No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReport 21 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON CITY OF RENTON NOV O 6 2006 i RECEIVED ,~ITY CLERK'S OFFICE :Dcfi'vae,:/ via ~tl"'"~" MISTY COVE ASSOCIATION OF APARTMENT OWNERS, NO. LUA06-073 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Appellant, V. CITY OF RENTON, and FOOTBALL NORTHWEST, Respondents. I am a resident of King County. I am over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. My business address is Two Union Square, 601 Union Street, Suite 4950, Seattle, Washington, 98101-3951. On November 6, 2006, I caused to be hand delivered the following documents: I. Notice of Appeal; Appeal of Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated with Mitigation Measures (Oct. 16, 2006); 2. Declaration of Steve Jansen; 3. Declaration of Eleanor Margo Kennamer; and 4. Declaration of Brian Sabey. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Socius Law Group, PLLC -1-ATTORNEYS 15577 Two Union Square• 601 Union Street, Suite 4950 Seattle, Washington 98101.3951 Telephone 206.838.9100 Facsimile 206.838.9101 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 to the parties listed below: Hearing Examiner City of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Roger A. Pearce Foster Pepper PLLC 1111 3rd Avenue, Suite 3400 Seattle, WA 98101 Elizabeth Higgins Planning/Building/Public Works Department City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 And via U.S. mail to: Lance Lopes Seattle Seahawks General Counsel Qwest Field 800 Occidental Avenue S., Suite I 00 Seattle, WA 98134 Lucille Noel Misty Cove Homeowners Association Novar Corporation P.O. Box 77040 Seattle, WA 98177-0040 .f*'-: DA TED this~ day of CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 15577 -2-Socius Law Group, PLLC ATTORNEYS Two Union Square• 601 Union Street, Suite 4950 Seanle, Washington 98101.3951 Telephone 206.838.9100 Facsimile 206.838.9101 . ' , PARTIES OF RECORD Seahawks Training Facility LUA06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF Ray Colliver Port Quendall Company 505 5th Avenue S ste: #900 Seattle, WA 98104 tel: (206) 342-2000 eml: rayc@vulcan.com (owner/ applicant/ contact) Thelma Sutherland 1205 N 29th Street Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) Jared Salstrom 5021 Ripley Lane N ste: #213 Renton, WA 98056 eml: ja red. salstrom@vil la nova. ed u (party of record) Eileen Halverson 16226 Crystal Drive E Enumclaw, WA 98022 (party of record) Roger A. Pearce Foster Pepper PLLC 1111 Third Avenue ste: #3400 Seattle, WA 98101-3299 (party of record) Elaine Wine Vulcan 505 Fifth Avenue S ste: #900 Seattle, WA 98104 tel: (206) 342-2397 eml: elainew@vulcan.com (party of record) Updated: 11/14/06 Michael Cera 8300 Avalon Drive Mercer Island, WA 98040 tel: (206) 419-0657 eml: mscero@comcast.net (party of record) Joe Burcar Department of Ecology Shorelands & Environmental Assistance Program 3190 160th Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98008 tel: (425) 649-7145 (party of record) Steve Jansen 5021 Ripley Lane N ste: #4 Renton, WA 98056 eml: smjansen@msn.com (party of record) Elya George Baches 1414 N 34th Street Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) Steve Gregerson 5021 Ripley Lane N ste: #302 Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) Barbara Paxhia 5021 Ripley Lane N ste: #104 Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) Thomas F. Peterson Socius Law Group PLLC Two Union Square 601 Union Street ste: #4950 Seattle, WA 98101 tel: (206) 838-9112 eml: tpeterson@sociuslaw.com (party of record) Brian T. Sabey 5021 Ripley Lane N ste: #304 Renton, WA 98056 eml: bsabey@comcast.net (party of record) Eleanor Maargo Kennamer, President Misty Cove Condo Association 5021 Ripley Lane N ste: #309 Renton, WA 98056 tel: (206) 650-8855 eml: margok@msn.com (party of record) Aaron Belenky, President Williamsburg Condo HOA 1800 NE 40th Street ste: #H-4 Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) Lance Lopes Qwest Field 800 Occidental Avenue S ste: #100 Seattle, WA 98134 tel: (206) 381-7835 eml: lancel@seahawks.com (party of record) Shelly Munkberg SECO Development 1083 Lake Washington Blvd N ste: #SO Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) (Page 1 of 2) Larry Barsher 6940 96th Avenue SE Mercer Island, WA 98040 (party of record) Jeffrey Taraday Foster Pepper PARTIES OF RECORD Seahawks Training Facility LUA06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF Tom Ehrlichman Socius Law Group Two Union Square 601 Union Street ste: #4950 Seattle, WA 98101 (party of record) Richard Wagner Baylis Architects 10801 Main Street ste: # 110 Bellevue, WA 98004 (party of record) 1111 Third Avenue ste: #3400 Seattle, WA 98101 (party of record) Updated: 11/14/06 (Page 2 of2) ~ ., 4 - ·; I ~ . ;;o rn . ~ ...... .... - -- I Seahawks Practice Faci lity I FOOTBALL NORTHWEST LLC RENTON, WASH INGTON . Nancy Thompson -_RE: Fwd: Re: Seahawks Training Facility.··--________ _ From: To: Date: "Barb Paxhia" <barbpaxhia@hotmail.com> <Jmedzegian@ci.renton.wa.us> 10/20/2006 8:07:17 AM Subject: RE: Fwd: Re: Seahawks Training Facility ' ) )__/ k4,p)-"-A_f j, (L ,v-l'J -ctd I u y 16/IA /-v,-.._ , /)) (A_ • Y y' (.; ~(LJ Page 1 'I ,. I ~ I !"l ~ :m "Tl Gl C ;:CJ m 0, N ~ z :./' n ·~ G ~.: ~ :!: i ~·! ~ ,, J> ~: ,..,_,. .-: :Ct 2 ;_;,, ~ r ' z, n} :2 'i:5 c~ ~'. "~ ~ ~~ ' 1, i ·' I t ' " 1 ! I ,, "'• i --7 ~; ,, I r,e:::;:=:::::;:;;;;;:;;=t'~ . , . .' : 1, =--i-~~ =r - / ;~; i -' "' • 7)' I " C _,;u I. r~:r ~, I ~ , ! I 'J.' - L, -- I ' ' ~ -------=--=.;.·.== ~-~ - ' / I: C I i <II '' ' ! i ~ 1 ••. .i -~-- }" ii ! i I I I 1 I I J. ~: \ ~ ~ ;~ -< < Fi ~-~ ?.: ?'. ; ~-;;~~t ' DES1(;3N DEVELOPMENT,-NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION I: I. --------I Seahawks Headquarters & I, Training Facility FOOTBALL NORTHWEST LLC RENTON, WASHINGTON T / ··1·1 ;;,, nHI ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' 'Tl G) C :::0 m i ::: I IP • < ~ ~ -i -r-•m < m r-.,, r- 8 ;o " ~ ~ ;4}!:, ,(~ ~ I • Ip I ' ;;H I , ..... ! ! l I ! I 0 I •t •! ' I :• 0 - •! ---_1,_ ...... r, -I ---:... ~ 'J :.:, ....,0, -· 0 t. I' 0 I] ;L JL ·1 ·-·-<--j,'-·- l I • I C) .. ~« ""' > "' : N~ :n o 0 z 0 1: I: '\ ~ r; ;:1: >i:: z I ;!:I C. !:i r; Oc ~ . C :-m Oz l '~i >- I/ "'" "' I I -<> ~ i~ I C)O 0 I z z I-I .. l 1 I .. 8 '- I (> ii 0 C --------E ,,; 0 z ! -----' I I T " ---- S G '; r()~ CONS rq ,;; \JU Seahawks Headquarters & II » :jll) / =-" Training Faci lity . . -. I llj ! FOOTBALL NORTHWEST LLC '• I , RENTON, WASHINGTON ~ "T1 G'l C ::0 m 0:, .... .1•1+t:. ,--;~:. ·.--~r BAXTER PARCEL ,,.,,,,,:;·-," -i--- _,__ ______ _ ' ' ,..,.,, __ I,~j,._\·. BUSH, ROED & HITCHINGS, INC. :·.'-l',':. ,CCR~.!< .1,N:· SJ~,,:,cR~ '· . ···' -:.-.-~ ' !I " I ,, :1 i • :;o m ·~ _, ' ...... t I Seahawks Practice Facility FOOTBALL NORTHWEST LLC --RENTON, WASHINGTON I c' ' ) ' ' ' : IIJ I J .. .. ·11:1 I j ; I . ·1 • ·.'' I ' I j 'I 'i ,:. 1 , : : I ~ I ·: 1 1 r { I ': i i i I'., .. · 1 q 1f!p11 tn 1 i1n 11l1 ,~ ,11 [' lJ., ''1!,i,l'[!I' 11.· 1 !I i l~I i 1 (":'· I('! ! , !':: :- i ; ! ! ; ii ~ : , ! ' I; ;·~ i :i1 ES• » "''! i liHil!f"! U»I i !! ,11 U!!J I jl l I ' ' '"Tl G) C ::0 m (}1 (;) m 1~ 01 hl ~ - 0 ii ( I !1 i J~ (j _.,, ' ' :,: --n-o I: I )!~ • ;~51~~n'f~;:f:: ~~ /:: ' NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION .. t I_ Seahawks Headquarters & Training Facility FOOTBALL NOR1HWEST Ll.C RENTON, WASHINGTON i l ... ' ~ I "T1 G) C ::0 m ;- 11.!:ili ' l ~ '~ z m r ~ r ~ § ~ I. --I I Seahawks Headquarters & Training Facility FOOTBALL NORTHWEST LLC RENTON, WASHINGTON ~ B • n on 0 •o > O< n •• % Oo • ~! 0 on . :;!?j ~ !~ • •• n ~ n • 0 n ~ ! , ; ~ : a • .. • ~ • 0 0 ~ :1•1 iJ' i1l1 .. ·~ j : l ! "T1 G) C ;;o rn CXl N BAXTER PARCEL •• '.~·· ,' ·if' I \ b:: =·.-=:_·=-=--~~ .. =l.. ~ ----+;-;;-; :·."-~ ~_:;;.: ,~-"-~·~_4";,_'·:· ..... ' ; • BUSH, ROED &: HITCHINGS, INC. ' .c::_ __ ' ' ,., G) C ::0 m 0, :,,. 0 1 • l; m • ~ ~ (I I! l ,, :1 I' -··-·" 1· ·-: i ! ,-,._ -----·1 ' I I ·-·· ..... ,,,... ""''I ; .. -- ! I I --------1----------- -, -·--,_ -----J 0 m w 0 ...... ' / ! 0000 mmmm f\) f\) f\) f\) \ u)f\).....LQ Seahawks Headquarters & Training Facility FOOTBALL NORTHWEST LLC RENTON, WASHINGTON .....l. .....1. .....1. .....1. < ! ~ q § I • C :;. z ·- \ "Tl G) C ::0 m Seahawks Headquarters & Training Facility FOOTBALL NORTHWEST LLC RENTON. WASHINGTON t C ,o .. ., .. •o .. E-( ~ C • ,o 0 00 > >o 0 ,o z •• • o, 0 •, • ,, • •o C Cc ~ ;:;~ z Oz r 0, 3 i::;n o :m ,> i -g 0 z= s oo z ~ • • • • > 0 ' 0 • 0 C E i5 • B ' rt ~ . > • 0 ' 0 > ' • z ' • 0 § • • ' i5 • z . i5 < ' ~ ' • • II 0 • " 0 C E ! " ' a ~ i5 • • z • ~ • 0 0 • • !~I ~!, H: • \ \•.::·~I},?· ,..., ' \\' ' ' ' m.,, x--Gl u, C :j " zm Gl 00 u,w =. m 0 ~ ~ m . " ---~ ::!! ~ G) ~ C ::0 m 0:, (.,) '\\ .· \ \"\ '·_, \\·\ ,_!l!'"l'.' ·5,---.. ,· .. , __;;,~:.·r_ BAXTER PARCEL ' ' ' ' /. . ~ .. 1.lJ.. J.~? 1--'·1-r-·T ' .. '. / ' : .,; .. f I±:======-~-BUSH. ROED 6:: HITCHINGS. INC. Seahawks Corporate Headquarters & Training Facility Preliminary Shoreline & Gypsy Creek Vegetation Zone (100') Calculations EDAW, Inc. August 29, 2006 SHORELINE ZONE COVER Approximately 142,000 sf in 100' zone (including existing wetland and wetland butte( Existing Conditions SQ. FT. Currently Proposed Conditions Wetland 21,638 Wetland Wetland Buffer (existing restoration planting) 6,555 Wetland Buffer (existing restoration planting) Riparian Tree+ Shrub Cover 35,664 High Density Riparian Planting (native tree & shrub) Riparian Shrub Cover Only (primarily invasive) 21,177 Low Density Riparian Planting (native shrubs & grasses) Grass (native and non-native) 35,364 Field Turf & Grasspave Landscape Planter (native plants) 0 Landscape Planter (native plants) Building 2,129 Building Pavement 26,148 Pavement Sand Filter 0 Sand Filter TOTAL 148,675 TOTAL Notes: 1. Overlap of tree canopy and pavement or water cause total to equal more than the approx. 142,000sf buffer area. 2. 10,074 sf of high density riparian planting is proposed at SW corner of site adjacent to wetland buffer (within 200' of shoreline). GYPSY CREEK COVER Approximately 24,000 sf in 100' zone {on either side of 120' long stream segment Existing Conditions SQ. FT. Currently Proposed Conditions Riparian Tree+ Shrub Cover 14,403 High Density Riparian Planting (native tree & shrub) Riparian Shrub Cover Only (primarily invasive) 2,156 Low Density Riparian Planting (native shrubs & grasses) Grass (native and non-native} 6,831 Field Turf & Grasspave Landscape Planter (native plants) 0 Landscape Planter (native plants) Building 0 Building PavemenVgravel 610 Pavement TOTAL 24,000 TOTAL FIGURE 9.2 SQ. FT. Dill. 21,638 0 6,555 0 42,919 7,255 10,534 -10,643 30,984 -4,380 4,211 4,211 6,159 4,030 18,188 -7,960 7,612 7,612 148,800 SQ. FT. Dill. 0 -14,403 0 -2, 156 0 -6,831 6,796 6,796 963 963 16,241 15,631 24,000 I --t-------------------------., "''"'-'" ><E;ot(,cu,. -- ! G . ,, Gl ! C i ;o · -~ ·-----------.. -. rn , (J1 (J1 a1mf !~ f~i ; ! ' / .. ctJ NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Seahawks Headquarters & Training Facility FOOTBALL NORTHWEST LLC RENTON, WASHINGTON \ ' ' . " I. ,.,; B ;;1 .~ I .. ,~§ '" iif 1 :~i •:- ' "Tl G) C ;u m ii> 1- 11:~ ' ll--< ~,m ~!,-'~ '> I:; ,!f I=;:;:::::;=~ 1 ~1 ~ .·.i ,:;f ijl~ , 11 L~ 1-----: i L .. _ i L. !j ,,•----- !' ,! l H ,-~-----! ----- L_ l )> ! ' l i I I~! 1i I I i , I._ _ I . ' --------------o r rl I ~ --I, .. ~:' ;11 r l====;#=s=~-n ~~~ Seahawks Headquarters & Training Facility FOOTBALL NORTHWEST LLC RENTON, WASHINGTON '-~ ., 1l ' ~ » j (::.: < "l'j H,i ,, IH!I .. . . ' /-----------: ~---n / L.-,1 \. ( ' ., \ ', \ ,\ \., / i ,..-,/; .,_~ •C ;o ·m ex, ' . ·~.·,\ t:1111 ll . I I I, l 111, I I __ ·1 Seahawks Practice Facility l . FOOTBAU. NORTHWEST LLC •. ~ -RENTON. WASHNGTON ' ' I ! §DJGD ~ :\ . ' ., ·, ~ . i ~ I •'Ill' , .. 1,1 tll f I' I • J 1!1'1 /-~_. i Dl•ri'-,'j 111,1,,!iil t ,, I·,/ ' . ! i :ig ' ;;o m • !D c.., ' 0 I li • ' • I , r-·1 • I !~ l l ! ! I ... t '--I Seahawks Practice Facility I FOOTBALL NORTHWEST LLC RENTON, WASHINGTON i "Tl G) C ;o rn 0, 0) .. I i ·~--------------·---------··-··----.!--··-·· -~ ·--,_ --. -~ --- NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Seahawks Headquarters & Training Facility FOOTBALL NORTHWEST LLC RENTON, WASHINGTON f-- I I I I I I i I ~ !Ii~ Cl~ "T1 G'l C ;;o m ...... 0 c.n ";I!! I~ I!. ,a z ' \ n " !! I ;~ ! 1 ~ ~ 0 ~ I~ ,' J "im iJri :~ i-1 a z ' 'l . ': -~ I 'i ~I _JV I ,CJ H f-·: I ' 0) •a ~ ,. \! I ' '-~ {' i • JI ' .. .. ' 1 ~ ~ ~ ' ' ,, ,, .. ,, C DESION DEVELOPMENT; NOT FOR CONST~UCTIQN I._ _ I Seahawks Headquarters & Training Facility FOOTBALL NORTHWEST LLC RENTON, WASHINGTON (I I I I "Tl G) C ::0 rn \ ' \ ; ; ...---i T .. ------ -----~---··-_,,_--~_c:::_ ... U,-=··=·~·~·~·=""~·,--,~~· ------------------~· -.J NOT FOR CON~TRUCTION • I I ""'" <•.•s,pw """' l ·-- Seahawks Headquarters & Training Facility FOOTBALL NORTHWEST LLC RENTON, WASHINGTON -- - ... ' "''I H,i ,,. mt!. ,, ' ' i I ~ !I-< q~ "Tl G) C ;:o rn ..... 0 CJ) ,en ·~ ~ "' m "' m g 0 z ? ~ z " "' § .; .. l 1··· -- r' !, ~- ' ~ ,~-\ i.:, •. C DESIC,N DEYELOP_MENT --NOT fOR CONSTBUCTIQN I I I Seahawks Headquarters & I Training Facility FOOTBALL NORTHWEST LLC 1 .. -• RENTON, WASHINGTON I "Tl G) C ;o m • - \ ~ -- - u, --+------------·----· ~---+-------- 00 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION --- I I '""" '•,•n,>•• """' 1 ·-- Seahawks Headquarters & Training Facility FOOTBALL NORTHWEST LLC RENTON, WASHINGTON . ;, » \ ' \ i1> 11- I 1i5 ' ;19 ""' 'S! 'z I' "' m " --< 0 z ? 8 " z Cl "' 0 C _; "Tl G'l C ' ;;o m .... 0 -.J ,~t ul i I ! • ' .f ' ' i ' ' ' ! I / I ' ' I ' ~ 15 ~~ <--< l •c ' S! z " ~ "' m " a z ? 8 " z Cl ~ _!'j 7 /~.' - :! ,, 'i -~ - ' I' i· I J / ~ ! i ' :r ~ / I i I ' I / I ', !l ' ' s % ,./ i ',.,.. f : ' i t : ~ ~ ~ 'i V' I h ~ti ~ .. ' * .. , DESIC,N DEVELOPMENT; NOT fOR CONST8UCTIQN I I I Seahawks Headquarters & I Training Facility FOOTBALL NORTHWEST LLC 1 .. --RENTON, WASHINGTON I ' (;) l.0 i I I ' I :--1----------------------------------------------------~ I I ! I I " I~ ,~ ,, i' i~ I -r @ "Tl l'",>- G) I:." §5 -·+,-. --------'-' m l :§: 0: 01 I ' ' ~ ... ~ 1, ; ' ~ ! ~ ~ - ' . I (0 I NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 0 P t I '1 ;""' Seahawks Headquarters & ,~ r , ! , • Training Facility FOOTBAt.L NORTHWEST LLC I "~'" .. " ... --RENTON, WASHINGTON t • ! ~ z i .': ~ I l z ·-B \ ' ' "''I -n I /. ,, ~!,. ' / ' n;i1 ;_ l' ·., ,, ' "Tl G) C :::0 m Ol ...... 0 ••i.a.,l -~, ..,,1 c-,·• \ NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Seahawks Headquarters & Training Facility FOOTBALL NORTliWEST LLC RENTON, WASHINGTON "T1 G) C ::0 m \ ' \ / <) 0 ! I L ,I 11 'i ~I :£j '1 I I ! ~-~s_·~~-w~_··'-'-_'~_---_-_--_Nb_-T_F_O_R_C_ON_S_T_RU_C_T_IO_N~~~~~~~....,,......----:,--~t~ » Seahawks Headquarters & Training Facility FOOTBALL NORTHWEST LLC RENTON, WASHINGTON .1_ "T1 G'l C ;:o m c.n ' i I --l I~ ( ~ i' I t 0 0 0 ~--+-------~==-==~~, N NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Seahawks Headquarters & Training Facility FOOTBALL NORTHWEST LLC RENTON, WASHINGTON \ ' ' I -~ I Seahawks Headquarters & Training Facility FOOT8ALL NORTHWEST LLC RENTON, WASHINGTON r p~ ~c rz i ~c z~ ! Qo nz » ' ·,- -! ""nii i j "' ~ ; ; f "''I !hi i UJ{J ' "Tl Gl C :::0 m 01 ,..i,._.._ n,;;:_mr;;-,,--------- \ \ ' \ ··--c::::.·i- , j ~ ~ 1 / ·, • • / "'i,' 1' I NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION n i r ! I, '1 ;""I Seahawks Headquarters & m ' Training Facility ~ ! f I i I I FOOTBALL NORTHWEST LLC I '"'" ,w _ , ... ·-RENTON, WASHINGTON t [ E~ » "1'1 ' ', '!~~ ~:.• / /, ·- i ~Zt:; nu11_ : ; : : l -~" J , , 1 i I ::nz :-' ,, G) C ;;o rn u, ; ' m ~ ' "' ~i 0 i l' I~ If \ ' \ ·!: f; r :; ' ,·-~ i ' -- NOT FOR CON~T~UCTJON T 1 ...... ,w, ... ,.. ~,.,I ·-- Seahawks Headquarters & Training Facility FOOTBALL NORTHWEST LLC RENTON, WASHINGTON ; ~------ i :,/ • .. ~1 H; ::. t \ • » ! > w·1 ~ C z ggtl 2 !; :; m1J1 I j 0 ,, ! zo-. - ' I "T1 G'l C ;;o m ' -- •j,IJ I I' ' s I j ~ --t-----jJ •_ NOT_fQR_CONSTRUCT-teN -1{/Ar.:: (")I[' I !~I~! ' ! ! ' I .w .. ,.,........ ,.,,.I ·-- Seahawks Headquarters & Training Facility FOOTBALL NORTHWEST LLC RENTON, WASHINGTON ----, \ ' \ "Tl G) C ;:o m (J1 -' ---1 N ! ~ r(i 1t.1U J ! 1. ~, :·1 ! \{_ --~ -1:1 , LL',-. --=-=---======:.. . ' " ' ~ ;a I i .i , I' I I .~ a l. I' .-. :f 1-1 : : I; '·-I 1~ .,.,, ·,,j ',._ o__--·- '" __ j;: / / ;i 'i I ! ' ' s ; c,,1 =-~~-=-~--~/ 1" -----·-----------·--·------··------------·---.. --· -- NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Seahawks Headquarters & Training Facility FOOTBALL NORTHWEST LLC RENTON, WASHINGTON ""·:-:v··q ~~ ! ;~ t I ' \ "Tl ' ' G)_ C ::JJ m CJ1 ~ Cl) ! t I ' -----_____J ----1---1-- NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Seahawks Headquarters & Training Facility FOOTBALL NORTHWEST LLC RENTON, WASHINGTON 1 --. ----~~---------- :·1•1 . . ;h• / ' nu,, .• •l I I ' "Tl G) C ;;o m (.1l ~1 111 I ~ !~! I ! ! ' . ,,,, :~ i ! I . ,L--~ I • _j I I ! ! I i i ( ' ' ·"' ,;,,: .----, ,,,i.,,,~,1-- :(If-- NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION I I ., ...... , ... ". ; .. - Seahawks Headquarters & Training Facility FOOTBALL NORTHWEST LLC RENTON, WASHINGTON t ,i,'l.':c,,- ' '-""' ---,,.,, ' . ' 1~ ' "Tl G) C ::0 m 01 N 0 ' \ \ +- ' ' '" """-' f "'\.. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Seahawks Headquarters & Training Facility FOOTBALL NORTHWEST UC RENTON, WASHINGTON "l'l ;i:11, '· ( ;-·, !r l ', ) ' ... TLI.AL '""''~"''""'"' ::C'i"!_.-'f.7 ':f, .... ,_..,_,~c:<IJ .. --:..r,:'t,~·~'l"ii:, ,,,, .,.,,~r,·:,,r,"'" "'("''"'"''''' ~: SUBGRAD'.: AT NATURAL TURF FIELDS "'''"" ., .... 11,,-.n>< ,~,-r;o·,uw. ¥.:. V __ , _, _ _,, ,-; -·--r -, 1~['.(At,''.;~.s.·"'''· SUBGRADE AT NATURAL TURF FIELD COLLECTOR PtPES _ 1:,-'i ,- ~"':"'"' ,...,,,.o: ruo ·~-' "'~'"'' ~"'""' "'""·"" '"'"'-"' "'" '"' ..,."""'""'" SUBGRADE AT SYNTHETIC TURF FIELD. 1--AADSCAPL AND BUILDING SLAB ""' ~"' i&} .. :;:'.:'!.:;')~~~.·:- • ,· •. ""'™ """~ '"" 11 • ,·" ·"""'"' ..._.,.,.,._,"""'W•-"'1"' ~·; • ,.. '.~i.':'tf.'~ ... "'.,'",:'."' ~· ,,.,., v, ..,,.,~ SUBGAADE AT GRASSPAVE. INDOOR FIELD, AND LANDSCAPE ., .-, cm,,c,m.~m,m,_Ba ~I 1,1..,,~~.•!WloJ> 1101><,C''--''"'• 'l'>J<•"W:.>;:,,,i, ,y,;.np,:,,,, "'' ,, ... ,. ________ ~_ ,110"C>lll'L''1RW,! .. '<"-"-D ,P '-'--_.. LI ... , .>c:<[ 'Ute~"'"" ''.I l,O'Lt(0('1::< "'"' SUBGRADE AT SAND FILTER .,,,,. ,.;aj,,l. ,_ """""''" ,, .. a,1 .._ (/ -- --~- ,, ...... ,~,,,., ...... -- '""""''""' -'=-~=t -r :_1 SECTION A , fLC.<lltl(lll"r" --._ ''°""''""'r,[,n:o -f ~ L,'AllLP'..l«l"'l ..-.. ( ---1 ;--,-:·,~::,,:,:-;;,. ~ --( \ ----'----I__ --,-' ]-·~-T '[ -\__>---/ ...__.-l. --_ _!... ~~ --__. ~·--,· [_ l-- SECTION B /\ __-cc~ ........ __ .,./,.., -:x--" ,/ -----........ I \ _. -.\ .. ~!~ / ----..... -------.:: __ _ c;.,'r,f ~0 - OUTLET/OUTFALL "'"" ' ·[ .._ a ,-.-, ,7;·,t.,1'J:'l'" ,j z 0 t; :::, c::: t-en z 0 (.) c::: 0 u. t-o z FIGURE 5.21 \ . ...._/ ' '---~/ ---- -R:) I • MA.GNUS~ON KUMENCIC ,i,oc ... , ,a ~ ., ':l t:: :::,.. ..J z <O :'!::" I-0 :,:=(f}l- c:,-OWC) '0(03:Z mLL:r::c .. Ii' "' J: g'i ~ ~ :s ~ ~ :I: ~ I!' !z ~ I-8 ~ "' ~ Jl .~ ' : 1 ! SECT,o,,,!1,...,.,0 --~ CE402... ' 'ti ~ )> i "Tl 0 C ;o m 01 "' "' ii; .--<> > 0 0 !:l Cl) m .-- j ~ '-I 6 z :1 ,- D ·13 j>) . / /,' I ,E-' , ,, I ; . I I , / i// ' ' { , ,/ L . /J ~ ·;> ~ ... ~ . ~ .. ·_ ~" [ L/ ------= --~ --------_ :,±-i~ ----' I. I __ ' I Sea hawks Practice Facility I FOOTBALL NORTHWEST LLC RENTON, WASHINGTON I \ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 CITY Of REr-4TON NOV D 6 2006 I RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Wiver,d'-C'otu/e, 'I ' 2.., {', ,,, ' BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON MISTY COVE ASSOCIATION OF APARTMENT OWNERS, Appellant, V. CITY OF RENTON, and FOOTBALL NORTHWEST, Respondents. I. NO. LUA06-073 NOTICE OF APPEAL; APPEAL OF DETERMINATION OF NON- SIGNIFICANCE - MITIGATED WITH MITIGATION MEASURES (Oct. 16, 2006) INTRODUCTION Comes now the Misty Cove Association of Apartment Owners ("Misty Cove") and for its appeal of the above-captioned Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated ("DNSM") pleads as follows. This appeal is filed pursuant to the Renton Municipal Code ("RMC"), chapter 4-08- 110, the State Environmental Policy Act, RCW ch. 43.21C ("SEPA"), and under the procedures set forth on Page 15 of the Report & Decision of the City's Environmental Review Committee ("ERC'') (Oct. 16, 2006). The City Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction to review an appeal of the ERC's Determination of Non-Significance for this proposal. RMC Section 4-8-070(H)(4); RMC Sec. 4-8-070(T). MISTY COVE ASSOCIATION APPEAL OF DNSM 15563 Socius Law Group, PLLC A T T O R N E Y S -1-Two Union Square• 601 Union Street, Suite 4950 ,,, Seattle, Washington 98101.3951 / .' ./ . /~Ji Telephone 206.838.9100 l.J-,'Y /rt"":P,/1 LI lf '!lp/,i,,1y· Facsimile206.838.9101 1Vr, / ,/~ff> / De.) <)•'c '>. 'D, ltcft...,.- cc. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 The Misty Cove Association is an unincorporated condominium association of over 50 residents 1, residing on Lake Washington directly adjacent and to the north of the proposed Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility. The Misty Cove Condominiums consist of the condominium building, parking, grounds, and marina located at 5021 Ripley Lane North, Renton, Washington. The proposed Seahawks facility involves a relocation of an existing facility from Kirkland. By moving their facility to Renton, the Seahawks hope to quadruple the size of their current Kirkland facility. 2 The effect of locating this large commercial enterprise on this vacant lakeshore site is immediate and certain change in the lives of Misty Cove residents. In their recent internet promotional materials for the new facility, the Seahawks management admit the new 120-foot tall facility will be "massive," located within 50 feet of Lake Washington.3 In the same promotional video, Renton's Mayor promises to "fast-track" every permit application filed by the Seahawks, in support of the new facility. While it is understandable City leadership would wish to attract an economic engine with a "massive" commercial facility within the City limits by fast-tracking the permit and SEPA review, the City's environmental determination must focus on impacts to the shores of Lake Washington, a shoreline of statewide significance. When issuing the DNSM, the City's SEPA responsible official failed to consider public comments and failed to ensure consistency with the City's adopted Shoreline Management Master Program4 and other 1 There are 50 residential units located at Misty Cove, some of which are occupied by multiple residents. 2 Information derived from the Seahawk's promotional website at: www.seahawks.com/News/News.aspx%3Fid%3DI0218+Seahawks+Training+facility+Kirkland,+WA&hl~en &gI~us&ct~cink&cd~ 11 3ld., "Video Report" promoting new facility, Seahawks President Tim Ruskell. 4 RMC Sec. 4-9-070(0)(2)(c). MISTY COVE ASSOCIATION APPEAL OF DNSM 15Sfl3 -2- Socius Law Group, PLLC A T T O R N E Y S Two Union Square• 601 Union Street, Suite 4950 Seattle, Washington 98101.3951 Telephone 206.838.9100 Facsimile 206.838.9101 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 permit regulations. Those regulations protect the interests of Misty Cove residents and the interests of all state residents who enjoy Lake Washington's waters and shores. Unfortunately, neither the applicant nor City staff appeared to incorporate suggestions or comments from neighborhood meetings or either of Misty Cove's letters to the City providing detailed concerns. The first letter was sent in July 2006, over three months ago. The applicant's resubmittal in September 2006 did not adequately address those concerns and did not propose any new voluntary permit conditions to mitigate impacts described by Misty Cove. Upon appellate review, a central issue will be whether this massive facility may impede, alter or impair the views of existing residents throughout the area, for a commercial use that is neither water-dependent nor water-related. Misty Cove residents believe additional design work is needed to mitigate the massive scale and height of the proposal in order to make the facility consistent with applicable City shoreline regulations. Additional study is needed to determine impacts and appropriate mitigation on a host of issues not addressed by the DNSM conditions, not the least of which is the impact of stormwater runoff on endangered species habitat along the shoreline. Misty Cove therefore requests the Hearing Examiner remand the DNSM for additional study and SEPA conditions mitigating probable significant adverse environmental impacts identified in this appeal. II. SUBSTANTIAL ERRORS IN FACT OR LAW As required under the City's appeal procedures, Misty Cove offers the following list of substantial errors in fact or law which exist in the record of the proceedings. RMC Sec. 4- 8-11 O(C)(3). A. List of Errors. In addition to those reasons listed in the attached letters, the DNSM is in error because: MISTY COVE ASSOCIATION APPEAL OF DNSM 1556J -3- Socius Law Group, PLLC ATTORNEYS Two Union Square• 601 Union Street, Suite 4950 Seattle, Washington 98101.3951 Telephone 206.838.9100 Facsimile 206.838.9101 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 • This proposal does not meet the City's adopted shoreline standards for the location of commercial development along Lake Washington: New commercial developments on Lake Washington which are neither water-dependent, nor water-related, nor water-enjoyment, nor which do not provide significant public access to and along the water's edge will not be permitted upon the shoreline. RMC Sec. 4-3-090(L)(5)(ii). • The facility is not located in an area "where current commercial uses exist," as required for Commercial Use within the Urban Shoreline Environment. RMC 4-3-090(])(4); 4-3-090(L)(5). • The 120-foot high structure is not of the same scale as other commercial development contemplated for this commercial zone. • The scale and design of the facility will impede or impair the views of adjacent residents; the SEPA DNSM does not include any permit conditions concerning design or scale capable of providing the mitigation required by the City's shoreline regulations. • The DNSM is silent on any mitigation conditions addressing obstructed and impeded views, traffic gridlock, degradation of fish and wildlife habitat, parking impacts, loss of aesthetics, increased noise, and new sources of light and glare. As part of this appeal, Misty Cove incorporates by reference as though fully set forth herein, two letters submitted by Misty Cove during the public comment period, providing specific allegations of fact and law demonstrating probable significant adverse environmental impacts resulting from the project's noncompliance with SEPA, RCW ch. 43.21C and its implementing regulations, WAC ch. 197-11, the Shoreline Management Act, RCW ch. MISTY COVE ASSOCIATION APPEAL OF DNSM 1556) -4- Socius Law Group, PLLC A T T O R N E Y S Two Union Square• 601 Union Street, Suite 4950 Seattle, Washington 98101.3951 Telephone 206.838.9100 Facsimile 206.838.9101 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 JO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 90.58, and applicable City regulations and policies. Additional errors are described as follows. B. Failure to Impose Specific SEP A Conditions Necessary for Consistency with Shoreline Policies and Regulations. As discussed above, the DNSM does not contain specific SEPA mitigation conditions necessary to demonstrate consistency with the City's adopted standards and policies for commercial uses within the shorelines. The applicant did not meet its burden of demonstrating consistency "with the criteria which must be met before a [ shoreline J permit is granted." RMC Sec. 4-9-190(F)( 4). Neither the shoreline permit nor other permits may be granted under City code, absent a showing of consistency with the City's adopted shoreline program and regulations. RMC Sec. 4-9-190(E). If the proposal is inconsistent with the City's adopted SEPA policies governing the use of shorelines and mitigation of impacts, it follows that the proposal does not adequately mitigate project impacts to the extent required by SEPA and the City's environmental regulations. The criteria for issuance of a shoreline permit are relevant to the Examiner's review of the ERC's decision. The City's shoreline policies and regulations serve as the basis for substantive conditioning of the project to ensure adequate SEPA mitigation, because they are adopted SEP A policies. RMC Sec. 4-9-070(0)(2)( c ). Under City code, specific SEPA mitigation measures become conditions of the underlying permit approval decision, once issued. RMC Sec. 4-9-070(L)(l3). Given the interrelationship between shoreline permit conditions and SEPA conditions, the ERC needed to determine whether the project was consistent with the City's adopted SEPA policy for shorelines, as a pre-requisite to completion of the City's SEPA review. City code required that any mitigation conditions addressing the requirements of the City's shoreline regulations be specific, in order to qualify as SEPA mitigation measures. MISTY COVE ASSOCIATION APPEAL OF DNSM 15563 -5- Socius Law Group, PLLC ATTORNEYS Two Union Square• 601 Union Street, Suite 4950 Seattle, Washington 98101.3951 Telephone 206.838.9100 Facsimile 206.838.9101 2 3 4 5 RMC Sec. 4-9-070(L)(9). In the absence of specific mitigation measures addressing compliance with shoreline regulations, the DNSM must be overturned and remanded for further study. C. Failure to Impose Specific SEPA Conditions Necessary for Consistency with Other Land Use Permit Regulations. 6 It does not appear that the Optional DNS issued by the City covered more than a 7 shoreline substantial development permit application. On September 6, 2006, the applicant 8 added permit applications for a Master Site Plan Approval and Site Plan Approval. The ERC 9 Report & Decision dated October 16, 2006, appears to have expanded the Optional DNS 10 notice to now include more than the shoreline permit, specifying "SA-M" and "SA-H" 11 designations. It is not clear from the text of the decision or staff recommendation exactly 12 what permit applications are covered by the DNS. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 D. The Record Lacks Evidence the Public Comments Were Considered for This DNS, as Required by SEPA. It is little surprise the DNSM failed to include specific mitigation conditions addressing timely-submitted neighborhood comments and concerns. In the City's haste to fast-track the permitting process, detailed comments from Misty Cove and other members of the public were not considered. The City's SEPA record does not contain any evidence that the staff or ERC considered Misty Cove's comments, timely filed prior to issuance of the DNSM. As the City's SEPA Responsible Official, the ERC had a duty to consider Misty Cove's written comments and those of other members of the public, prior to issuance of the DNS. WAC 197-11-355(4).5 5 This is the citation for a DNS issued under the Optional DNS process. It is unclear from the Report & Decision issued by the ERC on October 16, 2006 whether the ERC utilized the Optional DNS process. If it did not, the State SEPA Rules require consideration of public comments for a period of 14 days following issuance of the DNS. During that period, WAC 197-11-340(2)(!) requires the responsible official to "reconsider the DNS based on timely comments." MISTY COVE ASSOCIATION APPEAL OF DNSM 15563 -6- Socius Law Group, PLLC ATTORNEYS Two Union Square• 601 Union Street, Suite 4950 Seattle, Washington 98101.3951 Telephone 206.838.9100 Facsimile 206.838.9101 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Misty Cove submitted a comment letter to the City in July 2006, and again in early October 2006, both prior to issuance of the DNSM. Neither letter was even mentioned in the staff report to the ERC or in the ERC's written decision and letter issuing the DNSM. It seems clear the complete lack of design mitigation conditions in the DNSM is in error in light of the comments the City received from the public concerning inconsistencies with the City's adopted SEPA policies, which include the Shoreline Management Master Program and its regulations. E. The ERC Failed to Examine Underlying Permit Applications and Proposed Conditions and Failed to Require Sufficient Environmental Information. The exhibits offered to the ERC for its review are described in the staff recommendation dated October 16, 2006. None of these exhibits include the specific permit application materials covered by the DNS. Because the DNS relies upon mitigation measures applied to other permits through existing codes, it was logically necessary for the ERC to review specific measures proposed for the underlying permits, which apparently were not presented. By way of illustrative example, Paragraph 5 of the DNSM states that Mitigation Measures for the DNS are described in "the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Application component of this Land Use Action." The record of the ERC decision shows that the ERC did not appear to consider the shoreline permit application and did not review any specific mitigation measures proposed as conditions for that application. Thus, the DNSM is flawed by citing to the shoreline permit mitigation measures when they are not listed in the DNS and are not otherwise disclosed in the application materials or record of staff review. Under City code, the mitigation conditions for the application had to be listed in the Notice of Application, so that the public had an opportunity to comment. This was not done. MISTY COVE ASSOCIATION APPEAL OF DNSM -7- Socius Law Group, PLLC ATTORNEYS Two Union Square• 601 Union Street, Suite 4950 Seattle, Washington 98101.3951 Telephone 206.838.9100 Facsimile 206.838.9101 • 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Similarly, the staff recommendation, dated October 16, 2006, discusses ideas for mitigation of building design, without proposing any specific mitigation conditions for underlying permits related to design, mass or scale. Clearly, the DNSM list of mitigation measures on Page 3 of the ERC Report & Decision does not address these issues or identify conditions proposed for any underlying permit. The staff recommendation curiously identifies not a single mitigation measure related to impacts to shoreline water quality or fish habitat. Under the heading "Water" (Page 5, Para. 3), the staff recommendation notes a proposal to improve the functions and values of the riparian zone, but does not cite to any specific proposed permit condition and does not propose any DNS mitigation condition. In fact, the recommendation in its entirety refrains from mentioning the presence of endangered salmonid species, their documented use of the shoreline during migrations, or any proposed mitigation to preserve and enhance this valuable state and federal resource. See discussion at Page 11, Para. I 0, Staff Recommendation ("No mitigation is required."). The staff report to the ERC does acknowledge there will be five new stormwater drainage system outfalls to Lake Washington at the ordinary high-water mark. Because the staff report failed to describe any ESA habitat assessment, the ERC did not carefully consider probable significant adverse environmental impacts of storm water runoff on that habitat. In the absence of materials from the applicant or staff, the ERC had a duty to direct staff or the applicant to produce missing information concerning not only proposed conditions for underlying permit applications but also basic environmental data necessary to assess impacts and a record of public comments. Insufficient data was provided to the ERC concernmg: • the presence of fish; • the presence of endangered species; MISTY COVE ASSOCIATION APPEAL OF DNSM 15563 -8- Socius Law Group, PLLC ATTORNEYS Two Union Square• 601 Union Street, Suite 4950 Seattle, Washington 98101.3951 Telephone 206.838.9100 Facsimile 206.838.9101 I 2 3 4 5 6 • the current quality of nearshore habitat for aquatic species and birds; • the impacts of five new stormwater discharge facilities on habitat and water quality; • the impacts of construction sediments on nearshore habitat and fish migrations; • proposed mitigation to address specific impacts to the shoreline ecosystem; and • public concerns about changes to the shoreline. 7 Misty Cove requests the Hearing Examiner remand the DNSM to develop missing 8 information, review proposed voluntary conditions for underlying permits, and for further 9 consideration of appropriate mitigation conditions to be incorporated into the DNS, following IO a review of public comments. 11 F. Errors Incorporated by Reference. 12 Descriptions of errors of law or fact are contained in other sections of this appeal and 13 are hereby incorporated by reference in their entirety as though fully set forth in this section. 14 Ill. STANDING 15 As required for SEPA appeals and under RMC Sec. 4-8-11 O(E), Misty Cove 16 incorporates the above and alleges the following facts demonstrating that its interests are 17 among those that are required to be considered, the decision prejudices those interests, the 18 prejudice will result in injury in fact, and a decision in favor of Misty Cove would 19 substantially eliminate or redress the prejudice. 20 The interests of Misty Cove residents are within the zone of interests the City must 21 consider, as specified in City code and SEPA. The City's shoreline regulations expressly 22 require consideration of view and aesthetic impacts on adjacent residents. RMC Sec. 4-3- 23 090(K)(3); RMC Sec. 4-3-090(L)(5)(c). Similarly, the SEPA Checklist required for the 24 project included discussion of impacts to traffic, stormwater, fish and wildlife habitat, 25 parking, aesthetics, noise, light and glare, all environmental factors to be considered by the 26 MISTY COVE ASSOCIATION APPEAL OF DNSM 15563 -9- Socius Law Group, PLLC ATTORNEYS Two Union Square• 601 Union Street, Suite 4950 Seattle, Washington 98101.3951 Telephone 206.838.9100 Facsimile 206.838.9101 • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 City during its SEPA review. Issues of height, noise, design, parking and traffic mitigation are all issues considered as part of the City's review for the underlying Master Site Plan approval. The City's critical areas and shoreline regulations also require protection of the natural resource along the shoreline. The interests Misty Cove members seek to address in this appeal are within the zone of interests the City was required to consider under its code, the Shoreline Management Act, and SEP A. Thus, the City was required to consider the comments and interests of Misty Cove residents related to views, traffic, stormwater, fish and wildlife habitat, parking, aesthetics, noise, light and glare. The injury in fact and manner in which the Association and its members are prejudiced by the DNSM are set forth in detail in the Declaration of Eleanor Margo Kennamer, attached hereto as Exhibit A, the Declaration of Steve Jansen, attached hereto as Exhibit B, and the Declaration of Brian Sabey, attached hereto as Exhibit C. With 50 residential units on four floors and a marina, Misty Cove residents have real property interests in their use and enjoyment of the Misty Cove property and adjacent Lake Washington, including views. Under the Declaration of Condominium for Misty Cove recorded on February 11, 1980, all of the owners of units at Misty Cove are members of the Association. The Association represents the interests of its members in this appeal. Declaration of Eleanor Margo Kennamer. See, Save a Valuable Environment v. Bothell, 89 Wn. 2d 862, 865-68, 576 P.2d 401 (1978). Many, if not all, of the individual members of the Association are likely to be harmed by significant adverse environmental impacts of the proposed Seahawks Practice Facility that are immediate, concrete and specific, related to views, traffic, stormwater, fish and wildlife habitat, parking, recreation, aesthetics, public safety, noise, light and glare. See, e.g., MISTY COVE ASSOCIATION APPEAL OF DNSM 15563 -10- Socius Law Group, PLLC ATTORNEYS Two Union Square• 601 Union Street, Suite 4950 Seattle, Washington 98101.3951 Telephone 206.838.9100 Facsimile 206.838.9101 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Declaration of Steve Jansen. As such, the Association is prejudiced by the City's decision to issue a DNSM that fails to adequately mitigate those impacts. The residents of Misty Cove have chosen to live there because they use and enjoy Lake Washington and the shoreline adjacent to it. All of the units of Misty Cove have balconies and patios. The lake and the shorelands can be viewed from almost every unit. Misty Cove residents frequently walk on the shorelands, view the water and shorelands, fish, boat, engage in watersports, watch wildlife, and generally enjoy all of the sights and activities available on Lake Washington and the adjacent shorelands. Declaration of Eleanor Margo Kennamer,~ 4. Because of the proposed massive height and scale of the structure, the lack of conditions requiring design modifications and a lack of visual mitigation measures in the DNSM, views of the water and shorelands will be impaired from nearly half of the units of Misty Cove and from numerous other vantage points throughout their property. Declaration of Steve Jansen,~ 3. The proposed indoor practice facility will cast a huge shadow over the Misty Cove property, particularly in the months from late fall to early spring when the sun crosses the southern sky. The proposed facility will not only block views of the water, it will block views of the sun, sky, vegetation, and wildlife associated with the Lake Washington shorelands. In the case of residents on the ground floor, at least one resident believes the 120-foot high facility will prevent his unit from being exposed to the sun for the better part of most winter days. Declaration of Steve Jansen,~ 4. Misty Cove Association members also have an interest in use and enjoyment of the Lake Washington's water quality, as reflected in the health of the aquatic ecosystem. The proposed grading, construction, retaining wall, and new stormwater outfalls within the shoreline and in some case below the ordinary high water mark are likely to have significant adverse impacts on shoreline habitat for endangered species of fish, other fish, birds and MISTY COVE ASSOCIATION APPEAL OF DNSM 15563 -11- Socius Law Group, PLLC ATTORNEYS Two Union Square• 601 Union Street, Suite 4950 Seattle, Washington 98101.3951 Telephone 206.838.9100 Facsimile 206.838.9101 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 mammals using the nearshore habitat. Association members have observed bald eagles and osprey on the Port Quendall property to the south (Seahawks site) and regularly engage in bird-watching. Declaration of Steve Jansen,~ 5; Declaration of Eleanor Margo Kennamer, ~ IO; Declaration of Brian Sabey, ~ 4. Association members who live on the north side of the property enjoy walking along the waterfront and sitting beside the Misty Cove pool, which is located on the southwest portion of the property to engage in birdwatching. Declaration of Eleanor Margo Kennamer, ~ 10. Misty Cove members also fish and utilize boats parked in one of the 24 boat slips available to them in the Misty Cove Marina. Association members frequently boat on Lake Washington in the vicinity of the Port Quendall Property. Declaration of Eleanor Margo Kennamer,~ 11; Declaration of Steve Jansen,~ 6; Declaration of Brian Sabey. ~ 6. Probable significant adverse environmental impacts from stormwater runoff include but are not limited to damage to fish, poor visibility in the Lake waters, and sedimentation of nearshore gravels, all of which directly harm Misty Cove members enjoying the shoreline and waters of Lake Washington. The DNSM fails to include mitigation measures necessary to prevent these probable significant adverse environmental impacts. The Association and its members are also harmed by the DNSM decision because it does not contain mitigation measures designed to reduce the noise and harmful effects of the proposed service, delivery, and trash functions on the northwest corner of the building nearest the shore and Misty Cove. The noise of truck traffic and clanging dumpsters, as well as odors, debris, and vermin will cause harm and annoyance to Misty Cove and the members of the Association. Declaration of Steve Jansen,~ 8. Because Misty Cove is located near the end of a dead end road, Association members believe it more than likely the Football Northwest proposal will result in a substantial increase in traffic and parking problems. Currently, the only traffic in the area leads to Misty MISTY COVE ASSOCIATION APPEAL OF DNSM 15563 -12- Socius Law Group, PLLC ATTORNEYS Two Union Square• 601 Union Street, Suite 4950 Seattle, Washington 98101.3951 Telephone 206.838.9100 Facsimile 206.838.9101 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 JO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Cove and the adjoining Condominium. The DNSM failed to include mitigation measures capable of reducing what is projected to be an enormous amount of new traffic to the area, associated with summer training camp, when thousands of people a day are expected to visit the Seahawks property. Without DNS mitigation measures, Misty Cove Association members believe their parking lot and dock will be utilized as a shortcut to gain access to the Seahawks facility. Declaration of Eleanor Margo Kennamer, ,i 14; Declaration of Steve Jansen, ,i 9. Parking problems are expected to increase as a result of the proposal. Misty Cove has only 98 parking stalls for 50 units. Losing street parking in the area during Seahawks events will increase the demand for parking within the Misty Cove property and potentially create security problems as hundreds of visitors use the area during training camp. The DNSM did not include mitigation measures capable of addressing increased parking demand off-site and security measures for crowd control. Declaration of Steve Jansen, ,i 9; Declaration of Brian Sabey, ,i 9. The proposal evidently would not include the construction of lamp posts and field lighting for night-time practice. Misty Cove would be directly harmed by such lighting, because glare would likely be seen from the Misty Cove property at night, thus substantially reducing the visibility of night-time skies through "light pollution." Misty Cove believes the SEP A DNSM should have included permit conditions permanently prohibiting night-time lighting of outdoor play fields. No mitigation conditions are currently proposed in the DNSM. IV. RELIEF SOUGHT Misty Cove seeks an order remanding or revising the above-captioned DNSM. Remanding the DNSM to the ERC for additional study or revising the DNSM to include necessary mitigation conditions would substantially eliminate or redress each of the above- MISTY COVE ASSOCIATION APPEAL OF DNSM 15563 -13- Socius Law Group, PLLC ATTORNEYS Two Union Square• 601 Union Street, Suite 4950 Seattle, Washington 98101.3951 Telephone 206.838.9100 Facsimile 206.838.9101 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 described injuries to the interests of Misty Cove members, related to views, traffic, stormwater, fish and wildlife habitat, parking, recreation, aesthetics, public safety, noise, light and glare. Petitioner Misty Cove requests that the remand order require adoption of specific mitigation conditions related to views, traffic, stormwater, fish and wildlife habitat, parking, recreation, aesthetics, public safety, noise, !~ht and glare, as described in this appeal. DA TED this 0 '(k-day of / WV ~h.A-, 2006. MISTY COVE ASSOCIATION APPEAL OF DNSM 15563 SOCIUS LAW GROUP, PLLC By T mas F. Peterson, WSBA #16587 Attorneys for Misty Cove Association of Apartment Owners TOM EHRLICHMAN, ATTORNEY AT LAW By~fw Attorneys for Misty Cove Association of Apartment Owners -14- Sodus Law Group, PLLC A T T O R N E Y S Two Union Square• 601 Union Street, Suite 4950 Seattle, Washington 98101.3951 Telephone 206.838.9100 Facsimile 206.838.9101 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON MISTY COVE ASSOCIATION OF 9 APARTMENT OWNERS, NO. LUA06-073 10 Appellant, DECLARATION OF STEVE JANSEN 11 V. 12 CITY OF RENTON and FOOTBALL NORTHWEST, 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Respondents. I, Steve Jansen, am competent to testify to the matters set forth herein and make this declaration of my own personal knowledge and belief. I. I own and reside in a unit of Misty Cove Condominium ("Misty Cove") and am a member of the Misty Cove Association of Apartment Owners ("Association"). 2. I own unit number 4, which is located on the southwest corner of the Misty Cove building. From my unit, I have views to the west of Lake Washington and to the southwest of the shoreline located on the Port Quendall property where the proposed Seahawks Headquarters and Practice Facility is planned. Not only do I live in my unit, but I have my home office there too. Consequently, I am in the unit and on or about the Misty Cove property during all hours of the day throughout the week. DECLARATION OF STEVE JANSEN -1- 15549 ~XHIBITJL_ Socius Law Group, PLLC ATTORNEYS Two Union Square• 601 Union Street, Suite 4950 Seattle, Washington 98101.3951 Telephone 206.838.9100 Facsimile 206.838.9101 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 3. The 120 foot high indoor practice facility proposed for the Seahawks site will seriously impair views of the water and shorelands from nearly half of the units of Misty Cove and from numerous other vantage points throughout the property. All of the residents and guests of Misty Cove will be affected by the project in some way. The practice facility will block my view of the shoreland to the south of the Misty Cove property and the territorial view beyond. 