus tremuloides) Vine maple(Acre circinatum) Western red cedar(Thuja plicata) Pacific willow(Salix lasiandra) Sitka willow(Salix sitchensis) Black twinberry(Lonicera involucrata) Evergreen huckleberry(Vaccinium ovatum) Indian plum (Oemieria cerasiformis) Kinnikinnick (Arctostaphylos uva-ursi) Ninebark (Physocarpus capitatus) 9 9 Oceanspray(Holodiscus discolor) Red flowering currant (Ribes sagnuineum) 2 2 Red-osier dogwood (Corpus stolonifera) Salal (Gaultheria shallon) 1 1 Snowberry(Symphoricarpus albus) Sword fern(Polystichum munitum) Total: 15 15 NOTES: H-1031-02 A -1 BASELINE MONITORING DATA SHEET OAKESDALE BUSINESS PARK Plot#: 2,wetland Date: November 20, 1999 Examiner: TRH Plot Size: 10'x30' Species # Planted # Counted % Cover Big leaf maple(Acer macrophylum) Cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) 6 6 Douglas fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii) Oregon ash(Fraxinus latifolia) Quaking aspen(Populus tremuloides) Vine maple(Acre circinatum) Western red cedar(Thuja plicata) 3 3 Pacific willow(Salix lasiandra) Sitka willow(Salix sitchensis) 1 1 Black twinberry(Lonicera involucrata) 1 1 Evergreen huckleberry(Vaccinium ovatum) Indian plum(Oemieria cerasiformis) Kinnikinnick (Arctostaphylos uva-ursi) Ninebark (Physocarpus capitatus) 2 2 Oceanspray(Holodiscus discolor) Red flowering currant (Ribes sagnuineum) Red-osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera) Salal (Gaultheria shallon) Snowberry(Symphoricarpus albus) Sword fern(Polystichum munitum) Total: 13 13 NOTES: H-1031-02 A-2 BASELINE MONITORING DATA SHEET OAKESDALE BUSINESS PARK j Plot#: 3,wetland Date: November 20, 1999 Examiner: TRH Plot Size: 20'x30' Species # Planted # Counted % Cover Big leaf maple (Acer macrophylum) Cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) 5 5 Douglas fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii) Oregon ash(Fraxinus latifolia) Quaking aspen(Populus tremuloides) 2 2 Vine maple(Acre circinatum) Western red cedar(Thuja plicata) Pacific willow(Salix lasiandra) 2 2 Sitka willow(Salix sitchensis) Black twinberry(Lonicera involucrata) 8 8 Evergreen huckleberry(Vaccinium ovatum) Indian plum(Oemieria cerasiformis) Kinnikinnick (Arctostaphylos uva-ursi) Ninebark (Physocarpus capitatus) 15 15 Oceanspray(Holodiscus discolor) Red flowering currant (Ribes sagnuineum) Red-osier dogwood(Corms stolonifera) 3 3 Salal (Gaultheria shallon) Snowberry(Symphoricarpus albus) Sword fern(Polystichum munitum) Total: 35 35 NOTES: H-1031-02 A -3 BASELINE MONITORING DATA SHEET OAKESDALE BUSINESS PARK I Plot#: 4, slope Date: November 20, 1999 Examiner: TRH Plot Size: 20'x30' Species # Planted # Counted % Cover Big leaf maple(Acer macrophylum) Cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) Douglas fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii) 2 2 Oregon ash(Fraxinus latifolia) Quaking aspen(Populus tremuloides) Vine maple(Acre circinatum) Western red cedar(Thuja plicata) 2 2 Pacific willow(Salix lasiandra) Sitka willow(Salix sitchensis) Black twinberry(Lonicera involucrata) Evergreen huckleberry(Vaccinium ovatum) Indian plum(Oemieria cerasiformis) Kinnikinnick(Arctostaphylos uva-ursi) Ninebark(Physocarpus capitatus) 5 5 Oceanspray(Holodiscus discolor) Red flowering currant(Ribes sagnuineum) 2 2 Red-osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera) Salal(Gaultheria shallon) 3 3 Snowberry(Symphoricarpus albus) Sword fern(Polystichum munitum) 1 1 Total: 15 15 NOTES: H-1031-02 A-4 BASELINE MONITORING DATA SHEET OAKESDALE BUSINESS PARK Plot#: 5, bench Date: November 20, 1999 Examiner: TRH Plot Size: 10'x30' Species # Planted # Counted % Cover Big leaf maple (Acer macrophylum) Cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) Douglas fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii) Oregon ash(Fraxinus latifolia) Quaking aspen(Populus tremuloides) 4 4 Vine maple(Acre circinatum) Western red cedar(Thuja plicata) 2 2 Pacific willow(Salix lasiandra) Sitka willow(Salix sitchensis) Black twinberry(Lonicera involucrata) Evergreen huckleberry(Vaccinium ovatum) Indian plum (Oemieria cerasiformis) Kinnikinnick (Arctostaphylos uva-ursi) Ninebark (Physocarpus capitatus) Oceanspray(Holodiscus discolor) Red flowering currant (Ribes sagnuineum) Red-osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera) Salal (Gaultheria shallon) Snowberry(Symphoricarpus albus) Sword fern(Polystichum munitum) Total: 6 6 NOTES: H-1031-02 A-5 NRCNATURAL RESOURCE CONSULTING Assessment, Management and Regulatory Permitting P.O. BOX 7208 • TACOMA,WASHINGTON 98407-0208 • (253)756-0370 FAX(253)756-0155 LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL Date ►*- b -a Q Job No. 14 — 10 3 I— 0 2, To: of Re m-0 A [Iann;rut Attention Pe` e+- 12 OSe 11 Q,Oo Mil A•ientke So0.71 - RE: ©alcescickle ►?usi Ytcss G'ertpuS Re✓ton/ (A/A . 98 05'S We are sending the following items: Copies Date Description I I'2-99 It 1Ruseline. Mons I-o 3 R-ef -co DakcsAalG 13as rucs cci-rnQ••c5 These are transmitted: 0 For your retention %For your use 0 As requested 0 For review and comment 0 For action specified below 0 With corrections 0 Please return by 0 0 Prints returned after use by us Message: Yl( lOSecl S *LC Manti-e po1-A- -coi— '�-�•�L b use_l;"c) / & buy 14- c ; a ns fo:- `HAL oe-k.esc)a.lt &e s+r4s 5 euxti p LkS l're e c i- a l o i S13r;ne 6✓tso lc C/•2e k, 71w ken' C! Item 1 ►re_ a c`k.c\ 5?rs nbiac+u C 1-ce k ba''I- rto I- 4"GUL e+l a nA re s or-`l4_ to v rt c I7. 7 J o 3 S *ucu�es tQt Igce_A Ale,. a 4-er 4kk.[ '(i nd t.ier1/4e no'1- r'►-v1pexc11IJ by C1ows clOwrl h c_aa'e_!c cItkr►vtt `H,14. CeL 11 fi you( havt yuest.on Copies sent to: ?c u,l C ct S e - I/v10.11 b e t). Co , ?h1 I Sc er - k /. . pert. F';-sh /A), 1Ak; � e. Sent by: i?s o✓L DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON JAIL 13 2000 RECEIVED BASELINE MONITORING DATA SHEET OAKESDALE BUSINESS PARK I Plot#: 6, slope Date: November 20, 1999 Examiner: TRH Plot Size: 20'x30' Species #Planted #Counted % Cover Big leaf maple (Acer macrophylum) Cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) Douglas fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii) 1 1 Oregon ash(Fraxinus latifolia) Quaking aspen(Populus tremuloides) Vine maple (Acre circinatum) 1 1 Western red cedar(Thuja plicata) 2 2 Pacific willow(Salix lasiandra) Sitka willow(Salix sitchensis) Black twinberry(Lonicera involucrata) Evergreen huckleberry(Vaccinium ovatum) 2 2 Indian plum (Oemieria cerasiformis) Kinnikinnick (Arctostaphylos uva-ursi) Ninebark(Physocarpus capitatus) Oceanspray(Holodiscus discolor) Red flowering currant(Ribes sagnuineum) Red-osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera) 3 3 Salal (Gaultheria shallon) 4 4 Snowberry(Symphoricarpus albus) Sword fern(Polystichum munitum) 2 2 Total: 15 15 NOTES: H-1031-02 A-6 BASELINE MONITORING DATA SHEET OAKESDALE BUSINESS PARK Plot#: 7, bench Date: November 20, 1999 Examiner: TRH Plot Size: 10'x30' Species #Planted #Counted % Cover Big leaf maple (Acer macrophylum) Cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) Douglas fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii) Oregon ash(Fraxinus latifolia) 2 2 Quaking aspen(Populus tremuloides) 3 3 Vine maple(Acre circinatum) Western red cedar(Thuja plicata) 2 2 Pacific willow(Salix lasiandra) Sitka willow(Salix sitchensis) Black twinberry(Lonicera involucrata) Evergreen huckleberry(Vaccinium ovatum) Indian plum(Oemieria cerasiformis) Kinnikinnick (Arctostaphylos uva-ursi) Ninebark (Physocarpus capitatus) Oceanspray(Holodiscus discolor) Red flowering currant (Ribes sagnuineum) Red-osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera) Salal(Gaultheria shallon) Snowberry(Symphoricarpus albus) Sword fern(Polystichum munitum) Total: 7 7 NOTES: H-1031-02 A-7 BASELINE MONITORING DATA SHEET OAKESDALE BUSINESS PARK , Plot#: 8, slope Date: November 20, 1999 Examiner: TRH Plot Size: 20'x30' Species # Planted # Counted % Cover Big leaf maple (Acer macrophylum) Cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) Douglas fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii) 2 2 Oregon ash(Fraxinus latifolia) Quaking aspen(Populus tremuloides) Vine maple (Acre circinatum) Western red cedar(Thuja plicata) 1 1 Pacific willow(Salix lasiandra) Sitka willow(Salix sitchensis) Black twinberry(Lonicera involucrata) Evergreen huckleberry(Vaccinium ovatum) Indian plum(Oemieria cerasiformis) 4 4 Kinnikinnick (Arctostaphylos uva-ursi) Ninebark (Physocarpus capitatus) Oceanspray(Holodiscus discolor) 1 1 Red flowering currant (Ribes sagnuineum) Red-osier dogwood (Corpus stolonifera) Salal (Gaultheria shallon) 4 4 Snowberry(Symphoricarpus albus) Sword fern(Polystichum munitum) 1 1 Total: 13 13 NOTES: H-1031-02 A-8 BASELINE MONITORING DATA SHEET OAKESDALE BUSINESS PARK Plot#: 9, bench Date: November 20, 1999 Examiner: TRH Plot Size: 10'x30' Species # Planted # Counted % Cover Big leaf maple (Acer macrophylum) Cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) Douglas fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii) Oregon ash(Fraxinus latifolia) 4 4 Quaking aspen(Populus tremuloides) 4 4 Vine maple(Acre circinatum) Western red cedar(Thuja plicata) 1 1 Pacific willow(Salix lasiandra) Sitka willow(Salix sitchensis) Black twinberry(Lonicera involucrata) Evergreen huckleberry(Vaccinium ovatum) Indian plum(Oemieria cerasiformis) Kinnikinnick(Arctostaphylos uva-ursi) Ninebark(Physocarpus capitatus) Oceanspray(Holodiscus discolor) Red flowering currant (Ribes sagnuineum) Red-osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera) Salal (Gaultheria shallon) Snowberry(Symphoricarpus albus) Sword fern(Polystichum munitum) Total: 9 9 NOTES: • H-1031-02 A-9 BASELINE MONITORING DATA SHEET OAKESDALE BUSINESS PARK J Plot #: 10, slope Date: November 20, 1999 Examiner: TRH Plot Size: 20'x30' Species # Planted # Counted % Cover Big leaf maple(Acer macrophylum) 1 1 Cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) Douglas fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii) Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia) Quaking aspen(Populus tremuloides) Vine maple (Acre circinatum) 1 1 Western red cedar(Thuja plicata) 1 1 Pacific willow(Salix lasiandra) Sitka willow(Salix sitchensis) Black twinberry(Lonicera involucrata) Evergreen huckleberry(Vaccinium ovatum) Indian plum (Oemieria cerasiformis) 1 1 Kinnikinnick (Arctostaphylos uva-ursi) Ninebark (Physocarpus capitatus) Oceanspray(Holodiscus discolor) 1 1 Red flowering currant (Ribes sagnuineum) 3 3 Red-osier dogwood (Corms stolonifera) 2 2 Salal (Gaultheria shallon) 4 4 Snowberry(Symphoricarpus albus) Sword fern(Polystichum munitum) 4 4 Total: 18 18 NOTES: H-1031-02 A-10 BASELINE MONITORING DATA SHEET OAKESDALE BUSINESS PARK I Plot#: 11,wetland Date: October 25, 1999 Examiner: TRH Plot Size: 10'x30' Species # Planted # Counted % Cover Big leaf maple (Acer macrophylum) Cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) 1 1 Douglas fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii) Oregon ash(Fraxinus latifolia) Quaking aspen(Populus tremuloides) Vine maple (Acre circinatum) Western red cedar(Thuja plicata) 2 2 Pacific willow(Salix lasiandra) Sitka willow(Salix sitchensis) Black twinberry(Lonicera involucrata) Evergreen huckleberry(Vaccinium ovatum) Indian plum(Oemieria cerasiformis) Kinnikinnick (Arctostaphylos uva-ursi) Ninebark (Physocarpus capitatus) 1 1 Oceanspray(Holodiscus discolor) Red flowering currant (Ribes sagnuineum) • Red-osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera) 10 10 Salal (Gaultheria shallon) Snowberry(Symphoricarpus albus) Sword fern(Polystichum munitum) Total: 14 14 NOTES: H-1031-02 A-11 BASELINE MONITORING DATA SHEET OAKESDALE BUSINESS PARK Plot#: 12, wetland Date: November 20, 1999 Examiner: TRH Plot Size: 20'x30' Species # Planted #Counted % Cover Big leaf maple(Acer macrophylum) Cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) 1 1 Douglas fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii) Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia) Quaking aspen(Populus tremuloides) 2 2 Vine maple(Acre circinatum) Western red cedar(Thuja plicata) 2 2 Pacific willow(Salix lasiandra) Sitka willow(Salix sitchensis) 3 3 Black twinberry(Lonicera involucrata) 7 7 Evergreen huckleberry(Vaccinium ovatum) Indian plum(Oemieria cerasiformis) Kinnikinnick (Arctostaphylos uva-ursi) Ninebark(Physocarpus capitatus) 14 14 Oceanspray(Holodiscus discolor) Red flowering currant (Ribes sagnuineum) Red-osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera) 9 9 Salal (Gaultheria shallon) Snowberry(Symphoricarpus albus) Sword fern(Polystichum munitum) Total: 37 37 NOTES: H-1031-02 A-12 BASELINE MONITORING DATA SHEET OAKESDALE BUSINESS PARK Plot#: 13, wetland Date: November 20, 1999 Examiner: TRH Plot Size: 20'x30' Species # Planted # Counted % Cover Big leaf maple (Acer macrophylum) Cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) 3 3 Douglas fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii) Oregon ash(Fraxinus latifolia) 4 4 Quaking aspen(Populus tremuloides) 3 3 Vme maple(Acre circinatum) Western red cedar(Thuja plicata) 2 2 Pacific willow(Salix lasiandra) Sitka willow(Salix sitchensis) 3 3 Black twinberry(Lonicera involucrata) 10 10 Evergreen huckleberry(Vaccinium ovatum) Indian plum (Oemieria cerasiformis) Kinnikinnick (Arctostaphylos uva-ursi) Ninebark (Physocarpus capitatus) 4 4 Oceanspray(Holodiscus discolor) Red flowering currant (Ribes sagnuineum) Red-osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera) 7 7 Salal (Gaultheria shallon) Snowberry(Symphoricarpus albus) Sword fern (Polystichum munitum) Total: 36 36 NOTES: H-1031-02 A-13 BASELINE MONITORING DATA SHEET OAKESDALE BUSINESS PARK Plot#: 14, slope Date: November 20, 1999 Examiner: TRH Plot Size: 20'x30' Species # Planted #Counted % Cover Big leaf maple(Acer macrophylum) 1 1 Cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) Douglas fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii) 1 1 Oregon ash(Fraxinus latifolia) Quaking aspen(Populus tremuloides) Vine maple(Acre circinatum) 1 1 Western red cedar(Thuja plicata) 1 1 Pacific willow(Salix lasiandra) Sitka willow(Salix sitchensis) Black twinberry(Lonicera involucrata) Evergreen huckleberry(Vaccinium ovatum) Indian plum (Oemieria cerasiformis) Kinnikinnick (Arctostaphylos uva-ursi) Ninebark (Physocarpus capitatus) Oceanspray(Holodiscus discolor) 2 2 Red flowering currant (Ribes sagnuineum) Red-osier dogwood(Cornus stolonifera) Salal (Gaultheria shallon) Snowberry(Symphoricarpus albus) Sword fern(Polystichum munitum) Total: 6 6 NOTES: H-1031-02 A-14 BASELINE MONITORING DATA SHEET OAKESDALE BUSINESS PARK Plot#: 15,wetland Date: November 20, 1999 Examiner: TRH Plot Size: 10'x30' Species # Planted # Counted % Cover Big leaf maple (Acer macrophylum) Cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) 1 1 Douglas fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii) Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia) Quaking aspen(Populus tremuloides) Vine maple(Acre circinatum) Western red cedar(Thuja plicata) Pacific willow(Salix lasiandra) Sitka willow(Salix sitchensis) 1 1 Black twinberry (Lonicera involucrata) Evergreen huckleberry(Vaccinium ovatum) Indian plum(Oemieria cerasiformis) Kinnikinnick (Arctostaphylos uva-ursi) Ninebark (Physocarpus capitatus) 1 1 Oceanspray(Holodiscus discolor) Red flowering currant (Ribes sagnuineum) Red-osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera) 8 8 Salal (Gaultheria shallon) Snowberry (Symphoricarpus albus) Sword fern(Polystichum munitum) Total: 11 11 NOTES: H-1031-02 A-15 BASELINE MONITORING DATA SHEET OAKESDALE BUSINESS PARK Plot#: 16, slope Date: November 20, 1999 Examiner: TRH Plot Size: 20'x30' Species # Planted #Counted % Cover Big leaf maple (Acer macrophylum) 1 Cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) Douglas fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii) 2 2 Oregon ash(Fraxinus latifolia) Quaking aspen(Populus tremuloides) Vine maple (Acre circinatum) Western red cedar(Thuja plicata) 1 1 Pacific willow(Salix lasiandra) Sitka willow(Salix sitchensis) Black twinberry(Lonicera involucrata) Evergreen huckleberry(Vaccinium ovatum) 3 3 Indian plum(Oemieria cerasiformis) Kinnikinnick (Arctostaphylos uva-ursi) Ninebark (Physocarpus capitatus) Oceanspray(Holodiscus discolor) 1 1 Red flowering currant (Ribes sagnuineum) 3 3 Red-osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera) Salal (Gaultheria shallon) Snowberry(Symphoricarpus albus) 4 4 Sword fern(Polystichum munitum) 2 2 Total: 16 16 NOTES: H-1031-02 A-16 BASELINE MONITORING DATA SHEET OAKESDALE BUSINESS PARK Plot#: 17, bench Date: November 20, 1999 Examiner: TRH Plot Size: 10'x30' Species # Planted # Counted % Cover Big leaf maple (Acer macrophylum) Cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) Douglas fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii) Oregon ash(Fraxinus latifolia) 5 5 Quaking aspen(Populus tremuloides) 3 3 Vine maple(Acre circinatum) Western red cedar(Thuja plicata) Pacific willow(Salix lasiandra) Sitka willow(Salix sitchensis) Black twinberry(Lonicera involucrata) Evergreen huckleberry (Vaccinium ovatum) Indian plum (Oemieria cerasiformis) Kinnikinnick (Arctostaphylos uva-ursi) Ninebark (Physocarpus capitatus) Oceanspray(Holodiscus discolor) Red flowering currant (Ribes sagnuineum) Red-osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera) Salal (Gaultheria shallon) Snowberry(Symphoricarpus albus) Sword fern(Polystichum munitum) Total: 8 8 NOTES: H-1031-02 A-17 BASELINE MONITORING DATA SHEET OAKESDALE BUSINESS PARK Plot#: 18, slope Date: November 10, 1999 Examiner: TRH Plot Size: 20'x30' Species # Planted # Counted % Cover Big leaf maple (Acer macrophylum) Cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) Douglas fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii) 2 2 Oregon ash(Fraxinus latifolia) Quaking aspen(Populus tremuloides) Vine maple(Acre circinatum) 3 3 Western red cedar(Thuja plicata) 2 2 Pacific willow(Salix lasiandra) Sitka willow(Salix sitchensis) Black twinberry(Lonicera involucrata) Evergreen huckleberry(Vaccinium ovatum) Indian plum(Oemieria cerasiformis) Kinnikinnick(Arctostaphylos uva-ursi) Ninebark(Physocarpus capitatus) 4 4 Oceanspray(Holodiscus discolor) Red flowering currant (Ribes sagnuineum) 2 2 Red-osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera) Salal (Gaultheria shallon) 2 2 Snowberry(Symphoricarpus albus) Sword fern(Polystichum munitum) 6 6 Total: 21 21 NOTES: H-1031-02 A-18 BASELINE MONITORING DATA SHEET OAKESDALE BUSINESS PARK Plot#: 19, bench Date: November 20, 1999 Examiner: TRH Plot Size: 10'x30' Species #Planted # Counted % Cover Big leaf maple (Acer macrophylum) Cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) Douglas fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii) Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia) 4 4 Quaking aspen(Populus tremuloides) 5 5 Vine maple(Acre circinatum) Western red cedar(Thuja plicata) Pacific willow(Salix lasiandra) Sitka willow(Salix sitchensis) Black twinberry(Lonicera involucrata) Evergreen huckleberry(Vaccinium ovatum) Indian plum(Oemieria cerasiformis) Kinnikinnick (Arctostaphylos uva-ursi) Ninebark (Physocarpus capitatus) Oceanspray(Holodiscus discolor) Red flowering currant (Ribes sagnuineum) Red-osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera) Salal (Gaultheria shallon) Snowberry(Symphoricarpus albus) Sword fern(Polystichum munitum) Total: 9 9 NOTES: H-1031-02 A-19 APPENDIX B PHOTOGRAPHS H-1031-02 24.. '.''II-S ' -,'.- ` . . ,•� y 0 / iii,Pam,:; •is• • ‘ q .. . . ... _., liew cs, ��. \1 ..• •. a # - \ - 1 ft{ • i _ Alm. TT': ''..... -' '- ._. . ir 4:k, . .... , . • • / Photo#1: From Photo Station 1 looking northeast down Springbrook Creek. _.�, T>�'"IY. .'.fie.. •.a -,.._.,. ••.If'/i! , • t" _S .n 4 •ice - • �_�__— 4 t '.F ^ice d" • 46 ► iok , • tit p9 •l 'l� ri,� . 7 .x 6' `. �.2 /+. L. ../-t,. :i a ) t.� Photo#2: From Photo Station 2 looking south over the westerly wetland mitigation triangle. H-1031-02 B -1 & % . r ,' 0_i • ' sits 1, ..._ .tl 4. Alfa f +'._ ...-.- - -� Tel•7, .. •n i tsk- .-r.•i !3 V� . .+F - r.« 1� ~ `„fir-\.i+".'rtr ,,.t •"•g ar' ;.c -^vU°, .s :.. . • M �\ tf .y . Photo#3: From Photo Station 3 looking east towards Monitoring Plot 4(on the slope)and Plot 5 (on the bench). ill' i 1' 4.'• 'Y'.. 4..• ••-4:►^ "` s'q 1, 7, h` �..' 0 w Photo#4: From Photo Station 4 looking east towards Monitoring Plot 6 (on the slope)and Plot 7 (on the bench). J H-1031-02 B -2 • r r `hat - a '' _ ` - J. Y:... _- 71\ r ♦ ..aye \ AN •� y ..� 1 :ate =i '4` v+ir - _ fi x— _ -S'L:`-" A..: .. Photo#5: From Photo Station 5 looking east towards Monitoring Plot 8 (on the slope)and Plot 9 (on the bench). `�$.. ice^ �,�, Yy 1` :- ;. > 1.1111 • • i� } '-- • yam, n ,� �r ,-o v .00k.. T ajt'' .4..�- , - M .,.1► • �'1! . 4'" o �I- ;tea" .:, "' . ... " �IF ; . _f ,: .. T _ 11101, t,:_ liiipt ,e ,. I • ,.Tager. -.twin -CLK: Photo#6:From Photo Station 6 looking south over the easterly wetland mitigation triangle. J H-1031-02 B -3 •• 'r r / r , 4. 5'4 .sa , ti iS 1 _-' - i _ - — ' tit4yr�' - _) * . F• „ arm- 'I,r t• i• Photo#7: From Photo Station 7 looking east towards Monitoring Plot 14(on the slope)and Plot 5 on the bench and at the east end of the easterly wetland mitigation triangle. `r ,P' o'.+�J r sri {..yetij.. laa, A4 ��.,4 s . • f A �,�J4 A ,'-. '... ---.'gs..t.,! 144 r 1G Fv f. M t 4r yT�"zylr a � tom'y.r 1 it it14. 1 .• -...•• 'r..". 4 fs 4 - a .-„ f- ,• his am e' • 1) Photo#8: From Photo Station 8 looking west up Springbrook Creek. H-l 03: .-02 ti -4 WETLAND EVALUATION AND DELINEATION REPORT ZELMAN/STERNCO PROJECT SITE Section 36, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M. prepared for: Zelman Development Company 707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 3036 Los Angeles, CA 90017 prepared by: WATERSHED DYNAMICS, INC. P.O. Box 1957 Auburn, Washington 98071-1957 • TEL 1.253.735.4288 FAX 1.253.735.4288 February 6, 1998 WATERSHED DYNAMICS, INC. PREFACE The information provided in the document is for use by Zelman Development Company (Zelman) and its authorized agents. Watershed Dynamics, Inc. (WDI) advises Zelman to contact regulatory agencies regarding wetland and stream regulations as well as permitting requirements that may affect the design and implementation of this project. Typically the agencies that may be involved are the: 1. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch (Corps) for Section 404 Permit compliance (assuming wetland fill/modification in excess of 1/3-acre) and verification of wetland boundaries if a 404 permit is required, 1. Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE) for 401 Water Quality Certification, 1. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) for a Hydraulic Project Approval to discharge stormwater into waters of the State, and 1. City of Renton for verification of wetland boundaries, buffer requirements, and mitigation/restoration plans associated with the project. WDI further advises Zelman to obtain concurrence from these agencies at the conceptual planning level to avoid potential regulatory delays during the plan review or construction phases of the project. The following report is based upon field evidence gathered in October and November 1996 at the Zelman/Sternco project site. Field visits were not conducted during the generally recognized growing season in western Washington. WDI submits that areas defined, or marginally defined, as wetlands at the time of the field investigations will show stronger wetland character during the growing season. Wetland boundaries were delineated by WDI personnel in accordance with criteria and procedures specified in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (USACE, 1987). The delineated wetland areas were surveyed by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. (BCE). Wetland maps were produce by BCE and used in this report represent the wetland boundaries delineated by WDI. Those boundaries were inspected by the Corps of Engineers on October 2, 1997 and verified by letter on January 22, 1998. WDI has provided professional services in accordance with the standard of quality and level of expertise generally accepted for wetland identification and delineation projects. No other warranties are expressed or implied. WDI does not assume responsibility for design, permitting, construction, or other project costs incurred prior to agency verification of wetland boundaries (within 100 feet of the proposed project site), approval of this delineation report, and authorization of proposed mitigation plans prepared on the basis of information that was, in part, provided to WDI by Zelman or its authorized agents. Zelman/Sternco Project Site Wetland Delineation Report-Preface WATERSHED DYNAMICS, INC. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Zelman/Sternco project site is approximately 45 acres in size and located directly north and west of the intersection of S.W. 43rd Street and Oaksdale Avenue S.W. in the City of Renton, King County, Washington. This site is divided west to east by Springbrook Creek, a channelized tributary to the Green River. The northern portion of the site is under a Consent Decree to clean up hazardous materials left by the Sternco Auto Stripping operation. Zelman Development Company (Zelman) is currently proposing to complete the onsite clean up and develop commercial and light-industrial facilities consistent with other development in the area. Watershed Dynamics, Inc. (WDI) was retained by Zelman to conduct a site reconnaissance for the purpose of determining if there were any regulated wetlands existed on the subject property. From the site reconnaissance, WDI determined there were regulated wetlands on site and, at Zelman's direction proceeded with delineation of those onsite wetlands following the procedures outlined in the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (1987 Manual) and the Federal Manual for Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands(1989 Manual). Wetland boundary delineation was based on observations sample plots which exhibited all three established wetland criteria (hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology) in accordance with the 1987 and 1989 Manuals. Sample plots that had all three characteristics were identified as wetland and those that did not were identified as upland. The wetland boundary was placed between the upland and wetland plots resulting in the delineation of five onsite wetlands (see chart below). WETLAND ID. ESTIMATED SIZE WETLAND CLASS CITY OF FUNCTION (square feet RENTON CLASS & VALUE onsite) A 7,012 * PUBH, PEMA, 1 high PSSA, PFO1 C B 9,585 PFO1 Cd 3 low C 1 ,540 PFO1 Cd 3 low D 32,699 PEME 3 low PUBH - palustrine, unconsolidated bottom, permanently flooded PEMA-palustrine, emergent, temporarily flooded PSSA - palustrine, scrub-shrub, temporarily flooded PF01 C - palustrine, forested, broad-leaved deciduous, seasonally flooded PEME - palustrine, emergent, seasonally flooded-saturated PF01 Cd - palustrine, forested, broad-leaved deciduous, seasonally flooded, partially drained/ditched PF01 Ch - palustrine, forested, broad-leaved deciduous, seasonally flooded, diked/impounded *-onsite wetland extends offsite (Cowardin, et al, 1979) Zelman/Sternco Project Site—Executive Summary Wetland Delineation Report—Page 1 WATERSHED DYNAMICS, INC. Once the delineation process is completed, the next step is to determine is the delineated wetlands are regulated. On this site, both the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (CORPS) and the City of Renton (CITY) regulate activities in and around the identified wetland areas. These wetlands are deemed to be "jurisdictional" and activities undertaken within or in close proximity to these wetlands must be planned, to the extent possible, to avoid adverse impact to the wetlands areas. From the City's perspective, that includes wetland buffers. Such regulations focus on the avoidance of adverse impacts first, focusing later on permitted activities that minimize impacts or mitigate for impacts that can not be avoided. Zelman is under the order of a Consent Decree from the Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE) to clean up hazardous wastes on a portion of this site. As is happens, the wetlands are all within the hazardous waste cleanup area. To meet the CORPS, Zelman will apply under a Section 404, Nationwide Permit 38 (NWP 38) to cleanup the site and eliminate the wetlands during that process. Zelman will, as a requirement of that permit, mitigate for the obliterated wetland resources on site, at a 1:1 replacement ratio, in advance of the cleanup activities. The City of Renton has established criteria by which to categorize wetlands for purposes of regulation and compensatory mitigation. The mitigation plan being proposed to satisfy the CORPS regulatory requirements is also intended to respond to the City's regulatory mandate. The mitigation area will include an enhanced buffer, a minimum of 25-feet wide, to meet the City's requirement. Following delineation, the wetland category for each wetland was determined using definitions detailed in City of Renton Ordinance #4346. This was done to determine the buffer requirements and, if necessary, the mitigation ratios required for each impacted wetland. In addition, a wetland function and value assessment was completed for each identified wetland. An assessment of function and value is the critical first step in development of a mitigation plan, should wetland impact mitigation become a necessary part of the overall development plan. Zelman/Sternco Project Site— Executive Summary Wetland Delineation Report—Page 2 WATERSHED DYNAMICS, INC. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 PURPOSE 1 PROJECT SITE DESCRIPTION 2 METHODOLOGY 3 BACKGROUND DATA COLLECTION 3 Color Aerial Photos 3 Topographic Mapping 3 National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) 3 Priority Habitats and Species Mapping 3 Stream Mapping 4 Shorelines Management Programs/Wetland and Stream Inventory 4 Soil Mapping 4 FIELD DATA COLLECTION 4 RESULTS OF DATA COLLECTION EFFORTS 7 BACKGROUND DATA COLLECTION 7 Color Aerial Photos 7 Topographic Mapping 7 National Wetlands Inventory (NWIQ 7 Priority Habitats and Species Mapping 7 Stream Mapping 7 Shorelines Management Programs/Wetland and Stream Inventory 8 Soil Mapping 8 FIELD DATA COLLECTION 8 Wetland Delineation 8 Soils 9 Hydrology 9 Vegetation 10 WETLAND DETERMINATION 11 CONCLUSIONS AND REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS 13 WETLAND FUNCTION AND VALUE ASSESSMENT 13 REGULATORY CONSIDERATION 13 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers -Section 404 14 Washington Department of Ecology 15 City of Renton -Wetland Ordinance #4346 15 REQUIRED IMPACT MITIGATION 16 REFERENCES APPENDIX A - Data Sheets APPENDIX B - Wetland Function and Value Assessment Zelman/Sternco Project Site Wetland Delineation Report—TOC WATERSHED DYNAMICS, INC. INTRODUCTION This report information collected by Watershed Dynamics, Inc. (WDI) during the course of its background review and onsite evaluation efforts on behalf of the Zelman Development Company (ZELMAN). The focus of this effort was the evaluation Zelman/Sternco project site (SITE), which is located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection formed by S.W. 43rd Street and Oakesdale Avenue S.W. in the City of Renton (CITY), King County, Washington (Figure 1). The legal description for this project site is Section 36, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M. As part of the overall project evaluation, delineation of onsite and adjacent wetland and the Springbrook Creek drainage corridor was a vital element in the planning and selection of ZELMAN's preferred action development alternative. The goal of this approach is to assure that planned site development does not result in adverse environmental impacts to these areas. According to CITY Ordinance #4346, wetlands are defined as "those lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems that are inundated or saturated by ground or surface water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions." PURPOSE The purpose of the wetland study (evaluation and delineation) was to complete the dentification and delineation of wetland areas located on site. Delineation was completed following the methods and procedures defined in the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (1987 Manual) and the Federal Manual for Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands (1989 Manual). This study was designed to facilitate project planning and potential regulatory compliance. The purpose of this report is to present the information collected by WDI and to provide ZELMAN and its authorized agents with information regarding wetland regulations and mitigation requirements. WDI prepared this report to assist the project design process and to provide the project design team with necessary information about permitting requirements, mitigation plan review and approval, and long-term performance monitoring of created mitigation wetlands. Zelman/Sternco Project Site Wetland Delineation Report—Page 1 WATERSHED DYNAMICS, INC. PROJECT SITE DESCRIPTION The SITE is approximately 45 acres in size and located within an area of the CITY that is zoned for commercial/industrial development. Prior to ZELMAN's acquisition of the SITE, numerous land use activities had occurred. Among them was partial clearing, grading, and filling, access road development, installation of railraod sidings, construction of buildings, placement of pavement, stripping of automobiles, accumulation of hazardous materials, onsite ditching, and the development of a regional stormwater conveyance facility for the Springbrook Creek drainage system. The northern portion of the site includes several railroad sidings and associated buildings while the southern part of the site is essentially open (Figure 2). The SITE is bordered on the west by Oakesdale Avenue S.W., on the south by S.W. 43rd Street, on the east by a narrow strip of vacant property owned by the City of Renton along the Burlington Northern Railroad right-of-way, and on the north by developed industrial property. Two single family residences (one vacant) remain fronting S.W. 43rd Street. The onsite plant communities have been altered as a result of past land use activities. The vegetative community on site is dominated by seeded pasture grasses as well as invasive and pioneer plant species such as reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus procera), black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa). Zelman/Sternco Project Site Wetland Delineation Report— Page 2 WATERSHED DYNAMICS, INC. METHODOLOGY BACKGROUND DATA COLLECTION prior to initiating a site reconnaissance, WDI personnel review available published, and n some cases, unpublished information to determine whethed wetlands and/or stream ohannals have been previously identified on the SITE. This effort generally works to expedite the overall reconnaissance process. Color Aerial Photos Reiveiw of the most recent (1995) color aerial photos of a specific site and the area surrounding it can be very helpful in identifying locations that appear to have wetland or :stream channel characteristics. The scale used for this project reconnaissance was '1"=1000' on aerial photos purchased from Walker and Associates of Tukwilla. Figure 2 s an enlargement (1"=200') of a portion of one of those aerial photos. Although not used for this project, color infrared photos available at the Seattle District Office of the US Army Corps of Engineers (CORPS) are also useful in the preliminary dentification of wetlands and streams (or other water bodies). Topographic Mapping A review of USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle topographic maps can provide insight egarding the likelihood wetlands and/or stream (open water bodies) are present on or n close proximity to the site. Looking at this information in advance can expedite on site assessments. National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps were prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFES) for most of western Washington in 1989 through 1990. These maps use a US Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute quadrangle topographic map base to record suspected wetland areas identified on aerial photos. The Renton Quad was reviewed prior to conducting onsite evaluations. Priority Habitats and Species Mapping The Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) maps prepared by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and the Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) were reviewed prior to onsite evaluations. Zelman/Sternco Project Site Wetland Delineation Report— Page 3 WATERSHED DYNAMICS, INC. Stream Mapping Prior to onsite investigations, WDI reviewed portions of the Catalog of Washington Streams and Salmon Utilization, Volume 1 - Puget Sound (Williams, et al. 1976) compiled by the Washington Department of Fisheries (now WDFW). This document identified Springbrook Creek (WRIA #09-0005) as a tributary to the Black River (WRIA #09-0004). Shorelines Management Programs/Wetland and Stream Inventory The CITY's wetland and stream inventory identified Springbrook Creek, within in the I Site, as being subject to the CITY's Shoreline Master Plan. There were no wetlands identified on the SITE outside the Springbrook Creek corridor. Soil Mapping The Natural Resources Conservation Service (formerly the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soils Conservation Service) has identified and mapped the soils within the CITY as part of their overall effort to map soil types in King County. This information was published in the Soil Survey of King County Area Washington (SCS, 1973). Review of onsite soils prior to initiating a site reconnaissance or delineation effort is very helpful because identification of hydric soils on site can be an indicator that wetlands exist. A pertinent portion of soils information for this site is shown on Figure 3 of this report. FIELD DATA COLLECTION WDI field personnel generally follow a thorough review of the background data with an initial on site reconnaissance to verify the information collected and to determine where wetland and stream corridor delineation efforts will be concentrated. This can be done by walking transect lines, defined on a base map during the background data collection phase, and looking for the wetland (hydrophytic) plants and/or surfacial evidence of hydrology. Finding these wetland indicators on a broad level assessment allows the actual delineation process to focus more quickly on the suspected wetland features. Following the reconnaissance, WDI personnel begin collecting data about the site by selecting a sample plot or point, evaluating and identifying the plant species present at that point, and digging a soil test pit to assess soil characteristics and wetland hydrology. Three parameters are used to define a sample plot or point as wetland: (1) a predominance of hydrophytic vegetation, (2) the presence of hydric soils, and (3) evidence of wetland hydrology during a certain