4. The proposed indoor practice facility will cast a huge shadow over the Misty Cove property, particularly in the months from late fall to early spring when the sun crosses the southern sky. The proposed facility will not only block views of the water, it will block views of the sun, sky, vegetation, and wildlife associated with the Lake Washington shorelands. The shadowing will particularly impact me because my unit is located on the ground floor. I doubt whether I will be able to see the sun for the better part of most winter days. Furthermore, the 120 foot high indoor practice facility will loom over the public areas of Misty Cove creating a canyon-like effect. Driving in and out of Misty Cove will be like driving down a dark alley. 5. I enjoy watching the wildlife from my unit and around the Misty Cove Property. I have observed blue heron, otter, beaver, turtles, migrating geese, nesting osprey, bald eagle, raccoon, and deer in the vicinity of Misty Cove and the on the Port Quendall property to the south. 6. 1 also enjoy boating and fishing, I own a boat slip at Misty Cove, although I 24 do not currently have a boat moored there. 25 26 DECLARATION OF STEVE JANSEN 15549 -2-Socius Law Group, PLLC ATTORNEYS Two Union Square , 601 Union Street, Suite 4950 Seattle, Washington 98101.3951 Telephone 206.838.9100 Facsimile 206.838.9101 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 7. The proposed grading, construction, retaining wall, and new stormwater outfalls within the shoreline and in some cases below the ordinary high water mark are like! y to have significant adverse impacts on shore habitat for endangered and other fish and other birds and mammals using the near shore habitat. There is virtually no mitigation conditions required in the City's Environmental Review Committee Report and DNS that address wildlife habitat. 8. At present, Misty Cove is an extremely quiet and peaceful location. The Seahawks construction project and the operating practice facility will greatly disturb the quiet in the area. There are no mitigation measures in the DNS designed to reduce the noise and dirt during construction to an acceptable level. Furthermore, the project proposes to locate the service, delivery, and trash functions on the northwest corner of the building nearest the shore and Misty Cove. The noise of truck traffic and clanging dumpsters, as well as odors, debris, and vermin will cause particular harm and annoyance to me because my unit is located on the ground floor directly north of the proposed service area. The DNS contains no mitigation measures designed to eliminate these problems. 9. Misty Cove is located near the end of a dead end road. The only traffic in the area leads to Misty Cove and the adjoining Condominium. The Seahawks practice facility will bring an enormous amount of new traffic to the area creating additional noise, pollution, and security problems in the area. Misty Cove has only 98 parking stalls for 50 units. Losing street parking in the area will seriously harm Misty Cove residents. In addition, the pressure on parking from Seahawks visitors will make matters even worse. During the weeks of training camp, thousands of people will visit the property each day. Those people DECLARATION OF STEVE JANSEN -3- 15549 Socius Law Group, PLLC A T T O R N E Y S Two Union Square• 601 Union Street, Suite 4950 Seattle, Washington 98101.3951 Telephone 206.838.9100 Facsimile 206.838.9101 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 JO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 will attempt to park in Misty Cove's parking lot and drop off on Misty Cove's dock in order to cross the property to gain access to the Seahawks facility. These Seahawks visitors will walk through the Misty Cove property directly past my windows and through the parking lot to the Ripley Laue. I have already experienced this problem at events like when the Blue Angels perform. I expect that it will be even worse when the Seahawks are around. The DNS contairis no mitigation measures designed to eliminate the traffic, noise, pollution, and security issues caused by the facility year round and especially during training camp. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this ..,b_ day of ~e/ 2006, at 'kl:h , Washington. DECLARATION OF STEVE JANSEN -4- 155';9[1) ~---- Socius Law Group, PLLC ATTOHNl;:Y$ Two Union Squafe • 601 Union Straet, Suite 4950 Seau:1e, Washington 98101.:3951 Telephone 206.838.9100 Fac&imlle 208.838.9101 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON MISTY COVE ASSOCIATION OF APARTMENT OWNERS, Appellant, V. CITY OF RENTON and FOOTBALL NORTHWEST, Respondents. NO. LUA06-073 DECLARATION OF ELEANOR MARGO KENNAMER I, Eleanor Margo Kennamer, am competent to testify to the matters set forth herein and make this declaration of my own personal knowledge and belief. 1. I am the President of Misty Cove Association of Apartment Owners ("the Association"). The Association is an unincorporated condominium association formed under RCW ch. 64.32. 2. Misty Cove Condominium ("Misty Cove") is a condominium consisting of a building, parking, grounds, and marina located at 5021 Ripley Lane North, Renton, Washington. Misty Cove is located on Lake Washington directly adjacent and to the north of the proposed Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility. DECLARATION OF ELEANOR MARGO KENNAMER 15486 -1- EXHIBIT_B_ Socius Law Group, PLLC ATTORNEYS Two Union Square • 601 Union Street, Suite 4950 Seattle, Washington 98101.3951 Telephone 206.838.9100 Facsimile 206.838.9101 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 3. Misty Cove contains 50 residential units on four floors. 25 units are located on the north side of the building and 25 are located on the south side of the building. Under the Declaration of Condominium for Misty Cove recorded on February 11, 1980, the owners of units at Misty Cove are the members of the Association. 4. Many, if not all, of the individual members of the Association are directly and perceptibly harmed by the proposed Seahawks Practice Facility. 5. The residents of Misty Cove have chosen to live there because they use and enjoy Lake Washington and the shoreline adjacent to it. Misty Cove residents frequently walk on the shorelands, view the water and shorelands, fish, boat, engage in watersports, watch wildlife, and generally enjoy all of the sights and activities available on Lake Washington and the adjacent shorelands. 6. All of the units of Misty Cove have balconies or patios. The lake and the shorelands can be viewed from almost every unit. 7. The 120 foot high indoor practice facility proposed for the Seahawks site will seriously impair views of the water and shorelands from nearly half of the units of Misty Cove and from numerous other vantage points throughout the property. All of the residents and guests of Misty Cove will be affected by the project in some way and some more than others. 8. The proposed indoor practice facility will cast a huge shadow over the Misty 23 Cove property, particularly in the months from late fall to early spring when the sun crosses 24 the southern sky. The proposed facility will not only block views of the water, it will block 25 26 DECLARATION OF ELEANOR MARGO KENNAMER !5486 -2- Socius Law Group, PLLC ATTORNEYS Two Union Square• 601 Union Street, Suite 4950 Seattle, Washington 98101.3951 Telephone 206.838.9100 Facsimile 206.838.9101 1 views of the sun, sky, vegetation, and wildlife associated with the Lake Washington 2 shorelands. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 9. The proposed grading, construction, retaining wall, and new storm water outfalls within the shoreline and in some case below the ordinary high water mark are likely to have significant adverse impacts on shore habitat for endangered and other fish and other birds and mammals using the near shore habitat. 10. I keep a pair of binoculars at hand because I enjoy watching the wildlife that live and frequent the properties in the vicinity of Misty Cove, including the property to the south. Although my unit is on the north side of the building, I frequently sit on a landing on the south side of the building to view the birds and mammals and also do so when I visit my neighbors. I also enjoy walking along the waterfront and sitting beside the Misty Cove pool, which is located on the southwest portion of the property. I have personally observed bald eagles and osprey on the property located to the south of Misty Cove. I have also frequently observed six dear on that property. 11. There are 24 boat slips in the Misty Cove Marina. Many of the Association members own boats. We own two boats and frequently boat on lake Washington in the vicinity of the Port Quendall Property. 12. The proposed grading, construction, and installation of stormwater outfalls within the shoreline and below the ordinary high water mark if not carefully designed and mitigated will seriously impact fish and wildlife habitat, including those of endangered species. There is virtually no mitigation conditions required in the City's Environmental Review Committee Report and DNS that address wildlife habitat. DECLARATION OF ELEANOR MARGO KENNAMER 15486 -3- Socius Law Group, PLLC ATTORNEYS Two Union Square• 601 Union Street, Suite 4950 Seattle, Washington 98101.3951 Telephone 206.838.9100 Facsimile 206.838.9101 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 13. At present, Misty Cove is an extremely quiet and peaceful location. The Seahawks construction project and the operating practice facility will greatly disturb the quiet in the area. There are no mitigation measures in the DNS designed to reduce the noise and dirt during construction to an acceptable level. Furthermore, the project proposes to locate the service, delivery, and trash functions on the northwest comer of the building nearest the shore and Misty Cove. The noise of truck traffic and clanging dumpsters, as well as odors, debris, and vermin will cause harm and annoyance to Misty Cove and the members of the Association. The DNS contains no mitigation measures designed to eliminate these problems. 14. Misty Cove is located near the end of a dead end road. The only traffic in the area leads to Misty Cove and the adjoining Condominium. The Seahawks practice facility will bring an enormous amount of new traffic to the area creating additional noise, pollution, and security problems in the area. During the weeks of training camp, thousands of people a day will visit the property. Those people will attempt to park in Misty Cove's parking lot and drop off on Misty Cove's dock in order to cross the property to gain access to the Seahawks facility. The DNS contains no mitigation measures designed to eliminate the traffic, noise, pollution, and security issues caused by the facility year round and especially during training camp. DECLARATION OF ELEANOR MARGO KENNAMER 15486 -4- Socius Law Group, PLLC A T T O R N E Y S Two Union Square• 601 Union Street, Suite 4950 Seattle, Washington 98101.3951 Telephone 206.838.9100 Facsimile 206.838.9101 From:PNW Realty NOV. 6.2006 1:31PM 4259436640 SOCIUS LAW GROUP 11/06/2006 14:42 #980 P.001/001 NO. 2582 P. 6 l I declare under pc:nalty of perjury under 1he laws of the state of Washington that the 2 foregoing is true and oouect. 3 4 5 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 DECLARATION OF ELEANOR MARGO KENNAMER. 1S'4'86 -5- Soaus Law Group. PLLC ATTDRNl!V,$ Two Union~ .. flG1 Unloq Slreel, Suile 4950 •-. w .. hlnat<>n 1111101.3951 Tllloj,hone 2ou1u100 -ma. 206,838.9101 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON MISTY COVE ASSOCIATION OF APARTMENT OWNERS, Appellant, V. CITY OF RENTON and FOOTBALL NORTHWEST, Respondents. NO. LUA06-073 DECLARATION OF BRIAN SABEY 16 I, Brian Sabey, am competent to testify to the matters set forth herein and make this 1 7 declaration of my own personal knowledge and belief. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 I. My wife and I own and reside in a unit of Misty Cove Condominium ("Misty Cove") and are members of the Misty Cove Association of Apartment Owners ("Association"). 2. We own unit number 304, which is located on the top floor of the southwest corner of the Misty Cove building. From my unit, I have views to the west of Lake Washington and to the southwest of the shoreline located on the Port Quendall property where the proposed Seahawks Headquarters and Practice Facility are planned. Not only do I DECLARATION OF BRIAN SABEY 15564 -1- EXHIBIT c Socius Law Group, PLLC ATTORNEYS Two Union Square• 601 Union Street, Suite 4950 Seattle, Washington 98101.3951 Telephone 206.838.9100 Facsimile 206.838.9101 1 live in my unit, but I have my home office there too. Consequently, I am in the unit and on 2 or about the Misty Cove property during all hours of the day throughout the week. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 3. As proposed, the Seahawks indoor practice facility will block my view of everything to the east and south. I currently enjoy a wonderful territorial view of Renton and Bryn Mawr that will be lost if the practice facility is built as planned. Instead oflooking out at the hill, trees, and sky, I will see a massive ten-story wall. 4. I enjoy watching the wildlife from my unit and around the Misty Cove Property. I have observed blue heron, and bald eagles nesting and feeding on the Port Quendall property and in the adjacent waters of Lake Washington. 5. Besides enjoying the view and observing wildlife from my unit, I also frequently stand, walk, and run along the road adjacent to the Port Quendall Property, along the Misty Cove shoreline, and on our dock and pool area. The views of the shoreline will be blocked from all of those vantage points by the proposed indoor practice facility. 6. I also enjoy boating and fishing. I own a boat, which I keep in the Misty Cove Marina. From our boat, my wife and I view the marine life in the waters adjacent to the Port Quendall property. 7. The proposed grading, construction, retaining wall, and new storm water outfalls within the shoreline and in some cases below the ordinary high water mark are likely to have significant adverse impacts on shore habitat for endangered and other fish and other birds and mammals using the near shore habitat. There are virtually no mitigation conditions required in the City's Environmental Review Committee Report and DNS that address wildlife habitat. DECLARATION OF BRIAN SABEY -2- 15564 Socius Law Group, PLLC ATTORNEYS Two Union Square• 601 Union Street, Suite 4950 Seattle, Washington 98101.3951 Telephone 206.838.9100 Facsimile 206.838.9101 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 8. At present, Misty Cove is an extremely quiet and peaceful location. The Seahawks construction project and the operating practice facility will greatly disturb the quiet in the area. There are no mitigation measures in the DNS designed to reduce the noise and dirt during construction to an acceptable level. Furthermore, the project proposes to locate the service, delivery, and trash functions on the northwest comer of the building nearest the shore and Misty Cove. The noise of truck traffic and clanging dumpsters, as well as odors, debris, and vermin will cause particular harm and annoyance to me because my unit is located on the third floor directly north of the proposed service area. The DNS contains no mitigation measures designed to eliminate these problems. 9. Misty Cove is located near the end of a dead end road. The only traffic in the area leads to Misty Cove and the adjoining Condominium. The Seahawks practice facility will bring an enormous amount of new traffic to the area creating additional noise, pollution, and security problems in the area. Misty Cove has only 98 parking stalls for 50 units. Losing street parking in the area will seriously harm Misty Cove residents. In addition, the pressure on parking from Seahawks visitors will make matters even worse. During the weeks of training camp, thousands of people will visit the property each day. Those people will attempt to park in Misty Cove's parking lot and drop off on Misty Cove's dock in order to gain access to the Seahawks facility. The DNS contains no mitigation measures designed to eliminate the traffic, noise, pollution, and security issues caused by the facility year round and especially during training camp. DECLARATION OF BRIAN SABEY -3- 15564 Socius Law Group, PLLC ATTORNEYS Two Union Square• 601 Union Street, Suite 4950 Seattle, Washington 98101.3951 Telephone 206.838.9100 Facsimlle 206.838.9101 1 l declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of Washington that the 2 foregoing is true and correct. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Brian Sabey Execu:;:s k day of /f(#l,.VJ"IJ b 4;'1006, at {i. /. Washington. DECLARATION OF BRIAN SABEY -4- 155i;.4 Socius L~w Group, PLLC ATTORNEYS --- Two Union Square• 601 Union Street. Suite 4950 Seattle, WashlnQIO!'I 98101.3951 Telephone 206.838.9100 Facsimile 200.838.9101 July 10, 2006 VIA LEGAL MESSENGER Elizabeth Higgins Planning/Building/Public Works Department City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Re: Seahawks Training Facility, LUA06-073 Dear Ms. Higgins: 206.836.91 00 MAIN PHONE 206.038,9101 MAII\J FAX Two Union Square 601 Union Sl, Sui\0 4950 Seattle, WA 98101 Thomas F. Peterson 206.838.9112 tpeterson@sociuslaw.com This law finn represents the Misty Cove Association of Apartment Owners. As you know, Misty Cove Condominium is located on the property immediately adjacent to the north of the proposed Seahawks Training Facility. We provide this letter by way of our comments to the Seattle Seahawks' {"Applicant's") request for environmental (SEPA) review and for a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. Timing of SEPA Review. As an initial matter, we note that the City appears to be conducting an environmental review for a shoreline substantial development permit only, without first requiring environmental review for the entire project, which is known to the applicant and the City at this time. Conducting environmental review of shoreline uses only is incomplete without first requiring the applicant to submit all known information about the ultimate buildout of the project, i.e., traffic analysis and building footprints shown on a site plan. Piecemeal review is prohibited under the State Environmental Policy Act, RCW ch. 43.21C (SEPA), as discussed in numerous court cases. The City's Notice of Application and Proposed Detennination ofNon-Significance-Mitigated (DNS-M) ("Notice") issued on June 23, 2006 ("Notice") identifies a very limited scope of review for a project involving multiple permits. The "Penni ts/Review Requested" is limited to "Environmental (SEPA) Review, Shoreline Substantial Development Pennit." Because the Notice states that the applicant is only seeking a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit at this time, it seems clear the SEP A review applies only to that permit. To our knowledge, no other permit applications have been filed. Thus, the SEP A review could not cover those unfiled land use applications and is being conducted piecemeal on only one select pennit application, the 135S:.! EXHIBITL soc;11s/11u,, rom Elizabeth Higgins July 10, 2006 Page2 shoreline substantial development permit. Alternatively, if the SEPA review is intended to cover the entire project, the SEP A applicant should be required to provide full details of the entire project, including but not limited to a traffic analysis, prior to your issuance of a mitigated SEP A determination. Absent a full disclosure and analysis of all project impacts prior to issuance of the SEP A determination, the SEP A determination fails to assess possible needed mitigation addressing those undisclosed impacts. SEP A's policy against piecemeal review is specifically designed to avoid such a result. , The Notice does not identify commencement of a review period for the Master Use Permit Application and furthermore, no Binding Site Plan has been submitted. Accordingly, the City will have to commence a new SEP A review process when those applications and plans are submitted. Such piecemeal review conflicts with SEP A and SMA policies. Merkle v. Port of Brownsville, 8 Wn. App. 844, 509 P .2d 390 (1973). We request that the SEPA review be postponed until the application and plans are complete so that the City and the neighbors can see the whole project and the full suite of impacts and proposed mitigation before the SEP A review process begins. The Practice Facility Location. The Preliminary Site Plan calls for construction of a 120-foot high warehouse structure for use as a practice facility on the North end of the Baxter Property. The location of the practice facility should be moved for a number of reasons. 1. View Blockage. All of the apartments on the south side of the Misty Cove condominium currently enjoy unobstructed views of Lake Washington to the south and west. The proposed practice facility will block most of these views. Such view blockage directly conflicts with the City's Shoreline Master Program. The General Use Regulations for All Shoreline Uses in the Shoreline Master Program provide as follows: The potential impact of any of the following on adjacent, nearby, and possibly distant land and shoreline users shall be considered in the design p !ans and efforts made to avoid or minimize detrimental aspects. 1. View Obstruction: Buildings, smokestacks, machinery, fences, piers, poles, wires, signs, lights, and other structures. RMC 4-3-090(K)(3). The Specific Use Regulations for Commercial Developments further define the Applicant's obligations with respect to potential view obstruction. 13SS2 The applicant for a shoreline development pennit for a new commercial development must indicate in his application the effect which the proposed commercial development will have upon the scenic view prevailing in the given area. Specifically, the applicant must state in his pennit application what steps have been taken in the design of the proposed commercial development to reduce to a minimum interference with the scenic view enjoyed by any significant number of people in the area. Elizabeth Higgins July 10, 2006 Page 3 RMC 4-3-090(L)(5)(c). The Application incorrectly characterizes the impact of the development on the views of Misty Cove owners. The Project Narrative states that "[ v ]iews to the lake from adjacent uses located to the north and south will not be adversely affected." Land Use & Shoreline Permit Application (the "Application"), § 2, p. 4. The Environmental Checklist contains similar mischaracterizations. Application § 3, p. 16. This misstatement by the applicant alone is grounds for the City to delay issuance of a SEP A determination, pending submittal of complete and accurate information on the entire project. It is also a basis for denying the shoreline substantial development pennit for failure to comply with the policies and regulations cited above. Not surprisingly, the Application does not state what steps the Applicant has taken to "reduce to a minimum" the interference that the practice facility will have on Misty Cove owners' views. In fact, the practice facility is located in the spot that will most interfere with Misty Cove views. The negative view impact would be minimized if the practice facility was located on the south side of the project, where there are no adjacent residences, or situated further from the shoreline. This appears to be feasible given the proposed layout of the site. The practice facility is also quite tall. Although a 120-foot high structure is not barred outright in a COR zone, where the building is abutting a lot designated as residential, maximum building height is to be determined through site development plan review. RMC 4-2-120B. Generally, the limit is 20 feet higher than the maximum height allowed in the abutting residential zone. Id. This would not be an issue if the practice facility were located on the south end of the property, which area does not abut a residential zone. If the facility is not relocated, we contend it is in violation ofRMC 4-2-120B. 2. Shoreline Orientation. The proposed practice facility is located too close to the shoreline. The General Use Regulations provide as follows: Facility Arrangement -Shoreline Orientation: Where feasible, shoreline developments shall locate the water-dependant, water-related and water- enjoyment portions of their developments along the shoreline and place all other facilities inland. RMC 4-3-090(K)(5). The General Use Regulations fu1ther require preservation of unique and fragile Areas: Unique and Fragile Areas: Unique features and wildlife habitats should be preserved and incorporated into the site. Fragile areas shall be protected from development and encroachment. RMC 4-3-090(K)(7). The Preliminary Site Plan locates the practice facility only 50 feet from the shoreline. This not only orients this massive stmcture, which is not water dependant or water-enjoyment related, too close to the shoreline. It also may impinge on the unique and fragile areas of the waterfront. As cunently designed, it appears the proposed shoreline pennit would need a variance or conditional use approval from the l35S2 : Elizabeth Higgins July l 0, 2006 Page4 Department of Ecology. If such a request has been made, please provide us with a copy of that correspondence, so that we may comment to DOE. We reserve our right to comment finther on these issues, as more information is disclosed by the applicant and we have an opportunity to review any critical areas studies submitted in support of the total project. Traffic Impacts. One of the problems with piecemeal SEPA review is the difficulty of commenting on and reviewing significant issues before the required plans and studies are submitted. There will likely be significant traffic impacts on the neighborhood but the actual impact is unknown because the Applicant has not yet submitted its traffic impact analysis. We reserve comment on the traffic impact until the traffic impact analysis has been provided. The Applicant states that the facility will accommodate annual training camp on site and that parking for training camp vehicles will be located offsite. Misty Cove requests that a requirement for offsite parking be made a condition of permit approval. Community Disturbances/Refuse/Service Areas. The preliminary site plan does not identify the location of areas for refuse bins, service entry, storage yards, and outdoor service areas. The Misty Cove owners are concerned that those areas will be located in the parking area adjacent to Misty Cove Condominium and that they will cause excessive noise, odors, night lighting, pollution, and be unsightly in appearance. The Shoreline General Use Regulations cited above, restrict community disturbances such as noise, odors and night lighting, and require screening of visually unpleasant areas. RMC 4-3- 090(K)(3)(ii)&(iv). Furthermore, RMC 4-4-090(C) contains general requirements relating to refuse storage areas. 1n addition, the Shoreline General Use Regulations proscribe activities near the shoreline that may cause pollution or ecological disruption. RMC 4-3-090(K)(2). Misty Cove requests that proper identification, location, and screening of these areas be provided in the site plan. Misty Cove finther reserves comment on these issues until the site plan is available for review. Dock Use. The Baxter site cuuently contains the remnants of a dock. We understand that the Applicant intends to restore and use the dock. Misty Cove is concerned that prolonged parking of ships and large yachts at the dock will obstruct views. Misty Cove requests that pennanent or long term mooring of boats, particularly large ones, be restricted as a condition of the pennit. Misty Cove owners are also concerned that visitors to the Seahawks facility will use the Misty Cove marina for mooring. We request that the conditions for the shoreline pennit include limitations on the amount of time larger vessels may be moored at the facility and prohibit mooring at the Misty Cove manna. Security and Parking, Because Ripley Lane is a dead-end sh·eet, Misty Cove owners are concerned that people going to the new facility will often end up in the Misty Cove parking lot, which is not adequate to accommodate existing Misty Cove tenants. The owners are also concerned that the increased traffic will lead to more car break-ins and 13552 Elizabeth Higgins July 10, 2006 Page 5 other safety threats to Misty Cove Owners. Appropriate signage and security measures should be made a condition of pennit approval to avoid these likely impacts on adjacent residents. Lighting and Noise. The Environmental Checklist states that there will be no permanent lighting of the practice fields and no glare anticipated that would adversely impact adjacent land uses. This should be made a permanent condition of permit approval. The Checklist also states that there will minimal noise impact on adjacent properties both during construction and after completion. Plans to control noise should be a condition of permit approval, based on the applicant's promise. The Misty Cove Owners request that the City and the Applicant consider these comments and make the appropriate changes for the better of the surrounding neighborhood. If you have any questions about these comments or ifwe can provide any additional information, do not hesitate to contact me. Thomas F. Peterson cc: Department of Ecology (via U.S. Mail) Tom Ehrlichman, Attorney at Law (via U.S. Mail) Ray Colliver, Port Quendall Company (via U.S. Mail) Misty Cove Association of Apartment Owners SOCE USIL/!::ijlji~PG ROU Pr,,c October 10, 2006 VIA LEGAL MESSENGER Elizabeth Higgins Planning/Building/Public Works Department City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Re: Seahawks Training Facility, LUA06-073 Dear Ms. Higgins: A grcYOFflENT01; i: EIVEo OCT 1 o Woo BUILDING DIVISION 206.838,91 00 MAIN PHONE 206.838.9101 MA.IN FAX Two U11io11 Squme 601 Union SL, Suite 4950 Seattle, WA 98101 Thomas F. Peterson 206.838.9112 tpeterson@sociuslaw.com On behalf of our client, the Misty Cove Association of Apartment Owners, we are writing to provide supplemental comments regarding impacts of the proposed Seahawks Training Facility on our clients' homes. This letter is intended to supplement rather than replace our earlier letter, sent to you on July 10, 2006. That earlier letter is hereby incorporated by reference. I. INTRODUCTION Our clients live at the Misty Cove Condominium, located on the property immediately adjacent to the no1ib of the proposed Seahawks Training Facility. As such, they will be directly affected by the changes taking place at the Seahawks Training Facility and along the shoreline of Lake Washington, if the various applications are approved as currently designed. We appreciate the assistance of City staff in our review of materials. Please consider this letter an initial comment letter (supplemental), based on our initial reviews of the files. We may have missed something or new infonnation may be developed during the review and hearing process, thus giving rise to additional analysis in the future. Ifthere are any pieces of infonnation we cite below as missing that are actually in the City file, we would appreciate your letting us know so that we can correct our data list. Our aim during this review process will be to present an accurate analysis of facts in the record and to provide additional data that appears to be missing. In that effort, we appreciate the applicant's willingness to respond in writing to our requests for infonnation or clarifications. Unfortunately, the applicant recently denied our clients even limited access to the property for EXHIBIT [; sr,ci11.rl11w.com . Elizabeth Higgins · October 10, 2006 Page 2 the purposes of looking at the site with our fisheries and wetlands biologists. We trust the City and the applicant will continue to work with us as we seek an honest evaluation of the facts, recognizing the citizens' role in upholding the policies and requirements of the Shoreline Management Act, RCW ch. 98.58, as well as their rights under the State Environmental Policy Act, RCW ch. 43.21C ("SEPA"). II. SCOPE OF THESE COMMENTS AND REQUEST TO PARTICIPATE This letter is intended to present our clients' concerns and initial comments applicable to each of the following, individually and collectively: • Notice of Application (revised application September 22, 2006) • Revised Notice of Application and Proposed Determination ofnon-Significance- Mitigated (DNS-M) (Sept. 26, 2006) • Applications for Approval of: o Master Plan o Site Plan o Shoreline Substantial Development Permit o Construction Permit.and Building Permit We understand City staff will rnalce recommendations to the Hearing Examiner and provide a presentation at the public hearing tentatively scheduled for November 21, 2006. We request that this letter and our previous letter be provided to the Hearing Examiner as part of the permit file. We also request advance written notice of any public meetings concerning this proposal and would appreciate your assistance to ensure we remain a party of record. Your continued assistance is much appreciated. III. THE APPLICATION DOES NOT PROVIDE PROPOSED DESIGN MITIGATION REQUIRED BY BOTH THE SHORELINE CODE AND SEPA CONCERNING ADVERSE IMPACTS TO VIEWS The City's shoreline policies and regulations are particularly important to our analysis. These policies contain directives on the types of uses that are permitted, and require analysis and mitigation of aesthetic impacts. Although quoted in our prior letter, these specific requirements are worth repeating here. The General Use Regulations for All Shoreline Uses in the Shoreline Master Program provide as follows: 15079 The potential impact of any of the following on adjacent, nearby, and possibly distant land and shoreline users shall be considered in the design plans and efforts made to avoid or minimize detrimental aspects. . Elizabeth Higgins 'october 10, 2006 Page 3 i. View Obstruction: Buildings, smokestacks, machinery, fences, piers, poles, wires, signs, lights, and other structures. RMC 4-3-090(K)(3). The Specific Use Regulations for Commercial Developments further define the Applicant's obligations with respect to potential view obstruction. The applicant for a shoreline development permit for a new commercial development must indicate in his application the effect which the proposed commercial development will have upon the scenic view prevailing in the given area. Specifically, the applicant must state in his permit application what steps have been taken in the design of the proposed commercial development to reduce to a minimum interference with the scenic view enjoyed by any significant number of people in the area. RM C 4-3-090(L )( S)(c). As discussed herein, the application does not provide information or mitigation capable of demonstrating compliance with applicable shoreline regulations concerning views. In our opinion, the City is therefore compelled to declare the application incomplete for purposes of shoreline permit review. If and when the application is submitted with a credible view analysis as required by code, the City should require preparation of an environmental impact statement ("EIS"). This project, as proposed, is not allowed under the Shoreline Management Act. The current proposal will bring over 343,000 square feet of new buildings to a vacant lot directly adjacent to the Misty Cove Condominiums.1 The buildings are expected to reach as high as 120 feet. This 19.6-acre site includes over 1,800 linear feet of undeveloped shoreline on Lake Washington. The state-regulated shoreline is 200 feet wide, from the ordinary high water mark ("OHWM"). RCW 90.58.030(f). Washington's review criteria for all development mandates that a permit shall not be issued for any new building or structure of more than thirty-ti ve feet above average grade level on shorelines that will obstruct the view of a substantial number of residences on areas adjoining shorelines. WAC 173-27-140. In addition to imposing a 50-foot setback from the OHWM, City regulations also require an assessment of how a project within the [200-foot] shoreline will impact the scenic view prevailing the given area. RMC 4-3-090(L)(5)(c); RMC 4- 3-090(L)(5)(d). The view analysis provided by the applicant does not do justice to the significant impacts this massive building within the shoreline will have on current residents. Nor does the study make any attempt to evaluate the views from the water for boaters, or from Mercer Island. The applicant's view study does not identify the 200-foot shoreline in its photographs and has what 1 Information about the specifics of the proposal is obtained exclusively from the applicant's Project Overview and Environmental Checklist, both revised Sept. 6, 2006. 15079 .Elizabeth Higgins · · 'October 10, 2006 Page4 may be questionable digital scaling when making comparisons between pre-and post- construction views. The applicant's response to the shoreline permit requirements for a view analysis was to submit "two pages" of analysis. The entire second page is blank except for the following: 3.00 ON GOING ANALYSIS Analysis will be on going as the design proceeds. Addendum 1, Visualization Assessment (Section 11) (Crawford Architects Sept. 27, 2006). That is a circular statement. City regulations do not allow the permit to proceed unless all materials required by code are submitted as part of the application. An incomplete or cursory submittal does not satisfy the intent of the shoreline regulations for a full analysis of view impacts and design measures to mitigate those impacts. The applicant's one page of text offers a before-and-after view comparison for only three visual points. For one of the views taken from a Misty Cove balcony, the photographs displayed in Figures 5 and 6 do not line up and thus involve some form of digital scale adjustments that call into doubt whether a true comparison is being made between the before-and-after views.2 Equally important, the 200-foot shoreline of statewide significance is not identified anywhere on the photographs to give the viewer a sense of how views of the state shoreline area would change. The photographs are also misleading because they are taken from vantage points beyond the railings of the effected units (as is apparent from the photos themselves). They do not show the view impact on residents from typical viewing positions such as seated on the balconies or inside the units. From these vantage points the building will block much of the views of the 200-foot shoreline. The photos and text also solely concern views of the water and ignore the residents' views of the rest of the shoreline, the landscape, and sky and the impact of the building on light and sunshine (particularly in late fall through early spring when the sun traverses the southern sky.) Even the applicant's photos show that the massive building will block these views and light. City shoreline policies and regulations require an assessment not only of the views to be affected by the project--which clearly has not been completed here--but also a listing of the applicant's design measures to reduce to a minimum interference with the scenic view enjoyed by a significant number of people in the area. RMC 4-3-090(K)(3), (L)(5)(c). The applicant claims that "the building has been sited to take advantage of the most stable soils and to minimize deep foundations." Environmental Checklist (Rev. Sept. 6 2006) at 17. However, the Geotechnical Report indicates that deep borings were done only in the area of the proposed building. The 2 Once_ can simply compare the measurement between the skyline on a point and the diagonal roofline on a point, for each picture, to see the maccuracy of the comparison between the two pictures; they do not match. The digital photographic work completed for this assessment appears to have been of very poor quality. 15[}79 • • • · Elizabeth Higgins · October 10, 2006 Page 5 applicant has not adequately explored the subsurface of other portions of the property to determine suitability of alternative locations that will not impair views from neighboring properties. The applicant's view study does not provide the information required by the City's shoreline code. Thus, the City should determine the application to be incomplete. The City has the authority to do so, since the resubmitted application was provided to the City on September 22, 2006 and the City has 28 days under state law to make a completeness determination. RCW 36.70B.070. On that basis the master application, which includes the shoreline application, should be deemed incomplete until required materials are provided to the City for public review. Given that these same comments were provided previously in response to the initial SEP A notice, and the fact the applicant was provided the opportunity to submit proposed mitigation based on an analysis of the issues, withdrawal of the proposed Mitigated Determination of N onsignificance is appropriate. The City should issue a Determination of Significance, for the purpose of requiring the complete view analysis required by code. The benefit of the EIS process would be to carefully identify design mitigation potential, and any alternative sites within the City or the vicinity. RMC 4-3-090(L)(5)(c). IV. THE CITY SHOULD NOT EVEN REACH AN ANALYSIS OF SHORELINE OR VIEW IMP ACTS BECAUSE THE COMMERCIAL USE IS NOT AUTHORIZED WITHIN A "SHORELINE OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE" Lake Washington is adjacent to the site and is classified a "shoreline of statewide significance." RMC 4-3-090(E), (F). The proposed Seahawk building and facility are not consistent with the list of priority uses within the 200-foot shoreline: l. Recognize and protect the statewide interest over local interest for shorelines of statewide significance. 2. Preserve the natural character of the shorelines. 3. Result in long-term over shoti-term benefits. 4. Protect the resources and ecology of the shorelines. 5. Increase public access to publicly owned areas of the shorelines. 6. Increase recreational opportunities for the public in the shoreline. RMC 4-3-090(0) 3 The proposal is not consistent with these mandates because the extensive construction and lot coverage would decimate rather than preserve the "natural character" of the 3 Preference is given to the uses in descending order of priority. !~079 • Elizabeth Higgins ·october 10, 2006 Page 6 shoreline. Id. Similarly, the public interest in long term visual aesthetics along Lake Washington outweighs the relatively short term needs of the local football franchise -short term when compared to a long term historical timefi:ame. Perhaps more importantly, the Specific Use Regulations of the City's shoreline code prohibit the kind of use proposed for this facility and thus the application must be denied, following issuance of a Determination of Significance. New commercial development on Lake Washington is not permitted unless it is either water dependent, water related or involves water enjoyment. RMC 4-3-090(L)(5)(a). The Seahawks Training Facility, however popular, cannot be permitted in violation of this exclusive list of permitted commercial uses within a shoreline of statewide significance. It simply is not water dependent, water related or involved in water enjoyment. Furthermore, the project does not provide "significant public access to and along the water's edge." The application does not contend otherwise. The applicant can be expected to argue that none of its buildings or fields are planned within the City's setback area (50 feet from the OHWM). That is not the test under the use regulations for the City's shoreline program. Instead, the setback only comes into play if the use itself is · authorized within the 200-foot zone, which it is not as explained above. V. IMPACTS FROM NEW RETAINING WALLS WITHIN A "SHORELINE OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE" REQUIRE MITIGATION FOR ENDANGERED SPECIES HABITAT As previously mentioned, Lake Washington has been designated a "shoreline of statewide significance" under state law. RCW 90.58.020. Despite the presence of endangered species habitat along the shores of Lake Washington, the application proposes grading and permanent retaining wall construction not only within the 200-foot shoreline zone, but also (as disclosed in the application) inside the City's standard SO-foot setback area for approved shoreline urban development.4 This is proposed in at least three separate locations within the SO-foot setback. At this time, the plans for the grading and construction of retaining walls are not described, based on our review of the application materials. Similarly, proposed mitigation is not well-articulated to address the impacts of grading and permanent structures on Chinook salmon and bull trout shoreline habitat, and bald eagle habitat.5 We do know that the applicant's wetlands report rates this as a high quality "lake-fringe" wetland that is subject to freshwater tidal influences.6 Thus, use of the site and its impact on juvenile endangered species should be analyzed, impacts assessed, and mitigation proposed. 4 Baxter Development Project-Phase I 50 Foat Setback, Site Plan, AOOI (May 3, 2006). 5 Chinook salmon, bull trout, and bald eagles are protected under the Endangered Species Act ("ESA"). 6 Shoreline and Wetland Sun,ey, North and South Baxter Parcels (The RETEC Group, Inc. Aug. 30, 2006), Wetland Rating Form, Page 3 (May 26, 2006). IS079 ~Elizabeth Higgins • · • October 10, 2006 Page 7 The project appears to include a proposed grading and retaining wall project to be constructed at elevation 21 feet (NA VD88), which is within one and one half feet in elevation from the highest ordinary high water mark acknowledged by the applicant (19.5 feet NAVD 88 datum).7 Despite these proposed but as-yet-undefined shoreline stabilization walls, the entire discussion of impacts and mitigation concerning BSA species habitat along the lake are so sparse as to be non-existent as follows: 2.4 Wildlife Habitat No federally Endangered, Threatened or Sensitive animal or plant species were observed on the subject property during the site visit. 8 An earlier section summarizing the report's "Shoreline Survey" does not even mention BSA species in the lake or their habitat along the shoreline. See Section l, at Page 2. Nothing in the report discusses habitat let alone mitigation from the proposed grading and retaining wall construction within the 50-foot setback or within the 200-foot shoreline zone. In addition to addressing those issues, the report should have interpreted the applicant's prior study in May 1997 ,9 which identified May Creek as a nearby "shoreline of the state" supporting runs of Coho, Chinook and sockeye salmon as well as resident fish species ( citing Williams et al., 1975). Mitigation may be required for the linkage between May Creek residents and use of the nearby shoreline of Lake Washington at the project site, i.e., at various times of their life cycle. Thus, we conclude the application is deficient because it fails to adequately address the project's impacts on ESA species. Ironically, the applicant's Environmental Checklist, updated September 6, 2006, does disclose the existence of Chinook salmon, bull trout, bald eagle on or near the site. However, no habitat is described and no mitigation is offered. Instead, the following is offered: Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain Adult Chinook Salmon in Lake Washington migrate past the site on their way to the Cedar River each summer. Juvenile Chinook pass the site on their way back to Puget Sound, and may spend some time rearing on the site vicinity. Sockeye juveniles rear in Lake Washington and may utilize the shoreline and offshore habitat along the project for rearing. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: None. Environmental Checklist (Rev. Sept. 6, 2006) at 12. 7 Conceptual Grading Plan, ClOI (May 3, 2006); RETEC Group Shoreline and Wetland Sun,ey at 2 (Aug. 30 2006). , 8 RETEC Group Shoreline and Welland Survey (Aug. 30, 2006) at 2. 