period of the growing season. Zelman/Sternco Project Site Wetland Delineation Report— Page 4 WATERSHED DYNAMICS, INC. This terminology is described thoroughly in both the 1987 and 1989 manuals as well as in numerous technical publications about wetlands. The most cumbersome parameter to measure is the evidence of hydrology during a specific portion of the growing season. Since wetland delineation cannot be practically constrained to the growing season (mid-February through mid- October for the Puget Sound lowlands), the determination of wetland hydrology can be elusive during certain times of the year. NOTE: hydrology means the study of water. Wetland hydrology has come to mean the presence of observable water at a sample point or in a soil pit. Hydrology is the least exact of the parameters observed to assess the presence of a wetland. Water at (saturation) or over (inundation) the ground surface for more than a specified period of time during the growing season is indicative of wetland hydrology. The amount, depth, and duration of subsurface moisture that is required for a soil to be considered hydric are different for different soil types and drainage classes (of which there are seven). Ideally, hydrology should be measured during the growing season to get the most accurate assessment of wetland hydrology. The growing season is defined as that period during a year when the soil temperature is greater than 5 degrees C or biologic zero. In the lower elevations of Pierce and King County, the growing season is defined a thermic lasting from mid-February through October. Soil characteristics (i.e. soil color and mottling) are the most difficult to assess because of varying light conditions and sample moisture. Since the classification of hydric soils is done by comparing the color of the soil sample with the color chips on a Munsell Color Chart (Kollmorgen, 1988), even the individual investigators ability to discern subtle changes in hue, value, and choma will vary from day to day and among different i lvestigators. NOTE: a hydric soil is defined as "a soil that, in its undrained condition, is saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions that favor the growth and regeneration of hydrophytic plants" (SCS, 1985). Wetland biologists generally use a Munsell (Kollmorgen, 1988) soil color comparison chart to evaluate soil color characteristics (hue, chroma, and value) of samples taken in the areas on both sides of the suspected wetland boundary. The hue describes the soil color based upon 5 spectral colors (red, yellow, blue, purple, and green) and 5 intermediate colors such as yellow-red (YR) or blue-green (BG). Each hue is divided into four steps. 2.5, 5, 7.5, and 10. The hue is recorded as a combination of numeric and alpha characters such as 10YR or 5YR. The value is a measure of the lightness or darkness of a soil sample in relation to a neutral gray. Value is graded on a scale of 1 to 10 with gray being a 5. The value observed is recorded as a single digit numeric value that is separated from the hue by a space. The soil chroma is measure of the purity or strength of the soil color. Chroma is expressed as a single numeric value ranging from 0, which is neutral, to 8, which is the strongest the color will appear in soils. Chroma is separated from value by a slash. When a soil color is determined, that observation is recorded as hue value/chroma or, for example, 10YR 2/2, for a very dark brown soil. In addition to the hue, value, and chroma of the soil observed, a wetland biologist is also looking for the presence of mottles or other signs of anaerobic decomposition. Mottles are described in terms of quantity (few, common, many), size (fine, medium, coarse), contrast (faint, disctinct, prominent), and color(using Munsell notation). The information is record in that order. The criterion for considering a soil to be hydric varies significantly and is explained as part of the Washington Hydric Soils List(SCS, 1988). It should be noted that soil color may be the most difficult parameter to assess. Zelman/Sternco Project Site Wetland Delineation Report— Page 5 WATERSHED DYNAMICS, INC. Assessment of plant communities can be very straight forward and relatively easy if the rite has not been disturbed or the plants have not been distressed by land use actions uch as livestok grazing, pasture mowing, or clearing and grading. In some instances, tie plant community may be so disturbed that the paramete has to be assumed base upon the presence of the other two parameters, hydric soils and wetland hydrology. NOTE: hydrophytic plants are species that typically grow in areas where the soils are permanently or seasonally inundated or saturated and the period of saturation is sufficient to influence the plant species present. Plants requiring saturation or inundation throughout the growing season are referred to as obligate (OBL) species. At the other end of the spectrum as upland (UPL) plants that prefer not to have saturated soils during the growing season. Between these two extremes are facultative upland (FACU), facultative (FAC), and facultative wet (FACW) species. A list showing plant indicator status for plants in the Pacific Northwest has been published by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (Reed, et al, 1993). For an area to meet the criteria for wetland plants, more than 50% of the dominant species in each stratum (herb, shrub, and tree) must be a FAC, FACW, or OBL species. Zelman/Sternco Project Site Wetland Delineation Report— Page 6 WATERSHED DYNAMICS, INC. RESULTS OF DATA COLLECTION EFFORTS BACKGROUND DATA COLLECTION Color Aerial Photos Review of the 1995 color aerial photos revealed there were both on site wetlands and a stream corridor as well as wetlands adjacent to the SITE between the western project boundary and the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks. Topographic Mapping Review of the USGS topographic maps revealed the presence of a stream channel bisecting the SITE west to east and relatively flat on-site topography. No depressions or wetland areas were specifically noted. National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Review of the Renton Quad was revealed that the Springbrook Creek drainage system, an onsite excavated ditch, and a wetland complex along the railroad corridor near the northwestern corner of the Site had previously been identified (see Figure 4). No other on site wetlands were noted. Priority Habitats and Species Mapping This mapping resource identified the Springbrook Creek drainage and a wetland complex at the northwestern boundary of the Site. Neither of these were noted as particularly important habitats or providing significant support of endangered or 1:hreatened species of plants or animals. Stream Mapping The stream catalogue indicated that coho salmon (Oncorhychus kisutch) utilize the Springbrook Creek system. Springbrook Creek is a tributary to the Black River, which s in turn a tributary to the Green River. Although there is a flood control structure where the Black meets the Green, salmon are reported to pass over or through that structure and migrate upstream into Springbrook Creek. Note that the catalogue was designed to provide information about commercially significant salmon species so use by other fish is not reported. WDI is aware, however, the other fish species (native Trout and non-salmonid fish) do inhabit portions of Springbrook Creek. Zelman/Sternco Project Site Wetland Delineation Report— Page 7 WATERSHED DYNAMICS, INC. Shorelines Management Programs/Wetland and Stream Inventory The CITY's wetland and stream inventory identified Springbrook Creek, within in the I Site, as being subject to the CITY's Shoreline Master Plan. There were no wetlands identified on the SITE outside the Springbrook Creek corridor. Soil Mapping Review of the SCS soils map for the area revealed the presence of four soil types on site. These were: Mapping Listed on King County Soil Name Symbol Hydric Soils List Puget silty clay loam Pu Yes Puyallup fine sandy loam Py No Woodinville silt loam Wo Yes Urban land Ur No NOTE: a detailed description of each of these soils types can be found the Soil Survey of King County Washington (SCS, 1979). FIELD DATA COLLECTION Wetland Delineation Onsite evaluations were completed on October 31, 1996 and November 6, 1996. The objective of these evaluations was to define and delineate specific areas within the ,3ITE. These were the areas that exhibited all three criteria for designation as 'wetland" for purposes of site planning and project permitting activities. Boundaries between wetland and non-wetland areas were established by examining I:he transitional gradient between the presence and absence of the three established wetland criteria. Onsite delineations were conducted in accordance with criteria and procedures established in the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (1987 Manual) and the Federal Manual for Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands (1989 Manual). Observations and evaluations were performed using the Routine Methodology for areas ;greater than five acres as detailed within the 1987 Manual. The wetland boundary, selected by the WDI wetland biologist, was marked in the field with numbered flagging either attached to foliage and/or tied to wood lath stakes. The boundary was roughly identified on the project site map by the wetland team using compass bearings and paced measurements from defined points (i.e. existing roadways, sanitary sewer man-holes, fire hydrants). Zelman/Sternco Project Site Wetland Delineation Report— Page 8 WATERSHED DYNAMICS, INC. This rough map information was given to the BCE survey crew so they could locate and survey the flagged boundary points and soil test pits. Data collected by BCE was converted into a site map that showed the sample plot (point) locations, wetland t oundary, property boundaries, site topography, and human-made site improvements. NOTE: Onsite analysis determined that the identification and delineation of wetland boundaries would be the same using either the 1987 or 1989 Manuals. Soils Sample plot analysis identified both hydric and non-hydric soils within the SITE. Hydric soils are typically defined as soils which are saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions within the upper soils horizons. Sample plots (SP#) were established and numberes to identify the locations wher information about soils, vegetation, and hydrology were evaluated (Figure 5). -he information observed was recorded in a field notebool and later transferred onto Field Data Sheets in the office. Copies of those field data sheets are provided in Appendix A. In general, the soil profile throughout the majority of the SITE had been altered by past land use activities - primarily the placement of imported fill materials as a part of site development and site utilization. Soils samples within a narrow band of the old pasture area exhibited a mixture of characteristics common to the Woodinville soil series altered through plowing and land clearing (noted as Wetland B). These characteristics included prominent mottles, a silty clay texture, and a dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) soil matrix color. The remainder of the old pasture area exhibited soil characteristics more commonly identified with Puyallup fine sandy loam. Hydrology The majority of the SITE has been filled, graded, and leveled. A number of constructed ditches were present throughout the Site which direct surface stormwater offsite and nto the Springbrook Creek drainage corridor. Wetland hydrology within the SITE was provided primarily by stormwater captured and retained in small depression areas. Other onsite and adjacent upland areas drained to these depressions. Indicators of wetland hydrology observed onsite included the presence of damp or saturated soils, evidence of standing/ponded water, water stained leaves, and the presence of hydric soil field characteristics (i.e. mottles, concretions). Zelman/Sternco Project Site Wetland Delineation Report— Page 9 WATERSHED DYNAMICS, INC. A culvert located in the primary on-site roadway appears to add to the wetland hydrology by causing a seasonal backwater condition which supports wetland hydrology for small depressions on each side of the roadway (noted as Wetland C and Wetland D). A constructed ditch appeared to drain these small depressions into the Springbrook Creek drainage corridor. Surface stormwater from the southeast portion of the SITE and from S.W. 43rd Street appeared to pond for short periods in an area dominated by an even-aged stand of black cottonwood trees within a small depression and along an old internal roadway at the southeast corner of the Site. Surface stormwater was directed into this small depression via a constructed series of shallow ditches (noted as Wetland E). This areas seemed to have been filled and extensively compacted explaining the long-term standing water. The soils were not hydric in the area orignally designated as Wetland E. Subsequent CORPS verification determined the area was not wetland. Vegetation A number of plant communities were observed onsite. The majority of these plant communities were dominated by invasive and pioneer herbs, grasses, shrubs, sapling frees, and mature trees which had become established during brief changes in onsite land use activities. These changes appear, in part, as a result of the settlement of concerns associated with the potential impacts of past land uses, prior fill placements, and the conversion of homesites areas into commercial/industrial sites. The homesite areas along S.W. 43rd Street, along with the associated pasture area in the southwestern portion of the SITE, were overgrown with Himalayan blackberry (Rubus procera) thickets. Additional invasive species observed included bracken fern (Pteridium aquilium), fireweed (Epilobium angustifolium), Canadian thistle (Circisium arvensis), evergreen blackberry (Rubus laciniatus), sapling black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa), and Scotch (Scot's) broom (Cytisus scoparius). The plant community within the northern portion of the old pasture was dominated by reed canarygrass !Phalaris arundinacea). The northern portion of the SITE was dominated by sapling black cottonwood, sapling red alder (Alnus rubra), and a wide variety of herbs and grasses. This area was composed of very compacted fill. The plant community along the two depressions at the culvert under the internal roadway (noted as Wetlands C and D) was dominated by an even-aged stand of mature black cottonwood trees (estimated age = 20 to 25 years). Additional species included reed canarygrass, Sitka willow (Salix sitchensis), Douglas spiraea (Spiraea douglasii), red osier dogwood (Corpus stolonifera), and Himalayan blackberry. Zelman/Sternco Project Site Wetland Delineation Report—Page 10 WATERSHED DYNAMICS, INC. The upland edge of these delineated wetland areas was dominated by Himalayan blackberry, Scotch broom, sapling black cottonwood trees, and sapling Pacific madrone (Arbutus menziesii). The plant community within the southeastern portion of the SITE was dominated by a grove of even-aged black cottonwood trees (estimated age = 20 to 25 years). This grove was located on fill along an old internal roadway. Additional species observed included red osier dogwood, sapling big leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), reed c:anarygrass, Douglas spiraea, creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens), Himalayan blackberry, trailing blackberry (Rubus ursinus), salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), Pacific red elderberry (Sambucus racemosa). The plant community west of the SITE was dominated by a mixture of species typically associated with wetland conditions. The northern area was dominated by common cat- tail (Typha sp) while the central area was dominated by black cottonwood, Douglas spiraea, Sitka willow, Pacific willow (Salix lasiandra), red osier dogwood, and slough sedge (Carex obnupta). The southern portion of this offsite area was dominated by sapling black cottonwood and Himalayan blackberry. WETLAND DETERMINATION Wetland determination was based on sample plots which exhibited all three established wetland criteria (hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology) in EIccordance with the 1987 and 1989 Manual. Based on these methods, four onsite wetland areas were identified meeting all three wetland criteria (Attachment 1). The fDllowing table (Table 1) indicates the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) classification (Cowardin et. al, 1979) for this wetland, as well as the estimated size, the City of Renton Wetland Category, and the function and value rating for each wetland: TABLE 1: Description of Onsite Wetlands ESTIMATED SIZE CITY OF FUNCTION WETLAND ID. (sq feet onsite) WETLAND CLASS RENTON CLASS & VALUE A 7,012 * PUBH, PEMA, 1 high PSSA, PF01 C B 9,585 PF01 Cd 3 low C 1,540 PF01 Cd 3 low D 32,699 PEME 3 low PUBH-palustrine, unconsolidated bottom,permanently flooded PEMA-palustrine, emergent,temporarily flooded PSSA-palustrine,scrub-shrub,temporarily flooded PFO1C-palustrine,forested,broad-leaved deciduous, seasonally flooded PEME-palustrine,emergent,seasonally flooded-saturated PFO1Cd-palustrine,forested, broad-leaved deciduous, seasonally flooded, partially drained/ditched PFO1Ch-palustrine,forested, broad-leaved deciduous,seasonally *-onsite wetland extends offsite flooded,diked/impounded Zelman/Sternco Project Site Wetland Delineation Report— Page 11 WATERSHED DYNAMICS, INC. Wetland A exhibited a wide range of plant communities, the majority of which were offsite. The onsite portion of Wetland A was classified as palustrine scrub-shrub (PSSA) and palustrine emergent (PEME) following the Cowardin classification system. Observed plant species onsite included common cat-tail, sapling black cottonwood, Sitka willow, Pacific willow, Douglas spiraea, red osier dogwood, and reed canarygrass. The onsite portion of this wetland was estimated by BCE to be 7,021 square feet in size. The offsite portion of Wetland A included an area of year round open water, areas dominated by common cat-tail, and both shrub and forested communities. This wetland is brdered on the west by the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks. Hydrology within Wetland A appears seasonal, ranging from permanently flooded to seasonally saturated. This is a result of the wetland's depressional character which retains surface stormwater runoff rather than intercepting groundwater. The soil within this wetland varies from hydric mineral to imported fill to organic muck. Wetland B was dominated by a community composed primarily of reed canarygrass. This wetland appears as a small depression along an old property line fence. North of this fence the SITE is composed of imported fill. Softrush (Juncus effusus), curled dock (Rumex crispus), creeping buttercup, velvet grass (Holcus lanatus), willowweed (Epilobium ciliatum), and very small sapling black cottonwood were also noted within this community. The western edge of this wetland was dominated by red osier dogwood, Sitka willow, sapling black cottonwood, and Himalayan blackberry. The soil within this swale is generally a hydric mineral soil character of the Woodinville silty clay loam. BCE surveyed this isolated wetland and estimated it was 32,699 square feet in size. This wetland best fits the Cowardin classification of a palustrine, emergent, seasonally flooded-saturated (PEME). Wetlands C and D were dominated by an even aged stand of black cottonwood trees (estimated age = 20 to 25 years). Additional species included reed canarygrass, Sitka willow, Douglas spiraea, red osier dogwood, and Himalayan blackberry. The upland edge of these areas was dominated by Himalayan blackberry, Scotch broom, sapling black cottonwood, and sapling Pacific madrone. These wetlands may exist in part because of the improper placement of a culvert, filling of adjacent areas, and poorly maintained outflow ditching. A ditch, constructed through an area of imported fill directs surface water runoff from wetland A, through Wetlands C and D, and into the Springbrook Creek drainage corridor. BCE surveyed wetlands C and D and estimated their size to be 9,585 square feet and 1,540 square feet respectively. These wetlands meet the Cowardin criteria of palustrine, forested, broad-leaved deciduous, seasonally flooded, partially drained/ditched (PFO1 Cd). Zelman/Sternco Project Site Wetland Delineation Report— Page 12 WATERSHED DYNAMICS, INC. CONCLUSIONS AND REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS WETLAND FUNCTION AND VALUE ASSESSMENT Wetlands are known to perform significant roles in the ecosystem, some of which are of immediate value to society. A more detailed desciption of those functions and values is included in Appenix B of this report. Onsite wetlands were assessed by WDI by rating the following functions: 1. HYDROLOGIC SUPPORT 2. SHORELINE PROTECTION 3. STORM RUNOFF STORAGE AND FLOOD ATTENUATION 4. WATER QUALITY PROTECTION AND IMPROVEMENT 5. GROUNDWATER RECHARGE 6. BIOLOGIC SUPPORT AND WILDLIFE/FISH HABITAT These six functions are rated low, moderate, or high, based on the criteria outlined in Attachment B. These criteria are guidelines compiled from Adamus (1987) and Leppert (1979) and professional judgment must be exercised in assessing these criteria. Overall values for a wetland are assigned, based on a synthesis of individual ✓alues. The ratings for each of the four on-site wetlands are presented in TABLE 1 above. In addition to intrinsic functions, extrinsic functions are also recognized. These extrinsic functions provide social values that have indirect benefits to wetlands. Education and recreational opportunities are most often mentioned as extrinsic functions. Associated values are often in the eye of the beholder and are thus difficult to evaluate. As such, these functions are not rated, but are nonetheless important when considering creation, restoration, or enhancement projects. REGULATORY CONSIDERATION The proposed alteration delineated and verified wetlands raises environmental concerns that are generally addressed in the development review process. These concerns focus mainly upon potential adverse impacts to the structure, function, value, and size of onsite wetland areas as well as wetlands in close proximity to the SITE. For this SITE, however, it is known that Wetlands B, C, and D will be obliterated as part of the Consent Decree mandated cleanup. It is also known that a portion of Wetland A will be affected by the cleanup effort. Zelman/Sternco Project Site Wetland Delineation Report— Page 13 WETLAND FUNCTION & VALUE RATING FORM Wetland Name or Number: Si-ernco - Wer-1o,,vgd Pt Wetland Size: en-t(D ` (acres) Wetland Delineation Date: i I/°B(.D Function & Value Assessment Completed by: L.Bu,rnsf-okd /T.Demin� -%Qriprox Pl me.YGS A.k W/OFC-Sl'Ee LW'tV�. WETLAND VALUE RATING FUNCTION LOW ( MEDIUM () HIGH CD Hydrologic a) Intermittently flooded a(Seasonally flooded a) Intertidal Support b) Hydrologically isolated ®Open water b Permanently flooded Shoreline Q Wetland < 100 yds a) Wetland 100 yds to a) Wetland >200 yds Protection wide. 200 yds wide. wide. b) Emergent plant b) Sparse woody and © Plant community of community or no dense emergent dense woody plants. vegetation vegetation. c) Undeveloped shoreline lo Moderately developed c) Highly developed shoreline. shoreline. Storm Runoff ® Wetland size <5 acres. a) Wetland size = 5 acres a) Wetland size >10 Storage b) Wetland in remote to 10 acres. acres. and location. b) Wetland in rural © Wetland in urban or c) <10% woody cover. location. developable area. Flood c) 10% to 30% woody c) >30% woody cover. Attentuation cover. Water Quality Wetland size <5 acres. a) Wetland size= 5 acres a) Wetland size >10 Protection b) Vegetation density to 10 acres. acres. <50%. b) Vegetation density= © Vegetation density and/or c) No proximity to 50% to 80%. >80%. Improvement pollutant sources. c) Downstream from non- c) Downstream from point d) Retains <25% of storm point pollution sources. source pollutants. runoff. d) Retains 25% to 50% of d© Retains>50% of storm e) Intermittently flooded. storm runoff. runoff. Groundwater 0 Wetland size <5 acres. a) Wetland size = 5 acres a) Wetland size >10 Recharge b) Isolated depression(s). to 10 acres. acres. c) Temporarily saturated. © Seasonally flooded. 6 Permanently d) Impermeable inundated. substrate. c) Minimum water depth >3 feet. Biologic Support a) Low plant density. a© Moderate plant a) High plant diversity. and b) Low wildlife diversity. diversity. b) High wildlife diversity. Wildlife/Fish c) Minimal habitat (0 Moderate wildlife © Three or more habitat features. diversity. types. Habitat d) Monotypic plant c) Two habitat types. d) Unique habitat community. 0 Several plant features, plants, or e Small wetland area. communities present. animals present. Wetland isolated. e) Moderate wetland size. e) Large wetland size. O Associated with high f) Associated with salt marsh or perennial stream or intermittent stream. tidal marsh. WETLAND FUNCTION & VALUE RATING FORM Wetland Name or Number: b Wetland Size: 0.21L (acres) Wetland Delineation Date: 1\ /al, Function & Value Assessment Completed by: T. OumAiv,) / L.6 v..^,�,5-b WETLAND VALUE RATING = L.