9 Wetland Determination Report on the JAG Development Property, David Evans and Associates, Inc. (May 1997) at 8. !5079 • • ~ Elizabeth Higgins October 10, 2006 Page 8 A Determination of Significance for the project should be issued instead of the proposed Mitigated Determination ofNonsignificance, in part to ensure careful study of shoreline ESA habitat and determine whether mitigation measures would ever moderate the adverse impacts from the proposed, permanent disturbance of the 50-foot setback area and the 200-foot shoreline and associated wetlands. By requiring an EIS on this issue, the City would .also ensure that an objective assessment of site alternatives is conducted by the applicant. Misty Cove residents enjoy the shoreline of Lake Washington on a daily basis. They enjoy existing shoreline views and the natural habitat for plants and animals along the vegetated shoreline, including endangered species. There is a direct linkage between the probable significant adverse environmental impacts of the project and residents' continued use and enjoyment of their property and the adjacent lake. Thus, they have standing to appeal the City's SEP A determination; in the event it is necessary. Please consider these comments in addition to the comments set forth in our letter of July 10. If you have any questions about these comments or ifwe can provide any additional information, do not hesitate to contact me. Thomas F. Peterson cc: Department of Ecology (via U.S. Mail) 15079 Misty Cove Homeowners Association (via U.S. Mail) Tom Ehrlichman, Attorney at Law (via U.S. Mail) Lance Lopes, Attorney for Applicant (via U.S. Mail) • • .. CITY OF RENTON City Clerk Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 425-430-6510 D Cash !Btheck No. '8',;, :S""o Description: D Copy Fee ~ppeal Fee Receipt N~ 0683 D Notary Service D ________ _ . , I Funds Received From: Name 5oc1 us Lt1,.,J 6101,'f,. fiLC Address i,,!,(u £I 11 10'1 562. vc,.re City/Zip /,; b / U ;At t9Y1 5f; , 5fc, { ) 5"jJ Se 0 ff ( e I vJ /f 7C} 9: I O l • DEPARTMENT OF COl\i. INITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MINOR MODIFICATION OF AN SITE PLAN ~ APPROVAL D DENIAL PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NUMBER: PROJECT MANAGER: APPLICANT: EVALUATION FORM & DECISION Seahawks' Training Facility Site Plan Modification LUA06-073 Angelea Wickstrom, Planning Specialist Carports of Washington, Inc. P.O. Box 2389 Buckley, WA. 98321 ZONING DESIGNATION: Commercial Office/Residential (COR) PROJECT LOCATION: 5015 Ripley Lane N. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Virginia Mason Athletic Center is asking Carports of Washington, Inc. to build a permanent structure to cover their field equipment. This project is located at 5015 Ripley Lane N, and part of the project number LUA06-073. The zoning designation for the property is Commercial Office/Residential (COR). The original proposal for LUA06-073 in 2006 was the development of the Seahawks' Headquarters and Training Facility. The original proposal consisted of a single building consisting of 135,534 square feet of office space on two levels, 89,423 square feet of indoor practice facility, and four outdoor practice fields. Since the initial proposal, a 5,550 square foot one-story maintenance shed has also been developed on the property. Virginia Mason Athletic Center is asking Carports of Washington, Inc. to build a new carport to cover their field equipment. The proposed structure would be located in the Southeast corner of the property and would intrude on the current front yard setback. Currently, the minimum front yard setback for COR zones is determined through site development plan review. The original proposed setback, approved as part of site plan review for the project, was 20 feet (Exhibit 1). Carports of Washington, Inc. is requesting a setback modification from 20 feet to 5 feet to accommodate this permanent field equipment carport. The existing building footprint on the property is 150,647 square feet. The proposed field equipment carport is 1,050 square feet. The proposed structure is only a 0.69 percent increase in area of the existing building footprint, which is significantly less than the 10 percent maximum allowed for a minor modification. The property is approximately 19.6 acres. The new City of Renton Department of Com y and Economic Development Administrative 1 ~ )cation Request Report & Decision SEAHAWKS' TRAINING FACILITY SITE PLAN MODIFICATION LUAD6-073, MOD Report of May 1, 2014 Page 2 of 3 carport, plus existing structures, will make up 17.8 percent of the 19.6 acre site, which is less than the 65 percent lot coverage maximum for COR zoning. The proposal does not have a significantly greater impact on the environment or other facilities. According to Renton's Municipal Code Section 4-4-070, ten feet of on-site landscaping is required along all public street frontages, with the exception of areas for required walkways and driveways and those zones with building setbacks less than ten feet. In those cases, ten feet of landscaping shall be required where buildings are not located. Planning Staff recommends approval ofthis project on the condition that the applicant provides a landscape plan with building permit application that shows a 5-foot landscape strip between the carport and property line. The landscape plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit issuance. Analysis of Request The following table contains an analysis of the criteria outlined in RMC 4-9-2001: Criteria Criteria Met The adjustment does not involve more than a ten percent {10%} increase in area or scale of the development in the approved site X plan; or The adjustment does not have o significantly greater impact on the X environment and facilities than the approved plan; or The adjustment does not change the boundaries of the originally X approved plan. DECISION The proposal satisfies 3 of the 3 criteria listed in RMC 4-9-2001. Therefore, the Sea hawks' Training Facility Site Plan Modification, Project Number LUA06-073, MOD (as shown in Exhibit 1), is approved and subject to the following condition of approval: 1. The applicant shall provide a landscape plan with building permit application that provides a 5-foot landscape strip between the carport and property line. The landscape plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit issuance. City of Renton Department of Com, ty and Economic Development Administrative SEAHAWKS' TRAINING FACILITY SITE PLAN MOD/FICA TION Report of May 1, 2014 C.E. "Chip" Vincent, CED Administrator 1/ication Request Report & Decision LUA06-073, MOD Page 3 of 3 <; (, / l t Date The decision to approve the modification(s) will become final if not appealed in writing together with the required fee to: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 on or before 5:00 pm, on May 15, 2014. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's office, Renton City Hall -?'h Floor, (425) 430-6510. If you have any further questions regarding this decision, feel free to contact the project manager, Angelea Wickstrom, at 425.430.7312 or awickstrom@rentonwa.gov. " • m X I OJ -I LAKE WASHINGTON CURB------ EXISTING POWER POLE LOCATION SOUTH PROPERTY FENCE LINE - PSE EASEMENT LINE {TElD) EXISTING POWER POLE LOCATION CUR:B------ I , I' \,, ~'11lli f, ~ ~ !Ill ,, NEW 1-STORY I Ii OD ~e~ciENANCE r CJ COVERED CAR WASH POLE LOCATION -.. , WETLANDS ,~~ ',, BUF£ER ·,, '~ ' /I _l'lrjl"'IS;'''+··l•,.,1., .. 1 IL '' '' /; I II I I I I lvl E>>ST,SG POWER lt; MAINT. PARKING ~ J STALLS n :"rtt1r1 .... j ( ~:) ~ II Ll I 111 I ' I I WI I ',,'.,;-,,,,·,:;,.'.· I ,r--~ ---,' .. 111111 li--':-~'cs-~ SECURITY GATE _________.---- & ffi,([:E BUR. I~_"[ __ ~ N R --"' • ..,..,.__._ ........... __ ~---" 1 IE m7~t J::> INDOOR PRACTICE FACIUTl' EXISTING BUILDING STRUCTURE TO BE REMOVED \ \j .--· -~----· --=c.£5::~~~~:i:;~ c;;;iJl--~ ~---, -----_,_ ·-· --_::@-:;-,,#.-;~, =~~~~*---L--- --··--- ·-··-··-·-- = STREAM CIASS LAKE WASHINGTON -CLASS 1 GYPSY SUB BASIN DRAINAGE Cl.ASS 2 (RE: FIGURE 8.3) I PARKING COUNT GENERl>.L SURFACE PARKING SECURE TEAM PARKING TOTAL b ~~e}tON SlTE PLAN. ALT -------------------- ' , ERNATIVE ' 91 STALLS 161 STALLS 252 STA~ PROPOSED RAILWAY CROSSING --~ lNTERST ATE:-405 -- ® ~'" ~-----·~,r 6 SEf'TEMOER R£l,IIS.lill.\l~ __ , ~ @I -· ~~?"' ------...:..-- -=rfiF -··--·"~W- ==-··1ftt- oil I" e Q) 0 -e c z "'·-~ ::::, = Ji$ cr al ~. "O LL lj< ~ rn ~~­ I£ H en C ~~ .::,t. ·-~ ~ ~ ~ ro I-~ .c • "' Q) U) - ~ --'ff-'::",;,::;. ~ :c 1-1 O:I =I .... ! I } l MAJNT. PARKING 9STALLS ~ ~ I -0 L "'/U) 'z• I ,o, I w• "' ~: i ----- ' I .~ l]'/ J , , , ...,_ , SECURITY GATE -.,, ~ &FENCE 41, -.. --- , ..... , ',( PSE ACCESS ROAD I I I /(g/ / 0 KEY J w• "'' ~. EXISTING POWER POLELOCATION ~ FIRE HYDRANT '· & BOLLARDS RIVERROyK PLANTERS ---... , ______ _; GRAPHIC SCALE .. -..-.w.•1 3 ' 64 •• IH IH IH ./· ,,,,, ... ::Y SITE BOUNDARY FENCE (TBl WITH LANDSCAPE PACKAGE) RAILROAD RIGHT OF WAY .......... ---~--~-------------------- /1,RfA OF PAVEMENT [~<</;;:;:::32] PLAYING FIELDS MAINT. BLOG. F.F. ELEV. 28'-0' AREA: 5,550 SF ~ ' = FIELD CURB UNDER CANOPY ~ SAND Fll1'ER ~ GRAVEL PATH ~ PERIMETER OF BERM '" ~ 1~11' I STOR. !, 1~10;~!, IBNLD,I . ' ___.:::,;___;, G~SS CLIP~l ~ SAND ,1 ~". ·~ --------------------------- ~ . ~~·-~. --1 ~ • ..!...!J!l ~·....a..L•~u..a...,.i.a...t...J. ll-1....'.._111.l .<...a..l.'-" LSSUEDFORCONSTRUC! ''"""' -'9:?-"=·-"' === '=fS'? oiii'il'ii7 ~~~- ~ -¥ii"' .. " . ;; • 0 "~~ ~~m5" .g. ,:nL.1-W· • oU I.~~jf~ ,.iaz..,.2 $ t!!w-i (1!1-1-~o: ~ z * ~ m >< :c t-1 m t-1 -I i'J DEPARTMENT OF co~ INITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MINOR MODIFICATION OF AN SITE PLAN ~ APPROVAL D DENIAL EVALUATION FORM & DECISION PROJECT NAME; PROJECT NUMBER; PROJECT MANAGER; APPLICANT; Seahawks' Training Facility Site Plan Modification LUA06-073 Angelea Wickstrom, Planning Specialist Carports of Washington, Inc. P.O. Box 2389 Buckley, WA. 98321 ZONING DESIGNATION: Commercial Office/Residential (COR) PROJECT LOCATION: 5015 Ripley Lane N. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: r- lj_~~~::==::-;;:-1 Virginia Mason Athletic Center is asking Carports of Washington, Inc. to build a permanent structure to cover their field equipment. This project is located at 5015 Ripley Lane N, and part of the project number LUA06-073. The zoning designation for the property is Commercial Office/Residential (COR). The original proposal for LUA06-073 in 2006 was the development of the Sea hawks' Headquarters and Training Facility. The original proposal consisted of a single building consisting of 135,534 square feet of office space on two levels, 89,423 square feet of indoor practice facility, and four outdoor practice fields. Since the initial proposal, a 5,550 square foot one story maintenance shed has also been developed on the property. Virginia Mason Athletic Center is asking Carports of Washington, Inc. to build a new carport to cover their field equipment. The proposed structure would be located in the Southeast corner of the property and would intrude on the current front setback. Currently, the minimum front yard setback for COR zones is determined through site development plan review. The original proposed setback, approved as part of site plan review for the project, was 20 feet. Carports of Washington, Inc. is requesting a setback modification from 20 feet to 5 feet to accommodate this permanent field equipment carport. The existing building footprint on the property is 150, 647 square feet. The proposed field equipment carport is 1,050 square feet. The proposed structure is only a 0.69 percent increase in area of the existing building footprint, which is significantly less than the 10 percent maximum allowed for a minor modification. The property is approximately 19.6 acres. The new RECEIPT EG00022668 BILLING CONTACT IMPORT IMPORT IMPORT CASHIER CONTACT REFERENCE NUMBER FEE NAME LUA06-073 PLAN -Modification Technology Fee Printed On: 4128/2014 Prepared By: Angelea Wickstrom TRANSACTION TYPE Fee Payment Fee Payment Transaction Date: April 28, 2014 PAYMENT METHOD lcheck #8545 Check #8545 SUBTOTAL TOTAL AMOUNT PAID $100.00 $3.00 $103.00 $103.00 Page 1 of 1 RECEIPT EG00022668 BILLING CONTACT IMPORT IMPORT IMPORT CASHIER CONTACT REFERENCE NUMBER FEE NAME LUA06-073 PLAN -Modification Technology Fee Printed On: 4128/2014 Prepared By: Angelea Wickstrom TRANSACTION TYPE Fee Payment Fee Payment Transaction Date: April 28, 2014 PAYMENT METHOD theck #8545 k::heck #8545 SUB TOTAL TOTAL AMOUNT PAID $100.00 $3.00 $103.00 $103.00 Page1 of1 RECEIPT EG00022668 BILLING CONTACT IMPORT IMPORT IMPORT CASHIER CONTACT REFERENCE NUMBER FEE NAME LUA06-073 PLAN -Modification Technology Fee Printed On: 412812014 Prepared By: Angalea Wickstrom TRANSACTION TYPE Fee Payment Fee Payment Transaction Date: April 28, 2014 PAYMENT METHOD ::heck #8545 ::heck #8545 SUB TOTAL TOTAL AMOUNT PAID $100.00 $3.00 $103-00 $103-00 Page1 of1 .PLAN REVIEW COMMENT PLAN ADDRESS: 5015 RIPLEY N LN RENTON, WA 98056 APPLICATION DATE: 06/09/2006 DESCRIPTION: The Seattle Sea hawks Headquarters and Training Facility is proposed to be located on a 19.68 acre (857,477 sf) site known as the "North Baxter Property," a former timber processing facility located on the shore of Lake Washington in Northeast Renton. In addition to approximately 1,887 lineal feet of Lake Washington shoreline, a jurisdictional wetland is located on the site. The wetland and a portion of the shoreline have been restored as part of site cleanup activities. Site cleanup from previous industrial activities is on·going and would continue simultaneously with the initial stages of site development. The project proponent has submitted a land use master application requesting Master Plan Review, Site Plan Review, and a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. The Shoreline Permit is required due to the project's proximity to Lake Washington. The requested actions require environmental review by the City of Renton in accordance with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). 5/8/07 -Appeal received from Lawrence Barsher 5/29/07 -Scheduled to be heard by the Hearing Examiner 6/11 /07 -Hearing Examiner modified the Director's decision and added an additoinal condition. Appeal period ends 6/25/07. 6/15/07 -Appeal of Hearing Examiner decision received from the Applicant (Football NW, LLC) 7/5/07-Planning & Development Committee reviewed appeal. 7/9/07 -Council approved Planning & Development Decision to strike conclusions 5, 6, & 7 of the Hearing Examiner's Decision and be replaced with the following conclusions and the Decision be "modified" to grant the minor modiification without condition. Conclusion 5: "However, since the change in elevation would be indistinguishable from appellant's property, and otherNise meets all the requisite criteria of RMC 4-9-2001. there is no basi? to condition the minor modification." Conclusion 6: "Because the ERG did not condition the project when itt was greater in elevation than the current elevation with the minor modification and the Examiner did not condition the orginal site plan approval, there appears to be no authority to impose conditions on this minor modification." See ofclink for Hearing Examiner's Decision 4/28/14 -Site Plan Modification -Carports of Washington, Inc. is requesting a setback modification from 20 feet to 5 feet to accommodate a permanent field equipment carport. -·--···-·----,------·-------·-··"··-·"-------, May 01, 2014 Page 1 of 1 11.:p UNITEDSTIJTES I -- Fir.,·t clas.f mail FORM 3547 fee due 50 ¢ Postage and Fees Paid USPS 11 POST/JL SERVICE Restricted Data Permit No. GIO ~ CITY OFRENTON '?~'?J?:~/ -~:; ~~iu ii (:· *' ::) Office of the City Clerk ::. .1 ~·, <II ~;l I :;1 1 N 1 ·1 iltfr/ "' uj 1 ,, j~ ~ :,~• 1055 South Grady Way -Renton WA 9&0S7 n n:.:. ·.'..''! . \,._~·.-·~·:/ r~;~~!s1:)~·~~.:::::E .l: · .•,C:: -"~ -~ny ,J, ... ~c.-\·-f~-r ") ::.·r-1 -"1:Nro1,i _'. .v' :'f -·cc'. ,,_ Eleano,. M. K~111;rncr Prt!:i.ident )Ui c, I 5 Misty Cove Condo A~ociution ,1 /) ,11}!)/ 5021 Ripley Lane N,, #309 Rento11, WA 98056 crrv 01t<-.:t:;1vt·u .· . Q1<•s . ., 'l~C:/f' ,e -L)/t. ,·· (-,) FWQ (. ' ( -ADOFit:;d::. .:Jt:KVlt,;t:. Ht::QUESTEO E-ICJS11 9i30SG u.1 •• 1 .. 1.11 .... 1.1 •• 11 ..... 11.1.1.r ... 11,,1,1 .. 1 .. 1 •• 11.1 •• 1 OLD: NEW: KENNAMER 5021 RIPLEY LN N APT 309 RENTON WA 98056-1578 13006 162ND A VE SE RENTON WA 98059-8608 07/231071!1;06 7204)40062909 d:1 pnic:2{.()70720 etT:20060825 ---· TO THE POSTMASTER OF 1055 S GRADY WAY RENTON WA 98057-9998 II, I,, I,, I, 11,,,, I, I ,I," 11, 1 .. I, I 111,1, ,I,, I, I ,I, ,I, I,, I II I ,I ~~ p.;; June 3, 2008 CITY OF RENTON JUN O 3 2008 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE u,\ I\ -0(,:,. r T? CITY OF RENTON ..,, . ~partment of Community and Economic Development Alex Pietsch, Administrator CITY CLERK SUBJECT: ADDRESS CORRECTION AT THE NEW SEARA WKS TRAINING FACILITY TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Please note the following address change initiated by City of Renton Council action. This building is under construction right now and will be opening under this new address in the next month or so. The only portion of Ripley Lane North that is changing name is that.part of the street frontage along this property, no other addresses on Ripley Lane N are affected at this point: 5015 Ripley Lane N 12 Seahawks Way Jan Conklin Energy Plans Examiner Development Services Division Telephone: 425-430-7276 #1 :utilltr Parcel# 2924059001 -------I.0_5_5-So_u_th_G_r-ad-y~W-ay---R-e-nt'--on~,-W-as_h_in_gt_o_n_9_8_05_7 ______ ~ . @ ThrS paper contains 50<'/o recycled material, 30% post'consumer AH.EAD OF THE CURVE DATE: TO: VIA: FROM: STAFF CONTACT: SUBJECT: ISSUE: PLANNING/BUILDING/ PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM February 28, 2008 Marcie Palmer, Council President Members of the Renton C!Q: ~ouncil Denis Law, Mayor ~ Gregg Zimmerma£r3rninistrator Neil Watts, Development Services Director Ripley Lane Project Costs What are the costs and revenues associated with the Ripley Lane project? RECOMMENDATION: RECEIVED FEB 2 9 2008 Renton City Council CITY OF Ri=NTON MAR O 3 200B '/TY f:ECEIVEU , CLERK'S OFF!CE' The City is currently working on two projects in Ripley Lane, adjacent to the Seahawks development site. The Surface Water Utility section will be completing storm drainage improvements across Ripley Lane this summer, and a City design team will also be completing landscaping improvements on the west side of Ripley Lane this summer. At this time, the landscaping project will include minor street improvement elements only. We recommend proceeding with these two projects as currently planned and budgeted this year. Full street improvements, such as curb, gutter, and sidewalks are not proposed or funded at this time. We recommend that development of more formal street improvements not be funded at this time, and instead be included in future discussions of the City ofRenton's Transportation Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) list. BACKGROUND SUMMARY: Following the announcement of the Seahawks' plans to develop its corporate offices and training facilities in Renton at the Ripley Lane location, the City budgeted $500,000 for improvements along Ripley Lane. These improvements are intended to improve the appearance of the west side of the street between the existing roadway and the railroad tracks adjacent to the Seahawks site. A conceptual landscaping plan has been developed for this street frontage area. The landscape plan is for low maintenance landscaping, includes retaining many of the existing trees, adding new trees and new groundcover landscaping improvements. The area near the new entryway to the Seahawks site would h:\division.s\develop.ser\admin\riplcy lane -memo to council.doc Ripley Lane Project Costs Page 2 of3 February 28, 2008 be irrigated, and include more prominent plantings. The total length of the street frontage to be improved is roughly 1400 feet. There is roughly 70 feet between the existing paved roadway and the railroad tracks; 20 feet of this is City right-of-way next to the paved road, and the remaining 50 feet is railroad (BNSF) right-of-way. Any improvements within the BNSF right-of-way will require a permit from the railroad, which is currently under discussion. We anticipate at this time that the landscaping improvements along the west side of Ripley Lane will extend 3 0 to 3 5 feet back from the edge of the paved street. The shoulders for the pavement in Ripley Lane are planned to be improved with gravel as part of this beautification project, and "No Parking" signs will be installed along both sides of the street. The dirt turnaround currently used by school buses will be improved as well, either with gravel or asphalt paving. This project is being managed by a City design team, including members from Community Services, Surface Water Utility, Transportation Division, Economic Development, and Development Services. The work will be completed in phases, using contractors and consultants on our existing small works rosters. Trees have already been marked for removal, and work is expected to begin on tree and vegetation removal in the next couple of weeks. Rough cost estimates for the projects are as follows: Project Phase Estimated Cost Tree removal $20,000 Vegetation removal 20,000 Landscaping design 20,000 Landscape installation 300,000 Irrigation system 10,000 Gravel shoulders 40,000 Turnaround paving 25,000 Asphalt improvements for pedestrian access to north from turnaround 25,000 TOT AL PROJECT COSTS $460,000 The current project budget is an estimate. If the landscaping costs vary from this estimate, we can adjust the depth of the landscape strip to keep within the budget. If we are successful at completing the landscaping and minimal street improvements at this cost, we will have some limited funding available to use toward purchase of gateway signage to complete the 2007 Ripley Lane improvement project. H:\Division.s\Develop.ser\Admin\Ripley Lane -memo to Council.doc Ripley Lane Project Costs Page 3 of3 February 28, 2008 In addition to the Ripley Lane enhancement project, Surface Water Utility is completing design work for storm drainage improvements across Ripley Lane at this same location. This project will connect into the completed new storm line across the Seahawks site, and is designed to end the flooding problems, which occur frequently on this section of Ripley Lane. Details of this project and associated funding are described in the attached memo from Surface Water Utility. attachment cc: Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Terry Higashiyama, Community Services Administrator Peter Hahn, Deputy PBPW Administrator -Transportation Suzanne Dale Estey, Economic Development Director Ron Straka, Surface Water Utility Supervisor Terry Flatley, Parks Maintenance Manager Jim Seitz, Transportation Planning Supervisor H:\Division.s\Dcvelop.ser\Admin\Ripley Lane -memo to Council.doc DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: PLANNING/BUILDING/ PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM February 28, 2008 Gregg Zimmerma£r&inistrator ~ Ron Straka, Surface Water Utility Supervisor Surface Water Utility Projects Related to the Seahawks' Headquarters and Training Facility The following is a summary of the Surface Water Utility storm system improvements associated with the Football Northwest, LLC Seattle Seahawks' Headquarters and Training Facility project: PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS AND COST ESTIMATES: The storm system (72" and 60" pipe) currently constructed on the Seahawks' site by Football Northwest, LLC was oversized to accommodate the I 00-year stonn runoff condition for the upstream tributary basin future land use conditions and accounting for future 1-405 improvements by WSDOT. The City will reimburse Football No1thwest, LLC for both the City's share (3.9%) and WSDOT's share (21.4%) of the total cost for the storm system improvements that they made, based upon the percent increase in runoff between the existing land use condition and future conditions. The total percentage of 25.3% was determined through a hasin hydrologic analysis. The actual total cost incurred by Football Northwest, LLC was $561,862. The City will reimburse Football Northwest, LLC $142,151, by reducing the amount of Water Utility System Development Charge that Football Northwest LLC has to pay for the Seahawk Headquarters and Training facility. The Surface Water Utility will have to reimburse the Water Utility for the waived Water Utility System Development Charge. An agreement between the City and Footba11 Northwest, LLC is being prepared for Council review and approval for the reimbursement of the costs associated with oversizing the storm system. The agreement will also allow the City and WSDOT to construct additional upstream storm system improvements on the Seahawks' site, and to the east of the site across Ripley Lane N, that will connect to the storm system constructed by Football Northwest, LLC. The City and WSDOT are CUITently designing additional storm system improvements that will connect to the storm system improvements constructed on the Seahawks' site by Football Northwest, LLC. The project includes a 12-foot by 48-foot vault structure to connect to the Seahawks' stonn system and then four 36-inch storm pipes in a 42-inch Scahawks Site Storm System , ,Jrovernent Sum1rn:iry February 28, 2008 Page 2 of3 casing under the BNSF railroad and between the six foot on center pile supports for the King County Wastewater 84-inch Sanitary Sewer Eastside Interceptor. The four 36" storm pipes will be extended to the east side of Ripley Lane N and involve channel improvements up to the 1-405 roadway where existing 48-inch and 24-inch sto1rn systems discharges runoff from 1-405 and the upstream basin (see attached map). The preliminary cost estimate for the City/WSDOT stonn system improvements across Ripley Lane N, which will connect into the Football Northwest, LLC constructed storm system on the Seahawks' site, will be revised as part of the final design prior to advertising for bids. The preliminary total cost estimate is $1,355,244, which includes $183,316 for design and an estimated $ l, 171,908 for construction. The City and WSDOT will have a separate agreement to share these costs based upon the percentage of total runoff from the WSDOT 1-405 right-of-way and the remaining upstream tributary area within the basin. The Surface Water Utility's share of this cost is 71.3% and WSDOT share is 28.7%. However, WSDOT's share will be increased to reimburse the Surface Water Utility for WSDOT share of the oversizing cost for the storm system improvements constructed on the Seahawks' site by Football Northwest, LLC. The following tables summarizes the actual costs for the Seahawks' improvements and the estimated costs associated with the additional upstream stonn system improvements across Ripley Lane N to be funded by the City and WSDOT, along with each cost share. On Seahawks' Site (60-inch & 72-inch downstream storm system): Actual Seahawks' Cost to Design/Construct: $ 561,862.08 Sea hawks' WSDOT Renton Total: Cost Share % Design/Construction 0.747 $ 419,710.97 0.214 $ 120,238.49 0.039 $ 21,912.62 $ 561.862.08 CITY & WSDOT Ripley Lane N. Storm System Improvements (Estimated Costs) Preliminary Cost Estimate: $ 183,316.00 $ 1,171,908.13 Cost Share% 0.287 $ 0.713 $ $ Design 52,611.69 130,704.31 183,316 00 Est. Construction Design/Construction WSDOT Renton Total: $ 336,337.63 $ 388,949.33 $ 835,570.50 $ 966,274.80 $ 1,171,908.13 $ 1,355,224.13 The following summarizes each parties share of the total project cots: WSDOT portion of Seahawks' 60-inch storm system: $ WSDOT portion of Ripley Lane N Design: $ WSDOT portion of Ripley Lane N Storm System Estimated Construction: $ Total WSDOT Cost Share: $ Total City of Renton Cost Share: $ Total Seahawks Cost Share: $ Total City/WSDOT/Seahawk Project Cost: $ H:\Division.s\Dcvclop.scr\Admin\Temporal)' Docs\Scahawks Memo -Straka.doc\RStp 120,238.49 52,611.69 336,337.63 509,187.81 988,187.43 419,710.97 1,917,086.21 Seahawks Site Stonn System. . rovement Summary February 28, 2008 Page 3 of3 WSDOT's share of the additional upstream storm system improvement construction cost will include the WSDOT share of the Seahawks' storm system cost that the City will pay for WSDOT. WSDOT will pay approximately 43% of the estimated construction cost of the Ripley Lane N Storm System Improvements. The percentage may change if the costs used in the calculation change once we complete project design, Total Percentage WSDOT is to contribute to Ripley Lane N Construction: = (WSDOT Contributing Funds Total)/ (Estimated Construction) = ($509,187.81) / (1,171,908.13) X 100 =43.449% (Rounded by WSDOT to be 43%) BUDGET: The total Surface Water Utility budget for the City's share of the storm system improvements is $1,046,683. This includes $146,683 of funding remaining in a HUD Brownfield Grant awarded for the Port Quendall Brownsfield Redevelopment, which was approved for the projects use in 2007. The approved 2008 Surface Water Utility Capital Improvement Program budget includes an additional $900,000 for the design, pennitting and construction of the project. The City's share of the estimated total project cost is $988,187, which is only $58,496 below the total project budget. Once the project design is completed a new cost estimate will be developed to determine if additional funding will be necessary to cover the City's share of the cost. SCHEDULE: The stonn system improvement constructed by Football Northwest, LLC on the Seahawks' Headquarters and Training Facility site have been completed. The City/WSDOT Ripley Lane N storm system improvements that will connect into the Seahawks' sto1111 system are planned for construction to start on or before June 1, 2008, and be completed by November 2008. The cost share agreements with Football Northwest, LLC and WSDOT will be submitted for Council review and approval in March 2008. The construction bid advertisement and construction contract award is planned for April 2008. Please contact me, if you have any questions or need additional information. Attachment cc: Lys Hornsby, Utility Systems Director Neil \Vatts, Development Services Director H:\Division.s\Dcvclop.scr\Admin\Tcmpornry Docs\Scahawks Memo -Straka.doc\RStp Pagelof9 City of Renton Gypsy $ub-Basin Sto:nu Sy$tem (lnpi;ovements · Exluoit "B" _ Plans and Specs STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF KING AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION l'lJBLIC NOTICE Jody L Rmion. hcing first duly sworn on oath that she is the Legal Advertising Representative of the Renton Reporter a bi-,veekly newspaper, which newspaper is a legal 11cwspapcr of gL·ncra[ circulation and is now and has been for more than si, rnonths prior to the date of publication hereinafter referred to, published in the English language continuously as a bi-weekly newspaper in King County. Washington. The Renton Reporter lias bCL'!l approved as a Legal Newspaper by order of the Superior Coun or thL' Stale or Washingtun t'lir King Cuu11t_y. The notice in the e:-.:nct form annexed w,is published In regular issues of the Renton Reporter (and not in supplement form) which was regularly distributed to its subscribers during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a: Public Notice was published on May 19. 2007. The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum ofS84.00. ~al Advertising Representative, Renton Reporter Subscribed and sworn to me this 21" day of May, 2007. ,> • --~ ~I _..;;L--.., ' ~~ ,::'~ /''-. • /j/'J·· -, ./ . . .· .··:-:,· -i ,·· ,..< / ) \. / "/~_:_.-,/. / .I , ::. {_[ B D Cantelon -:. • ; . ..,, . ~· ' . .', Notary Public for the State of Washington, Residing in Kent, Wasl"fi.p}:'1~n·~ '!. ·,~.,,. , " ... ~ .. 'V ~..,,., . ~ -,,:··. ·.: Ji• -\ z:: lo= . -: ,_ ~ -~,~1:~:f .,,· P. 0. Number: '",,-~-. 11 1,H,,i·i . \\ ~ KOTTCE OF WPEAT. llL\RT>;G ltEl'<TON !WARE\(~ F\.~Ml:\E!{ RE'.\"TOK \\'.,.\Sl·fl'.\"(~TON A Puhlic Jlp;uin.~ \\·!ll b,~ lwld h:: t.hri Jkni<J!l Hc,11 irig Ex,unincr in Lhc Council Charnhvr'; on llll..' Sl·,·enth floor of Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady ,vay, Rl:'nt-0n, Washington, on 1\fay 29. 2007 :1t rl:00 Ar-.I to C'onsidcr tlw follo'.\"1n;' pdition~: ~c:,li;n\·k,.: !k:1il1;u:1ri<'1·-; <tnd Trninin;:; Fr,dct:, 1\ppcal LUAO(i-On. S:\-H. SA-r,,t. Si\i, ECF l..ocat.ion: 5015 L.::ike Washington Rlvd K Desuiption: All appeal of an administrative det.erminatiun and approval of n minor nvxlification hf-l:3 been lllPd wit.h tlw C1t.y or Henton Clf'rk. Th<' <lppen! i . .; of ih0 approvnl ohm incTf.>al't" m tlw OV<•nill bllllrlmg ht~ig:ht. from 111 fo<,t. a~ apprnn-'d throuirh th<' Site Plan RPview process to [t lwight of 115 k(·t. Al! interested p0rsons are in\·it.ed t-0 L<.' presf•nr at tlw Public H{:aring to flXpre.~s their t)pinions Que;:.tion,:: should f}(' dfrl'ct<'d to tlw Heming En,minf!r at 425-:1:30-6-515. Published in thP. Henu.m Ht-!poru>r May 19, 2007. #S6:J.4:J4 4 CITY OF RFNTON Office ;,, ,he City Clerk 1055 South Grady Way-Renton WA 98057 Steve Janson & Eileen Halvorsen 5021 Ripley Lane N ., Ste. 302 Renton, WA 98056 '3BO 4E: :i CllYOFI JUL .2 l Oi 07/ RETURN TO S~NDEJ'I A"rTEMPTl::O -NOT KNOWN UNASLE ·ro F'OR\JAJ'ID ;>i;'.:2189-OJ. 04.'2-- jj, j,, I,, I, II,,,, I ,I, I,,, I,, I I», I, l,,Jl,,,),J, I,!,, I, I,,, CITY ~F RENTON July 13, 2007 Roger A. Pearce Foster Pepper PLLC 1111 -3rd Ave., #3400 Seattle, WA 98101 City Clerk Bonnie I. Walton Re: Football Northwest LLC Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated 6/11/2007, regarding the Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility Site Plan application, 5015. Ripley Lane N. (File No. LUAc06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF) Dear Appellant: At the regular Council meeting of July 9, 2007, the Renton City Council took action on the referenced appeal by adopting the rec9mmendation of the Planning and Development Committee. Enclosed is copy of the Planning andDeve!opmentCommittee report as adopted. Unless an appeal of the decision of the City Council is filed with King County Superior Court as indicated in Renton Municipal Code, the decision of the City Council is final. If 1 can provide further infom1ation, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Bonnie I. Walton City Clerk Enclosure cc: Mayor Kathy Keolker Council President Toni l';lelson Larry Warren, City Attorney Jennifer Henning, Principal Planner Parties·ofRecord -l-0-55_S_o_u_th_G_Jf_ad_y_W_a~y---R-e-nt-on-,-W-as-hi-ng_t_on-98_0_5_7_ 0 _(4-2-5)_4_3_0--6-51_0_/_F_A_X_(_42_5_)_43-0--6-5-16-~ @ This paper =ntains 50"lo recycled material. 30% post consumer AHEA-D OF THE CURVE Larry & Esther Barsher 6940 96th Ave. SE Mercer Island, WA 98040 Port Quendall Company 505 Fifth Ave. S., Ste. 900 Seattle, WA 98104 Carl Hadley Cedar Rock Consultants 19609 224th Ave. Woodinville, WA 98077 Michael Cero 8300 Avalon Drive Mercer Island, WA 98040 Jared Salstrom 5021 Ripley Lane N., Ste. 213 Renton, WA 98056 Steve Gregerson 5021 Ripley Lane N ., Ste 302 Renton, WA 98056 Tom Ehrlichman Socius Law Group 601 Union St., Ste. 4950 Seattle, WA 98101 Dwight & Christine Schaeffer 6958 96th Ave. SE Mercer Island, WA 98040 Jeffrey Taraday Foster Pepper 1111 Third Ave., 34th Floor Seattle, WA 98101 Steve & Deanna Marshall 6934 96th Ave. SE Mercer Island, WA 98040 Roger Pearce Foster Pepper 1111 Third Ave., Ste. 3400 Seattle, WA 9810 I Lance Lopes VP Seahawks 800 Occidental Ave. S. Seattle, WA 98034 Carl Lindstrom 6910 96thAve. SE Mercer Island, WA 98040 Thelma Sutherland 1205 N 29th St. Renton, WA 98056 Steve Janson & Eileen Halvorsen 5021 Ripley Lane N., Ste. 302 Renton, WA 98056 Eleanor M. Kennamer, President Misty Cove Condo Association 5021 Ripley Lane N., #309 Renton, WA 98056 Barbara Paxhia 5021 Ripley Lane N ., Ste. 104 Renton, WA 98101 Shelly Munkberg SECO Development 1083 Lk. Washington Blvd N. Ste. 50 Renton, WA 98056 Les & Denise Klaff 6915 96th Ave. SE Mercer Island, WA 98040 Hal & Gerry Fardal 6920 96th Ave. SE Mercer Island, WA 98040 Elaine Wine Football Northwest, LLC 505 Fifth Ave. S., Ste. 900 Seattle, WA 98104 Thomas Peterson Socius Law Group, PLLC 601 Union St., Ste. 4950 Seattle, WA 98101 Joe Burcar 3190 160th Ave. SE Bellevue, WA 98008 Brian T. Sabey 5021 Ripley Lane N., Ste. 304 Renton, WA 98056 Elya G. Saches 1414 N. 34th St. Renton, WA 98056 Aaron Belenky, President Williamsburg Condo Association 1800 NE 40th St., Ste. H-4 Renton, WA 98056 Dan & Jody Samson 6952 96th Ave. SE Mercer Island, WA 98040 Richard Wagner Baylis Architects 10801 Main St., Ste. 110 Bellevue, WA 98004 Howard & Sue Robboy 6944 96th Ave. SE Mercer Island, WA 98040 Dr. and Mrs. Robert Dietz 7906 E. Mercer Way Mercer Island, WA 98040 ' foly 9, 2007 APPEALS Planning & Development Committee Appeal: Seabawks Headquarters & Training Facility, Football Northwest, SA-06-073 Renton City Council Minutes Page 239 Mr. Pietsch indicated that the annexation boundary was brought forward by property owners representing 10 percent of the assessed value of the area, and the City did not design the boundary. He noted that historically, Renton has grown incrementally by annexation as property owners have been interested in joining the City. Regarding Liberty High School, Mr. Pietsch explained that a Superior Court decision found that school district property could not be included in the petition method of annexation and therefore schools are required to annex to cities on their own. He noted that development in the area will allow the extension of the City sewer line to Liberty High School, and regardless of whether the school annexes, the sewer line extension could occur within the next couple of years. There being no further public comment, it was MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC MEETING. CARRIED. Councilman Comrnn objected to having property owners pay the proportional share of the City's existing outstanding bonded indebtedness, pointing out that Benson Hill Communities Annexation-area residents are not being asked to assume the City's bonded indebtedness. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL ACCEPT THE 10% NOTICE OF INTENT PETITION FOR THE LIBERTY ANNEXATION AND AUTHORIZE THE CIRCULATION OF A 60% DIRECT PETITION TO ANNEX SPECIFYING THAT SIGNERS SUPPORT FUTURE ZONING CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR THE AREA.* Mr. Pietsch brought to the Council's attention the correspondence received from Highland Estates residents in support of adding the subdivision to the Liberty Annexation boundary. He pointed out that the 8.7-acre subdivision is located immediately west of the annexation area and contains 58 houses. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY PERSSON, COUNCIL AMEND THE MOTION TO ADD THE HIGHLAND ESTATES SUBDIVISION TO THE ANNEXATION AREA. CARRIED. · *MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED. Planning and Development Committee Vice Chair Clawson presented a report regarding the appeal of the Seahawks' Headquarters and Training Facility site plan (SA-06-073). The appeal deals with a minor modification of the permitted : height of the Seahawks' training facility. The height is less than that permitted ' : in the zone. The height reviewed and approved by the environmental review committee (ERC) was 120 feet, less than the height after the minor modification · of 115 feet. Minor modifications are controlled by City Code Section 4-9-200!. , The Hearing Examiner found that all of the elements of that City Code section · have been met. 1 The Hearing Examiner originally approved the site plan with an elevation of 111 feet for the training facility. On appeal, the Hearing Examiner conditioned the minor modification on the planting of between 12 and 24 trees of a reasonable specimen size at maturity. The Committee recommended that the I City Council affirm the decision of the Hearing Examiner with respect to the I granting of the minor modification, but insofar as the additional conditions imposed by the Hearing Examiner, the Committee recommended that the City I 1ii1y 9, 2001 Appeal: The Landing, Harvest Partners, SA-06-071 Renton City Council Minutes Council find that the Hearing Examiner made errors of fact and law by conditioning the minor modification on the planting of trees. Page 240 To that end, the Committee recommended that the Hearing Examiner's decision be affirmed as to the minor modification but modified by adding three findings of fact as follows: 11. increasing the building's height to a full 115 feet would only create a 3 percent increase. At 113 feet, the likely end result, the overall site massing would only increase by 1.5 percent. The change in elevation would be unnoticeable from the appellant's home, which is three-quarters of a mile away on Mercer Island. 12. Requiring the applicants to plant evergreen trees along the lakeshore fai;ade of the building would be nearly impossible in that there arc emergency fire access lanes along that area. Furthermore, there are structural and utility- based issues which would need to be completely overhauled and re- assessed in order to comply with this condition. 13. The Seahawks moved the facility back from the shoreline to preserve the view from the Misty Cove condominiums. The planting of trees shoreward of the facility would do much greater harm to the adjacent view of the Misty Cove residents than it would benefit Mercer Island residents. The Committee further recommended that conclusions 5, 6, and 7 be stricken and replaced with the following conclusions, and the decision be modified to grant the minor modification without condition. 5. However, since the change in elevation would be indistinguishable from appellants' property, and otherwise meets all the requisite criteria of City Code Section 4-9-2001, there is no basis to condition the minor modification. 6. Because the ERC did not condition the project when it was greater in elevation than the current elevation with the minor modification and the Hearing Examiner did not condition the original site plan approval, there appears to be no authority to impose conditions on this minor modification. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Planning and Development Committee Vice Chair Clawson presented a report regarding the appeal by Harvest Partners regarding The Landing site plan (SA- 06-071 ). The Committee met on 7/5/2007 to consider the appeal brought by the applicant, Harvest Partners of the decision of the Hearing Examiner dated 5/22/2007. This matter stems from an appeal by Brad Nicholson and Alliance for South End (appellants) of the site plan approval for The Landing. The Hearing Examiner heard the appeal and rendered a decision on 5/22/2007. The Hearing Examiner's decision affirmed the Development Services Director's approval of the site plan for The Landing project in most respects but reversed the Director's approval of certain specific elements in the The Landing site plan. The City of Renton filed a request for clarification. On 6/5/2007, appellants and Harvest Partners filed separate requests to reconsider with the Hearing Examiner. On 6/6/2007, consistent with a settlement between appellants and Harvest Partners, appellants, through their attorney, withdrew appellant's request for reconsideration and they notified the Hearing Examiner that they did not oppose APPROVED BV ··1 can, COUNCIL I PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE COMMITTEE REPORT Data 7-9-:Z007 1 July 9, 2007 Seahawks' Headquarters and Training Facility Site Plan Appeal LUA--06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF (Referred July 2, 2007) This appeal deals with a minor modification of the permitted height of the Seahawks' Training Facility. The height is less than that permitted in the zone. The height reviewed and approved by the environmental review committee (ERC) was 120 feet, less than the height after the minor modification of 115 feet. Minor modifications are controlled by City Code Section 4-9-2001. The Hearing Examiner found that all of the elements of that Code section had been met. The Hearing Examiner originally approved the site plan with an elevation of 111 feet for the training facility. On appeal, the Examiner conditioned the minor modification on the planting of between 12 and 24 trees of a reasonable specimen size at maturity. The Committee recommends that the City Council affirm the decision of the Hearing Examiner with respect to the granting of the Minor Modification, but insofar as the additional conditions imposed by the Hearing Examiner, the Committee recommends that the City Council.find that the Examiner made errors of fact and law by conditioning the minor modification on the planting of trees. To that end, the Committee recommends that the Examiner's decision be affirmed as to the Minot.Modification but modified by adding three findings of fact. 11. Increasing the building's height to a full 115 feet would only create a three (3%) percent increase. At 113 feet, the likely end result, the overall site massing would only increase by one and a half ( I 1/, % ) percent. The change in elevation would be unnoticeable from the appellant's home, which is '!.'sofa mile away on Mercer Island. 12. Requiring the Applicants to plant evergreen trees along the lakeshore fa1rade of the building would be nearly impossible in that there are emergency fire access Janes along that area. Furthermore, there are structural and utility-based issues which would need to be completely overhauled and re-assessed in order to comply with this condition. 13. The Seahawks moved the facility back from the shoreline to preserve the view from the Misty Cove condominiums. The planting of trees shoreward of the facility would do much greater harm to the adjacent view of the Misty Cove residents than it would benefit Mercer Island residents. The Committee further recommends that conclusions 5, 6 and 7 be stricken and replaced with the following conclusions and the Decision be modified to grant the minor modification without condition. 5. However, since the change in elevation would be indistinguishable from appellants' property, and otherwise meets all the requisite criteria of RMC 4-9- 2001, there is no basis to condition the minor modification. 6. Because the ERCdid not condition the project when it was greater in elevation than the current elevation with the minor modification and the Examiner did not condition the original site plan approval, there appears to be no authority to impose conditions on this minor modification. Terri Briere, Chair Marcie Pahner, Member C: Neil Watts Jennifer Henning Fr<d k'~u..fw,al"' /...11vry Wa.rr<.n Ale, fl;.Jw. a,,.,:,'j Zi """'er man Seahawks' HQ & Training Facility Site Plan Appeal Page 2 .. July 2, 2007 Added CORRESPONDENCE Citizen Comment: Various - Seahawks Headquarters & Training Facility Appeal, Football Northwest, SA-06:. 073 - UNFINISHED BUSINESS Committee of the Whole Annexation: Benson Hill Communities, S 200th St & 128th Ave SE RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES Resolution #3891 Annexation: Benson Hill Communities, S 200th St & 128th Ave SE Ordinance #5296 Utility: SW 34th St Culvert Replacement Project Fund Transfer, Budget Amend Ordinance #5297 Development Services: Standard Codes Adoption Renton City Council Minutes MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BYLAW, COUNCIL REFER CONSENT AGENDA ITEM 5.k. TO THE FINANCE COMMITTEE. CARRIED. Page 23 l City Clerk reported receipt of five letters, as allowed by City Code, regarding the appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision concerning the Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility site plan application from the following parties of record: Hal and Gerry Fardal, 6920 96th Ave. SE, Mercer Island, 98040; Dwight R. Schaeffer, 6958 96th Ave. SE, Mercer Island, 98040; Larry and Esther Barsher, 6940 96th Ave. SE, Mercer Island, 98040; Howard and Sue I Robboy, 6944 96th Ave. SE, Mercer Island, 98040; and L. Paul Ohainle, Socius Law Group, PLLC, Attorneys for Misty Cove Association of Apartment Owners, 601 Union St., Suite 4950, Seattle, 98101. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL REFER THE CORRESPONDENCE TO THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE. CARRIED. Council President Nelson presented a Committee of the Whole report regarding the Benson Hill Communities Annexation. The Committee recommended concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve a resolution amending the boundaries of the Benson Hill Communities Annexation in keeping with boundaries recommended by the Boundary Review Board, and amending the ballot title in the request to King County to hold a special municipal election on the Benson Hill Communities Annexation on the 11/6/2007 election ballot. The Committee further recommended that the resolution regarding this matter be presented for reading and adoption. MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY BRIERE, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. (See below for resolution.) The following resolution was presented for reading and adoption: A resolution was read authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to take those actions necessary to place Proposition I before the voters, including the preparation of information for the voter's pamphlet for the election to be held on 11/6/2007 regarding the annexation of approximately 2,438 acres of contiguous unincorporated territory within Renton's Fairwood Potential Annexation Area, also known as the Benson Hill Communities Annexation. MOVED BYLAW, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. The following ordinances were presented for second and final reading and adoption: An ordinance was read amending the 2007 Budget by transferring $150,000 from the Lake Ave. S./Rainier Ave. S. Storm System Replacement Project expenditure account to the SW 34th St. Culvert Replacement Project expenditure account. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY BRIERE, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL A YES. CARRIED. An ordinance was read amending Sections 4-5-040, 4-5-050, 4-5-055, 4-5-090, 4-5-100, and 4-5-110 and adding Section 4-5-051 of Chapter 5, Building and Fire Prevention Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of City Code by adopting the 2006 International Building, Residential, Mechanical, The Washington State Energy Code, and Fuel Gas Codes; the 2005 National R~ .::t ~CITYOFRENTON '/J~;, ... ---:-H:, · JUL O 2 200/ C.IM ~ d~' 7•).,?007 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE HAL & GERRY FARDAL 6920 -961b Ave. S.E. Mercer Island, WA 98040-5406 July 2, 2007 City Clerk, City of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Attn: Bonnie I. Walton c:1:1:-. . " Re: BarsherAppealofSeahawksBuildingRequest (f1LE LUA-Ob-013,,1 Dear Clerk: We are writing this letter in support of Larry and Esther Barsher's request that the June 11, 2007 decision of Hearing Examiner Fred J. Kaufman be upheld by the Renton City Council. Our home is located two lots up the slope from the east waterfront of Mercer Island, in the 6900 S.E. block. The sweeping and unobstructed view from our east side windows and deck is almost directly east to the new Seahawks' facility. The scale of the planned Seahawks' buildings greatly exceeds that of any other within our view of the landscape on the east side of the East Channel of Lake Washington. We are confident that there are many, many residences on the east waterfront/slope of Mercer Island that will be similarly impacted by the new structures. We are also confident that the Seahawks' owners want to be good neighbors, not only to any immediate neighbors (relatively few in number), but also to the substantially greater number of neighbors whose homes directly face the new buildings. And we are certain that the City of Renton likewise desires to take into account the effect of its developments on the residents of Mercer Island. The conclusion of the Hearing Examiner that from 12 to 14 evergreen trees be planted along the lakeside fa9ade of the Indoor Practice Field to soften, at least to some extent, the visual impact of this huge structure is certainly reasonable, and should be upheld by the Renton City Council. Very truly yours, ~&i ... ,~{ Hal & Gerry F~d::~ hfardal@yahoo.com City Clerk Attention: B0m1ie Walton City of Renton 1055 Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 R~:tlL ~ ,_YJ~ July 1, 2007 7-~ -,;ltJ{)7 CITY OF R.E/ffON JUL O 2 1007 RECEIVED CITY CLER.K'S OFFJCE .3: 15 l!_f;(V Re: Seahawks Practice Facility: Harsher Appeal of Seahawks Building Height(_\; I£ 41'Lu..f\-O(:, -o? Dr. Ms. Walton: I am writing in support of Examiner Fred Kaufman's recommendation that supports Larry Barsher's appeal. The proposed Sea Hawks' facility is an enom1ous structure that dwarfs all other structures visible from the eastern side of Mercer Island, aflecting the views of thousands of Mercer Island residents. I find the recommendation to be an inexpensive and reasonable approach to mitigate the impact. It's a mitigating provision that should have heen part of the original design approval. I estimate the "minor" height increase represents a volume of eight of my houses. If ifs that minor, the inside clearance could he reduced by the same amount without any significant impact to the Sea I lawks, or the foundation could be lowered. The Sea Hawks have not shown any significant hardship for complying, and therefore, their appeal should be denied. I suspect it would be cheaper for them to comply than it is for them to appeal. Sincerely, Dwight r. chae rter 6958 96'h Ave SE Mercer Island, WAS 98040 P,J/Jltd .:6 I!!~,,_ AJ~ 'T;, :..~~-. . . CITY OF RENTON ~ ,t_,; uMYI 7 -.;l-;).ao 7 JUL O 2 2007 ;).;S-5t L;:irry ;:inc! Esther B;:irsher 6940 96th Ave. 5.E. RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Mercer lsl;:inq, W;:ishington 98040 206-232-9280 .... lesb~t@cornqst.net City Clerk City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 July 2, 2007 Re: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated 6/11/2007, File# LUA-06-073 This letter is in support of Barsher's approved Seahawks Headquarters & Practice Facility appeal. At the May 29, 2007 hearing my wife requested a copy of the Seahawks Headquarters & Practice Facility site and landscape plans from Elisabeth Higgins, Development Services City of Renton. These drawing were never provided. After I received notice of the appeal of the hearing examiner's decision on the Barsher appeal l called Elisabeth and requested the plans be mailed to me. After waiting many days I called Elizabeth again on June 28, 2007 and she apologized for not sending the drawings and said it will now be sent. l ehecked my mail box today (July 2, 2007) and the promised submittal was not there. If I get the drawings before the July 5th appeal meeting l will review and consider using them, with added commentary, as an attachment to this letter. As a Licensed Professional Civil Engineer l have done numerous site plan layouts during my nearly 50 years of practice. The above referenced plans will show me if there are adequate landscape areas next to the west side of the indoor football field building, and the administrative office building that surrounds it, to accommodate the approved addition of trees. If there is not enough areas then additional landscape areas could be created by relocating a few of the adjacent building parking stalls to another place on the site. The legacy of having the luxury of between 12 and 24 parking stalls close to the building (where large trees can be planted) surely does not equate to the negative impact legacy the large mass building will have on hundreds of Mercer Islanders now and for generations to come. lf"between 12 and 24 trees" are placed close to the indoor football field building as well as the 55-foot high administrative office building, which wraps around the west side of the football building, those trees should not effect the Misty Cove lake views. Mr. Pearce's suggestion that trees be planted 55 feet in the air is making light of the hearing examiner's tree approval decision. The intent of the hearing examiners decision was to soften the impact and by placing trees very near the west side of both buildings that intent will be met because the football building will also be screened by trees planted adjacent to the office building. Mr. Pearce states "the existing site plan already has significant landscaping along the shoreline, which will screen views from the water". He misses the point. The purpose of adding "between 12 and 24 trees" is to mitigate and soften the massive building's size and greatly reduce the environmental impact on those viewing the building from across the lake on Mercer Island, not from the water. Mr. Pearce also states " Nothing in the code gives the Examiner authority to impose additional conditions". I plead that common good sense gives the Examiner authority to impose additional. conditions when it comes to serving the good of the greater community, especially when such conditions are so minimal and inexpensive. Regardless of Mr. Pearce's commendable knowledge of the law and strict interpretation of city code & ordinances isn't the overriding purpose of city government to protect the welfare of its community and, in the big picture, the welfare of the greater community? One has to wonder how many trees could have been bought and installed with the money that has already been spent by this appeal of the hearing examiner's decision, will be spent conducting the July 5th review and finally be spent at the subsequent full Council meeting. Is this not ultimate folly? Surely on a 19.68 acre site one can arrange the layout to allow planting "between 12 and 24 trees" to soften the building's visual impact. Please consider this letter as a pertinent document when conducting the Council's Planning and Development Committee appeal review on July 5, 2007. Sincerely, ~~~L d Esther Harsher J- I ps. Misty Cove's submittal to the City Council states that Barsher did not serve Misty Cove with a notice of their appeal. I was never told by the Development Services Department or the City Clerk that serving Misty Cove was my responsibility. I always thought service to parties of record ( or interested parties) was the job of the City Clerk. R~:t./J,~ v-'£)~-JUL o 2 2001 ouil'.: m lloward & Sue Rohboy ~ RECEIVED c1 9 f 7-:1-:? ()() 7 CITY Gl,ERK'S OFFICE CITY OF RENTON 6944 96th Ave SE Mercer Island, WA 98040 Date: July I , 2007 To: City of Renton & Seattle Seahawks From: Howard Robboy Re: Seahawks Appeal of our Request to Plant Trees( F'll.e=.* LU{,,._-0 b -0 7·;, J Dear Seahawks, Unlike many of the people in the Northwest, we supported your desire to build Quest Field. We pay additional property taxes every month for your stadium. It's a strange relationship. l make a payment, but J'm not an investor and don't share in the profits. When we learned of your decision to build a practice field in Renton, we were excited that you'd play a role in cleaning up the waterfront. Your structure is shaped like a box. It's ugly. How about being a good neighbor and putting trees up and keeping the shoreline pretty and green? The cost is quite minimal and appears to have a level of support by the city We're not asking for a multi-million dollar change or to delay your project. We're just asking you to do for us what we do for you support each other. Very truly yours, I JUN. 29. 2C07 3:00PM )0ClU~ LAW ~KUUP TO: FAX NUMBER: FROM: RE: NUMBER OF PAGES: DATE/TIME: Socius Law Group, PLLC ATTORNEYS Two Union Square • 601 Union Street, Suile 4950 Seattle, Washington 98101 .3951 Telephone 206.838.9100 • Facsimile 206.838.9101 www.sociustaw.com Facsimile Transmittal Sheet City Clerk Attn: Bonnie Walton City of Renton ( 425) 430-6516 L. Paul Ohain!e Seahawks Practice Facility: Barsher Appeal of Seahawks Building Height LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF ("Barsher Appeal") 4 (including transmittal sheet) 6/29/07 2:27 PM IF ALL PAGES ARE NOT PROPERLY RECEIVED, PLEASE CONTACT: Erin Knobler ORJGINAL TO FOLLOW: X WILL WILL NOT COMMENTS: Enclosed please find Misty Cove's Submittal in Support of Football Northwest LLC's Appeal of the Office of the Hearing Examiner's June 11, 2007 Report and Decision. If you have any questions or need anything further, please do not hesitate to call. CONFJDEN11Al1TY NOTE: The documenlS aacompanying thi, facsimile t1'ansmisJiori CO'ntoJn J1iformat1on belonging Jo Soci~s lc.w Grot'P, PLf.,C which iJ con.ftdentla/ artdlor legally pr/'ul(eged. The informrdion fi infsndsd only fw the ~e ojrhe i11dtvldual (J'r l!>lllly ,iamed above. If you are not the inte11.dad recipient, you are heuby norified rhat any dJJc/osure copying. distribution or the taking qf any acticn in N.llonce on Jhe corittnt.s of fhiJ tele.copjed informalii:Jn i.s ~·triclly prohihiled. Jf you have received this jacstmlJe IM error, please immediall!/y noJify us by relephcme ro arrangejO'J' rentm oftfie ortgtnal doc:umenu lo us. AJ this foe.simile may jade, y011 ate advised ro makt a copy fory()Ur files to en.wre a permanent r-i:cor'd. If you do nol receivl! all pages indicaled abcn1e or if you. erprrie,i.ce Qp1ohlem wllii this lrt:msmiJJal, plecw1 cal/ c,ur office immediately. 2CJ7J JUN. 29. 2007 3:00PM SOCIUS LAW GROUP NO. 3289 P 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 JO 11 12 13 14 15 BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF TiiE CITY OF RENTON In re Appeal of Hearing Examiner's June 11, 2007 Decision Regarding the Seahawks' Headquarters and Training Facility Site Plan Application File No. LUA06-073 SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF SUBMITTAL IN SUPPORT OF FOOTBALL NORTHWEST LLC'S APPEAL OF THE OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S JUNE 11, 2007 REPORT AND DECISION L INTRODUCTION 16 Misty Cove Association of Apartment Owners ("Misty Cove")joins Football 17 Northwest LLC's ("FNW") request that the City Council modify the June 11, 2007 decision 18 of the City of Renton Hearing Examiner in File Nos. LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF 19 ("the Barsher Decision"). Misty Cove requests that the City Council set aside the conditions 20 imposed by the Barsher Decision that conflict with the Master Plan and Site Plan, dated 21 December 7, 2006 ("December Decision"), and the Settlement Agreement between Football 22 Northwest LLC and Misty Cove ("Settlement Agreement"). Specifically, Misty Cove 23 requests that the City Council remove any conditions that impair Misty Cove's view corridor, 24 25 26 SUBMITTAL IN SUPPORT OF FOOTBALL NORTHWEST LLC'S APPEAL -1- Socius Law Group, PLLC A T T O R N E Y S Two Union Square• 601 Union Strea1., Suite 4950 S~c1tl!e. Wc1s:hingt0n 88101.3951 Telephone 206.818.9100 Facsimile 206.838.9101 JUN. 19 1UU I J • UOPM SvCIUS LAW GKUUP NU. JL89 ~ J 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 such as the condition requiring 12-24 evergreen trees to be planted along the lakeshore fayade of the Indoor Practice Field. II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND On December 7, 2006, Hearing Examiner Fred Kaufman entered Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations and a Decision that honored, in part, a Settlement Agreement between FNW and Misty Cove that would partially preserve the views of Lake Wasl:ungton currently enjoyed by owners of Misty Cove. The Barsher Decision requires 12- 24 evergreen trees to be planted along the lakeshore fa9ade of the Indoor Practice Field. This decision directly conflicts with the December Decision. It appears likely that the location of the 12-24 evergreen trees along the fayade will negatively impact Misty Cove's view, a central issue to both the Settlement Agreement and the December Decision. Section 12 of the December Decision provides as follows: The proposed shoreline area planting plan shall include lower-level plantings in tl1e north section of the project shoreline area, in order to minimize impacts of views of the water from the adjacent Misty Cove Condominium property. For these reasons, Misty Cove joins FNW' s appeal of the Barsher Decision. III. APPEAL CRITERIA Misty Cove is one of the parties ofrecord in this matter. Misty Cove will be directly affected by the Examiner's decision and has standing to join FNW's appeal. FNW filed a timely appeal of the June 11, 2007 Barsher Decision. Misty Cove is permitted to file a letter in support ofFNW's appeal on or before July 2, 2007. Misty Cove incorporates by reference FNW's Assignments of Error, Finding of Fact IO and Conclusions of Law 5, 6, and 7. SUBMITTAL IN SUPPORT OF FOOTBALL NORTHWEST LLC'S APPEAL 10.(7} -2- Socius Law Group, PLLC ATTORNEYS Two Union Squ&rt • 501 Union Street, Suite4950 Sean.le, Was-!'!ington 98101.3951 Telephons: 206.53B.9100 F!csimile 200.83B.g101 JUN. lY. LUU/ J:OIIM SUCIUS LAW GROUP NO. 3289 P 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 g 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The newly imposed condition to plant between 12 and 24 trees along the lakeshore fayade of the Indoor Practice Field may seriously impact Misty Cove's lake views. The same views were a critical aspect of the Settlement Agreement with FNW and were protected in the City ofRenton's December Decision. Now, Misty Cove's lake views may be lost so that a Mercer Island resident's view across the lake will be more natural. In addition, from a review of our records, it does not appear that the Barshers served Misty Cove with a notice of their appeal or that Misty Cove received a copy of the Barsh er appeal, despite the fact that Misty Cove is a party of record. Upon proper notice of the issues raised by the Barsher appeal, Misty Cove would have submitted comments in opposition to it. IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth in FNW's Appeal and in this submittal in support, Misty Cove requests that the City CoU11sel strike the additional conditions set forth in the Barsher Decision and preserve Misty Cove's lake views, DATED this z9tl> day ofJtme, 2007. SOCIUS LAW GROUP, PLLC By 1. /u( ~J/k,_;), ~ Thomas F, Peterson.SBA #16587 L. Paul Ohainle, WSBA #33755 Attorneys for Misty Cove Association of Apartment Owners 26 SUBMITTAL IN SUPPORT OF FOOTBALL NORTHWEST LLC'S APPEAL Socius Law Group, PLLC ATTORNEYS Two Union Sq,uare • 601 union Street, Suite 4950 Seattle. Wzlshington 98iO\..J951 Telep~ne 206.S?a.9100 ' -~- 204?) fn~imile 206.838.9101 I, Ci fY 0F K!:'NTON JU,. i) i ?007 C '' . L{f"" KEC~IVED CITY CIFRK'S ()FF!CE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON 9 In re Appeal of City of Renton Hearing Examiner Decision re Minor Adjustment to IO Approved Site Plan 11 12 13 File No. LUA06-073 SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF PRE-APPEAL HEARING BRIEF OF FOOTBALL NORTHWEST LLC 14 I. INTRODUCTION 15 Project applicant and property owner Football Northwest LLC ("FNW") requests the City 16 Council to modify the June 11, 2007 appeal decision from the City of Renton Hearing Examiner 17 to eliminate the condition added to the Community Development decision. 18 The permit at issue is a Minor Adjustment to the approved site plan for the Seattle 19 Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility. City Staff has jurisdiction to approve 20 minor adjustments, and the Examiner only has appeal authority. On appeal, the Examiner was 21 required to give substantial deference to the Community Development's decision. 22 The only change to the approved Site Plan was to allow the Indoor Practice Facility (the 23 "IPF") portion of the Seahawks headquarters to be slightly higher than described in the City's 24 original site plan approval. The minor adjustment allowed a change from 111 feet in height to 25 115 feet -but the actual change will less than a two (2) foot height increase. The Minor 26 Adjustment clearly meets all the minor adjustment criteria in Renton Zoning Code §4-9-200(I). PRE-HEARING BRIEF OF FOOTBALL NORTHWEST -1 ORIGINAL (}(!_· f,i.!) ~ &b-r . act:._; CJ:f<,u e. ~,_. . '"D.1..(/. ~, 50823954. 1 FOSTER PEPPER PLLC 1111 THIRD A VENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3299 PHONE (206) 447-4400 FAX (206) 447-9700 I The Department of Development Services approved the Minor Adjustment because all criteria 2 were met. The Examiner also concluded that all criteria for the issuance of the Minor 3 Adjustment were satisfied. 4 Rather than give deference to Development Services' decision (as the Examiner was 5 required to do once he found that the Development Services decision was not unlawful and was 6 based on substantial evidence), the Examiner made his own original, discretionary decision to 7 add a condition on the Corporate Headquarters project. The condition reads as follows: 8 The applicant shall be required to plant evergreen trees along the lakeshore fa<;:ade of the Indoor Practice Field [ sic J. The plantings should reflect a more natural arrangement and 9 not necessarily be the same species or evenly spaced along the fa,;:ade. Nor at maturity should the all trees [ sic J necessarily reach the height of the facility. This office will defer IO to the Development Services Division to determine the spacing and species. 11 This condition should be rejected by the City Council for four independent reasons: 12 One: The condition ignores the only expert testimony before the Examiner and is not 13 supported by substantial evidence in the record. FNW stipulated that the height increase would 14 only be two feet, and the only expert evidence before the Examiner was that this minor height 15 change would not be noticeable. 16 Two: The condition does not even address the impact of raising the !PF two feet in 1 7 height. The uncontroverted expert evidence showed that the minor height increase would not be 18 noticeable -especially from the Barsher's residence, which is three quarters of a mile away on 19 Mercer Island. The Examiner's condition, however, addresses the overall massing of the 20 structure -not the additional two feet in height. In addition, complying with the condition would 21 negatively impact the views ofFNW's next door neighbors, the owners and residents of the 22 Misty Cove Condominiums, which was totally ignored by the Examiner. 23 Three: The condition is illegal because it is unnecessarily burdensome and infeasible. 24 As shown by the approved site plan, which was ignored by the Examiner, placing trees along the 25 lakeshore fa,;:ade of the !PF would require FNW to plant trees on top of the Seahawks 26 administrative office building (which would require extensive re-engineering) and would require PRE-HEARING BRIEF OF FOOTBALL NORTHWEST -2 5()823954. I FOSTER PEPPER PLLC 1111 TH!RlJ AVENUE, su,n:3400 SEAITLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3299 PHONE (206) 447-4400 FAX (206) 447-9700 1 FNW to place trees right in the middle of the Site Plan-approved player entry, loading dock, and 2 disabled parking area for the administrative office building. Under controlling Washington law, 3 this type of unreasonable and arbitrary condition is illegal and should be rejected by the Council. 4 Four: The Examiner failed to give any deference to the Department of Community 5 Development decision and acted outside his jurisdiction. In this case, the Examiner was not the 6 original decisionmaker but was only hearing an appeal of a decision from the Department of 7 Community Development approving the Minor Amendment. Once the Examiner determined 8 that the Department of Community Development decision was lawful -was based on the correct 9 legal criteria and supported by substantial evidence -the Examiner was required to uphold that 10 Staff decision. Instead, the Examiner went beyond his legal jurisdiction and added an additional 11 condition, which is a violation of Washington law. 12 For all those reasons, FNW respectfully requests the Council to modify the Examiner's 13 decision to eliminate the Examiner condition. This will not eliminate landscaping that softens 14 the views of the facility from the water and from more distant areas, such as the Barsher's 15 residence on Mercer Island. As shown in the City's record, there are dense landscaping areas 16 along the shoreline ( a fact that was also ignored by the Examiner) that both screen the facility 17 and provide full mitigation for any impacts to aquatic habitat. 18 II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 19 The evidence at the administrative record shows: 20 The Seattle Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Practice Facility is located on a 21 19.6-acre site between Lake Washington and I-405. The site was formerly part ofa wood- 22 treating operation. As part of the development of the Seahawks site, FNW has remediated soils 23 and capped the site as approved by the Washington Department of Ecology. Development on the 24 site will include football practice fields on the south part of the site, public access along the north 25 edge of the site, an administrative office building for the Seattle Seahawks professional football 26 franchise, and an indoor practice facility or IPF. The chief requirement of the IPF is a 95-foot PRE-HEARING BRIEF OF FOOTBALL NORTHWEST -3 508239S4. l FOSTER PEPPER PLLC 1111 THlRD AVENUE, SUITE ,'3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3299 PHONE (206)447-4400 FAX (206) 447-9700 I interior clearance so that professional football practices can be conducted. The administrative 2 office building wraps around the !PF on two sides -the south side and the west side (facing Lake 3 Washington). A current site plan from the administrative record is attached as Exhibit A. 4 The City's environmental review for the Seahawks Corporate Headquarters Site Plan 5 analyzed an !PF structure ofup to 120 feet in height. The City determined that a building of that 6 height would have no significant environmental impacts -including no view impacts either to 7 immediate neighbors or to more distant views of the site. 8 After the City's environmental review, FNW moved the office building and !PF 9 structures approximately 62 feet further back from the shoreline, in order to minimize the impact IO to the neighboring condominium owners to the north of the site -the Misty Cove 11 Condominiums. Landscaping along the north edge of the project shoreline was also kept 12 purposely low in order to preserve water views from Misty Cove. 13 Design development for the !PF structure showed that the interior 95-foot clear height 14 could likely be accomplished with an overall building height of approximately 111 feet in height. 15 Those design development drawings were presented to the City at the Site Plan hearing in 16 November 2006. Accordingly, the City's Site Plan approval described the !PF as being 17 "approximately 111 feet tall." 18 After the December 6, 2006, Site Plan approval, in response to City building code 19 requirements, FNW was required to thicken the truss structure of the !PF roof. To keep a 95-foot 20 clearance, the new truss structure requires a building height of under 113 feet. To be cautious, 21 FNW requested a minor adjustment to allow up to 115 feet in height. Since then, final building 22 permit drawings have been submitted to the City, and FNW stipulated at the Minor Adjustment 23 appeal that the !PF will be slightly less than 113 feet in height. 24. This minor height variation to the !PF is the only change to the approved Site Plan. No 25 additional lot coverage is proposed, and no expansion of the site plan boundary is proposed. 26 Notably, the dense landscaping areas along the shoreline will also not be changed. See Exhibit A PRE-HEARING BRIEF OF FOOTBALL NORTHWEST -4 50Sn954.l FOSTER PEPPER PLLC 1111 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3299 PHONE (206) 447-4400 FAX (206) 447-9700 1 (Site Plan) and Exhibit B (landscaping plan from the City's administrative record). The 2 landscaping plan, which was approved by Ecology to ensure there would be no impacts to habitat 3 and shoreline values, shows several densely planted areas which will screen the Seahawks 4 facility from the water. 5 The massing of the site structures would increase only three percent (3%) if the full 115 6 feet in height were utilized for the !PF. At a final !PF height of approximately 113 feet, the 7 overall site massing would only increase by only one and one-half percent (I Y:, %). 8 The uncontroverted expert testimony at the hearing from project manager and 9 professional architect Elaine Wine showed that the small increase in height of the !PF would not 10 be noticeable, whether from near views or from distant views, such as from the residence of 11 project appellants the Barshers, who live over % of a mile away on Mercer Island. 12 III. DISCUSSION OF LEGAL ISSUES 13 A. The Examiner's Condition Is Not Based On Substantial Evidence. 14 Under Washington law, land use conditions must be supported by substantial evidence in 15 the record. Benchmark Land Co. v. City of Battleground, 146 Wn.2d 685,694, 49 P.3d 860 16 (2002). Substantial evidence is evidence sufficient to persuade a fair-minded person. Id. 17 Here, the Examiner completely ignored the uncontroverted expert testimony that the 18 minor height increase to the IPF would not be noticeable. The evidence also showed that the !PF 19 ( even at 120 feet in height) would not have view impacts. Instead of following that evidence of 20 the Minor Adjustment itself, the Examiner considered the massing of the entire IPF facility, and 21 determined that plantings closer to the fai;:ade would soften the look of the overall building. This 22 conclusion was taken without even considering the landscaping plan for the facility, which 23 locates significant and dense landscape areas along the shoreline, and without considering the 24 impact on views of the water from the Misty Cove Condominiums. (Appellants Barshers have a 25 view ofl-405 and commercial development -not a view of the water). The Examiner's 26 PRE-HEARING BRIEF OF FOOTBALL NORTHWEST -5 508~3954 I FOSTER PEPPER PLLC 1111 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3299 PHONE {206) 447-4400 FAX (206) 447-9700 I condition is not supported by substantial evidence, and is directly contradicted by the only expert 2 evidence in the record. Accordingly, the Examiner's condition should be eliminated. 3 B. The Examiner's Condition Does Not Address the Impact of the Minor Adjustment. 4 Under Washington law, any land use condition must cure a direct impact caused by the 5 permitted activity and must do so proportionally. Isla Verde International Holdings, Inc. v. City 6 of Camas, 146 Wn.2d 740, 49 P.3d 867 (2002). 7 Here, the only decision before the Examiner was Staffs approval of the Minor 8 Adjustment. The view impacts of the I I I-foot high IPF and of the administrative office building 9 were not at issue. The only impact at issue was the impact of the Minor Adjustment -a less than IO two (2) foot height increase to the !PF. The Examiner's condition, however, addresses the 11 massing of the entire IPF, not just the two-foot additional increment (Conclusion 6 -addressing 12 "the building's fayade"). And the Examiner's condition does not even pretend to address the 13 two-foot height increase because the trees required by the Examiner are not required to reach the 14 height of the facility. Finally, the Examiner's decision does not address the impact of the actual 15 Minor Adjustment, because the evidence showed there would not be any impact to address -i.e., 16 there would be no noticeable difference between a I I I-foot tall IPF and a less than 113-foot tall 17 IPF. Attached at Exhibit C to this brief are simulations showing a photosimulation of the 111- 18 foot tall IPF with a red line showing how little difference there would be at a 115-foot height. 19 The actual building will only be 113 feet in height, so the impacts are half of what is shown on 20 those exhibits from the administrative record. 21 Importantly, the Examiner's condition will actually create view impacts to the 22 neighboring Misty Cove Condominiums. Misty Cove is just to the north of the Seahawks office 23 building and IPF. Because the Seahawks buildings have been moved back from the shoreline, in 24 order to minimize impacts on Misty Cove views of the water, many of the Misty Cove residents 25 have a territorial view along the lakeshore fayade of the Seahawks buildings. That view will be 26 impacted by the Examiner's condition, which the Examiner failed to take into consideration. PRE-HEARING BRIEF OF FOOTBALL NORTHWEST -6 50823954.1 FOSTER PEPPER PLLC 1111 THIRD AVENUE, SUJTE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3299 PHONE (206) 447-4400 FAX (206) 447-9700 1 C. The Examiner's Condition Is Unreasonable and Arbitrary. 2 Under Washington law, land use conditions are unreasonable and illegal if they are 3 unnecessarily burdensome. Standard Mining & Dev. Corp. v. City of Auburn, 82 Wn.2d 321, 4 331,510 P.2d 647, (1973); Anderson v. City of Issaquah, 70 Wn. App. 64, 80, 851 P.2d 744 5 (1993). Conditions are illegal and arbitrary if they are unreasonable actions taken without regard 6 of the facts and circumstances. Terharv. Washington State Department a/Licensing, 54 Wn. 7 App. 28, 34, 771 P.2d 1180 (1989). 8 Here, the Examiner has required evergreen trees "along the lakeshore fa,;ade of the 9 Indoor Practice Field [sic]." This condition is plainly unreasonable and arbitrary because the 10 Examiner failed to consider the required structures in the approved Site Plan that are located 11 along that fa<;:ade, and which would have to be replaced. Those structures make the Examiner's 12 condition practically impossible to implement, and would violate the City's own Site Plan 13 approval. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 • For most of the IPF lakeshore fa<;:ade, the Seahawks administrative office building (a three to five story structure) adjoins the IPF. Any trees along the IPF fa<;:ade would have to be on the roof of the administrative office building (3 to 5 stories in the air). In addition to looking ridiculous, this would require a complete re-engineering of the office building. • The remaining, section of the IPF lakeshore fa<;:ade contains numerous structures required by the City's Site Plan that would have to be relocated in order to accommodate trees along that fa<;:ade -including the player entry, the loading dock for both buildings, the dumpster and recycling area, a short covered walk to the player entry, and disabled parking stalls. Again, the Examiner completely ignored the relevant facts and circumstances when he required trees to be located in this area. • Even if the Examiner "meant" to require trees along the administrative office building fa,;ade, the Examiner completely ignored the emergency access fire lane that is adjacent PRE-HEARING BRIEF OF FOOTBALL NORTHWEST -7 50823954. I FOSTER PEPPER PLLC 1111 THIRD A VENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3299 PHONE (206) 447-4400 FAX (206) 447-9700 1 to that fai;;ade. Trees could not be located along the administrative office building fa,:ade 2 without blocking that fire lane. Not only is the fire lane a critical life-safety component 3 of the project, but the fire lane location along the fa9ade of the office building is a 4 requirement of the Site Plan. 5 The Examiner's condition is unreasonable and arbitrary, because it ignores the facts and 6 circumstances of the Site Plan and directly conflicts with other structures approved and required 7 by the Site Plan. Accordingly, the Council should modify the Examiner's decision to eliminate 8 that condition. 9 D. The Examiner's Condition Is Outside His Authority. 10 An appellate decisionmaker is required to uphold the decision from below if the decision 11 is not unlawful and is based on substantial evidence. Maranatha Mining, Inc. v. Pierce County, 12 59 Wn. App. 795,801,801 P.2d 985 (1990). Here, the Examiner was not the original 13 decisionmaker on the Minor Adjustment to the Site Plan. Rather, that original decision is made 14 by the Department of Community Development. 15 The City's own Code is consistent with the Maranatha decision. The Examiner is 16 required to give substantial weight to any discretionary decision of Community Development 17 Renton Zoning Code 4-8.11 OE(7)(a). After giving substantial weight, the Examiner has only 18 three choices: he may affirm the decision, remand for further proceedings, or reverse the 19 decision. Renton Zoning Code 4-8.11 OE(7)(b ). There is nothing in the Renton Municipal Code 20 allowing the Examiner to decide that the Community Development decision was lawful and 21 based on substantial evidence, but then to go on an make his own separate discretionary decision. 22 Yet that exactly what the Examiner did in this case. 23 Once the Examiner determined that the Department of Community Development decision 24 was lawful -was based on the correct legal criteria, was supported by substantial evidence, and 25 was otherwise lawful -the Examiner was required to uphold that Staff decision. The Examiner 26 did not find that the Community Development decision was unlawful or contrary to Jaw in any PRE-HEARING BRIEF OF FOOTBALL NORTHWEST -8 50823954. l FOSTER PEPPER PLLC 1111 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 34-00 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3299 PHONE (206) 447-4400 fAX (206)447-9700 I respect. Likewise, the Examiner did not conclude that the Community Development decision 2 was not supported by substantial evidence. In fact the Examiner concluded that the Community 3 Development decision had examined all the criteria for minor adjustment, and that all criteria 4 were met. Instead of upholding the Community Development decision, however, as he was 5 required to do, the Examiner went on to make his own discretionary decision -as if he were the 6 original decisionmaker. This type of decisionmaking by an appellate body is plainly unlawful 7 and was beyond the Examiner's jurisdiction. 8 Even worse, after going beyond his jurisdiction and failing to give any deference to the 9 Community Development's approval of the Minor Adjustment, the Examiner crafted an IO unreasonable and arbitrary condition that ignores the facts, is not supported by the record, fails to 11 address the actual permit before the City, and will actually increase view impacts to the Misty 12 Cove Condominiums. 13 IV. CONCLUSION 14 For all the reasons above, FNW respectfully requests the City Council to modify the 15 Examiner's decision by striking the additional condition added in the Examiner's June 11, 2007, 16 decision on appeal of Development Services Minor Adjustment approval. 17 DATED this 2"d day of July 2007. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 PRE-HEARING BRIEF OF FOOTBALL NORTHWEST -9 50&23954 I FOSTER PEPPER PLLC Attorneys for Football Northwest LLC FOSTER PEPPER PLLC 1111 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3299 PHONE (206) 447-4400 FAX (206) 447-9700 EXHIBIT A ..., I I I . I I ·!iJ~ . ----_,;,.__ --- i i l ' I I I I I I I f- ~_,_~=~=--~-=-:~~-_ ~ _::, Sea hawks Practice Facility -, -------. -FOOTBALL NORTHWEST LLC ln-h+ ---·~ RENTON. WASHINGTON i e•• ~ L 8 "I 'I i !H~ • !hl . ' il!I! I i !; ~ '(! L .~ i" r EXHIBITB • - ~ t ! ~ w _j ::) 0 J w :r:: i I u -- ;;;; a -. !11 ......... - en I-J z J <( _J j 101 : 1i ---. Q_ : w z j 0 1 N • l . ~ f; ·t l • , l 'I J' H• + w ! z ~ (5:, * ,d _J .. 5 .... w J 0:::: 0 :r:: ! en i ,~o~i 1 f .. X - 2 CJ '.....L.J "11"'" ~. ~;;; 9 0;;: ... --- _,_J l/l 0 0:::: 0 >- j j ---1-.. :r:: I 0:::: w 1 I- 1 _J ~ LI- CJ z <( ~ l/l II NOlEJNIHS\IM 'NOlN3l:l I ~ - :::l11 lS3MHll:lON 11\18100~ ~ Al!l!OB.::I aonoeJd s>1Me4eas • : u " 0 I ·····n\11· .. ,r,·-··\,"' \I"') I '(;I\J·lN:l[/\JJ,,., .... ,, .. ·;c·1 ·1c· ,-,,_-. '\. . . I/ IU " d( 1 (j(_ -·, .1 . (' \.. 1--J /1--, I I' )1 --,· • ii i.! ,. . .di~ ,i'-.) -. , .. I .. I,_ •• ,,.__ .)_,,•-,; f·~-,.~,-- Q "Ill; ..... ii~ !o-Noo-a400 1---1--r ... ;, ..... "' ..... -· --,-1---· H i H(HtH(~( N N ... N N -----t- If !If f jJ JJ .jl H 1ui1I uH 1-i---- {ei-l . ii i ' I tit , H, i t l·t·:ql :1,if! .. JH!i i1J !sl HI 1-t--++ -~ ili!P i:u .,11: ~~ ~ ~ ~ :0 ~ :.;:i • I I ! . . ",. .;i I H flt' -Jun J -t- ! . ·--1-1--•. \!! \!!\!!\!!\!! \:! ~ 6' ~ ~ - !LJ 1--·-··1-- If !' Ht ·- •• .• r n Ht' HHf ~HU lP''!::!.:fl 00 uoDi 1 f z 0 G z ~ ~ .. .. !alp i ... JI J f, I 11 1f, ! M ··~ H• i~! i!·-~·J i'i Iii ~.., /, ! ...... Q ~ . - .... "' • - JH~~,*~~ -~ -- r I 1 Hjl ff. r !1 l -1-1--H- ii j I H 11 p H l h1HH 1 . ~ sqE o::"" ~ .. 31"' j ···1 i 'j • \ ., +------------------------------' 111 133HS 33S -3NllHJl\fr1 ', ""' -------~ • • u • 0 • • • . 0 e • a n I ' • ? • z z I ~ ! an~! II '"''"'""'M ·,o,.,, I ~ ,\j!J!OB~ a:l!JOWd SljMB4B8$ ; : 011 lS3MH.HION 11V8l00.:l • (\j • CD w h w l l l l I ! ! 1 ·1 I • ·1 u m • -N ! j ; I I co • N - LI.. Ii en • 8 ~ 0 "' i l ! (!) ili !z < -I C. >-!:: en ifi ! C :x: ·' ,. ii ~ i II '<t ) Q CJ p ' K· ' E • • • j______L _____j_______.J ___.1_.1__,___. ~-1-, I ! .I I I - I I I I I I I UlC. I.JF1 STATJOP,1 ·,_ ""I 9 LI Lj ~ ems: PU.NT IAYOJT ,,. ___j_____j____L~ 11 1 1• LAKE WASHINGTON / l>J(( 1111,SHtlCTON / "~" "" -ill"'":':'"' "<" \::.~ fl(IIIO',,f ~ SP((£; -""""" -1/l.201 NOTES: 1. [XtS'I'~ L.oRC£ (6" • Oil CRU.l{R). NllP,1£ (COnOI/IIIOOO-POlA: ~-olll!U. Wll.,I.OW-So\SI). SHOIIWN( mas (POrtllllAl ~ l«)O.fC1l 0'f A).·,_ ,s t<CdSiAln' rOR omu.i_ 2. lOW (l(MS!T'I' 111PAAWI fVHJ1H(; N/05 111..1. BC lloWC(]) ro [M$JJlt( Y(WS Ill!( M,i,WTMfill TtlllOtQ\ twt'.I Pftl/MIHC ~ HO! "'"""""""" l. ilON!TORING /'I.NI TOA IIIP,oAw; lON( 10 8C PRO,ol)((I t< THE S1RCA1r,1 .. I.ME REl'OIIT •. SHOROJNE ZOtt£ fVH1 DCWSlOCS ro 11C ~ , .... , n.u o:,.,(AAC( IS IOtE',{I) t( N'P!IOI. 10 Vl'.,t,RS. 5. CON1A,l,ClQA $WJ,1. AU.OW FOR n£ #OWION OF ltl( SP(CUCO QUIHTmE5 Of SO.. ~ #ID CIJOTKINfRS .. SOl PR[l'Wi'OON NE FJHISli ~ ti. Pl.ANT COU<lfS. OU<IMITI£S, ~ N![.I. C>La.V,TIONS INOIOO'CD ON n1( f'V,HS. N!f. FOR THE CON1Rl1CTOl1"S COIMHUIC£ OII.Y. Te( romw;10R SH,,U_ ac RESPONSl8t.£ FOR rNN.. PIANT eouras. Nf9. ULtu.>.h(lt(S ro ,m,u OfflRC oUIOS or TOPSOl. w..CH .N.o f'lAHT COY[IW,(_ 1. AL COffSTRUCOON W.T[RW_ 'SIW1 8( (XQUOCO nlOW TOPSOIL ti. PU,NT TR([S LARGER llWf l I01 OU'£II OR SP{{lll(I( a.UIIPS PRIOR TO IHSlfil.A.1JO',I or Jl!!IGAIJQtl WclllUH(S #«I '"'"" '!I. Alt ~ lDC:AMh'S StW.L BC F"O.ll R[Wll(D N40 o!OJJSTEO 0'f TH( A/[ Al lt£ TM( Of IHSTM.lAIION. 10. A/[ ~ lH( RIClff 10 N)JllSJ Tl< t.OC,l,ftON Of PUNT w,.T[RIAL CIIJRIMG NS'IALU.TIOH ~ .tl"PRQPRil,T[ TO 11£ PIIO.£CT N«> ro N,'(]11) l)ll[Ct 81..oaoa or PR£'t10USlY 111ST;.um IIRH;.lTIOII SPRAY l'(,tJ)S_ l,(IJUSTI,l()ff ti lOC.lfflON 1N MS( N!QS SWll OC fl:Ul-$POTT£D S1' MCKT(Cl. 11. ll[F(R TO SH([1 l:l'OI fO!I Tl1'IU.I_ PlNITlHC D£TM.S. "' -7~------ ' . / v' ~ ': ,_uRITTR:'!!""'m,--------- ~~OR ', Pil.M,l,l QIAS5 PIW:lC( ro.os ........ NOTE: PLANT lAYOUT & PlANT SCHEDULE FOR PLANTING BEDS ADJACENT TO BUILDINGS AND PARKING TO BE DETERMINED. -- " --'--" ~ =~°'!,:;~ l't}Jj[ING ('wll) ~ 9f:IR(UOI( 10!4: "2- ~ HIGH DfHSllY l'WMW./ PV,lffiNC (OIIY) ~ SHOR(~ ZOil: Bl - ~ lOW OOGlY APAAl,I.N PV,Nllf,IC; ('W[T) fV"VVl St«CI.H: 20J( B2- ~ lCM O!)OIY fM>AAW,I f>Ui(!lt!G (ORY) ,,..,,., ---"" ~ WIUOW 'STJ.1(£ P\.NIT1NC -'i([ J{UOI ~ O:ISIK: WCTl..AHo lllJITUI R('SlOR,I.IION b...n..nJ PlJ,N~ 10 ROl.oM c=J SN(} fl.ltR CR.oSS -S({O 111.l P[R TA8lf 1,: SP(/3 ~ NON-'(III i;RASS -scro llllC P(lt 1"81.[ T(t,AJ,ff: film ,II!(>;. SfI ll02 \------ \_ SO" SfT8,IO( .. ! -........-..... ! i ' I I ! i ' 1 I : I I , i I --------------------------------------------------------------: ; iATCHLINE -SEE SHEET Ll 12 SGlri.C .. 1'12'1 • ~ m " ~ L......I .... -... ' 0 -::::, >-w " w :r: Cf) w w Cf) I • w z ::::; :r: u >---<'. • .-._2'._ ' ;\;-j I( '--'·-r- (/) _..:-::__ :> I ' if ;:;,z L_(l.) I--II·,,;::::.. t1(_r) r, I_-.., e • >N 0 @ -~ . ...c -----:-:.~-:.-........ .- =§q IDAW 116 WE8TEflH A VE --IEATTI..£. WI, '"'' 1&2oe~111e fil 208 343-MOCI --- £ ·u CC 0 u. ::l z Q) Iii 0 ... ()W Cl ·-3: z () I :i: cc Ii: Cl) L. 0 ~ Q.Z z -' en _, 0 ..l<:: <( ... 3:~ z w cc g a:: _c LL cc Q) (/) re -·-. ... SHORB.INE PlANT1NO PINI L113 __ EXHIBIT C ! "" 1,~ I : :'.' ' • C') C ;o m "' I. I__ I I (l C ,, ~ ~ ~ ,, 0 Q ~ ~ 5 z ~ Seahawks Headqu arte rs & Train ing Fa ci lit y FOOTBALL NORT HWEST LLC RENTON, WASHINGTON "' ' l ,. E C "' ;;; 0 ~ ,, 0 Q ,; m r m < ,. ::! 0 z ~ 0 i I " I ~ l:. I , s ,m ' ·m .x ' • ::i • iii .... ..,, z :xi Cl 0 ;:: :S ;:: m iii ::i .... ..,, -< :xi (") 0 0 ;:: < ;:: m iii z; .... ;o -< 0 n .,, 0 r < 0 m 0 w .:l ;o "I 0 ..,, r 0 0 .:l 5'; I Seahawks Headquarters & » '.I! .... Training Facility iii l'' 0 FOOTBALL NORTHWEST L LC ,, r--., ::, . I ! ' ... ___ RENTON , WASHINGTON i ,, .. r I ' ; July 2, 2007 Monday, 7 p.m. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL OF COUNCILMEMBERS CITY STAFF IN ATTENDANCE ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT CONSENT AGENDA Council Meeting Minutes of 6/25/2007 Appointment: Planning Commission Appointment: Library Board Appeal: The Landing, Harvest Partners, SA-06-071 Appeal: Seahawks Headquarters & Training Facility, Football Northwest, SA-06-073 - RENTON CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting MINUTES Council Chambers Renton City Hall Mayor Kathy Keo Iker called the meeting of the Renton City Council to order and led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. TONI NELSON, Council President; DAN CLAWSON; DENIS LAW; TERRI BRIERE; MARCIE PALMER; DON PERSSON; RANDY CORMAN. KA THY KEOLKER, Mayor; JAY COVINGTON, Chief Administrative Officer; ZANETTA FONTES, Assistant City Attorney; BONNIE WALTON, City Clerk; SUZANNE DALE ESTEY, Economic Development Director; LESLIE BETLACH, Parks Director; MARTY WINE, Assistant CAO; CHIEF I. DAVID DANIELS and DEPUTY CHIEF CHUCK DUFFY, Fire Department; COMMANDER DA YID LEIBMAN, Police Department. Chief Administrative Officer Covington reviewed a written administrative report summarizing the City's recent progress towards goals and work programs adopted as part of its business plan for 2007 and beyond. Items noted included: , * Celebrate the nation's independence at Revo225's Fabulous Fourth of July at Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park. * Picnic Pizzazz, a Kid's Entertainment Series at Kiwanis Park, kicks off July 12 with Castro the Magician. Items on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion which follows the listing. At the request ofCouncilmember Persson, item 5.k. was removed for separate consideration. Approval of Council meeting minutes of6/25/2007. Council concur. Mayor Keolker reappointed Robert Bonner, Jr., 1507 Jones Ave. NE, Renton, 98056, to the Planning Conunission for a three-year term expiring 6/30120 I 0. Council concur. Mayor Keolker appointed Tyler Morse, 2625B Jones Ave. NE, Renton, 98056, to the Library Board (youth representative) for a two-year term expiring 7/1/2009. Refer to Community Services Committee. City Clerk reported appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision regarding The Landing site plan application (SA-06-071); appeal filed on 6/512007 by Harvest, Partners, 8214 Westchester Dr., #650, Dallas, TX, 75225, represented by Hillis: Clark Martin & Peterson, accompanied by required fee. Refer to Planning and i Development Committee. City Clerk reported appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision regarding the Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility site plan application (SA-06-073) by Football Northwest LLC, 505 5th Ave. S., #900, Seattle, 98104, represented 1 by Roger A. Pearce of Foster Pepper PLLC, accompanied by required fee. 1 Refer to Planning and Development Committee. J CI JF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDJ L 5 ·e .. I AI#, • • Submitting Data: For Agenda of: 7/2/2007 Dept/Div/Board .. AJLS/City Clerk Staff Contact. ..... Bonnie I. Walton Agenda Status Consent. ............. Subject: Public Hearing .. Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated 6/11/2007 Correspondence .. Ordinance ............. regarding the Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility Site Plan application. (File No. LUA-06-073, Resolution ............ SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF) Old Business ........ Exhibits: New Business ....... A. City Clerk's letter (6/21/2007) Study Sessions ...... B. Appeal -Football Northwest, LLC (6/15/2007) Information ......... C. Hearing Examiner's Report & Decision (6/11/2007) Recommended Action: Approvals: Refer to Planning and Development Committee. Legal Dept.. ...... . Finance Dept.. ... . Other .............. . Fiscal Impact: N/A Expenditure Required ... Transfer/ Amendment. ..... . Amount Budgeted ...... . Total Proiect Budget Revenue Generated ........ . Citv Share Total Project .. SUMMARY OF ACTION: Appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision on the Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility Site Plan application was filed on 6/15/2007 by Northwest Football, LLC, represented by Roger A. Pearce, Foster Pepper, PLLC accompanied by the required $75 fee. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Council to take action on the Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility Site Plan application appeal. cc: Jennifer Henning Larry Warren Rentorum/agnbill/ bh X CITY 'lF RENTON Kathy K~olker, Mayor June 21, 2007 City Clerk Bonnie I. Walton APPEAL FILED BY: Football Northwest, LLC, represented by Roger A. Pearce, Foster Pepper PLLC RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated 6/11/2007 regarding the Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility Site Plan application, 5015 Ripley Ln N. (File No. LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF) To Pariies of Record: Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter8, Renton City Code of Ordinances, written appeal of the hearing examiner's decision on the Barsh er appeal of Seahawks Building Height has been filed with the City Clerk In accordance with Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-l lOF, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. Other parties of record may submit letters limited to support of their positions within ten (I 0) days of the date of mailing of the notification bf the filing of the appeal. The deadline for submission of additional letters is 5:00 pm, July 2, 2007. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVBN that the written appeal and other pe11inent docunients will be reviewed by the Council's Planning and Development Committee at 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, July 5, 2007, in the Council Chambers, 7th Floor of.Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA, 98057. The recommendation of the Committee will be presented for considei'ation by the full Council at a subsequent Council meeting. Attached are a copy of the appeal and a copy of the Renton Municipal Code regarding appeals of Hearing Examiner decisions or recommendations, Please note that the. City Council will be considering the merits of the appeal based upon the written record previously established. Unless a showing can be made that additional evidence could not reasonably have been available at the prior hearing held by the Hearing Examiner, no further evidence or testimony on this matter will be accepted by the City Cotmcil. For additional information. or assistance, please feel free to call me at 425-430-6502. Sincerely, Bonnie I. Walton City Clerk Attachments cc: Council Liaison -1-0-55-So-,-,th_G_ra_d_y_\\_' a-y---R-e-nt-o-n,-\-V_as_h-in_g_lo_n_9_8_0_5_7 -_ -( 4-2-5)_4_3_0--6-5-10_1_· F-AX--( 4_2_5_) 4-3-0--6-5_1_6 ~ @ I his paper contr11ns SO% recycled materi;il, 30°/o post consumer AHhAD OF TlIE-Cl/RVE. City of Renton Municipal C · · Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110 -Appe 0 '· 4-8-l lOC4 " The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by a fee in accordance with RMC 4-1-170, the fee schedule of the City. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 4-8-11 OF: Appeals to City Council -Procedures 1. Time for Appeal: Unless a specific section or State law providing for review of decision of the Examiner requires review thereof by the Superior Court or any other body, any interested party aggrieved by the Examiner's written decision or recommendation may submit a notice of appeal to the City Council, upon a form furnished by the City Clerk, within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the Examiner's written report. 2. Notice to Parties of Record: Within five ( 5) days of receipt of the notice of appeal, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. 3. Opportunity to Provide Comments: Other parties of record may submit letters in support of their positions within ten {l 0) days of the dates of mailing of the notification of the filing of the notice of appeal. 4. Transmittal of Record to Council: Thereupon the Clerk shall forward to the members of the City Council all of the pertinent documents, including the written decision or recommendation, findings and conclusions contained in the Examiner's repo11, the notice of appeal, and additional letters submitted by the parties. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-1982) 5. Council Review Procedures: No public hearing shall be held by the City Council. No new or additional evidence or testimony shall be accepted by the City Council unless a showing is made by the party offering the evidence that the evidence could not reasonably have been available at the time of the hearing before the Examiner. If the Council determines that additional evidence is required, the Council shall remand the matter to the Examiner for reconsideration and receipt of additional evidence. The cost of transcription of the hearing record shall be home by the applicant. In the absence of an entry upon the record of an order by the City Council authorizing new or additional evidence or testimony, and a remand to the Hearing Examiner for receipt of such evidence or testimony, it shall be presumed that no new or additional evidence or testimony has been accepted by the City Council, and that the record before the City Council is identical to the heanng record before the Hearing Examiner. (Ord. 4389, 1-25-1993) 6. Council Evaluation Criteria: The consideration by the City Council shall be based solely upon the record, the Hearing Examiner's report, the notice of appeal and additional submissions by parties. 7. Findings and Conclusions Required: If, upon appeal ofa decision of the Hearing Examiner on an application submitted pursuant to RMC 4-l-050F 1, and after examination of the record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, it may remand the proceeding to Examiner for reconsideration, or modify, or reverse the decision of the Examiner accordingly. 8. Council Action: If, upon appeal from a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner upon an application submitted pursuant to RMC 4-i-050F2 and F3, and after examination of the record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, or that a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner should be disregarded or modified, the City Council may remand the proceeding to the Examiner for reconsideration, or enter its own decision upon the application. 9. Decision Documentation: In any event, the decision of the City Council shall be in writing and shall specify any modified or amended findings and conclusions other than those set forth in the report of the Hearing Examiner. Each material finding shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. The burden of proof shall rest with the appellant. (Ord 3658, 9-13-1982) 10. Council Action Final: The action of the Council approving, modifying or rejecting a decision of the Examiner shall be final and conclusive, unless appealed within the time frames established under subsection G5 of this Section. (Ord. 4660, 3-17-1997) CITY OF RENTON f>EAL TO RENTON CITY COUNC .,. OF HEARINl>-EXAMINER'S DECISION/RECOMJvillNDATION JUN 1 5 2007 ., . . RECEIVED '{/ZrJ;,, APPLICATION NAME A f'f£Ai of l-l£.At21,.JG-lYAM1,-1£iL. JJE'Cfs10.-J FILE NO.LUAc~~%L':_R~~:ICE J1 s;,,-H,S4-N1 ,s,,.., 15.~ The undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the decision or recommendation of the Land lfae Hearing Examiner, dated JUA/E:.... I ( , 20Q:/.._. I. IDENTIFICATION OF PARTY APPELLANT: REPRESENTATIVE (IF ANY) Name: FoOT(3FtU... ,../Q/1:::rf/Nf.S:1 LLC- Address: r+-r--r-~: 12...AY V:::,LLt\JUl, Name: (lOC£iL A . fU/.fl_c.£ , f..OSTE;t.. l't:...PPE.R f>l..L c_, Address: I[ fl 3/t,t) lr•/1= #-3 'f: O 0 } Sos -5d..Rve. s. 4'900 st.rtT/<.f:; i,JA c;110,1 I ! t .Sce,-rr-L£ '-JA 9"§10/ Phone Number:------------ Email: -----·-~-------- Phone Number:~~) lf.:1./,J -4--1.fOO Email: PEA fl.fl.@. f:9STt'-&. Co!".} 2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Attach additional sheets, if necessary) Set forth below are the specific errors or ]aw or fact upon which this appeal is based: Finding of Fact: {Please designate number as denoted in the Examiner's Report) No. IO Error: Sec l'/-r.-ACl+E..]) 51-j--c£T Correction:-------------~· ___ ----------~ Conclusions: No.5 Cc. :f Error: Correction:---------------------------- .Qt!w:: No. Error:------------------------------ Correction:---------------------------- J. SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED The City Council is requested to grant the following relief: (Attach explanation, if desired) '>< Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relief: Modify the decision or recommendation as follows: St:£ A-T't.1/C#E.1, ..Sll£c-, Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows· Other: Type/Printed Name t..ls:8fr #-;l. I I I 3 NOTE: Please refer Lu T,Uc IV. Chapter 8, of the Renton Municipal Code, and Section 4-8-1101'. for specific appeal procedures. (;{.._', la.-.,-,v t-,_),,_,..,-e,.., I Ci f-; A ti;( ;1/c, I 0 4 t{s I De iJ .,;,,vcs 'i)/rec-/i,v ,=,-~p{ ~f,-,.,.e-,..,, i-{('0/1" d c=X4;,-,r-e,...,-- I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON 9 In re Appeal of City of Renton Hearing Examiner Decision re Minor Adjustment to 10 Approved Site Plan 11 12 13 File No. LUA06-073 SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF NOTICE OF APPEAL OF FOOTBALL NORTHWEST LLC 14 I. INTRODUCTION 15 Football Northwest LLC ("FNW") requests the City Council to modify the June 11, 2007 16 decision of the City of Renton Hearing Examiner in File Nos. LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, 17 ECF. This supplements the City's Notice Of Appeal form. 18 The appeal before the Examiner involved a minor adjustment to the approved site plan 19 for the Seattle Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility. The only change to the 20 approved site plan was to allow the Indoor Practice Facility (the "IPF") to be several feet higher 21 than described in the City's original site plan approval. Because this minor change to the 22 approved site plan clearly met the minor adjustment criteria in Renton Zoning Code §4-9-200(1), 23 the City's Department of Development Services issued the minor adjustment. On appeal, the 24 Examiner was required to give substantial weight to that administrative decision from the 25 Department of Development Services. In the Examiner's decision, the Examiner concluded that 26 all criteria for the issuance of the minor adjustment were satisfied. NOTICE OF APPEAL -1 50816742.2 FOSTER PEPPER PLLC l111 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE3400 SEA TnE, WASHINGTON 98101-3299 PHONE (206) 447-4400 FAX (206) 447-9700 - June 11, 2007 ' OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND DECISION APPELLANT: PUBLIC HEARING: Larry & Esther Barsher 6940 96"' Ave SE Mercer Island, WA 98040 Barsher Appeal of Seahawks Building Height LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF After reviewing the Appellant's written requests for a hearing and examining available infonnation on file, the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The following minutes are a summary of the May 29, 2007 hearing. The legal record is recorded on CD. The hearing opened on Tuesday, May 29, 2007, at 8:59 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No. 1: Yellow file containing the original Exhibit No. 2: Topographic Map of Mercer Island appeal letter and site infom1ation. Exhibit No. 3: Photograph of Seahawk's site from Exhibit No. 4: Photogrnph of Boeing site at south end Barsher property of Lake Washington Exhibit No. 5: Photograph of east Boeing site Exhibit No. 6: Site Plan File LUA 06-073 Exhibit No. 7: Environmental Checklist Exhibit No. 8: October 19, 2006 Jetter from the City of Renton regarding the Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility, acceptance from Environmental Re,~ew Committee Exhibit No. 9: Original Elevations (2 sheets) Exhibit No. 10: Hearing Examiner Decision dated submitted with the Site Plan application December 8, 2006 -- Exhibit No. 11: VA102 -view study from Misty Cove (2 sheets) Parties Present: Larry Barsher, 6940 96'h Ave SE, Mercer Island, WA 98040 , 1' structure as already permitted and the structure as amended ( approximately two feet higher). 2 Because the Examiner's condition is not related to an impact of the minor adjustment, it is 3 plainly unlawful under controlling Washington law. 4 Sixth, the Examiner's condition is unreasonable. The existing site plan already has 5 significant landscaping along the shoreline, which will screen views from the water and provide 6 habitat amenities for the shoreline environment. The existing site plan proposed lower level 7 plantings in the northwest comer of the site in order lo mitigate any view impacts that new 8 construction would have on the immediate project neighbors. The Examiner's condition would 9 require additional trees along the lakeshore fayade oflhe !PF. This condition ignores the fact 10 that the 55-foot high administrative office building is shoreward from majority of the !PF. 11 According, the majority of the !PF fayade does not even begin until 55-feet in the air. A 12 condition purporting lo require trees 55 feet in the air -on the roof of another structure -is 13 unreasonable. 14 IV. CONCLUSION 15 For all the reasons above and for the reasons lo be shown at the closed record hearing 16 before the City Council, FNW respectfully requests the City Council to modify the Examiner's I 7 decision by striking the additional condition added by the Examiner in his June 11, 2007, 18 decision on appeal of Development Services minor adjustment decision. 19 DA TED this 15 1h day ofJune 2007. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 NOTICE OF APPEAL -6 S08167422 FOSTER PEPPER PLLC Roger A.(1/earce, WSBA No. 21113 Attorneys for Football Northwest LLC FOSTER PEPPER PLLC 1111 THIRD AVENUE, SurrE3400 SEATILE, WASHINGTON 98101-3299 PHONE (206) 447-4400 FAX (2.06) 447-9700 Rather than uphold Development Services' decision, as the Examiner was required to do 2 once he found that the criteria for an approval of a minor adjustment were met, the Examiner 3 placed an additional condition on the Corporate Headquarters project. This additional condition 4 violated the review criteria in the Renton Zoning Code, failed to give substantial weight to the 5 decision of City staff, was unsupported by the evidence on appeal, was unrelated to any impact 6 from the minor adjustment, and imposed an unreasonable condition on the project. In particular, 7 the Examiner required 12 to 24 evergreen trees "along the lakeshore fa9ade of the Indoor 8 Practice Field [ sic J." Even if the Examiner had authority to impose conditions on the project 9 after finding that all minor adjustment criteria had been met, this condition is not supported by IO any evidence in the record, which showed that the !PF would not look noticeably different from 11 the 111-foot tall building already approved. Moreover, the condition purports to require trees 12 along the !PF' s "lakcshore fa9ade" but the great majority of that lakcshore fa,;,ade of the 13 Seahawks Corporate Headquarters does not even begin until an elevation of 55 feet in the air. It 14 is certainly unreasonable to plant evergreen trees 55 feet in the air on the roof of another 15 structure. 16 Because the Examiner's decision is not supported by the record or by the City's Code, 17 fails to give any deference to the City staff decision, and imposes an unreasonable condition, the 18 Council should modify the Examiner's decision to eliminate the "additional condition" required 19 by the Examiner. 20 II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 21 The evidence at the hearing and in the record of the hearing shows the following: 22 The City's environmental review for the Seahawks Corporate Headquarters master plan 23 analyzed an !PF structure ofup to 120 feet in height above slab, with a 95-foot clear interior 24 space over the indoor practice field. The 95-foot clear interior space is required for the facility to 25 operate in the manner designed for professional football practices. Based on its analysis of that 26 proposal, the City issued a Determination ofNonsignificance ("DNS"). NOTICE OF APPEAL -2 50816"')42 2 FOSTER PEPPER PLLC ] I 11 THIRD A VENUE, SUITE 3400 SEA TILE, WASHINGTON 98101-3299 PHONE (206) 447-4400 fAX (206) 447-9700 "- 1 After the issuance of the DNS, the project applicant moved the IPF structure (and other 2 project buildings) approximately 62 feet further back from the shoreline, in order to minimize the 3 impact to the neighboring condominium owners to the north of the site. Design development for 4 the !PF structure showed that the interior 95-foot clear height could likely be accomplished with 5 an overall building height of approximately 111 feet in height. Those design development 6 drawings were the basis of the drawings and renderings presented to the City at the hearing on 7 the original site plan for the Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility. 8 Accordingly, the City's site plan approval described the !PF as being "up to 111 feet" and 9 "approximately 111 feet tall." IO After to the December 6, 2006, site plan approval, FNW worked with the City on the 11 final structural design of the !PF. In response to City building code requirements, FNW was 12 required to make changes to the truss structure of the !PF roof. In order to maintain the 95-foot 13 clear interior space for the IPF, the new truss structure requires a building height of 14 approximately 113 feet. To be cautious, FNW requested a minor adjustment to allow up to 115 15 feet in height, even though only approximately I 13 feet in height is anticipated and currently 16 submitted to the City for permits. 17 This minor height variation to the IPF is the only change to tl1e approved site plan. No 18 additional lot coverage is proposed, no expansion of the site plan boundary is proposed, and no 19 expansion of any other planned building on the site is proposed. Transportation and parking 20 impacts would be unchanged. Use of public services and utilities would be unchanged. The 21 only impact will be to allow a small increase in the scale of the !PF building. 22 The massing of the !PF itself will increase less than four percent (4%) if the full 115 feet 23 in height were utilized. At the anticipated final !PF height of approximately 113 feet, there 24 would be only a two percent (2%) increase to the scale of the !PF. With respect to the scale of 25 all development approved by the site plan, the total building volume would increase only three 26 percent (3%) if the full 115 feet in height were utilized for the !PF. At the anticipated final !PF NOTICE OF APPEAL -3 50816 742.2 FOSTER PEPPER PLLC 1111 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEA TILE, WASHINGTON 98101-3299 PHONE (206) 447-4400 FAX (206) 447-9700 I 2 3 The Examiner did not find that any of those standards of review were violated, and the Examiner did not give any deference to the City staff decision as required by law. 2. Conclusions of Law 5, 6 and 7. 4 In Conclusions 5, 6 and 7, the Examiner makes multiple errors of law including the 5 following. 6 First, the Examiner fails to grant deference to the decision of Development Services to 7 issue the minor adjustment. 8 Second, the Examiner imposes an additional condition to the minor adjustment even after 9 concluding that all required criteria for issuance of the minor adjustment were met. IO Third, the Examiner misinterprets the wording of the minor adjustment Code section 11 ("Minor modifications may be pennitted by administrative determination") to aggrandize 12 conditioning authority unto himself That section of the Code merely distinguishes minor 13 adjustments from major adjustments. If the criteria for a minor adjustment are met, then 14 Development Services makes the decision on the site plan change. If the minor adjustment 15 criteria arc nol met, then a major adjustment application and public hearing arc required. 16 Nothing in that Code section gives the Examiner authority to impose additional conditions. 17 Fourth, the conditions imposed by the Examiner are not even related to the change to the 18 project proposed by the minor adjustment. The only change to the IPF is a slight height increase l 9 (from approximately 111 feet to approximately 113 feet in height at the crest of the IPF roof). 20 The condition imposed by the Examiner, however, does nothing to address this tiny increase in 21 height, but only addresses the overall bulk of the building, which was already approved in the 22 original site plan approval. 23 Fifth, the Examiner's condition is not supported by any evidence in the record. Both the 24 expert testimony and the photosimulation exhibits show that the additional height of the IPF 25 would not even be a noticeable change to the project. While the IPF is admittedly a significant 26 structure, the only issue when issuing the minor adjustment is the difference between the NOTICE OF APPEAL -5 50816 7-12.2 FOSTER PEPPER PLLC 1111 THIRD AVENUE, SurTE 3400 SEA TILE, WASHINGTON 98101-3299 PHONE (206) 447-4400 FAX (206) 447-9700 I height of approximately 113 feet, the overall site massing would only increase by one and one- 2 half percent (1 Y, %). 3 III. APPEAL CRITERIA 4 A. Standing. 5 FNW is the pennit applicant, one of the parties to the appeal hearing before the 6 Examiner, the owner of the property affected by the Examiner's appeal decision, and the ultimate 7 user of the Scahawks Corporate Headquarters. FNW will be directly affected by the Examiner's 8 decision and has standing to bring this appeal. 9 B. Time to File. 10 The Examiner's decision on the appeal of Development Services minor adjustment 11 approval was issued June 11, 2007. This appeal is filed within the required time limit in Renton 12 Zoning Code 4-8-11 OF. 13 C. Notice of Appeal and Filing Fee. 14 The notice of appeal fom1 from the Renton City Clerk accompanies this Notice. A check 15 for the filing fee specified in Renton Zoning Code 4-1-1 70 is enclosed. 16 B. Assignments of Error. 17 1. Finding of Fact 10. 18 In Finding of Fact l 0, the Examiner purports to explain his authority on appeal. The 19 Exan1iner claims to have "all the powers of the office from whom the appeal is taken." This 20 finding ignores controlling City ordinances, which require the Exan1iner to give substantial 21 weight to any discretionary decision of City staff and require the Examiner to review the City 22 staff decision under tl1e appropriate standard of review and modify that decision only if it is 23 made on unlawful procedure, is clearly erroneous, or is arbitrary and capricious. Renton Zoning 24 Code 4-8-11 OE7( a and b ). Nothing in the record shows that staff followed any erroneous 25 procedure, committed any clear error of law, and made any arbitrary and capricious decision. 26 NOTICE OF APPEAL -4 50816i42.2 FOSTER PEPPER PLLC 1111 THIRD A VENUE, SUITE 3400 SEA TILE, WASHINGTON 98101-3299 PHONE (206) 447--4400 FAX (206) 447-9700 ' Barsher Appeal of Seahawks B ng Height LUA-06-037, SA-II, SA-M, SM, ECf . June 11, 2007 Page 2 Lany Warren, City Attorney, City of Renton Roger Pearce, Foster Pepper, 1111 Third Ave, Ste. 3400, Seattle, WA 981 O l Lairy Barsher stated that he is a State of Washington Licensed Professional Civil Engineer and that he has lived on Mercer Island since 1980 and enjoyed the views and vistas for 27 years. He and his wife are alarmed by the fact that the City would allow this large building to get even larger and not include in this modification some landscaping to soften and mitigate the appearance of this structure. He produced a topographic map of Mercer Island and surrounding areas. He pointed out where his home lies and where the new Seahawk facility will be located. The distance from their home to the Seahawk building is approximately 3,700 feet or'/, of a mile. He took more photographs of the Boeing plant, the width of that building is 840-feet and the height ts approximately the same as the Seahawks is proposed to be. It shows approximately how much space the Seahawk building will actually take and the views that will be covered. There is a crane in the first photograph, it is 120-feet long, the Seahawk building is planned to be 1 IS-feet tall. The new building will take up almost half of the hillside. A third photograph of the Boeing site shows an apartment building that is approximately 60-fect tall. They would not object to an approval of this increase in height provided it included the addition of some large evergreen trees that would reach approximately the roof elevation at maturity and planted judiciously close to the building. The trees would greatly reduce the facility's impact on those viewing the building from a distance. This small modification would greatly benefit the people of Mercer Island and generations to come. It seems reasonable that some large trees could be planted there. He is not asking for a total camouflage ofthc entire building. There should be some attention given to this matter. Esther Barsher, 6940 96'h Ave SE, Mercer Island, WA 98040 stated that large specimens could be used. Planting smaller trees further from the building will not have the same softening effect as if you planted larger trees now. Larry Warren, City Attorney stated that there is an underlying presumption that the Barshers have a right to a view, however, there is no such right that is recognized. Secondly their entire argument is based upon environmental impact of this pat1icular project, this is not a SEPA Appeal, in fact the original proposal reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee has the height of the building between 95-feet at the center of the field and 120-feet altogether, which is under the elevation that is now being approved by the minor modification. The actual building height will be approximately 113-feet rather than 115-fect. This issue must focus on Code or 9-200.i on minor modifications. A four-foot increase and 120-feet is not 10%. Take into fact that 360-feet was the width and the increase in the fa9ade area, it is much smaller in percentage basis so it is much less than 10%. The second factor, adding a significantly greater impact on the environment, this does not have a significantly greater impact on the environment. This project was already reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee, and their decision was not appealed. The third item of the criteria changes the boundaries of the original approved plan, that does not occur at all. Mr. Warren referred the Examiner to the Staff Report to the ERC, page 2 of 16, third paragraph from the bottom, third line from the bottom of that paragraph. Barsher Appeal of Seahawks B ·ng Height LUA-06-037, SA-H, SA-M, S1'-,, uCF June 11, 2007 Page 3 Roger Pearce, Foster Pepper, 11 l l Third Ave, Ste. 3400, Seattle, WA 98101 submitted a short hearing brief to the Examiner. The only issues before the Examiner are ones that require minor adjustments. The only change to the approved site plan is that the indoor practice facility is required to have a 95-foot height so that they can plan professional football inside. It required being 7-feet higher than it was described in the Examiner's original site plat approval. 1n the original application, the building was described as 120-feet high, and that was what the DNS was based on and the City found there was no environmental impact from a building of that height. Since that time, the building actually came down significantly in height. The Seahawks have no incentive to overbuild, all they need is a building that looks good and that has 95-feet clear height in the center of the field. At that time that the structure would be adequate and that the building could be I I I-feet and at that time they also moved the entire building back 62-feet to help out the view from the Misty Cove Apartments. They have had some unexpected seismic issues that must be dealt with so the roof structure had to be beefed up a little bit, they asked for 115-fcetjust to make sure they don't have to come back again in addition to this proceeding today, they now believe that the height of the building will actually be in the range of 112-113-fcet when they get to the final building approval. The main issue today is the incremental change in the height of the building, which is two to four feet. There is not a significantly greater impact at 115-feet from I I I-feet, in fact, from the Misty Cove building the increase in building mass is not going to be noticeable. They request that the Examiner uphold the City's Decision. Elaine Wine, Football NW, 505 Fifth Avenue S , Ste. 900, Seattle, WA 98104 stated that she is a licensed architect in the State of Washington and the project manager for Football NW design and construction of this facility. The Indoor Practice Facility (JPF) clear height has been specified to be 95-feet at the mid-point of the practice field. That is the optimal height where the kickers can actually punt the ball and not interfere with any of the roof structure. She was involved with all the land use permitting that occurred back in the fall of 2006. The Environmental Checklist lists the approximate overall height of the building at 120-feet from the lowest elevation. In Exhibit 8, page 12 of 16 it describes the height of the IPF building to range in height from 55-feet to 120-feet. The facility was originally designed using a single member structural steel roof rafter that would have minimized the height of the JPF, which was the goal at that time. They were required to add a substantial amount of bracing in the walls and roof, which required roof trusses. Those trusses are deeper than a single member rafter and that caused the height of the facility to increase approximately 18-inches. On Exhibit 10, page 8, paragraph 19 states that the office building would be located closest to the lake to take advantage oflake views, it would be "L" shaped and wrap around the southwest comer of the larger indoor practice field. The JPF situated on the north and east sides of the building would be up to 111-feet. And on the next page, paragraph 22 states that the office building would be 55-feet while the practice facility will be approximately 111-feet tall. VA102 was a view study showing what the impact of the adjusted height would be ifit reached a maximum of 115-feet. A second study showed the view from the lake shows the added impact with the additional four feet of height added to the building. At this time the expectation is that the building height would be 113-feet. Ba~shcr Appeal of Seahawks B ng II eight LUAJJ6-037, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF June l l, 2007 Page 4 There have been no site plan boundary changes, the footprint of the building has not been increased. The added volume to the !PF is approximately 4% and with the overall site the added impact was about 3% total volume. At l 13-feet, which it is believed the building will actually be, the increase is about 2% to the overall volume to the !PF and 1.5% increase to the entire project. At a distance of% of a mile the proposed increase would not be noticeable. The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing lo speak, and no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at 10:00 am. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: I. The appellants, Larry and Esther Barsher, hereinafter appellants, fikd an appeal of an administrative decision approving an increase in the height of a building allowed under a previously approved Site Plan. The underlying proposal is for the development of the Seattle Seahawks Headquarters and Practice Facility. The height adjustment addresses the height of the Indoor Practice Facility. 2. The appeal was filed in a timely manner May 8, 2007. 3. The appellants were parties to the original Site Plan public hearing. They were concerned about the height of the original facility al that time. 4. The original Site Plan decision was issued on December 7, 2006. In that decision Fmding 19 noted that the height of the Indoor Practice Facility would be np to 111 feet: "The height of the indoor practice field ... would be up to 111 feet." (Page 8, Seahawks' Headquarters and Training Facility, LUA-06-073). Similarly at Page 9: "The office building will be 55 feet tall while the practice facility will be approximately 111 feet tall." At Page 13 of the same report in Conclusion 8, the report states: "The building complex has been designed to terrace upward from the lake with the office building scaled to approximately 55 feet and the more easterly element, the indoor practice fields, at 111 feet." 5. The ERC, the body responsible for the original environn1cntal determination, noted in its staff report: "The height of the 80,000 gross square foot indoor practice field, situation on the north and east sides of the building, would be between 95 feet at the center of the field and 120 feet." Barsher Appeal of Seahawks B ·ng Height LUA-06-037, SA-H, SA-M, St,,, cCF June 11, 2007 Page 5 6. A representative of the applicant submitted a written request for an adjustment to the height of the building on April 9, 2007. The request stated: "I. Maximum Building Height -115'0" feet in lieu of l 10'6" feet as noted on figure I 0.6 (Sheet A40 l) of the Land Use, Shoreline & Master Plan Permit Application -Volume I. The requested adjustment is based on the refinements to the final structural design and accommodates a clear inside height dimension of 95 feet as noted in our application. The referenced height is measured to the highest point of the roof deck from the finished floor slab." 7. The Director, Development Services Division, issued a decision on the requested "Minor Adjustment to the Site Plan" on April 25, 2007. The Director approved the request. The Director noted: " ... the proposed modified height of 115 feet would result in an additional 4 feet of building height and approximately 350,064 square feet of area. The proposed increase in area would not result in more than a IO percent increase in area or scale of the development. Although the increased height could impact views from nearby properties, the modification would not have a substantial impact on the environment or facilities. The requested modification would not change the boundaries of the originally approved site plan." The Director's decision itself states: "Based on the analysis and recommendation of staff, I have determined the proposed revision is within the parameters defined by the Renton Municipal Code. Therefore, the proposed modification of the site plan is deemed to be 'minor' and therefore, is approved ... " 8. The appellants in their letter did indicate that they could accept the proposed height increase if the facade that faced their home and Mercer Island were screened with evergreen trees to soften the appearance of the facade. The appellants provided exhibits that provide a frame of reference for the final structure from their viewpoint (their home). These purport to show the mass of the building, how it will affect their view of the shoreline and background hillside. They use the relatively similar fa9ade width and height of the Boeing complex to provide a concrete example of the scale of the proposed complex from their distance and vantage point. There was concern by the applicant that landscaping might affect the view from the condominiums. 9. The provisions allowing "minor adjustments" to a site plan are contained in Section 4-9-2001. "MINOR ADJUSTMENTS TO AN APPROVED SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN: Minor modifications may be permitted by administrative determination. To be considered a minor modification, the amendment must not: ' Barsher Appeal of Seahawks Bi 1g Height LUAfl6-037, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF )une 11, 2007 Page 6 I. Involve more than a ten percent (10%) increase in area or scale of the development in the approved site development plan; or 2. Have a significantly greater impact on the environment and facilities than the approved plan; or 3. Change the boundaries of the originally approved plan. (Ord. 4802, I 0-25-1999; Amd. Ord. 4954, 2-11-2002; Ord. 5028, 11-24-2003)" I 0. Section 4-8-110.E. provides the authority of the Examiner on appeal: "APPEALS TO EXAMINER OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATIONS: (Amd. Ord. 4827, 1-24-2000) I. Applicab1lity and Authority: CONCLUSIONS: c. Authority: To that end, the Examiner sha11 have all of the powers of the office from whom the appeal is taken insofar as the decision on the particular issue is concerned.1 ' I. The appellant has the burden of demonstrating that the decision of the City Official was either in error, or was otherwise contrary to law or constituttonal provisions, or was arb,trary and capricious (Section 4- 8-11 O(E)(7)(b ). The appellants have demonstrated that the action of the City should be modified. 2. Arbitral)' and capricious action has been defined as willful and unreasoning action in disregard of the facts and circumstances. A decision, when exercised honestly and upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances, is not arbitrary or capricious (Northern Pacific Transport Co. v Washington Utilittcs and Transportation Commission, 69 Wn. 2d 472, 478 (1966). 3. An action is likewise clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing body, on the entire evidence, is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. (Ancheta v Daly, 77 Wn. 2d 255, 259 (1969). An appellant body should not necessarily substitute its judgment for the underlying agency with expet1ise in a matter unless appropriate. 4. In this case the original Site Plan was reviewed and approved by the Hearing Examiner. That was the original reviewing body or "the und~>rlying agency with expertise." The Director was then asked to approve a minor adjustment to that Hearing Examiner approved Site Plan. The Director's decision as to whether the adjustment was minor is correct and the appellants have not demonstrated that part of the decision should be reversed. The increase proposed by the applicant does not exceed ten percent in area or scale. The increase does not appear to have a greater impact on the environment and facilities than the approved plan and it does not change the boundaries, at least, the footprint of the originally approved plan although it does change the boundaries if one uses vertical extent as a delimiter in boundaries. 5. But the plans have been changed. The appellants produced evidence showing the scale of the building in reasonable juxtaposition to its locale and a frame of reference showing the similarly scaled Boeing complex. While the building might have nice design elements, it is still large. The applicant has Barsher Appeal of Seahawks B ·ng Height LUA-06-037, SA-H, SA-M, Slv,, iCF June 11,2007 Page 7 demonstrated a willingness to provide a "green screen" to soften the view from the northerly condominium and a softened appearance from Lake Washington of this now even taller building is reasonable. Code states: "Minor modifications may be pennitted by administrative determination." Code does not require that minor modifications be approved. Minor modifications MAY be permitted by administrative determination. The term "may" denotes discretionary authority. That does not mean it must be approved. So while the Director is correct about this being a minor modification, that does not mean it should necessarily be granted or that it should not be subject to a reasonable condition or conditions. 6. The appellants have demonstrated the building's fa9ade will increase in height and while it may not be a monumental change, the addition of landscaping cannot help but soften that view. Significant impact is not necessarily required to condition a project so that it blends better with its environment and provides a reasonable "streetscape" or in this case "waterscape." The originally proposed shoreward landscaping will not help soften the fa9ade as well as plantings closer to the favade. While these plantings could affect the view from the adjacent condominium complex, trees could also naturally spring up along the boundaries of the site and alter that view and there would be no requirement lo remove them. 7. Therefore, to the extent that the Director did not consider requiring landscaping lo soften the impact of the favade change, the Director's decision is modified. The applicant shall be required to plant evergreen trees along the lakeshore facade of the Indoor Practice Field. The plantings should reflect a more natural arrangement and not necessarily be the same species or evenly spaced along the favade. Nor at maturity should the all trees necessarily reach the height of the facility. This office will defer to the Development Services Division to deterrnine the spacing and species but the applicant shall plant between 12 and 24 trees of a reasonable specimen size at maturity. DECISION: The decision of the Director is modified and an additional condition shall be required as follows: The applicant shall be required to plant evergreen trees along the lakeshore facade of the Indoor Practice Field. The plantings should reflect a more natural arrangement and not necessarily be the same species or evenly spaced along the fa9ade. Nor at maturity should the all trees necessarily reach the height of the facility. This office will defer to the Development Services Division to determine the spacing and species but the applicant shall plant between 12 and 24 trees of a reasonable specimen size at maturity. ORDERED THIS l l th day of June 2007. HEARING EXAMINER 13arsher' Appeal of Seahawks B ng Height LUA-06-037, SA-II, SA-M, Slv_, ~CF June ti, 2007 •Page 8 TRANSMITTED THIS 11 "' day of June 2007 to the panies of record: Larry Warr en City Attorney City of Renton Roger Pearce Foster Pepper 11 l l Third Ave, Ste. 3400 Seat1lc, WA 98101 Lance Lopes VP Seahawks 800 Occidental Ave S Seattle, WA 98034 Eiken Halverson 5021 Ripley Lane N, /1302 Renton, WA 98056 Thelma Sutherland 1205 N 29'" Street Renton. WA 98056 Steve Jansen 5021 Ripley Lane N, #302 Renton, WA 98056 Ekanor .rvt. Kennamer, President Misty Cove Condo Assoc. 5021 Ripley Lane N , #309 Renton, WA 98056 Barbara Paxhia 5021 Ripley Lane N., #104 Renton, WA 98056 Shelly Munkberg SECO Development 1083 Lk. Washington Blvd N, Ste. 50 Renton, WA 98056 Les & Denise Klaff 6915 96'" Ave SE Mercer Island, WA 98040 Steve & Deanna Marshall 6915 96'" Ave SE Mercer Island, WA 98040 Elizabeth Higgins Development Services City of Renton Elaine Wme Football NW 505 Fifth Avenue S., Ste. 900 Seattle. WA 98104 Thomas Peterson Socius Law Group PLLC 601 Union Street, Ste 4950 Seattle, WA 98101 Joe Burcar 3190 160"' Ave SE Bellevue, WA 98008 Bnan T. Sabey 5021 Ripley Lane N ., #304 Renton, WA 98056 Elya G !3aches 1414 N 34'" Street Renton, WA 98056 Aaron Bclcnky, President Williamsburg Condo HOA 1800 NE 40'" Street, Ste. ll-4 Renton, WA 98056 Dan & Jody Samson 6952 96"' Ave SE Mercer Island, WA 98040 Richard Wagner Baylis Architects I 080 l Main Street, Ste. 110 Bellevue, WA 98004 Carl Lindstrom 6910 96"' Ave SE Mercer Island, WA 98040 Hal & Gerry Fardal 6915 96"' Ave SE Mercer Island, WA 98040 Larry & Esther Barsher 6940 96th Ave SE Mercer Island, WA 98040 Pmi Quendall Company 505 Fifth Avenue S., Ste. 900 Seattle, WA 98104 Carl Hadley Cedar Rock Consultants 19609 244 "' A venue Woodinville, WA 98077 Michael Cero 8300 Avalon Drive Mercer Island. WA 98040 Jared Salstrom 5021 Ripley Lane N., 11213 Renton, WA 98056 Steve Gregerson 5021 Ripley Lane N., #302 Renton, WA 98056 Tom Ehrl1chinan Socius Law Group 601 Union Street, Ste. 4950 Seattle. WA 98 l O 1 Dwight & Christine Schaeffer 695 8 96"' Ave SE Mercer Island, WA 98040 Jeffrey Taraday Foster Pepper 11 I I Third Ave, 34"' Floor Seattle, WA 98101 Howard & Sue Robbov 6944 96'1, Ave SE . Mercer Island, WA 98040 Dr. and Mrs. Robert Dietz 7906 E Mercer Way Mercer Island, WA 98040 Barsher Appeal of Seahawks I LUA-06-037, SA-H, SA-M, S June 11, 2007 Page 9 · ing Height 'CF TRANSMITTED THIS 11 "' day of June 2007 to the following: Mayor Kathy Keolker Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator Alex Pietsch, Economic Development Jellllifer Henning, Development Services Stacy Tucker, Development Services King County Journal Lan-y Rude, Fire Marshal Lan-y Meckling, Building Official Planning Commission Transportation Division Utilities Division Neil Watts, Development Services Janet Conklin, Development Services Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section I OOGof the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., June 25 1 2007. 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 discovei-y of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of $75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Depa11ment, first floor of City Hall. An appeal must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., June 25, 2007. • 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. Tiiis 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 conununication 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. i l t""" 7 ,j) ~ / '' ,.,...__,;;; ,~.,. I l):ennydale c t--:--1 _;,, I• :' 01\.1- 1 \ I r \ i\ ' 11 I a Tl \ I. i\ I I , r 1 \ I I , > I 129.0' - 9 April 2007 Mr. Neil R. Watts Director: Development Services Division City of Renton Renton City Hall -6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 -------' ( CFIAWFOFID ', Regarding SEATTLE SEAHAWKS HEADQUARTERS & PRACTICE FACILITY Renton, WA Project No. KC 005-03 / File No.lPF1 Subject: MINOR ADJUSTMENT TO SITE PLAN REQUEST Dear Neil: We have been informed by Bayley Construction that the engineer of record for the Indoor Practice Facility (IPF), Mr. H. David Jeter PE SE of HCI Steel Building System Inc. has requested a minor adjustment to the approved Site Plan consisting of: 1. Maximum Building Height-115'-0" feet in lieu of 110'-6" feet as noted on Figure 10.6 (Sheet A401) of the Land Use, Shoreline & Master Plan Permit Application -Volume 1. The requested adjustment is based on refinements to the final structural design and accommodates a clear inside height dimension of 95 feet as noted in our application. The referenced height is measured to the highest point of the roof deck from the finished floor slab. Crawford Architects and the applicants -Port Quendall Company and Football Northwest LLC concur with this request. Please contact me at this office if you have any questions or require further information. Sincerely, CRAWFORD ARCHITECTS LLC David M. Murphy Partner Page 1 9 April 2007 Crawford Architects 1901 Main Street -Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64108 816 421 2640 telephone 816 421 2650 facsimile david.murphy@crawford-usa.com , Enclosure: Copies: None Jim Levin -Bayley Construction (for distribution) Lance Lopes -Seattle Seahawks Ray Colliver -Vulcan Tom Chiado -Vulcan Elaine Wine -Vulcan Roger Pearce -Foster Pepper Brian Dickson -MKA Structural Filer Page 2 9 April 2007 Crawford Architects 1901 Main Street -Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64108 816 421 2640 telephone 816 421 2650 facsimile david.murphy@crawford-usa.com i I I ,, ' '" j ' ' ~ 1 ' 1 ' ,:_; 1 ' i ,J i ' ~1 :!~ ~ ' '" --1 i J ' ! --~ •. :i .• ··,.i:i;···' .·. i' -,-., ',.;, j ' .. ~i~ ilhi l!•li hJj~ :-NO!~NIHSVM 'N01N3l:I ::n1 !S3MHHJON 11V0100:I AJ!i!:>B.:J 6U!U!BJ1 '!I SJaj.JenbpeaH s~Me4eas ! ----- ---- ~--,----,---e------,,.----,,--,---~--,,----,---c----,-~., j I l P ., ------· ., =-t---== ___ cc ~-- I ~----,·--·J · r· 1 I l , I N 0 -~ ~ -0 w I I ,--1 ~ I : :" I ~ ~ i m I ~ i ' 1. I " i-~ l !~ ! ' ' ! ' 1 ' I .. . .. ,.-:· _____ ---. ·~ .. ~,-· Seahawks Headquarters & Training Facility rOOTBA.LL NORTHWEST LLC R['ffON, WASHINGTON ' . , ; ;o m z 0 ~ m ;o m m 0 m en r m -I 'j;; .... m 0 z r (fl m 0 ~ C ;o ;o m -I z .... -0 0 m (fl z Gi z ... / ' ' :i =~ ., ., z 0 :::0 -I ::c m r m ~ -I -0 z ) I · .. , .. · .. :·,···1 ... · ... ·.··•· .... ·.·· .. . _.,; ,\-,~>· :\:ii::,, i'.:~~ ./ .. 111· .··•·• : .. '! c; '.·.11• .. : . .-., , , , t [ "-~- ' 1 z . I I z ' 0 -I- <( > w ..J w I- Cl) <( w 11· • I z 0 -I- <( > w ..J w :::c I-::, 0 en z (') Cf) w 0 f-z w er: er: ::, u Cf) z 0 ~ w _J w 0 w er: w 0 z w er: ' ' North and South Baxter :e Development Plan New Seattle Seahawks Headquarters & Training Facility Renton, WA DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST City of Renton Development Services Division 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055 Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax: 425-430-7231 A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: North and South Baxter Site Development Plan 2. Name of applicant: Port Ouendall Company and Football Northwest LLC 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Mr. Ray Colliver Senior Director 505 Fifth Avenue South Suite 900 Seattle, WA 98104 206 342 2000 telephone 206 342 3554 facsimile rayc@vulcan.com email 4. Date checklist prepared: 24 May2006 Revised 6 September 2006 4. Agency requesting checklist: City of Renton, Washington 6. Proposed timing or schedule {including phasing, if applicable): a. Design and Documentation b. Final Remediation and Cap on Overall Site* c. Final Remediation and Cap under building footprint* d. Building Construction above the Cap March 2006 to May 2007 November 2006 until May 2007 December 2006 until June 2007 January 2007 until July 2008 Environmental Checklist 24 May2006 Revised 6 September 2006 Page 1 H North and South Baxte1 te Development Plan New Seattle Seahawks Headquarters & Training Facility Renton, WA 'Pursuant to Department of Ecology Approval as lead agency (Items band c). The project is required to open in June of 2008. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. No plans for future additions, expansion or further activity are anticipated with the proposal. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. The following information has been prepared: Past Studies In the past, several investigations of potential contamination at the Baxter Property have been performed, generating a large volume of chemical data and visual observations of soil quality. Comprehensive summaries of project area historical information, regulatory records and environmental data were provided in the Draft Remedial Investigation Report (Woodward Clyde, 1990). Those data were incorporated with data collected by ThermoRetec during the previous due diligence process and during 1998 and 2000 to develop an interpretation of site conditions currently present. These data were presented in the South Property Feasibility Study ([FS]; ThermoRetec, 2000) and the North Property Feasibility Study and Cleanup Action Plan ([FS/CAP]; ThermoRetec, 2000). SEPA was completed in 2000 for the site representing compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA"') environmental review requirements for the proposed remedial actions to be performed as stated in the Consent Decree. Ecology has been established as the agency lead pursuant to SEPA for all cleanup actions under the consent decree. Remedial actions occurred in 2002 and 2004 at the South Baxter property. Baxter Cove Wetland Monitoring Reports have been prepared in 2005 and 2006. In 1989, the City of Renton began work on development of a Comprehensive Plan affecting the Property and surrounding properties. Between 1990 and 1993, extensive public hearings and meetings were held, and notification was provided to impacted property owners and the general public concerning Comprehensive Plan land use alternatives and proposed Renton Zoning Code amendments. In addition, in 1996 and 1997, an Environmental Impact Statement ("EIS") scoping process was conducted in association with proposed development of the Facility. This EIS scoping process involved significant public participation, including mailings, formal comment, and public meetings. The proposed development was never pursued. In preparing this submittal, the following reports were referenced: Environmental Checklist 24 May 2006 Revised 6 September 2006 Page 2 / ) 9. ' North and South Baxte ite Development Plan New Seattle Seahawks Headquarters & Training'Facility Renton, WA OTHER REFERENCES -Past Studies City of Renton. Gypsy Sub Basin Analysis Technical Memorandum No. 2. April 1995 City of Renton. Gypsy Sub Basin Drainage Improvements Design Memorandum. September 1997 City of Renton. Zoning Map, updated 1 O January 2006 Washington Department of Transportation, 1-405 Renton to Bellevue Project Environmental Assessment. March 2006 Washington State Department of Ecology, Consent Decree #00-2-11778-?KNT and #00-2- 11779-SKNT. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. Remediation and mitigation has been substantially completed on the South Baxter property as documented in the Completion Report (2005) and approved by the Department of Ecology by the April 10, 2006 Partial Certificate of Completion. Capping of residual soil impacts to prevent direct contact to humans, institutional controls to insure cap integrity and future groundwater monitoring remain to be completed pursuant to the Consent Decrees and Cleanup Action Plans which were previously subject to a SEPA review and a Mitigated Determination of Significance issued by the Department of Ecology in 2000. 10. List any governmental approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. a. City of Renton Master Plan approval b. City of Renton Shoreline Substantial Development Permit c. City of Renton Critical Areas Review d. City of Renton SEPA Review Remaining cleanup (capping and institutional controls) will be performed under Consent Decrees between the Department of Ecology and Port Quendall Company as part of initial work on the properties. As a result, certain state and local permits are preempted pursuant to the Model Toxics Control Act, although substantive requirements of those statutes and regulations will be satisfied by the cleanup approval. 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. Proposed Uses Proposed uses include administrative offices for professional football franchise and accessory Environmental Checklist 24 May 2006 Revised 6 September 2006 Page 3 North and South Baxte1 ite Development Plan New Seattle Seahawks Headquarters & Training Facility Renton, WA training and practice facilities. Potential tenant space may include accessory retail and office uses. Size of the Site The Project site is approximately 19.6 acres {853,776 square feet) in size. Facility Features • A permanent indoor practice field structure • Approximately 215,000 gross square feet of enclosed space will be constructed including the indoor practice field • Approximately 50,000 gross square feet of training facilities will be provided. • Approximately 15,000 gross square feet of player meeting space will be provided. • Approximately 48,000 gross square feet of administrative offices will be provided. • Approximately 15,000 gross square feet of technical and support areas will be provided. • Approximately 6,000 gross square feet of freestanding maintenance/ storage building. Training Camp The new facility will accommodate annual training camp on site. Training camp parking demand in excess of normal operations will be accommodated off-site. The Transportation Impact Analysis from TRANSPO Group, Inc., discusses parking and transportation issues in greater detail. Please refer to Section 12. On Site Parking 275 to 315 Cars (final count to be verified) Setbacks & Wetlands A fifty foot setback from Lake Washington for structures will be provided consistent with Renton development regulations and the Renton Shoreline Master Program. Existing wetlands that are constructed on South Baxter with 50 foot butter pursuant to Consent Decree, CAP and mitigation analysis in 2000 will be maintained. Environmental Checklist 24 May 2006 Revised 6 September 2006 Page 4 r- • \ I • ' ' North and South Baxte1 ·te Development Plan New Seattle Seahawks Headquarters & Training·Facility Renton, WA 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. Location As indicated by the attached site plans, the Baxter properties are located at 5015 Lake Washington Boulevard North, in the northeastern portion of Renton, Washington. They are located in the Southwest % of Section 29, Township 24 North, Range 5 East, King County. The Baxter site occupies approximately 19.6 acres adjacent to Lake Washington, three miles south of the junction of Interstate Highways 405 and 90, and has approximately 1,887 feet of shoreline. The legal descriptions of the North and South properties are provided below. Access Interstate 405 provides regional access to the site. Other vehicular access is also provided by Lincoln Avenue from the east, Ripley Avenue from the north and Lake Washington Avenue SE from the northeast via 44th Street interchange. Legal Description BAXTER SOUTH PROPERTY That portion of the "South Parcel," as shown on Survey recorded under King County Recording No. 20000209900005, Records of King County, Washington, lying Southerly of the following described line: Beginning at the most Northerly corner of said "North Parcel"; Thence S 45 26'31" W along the Northwesterly line thereof a distance of 912.56 feet to the True Point of Beginning of the herein described line; Thence S 58 13'14" Ea distance of 918.82 feet to a point on the Southeasterly line of said "North Parcel," distant thereon 267.64 feet Northerly of the angle point in said Southeasterly line and the terminus of the said line. BAXTER NORTH PROPERTY That portion of the "North Parcel", as shown on Survey recorded under King County Recording No. 20000209900005, Records of King County, Washington, lying Northerly of the following described line: Beginning at the most Northerly corner of said "North Parcel"; Thence S 45 26'31" W along the Northwesterly line thereof a distance of 912.56 feet to the True Point of Beginning of the herein described line; Thence S 58 13'14" Ea distance of 918.82 feet to a point on the Southeasterly line of said "North Parcel", distant thereon 267.64 feet Northerly of the angle point in said Southeasterly line and the terminus of the said line. Please refer to Section 1 for detailed Title Report. Environmental Checklist 24 May 2006 Revised 6 September 2006 Page5 ) North and South Baxter te Development Plan New Seattle Seahawks Headquarters & Training Facility Renton, WA Location and Vicinity Map Please refer to the attached location and vicinity map for additional detail. Topographic Map Please refer to the attached topographic map in Section 8 (Figure 8.1 and Figure 8.2) for additional detail regarding existing conditions. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. EARTH a. General description of the site (circle one); flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, or other. The site is located on the shore of Lake Washington and is generally flat. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope?) The slope of the site is generally 1 % to 2% with a maximum slope of approximately 5%. c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. The Baxter Property (both North and South) is located on the eastern shore of Lake Washington on the former delta of May Creek, which is an under fit stream remaining within the glacial Kennydale Channel. The subsurface geology of the site is a combination of fluvial deltaic, lacustrine near shore and constructed fill deposits overlying Pleistocene glacial sediments and Eocene volcanic and sedimentary bedrock. The shallow geology at the project area has been heavily influenced by recent human activity, beginning with construction of the Lake Washington Ship Canal in 1916. This lowered the level of Lake Washington approximately 8 feet, and exposed a significant area of the May and Gypsy Creek Sub Basin Deltas which had formerly been submerged. Subsequent filling of low-lying areas was performed in 1955 to extend the shoreline and raise the grade for construction of industrial facilities at the Baxter North and South Properties. The source of the fill material is not well documented. The combination of naturally complex deltaic deposits with numerous dredging and backfilling episodes has resulted in a highly heterogeneous subsurface mixture of clay, silt, peat, sand, gravel and cobbles, as well as discarded debris and abandoned subsurface structures from former site activities. Geology and subsurface conditions for the project area were determined based on the geologic field reconnaissance, current and previous borings and published Environmental Checklist 24 May 2006 Revised 6 September 2006 Page 6 / ) North and South Baxter te Development Plan New Seattle Seahawks Headquarters & Training 'Facility Renton, WA geologic data. Based on field explorations, the depth to bedrock is varied with depths from 17.5 feet to depths greater than 50 feet. In general, the subsurface soils under the building footprint and fields consist of either fill material, soft estuarine deposits, loose alluvial soils and underlying very dense bedrock, or stiff to very stiff silt and clay and medium dense sand overlying bedrock. The fill is generally 2 to 3 feet thick, while the soft estuarine and loose alluvial soils extend to depths ranging from 17 to 38 feet below the existing ground surface under most of the building footprint. The alluvial and estuarine deposits contain layers of loose sand that are susceptible to liquefaction, as well as layers of highly compressible peat. The bedrock consists of highly weathered Andesite and is a competent bearing material for building foundations. The professional geotechnical report submitted in conjunction with this Environmental Checklist provides additional detail, including detail regarding constructability concerns for larger structures on the south portion of the site. Please refer to Volume 2, Appendix 2 of this application for additional information. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. Recent subsurface exploration in 2006 included 6 borings and 29 backhoe test excavations. Liquefaction and settlement were identified as potential concerns. The upper 50 to 60 feet of soil within the May Creek delta are loose and potentially susceptible to liquefaction during a strong earthquake. In addition, consolidation of near-surface peats and clays from placement of the environmental cap fill upon this material may result in minor surface settlement. Please refer to Volume 2, Appendix 2 of this application for additional information. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Filling and grading will proceed pursuant to the Consent Decrees and Cleanup Action Plans, and subject to review and approval by the Department of Ecology. Some cleanup work and associated grading have been performed and documented in the Completion Report (2005) and approved by the Department of Ecology by the April 10, 2006 Partial Certificate of Completion. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Final capping of site will be conducted to complete remediation and cleanup activities in accord,ance with the Consent Decree. As a result erosion could occur but is not likely due to the shallow grade of the site. Environmental Checklist 24 May 2006 Revised 6 September 2006 Page 7 w J / North and South Baxte1 _ ite Development Plan New Seattle Seahawks Headquarters & Training Facility Renton, WA Please refer to Sections 5 and 6 for additional detail regarding TESC Plan. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Approximately 40% of the site will be covered by impervious materials including buildings, plazas, surface parking and driveways. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Erosion will be controlled by maintaining a shallow grade to the site. Storm water will be managed consistent with best management practices to prevent any adverse effects from erosion. 2. AIR a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Dust may be generated during construction activities. On-site construction equipment and hauling vehicles will generate emissions from internal combustion engines. b. Are there any off-site sources of emission or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. No, there are no off-site sources of emission or odor that will affect the new facility. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Dust will be suppressed by spraying water, as necessary, during construction. Stockpiles will be covered to the extent practicable to further minimize dust during construction. 3. WATER a. Surface Water: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. The project area includes approximately 1,887 feet of Lake Washington shoreline. 250 feet of shoreline is adjacent to the Baxter Cove inlet and wetland Environmental Checklist 24 May 2006 Revised 6 September 2006 Page 8 North and South Baxte1 ·te Development Plan New Seattle Seahawks Headquarters & Training·Facility Renton, WA which is not being altered. The current shoreline characteristics range from gently sloping vegetated shorelines to vertical exposed dirt banks, with a minor portion of bulkhead. As part of cleanup activities, a 0.46-acre wetland and a 50- foot vegetated buffer was restored along the South Baxter shoreline. In addition, the Gypsy Sub Basin drainage is located on the North Property; this system conveys storm water from 1-405 and the interchange to Lake Washington. A minor portion of this drainage is exposed while most is piped. The Ordinary High Water (OHW) is approximately 18.8 feet (NAVD88) or 15.2 feet (NGVD29). 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Yes. The following work efforts are anticipated: a. Soil cover placement will occur within 200 feet of the shoreline on the North and South Properties consistent with the Department of Ecology Consent Decree requirements. b. Construction of Headquarters Facility c. Construction of natural grass Practice Fields d. Shoreline improvements within 50 foot setback per statute including riparian plant zone. e. Construction of retaining walls and driveways. I. Capping the site pursuant to Ecology regulations will require covering the short stretch of Gypsy Sub Basin that is not piped. Mitigation for any lost functions will be provided pursuant to Ecology capping approval. 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. No fill or dredge will be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands. 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 flood plain? If so, note location on the site plan. No 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. There will be no discharge of waste material into surface waters. Environmental Checklist 24 May 2006 Revised 6 September 2006 Page 9 / \ """'j b. Ground Water: North and South Baxter te Development Plan New Seattle Seahawks Headquarters & Training Facility Renton, WA 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 (tor example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals ... ; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. There will be no discharge of waste material into the ground from septic tanks or other sources. c. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters, If so, describe? Storm water is the only source of runoff at the site. Stormwater will be collected and managed in accordance with applicable regulations and best management practices. Some storm water will infiltrate or evaporate but most will drain to Lake Washington after proper treatment. 2) Could waste material enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. No. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: Storm water runoff from impervious surfaces subject to vehicular use will be treated prior to release. Best construction management practices will be in-place to prevent erosion and sedimentation impacts to surface water. Previous cleanup has improved ground water quality at the site. Final storm water controls will be designed to applicable Ecology and/or City of Renton storm water management requirements. 4. PLANTS. a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: 1) _x_ deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other Environmental Checklist 24 May 2006 Revised 6 September 2006 Page 10 y North and South Baxter te Development Pl~n New Seattle Seahawks Headquarters & Training -Facility Renton, WA a. Including: Red alder saplings, sapling and seedling sized black cottonwood, red-osier dogwood, sitka willow, Pacific Madrone, Pacific willow 2) _X_ evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine other a. Including in restored wetland and buffer area: Douglas fir, Sitka spruce, western red cedar 3) _X_shrubs a. Himalayan blackberry, Scotch broom, willow b. Restored wetland and buffer area: willows, snowberry, nootka rose, black twinberry, salmon berry, vine maple 4) X grass a. Non-native grasses and soft rush , bentgrass, red fescue, rye grass, white clover 5) __ pasture 6) __ crop or grain 7) _X_wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush. skunk cabbage, other: soft rush. yellowflag iris, reed canary grass, small fruited bulrush. slough sedge 8) __ water plants: water lily, eel grass, milfoil, other 9) __ other types of vegetation Please refer to the Stream and Lake Study in Section 7 for additional habitat data. b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? A great deal of pre-existing vegetation was removed during cleanup activities as prescribed in the 2000 SEP A. The North and South Properties are largely devoid of vegetation -approximately 1 0% of the property contains trees/brush. Almost all vegetation on the South Property will be removed to facilitate final cleanup and capping activities; however, no native vegetation in the restored wetland will be removed. Most vegetation, including grasses, invasive shrubs (Himalayan blackberry and Scotch broom), and trees (sapling red alder, willow, and cottonwood) on the North Property will be removed prior to placement of the soil cover. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. To the best of our knowledge, there are no threatened or endangered plant species known to be on or near the site. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Previous mitigation for wetland removal included creation of 0.46-acres of enhanced, forested wetland. Previous planting in this wetland and the any new planting in the associated 50-foot buffer will be maintained with native vegetation as described in the Mitigation Analysis Memorandum. If removed due to construction, existing vegetation along the shoreline, whether invasive or native species, will be replaced per the City of Renton Critical Areas Ordinance and Environmental Checklist 24 May 2006 Revised 6 September 2006 Page 11 5. North and South Baxter te Development Plan ,New Seattle Seahawks Headquarters & Training Facility Renton, WA associated Shoreline Master Program. Mature native trees immediately adjacent to the shoreline (outside of the limit of grading) will be preserved where possible. All invasive shrubs along the shoreline will be removed and replaced with native shrub species as indicated in the current drawings. The proposed vegetation for this area will consist of native riparian species found in the King County Native Plant Guide and the King County, Washington -Surface Water Design Manual. Existing concrete and pavement debris that currently exists along the water's edge will be removed and replaced with large woody debris such as root wads and large trunk sections. Preserving mature trees, removing invasive species, planting native species, removing shoreline debris, and providing large woody debris are all actions that will provide enhanced functional habitat compared to pre- development conditions along the shoreline. ANIMALS a. Circle or underline any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: 1) Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other a. Red-winged blackbird, snipe, mallards, Canada geese, osprey 2) Mammals:~. bear, elk, beaver, other 3) Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other a. Lake Washington contains Chinook, Coho, and sockeye salmon, steelhead, cutthroat trout, bull trout, kokanee salmon, speckled dace, three-spine stickleback, northern squawfish, yellow perch, black crappie, largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, mountain whitefish, large scale sucker, long/in smelt, prickly sculpin -See Mitigation Analysis Memorandum (AES, 2000). b. Crayfish, freshwater shrimp, freshwater clams -See Mitigation Analysis Memorandum (AES, 2000). c. ALSO: Turtles (painted and slider) Please refer to the Stream and Lake Study in Section 7 for additional habitat data. b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Chinook salmon, bull trout, bald eagle c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain Adult Chinook Salmon in Lake Washington migrate past the site on their way to the Cedar River each summer. Juvenile Chinook pass the site on their way back to Puget Sound, and may spend some time rearing in the site vicinity. Sockeye juveniles rear in Lake Washington and may utilize the shoreline and offshore habitat along the project for rearing. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: None Environmental Checklist 24 May 2006 Revised 6 September 2006 Page 12 y North and South Baxter te Development Plan New Seattle Seahawks Headquarters & Training'Facility Renton, WA 6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Electricity will likely be used for cooling, Natural gas will be used for cooking and potentially heating. During final capping and construction, the only energy to be used is diesel to operate construction equipment No manufacturing will be conducted on site. No. The project will not affect potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: 7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEAL TH 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. The South Baxter remediation will restore a contaminated, abandoned industrial/manufacturing site to allow project redevelopment. Adherence to institutional controls will minimize the potential for releases during development construction and thereafter. Where warranted, a site-specific health and safety plan will be prepared and used to limit worker exposure to hazards on site. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. The site-specific health and safety plan will include emergency contacts and procedures. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: Adherence to institutional controls will minimize the potential for releases during development construction and thereafter. Where warranted, a site-specific health and safety plan will be prepared and used to limit worker exposure to hazards on site. Environmental Checklist 24 May 2006 Revised 6 September 2006 Page 13 ,----, ) ,,-\ / North and South Baxte ite Development Plan New Seattle Seahawks Headquarters & Training Facility Renton, WA b, Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? There are no noises in the area that occur on a regular basis that will adversely impact the project. Interstate 405 is located near the site, although traffic noise is not expected to adversely affect the project. There is periodic railroad traffic on the adjacent rail line. 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)? During construction, there will be noise from construction equipment that will have minimal impact to adjacent uses. Impact-type noises will be limited and will occur during restricted hours to minimize any potential adverse impacts to adjacent uses. Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. These noises will occur during daylight hours and will vary seasonally. Once the building is enclosed, these noises will be contained within the enclosed building. Construction is anticipated to take approximately 18 months with approximately 6 months of exterior noise possible. Hours of construction operation will likely be 7:00 AM-5:00 PM, 5 days a week. Based on project needs, weekend work may be required to keep the project on schedule to meet occupancy dates. If this measure is necessary, adjoining property owners will be notified in advance. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Any adverse noise impacts will be minimal and will likely be lower in frequency to the adjacent Interstate 405 and adjacent railroad. Exterior construction will be limited to daylight hours as permitted by the City of Renton. Contact with adjacent neighbors who may be adversely impacted will be made and information provided when loud noises, if any, will occur. The applicant is evaluating a request for restrictions on horn operation by the railroad at adjacent crossings. 8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Current Use of the North Baxter Site: Vacant Current Use of the South Baxter Site: Vacant Environmental Checklist 24 May 2006 Revised 6 September 2006 Page 14 A ... / North and South Baxte ite Developme'nt Plan New Seattle Seahawks Headquarters & Training Facility Renton, WA At the Baxter Property, wood treating operations ceased in 1981. Adjacent properties include: • Quendall Terminals, a former refining facility that is currently used for log sorting and storage, is located to the south; • Barbee Mills, a former lumber mill, is located south of Quendall Terminals; • Pan Abode, a cedar homes manufacturing facility, is located to the southeast; • Lake Washington Boulevard and 1-405 are located to the east; • Lake Washington is located to the west; • Condominiums and residences are located to the north. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No, the site has not been used for agriculture in the recent past. c. Describe any structures on the site. Asphalt pad, a small one-story office building, and a small dock and boathouse are located on the North Property. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? The small one-story office building will be demolished. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? Commercial/Office/Residential (COR-2) f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Commercial/Ottice/Residential g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Urban 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? Daily on-site personnel -approximately 200 people on a typical work day. Environmental Checklist 24 May 2006 Revised 6 September 2006 Page 15 North and South Baxter te Development Plan New Seattle Seahawks Headquarters & Training Facility Renton, WA j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: Not Applicable I. Proposed measures to ensure that the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: Adjacent Use to the North: Landscape buffers and potential fencing will be provided to buffer the project from adjacent residential uses Adjacent Use to the South: Landscape buffers and fencing will be provided to provide necessary visual separation between the project and adjacent 9. HOUSING logging operation and storage and remediation activity. a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. No housing will be provided. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. No housing will be eliminated. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: Not Applicable. 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. The bulk of the building is approximately 52 to 55 feet in height. The indoor practice facility is approximately 120 feet in height from its lowest elevation. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? Views from the lake will be altered because the site is currently vacant. Views to the lake from adjacent uses located to the north and south should not be adversely affected. Views to the lake from structures located to the east, across Interstate 405 may be altered above existing tree lines. In this instance, approximately 30 to 40 feet of view above existing trees could be obstructed by the highest building masses. Visual simulations showing the view impact on nearby residential properties are being provided to the City of Renton in conjunction with the submittal of this Environmental Checklist. Environmental Checklist 24 May 2006 Revised 6 September 2006 Page 16 North and South Baxter ·te Development Plan New Seattle Seahawks Headquarters & Training -Facility Renton, W,A The design of the facility has maintained view corridors to Lake Washington from adjacent properties. The bulk of the building on site has been sited furthest from the shoreline to mitigate visual impacts to the condos located to the north. The majority of the site has no structures above grade, thus preserving views to the lake. As detailed design proceeds, these view corridors will be developed further. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Traditional architectural devices to reduce the apparent scale and mass of the project are being explored including: 1. horizontal expression lines at changes of materials and fenestration 2. roof treatments 3. fenestration and glazing systems 4. Setbacks of building mass from the shoreline 5. Maintaining view corridors to Lake Washington. At the lakefront, the office components are placed in front of high mass elements associated with indoor· practice facility in order to minimize view impacts from neighboring properties. This approach occurs at the south fac;:ade as well. To the north, landscaping will be incorporated at the building perimeter as well as the property line to buffer the facility from the adjacent residential uses. The majority of the site will have little or no structure above grade, which will effectively preserve a view corridor to Lake Washington over the majority of the site. The building has been set back from the north property line, and the higher element of the building has been located on the furthest landward part of the building, in order to mitigate view impacts from the residential use to the north. Significant view impacts are not anticipated from that site. The building has been sited to take advantage of the most stable soils and to minimize deep foundations. The south portion of the site is the area containing the soils of most environmental concern, and the applicant does not wish to disturb the Ecology-approved cap with foundation elements on that portion of the site. And functionally, the south portion of the site is further from the site entries and other structures, so it is more suitable for the training field elements of the proposed facility. 11. LIGHT AND GLARE a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? No permanent field lighting will be provided. Thus, no glare or light is anticipated that will adversely impact adjacent land uses, or land uses located in adjacent municipalities to the east or west with views of the properties from upland locations or across portions of Lake Washington. Environmental Checklist 24 May 2006 Revised 6 September 2006 Page 17 H North and South Baxte1 ite Development Plan New Seattle Seahawks Headquarters & Training Facility Renton, WA b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No. It is not anticipated that any light or glare will pose a safety hazard. c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? There are no off-site sources of light or glare that we are currently aware of that will impact the project. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Not Applicable 12. RECREATION a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Public access to the shoreline will be provided as indicated by the Conceptual Site Plan. Access is proposed along the north property line with connections to the lakefront. The proposed access will include seating areas, a landscaped walkway and access to the lake for active and passive recreational use. Due to the security requirements associated with the daily operation of the Practice Facility, public access to the overall site is limited to the designated public access areas. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: Not Applicable 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. No b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. A Cultural Resource Assessment (Larson, 1997) was performed for the Baxter Properties Environmental Checklist 24 May 2006 Revised 6 September 2006 Page 18 ( " \ ~ North and South Baxte ite Development Plan New Seattle Seahawks Headquarters & Training Facility Renton, WA and properties south of Baxter in 1997" This assessment did not identify any cultural resources eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places were identified in the area" Literature review suggested that a Duwamish site may have been present at the historic mouth of May Creek, assumed to have been located on a nearby property south of the Baxter Properties. A copy of the Larson report is being submitted with this Environmental Checklist. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: Monitoring for archeological materials will be included in development activities involving excavation in portions of the site designated "High Probability Areas" in the Cultural Resource Assessment (Larson, 1997). Monitoring could include having a professional archeologist on site to monitor any subsurface excavation to insure that no intact archeological materials or features are adversely affected by such activities. 14. TRANSPORTATION a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. Greater detail on all transportation and parking issues can be found in the Transportation Impact Analysis (TRANSPO 2006) in Section 12. A more general discussion is provided below. Interstate 405 provides regional access to the site. The site is served by Lake Washington Boulevard, the primary access to which is via exit 7 (NE 44th Street) from 1-405. Other vehicular access is also provided by Lincoln Avenue from the east, Ripley Avenue from the north and Lake Washington Avenue SE from the northeast via 44th Street interchange. Two existing on grade crossings provide access to the site as shown on the attached site plans. Preliminary discussions between the Seahawks and the BNSF Railroad have commenced regarding a third (new) crossing, located halfway between existing crossings. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? The site is not served by public transit. The nearest transit stops are located at Park Ave N/N 33ro and 1161h/76 1h. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? New Parking: 275 to 315 cars Displaced Parking: No parking will be displaced or eliminated Environmental Checklist 24 May 2006 Revised 6 September 2006 Page 19 _(", ' I 15. North and South Baxte1 ite Development Plan New Seattle Seahawks Headquarters & Training Facility Renton, WA 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? Improvements will likely be required at the following areas: 1. Ripley Avenue 2. Existing at grade crossings@ BNSF Railroad right of way 3. Potential new at grade crossing @ BNSF Railroad right of way as indicated above e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. The Seahawks will continue to use commercial and charter air transportation at their current levels. Please refer to Section 12 for additional information. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: Please refer to Section 12 for proposed measures. PUBLIC SERVICES a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. No. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. Not applicable 16. UTILITIES a. Circle or underline utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. 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. The following utilities will be provided by municipal systems : 1. Water 2. Sanitary Sewer Other utilities will be required including. 1. Electricity -Puget Sound Energy Environmental Checklist 24 May 2006 Revised 6 September 2006 Page 20 North and South Baxter ·te Development Plan New Seattle Seahawks Headquarters & Training.Facility Renton, WA 2. Natural Gas -Puget Sound Energy 3. Fiber -Qwest 4. DSL or T1 Telecommunication Lines -Qwest These utilities are available immediately adjacent to the site. Please refer to Section 5 for preliminary utility plans. C. SIGNATURE D. I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non-significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part. Proponent: Name Printed: Ray Colliver Date: SUPPLEMENTAL SHEETS FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS Not Used Environmental Checklist 24 May 2006 Revised 6 September 2006 Page 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON 8 LARRY BARSHER and ESTHER BARSHER, 9 10 Appellants, V. CITY OF RENTON, and FOOTBALL File No. LUA06-073 SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF 11 NORTHWEST, NOTICE OF APPEARANCE ON BEHALF OF FOOTBALL NORTHWEST LLC 12 Respondents. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 TO: AND TO: Fred Kaufman, City of Renton Hearing Examiner; and Larry Barsher and Esther Barsher, Appellants PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Roger A Pearce, and Foster Pepper PLLC, enter their appearance as counsel for Respondent Football Northwest LLC, by and through the undersigned attorney, and request that service of all papers and pleadings in this lawsuit, except original process, be made upon the undersigned attorney at the address stated below. DATED this 9111 day of May, 2007. NOTICE OF APPEARANCE ON BEHALF OF FOOTBALL NORTHWEST -1 ~0BP270 1 FOSTER PEPPER PLLC Roger earce, WSBA No. 21113 Attorney for Respondent Football Northwest LLC FOSTER PEPPER PLLC 1111 THIRLJ AVENUE, 5UITE3400 SEATilE, WASH(NGTON 98101-3299 PHONE {206) 447-4400 FAX (206) 447-9700 1 DECLARATION OF SERVICE 2 Helen M. Stubbert declares: 3 I am a legal assistant to Roger A. Pearce, and competent to be a witness in the above- 4 entitled proceeding. On May 9, 2007, I caused to be delivered in the manner indicated below 5 true and correct copies of a Notice of Appearance and this Certificate of Service to the following: 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton 1055 Soutl1GradyWay Renton, Washington 98055 Via U.S. Mail Larry and Esther Barsher 6940 96'11 Ave. S.E. Mercer Island WA 98040 Via U.S. Mail I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct. DATED this 9th day of May, 2007, at Seattle, Washington. lcLL~ NOTICE OF APPEARANCE ON BEHALF OF FOOTBALL NORTHWEST-2 50813270 l Helen M. Stubbert FOSTER PEPPER PLLC 1111 THIRD A VENUE, SUIT!:: 3400 SEATTU, WASH[NGTON 98101-3299 PHONE (206) 447-4400 FAX (206) 447-9700 Seahawks' Headquarters and Training Facility File No.: LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF December 7, 2006 Page 16 7. Fan parking during Imming camp will be accommodated at a parking lot or parking facility off the project site, with fans then being bused to the site. 8. The project dumpster/recycling area will use containers with lids, and the container storage area will be screened from the Misty Cove property. The garbage and recycling pickups will occur during normal business hours on weekdays -not at nights or very early morning hours. All non-recyclable materials placed in the containers will be in scaled plastic bags. 9. FNW shall replace the existing property line fence between the Misty Cove property and the project site with a new fence of at least equal quality. IO. No athletic field lighting is being proposed under the pem111. The Seahawks agree not to seek any permit to do so for a period of 15 years from the date of this Agreement. All project exterior lighting will be designed so that the lighting is directed away from the Misty Cove residences. ] 1. fN\V will provide signage that clearly indicates the main entrance to the project site, so that visitors to the site can easily find the entrance. Any signage will have to comply with City and Slate regulatrons. 12. The proposed shoreline area planting plan shall include lower-level plantings in the north section of the project shoreline area, in order to minimize impacts of views of the water from the adjacent Misty Cove Condominium property. 13. The mitigation and design measures in the Lake and Stream Study and the Turflntcgrnted Pest Management Plan submitted to the City as part of the project application shall be conditioned to permit approval. ORDERED THIS 7"' day of December 2006. TRANSMITTED THIS 7''' day of December 2006 to the parties of record: Elizabeth Higgins 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Lance Lopes VP Seahawks 800 Occidental Avenue S Seattle, WA 98034 Eileen Halverson 502 I Ripley Lane N, #302 Renton, WA 98056 Kayren Kittrick Development Services Renton, WA 98055 David Murphy Crawford Architects 1801 McGee St, Ste. 200 Kansas City, MO 64108 Joe Burcar 3190 I 60'" Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98008 Roger Pearce Foster Pepper 1111 Third Avenue, 34 1h floor Seattle, WA 98101 Larry & Esther Barsher 6940 96'" A venue SE Mercer Island, WA 98040 Carl Hadley Cedar Rock Consullanls 19609 244"' Avenue Seahawks' Headquarters and Training Facility File No.: LUA-06-073, SA-1-1, SA-M, SM, ECF December 7, 2006 Page 15 18. The proposal is basically self-contained. The site's limitations include the poor and/or contaminated soils on the south half leaving commercial and office development a reasonable accomplishment. In addition, the COR zoned property to the south provides a residential component. It meets the comprehensive plan's goal of redeveloping the subject site with high quality uses. 19. The plan provides both public and private open space. There is the walking path along the shoreline and there are the open practice fields for team workouts. The applicant proposes to enhance the shoreline by restoring natural plants and protecting the existing wetland. 20. Shoreline view corridors will be provided both by the shoreline trail as well as the open views across the playing fields. Views of the lake will be available from the office building and other open areas on the subject site. 21. The proposal will provide a focal point as an icon of a professional football team as well as when il is open to the public for practice sessions in the summer. The building is well designed and should be attractive even at its larger scale. 22. The access for the site is focused along Ripley Lane and/or Lake Washington Boulevard. It should reasonc1bly serve the site for both vehicles and peJt::strians. DECISION: The proposed Master Site Plan and Sile Plan are approved subject to the following conditions: I. The applicant shall submit a color and materials board demonstrating exterior materials and finishes to the Development Services project manager for approval prior to obtaining building permits. 2. The applicant shall submit a detailed landscape plan for the riparian zone along the shoreline of Lake Washington and install landscaping of a type and in a manner so as to enhance wildlife riparian habitat. Such submittal shall be prior to obtaining building permits and installation of landscaping shall be completed prior to building occupancy. 3. The applicant shall submit a detailed project landscape plan, meeting the requirements ofRMC 4-8- 120D 12, to the Development Services project manager for approval prior to obtaining building permits. 4. The applicant shall submit a detailed landscape plan and maintenance program for the public right-of- way landscaping along Ripley Lane abutting the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way. The plan shall be submitted to the Development Services project manager for approval prior to obtaining building permits and installation shall be prior to building occupancy. 5. The applicant shall submit a plan demonstrating locations of outdoor light fixtures, their function, light levels, and illumination coverage to the Development Services project manager for approval prior to obtaining building permits. 6_ Football Northwest shall develop the project with the office building and the Indoor Practice Facility located as shown in the Mitigation Site Plat-Alternative. FNW shall develop a green screen wall, planted with ivy or other appropriate landscaping materials, along the bottom thirty (30) feet of the northeasterly elevation of the indoor practice facility. 1n addition, FNW will develop the north elevation of the indoor practice facility substantially in accordance with the principles stated in the Settlement Agreement. Scahawks' 1-leadquartcrs and Training Facility File No. LUA-06-073, SA·I-l, SA-M, SM, ECF December 7, 2006 Page 14 accommodated by shuttle vehicles from remote parking areas to help limit the amount of traffic to the site. A canopied walkway connects parking to the mflin entrance. Interior walkways will accommodate pedestrians moving between facilities on the property. 12. The large open spaces on the south as well as the setback between the residential complex lo the north and the cu1Tent proposal allows entry of light and air to both the side and neighboring properties The east aspect is already fairly open given the pc:ira!lcl roadways and railroad. The relocation of the building will reduce some shadow impacts although, again, any development of the subject site by legally permissible development would have an impact. The impacts have been reduced but not eliminated. 13. Construction will gcnernte the most noise and this should be limited in duration. As noted above, there will be additional hubbub when the site is occupied and a bit more during the open practices during the summer season. 14. The site will be served by City water and sewer service. The Baxter Lift Station will need to be utilized and appropriately updated. Stonnwater will be directed to the lake. The development will comply with the Department or Ecology and King County regulations. The creek's alignment will be altered and its outfall enhanced but it will remain culverted for a majority of its run through the subject site. The applicant will be paying mitigation fees imposed by the ERC to offset some impacts of the development on the City's facilities. 15. The redevelopment of the subject site will enhance the site and prevent deterioration or additiorrnl blight on the subject site 16. In addition to the ..1bove criteria the COR Zones provide additional criteria for reviewing a proposal. Those criteria include: a. The plan is consistent with a Planned Action Ordinance, if applicable; b. The plan creates a compact, urban development that includes a compatible mix of uses that meets the Comprehensive Plan vision and policy statements for the Commercial/Office/Residential or Urban Center North Comprehensive Plan designations; c. The plan provides an overall urban design concept that is internally consistent, and provides quality development; d. The plan incorporates public and private open spaces to provide adequate areas for passive and active recreation by the occupants/users of the site, and/or to protect existing natural systems; c. The plan provides view corridors to the shoreline area and Mt. Rainier where applicable; f Public access is provided to water and/or shoreline areas; g. The plan provides distinctive focal points such as public area plazas, prominent architectural features, or other items; h. Public and/or private streets are arranged in a layout that provides reasonable access to property and supports the land use envisioned; and 1. The plan accommodates and promotes transit, pedestrian, and other alternative modes of transportation. J 7. There is no Planned Action Ordinance involving the subJect site. Scahawks' Headquarters and Training Facility File No.: LUA-06-073, SA-11, SA-M, SM, ECF December 7, 2006 Page 13 and wetlands and views out over the Jake. These will be well exploited by the orientation orthe building. 6. The building meets the bulk standards for the COR 2 zone ,n terms of height and Jot area coverage. Staff reported that it complies with the urban definition requirements of the City's cunent Shorelmc regulations. Compliance with building and fire code requirements will be determined when appropriate permits are submitted for actual development. 7. The building complex has been moved away from the lake an additional 62 feet to offset to some extent its impacts on the adjacent residential complex. It has also redcsib'Tlcd its north facade treatment to reduce its visual impact on its near neighbors. There is no question that any permissible development of this site that adds buildings above grade will have an impact. That cannot be prevented save for keeping privately owned property as open space. That is not currently an option and the proposed plan appears to have achieved some reasonable compromise. After all, approximately half of the site, the entire south portion of the property will be open space -it will be practice fields. The applicant is seeking ta create its own, new crossing of the rnilroad to reduce traffic impacts on its northerly residential neighbors who all share Ripley Lane. The applicant proposes replanting areas of the lakeshore with native plants and some larr,cr specimens. Those efforts will serve to provide some screening without closing off the site's own visual ;JCcess to the lake view. 8. The building complex has been designed to terrace upward from the Jake with the office building scaled to approxim<1tely 55 feet and 1hc more easterly element, the indoor prncticc fields, at 111 feet. Open space is a featured clement on the entire south half of the parcel. Landscaping will be used to soften facades and enhance the perimeter of the site near the railway and the road system. The building has a formal entry and focal point. It also has the public shoreline walkway. The exterior treatment combines a variety of high-quality materials and finishes, colors and textures. Both horizontal and vertical banding and articulation will also be used in the facades to add visual interest and break the bulk into faceted planes. Recognizing past industrial pollution and current sensitivities, the applicant will be usmg Integrated Pest Management (1PM) teclmiques on all ornamental landscaped areas and natural turf practice fields. 9. The redevelopment of this will increase property values although there is no avoiding the fact that construction and occupancy on what has been a vacant site for quite a while will have an impact on the immediate community. The construction impacts should be relatively short-lived. The impacts of reuse and occupancy were anticipated when this site was comprehensively planned and the zoning was put in place. It was expected that this site and its neighbors to the south would be developed with a variety of more intensive uses bnnging with those more intensive uses additional traffic, people, urban scale development and the general tumult of a vibrant urban lake shore. 10. The settlement agreement provides assurances that for an extended period of time there would be no night activities or lighting to accommodate night activities. Normal considerations will li,mt exterior lighting and parking lots and building entrances would be equipped with cut-off features to avoid light spillage onto adjacent properties. Again, though, interior lights will change the character or visual canvas that a vacant site provided from the lake's vantage point or even for those looking down on the site from the east. 11. The site's somewhat isolated location limits the complexity of access and circulation although the site does share Ripley Lane with others no11h of the site. The applicant is seeking an additional access which, would help improve access for both visitors to the site and to adpcent properties. The internal circulation appears reasonable. Additional visitor access during open events on the campus will be Scahawks' Headquarters and Training Facility File No.: LUA-OG-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF December 7, 2006 Page 12 1. Availability of public services and facilities to accommodate the proposed use; and J. Prevention of neighborhood deterioration and blight. 3. The criteria for a Master Plan and Site Plan review overlap or coincide in a number of particulars. Frankly, the Master Plan criteria arc intended for a large multi-dimensional project with a variety of components, probably spread over a larger area. The Master plan would be more appropriately applied to a large, rnul[i-phasc or multi-building project where the aim is to achieve a cohesive, blended, harmonious whole. The Master Plan review would be to make sure to knit a uniform proJect that looks as if all of the elements and a variety of buildings had a basic design theme or one which made sure that all of the elements worked together as far as access, circulation and similar features spread over a h:irger proposal. A Master Plan review docs not necessarily identify with the current proposal where one purpose is identified by the applicant -a complex in which to manage and train a professional football team. In the current proposal there really is only the one building, served by one, linear access road and the associated outdoor sports fields. The site pretty much stands alone. If and when development occurs south of the proposed complex on additional COR 2 property that will be under separate ownership and development criteria. 4. A fair number of City goals and objectives all point lo redeveloping this very under-utilized property The City has always envisioned more interesting, one could say, grand plans for this former industrial area along the lakeshore. It has been years since a major industrial use that was water-related could utilize lakeshore property and not potentially inflict environmental damage on the shoreline or the lake and its water quality. Of course, some questions could be raised about the limited scope of this proposal in lcm1s of creating new as opposed to relocated employment and of basically leaving fallow, the spaces dedicated to practice fields that might have been developed with additional office buildings or research park. Might a mixed-use complex been more appropriate rather than one focused solely on the Seahawks football team? Possibly, but than again, a portion of this property still requires remedial capping of environmentally questionable soils probably mediating against development of housing. Similarly, disturbance of some portion of the underlying soils would not be advisable for building foundation work whereas outdoor practice fields present a good match since there would be limited disturbance of the soils. The proposed plan will bring executive and administrative offices to this site. The site will be a focus for public visitation -practice and pre-season games. The proposed complex is also quite well-designed and has meta morphed into a better plan. The building has been moved further from the Jake to reduce its visual impacts on both neighbors and those using the lake itself or viewing it across the lake. The four playing fields also keep about half of the site visually unencumbered. The complex will also be screened by landscaping along its facades and the site's perimeter. The building couplet has been scaled and terraced and utilizes visual elements to reduce its bulk and increase its visual interest. Clearly, any permissible use of the site, other than open space or parkland would create impacts on neighbors) boaters and Mercer Island residents. The plan also accommodates public use of a shoreline that has been closed to the public for decades. 5. The comprehensive plan suggests the redevelopment of former industrial sites with large-scale projects while remediating the impacts of the former industrial pollution. The proposed Seattle Seahawks administrative offices and practice facilities appear to fulfill these objectives with a high profile tenant in a highly styled complex. The complex as noted offers a mix of structural components, the office building and the indoor practice facility, and open space and landscaping, the four open-air practice fields and the general landscaping found around the grounds. The shoreline location suggests public access and that will be provided by the approximately 250 feet of trail along the lake shore as well as the connecting trail to the public rights-of-way east of the subject site. The offices will provide an urban focus and a center for employment. The site, of course, provides built-in amenities. It has the lakeshore Scahawks' Headquarters and Training Facility F>ie No.: LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF December 7, 2006 Page 11 The intent of the tiered site development plan review process is to provide an opportunity lo review projects at broad levels for the Master Plan and with increased specificity as development plans becomes refined to the level of Site Plan. Intent statements below shall guide review of the plans at a specificity appropriate to the level of review. l. To promo le the orderliness of community growth, protect and enhance property values and minimize discordant and undesirable impacts of development both on-and off-site; 2. To promote high quality design meeting criteria set forth in the City's Urban Center Design Overlay, where applicable; 3. To µrotect and enhance the desirable aspects oflhe natural landscape and environmental features of the City; 4. To ensure convenience and safety of vehicular and pedestrian movement within the site and in relation to adjacent areas, and ensure that road and pedestrian circulation systems implement lrmd use objectives for the zone in which the project occurs; 5. To promote coordination of public or quasi-public clements, sucl1 as walkways, driveways, paths, and landscaping within segments of larger developments and between individual developments; 6. To protect neighboring owners and uses by assuring that reasonable provisions have been made for such matters as sound and sight buffers, light and air, and those other aspects of site plans which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses; 7. To minimize conflicts that might otherwise be created by a mix of uses within allowed zones; 8. To provide for quality, multiple family or clustered housmg while minimizing the impacts of high density, heavy traffic generation, and intense demands on City utilities and recreational facilities; 9. To provide a mechanism to more effectively meet the purposes and intent of the State Environmental Policy Act; l 0. To supplement other land use regulations by addressing site plan elements not adequately covered elsewhere in the City Code and to avoid violation of the purpose and intent of those codes. 2. More specific guidance is provided in the following criteria: l. General Review Criteria for Both Master Plans and Site Plan Review: a. Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, its elements, goals, objectives, and policies. In determining compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, conformance to the objectives and policies of the specific land use designation shall be given consideration over city-wide objectives and policies; b. Conformance with existing land use regulations; c. Mitigation of impacts to surrounding properties and uses; d. Mitigation of impacts of the proposed site plan to the site; e. Conservation of area-wide property values; f. Safety and efficiency of vehicle and pedestrian circulation; g. Provision of adequate light and air; h. Mitigation of noise, odors and other harmful or unhealthy conditions; Seahawks' Headquarters and Training Facility File No.: LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF December 7, 2006 Page 10 29. As noted, there will be access to approximately 250 feet of Lake Washington shoreline. Access to the shoreline path would be via an east-west paved walkway located parallel to the nMh property boundary. A landscaped seating area and viewpoint would be provided. This path will typically be available to the public on the same schedule as City parks. 30. The development will increase traffic approximately 555 average vehicle trips per day. Traffic during open public sessions, mainly in August would be generally confined to normal traffic as well as some fom1 of shuttle service to limit the amount of traffic and avoid taxing the local roads and the parking facility. 31. The applicant proposes using an "integral pest management plan" to limit the use of chemicals on the site. CONCLUSIONS, 1. The following general criteria are applicable to the subject site, which is zoned COR: Section 2 4-9-200 SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW: A PURPOSE AND INTENT: The purpose of site development plan review shall be lo assure that proposed development is compatible with the plans, policies and regulations of the City of Renton as outlined in the City's Comprehensive Plan and the City's Business Plan Goals. Site development plan review may be used to analyze plans at varying levels of detail to ensure continuity of project concept and consistent implementation. Elements subject to this Section include, but are not limited to, site layout, building orientation and design, pedestrian and vehicular environment, signage, landscaping, natural features of the site, screening and buffering, parking and loading facilities, and illumination. Site development plan review is divided into two types: Master Plan and Site Plan. 1. Master Plan: The purpose of the Master Plan process is to guide phased planning of development projects with multiple buildings on a single large site. The Master Plan is required to demonstrate how the major elements of a development are proposed on the site at sufficient detail lo demonstrate the overall project concept. In addition, the Master Plan must illustrate how the major project elements, combined, create an urban environment that implements City goals. An additional purpose is to allow consideration and mitigation of potential impacts that could result from large-scale site and facility development, and to allow coordination with City capital improvement planning. Master Plan review should occur at an early stage in the development of a project, when the scale, intensity and layout of a project arc known. 2. Site Plan Review: The purpose of the Site Plan process is the detailed arrangement of project elements so as to be compatible with the physical characteristics of a site and with the surrounding area. An additional purpose of Site Plan is to ensure quality development consistent with City goals and policies. For those developments that do not require Master Plan first, Site Plan Review should occur at an early stage in the development of a project, when the scale, intensity and layout of a project are known. Scahawks' Headquarters and Training Facility File No.: LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECf December 7, 2006 Page 9 thirds lo reduce the apparent height and vertical modulations and articulations will also be used to reduce the apparent bulk of the building. Addil!onally, the administrative office portion of the building will be about half as tall as the indoor practice portion, providing a terraced or stepped aspect. There will be a formal entry along the Ripley Lane facade and a canopy will connect parking with the formal entrance. Other entries are provided along various aspects of the building complex. 21. The appeal settlement resulted in the building being moved toward the east approximately 62 feet and away from the shoreline. ·n1e taller indoor practice building is now located outside of the 200-fool shoreline management area. The move will reveal more of the shoreline and sky for the residents o[ Misty Cove. It will also move the mass of the building away from the shoreline. 22. The COR 2 zone permits lot coverage of65 percent and a building height of LO-stones or 125 feel. The office building has a footprint of approximately 55,674 square feet, the indoor practice complex has a footprint of approximately 89,423 square feel and there is the 6,000 square foot maintenance shed for a total of 151,097 square feel or 17.7 percent of the 19 .6 acre site. The office building will be 55 feet tall while the practice facility will be approximately 111 feet tall. Staff reports that the ofllce building which falls within the 200-foot shoreline management zone complies with the Urban Shoreline designation ofRcnton1s Shoreline Master Prot,rram. Although it is not a water-dependent use, the complex will provide access to tile portions of the shoreline that have been off-limits to the public in the past. The one-story, 6,000 square foot maintenance and equipment storage building would be located in the southeast corner of the site. 23. There would be three or four outdoor practice fields. Some of the fields can be rotated to account for wear patterns. The three natural grass practice fields would be located on the portion of the property. The one artificial turf practice field would be parallel and adjacent to the cast property line. The four practice fields would cover 8.3 acres. 24. The site would contain secured area lo protect the practice fields, the players and to provide security and privacy during practices. 25. There is a variety of vegetation on the subject site including weeds, weed trees and some limited natural vegetation along the lake shore. The site will be landscaped with a variety of native trees and shrubs. Some of the larger trees would be preserwJ. As indicated a "green wall" would be located along the north facade as part of landscaping and screening. 26. Parties from Mercer Island with a view across the lake to this facility were concerned about views and screening as well as night lighting 27. Primary access to the site would be from Lake Washington Boulevard and Ripley Lane. Any access or accesses will have to cross the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad right-of'way. Currently, the primary access would be at the northeast comer of the subject site near the Misty Cove complex. A secondary access is available at the southeast comer of the property to Lake Washington Boulevard. Negotiations are underway with the railroad for a crossing about midway along the east property line. This would become the primary access if agreement can be reached. 28. On-site roads would be private and there would be parking for 252 vehicles. Parking would include 91 stalls for general surface parking and 161 secure (fenced) surface parking stalls for team members. Due to both limited access and on-site parking, the annual training camp, held for three weeks in August, would require off-site parking with a scheduled shuttle bus service in order to accommodate visitors. Scahawks' Headquarters and Training Facility File No.: LUA-06-073, SA-I·!, SA-M, SM, ECF December 7, 2006 Page 8 13. The site is essentially flat. Gypsy Creek runs through the site in an open ditch for approximately 125 feet before entering a 490-fool culvert. The culvert empties above the surface of the lake in an unnatural drop. Plans are to restore the shoreline in this area, create a cove and create a more natural entry into the culvert. 14. A Category 3 wetland has been restored. It would remain in a protected area at the southwest portion of the property, adjacent to Lake Washington. It probably would not be open to the public. 15. The subject site is under a cleanup agreement with the State. Remediation involves removing contaminated soils and capping depending on the proposed use and contaminants involved. The contamination was the result of the former use of the properly for wood-processing activities. Site grading for the project would be coordinated with continuing remediation. Calculations indicate the capping of the site and grading would require approximately 29,600 cubic yards of cut and 52,900 cubic yards of fill material. Some cut material would be removed from the site and the remainder reused. Any fill material will be tested or require a ''source statement'1 to assure clean materials. As noted, the adJacent site to the south is under Superfund cleanup governance. 16. Two existing structures remain on the site. A smgle-story, 1,300 square foot wood-frame office building on the north portion of the site that would be removed. An existing boathouse and dock are located at the northwest shoreline. Currently, there are no plans for these facilities. 17. The underlying geology of soils dictated where the building would be located. Soils generally dictated that the large building would need piles for structural support and the soils on the SOl1th half of the site were not appropriate without additional remediation. In addition, the proposed practice playing fields require more and appropriately shaped space, which the wider south half provided. 18. The proposed complex consists of the Seahawks administrative offices and accessory training and practice facilities and a smaller maintenance building. The two major components are the attached office and indoor practice facility located on the north portion of the subject site and four practice fields including three with natural turf and one with artificial turf on the south portion of the property. The maintenance shed will be located at the southeast corner of the property. 19. Offices, meeting and classrooms, kitchen and dining area, lockers and exercise areas, football equipment storage areas, and an indoor practice field would be within a 224,957 square foot building on the North Baxter property. The office or Headquarters portion of the building would be up to 55 feel in height and contain two stories and a mezzanine level that would be open to the indoor practice field. The office building would be located closest to the lake to take advantage of the lake views. It would be L-shaped and wrap around the southwest comer of the larger indoor practice field. The height of the indoor practice field, situated on the north and east sides of the building, would be up to 111 feet. Originally, the roof was designed to swing upward along its edges to screen rooftop mechanical equipment. That equipment has since been moved into the building proper. The practice building has been designed to have an inside height clearance of approximately 95 feet to accommodate realistic passing and kicking moves. 20. The building would be a steel frame building. It would be faced with synthetic stone, masonry, and storefront systems on the lower level. Clear-glazed windows and cementiuous or metal wall panels would be used on upper portions and vary depending on location. The color palette would be earth tones with light beiges, buff, light gray and browns and greens would be used for exterior treatments. The settlement agreement requires a green-screen or lattice wall with vegetation growing on it on the north facade, the facade facing Misty Cove. There will be horizontal banding breaking the building into Seahawks' Headquarters and Training facility File No.: LUA-06-073, SA-11, S.A-M, SM, ECf December 7, 2006 Page 7 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION Having reviewed the record in this matter, 1he Ex.:1mincr now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: I. The applicant, Football Nm1hwesl, for the Seat11e Seahawks' Headquarters and Trallling Facility, filed a request for a Master Plan and Site Plan review. 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 Detenmnation o( Non-Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M). An appeal of this determination was filed by adjacent property owners. The appeal was settled with an awecmcnt to include certain additionnl conditions on the development of the subject site if those conditions were found appropriate after public hearing and review. 4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all dcpa11rnenls with an interest in the matter. 5. The subject site is located al 5015 Lake Washington Boulevard N and is also addressed as 5015, 4801 and 4635 Ripley Lane. The site is just north or west of the NE 44th Street (Exit 7) I-405 interchange. The silc is located on the shorelme of Lake Washington. The Burlington-Northern railroad tracks run between the site and Ripley Lane. 6. The site actually nms at a diagonal from lhc southwest toward the northeast along the lakeshore but is commonly thought of as running south to north. Therefore for illustrative purposes and descriptions this common reference will be used and so the lake will be considered the western edge of the site and Ripley Lane the eastern edge of the site -readers will be able to orient facilities and build111gs lo their location on the site from the lake and roadway locations. 7. Misty Cove residential complex is localed immediately north of the site. As noted above, the homeowners in Misty Cove had filed an appeal of the SEPA decision but they, along with a separate resident of that complex settled the appeal prior to the hearing after reaching an agreement with the applicant. 8. Immediately south of the subject site is the Port Quendall site. Thal site is a "Super fund Site'' that is highly contaminated and subject to separate cleanup regulations. 9. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as suitable for the development of commercial, office and residential uses, but does not mandale such development without consideration of other policies of the Plan. I 0. The subject site is currently zoned COR-2 (Commercial, Office, Residential). 11. The subject site was annexed to the City with the adoption of Ordinance 1823 enacted in April 1960. 12. The size of parcel is approximately 19.6 acres or 853,776 square feet. Seahawks' Headquarters and Training Facility File No.: LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECl' December 7, 2006 Page G City of Renton Shoreline Master Program docs not regulate buildings below 75-fcct that arc within the 200-foot buffer. Mr. Burcar stated that be is lcslif'ying on behalf of the State. And finally, the parking area along the north of the facility, is there any buffer averaging happening in that area as well? He further was concerned as to the use of fertilizers and pesticides and what kind of plan would be in place to ensure that water quality of the lake would be protected. Ms. Higgins stated that this project does not require a Conditional Use Permit. The Shoreline permit 1s being processed separately. The ERC report slates that the applicant is proposing an integrated pest management program with extremely limited use ofchemicc1ls on the fields and landscape areas. Carl Hadln, Cedar Rock Consultants, 19609 244"' Avenue, Woodinville, WA 98077 slated that he is a professional fisheries biologist with 18 years of experience in the Seattle area. He was part of the team that wrote the lake and stream study, which was a requirement of the Renton Municipal Code. That study was required because there is a dirccl impact to a water body, the Gypsy sub-basin drainage and secondly, the site contains a shoreline of the state. The :::;tudy takes a look at existing functions un<l values and compares that to future conditions based on mitigation and other things that are proposed for the site. It must be shmvn that there nre equivalent or better values for the fish habitat and wildlife habitat on the site. The Gypsy sub-basin has been declared a fish bearing water, il drains 320 acres of the slope to the cast with runoff from paved surfaces via roadside ditches, culverts, and parking lots with a bad history of flooding. There is a 500-foot long, 2-foot wide culvert, with a 125-foot open reach at the bottom ofa 15-foot deep manmade ditch. The 125-fool opm reach will be filled with capping, there can be no exposed water. The culvert will run between the playing fields and the side of the buildint. A new outfall will be built for the pipe with a 25~foot channel on the lake as mitigation for filling that existing open section of channel. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has initially approved the proposed plan. An Integrated Pest Management plan has been established for the site and will include a set of rules regarding the use of pesticide and fertilizer. Air, sunlight and drainage for the fields are an important part of pest control. A small amount of chemicals will be used for fungus only. Mr. Pearce stated that there is no proposed parking for the public access to the lake, the public most likely will use it more when the Burlington Northern tTacks become a trail. There is a landscape plan in the application materials that points out species that will be planted including some larger species such as Douglas Fir and Western Red Cedar. Regarding Mr. Ilurcar's comments, this is a permitted use so long as significant public access is provided to and along the shoreline. No variance is required for height under the City Shoreline Master Program. There is a 50-foot setback for commercial buildings from the shoreline, not for paved surfaces or playing fields or grading. Kayren Kittrick, Development Services stated that they are working with the applicant regarding Ripley Lane and the Gypsy Creek flooding onto Ripley Lane. If a security gate is being provided for Misty Cove, is there a turnaround being provided for those people that like to wander in and will then need access to get out. That will all be covered during the design phase. 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 11 :34 am. Seahawks' Headquarters and Training facility file No.: LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF December 7, 2006 Page 5 The indoor facility is standard for the industry, which allows special teams to practice their punting and kicking. Public access will be from the north side of the property down lo the lake and still keep the practice fields private. The plan is for a cyclone fence with a green screen on the fence. Between the Misty Cove and Seahawks a quality wood fence has been planned. David Murphv, Crawford Architects, 1801 McGee St., Ste. 200, Kansas City, MO 64108 gave a power point presentation of the project with site layout, vegetation and design details. The design mattrials allow thtrn the ability to create a corporate image that is appropriate for the City of Renton and the Seattle Seahawks. The facility will be desih>ned specifically to the Pacific Northwest. They are currenlly in design development stages, the south side of the office will be facing the practice fields and would be constructed with a series of cementiuous materials. The practice facility would consist of cernentiuous panels or metal panels that would make up the composition of the fayade. On the east elevations there would be cementiuous panels, wood, and translucent materials that would allow daylight to come into the indoor practice facility. The north side, facing Misty Cove would be designed with horizontal lines with shadows to break down the scale of the building. The green screen at the base would be 30~feet oflattice with green plantings to cover and ullow for privacy. The west elevation of the building is proposed to be two stories and the south three stories. However, the west may go to 3 stories, it has not been fully determined as yet. The dumpsters and loading dock areas will be screened from the public. To study the view impacts on the project from the Misty Cove property, the owners of units 302 and 312 allowed access to their property and they were able to photograph views from those sites. The lower levels on the south side have blocked views to the shoreline and to the site. Several photos were shown with various views to the south. Their goal was to maintain and enhance as many view conidors as possible. A 5-minute break was taken. Larry Barsher, 6940 96"' Avenue SE, Mercer Island, WA 98040 stated !hat he lives directly west of the facility across Lake Washington and from the front of his house he can see the training facility. From a close up perspective, it looks very attractive however, from a mile away it still is going to appear as a big box. When the final landscape plan is prepared he would like to suggest thal some consideration would be given to soften the view as much as possible by the addition of perhaps some trees that could reach heights of JOO-feet at maturity. In addition, perhaps a green wall could be installed on the roof of the office building in the center to add some contrast and softening. He did appreciate the fact that the lights would not be on in the evening. Eileen Halverson, 5021 Ripley Lane N, #302, Renton, WA would like to lmow where the parkmg would be located for the public access. Esther Barsher, 6940 96"' Avenue SE, Mercer Island, WA 98040 staled that she was concerned about the lighting for the parking area, would it be lit all night? Joe Burcar, 3190 160"' Avenue SE, Bellevue, WA 98008 slated that he is a shoreline specialist with the Washington State Department of Ecology. Considering the City Shoreline Master Program, would the use of this facility be considered a Conditional Use within the Master Program or is it in fact a permitted use and _how would that translate into the final shoreline permitting, would it be a substantial shoreline permit or a conditional use permit? Ms. Higgins slated that there would be some buffer averaging. The wetland buffer is 50-feet and extends into the field area, however there is some buffer mitigation outside the field area that has been approved. The indoor practice facility which is 95-feel to the center clear height on the interior is outside of the 200 foot line. The Seahawks' Headquarters and Training Facility File No.: LUA-06-073, S/\-H, S/\-M, SM, ECF December 7, 2006 Page 4 The redevelopment of COR sites is intended to provide economic development and remediation of formerly impacted industrial sites. This site certainly provides that criteria. The Seahawks' building has been designed to be an arch,tecturally significant state of the art facility for a professional football team. The community design element is met through the design of the project. The north fa~ade of the indoor practice facility will be softened by use of a "green-screen wall". The project meets the development standards by being lower than the maximum building height, by covering only 17% of the property with buildings and by moving the project the applicant has attempted to mitigate the impacts of this building on the neighboring property. Visual assessment studies were done as well as shadow studies in order to study impacts to the Misty Cove condominiums. The outside practice fields will not be lit and not used at night so there will be no lighting that would interfere with the Misty Cove condominiums. There are no regulations on the types of fencing provided in this area, they will be replacing the fence along the border of Misty Cove Apartment Condominiums. The general parking consists of 91 stalls would be along the east side of the building, the secured team parking would be along the north and northwest corner of the building. The field is open to the public for three weeks in August and it is presumed that thousands of people will attend training. There will be a plan to shuttle people from off-site parking areas. Roger Pearce, Foster Pepper, 1111 Third Avenue, 34"' Floor, Seattle 98101 stated that he is the Attorney for Seahawks and that there were several people that would be speaking today. There are no specific height limits in the urban environment, the Shoreline Master Progrnm does allO\\.' new commercial uses if public access to and along the water is provided. A significant public access has been provided and it will be open just like a City park. It will only be open during the day, there will be on-site security. Lance Lopes, VP Seahawks, 800 Occidental A venue S., Seatlle, WA 98034 stated that he also serves as the general manager for this project. He identified goals in acquiring this location, the Kirkland facility was too small and had become obsolete in terms of what teams need to handle their requirements. The site in eastern Washington has served them well for many years, in recent times there has been a drop-off in altendance at the training camp, the fans from western Washington have not been able to get over there. The number of users for this property varies, there are approximately 130 full-time employees and a varying number between 30 and 90 players depending on the time of year. The site is laid out with the fields to the south, with three fields they can rotate during the training camp, the fourth field may or may not be built. That location will provide an area where fans will be able to view the practices of the team. The office building was built with the views in mind, both Jake and practice fields. The nineteen acres is really the minimal amount and just about all ofit has been used for this faciilty. The month of August is the best time to thmk about training camp, it typically is a 25-day period and can vary from year to year. That is the time of year that the players are trying out for the team, the public is very interested in that process. The number of fans coming out for training camp could be in the range of 1,500 and 2,000 per day. I\ Saturday or Sunday could rise to perhaps 2,500. Practice is in the morning and the afternoon each day. They have asked the City about developing a bus turnaround on Ripley Lane, which can be shared with the current school bus stop, they propose to make it a nicer bus stop. That would allow the shuttle busses to drop people off right at the front gate. Burlington Northern Railway has indicated they would allow an casement over the center entrance area. Offs,te parking has not yet been determined. There are some locations that they are looking at currently. Scahawks' Headquarters and Training Facility File No.: LUJ\-OG-073, SJ\-1-l, SA-M, SM, ECf December 7, 2006 Page 3 The Examiner stated there were two appeals, which had been filed by the Misty Cove Association of Apartments Owners and Steve Jensen, who filed on his own behalf as a separate individual. Letters have been received stating that the parties had reached a settlement in those two appeals. Zanella Fontes stated that that was correct. She had been notified and she would Jet the parties go over the conditions to which they have agreed. It was no!ed that Mr. Jensen was not in the hearing room. Roger Pearce, Foster Pepper stated that they had reached a formal settlement agreement with Misty Cove Association of Ap<1rtmcnt Owners who are represented by Mr. Peterson. The seltlement let1cr did include 7 permit conditions that should be placed on the project. With respect to Mr. Jensen's appeal, he indicated the he was withdrawing and would fax a formal withdrawal to the Hearing Examiner's Office. He did ask that Mr. Jensen's appeal be dismissed ifa letter were not forthcoming from Mr. Jensen. Tom Peterson stated that he represents Misty Cove, they have filed a dismissal of their appeal along with a letter identifying permit conditions. which are identical to the ones that Mr. Pearce submitted. The Examiner stated that Mr. Jensen's appeal is dismissed. The settlement is acceptable and the appeal is dismissed for both Misty Cove and Mr. Jensen. The Land Use Hearing began at 9: 11 am with a presentation of the staff report by Elizabeth Higgins, Senior Planner, Development Services. The applicant is requesting both Master Plan and Site Plan review of currently vacant 19.6-acre property in the Kennydalc area of northeast Renton. The project consists of one building at approximately 135,534 square feet, outdoor and indoor practice fields and an accessory building that would be used for maintenance. The project is located in the area known as Port Qucndall in northeast Renton, just west of l-405. To the south is the Quendall terminals properly, south of that the Barbee Mill property, the entire area is zoned Commercial-Office-Residential (COR). North of the project site is the Misty Cove Condominium and north of that the Ripley Lane neighborhood. To the east of the property is the Pan Abode property and the interchange to l-405. The site was considered to be in the distant country early on, and was used for wood processing afler it was logged off. It has remained vacant since wood processing ended in 1981. It has been used for storage since then. TI,e site has been subject to clean up by consent decree with the Department of Ecology. A cap will be required to be placed over soil that still has residual contamination. Currently, the site is largely vacant, there is one building that will be removed. The mdoor practice facility would be the farthest away from the lake and the office building would be a 2-story with a mezzanine level between the two stories and closest to the lake. This is part of the scltlemcnt between Misty Cove owners and the Scahawks, the fields were shifted around but remain on the south side of the prope11y. The public access to the lake was extended to approximately 250 feet along the lake. The public access will be handled as a county park, open only during the daylight hours. The Shoreline Management Act allows uses that are water related, this is not water related, however the access to the lake for the public allows this property to meet the requirements. Access to the property currently is at the northeast comer and the southeast comer of the property. There are ongoing negotiations with the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad to have an additional private crossing at about the mid-point of the property. This would be the primary entrance for the site. This project went to the Environmental Review Comminee, the decision was appealed and has been settled. There were seven mitigation measures. Scahawks' Headquarters and Training Facility file No. LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF December 7, 2006 Page 2 The following exhibits were entered into !he record: Exhibit No. I; Yellow file containing !he original application, proof of posting, proof of publicalion and other documentation pertinenl to this reouest. Exhibit No. 3: Historic Aerial Photo of North and South Baxter Proeerties Exhibit No. 5: Mitigation Site Plan -Alternative Plan Exhibit No. 7: Nmth and South Building Elevations Exhibit No. 9: Bnse Site Plan Exhibit No. 11: Green Screen Wall A Exhibit No. 13: Existing View from Misty Cove Unit 302 ·--·· Exhibit No. 15: View from Misty Cove Unit 302, Mitieated Site Plan Exhibit No. 17: Existing View from Misty Cove Unit 312 Exhibit No. 19: View from Misty Cove Uni! 312, Mitigated Site Plan Exhibit No. 21: Daily Shadow Studies -Base Plan Exhibit No. 23: Seasonal Shadow Studies -Existing Conditions Exhibit No. 25: Seasonal Shadow Studies -Mitigated Ailemative Plan Exhibit No. 27: Foster Pepper Appeal Settlement Letter Exhibit No. 29: Aooeal File bv Reference Exhibit No. 31: Geotech Summary Exhibit No. 33: Draft Engineering Design Plan Exhibit No. 2: Vicinity Map Exhibit No. 4: Zoning Map Exhibit No. 6: Plan Diagrams -~ Exhibit No. 8: South View Transverse Section ---- Exhibit No. 10: Building Location Op1ions -~ --- Exhibit No. 12: Green Screen Viall B Exhibit No. 14: View from Misty Cove Unit 302, Base Site Plan Exhibit No 16: View from Misty Cove Unit 302, Cornoarison -- Exhibit No. 18: View from Misty Cove Unit 312, Base Site Plan Exhibit No. 20: View from Misty Cove Unit 312, Comoarison Exhibit No. 22: Daily shadow Studies -Mitigated Allemative Plan -~~- Exhibit No. 24: Seasonal Shadow S1ud1es -Base Plan Exhibit No. 26: List of25 Exhibits from Staff Report Exhibit No. 28: Petersen Appeal Settlement Lel1er Exhibit No. 30: Shoreline Exhibit No. 32: Power Point Presentation Minutes APPLICANT: OWNER: CONTACT: LOCATION: SUMMARY OF REQUEST: SUMMARY OF ACTION OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON Football Northwest 505 Fifth Avenue S., Ste. 900 Seat11e, WA 98104 Port Qucndall Company 505 Fifth Avenue S., Ste. 900 Seattle, WA 98104 Ray Colliver 505 Fifth Avenue S., Ste. 900 Seattle, WA 98104 December 7, 2006 RECEIVED DEC 8 2006 FOSTER PEPPER PLLC Seat11e Scahawks' Headquarters and Training Facility File No: LUA 06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF 5015 Lake Washington Boulevard N (also addressed as 5015, 4801, and 4635 Ripley Lane) Applicant requested Master Plan and Site Phm Review for the development of the Seattle Scahawks' Headquarters and Training Facility. The project would be a single building consisting of 135,534 sf of of11cc space on two levels and 89,423 sf indoor practice facility. There would be up to four outdoor practice fields. The zoning designation is Com me rcia 1-0 m cc· Res, dent i a I. Development Services Recommendation; Approve with conditions DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT: The Development Services Report was received by the Examiner on November 14, 2006. 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 fo/lo,vi11g minutes ai·e a s11111111a1y ofrl,e November 11, 2006 hearing. The legal tecord is recorded on CD. The hearing opened on Tuesday, November 21, 2006, at 9:01 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wish mg to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. I v. Seahawks' Headquarters and 1 ing Facility File No.: LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF December 7, 2006 Page 16 7. Fan parking during training camp will be accommodated at a parking lot or parking facility off the project site, with fans then being bused to the site. 8. The project dumpster/recycling area will use containers with lids, and the container storage area will be screened from the Misty Cove property. The garbage and recycling pickups will occur during normal business hours on weekdays -not at nights or very early morning hours. All non-recyclable materials placed in the containers will be in sealed plastic bags. 9. FNW shall replace the existing property line fence between the Misty Cove property and the project site with a new fence of at least equal quality. I 0. No athletic field lighting is being proposed under the pern1it. The Seahawks agree not to seek any permit to do so for a period of l 5 years from the date of this Agreement. All project exterior lighting will be designed so that the lighting is directed away from the Misty Cove residences. 11. FNW will provide signage that clearly indicates the main entrance to the project site, so that visitors to the site can easily find the entrance. Any signage will have to comply with City and State regulations. 12. The proposed shoreline area planting plan shall include lower-level plantings in the north section of the project shoreline area, in order to minimize impacts of views of the water from the adjacent Misty Cove Condominium property. 13. The mitigation and design measures in the Lake and Stream Study and the Turf Integrated Pest Management Plan submitted to the City as part of the project application shall be conditioned to permit approval. ORDERED THIS 7" day of December 2006. FRED J. KAUFMAN HEARING EXAMINER TRANSMITTED THIS 7t1, day of December 2006 to the parties ofrecord: Elizabeth Higgins 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Lance Lopes VP Seahawks 800 Occidental Avenue S Seattle, WA 98034 Eileen Halverson 5021 Ripley Lane N, #302 Renton, WA 98056 Kayren Kittrick Development Services Renton, WA 98055 David Murphy Crawford Architects 1801 McGee St., Ste. 200 Kansas City, MO 64108 Joe Burcar 3190 160" Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98008 Roger Pearce Foster Pepper 1111 Third Avenue, 34 ili Floor Seattle, WA 98101 Larry & Esther Barsher 6940 96" Avenue SE Mercer Island, WA 98040 Carl Hadley Cedar Rock Consultants 19609 244th Avenue Seahawks' Headquarters and Training Facility file No.: LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF December 7, 2006 Page l 7 Football Northwest 505 Fifth Avenue S., Ste. 900 Seattle, WA 98104 Michael Cero 8300 Avalon Drive Mercer Island, WA 98040 Ilrian T. Sabey 5021 Ripley Lane N, Ste. 304 Renton, WA 98056 Steve Jansen 5021 Ripley Lane N, Ste. 4 Renton, WA 98056 Aaron Belcnky, President Williamsburg Condo HOA 1800 NE 40'" Street, Ste. 1-1-4 Renton, WA 98056 Barbara Paxhia 5021 Ripley Lane N, Ste. 104 Renton, WA 98056 Richard Wagner Ilaylis Architects 10801 Main Street, Ste. 1 IO Bellevue, WA 98004 Port Quendall Company 505 Fifth Avenue S, Ste. 900 Seattle, WA 98104 Thomas Peterson Socius Law Group PLLC Two Union Square 601 Union Street, Ste. 49.50 Seattle, WA 98101 Eleanor Maargo Kennamer, President Misty Cove Condo Association 5021 Ripley Lane N, Ste 309 Renton, WA 98056 Steve Gregerson 5021 Ripley Lane N, Ste. 302 Renton, WA 98056 Shelly Munkberg SECO Development 1083 Lake Washington Blvd N., Ste. 50 Renton, WA 98056 Jeffrey Taraday Foster Pepper 111 I Third Avenue, Ste. 3400 Seallle, WA 98101 TRANSMITTED THIS 7'" day of December 2006 to the following: Mayor Kathy Keolkcr Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison Stan Engler, Fire Larry Meckling, Building Official Planning Commission Transportation Division Utilities Division Woodinville, WA 98077 Ray Colliver 505 Fifth Avenue S., Ste. 900 Seattle, WA 98104 Thelma Sutherland 1205 N 29"' Street Renton, WA 98056 Jared Salstrom 5021 Ripley Lane N, Ste. 213 Renton, WA 98056 Elya George Saches 1414 N 34'1 ' Street Renton, WA 98056 Elaine Wine Vulcan 505 Fifth Avenue S, Ste. 900 Seattle, WA 98104 Tom Ehrlichman Socius La\v Group Two Union Square 601 Union Street, Ste. 4950 Seattle, WA 98101 Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator Alex Pietsch, Economic Development Jennifer Henning, Development Services Stacy Tucker, Development Services King County Journal Neil Walts, Development Services Janel Conklin, Development Services Pursuant lo Title IV, Chapter 8, Section JOOGofthe City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., December 21, 2006. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a wnlten 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. Scahawks' Headquarters and Training Facility File No.: LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF December 7, 2006 Page 18 An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of$75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance arc available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. An appeal must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., December 21, 2006. If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive CoYenants, the executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or final processing of the lile. 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 lo a land use decision may not communicate in private with any dccisionwmakcr concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. Project Location: 5015 Lake Washington Boulevard N (also addressed as 5015, 4801, 4635 Ripley Lane) !_AKE PROJECT LOCATION SE B ···.1 " _____ _j_ ______ --1------------\, 0 l- EXHIBIT 2 1/4 SHINGTON 1/2 1 Scaio In Miles l;J Reproduced wflh permission granled by THOMAS BROS, MAPS0. 0 This map Is copyrighted by THOMAS BROS. MAPSo,. It ls Seahawks Headquarters and Practice Facility Renton, Washington VICINITY MAP ~ unlawful to copy or reproduce all or any !}art thereof, whether for September 2006 21-1-20525-003 o personnl use or rosalo, "'1thou1 permission. AU rights reserved . j l ., SHANNON & WILSON, INC. ~ L.---------------------------l-----·j,;:Qj-'""'--"""""""'----°"""""'"---.L..------- ,/ i / I I / ·-------·--·---~--,' -· COR ZONING MAP \ '· \ :c, I -JE-A I mi' 'il-3 Ctt 1 ___ , -----·, c,,,s--- O;ISTINC: PCflftF. POL.£ \.OC,,11('/N - S0UT'1-! PROPElm' Ft:r-ict UN( - F'S( (..I.S(M(~ ur,,,c (raoJ EXtS7mC: ~ POJ.! LQCI.TION ccee----- HEW 1-STOR'l' =>m!<ANC< S><£D-- COVEF1E:o CAA WASH De<STI"° POW!R~ POI..£ LOC,i,,TlON ~ 1,,1,Jflt. PAAl<IN ~ ia STAUS S8:JJA:m' (;.lt.T( " " " • • LAKE WASHINGTON ,, " IST1:-.G BUILDING Sl'RUCTURE: jQ 9E 11:tl,IOYEO ' ' \j @ 7~:;p-- -·--~ -==----¥9- = "'~- "' "' ~ .c i lg Ii ro u. }' <U 0, ' J: C f C/J ·c:: ~ i ..::s::. ·cc • C: 3: ~ 3 "'f-- .c ' '° <U (/) ---·-~ ··-,, ][ •u -----~ 1 --~=I· ----5-· ··£m,J/ ·f-s .,~--· ·· · ·· ~ ~--· · · -~~ . 'I ~ r ~ =-~~ .-----··-·-··-·--=--=-=--~~~~--~l:J_--::_.=-----=--f· -.. -.-t:PO:~:.¥:SS:-----=-----·-··---------·~--I~~ .• I EXHIBIT s ~ r--- f w Q'. = I PlllXING g)\['ff -1 9 I flj tii'1 COH::ltl,l. SVRF>.cr PAAxn.rc 141 S'TAU.S 4 os -0 z "'"" ""'" '""'"' , ,, '""'-' T 1 (RS T 8 1 [-~ z olr- SJ8fAIA Cl ASS LAK;E WASI-IIN~ON -CLJ.SS 1 C'(PS'I' SUB BASIN OIWNACE -CUSS b BASE ~m:_ PLAN A1 _, • .;:r 2 (RE: ncui=ir s.)) ,01,,_ ,,, s: 1 N i-:::J .., S2 u I. r"',!l:~r ® 0 Li. .