&J.J FUNCTION LOW MEDIUM HIGH Hydrologic SIntermittently flooded a) Seasonally flooded a) Intertidal Support Hydrologically isolated b) Open water b) Permanently flooded Shoreline Q Wetland < 100 yds a) Wetland 100 yds to a) Wetland >200 yds Protection wide. 200 yds wide. wide. b) Emergent plant ® Sparse woody and b) Plant community of community or no dense emergent dense woody plants. vegetation vegetation. ® Undeveloped shoreline c) Moderately developed c) Highly developed shoreline. shoreline. Storm Runoff q Wetland size <5 acres. a) Wetland size = 5 acres a) Wetland size >10 1 Storage Wetland in remote to 10 acres. acres. and location. b) Wetland in rural Wetland in urban or c) <10% woody cover. location. developable area. Flood ® 10% to 30% woody c) >30% woody cover. Attentuation cover. Water Quality Wetland size <5 acres. a) Wetland size = 5 acres a) Wetland size >10 Vegetation density to 10 acres. acres. Protection 1) <50%. t3► Vegetation density= b) Vegetation density and/or c) No proximity to 50% to 80%. >80%. Improvement P I® pollutant sources. c) Downstream from non- ® Downstream from point Retains <25% of storm point pollution sources. source pollutants. runoff. d) Retains 25% to 50% of d) Retains >50% of storm ® Intermittently flooded. storm runoff. runoff. Groundwater a Wetland size <5 acres. a) Wetland size= 5 acres a) Wetland size >10 Recharge Isolated depression(s). to 10 acres. acres. Temporarily saturated. b) Seasonally flooded. b) Permanently 0 Impermeable inundated. i substrate. c) Minimum water depth >3 feet. Biologic Support a Low plant density. a) Moderate plant a) High plant diversity. and Low wildlife diversity. diversity. b) High wildlife diversity. Wildlife/Fish , Minimal habitat b) Moderate wildlife c) Three or more habitat features. diversity. types. Habitat ® Monotypic plant c) Two habitat types. d) Unique habitat community. `—...� ® Several plant features, plants, or aSmall wetland area. communities present. animals present. Wetland isolated. 64 Moderate wetland size. e) Large wetland size. f) Associated with high f) Associated with salt marsh or perennial stream or intermittent stream. tidal marsh. WETLAND FUNCTION & VALUE RATING FORM Wetland Name or Number: Wetland Size: O.03 (acres) Wetland Delineatiop Date: 11/91.0 Function &Value Assessment Completed by: T.t>em•i� / L.auxn5i WETLAND I VALUE RATING FUNCTION ' LOW MEDIUM HIGH Hydrologic 1 ciAlp Intermittently flooded a) Seasonally flooded a) Intertidal Support j Hydrologically isolated b) Open water b) Permanently flooded Shoreline 0 Wetland < 100 yds a) Wetland 100 yds to a) Wetland >200 yds Protection j wide. 200 yds wide. wide. b) Emergent plant @b Sparse woody and b) Plant community of community or no dense emergent dense woody plants. vegetation vegetation. Qc Undeveloped shoreline c) Moderately developed c) Highly developed shoreline. shoreline. Storm Runoff Q Wetland size <5 acres. a) Wetland size = 5 acres a) Wetland size >10 Storage ; b) Wetland in remote to 10 acres. acres. and I location. b) Wetland in rural b) Wetland in urban or c) <10% woody cover. location. developable area. Flood app 10%to 30% woody c) >30% woody cover. Attentuation cover. Water Quality ® Wetland size<5 acres. a) Wetland size= 5 acres a) Wetland size >10 Protection b) Vegetation density to 10 acres. acres. <50%. 0 Vegetation density= b) Vegetation density and/or c) No proximity to 50% to 80%. >80%. Improvement pollutant sources. c) Downstream from non- Q Downstream from point C Retains <25% of storm point pollution sources. source pollutants. runoff. d) Retains 25% to 50% of d) Retains >50% of storm I© Intermittently flooded. storm runoff. runoff. Groundwater a Wetland size<5 acres. a) Wetland size = 5 acres a) Wetland size >10 . . . Recharge.: Isolated depression(s). to 10 acres. acres. c Temporarily saturated. b) Seasonally flooded. b) Permanently Impermeable inundated. substrate. c) Minimum water depth >3 feet. il 11 Biologic Support, Low plant density. a) Moderate plant a) High plant diversity. and . Low wildlife diversity. diversity. b) High wildlife diversity. Minimal habitat b) Moderate wildlife c) Three or more habitat Wildlife/Fish ' features. diversity. types. Habitat Monotypic plant c) Two habitat types. d) Unique habitat it community. --- w 0 Several plant features, plants, or WSmall wetland area. communities present. animals present. Wetland isolated. e) Moderate wetland size. e) Large wetland size. f) Associated with high f) Associated with salt marsh or perennial stream or intermittent stream. tidal marsh. WETLAND FUNCTION & VALUE RATING FORM Wetland Name or Number: D Wetland Size: 0.1.5 (acres) Wetland Delineation Date: I 1 /94:, Function & Value Assessment Completed by: L•bwri'ad1 WETLAND VALUE RATING = LoAl FUNCTION LOW MEDIUM HIGH Hydrologic c Intermittently flooded a) Seasonally flooded a) Intertidal Support Hydrologically isolated b) Open water b) Permanently flooded Shoreline 0 Wetland < 100 yds a) Wetland 100 yds to a) Wetland >200 yds Protection 0 wide. 200 yds wide. wide. Emergent plant b) Sparse woody and b) Plant community of community or no dense emergent dense woody plants. vegetation vegetation. I) Undeveloped shoreline c) Moderately developed c) Highly developed shoreline. shoreline. Storm Runoff 0 Wetland size <5 acres. a) Wetland size = 5 acres a) Wetland size >10 Storage b) Wetland in remote to 10 acres. acres. and location. b) Wetland in rural Wetland in urban or <10% woody cover. location. developable area. Flood c) 10% to 30% woody c) >30% woody cover. Attentuation cover. ij Water Quality 10 Wetland size <5 acres. a) Wetland size = 5 acres a) Wetland size >10 Protection b) Vegetation density to 10 acres. acres. I <50%. 66 Vegetation density= b) Vegetation density and/or c) No proximity to 50% to 80%. >80%. Improvement pollutant sources. c) Downstream from non- c) Downstream from point gRetains <25% of storm point pollution sources. source pollutants. runoff. d) Retains 25% to 50% of d) Retains >50% of storm ( Intermittently flooded. storm runoff. runoff. Groundwater Wetland size <5 acres. a) Wetland size = 5 acres a) Wetland size >10 Recharge Isolated depression(s). to 10 acres. acres. Temporarily saturated. b) Seasonally flooded. b) Permanently 67 Impermeable inundated. substrate. c) Minimum water depth 3 feet. Biologic Support Low plant density. a) Moderate plant a) High plant diversity. and Low wildlife diversity. diversity. b) High wildlife diversity. Wildlife/Fish Minimal habitat b) Moderate wildlife c) Three or more habitat features. diversity. types. Habitat ® Monotypic plant c) Two habitat types. d) Unique habitat community. d) Several plant features, plants, or Small wetland area. communities present. animals present. Wetland isolated. e) Moderate wetland size. e) Large wetland size. f) Associated with high f) Associated with salt marsh or perennial stream or j intermittent stream. tidal marsh. WATERSHED DYNAMICS, INC. The anticipated adverse impacts include: a reduction in wildlife habitats, surface water storage, water quality, ground water recharge rate, plant species diversity, and function ,:end value of other associated wetland and non-wetland characteristics. As a result, the proposed wetland impacts will have to be permtted and mitigated. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Section 404 Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) prohibits the discharge of dredged or fill material into "Waters of the United States" without a permit from the CORPS. The CORPS has jurisdiction over freshwater systems waterward from the ordinary high water line of a water body or waterward from the upland boundary of the adjacent wetland. The definition of fill materials includes the replacement of aquatic areas with dry land, grading which changes the surface contour of a wetland, off-site .end/or on-site grading or ditching that affectively eliminates wetland hydrology, and mechanized land clearing in wetlands. For the purposes of Section 404 permitting the CORPS makes the final determination as to whether an area meets the wetland definition and would be subject to regulation under the CORPS program. In the analysis of the permit program the CORPS must follow the Guidelines for Specification of Disposal Sites for Dredged or Fill Materials (Section 404(b)(1) guidelines) as developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The stated goal of the Clean Water Act is "to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological quality of the nation's waters." Under these Section 404(b)(1) guidelines wetlands are considered "special aquatic sites" and the filling of such sites is generally discouraged. Currently the CORPS has two specific types of permits which apply to wetland fill proposals. These two types are a series of specific Nationwide Permits and the Individual Permit. 'The Nationwide Permit process identifies specific categories of work that can be undertaken following a set of specific conditions applicable to each Nationwide Permit number. Currently the CORPS, following the Nationwide Permit #38 process can authorize placement of fill or other adverse impact in wetlands lying within an area desingated for hazardous waste cleanup. Seattle District Office Regional Conditions require notification of the intent to initiate action using an NWP 38. In addition, impact mitigation is required and mitigation plans must be reviewed and approved by the CORPS. Zelman/Sternco Project Site Wetland Delineation Report— Page 14 WATERSHED DYNAMICS, INC. Washington Department of Ecology In addition, where onsite activities would be undertaken following the NWP 26 and would fill or adversely impact more than one acre of jurisdictional wetland a Section 401 Water Quality Certification must be obtained from the State of Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE).prior to initiating any cleanup action. Within the WDOE Water Quality Certification program it is very common that the issuance of such a certification would be dependent upon the project proponent providing full and complete mitigation for all wetland acreage impacted. City of Renton - Wetland Ordinance #4346 Wetland Categories: The CITY regulates activities in and around wetland areas. Such regulations also require that an undisturbed native vegetation buffer be placed along the upland side of the identified wetland and stream areas. To assist with these regulations the CITY has defined CATEGORIES by which to regulate wetland and their associated buffer areas. These categories are based on such features as size; the presence of endangered or threatened plants, fish, or animals; regionally rare wetlands; wetlands of local significance for wildlife or stormwater functions; the number of wetland classes and subclasses; and percentage of open water. Category 1 -Very High Quality Wetlands Category 1 wetlands are wetlands greater than 2,200 sq. ft. which meet one or more of the following criteria: 1. The presence of species listed by federal or state government as endangered or threatened, or the presence of essential habitat for those species; 2. Wetlands having 40% to 60% permanent open water with two or more vegetation classes; 3. Wetlands equal to or greater than ten acres in size and having three or more vegetation classes, one of which is open water; 4. The presence of plant associations of infrequent occurrence; or at the geographic limits of their occurrence, or 5. Wetlands assigned the Unique/Outstanding #1 rating in the current King County Wetlands Inventory 1991 or as thereafter amended. Category 2 - High Quality Wetlands Category 2 wetlands are wetlands greater than 2,200 sq. ft. which meet one or more of the following criteria: 1. Wetlands greater than 2,200 sq. ft. that are not Category 1 or 3 wetlands; 2. Wetlands that have heron rookeries or raptor nesting trees, but are not Category 1 wetlands; 3. Wetlands of any size located at the headwaters of a watercourse, but are not Category 1 wetlands; 4. Wetlands assigned the Significant #2 rating in the current King County Wetlands Inventory 1991 or as thereafter amended; 5. Wetlands having minimum existing evidence of human related physical alteration such as diking, ditching, channelization. Zelman/Sternco Project Site Wetland Delineation Report— Page 15 WATERSHED DYNAMICS, INC. Category 3 - Lower Quality Wetlands Category 3 wetlands are greater than 5,000 sq. ft. which meet one or more of the following criteria: (Category 3 wetlands less than 5,000 square feet in size are exempt from CITY regulations) 1. Wetlands that are severely disturbed. Severely disturbed wetlands are wetlands which meet the following criteria: a) Are characterized by hydrologic isolation, human-related hydrologic alterations such as diking, ditching, channelization, and/or outlet modification; and b) Have soils alterations such as the presence of fill, soil removal, and/or compaction of soils; and c) May have altered vegetation. 2. Wetlands that are newly emerging, Newly emerging wetlands are: a) Wetlands occurring on top of fill materials; and b) 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. 3. All other wetlands not classified as Category 1 or 2 such as smaller, high quality wetlands. Required Buffers: The CITY has established standard buffers to be applied to wetlands to assure protection of the wetland function and value. This buffer area is measured perpendicular to the defined wetland edge. Wetland Category Standard Buffer 1 100 feet 2 50 feet 3 25 feet In addition, the CITY has established separate buffer requirements for Springbrook Creek as a part of the CITY's Shoreline Master Program. The required buffer for proposed industrial uses is 25 feet and the required buffer for commercial uses is 50 feet. Zelman/Sternco Project Site Wetland Delineation Report— Page 16 WATERSHED DYNAMICS, INC. Required Impact Mitigation Both the CORPS and CITY require mitigation of impacts to regulated wetlands. Both agencies require creation of mitigation wetlands in advance of impacts to existing wetlands. Corps of Engineers: For the CORPS, impact mitigation requires a minimum replacement ratio of 1:1. The CORPS may, however, depending upon the specific circumstances require a larger mitigation ratio. This tends to occur with particularly high value wetlands or with mitigation plans that appear to have a moderate to low probability of succeeding. In addition to requiring mitigation to occur in advance of the impact, the CORPS typically will require the mitigation plan be submitted along with the ,DARPA. Review and approval of the mitigation plan is required before any impacts are Incurred or wetland creation is initiated. The CORPS does not regulate wetland buffers but can withhold mitigation plan approval if a minimum buffer is not included in the mitigation design. City of Renton: Regulated activities, such as filling and removal of vegetation, within wetlands and their required standard buffer areas may be allowed when all adverse impacts to the wetland and buffer will be mitigated according to the CITY Ordinance # 4346. Unless otherwise provided within the CITY Ordinance, mitigation is required for any loss of area or functional value of wetlands, streams, and buffers as a result of proposed development. The extent of such required mitigation is dependent upon the impacts associated with the proposed development and the extent to which such impacts can not be avoided or minimized through project design or project completion. Mitigation is defined as: 1. Avoiding the impact all together by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; 2. Minimizing impact by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation, by using appropriate technology, or by taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce impact; 3. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected areas. Zelman/Sternco Project Site Wetland Delineation Report— Page 17 WATERSHED DYNAMICS, INC. The standard mitigation ratio for impacts to a Category 3 Wetlands is 1.5:1 (created to impacted). The CITY allows for this replacement ratio to be reduced to 1:1 where the wetland mitigation is completed and proven successful prior to the proposed impacting of the project area wetland. The width of the required standard buffer may be manipulated through buffer averaging or buffer reduction. Such buffer averaging or reduction requires, in general, that there will be no adverse impact to the wetland, or function of the remaining buffer. The standard buffer width can be reduced by 25% where the project includes restoration and enhancement of the buffer through such activities as replanting of native vegetation. The standard buffer width can also be averaged, provided the total area of buffer remains the same. The maximum buffer width reduction through buffer averaging is 50%. Following a review of the CITY's Ordinance it appears evident that proposed filling or clearing of onsite Wetlands B, C, and D as well as the partial removal of material from Wetland A can be appropriately mitigated through either onsite and/or offsite wetland creation and enhancement. The CITY's Ordinance allows for such proposed activities where there will be an overall net benefit to the environmental resources of the City of Denton. n addition, appropriate buffers can be created adjacent to the created wetlands as is required by the CITY. The buffer area along Springbrook Creek is presently dominated Icy a thicket of Himalayan blackberries. This buffer area can be restored to a native plant community and provide both environmental benefit and aesthetic benefit to the overall project. Zelman/Sternco Project Site Wetland Delineation Report—Page 18 WATERSHED DYNAMICS, INC. REFERENCES Adamus, P.R., E.J. Clairain Jr., R.D. Smith, and R.E. Young. 1987. Wetland Evaluation Technique (WET); Volume II: Methodology, Operational Draft Technical Report Y-87, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. C;owardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Office of Biological Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, FWS/OBS-79/31. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual," Technical Report Y-87-1, US army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss. Hitchcock, C.L., A. Cronquist. 1977. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press. Seattle, Washington. Kollmorgen, 1988. Munsell Color Chart. Kollmorgen Corporation, The Macbeth Division. Baltimore, Maryland. Reppert, R.T., W. Sigleo, E. Stakhiv, L. Messman, and C. Meyers. 1979. Wetland Values- Concepts and Methods for Wetland Evaluation. Research Report 79-R1, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources, Fort Belvoir, Virginia. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soils Conservation Service. Soil Survey of King County Area Washington, November 1973. USFWS, 1990. National Wetland Inventory Map, Renton Quad. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Olympia, Washington. Zelman/Sternco Project Site Wetland Delineation Report—References APPENDIX A 1987 Field Data Forms APPENDIX B Wetland Function and Value Assessment WATERSHED DYNAMICS, INC. WETLAND FUNCTION AND VALUE ASSESSMENT Wetland systems are known to provide numerous important ecological functions ranging from hydrologic regulation to wildlife and fisheries habitat. Wetland functions are the physical, chemical, and biological processes or attributes of a wetland (Marble, 1992). Wetland values are those wetland functions that are perceived as being valuable or beneficial to society. Over the past 20-plus years, research scientist working with the US Army Corps of Engineers and field biologists have developed and experimented with many different wetland classification and assessment schemes. The intent has been to develop a method of distinguishing one wetland from another on the basis of function and value (Reppert et al, 1979; Adamus, 1983; Adamus et al, 1987). The most commonly used classification system is Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats (Cowardin, et al). Unfortunately, simply classifying wetlands by their physical parameters does not get directly at the issue of function and value. The function and value of a specific wetland are often important to defining project related and/or watershed based land management decisions. Although the Wetland Evaluation Technique, Volume II, Methodology (Adamus, 1983) is commonly used by Federal Agencies, WDI has elected to use a format which combines and simplifies the assessment methods developed by Reppert and Adamus. Listed below are the parameters evaluated and a brief explanation as to their particular significance. These parameters have been grouped on a Wetland Function and Value Rating Form (Figure 1). HYDROLOGIC SUPPORT FUNCTION Water, whether from a surface water source or from ground water, is the most critical feature to the ecological integrity of a wetland. The manner in which water flows into and through a wetland is a measure of hydrologic support both to the wetland itself and ecosystems downstream from that wetland. The frequency and duration of inundation and/or saturation by surface water runoff, precipitation, or tidal action determine the level of hydrologic support of a specific wetland. Wetlands that are permanently flooded or saturated or are associated with intertidal areas rate the highest for hydrologic function. A moderate or medium rating is applied to wetlands that are seasonally flooded or saturated and are not influenced by tidal action. Wetlands that are hydrologically isolated or only intermittently flooded or saturated are given a low functional rating. The more stable the hydrologic regime is in a wetland the greater role that wetland has in the overall ecological function of the watershed. SHORELINE PROTECTION FUNCTION Wetlands often provide the buffer between aquatic and upland areas. By virtue of being between these to ecotypes, the wetland serves to reduce the energy of waves or flood waters that tend to erode the soils at the shoreline or edge of the upland area. The function of a specific wetland is measured by the width of the wetland, the location of the wetland along the shoreline, the variety and vigor of the plant community, and the extent of human development along the shoreline. Shoreline wetlands greater than 200 yards in width and containing a dense woody plant community receive a high function rating. Wetlands that are 100 yards to 200 yards wide with a less dense plant community receive a medium rating. A low rating would be applied to those wetlands that are less than 100 yards wide and are dominated by emergent plants (lack woody vegetation). STORMWATER AND FLOODWATER STORAGE FUNCTION This function is evaluated based upon the degree to which a specific wetland can store surface runoff (stormwater) or retain water after being inundated by floodwaters. Many wetlands occupy depression areas in the landscape or floodplain depressions where floodwater tends to be stored. Larger wetlands of this type do more to attenuate flood flows so wetlands larger than 10 acres receive a high function rating. Wetlands located in urban or developed areas also receive a high rating because they may represent the only flood storage available in a developed watershed. Zelman/Sternco Project Site—WDI Project No. 96121AT Wetland Function and Value Assessment— Page 1 WATERSHED DYNAMICS, INC. Wetlands that are 5 acres to 10 acres in size and have 10% to 30% woody vegetation receive a medium rating for this function. A low rating is given to wetlands that have less than 10% of the total vegetation being woody species and are less than 5 acres in size. In theory, wetlands with larger amounts of woody vegetation can store more water because the woody vegetation shades out the emergent vegetation that can occupy a larger percentage of the volume of the wetland. WATER QUALITY FUNCTION Wetlands, by virtue of their physical, chemical, and biological processes, tend to naturally purify water. Many wetland plants absorb and bind nutrients and minerals (i.e. heavy metals) present in water flowing into the wetland area. This "bio-filtration" cleans the water that leaves the wetland as surface flow or percolate into the groundwater. Dense plant communities tend to slow the flow of water causing suspended sediments to settle and be trapped in the wetland rather than in the gravel of streams and rivers. Wetland size (>10 acres), potential storage volume, water retention time, density of vegetation, and diversity of the plant community are the measures of overall wetland function. Generally, larger wetlands, with greater storage volume, slower water release rates, and a denser, more diverse plant community rate high for this function. Wetlands with these characteristics in close proximity to point source pollution rate high because of their potential to intercept and retain pollutants. Wetlands less than 5 acres in size with minor storage capacity, low vegetation density, and limited retention time rate low for this function. If a wetland has a low probability of being inundated and is not in close proximity to a source of either point or non-point pollution it is likely to also be rated as low for this function. Wetlands not fitting the descriptions above are rated as medium for this function. GROUNDWATER RECHARGE FUNCTION This function is rated based upon the interaction between the wetland and the underlying soils and geologic material. Characteristics such as wetland size, period of inundation, and depth of standing water are evaluated to determine the potential for movement of surface water, stored in the wetland, into the groundwater regime. A high rating is applied to wetlands larger than 10 acres that are permanently flooded. Wetlands less than 5 acres in size and not subject to permanent or seasonal inundation generally receive a low rating for this function. A medium rating is awarded to wetlands that are 5 acres to 10acres in size, have moderate storage capacity, and are seasonally flooded. BIOLOGIC SUPPORT AND WILDLIFE/FISH HABITAT FUNCTION Wetlands provide unique habitat for both wildlife and fish species as well as numerous food organisms upon which wildlife and fish are dependent. Key characteristics used to measure this function are the size of the wetland, the diversity of the plant community, and an association with perennial streams or rivers, other open water, or tidal areas. Often the diversity of the wildlife and fish species using a specific wetland are also used to rate this function. Wetlands with 3 or more habitat types, high plant diversity, association with perennial water bodies, and a variety of wildlife and fish species use rate high for this function. As the degree to which a wetland provides the important characteristics diminishes, the rating for this function goes down from high to medium to low. Each wetland delineated by Watershed Dynamics, Inc. (WDI) is rated using the system described above. This is done to insure that appropriate impact mitigation measures can be designed if the proposed project action results in modification or loss of a delineated wetland. If a proposed project cannot be developed without avoiding or minimizing damage to an on-site wetland, WDI uses the information collected at the time of the delineation to develop an appropriate and functional wetland mitigation plan. 'This plan guides the creation of a replacement wetland that is intended to maintain or exceed the function and value of the wetland lost due to site development. Zelman/Sternco Project Site—WDI Project No. 96121AT Wetland Function and Value Assessment—Page 2 WATERSHED DYNAMICS, INC. REFERENCES Adamus, P. R., E. J. Clarian, Jr., R.D. Smith, and R. E. Young. 1987. Wetland Evaluation Technique (WET), Volume 11: Methodology. Operational Draft Technical Report Y-87-_ and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA-IP-88-029). US Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. C;owardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31. Office of Biological Services, US Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C. Marble, Anne D. 1992. A Guide to Wetland Functional Design. Lewis Publishers, Inc. Chelsea, MI Reppert, R.T., W. Siglio, E. Stakhiv, L. Messman, and C. Meyers. 1979. Wetland Values— Concepts and Methods for Wetlands Evaluation. US Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources Research Report 70-R1. Fort Belvoir, VI. Zelman/Sternco Project Site—WDI Project No. 96121AT Wetland Function and Value Assessment— Page 3 5 6 1 7 Continue on Page 79 8 Wy1Te CE'' f SEATTLE it _- �.SEATLE BEL:EVUE} - _ R E.c 122'00' _ ,� r .=_ r'w r+:it vS i iaw. i, a�30 . __ I lair-i \ 1 V I / .. \, .as 1"' --II11Z151-u's-emomtImpi 11Will(y� �.--•.w ia1la_eD % �+-41 .., �' g-T �.. ? ► M:. g'..q gei,'� H�1 4 '11,\till(( 6:.111 `�\�M," +iiY � ,1:.i r� ', _- -= -j )- - Tr �.. ,r.�VJ a1�e:>.,rr .,� a as: ..A_ I � `.e•r tliii � E _ i - e- ■w_w=;1IIII1n -I�I?,: a'a��, /�'�"-�`� ii.� �i 1!� , !. -.n +wu Inc 1�-lai ! i7C■sl tY'/y�1 4 1 'b•. /� , lili(1A1� i■ia�u �����I���1lt•47 I,. l oe.+ e. �- w.gi M ■�l=■■ n� �i ��iTtIp�7111avut• � �w 1 ■i■ ,l� Ed Mum, .k �t—1 gati �ALZr? 'Olh` M.*ru !■�►"-11„ } :El Vi r - - r !t_ -- -- i Se.hur,t Counts Par im1y_4■ or 4 ae m. -.I .til ��°•• -- -. �. 0�� ,..--:,, — --�. �gI��g 11 art �, il I. -+,1I' ■ cren weres d Sink :wn Int r�a.w Igo E 'e!�rv„ , 1 'll! A nk ., tint se.t.msC• l-- wit is ?R �';•S'itlE Akl •* v air n.n i rm.a,;i, �y ,���; ((�■..77mm41-�. aguoiiik ��'�. Sa '- - I atlsiiniu etallii1 )0 /arraVARITS 11 gi��ec It teen._,_ PEW Y .1'' [W - Y /I YIIR d- 440.,u ry a--r n iWg ® Ji' _ o Tr` ..- ' 1111,111, t.41: --: ■a k PoWE9U s,` -a 1 @ I Seamu Bey` E-5i ilyu}� a Iu�IL • 1(Pitallagillillr.111.1...-.W■u�■t_ ��I1yJLt ra `e:�♦`�� • �7 - _- ' • - —Ni°°" i 1 -gs[r1 Li TO i 'nli��."at .OY.r ;a.V ia,ea. ` • c:o :l 4l� 1t� I Rith....lingialitirr0,..Mriki. I� r"— 3C, aL�f 1blirl rirst, 'L`;: I iIE Q1 ► II' �` .. dil7 ` .y . O cafe I A <g. 011 i I '— ,vn. .11ey P.lu l a�:3 �i1Bi _�v k � magi.,w 1_ iii�►L. =IR ��lety_ .,lu< 1 J 8.. y i• ---• -i,*et v li ,„, ice. - E �__ a 1 t, Yant Meier -` I fi l i-' IIC+t' --- it 1` i I LEV/l7• e� �VIP" �-- t8 E_ _Sew., Elleyari 3 - ��I.t.l YII. • i p f il_ • ill IIIP'Ri,- r: ,, rp u e CD/ �—. � ll RII „ i Er■i�li 1 �a O V JrrYf it ��I _ �� `t 7 - .. �tt[-r ��ILiil{1l1 loot* .oB -:�. tr 1 S. s l' ..� r1t:r,s din J V.n.q. J r Itl_".- tR%"" gl _ \ - -.r-' I 4rV y _ pp,wrnw,..n FFR � I N " ,a,- Cs V+ i`�v a.‘Sou1tS1 Lora Dent. - '-' f more SotlttliP rye•, N.„ © ®u't.1 '� �.A Y a _ r\`., 'v \ p MO wlrs' ACli71"' 4 _ IF41�iril a'�Lti ti\5 :w:a ! ,�■1 7 r �1 E , ® IQCI: �I"t�, — LW'e• Saltr,ter State Par[ 1� p A _• ® _ _ f7 7,Mdara� sC wta }. ,nil �1 IY� -' � �II- ? _ ._ vr. . j7 -- 1 ��m\ .Ill' µeight. ,+ --' s,i:e•i = ,,(lt, 1 l _ - = Flei. .n +\ P,. ` F e 9C�- �lY�, Gr,h.mit, ��17.t. �gl 516 ,----, �Lt L ��1 -�-.5. a.. \, t $S i�G W a R�� rl ,•� " '�l'1T _mrj., fId 1 =.G)�= .iJ� `��a--�_I �f 1 .m. o3C 31 - Ptxa+tt © \i 1• 1. .� !7� ,� l ' -" iO (f oat ' 1� IV . 'II ;��.�.e.: �� �' ' U/ 1 :E��i �1 ate•�► �t � .g.:,,, E P _ 9�l: riYG . MEM r— ► `-■;t+' fie,y��+iTT ��� . j- mil.„P yi i� �l� � • aowg � � ---�� �► ♦ ' ' --- E r ��r 1 �i�R1i . liar! it 1 �: tJ/ s T , la a. -1--%l l.•.. 1 t-• �y,_ t lirr:�!■ . c�ia zi �.�� . r• n� r�i.b©fit■�1 u..g�t�^ >, — �.� ��Illlli�'ti:1 iLC 1�I ,� ffff'' I I I [/�\$.e - 41\ /� `� Im111.,1 � ,` �iall[_::.—G.�tr71'-��� `'�1i `, LL ��I N.`��� �4�,MI ,tlf 1,3 ��,` I \�(-attm�� `i1 . � ®� AJ- U..n Ann: .tar-' iiir '� @. ► �;;=' ` � •' c�i� ' ��- .w`� r V ;' ~ �� ' .+1-E -,�i1 al �ti��`i � .fl��� ��l■ . '��1/� ���. ��_- __ '-E -l � t. B!� ?+ , r P sian'i= `11eafltn_ it. hay e�. ---X �ti� �� - !1rlllr RNq�• P ``�, _ /.:1� V1► ' +' �:/ �t mn::.•e�!tuu w-� t;y,>< t '�� - � •A S J A G s o.ns0111�\1 , ' G T I lyr 1� 1^��M:_5 iin�ln r1 r� r i , _ jPont <�.!?It1 v .. - ` yll� .L*�.,:. _I^R"'l'®`' ��t 1• -T-r, ���b- Fn..tnkeG-- - , M67 Ab4 t G.11":11 ,i.� Commencem enz ` / _ ®'1•. fly ki.(1111.1241111; �- _ y; - A. - - .--- ,—. __. u 'l(i\-. �, ( ((Litt 11 i��Al ~. �� , �� �,{I.�■ ° !1` \w`°ai '4 ..... �` ` Q;, l 11,. •:;= , O Bay ©��;• `La� :�� I i'117 5+ .. E� r�•n '�,�1I 111:L P � _i�Commencement Pad. b �►7 t • �.' "- �'A, _ �II�WI 1 �",, 1� J H -EftVAT1O\ 1 �. ;i1 State µntoriul -�., . \ m „ � ■ i 1 - -err 13-- r�+-1 F 71 I Suue4 . A ,\ r'^ 1- - / ' f 1 I. `,— �1 .��,mmg ,U ... .: ;\ T ``r , , `) _ c llii, EE `-- r _�_... �; _ c .... r.-. ._. I� - `'it' ruut3i�.`tigigttthtsaCTIACIAIMOIwsaWAaSini il-;-..-_J I -;i,..• .t-r--1.+--;t tU �ss:r=icr—.<.,/-cw:::,....: ., 14 1 v- - ,. • --3 taw �s l , --� 1°1,1; .6-', . illICE4tION -,t, 4 ,007-;,,I* jairl.r., -.TV ail ) I - b.. , !, ' ��; ' • — _i_ r 0,11 Ise +i . ' j *fi7Y. tt t 'in 4. . : , IL'i tilt: , ,.. 1 4 4 ', t�. .Of i , tyi , .4.1PP ) .0 Itfloeitilikiblihr.-b ,: ; illt . •,. . I 1. . 0 , +s.t • ` } f r • � _ i ti w ; t •. t _i . � rr • t 4 y ,, T J� • � I ' 1 •i .. „ ii _ . . 1 , ,r. mi._ .4.• 1.1" 1 At, 6 f al , 4 :i"ctir. ;*,, , i e . .I- .0 0 . '114 '"V .g . ..1 A / ,.1°. sj, , ' • 1 \ - I t`' . id:i V' • ',Oile "le: ,,,i. .:., • V • ...4.4 1/4f1 , a , ' - t i • 44 .. ft, . t• 0 .N : :• 1 til I 1414.' .? 6 ik .. ' -at* :• it' • . ' ? '.' ") . ,. . ' ' . :1%., 411:.., Y.' yyy•ttt. 1 ,•;) ic.:".,,,i,.. 't' #' � .• t , , 7 1 ,,. •r ,4 i, 1►{, �, 1t►. .) i,s 11 „. w. i i 4 • r milik, 1 1 Y i • •+/ • to v4.• t y K I) • t< +. .t,4 , il eNitt a ti ,. ,+ 2 ') ,I„„: •1:,..,4 4114 ,''I4,'1' s • . .At.. .'..- 4 _u„..J. ' 1 ''4 T•'v. . 1 rif„:" WC .1r"lS 1 �. E3Md /� •.. 11. 12:1 kit balAt 1 d I i1 • . �— i—JI ANC a ' ° JIB ' . gill ur /, • , • sir, � �(�, ; «a 1t 900 �,`;o r gi �il\N 1 t — :ae�rlt/ A\'J / "iMOp �`\I anPark/ �c •;afi r Be �i cry y. •;. i -• '"F Bop I l c• v ' ,y �„r 4,5iiiiiii t $�' iii ROAO)• _ , �• '� i 111.rili 1�(1I� r til.. \ 1 1� 0, .,0,1 -4�- , i I '� r `&,,�r ' III; ch i I I 0.5:... • n ,•U Wo ��• > ..iIra . Akf���Ii► �lac 1 ���— ����„� r � !�; ����,, o„� Tr. WoIif 1 �lIilt*Iii ' :\',—'''"'——- - —- i -“'---.. - . /4 / Y - ►\ \I 13 Ng BeC Golf(curse I I ' �f 14 1.6..__e • !! '�, r , Am( • k\l Wo cA / '�lit I pA IFS 4 : I In( I M o J g �y I . so\ 3Q�,.n°• ��� �' Sew.ge OR Hg..pk- r4/4� , t � r , . \ 1 s �� i i. M$ Disp.sal �. -: L�1. is, ' \., '� . SubSt 2 /� w N+Ir ` Age rNg lir_ �(Age� S, �v�I�°O'J � I -� - •.. a r ---a'�1 4 \AD 2 IIV (ft' �Pr rY• t`, i I ` Ur •I 7._,,,_\:::: \��.S iLongacre •I 1 ,I -. - 4515 ■ 1 Jr111 ma .• .i _ is/ Ur 1:RISCirl �I� Wo .nle ii \ 'fit I I i iw 111 • °• .Wall: . (AgD �� ( , Track 1 °$ _ ' y 11 .1 k_e —f,il — \' J n 10, Y. ._ .*, - _.� 1 I r roi _�• � II o Ur I I " N1r Cl R rvoir p° w p �1 . ,w r - .0 2a Pv . so rll i :. '• 1 W 1 ,I, 1 r•i:” 4 , , Wo EM :NI, 25 . 20� • 29 el of � .As. • I1 Wn 1 ter•, ll(ll� k. • 1 Ap n,It !) Cr)//;)41411 b'; I ! ur ••l w,, # *.• . . . , 1nC I. '} A AgB w, •, IMiIf' i . ell ._ ,j • AgC u,Am(: II. \I • , • \ 11 le 1' r „ , 1 4 C'CL •limmeammummi. FIGURE 3 — SOILS MAP Portion of Soils Map#11 —SCS, 1979 ., w • U H qt.\11 _ c :hij �� I t iel •ilk.att., „..:!3madzo...-sti.,,,,a► , Q old l%;, fI 4 .- --i Al/ ......, hl .''. 1, Park --- i( .:... ,.• :•.: cfX UN giNri,11 k ` V ;( . ,� s , S -.rim. •-2'T +P 7 --.---„, .. -2-- - '�.--„,:.,...--, .....„ , . ,, ,,,_ „.--,/: ' .....,,„ r„i.,'I� --PSS Ro: �' , , riiirif' RAIL ,... .„ed.. , ,ss r,,s PEC r e, , ..,_ :`t,/ , , „ , .. ...-- /` i3 I 1I r ` itubo,yr • , , ,,QI1 nurse\ , 4"1 4 +% a, R2UBH J1fa �/e ! �,. :,� .� T \. a PU.Krx I , . t 40..PEMC , / 1. . t -�" P \ .."'-''-‘0•71F • , 11, , \ . /- , , ,,..... ... • .. . - ,.. *—.',."I. ,5.1.7.—,__.•. ,• .• : . ..., `� Lit r' . I�- _" r� t lf, 1 . 1 ' r,, rr I PABH I �. 4pN \ :.4,. PEMC PSSF 1 tri��` \' ',. . • Longacre$I 1 pFOC. ,1 A \� �/ ,is P%M6Itok .p.11 , , 'I ._ i. t . �� I Rod,. . aim, PSSF � Fik(‘‘I ' •. l `,t� Track 1=— . PSS PUSH p '' ill. i 11111,0 _V 1 It PPbG .I I(I'� PF OIc?rFv, �• ■'I1 ' %� PSSC 1: 7 , . . : i�l;, V \ 2 l r ���' Q I PFOCx , I 1 �j' PFOC 1/ PSSC • ' •: I _/ 1l w�aH PSSC 1 L ..,, 1k. 1 �1. 1 1 PSSC \ I'i PEMA 4, l�' SII CI 1 1 I fr. PC 1 8 I i l.. I PFOC 41 . '� ,,,- , 1r • • • . 1 C I ■ i PE C/ t `` ! 1 i• I C. �. K,4: .� �, i ��._ I• , r, �. I v, ' •NA 1 r r r I- 1 i ..-•- t. t. .'µ4. �. 1. ot jj4. PRD.iEG SITE •• Al ; ,.• i 1:II. 11, PSSCx I I 1 �'•. hi l VI �� I •I i • ','%hi: —1. 'Ilii.r. PEMC \.. RSA . 1 PSSCX'. • r 1 'I/I ../ ,5, G' pi.): ` •'..i' CCi11.11111111111111Milill. FIGURE 4- NWI Map Portion of Renton Quad,USFWS, 1988 4 � . a cb.L�+�-.co.- ) yarvot4TIogi dt.retvrirreld 7 I. a -c.„1 /,,, H il /j '7 1 kfrl , / / . 11)1 i w I elr .1. .. / / a ab 1 // • . -' ..---- /-1 ' qno/„#,...-"•,',..--•-- - -` Q QMd113MNj- --�/ ` . - _� J .� ids _ /// �� � `T i / -7 arrru�bl-�• \UdS \ �'', Ll L61, J51 r f . 14.474/ •Ids -s ter V ONV11'3M- — i. I i i r • d cl10'1.13M III 1 1 J ATTACHMENTS 1,11T �/Op O DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY �c ' �\�\, SEATTLE DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS fY, �, P.O. BOX 3755 Sa 'e; SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98124-2255 rF :. '.ear,&_ .aL S r'17FS—l)F �At REPLY TO P ATTENTION OF Regulatory Branch Larry Burnstad JA N 2 2 1998 Watershed Dynamics, Inc. 1833 Auburn Way North, Suite F Auburn, Washington 98002 Reference: 97-4-01841 Zelman Renton, LLC Dear Mr. Burnstad: This is in response to your request for a jurisdictional determination and wetland delineation confirmation for an approximately 45-acre site located in sec. 36, T. 23N. , R. 4E. , at Renton, Washington. A site inspection was conducted by the undersigned on October 2, 1997. All wetlands and other waters of the U.S. on the subject property are considered downstream of the headwaters of Springbrook Creek. We have confirmed the wetland delineation for the subject property. We are in agreement with the wetland delineation report prepared by Watershed Dynamics, Inc . , dated November 12, 1996. It should be noted however, that the wetland labels (letters) are different in the report than the wetland delineation map, dated June 19, 1997 (i.e. Wetlands B and C on the delineation map are described in the wetland report as Wetlands C and D, respectively, while Wetland D on the delineation map is described as Wetland B in the report. It also should be noted that the area labelled as "Wetland E" on the wetland delineation map is not a jurisdictional wetland since it does not contain hydric soils nor wetland hydrology. The wetland report, dated November 12, 1996, correctly summarizes this area as non-jurisdictional. Please revise the wetland report and delineation map so they are consistent. This confirmation of delineation is based on the surveyed wetland delineation map, dated June 19, 1997 and is valid for a period of five years from the date of this letter unless new information warrants revision of the delineation before the expiration date. As discussed in the field, the applicant, Zelman Properties Company, is seeking a Nationwide Permit 38 (NWP 38) , Cleanup of Hazardous and Toxic Waste, for the proposed project and property. You also recently discussed, in a telephone conversation with the undersigned, that the compensatory wetland mitigation component of the project may be changing. Once project plans and conceptual compensatory mitgation plans have been received, we will determine the applicability of NWP 38. Project plans, including a compensatory mitgation plan, a revised report and delineation map must be submitted in legible form on 8 1/2 x 11 inch paper before processing can continue on your client's application. Please submit the requested information within 60 days from the date of this letter. If we do not receive the additional information within this time frame, we will cancel the application. If you have any questions pertaining to this letter, please contact the undersigned at (206) 764-6903 . Sincerely, Gail Terzi Environmenta Analyst Application Review Section Copy Furnished: Richard Burr 1080 Market Place Tower 2025 First Avenue Seattle, WA 98121