-· ---------------"' .. ~ l<(Vt.l;£0,U.~~CJI: a. ~ <( (.) (!) z -z -~ I- I s: w -> ....J <( -0:: w <( '.~t\qt~rt~~~~~t_rr11r~~~~f'i?'.,?r:i':·?_(8'i,:·:,\~':"'.:1;-?· .",.,..;-:,~:-. ,.,, .. VIEW FROM RIPLEY LANE LOOKING NORTH .I ' I ' ' ' l, •I I 1 ' I ! ' i i. j. • I ,, ' ' '1 j / c,I • \ \ l ; j ' J • ll /. w i:: ~ ::i <( 0 ..J Cl) 2 (!) 0~ er:~ LL 0 0 s: ..J w -> City of Renton P/BIPW Department SEATTLE SEAHAWKS' HEADQUARTERS ANO TRAINING FACIUTY PUBLIC HEARING DATE: November 21, 200() Prefiminary Report to the Hrrnring Ex,aminer LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF Paga 7 of20 appeal period commenced on October 23, 2006 and ended on November 6, 2006. Two appeals of the threshold determination were filed. It is anticipated that these appeals would be heard on November 21, 2006, prior to the public hearing on the Master and Site Plan Reviews. 3. ERC MITIGATION MEASURES Based on an analysis of probable impacts from the proposed project, the following mitigation measures were issued for the Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated: 1. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations included in !he geotechnical report, "Supplemental Preliminary Geotechnical Report Seahawks Headquarters and Practice Facility Renton, Washington," by Shannon & Wilson, Inc., dated September 13, 2006, including recommendations for excavation, backfill materials, structural concrete blocking, and soil remediation for the water mains. 2. This project shall be subject to the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual for water quality. 3. The applicant shall be required to provide a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) designed pursuant to the Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements, outlined in Volume II of the 2001 Stormwater Management Manual and provide staff with a Construction Mitigation Plan prior to issuance of construction permits. 4. The applicant shall work with the City to alleviate upstream flooding that may impact access to · the site. Additional details of pipe sizing and/or street improvements would be addrnssed through site plan review. 5. A traffic mitigation fee of $75 per additional daily trip shall be assessed based on the submitted calculation of 555 ADT. The fee of $41,625.00 shall be assessed at building permit issue. 6. A fire mitigation fee of $0.52 per square foot of building space shall be assessed at building permit issue. 7. In the event that archaeological deposits are found during construction, work shall stop and the contractor(s) shall contact the State Archaeologist at the State of Washington Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, phone (360) 586-3065, the Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program, phone (253) 939-3311, and Duwamish Tribal Services (206) 431-1582. 4. STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS Representatives from various city departments have reviewed the application materials to identify and address site plan issues from the proposed development. These comments are contained in the official file, and the essence of the comments has been incorporated into the appropriate sections of this report and the Departmental Recommendation at the end of the report. 5. SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW The purpose of site development plan review is to assure !hat proposed development is compatible with the plans, policies, and regulations of the City of Renton as outlined in the City's Comprehensive Plan and the City's Business Plan Goals. Site development plan review is divided into two types: Master Plan and Site Plan. HEX staff 'Pl 06--073.doc F~I.\ FOSTER PEPPER,, .. Y!AMESSENGER Mr. Fred J_ Kaufina1J Hearing Examiner City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington 98055 November 17, 2006 Re: Seattle Scahawks Headquarters Facility City of Renton Application No. LUA06-073 Dear Mr. Kaufman: Direct Phone (206) 4-17-4676 Din.'CI Facsimile-(206) 749-1997 [,M;ul 1'<c"arR1,_Host...·r.com As part of its settlement with the Misty Cove Association of Apartment Owners, permit applicant Football Northwest LLC ("FNW") agrees to the following pennit conditions with respect to its Master Plan and Shoreline Pcnnit Applications for the Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility under the above-referenced project number (the "Project") and respectfully requests they be made conditions of permit approval. Building Location/Indoor Practice Facility North Elevation Design. FNW shall develop the Project with the office building and the Indoor Practice Facility ('']PF") located as shown in the Mitigation Site Plan-Alternative, which is attached as Exhibit A to this Jetter. FNW shall develop a f,'feen screen wall, planted with ivy or other appropriate landscaping materials, along the bottom thirty (30) feet of the nm1hcasterly elevation of the !PF (the !PF elevation to the south of the Misty Cove Condominium). [n addition, FNW will develop the north elevation of the [PF substantially in accordance with the principles stated in Exhibit B to this letter. Training_Camp Oft~Site Fan Parking. Fan parking during training camp will be accommodated at a parking Jot or parking facility off the Project site, with fans then being bused to the Project site. Project Dumpster/Rccyling Area. The Project dumpster/recycling area will use containers with lids, and the container storage area will be screened from the Misty Cove property. The garbage and recycling pickups will occur during normal business hours on weekdays -not at nights or very early morning hours. All non-recyclable materials placed in the containers will be in sealed plastic bags. Misty Cove/FNW Property Line Fence. FNW shall replace the existing property line fence between the Misty Cove property and the Project site with a new fence of at least egual quality. Mr. Fred J. Kaufman November 17, 2006 Page 2 Project Outdoor Lighting. No athletic field lighting is being proposed under the permit. The Seahawks agree not to seek any permit to do so for a period of l 5 years from the date of this Agreement. All project exterior lighting will be designed so that the lighting is directed away from the Misty Cove residences. Signage. FNW will provide signage that clearly indicates the main entrance to the Project site, so that visitors to the site can easily find the entrance. Any signage will have to comply with City and state regulations. Shoreline Plantings. The proposed shoreline area planting plan shall include lower-level plantings in the north section of the Project shoreline area, in order to minimize impacts of views of the waler from the adjacent Misty Cove Condominium property. Shoreline Impacts. The mitigation and design measures in the Lake and Stream Study and lhc Turflntq,,rated Pest Management Plan submitted to the City as part of the Project i>pplication shall be conditions to pem1it approval. Thank you for your consideration of this request. V cry truly yours, FOSTER PEPPER PLLC ~~~c Roger A. Pearce Attorneys for applicant Football Northwest LLC cc: Ms. Elizabeth Higgins, City of Renton Tom Peterson, Esq. Mr. Lance Lopes Ms. Elaine Wine ·r-· ~i; ~ ~ •". ; ~,_ ~ " ms Q o' > ~~ ~ :a:: g 6 z 0' "' • " > n w m ~~ C ~ ''•"' ~ ~ z n > ~ z r iii z "' " z . ~ e < ' ·~ m n ~ " \ z le '" ~ I \ § ~::.:: i 0, ~ rn ~~ I ~~ \ -~ V ~n n "-'-u \ ~j ~ " ~ m~ \~ 1t t~ \ i I I -\ z \ \ -~ [~, 'II ;() (/\ -I 1> t· I --1 I t:l I ''(1 I So- 0 I UI I I ' I I , I I \ I ,~: \ i• \ "" ' \ I :~ l r '® \ I ' ~ I I ~ ' I I I I r I ., g i i -" "" n z n . >'"~ i a ~ ~ " "-0 ,-;i: " 1 § on 8 ~. £ e 'C!O ] g o, j i 1 ~:-= I . -~ 1-'" -~-:--'.t ~;g--~( 1· -~~==-. ' -~~----· ' .. ,,, -~--~-- ~ Seahawks Headquarters & Training Facility n r ~ ] !i • 0 g n L__ ; . I , . , I c~ "S: "'5 ~ r . :r,., ;,;: fTl 2: 0 )> l/1 I L cl I 0 z >o ~· --v-1181HX3 o·· nD ;;1i,I '"I 1),:1 ' Indoor Practice Facility (IPF) -North Elevation The design features the use of traditional architectural devices to reduce the apparent scale and mass of the project including: horizontal expression lines, special roof treatments plus fenestration and glazing systems. At the north elevation of the IPF, three exterior wall systems are being developed: 1. Base -The first 30 feet of the fa<;ade will consist of cementious wall panels and/or nonreflective metal siding lo a height of approximately 30 feet. Additional shade and shadow will be created by a "green-screen" that is comprised of a metal lattice grid with vegetation. 2. Middle -The middle portions of the elevation will consist of cementious wall panels and/or nonreflective metal siding to a height of _approximately 80 feet with no "green screen." 3. Top -The "top" portions of the elevation will include a high percentage (up to 70% to 85% of translucent panels) and sculpted roof. The sculpted component of the roof would add visual interest and reduce the apparent scale of the fa,;ade by casting varying shadow on the IPF fac;ade. Each layer of the fa<,ade will be defined by horizontal expression lines as mentioned above. In addition, the composition of the materials being proposed for the fa<;ade will have a texture which will further reduce the apparent mass of the structure. A range of color palettes are being studied for the fa<,ade including: 1. Metal Panels/Siding -Nickel to light gray 2. Cementious Panels -Buff/Sandstone to light gray/nickel 3. Translucent Panels -white to "off-white"/light gray 4. "green-screen" -stainless/metal wire mesh with vegetation growing on the screen. Final color palettes will be based on actual materials selected. An example of potential final colors, massing and roof design is included on the following page. EXHIBIT 'E, I ,.,f 1.- ·.11 \ \ I ' \ ~~t~.~· -' ' :-f- EXHIBIT 't:, 2crf'2- ' . . ·<\'Y. 0 CIT OF RENTON o"~~.~~ + ..n · + Planning/Building/PublicWorks Department ~~N'l'o<-1;;.;-K-•_th_y_K_e_o_lk-e,_, M_,y_o_, _______________ c_r_eg_g_z_i_m_m_e,_m_._" __ P._E_ .• _A_d_m_in_is_t_ra_t_o_r __ October 19, 2006 Ray Colliver Port Quendi311 Company 505 5th Avenue S ste: #900 Seattle, WA 98104 SUBJECT: Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility LUA06-073, SA-M, SA-H, SM, ECF Dear Mr. Colliver: RECEIVED OCT 2 o ?flr, fOSTEA PEPPER PlLC This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) to advise you that they have completed their review of the subject project and have issued a threshold Determination ·of Non- Significance-Mitigated with Mitigation Measures. Please refer to the enclosed ERC Report and Decision, Part 2, Section B for a list of the Mitigation Measures. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filli;d h1 writing on or before 5:00 PM on November 6, 2006. Appeals must be filed. in writing together, with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Cod!:!·Sec!ion 4-8-110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. A Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Rento~. Washington, on November 21, 2006 at 9:00 AM to consider the Master Site Plan and Site Plan. 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 mafled 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 forjmplementation of your project and enable you to exercise your appeal rights more fully, if you choose 'to do so. If you have any questior\s or des.ire clarification of the above, please caH me at (425) 430-7382. For the Environmental Review Committee, Eliz;abeth tiiggins Senior Planner cc: Parties of Record Enclosure _______ 10_5_5_S_ou-th_G_r-ad_y_W_a_y_--R-en_t_on-,-W-as-hi-.n-gt_o_n_9_8_05-.5-----~ ~ AH'EAD OF THE CURVE C j ./ REPORT C ->f Renton & Department of Planning/ Building/ Public Works DECISION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMIITEE REPORT ERG MEETING DA TE: October 16, 2006 Project Name: Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility Owner: Port Quendall Company Applicant: Football Northwest Contact: Mr. Ray Colliver 505 Fifth Avenue S, Suite 900 Seattle, WA 98104 Fife Number: LUA06-073, ECF, SA-M, SA-H, SM Project Manager: Elizabeth Higgins, Senior Planner Project Description: The project proponent is requesting SEPA environmental review for development of the Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility. The proposed project would consist of a three-story office building and indoor practice facility in a single structure and four outdoor practice fields for the sport of professional football. An ancillary building for football-related equipment storage is also planned. Continued next page Project Location: 5015 Lake Washington Boulevard N (also addressed as 5015, 4801, 4635 Ripley Lane) Exist. Bldg. Area SF: N/A Proposed New Bldg. Area (footprint): 12g,595 sf Proposed New Bldg. Area (gross): 215,000 sf Site Area: 19.68 acres (853,776 sf) Total Building Area GSF: 215,000 sf RECOMMENDA T/ON: Staff recommends that the Environmental Review Committee issue a Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M). Project Location Map Seahawks ERC Report 03 City of Renton P/8/PW Departmer,· SEAHAWKS HEADQUARTERS ) TRAINING FACILITY ~~=.;,;,;=~====== Ere pmental Review Committee Sta,ff Report • LUA-06-073, ECF, SA-M, SA-H, SM REPORT OF OCTOBER 16, 2006 .Page 2 of 16 jPART ONE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND, CONTINUED The proposed project location is a vacant site between the shore of Lake Washington and the NE 441" Street interchange with Interstate 405 (Exit 7) in Northeast Renton (Exhibit 1 ). The site consists of two tax parcels, known as Baxter North and Baxter South Properties. The 19.6 acre Baxter property is a former timber processing/wood treatment facility (Exhibit 2). The wood treating operations at the site ended in 1981 and the property was subsequently used for storage of bark mulch. Cleanup of the property was prescribed by Prospective Purchaser Consent Decrees (North Baxter, #00-2- 11778-?KNT and South Baxter, #00-2-11779-5KNT) negotiated with the Department of Ecology under the Model Toxics Control Act. Cleanup of the South Baxter property consisted of excavation and replacement of soils in the Baxter Cove area and soil stabilization in the uplands. North Baxter remediation, consisting of capping contaminated soils, has been proposed to occur simultaneously with site construction. The site is within the Gypsy Subbasin Drainage, a 320 acre area north of and near, but independent of May Creek. The drainage way for the Gypsy Subbasin enters the property in a pipe from the BNSF Railroad right-of-way. Once on the property it flows from east to west first in a 125 foot open channel and then for 490 feet in a pipe to an outfall at the shoreline of Lake Washington. The dominant character of the site is an abandoned open field. There are no significant buildings on the property at the present time. A single-story, 1,300 sf wood-frame office building built on Baxter North in 1963, would be removed from the property, as would asphalt-paved interior roads. An existing boathouse and dock are located at the northwest shoreline. There is currently no plan to utilize these features and they would be fenced from the area of the site accessible to the public. On-site clean-up activities, remediation from the former wood-processing activities, have consisted of soil excavation, contaminant removal, and in situ soil stabilization. Site grading for the project would be coordinated with continuing remediation. Calculations indicate the capping of the site (see Environmental Health discussion, below) and grading for site features would require approximately 29,600 cubic yards of cut and 52,900 cubic yards of fill material. Some cut material would be removed from the site and the remainder reused. A source statement for fill material would be required at the time of site construction. The property is zoned Commercial/ Residential/ Office 2 (COR 2). The stated purpose of the Commercial/ Residential/ Office zone is, "to provide for a mix of intensive office, hotel, convention center, and residential activity in a high-quality, master-planned development that is integrated with the natural environment." Although a major, national sports franchise headquarters was not anticipated as a use at the time this policy statement was formed, the following adopted policy is applicable, "Also, commercial uses that provide high economic value may be allowed if designed with the scale and intensity envisioned for the COR zone." The proposed project consists of administrative offices for a professional football franchise and accessory training and practice facilities (Exhibit 3). The office and an indoor practice field would be within a 215,000 gross square foot building on the North Baxter property. Administrative offices would be 48,000 sf and technical/ support and player meeting space would be 15,000 sf each. Four outdoor, practice fields covering 8.3 acres would be located on the Baxter South property. Three would be natural and one artificial turf. The proponent's vision is for a building that would be both functional and aesthetically significant. Of the total building area, 131,000 gross square feet of office space would be located on three levels. Most of the building would be between 52 and 55 feet in height. The height of the 80,000 gross square foot indoor practice field, situated on the north and east sides of the building, would be between 95 feet at the center of the field and 120 feet. There would be three natural grass practice fields, oriented east-west on the South Baxter property. A one-story, 6,000 sf maintenance I equipment storage building would be located near the south property line. The steel frame building would be faced in buff/sandstone to light gray synthetic stone, masonry, and storefront systems on the lower level. Clear-glazed windows and either buff/sandstone to light gray cementious, or nickel to light gray metal, wall panels in on upper portions. (Building siting and design will be discussed to a greater extent during the Site Plan Review). The scale and intensity of the proposed project balances City policies that intend high intensity use, with both the natural amenities of the shoreline and wetland, both of which will have been enhanced by project completion, and residual contamination from the former industrial use. Seahawl<s ERG Report 03 ii ,yily of fienton PIB!PW Departmer•, J ,imenta/ Review Committee Staff Report SEAHAWKS HEADQUARTERl J TRAINING FACILITY . . LUA-06-073, ECF, SA-M, SA-H, SM ======'a=========~~================== REPORT OF OCTOBER 16, 2006 Page 3 of 16 Access would be from Lake Washington Boulevard (Ripley Lane) on the east and would require crossing the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way with a private street On-site roads would be private. There would be parking for 299 vehicles; 195 stalls for general surface parking and 104 secure (fenced) surface parking stalls for team members. Due to both limited access and on-site parking, the annual training camp, held for three weeks in August, would require off-site parking with a scheduled shuttle bus service. Portions of the site not covered with pavement, buildings, or fields would be either restored with native vegetation (wetland and shoreline) or landscaped appropriately for its function. Irrigation systems would be installed in all landscaped areas with temporary irrigation for the shoreline riparian plantings until they are established. (Landscaping will be discussed to a greater extent during the Site Plan Review). A viewpoint at shoreline of Lake Washington would be accessible to the public by means of an east-west paved walkway located parallel to the north property boundary. This viewpoint would be landscaped and furnished with benches. A Category 3 wetland has been restored and would remain in a protected area at the southwest portion of the property, adjacent to Lake Washington. The wetland would not be accessible to the public, although public access to the shoreline of Lake Washington would be provided by the proponent at the northwest corner of the property. !PART TWO: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 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. A. Recommendation Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommends that the Responsible Officials make the following Environmental Determination: DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE Issue DNS with 14-day Appeal Period. B. Mitigation Measures X DETERMINATION OF NON· SIGNIFICANCE· MIT/GA TED. Issue DNS-M with 14-day Appeal Period. Issue DNS-M with 15-day Comment Period with a Concurrent 14-day Appeal Period. 1. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations included in the geotechnical report, "Supplemental Preliminary Geotechnical Report Seahawks Headquarters and Practice Facility Renton, Washington,• by Shannon & Wilson, Inc., dated September 13, 2006, including recommendations for excavation, backfill materials, structural concrete blocking, and soil remediation for the water mains. 2. This project shall be subject to the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual for water quality. 3. The applicant shall be required to provide a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) designed pursuant to the Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements, outlined in Volume II of the 2001 Stormwater Management Manual and provide staff with a Construction Mitigation Plan prior to issuance of construction permits. 4. The applicant shall work with the City to alleviate upstream flooding that may impact access to the site. Additional details of pipe sizing and/or street improvements would be addressed through site plan review. 5. A traffic mttigation fee of $75 per additional daily trip shall be assessed based on the submitted calculation of 555 ADT. The fee of $41,625.00 shall be assessed at building permit issue. 6. A fire mitigation fee of $0.52 per square foot of building space shall be assessed at building permit issue. 7. In the event that archaeological deposits are found during construction, work shall stop and the contractor(s) shall contact the State Archaeologist at the State of Washington Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, phone (360) 586-3065, the Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program, phone {253) 939-3311, and Duwamish Tribal Services (206) 431-1582. Seahawks ERC Report 03 City of Renton PIB/PW Department( SEAHAWKS HEADQUARTERS REPORTOFOCTOBER 16, 2006 I En, ,~mental Review Cammi/tee Sta,fi Report C. Exhibits Exhibit 1 Exhibit 2 Exhibit 3 Exhibit 4 Exhibit 5 Exhibit 6 Exhibit 7 Exhibit 8 Exhibit 9 Exhibit 10 Exhibit 11 Exhibit 12 Exhibit 13 Exhibit 14 Exhibit 15 TRAINING FACILITY . LUA-06-()73, ECF, SA-M, SA-H, SM Vicinity Map (September 2006) Historic Aerial Photo of North and South Baxter Properties (date unknown) Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility, Building Plan (September 2006) Seattle Fault Zone (July 2006) Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility, Site Plan (September 2006) Baxter Cove Wetland Mitigation Plan (August 2006) Lake Washington Shoreline, Existing Conditions (2006) Riparian Habitat Functions and Values Chart (September 2006) Gypsy Subbasin Culvert Replacement and Relocation Plan (August 2006) Summary of Pest Control Measures (September 2006) Visualization Assessment Viewpoints (September 2006) Visualization Assessment, NE 76 1 " Street Viewshed (September 2006) Visualization Assessment, Misty Cove Unit 312 Viewshed (September 2006) Visualization Assessment, Misty Cove Unit 302 Viewshed (September 2006) Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility, Elevations (September 2006) Page 4 of 16 D. Environmental Impacts The Proposal was circulated and reviewed by various City Departments and Divisions to determine whether the applicant has adequately idantified and addressed environmental impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development. Staff reviewers have identified that the proposal is likely to have the following probable impacts: 1. Earth Impacts: An Environmental Checklist submitted by the project proponent and a report, "Supplemental Preliminary Geotechnical Report Seahawks Headquarters and Practice Facility Renton, Washington," by Shannon & Wilson, Inc., September 13, 2006, forms the basis of analysis of impacts classified within the category of "earth". Additional, existing reports were reviewed for consistency with the literature study and on- site investigation. Site exploration consisted of drilling 6 borings and excavating 29 backhoe test pits. Borings were based on proposed location of building corners and the estimated building center. The test pits were spaced across the site to provide an overview of near-surface soils. Some pits were more closely spaced where deeper excavation for site preparation would occur. The subsurface geology is a combination of naturally-occurring and artificial conditions. Fluvial deltaic, lacustrine near-shore deposits and constructed fill overlie Pleistocene glacial sediments and Eocene volcanic and sedimentary bedrock. The site has undergone many influences over past decades including the lowering of the lake approximately 8 feet when the Lake Washington Ship Canal was constructed in 1916. In the mid 1950s, filling occurred on the site to extend the shoreline and raise the grade for construction of industrial facilities. Ongoing dredging and backfilling increased the complexity of the soil so that the subsurface material consists of a highly heterogeneous mix of clay, silt, peat, sand, gravel, and cobbles. Intermixed are abandoned subsurface structures and discarded debris from past industrial activities on the site. Generally, subsurface soils in the building and fields locations consist of either fill material to a depth of 2 to 3 feet, soft estuarine deposits and loose alluvial soils to depths of between 17 and 38 feet. The estuarine and alluvial deposits have layers of loose sand and compressible peat making them subject to liquefaction (see discussion below). The depth to bedrock varies greatly across the site with depths from 17.5 feet to more than 50 feet. It consists of highly weathered Andesite and Is a competent bearing material for building foundations. The site slopes gently at about a 1 percent grade across the property from northeast to southwest. There are isolated slopes at about 5 percent along the north of the site. There is an elevation change from 33 feet in the northeast corner to about 21 feet where a wetland is located in the southwest corner (see below). The proposed access road would gain elevation between the railroad crossing and the proposed office building. The elevation of the driveway and parking lot at the building entrance on the east side of the building Seahawks ERG Report 03 ,City of Renton P/8/PW Departmer'' SEAHAWKS HEADQUARTERS REPORT OF OCTOBER 16, 2006 i TRAINING FACILITY E )mental Review Committee Staff Report LUA-06-073, ECF, SA-M, SA-H, SM Page Sot 16 is proposed to be approximately 14 feet above the existing grade. The parking area would slope downward as it wraps around the north end of the building to the west, where it would meet the existing grade. A loading dock at the northwest corner of the office building would be approximately 1 foot above existing grade. This configuration would require construction of walls designed to retain up to 14 feet of fill adjacent to the office building. The remainder of the site, consisting primarily of outdoor practice fields, would require an average of approximately 4 feet of fill, with cuts on the east side and up to 3 feet of fill on the west. The site is located approximately 3 miles south of the "Seattle Fault," (Exhibit 4) and is therefore considered to lie in a moderately active seismic zone. Due to subsurface conditions, the site is subject to earthquake- induced liquefaction and settlement. This susceptibility to liquefaction extends to a depth of about 40 feet. The office/indoor practice building would have typical loads for a structure of this type and size (verified by Magnusson Klemencic Associates, project structural engineers, in conversation with Shannon & Wilson). The recommended foundation design for the building would include 24-to 36-inch concrete shafts drilled to bedrock. The practice equipment building would be supported sufficiently on spread footings. These proposed site improvements would not be anticipated to have adverse long-term impacts on surrounding properties, although drilling to bedrock may have temporary sound, emissions, and vibration impacts during construction (see Advisory Notes to Applicant, below). Mitigation Measures: The applicant will be required to comply with the recommendations included in the geotechnical report, "Supplemental Preliminary Geotechnical Report Seahawks Headquarters and Practice Facility Renton, Washington," by Shannon & Wilson, Inc., dated September 13, 2006, including recommendations for excavation, backfill materials, structural concrete blocking, and soil remediation for the water mains .. Nexus: RMC 4-4-060, "Grading, Excavation and Mining Regulations" 2. Air Impacts: It is anticipated that some temporary adverse air quality impacts could be associated with site work and building construction required to develop this property. Project development impacts during construction may include dust resulting from grading, exhaust from construction vehicles, odors from roofing installation, and roadway paving. Dust would be controlled through the use of temporary erosion control measures and sprinkling of the site with water as needed. Odor impacts during construction are unavoidable and would be short-term in nature. Post development impacts potentially include vehicle and heating and cooling systems exhaust. These emissions are regulated by state and federal agencies, Nor further site specific mitigation for the identified impacts from exhaust is required. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation is required. Nexus: Not applicable 3. Water Impacts: The site is within the Gypsy Subbasin Drainage of the Lake Washington East Basin. The Gypsy Subbasin is a 320 acre, Class 2 water north of and near, but independent of May Creek. Class 2 waters are salmonid-bearing perennial waters during years of normal rainfall. The drainage collects at a point on the west side of the project site where it flows for 125 feet in an open ditch prior to entering a 24-inch piped culvert. The culvert length is 490 feet to an outfall at the shore of Lake Washington. Lake Washington is a Class 1 water, a salmonid-bearing perennial water also classified as Shorelines of Statewide Significance (see Shoreline discussion below). Reconfiguration of this feature of the Gypsy Subbasin (see Stormwater discussion below) and site development within 200 feet of a Shoreline of the State would occur as a part of the proposed project. For Seahams ERG Report 03 City of Renton PIB/PW Departmen, t" •JNlNG ~AGILITY SEAHA WKS HEADQUARTERS , ..,. r. En-!,mental Review Committee Staff Report, LUA-06--073, ECF, SA-M, SA-H, SM REPORT OF OCTOBER 16, 2006 . Page 6 of t 6 these reasons, both Standard and Supplemental Stream/Lake studies were required. A report, "Stream and Lake Study, Supplemental Stream and Lake Study, Stream Mitigation Plan, Seahawks Corporate · Headquarters and Training Facility, Renton, Washington," by Cedarock Consultants, Inc. and A.C. Kindig & Co, dated September 20, 2006, was submitted for review. The overall goal of the cumulative remediation, as determined by the Consent Decrees, has been improved water quality in Lake Washington. The proposed project incorporates the final remediation with the initial phases of development. This action is laying a 3-foot deep clean soil cap across the site. At the building location, the floor slab would serve as a part of this cap. Upsizing of the Gypsy Subbasin Drainage culvert, prior to completing the cap, would alleviate upstream flooding. Replacement of exotic species along the shoreline and replanting to improve functions and values of the riparian zone has been proposed. Most native plants and large trees along the shoreline would be preserved. These improved conditions would improve the shoreline role in protecting aquatic habitat values critical to Lake Washington. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation is required. Nexus: Not applicable 4. Wetlands Impacts: Two on-site wetlands were excavated and filled in association with the remediation plan that resulted from the negotiated Consent Decrees. Also as part of the Consent Decrees, approximately 0.46 acre of mitigation wetland was restored in November 2002, along 250 feet of the shoreline of the Lake near the southwest comer of the property (Exhibit 5) at Baxter Cove. The Baxter Cove wetland is designed to be a forested wetland with open water and emergent components within the cove. Ultimately, it will be a forested wetland, but currently trees planted in seasonally saturated wetland areas have not attained the required height to meet classification standards for this wetland type. The open water component is less than 40 percent of the total wetland area. The emergent classification can be applied to the open water area when the lake level is low and to the edges of the cove when levels are high. This lake-fed wetland meets the Renton standards for a Class 3 wetland (newly emerging). It complies with performance standards and is intended to remain as an undisturbed component of the project proposal. (Initial conceptual plans had a public access to the lake shoreline constructed through this area, but the final plan has public access to the lake outside of the protected wetland and its buffer). A 50-foot vegetated and enhanced wetland buffer was also restored as part of the mitigation. A portion of this buffer would be subject to buffer averaging, as allowed by the City of Renton Critical Areas Ordinance, but no part of the buffer would be reduced to less than 40-feet in width and the total amount of buffer area would not be reduced. Approximately 1,220 feet of the wetland buffer would be filled, with replacement of buffer area at a 1 :1 ratio (Exhibit 6). Subsequently, a wetlands site assessment was conducted by The RETEC Group, Inc. in May 2006 and the results included in their report, "Shoreline and Wetland Survey, North and South Baxter Parcels, Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility, City of Renton," dated August 30, 2006. No jurisdictional wetland areas were identified on the project site during the wetland reconnaissance, other than the Baxter Cove wetland. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation is required. Nexus: Not applicable 5. Shoreline Impacts: The proposed project site has 1,887 feet of shoreline along Lake Washington, a Class 1 Inventoried Shoreline of the State (Exhibit 7). There are approximately 1.23 acres of vegetated area within 100-feet of the shoreline (excluding 0.36 acres of the Baxter Cove area that is part of the restored wetland). The character of the shoreline is a steep bank of between 2 and 3 feet high with vegetation rooted at the top of bank. A covered boathouse with pier and a dock are at two locations along the shoreline. Seahav.1<s ERC Report 03 , pity of F;lenton P/8/PW Oepartme ·, J )mental Review Committee Staff Report SEAHAWKS HEADQUARTER J TRAINING FACILITY LUA.06-073, ECF, SA·M, SA-H, SM ==============--================:=-=== REPORT OF OCTOBER 16, 2006 Page 7 of 16 The proposed project would require the following work within 200 feet of the shoreline of Lake Washington: • Capping (soil cover placement) consistent with the Department of Ecology Consent Decree • Construction of the Seahawks Headquarters building • Construction of natural grass practice fields • Shoreline improvements per statute within the 50 foot setback, including riparian plant zone • Construction of retaining wall and driveways • Piping a section of Gypsy Creek drainage to an existing Gypsy Creek outfall at the lakeshore Proposed improvements are features allowed within the Renton Shoreline Master Program under the Urban Environment designation. Lake water elevations fluctuate depending on US Army Corps of Engineers regulation of water level at the Lake Washington Ship Canal. Typically, the elevation of Lake Washington in June is about 18.8 feet above sea level and 16.8 (the lowest level) during December and January. An Ordinary High Water Mark of 19.5 has been noted on this site, however, possibly due to erosion caused by a combination of lack of vegetation on the steep bank slope and wind and boat-generated waves. As part of the wetland restoration, large woody debris was anchored along the shoreline at Baxter Cove. Other logs, pilings, and seawalls along the shoreline may act to reduce the effects of wind and wave erosion. A Lake Washington shoreline planting plan is part of the proposed project. All trees 10 inches or larger in diameter at breast height within 100 feet of the shoreline have been inventoried and would be retained wherever possible. The vegetated area of 1.23 acres would be maintained or increased. All non-native vegetation would be removed and replaced with native plants that provide moderate to high shoreline protection and wildlife function. The existing 0.82 acres of tree canopy would be matched or exceeded, with cover objectives being met within 5 to 10 years (Exhibit 8). The shoreline restoration and management program is included in the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Application component of this Land Use Action. Mitigation Measures: [Mitigation of shoreline development is included in the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Application component of this Land Use Action.] Nexus: Not applicable 6. Stormwater Impacts: The project site is located in the Gypsy Subbasin. Stormwater currently sheet flows from east to west across the weedy brush-covered, but vacant site, free draining into Lake Washington. An existing, degraded storm drain system crosses the site conveying stormwater from offsite to an outfall at the Lake. The site soils are a minor factor when considering the stormwater control system due to their heavily degraded nature and the manipulation of the site through filling, grading, and dredging over many years. For purposes of drainage analysis, soils would be designated as from Hydrologic soil Group C, moderate runoff soils (till). As part of the Consent Decree remediation, a "cap" is to be placed over potentially hazardous materials on site to prevent incidental contact following site development. This cap would be a factor to be considered during design of the stormwater control system (see Environmental Health discussion below). A report, "Stormwater Technical Information." by Magnusson Klemencic Associates, dated August 30, 2006 has been submitted by the project proponent and would be the primary basis for stormwater control systems design. Stormwater management would be based on the requirements of the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM), which would be applicable for this project. The project is exempt from detention as it discharges into Lake Washington, a direct discharge receiving water. The system would include water quality treatment, however, prior to discharge. The KCSWDM designates areas draining to Lake Washington as subject to the requirements of Basic Treatment. The proposed water quality treatment system, however, would provide Enhanced Basic water quality. Treatment systems would vary according to functions at different zones on the site, as follows: Seahawl<s ERC Report 03 City of Renton P/BIPW Departmen' ) SEAHAWKS HEADQUARTERS TRAINING FACILITY Enc !,mental Review Committee Staff Report• LUA-06-073, ECF, SA-M, SA-H, SM REPORT OF OCTOBER 16, 2006 ,Page 8 of 16 Pedestrian hardscape (sidewalks, plaza), non-sports field landscaping, and building/roof areas: As non; pollution generating surfaces (roofs do not consist of unpainted metal), stormwater runoff will drain to Lake Washington as direct discharge. The synthetic turf field consists of a 12-inch base course of imported crushed rock, a minimum 1.5 inch porous asphalt layer, a fiber polyurethane woven fabric, 5/8 inch energy absorbing layer of granular rubber, 1.5 inch granular rubber and sand mix overlain by synthetic field turf. Rainwater on the synthetic field would infiltrate through the surface material and base layers to subdrains to be conveyed to the Lake for discharge. Natural turf fields: The natural turf fields would overlay an 18 inch layer of sand, which would function as a filter. As with the synthetic turf field, subdrains would convey runoff to the Lake. An Integrated Pest Management (1PM) Plan would be utilized for turf management (see Environmental Health discussion below). The 1PM Plan would address the use of fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides so that field runoff meets water quality standards. Parking lots and driveways: Stormwater runoff from paved areas subject to vehicle traffic would be collected and directed to four sand filters. Three of the filters would be grass covered to provide pre-treatment and maintain the surface permeability of the sand filters. Pretreatment at the fourth filter would be provided by an additional layer of sand. This filter would function, additionally, as a football practice area. To maintain the filter system and protect the health of the football players, the sand layer would be cleaned of potential pollutants annually or more often as needed. Subdrains would convey collected stormwater to the Lake for discharge. Peak rate runoff control in not required or provided for this project because the site discharges directly to Lake Washington, a major receiving water body. Therefore, retention/detention analysis and design would not be required. The Baxter Cove wetland is hydraulically connected to Lake Washington and will not be part of the project stormwater management systems. Discharge to Lake Washington would be through five new drainage system outfalls. The pipe outfalls would release stormwater above the ordinary high-water mark (OHWM) of Lake Washington and subsequently drain over energy dissipating rock-lined channels to the OHWM. The channels would be located at areas of the shoreline where non-erosive material is located that would protect the shoreline during periods of lowered water levels. A portion of the Gypsy Subbasln drainage system, which conveys stormwater from the east side of Interstate 405 to the Lake, currently daylights for 125 feet east of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way. This section consists of a below-grade, man-made ditch with steep, rock-lined side slopes. There is minimal fish habitat present. This open channel enters a 24-inch corrugated metal pipe that slopes approximately 0.1 percent to the Lake. The outfall is about 1 foot above the lake level, when the lake is at a low elevation. When the water level is at higher elevations, the culvert experiences backwater that makes upstream fish travel possible, although it has not been observed. The proposed project would require replacement and relocation of this Gypsy Subbasin drainage feature. The Headquarters building footprint conflicts with the current pipe location. The 490 foot pipe would be realigned around the building and lengthened to approximately 860 feet (Exhibit 9). The existing outfall would remain in place at its current condition. The Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA) for this work states the following potential impacts: "elimination of 125 feet of open channel, a slightly larger culver across the project site, will affect riparian vegetation along the Gypsy Subbasin and Lake Washington, and will result in some disturbance to the shoreline of Lake Washington above and below the ordinary high water mark." The existing outfall would be used and shoreline restoration at the outfall would occur as part of this work. Alternatives to piping, including daylighting the entire drainage channel and maintaining the existing open portion were studied. The capping requirement of the Consent Decrees, however, is premised on the need to avoid direct contact of flowing water with residual contaminated soils on the property. The capping and culvert together isolate the Gypsy Subbasin Drainage and Lake Washington from site soils. Therefore, the open section of the drainage would be included in the new piped system. Seahawks ERG Report 03 Oity of Renton P/B/PW Oepartme SEAHAWKS HEADQUARTERS REPORT OF OCTOBER 16, 2006 I TRAINING FACILITY )mental Review Committee Staff Report LUA-06-073, ECF, SA-M, SA-H, SM Page 9 of 16 The applicant shall work with the City to alleviate upstream flooding that may impact access to the site. Additional details of pipe sizing and/or street improvements would be addressed through site plan review. Surface Water System Development Charges of $0.249 per square foot of new impervious surfaces would be required. Mitigation Measures: This project shall be subject to the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual. The applicant shall be required to provide a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) designed pursuant to the Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements, outlined in Volume II of the 2001 Stormwater Management Manual and provide staff with a Construction Mitigation Plan prior to issuance of construction permits. The applicant shall work with the City to alleviate upstream flooding that may impact access to the site. Additional details of pipe sizing and/or street improvements will be addressed through the site plan review process. Nexus: SEPA Regulations 7. Transportation Impacts: Transportation impacts have been analyzed in the report, "Traffic Impact Analysis Seahawks' Headquarters," by The Transpo Group, dated September 2006. Vehicle access to the site would be from Ripley Lane (also known as Lake Washington Boulevard North). Lake Washington Boulevard intersects with Northeast 44 1 h Street near the project site. Exit 7 of Interstate 405 is located at NE 44th St. Currently, Ripley Lane is improved with minimal pavement and no pedestrian amenities. There are two existing at-grade crossings of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way. The southern one crosses the Quendall Terminals property. There is an access easement recorded granting access rights across the Quendall property to the proposed development site. The project proponent is discussing the possibility of a third crossing at a mid-point of the project site. A third crossing would not be a necessity for project access however. The City of Renton Transportation Division has requested that street improvements along Ripley Lane include roadway widening to provide one vehicular traffic lane in each direction, bicycle lanes in each direction, and a paved shoulder area to serve as a pedestrian walkway (one side only) abutting the bicycle lane. These improvements should extend from Lake Washington Boulevard/NE 44th St on the south {beyond the project site) to the north end of the Seahawks Headquarters site. The City of Renton would contribute toward these improvements. In is estimated that the proposed project would contribute an additional 555 average daily weekday trips (ADT) to the City's transportation system. Therefore, the proposed project would be subject to a transportation mitigation fee of $75 per trip. The fee of $41,625.00 would be assessed at building permit issue. Parking for up to 315 cars would be provided on-site, with 104 spaces within a secure, fenced parking area. The site is not served by public transportation. The nearest transit stops are to the north in the City of Newcastle at 1161h and 761h or south, in Kennydale, at Park Avenue N and N. 33"' St. Mitigation Measures: A traffic mitigation fee of $75 per additional daily trip shall be assessed based on the submitted calculation of 555 ADT. The fee of $41,625.00 would be assessed at building permit issue. Nexus: SEPA 8. Fire Protection Impacts: Fire Prevention staff indicates that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development; subject to the condition that the applicant provides required improvements (see Advisory Notes Seahawks ERC Report 03 City of Renton PIBIPW Departmeni-j SEAHAWKS HEADQUARTERS i TRAINING FACILITY E· .nmental Review Committee St~fl Repoff LUA-06-073, ECF, SA-M, SA-H, SM REPORTOFOCTOBER 16, 2006 Page 10 of 16 to Applicant, below) and mitigation fees are paid prior to building permit issue. The mitigation fee, for . commercial space, is $0.52 per square foot. Mitigation Measures: A fire mitigation fee of $0.52 per square foot of building space shall be assessed at building permit issue. Nexus: SEPA 9. Vegetation Impacts: The project site has been periodically cleared of vegetation over the years of its industrial use. Comprehensive site clearing took place in 1990. Vegetation was also removed during Consent Decree cleanup activities. Currently, approximately 10 percent of the site has trees and other plants. Final cleanup including the placement of the 3-foot deep cap will require removal of most existing vegetation from the site, excluding that in the wetland and wetland buffer. Existing vegetation varies on the site depending on past activities and current situation. Vegetation zones include open meadow, which is the predominant condition, BNSF Railroad right-of-way edge, Gypsy Sub basin Drainage feature, Baxter Cove Wetland, and Lake Washington shoreline. Past industrial activities on the site, including clearing, have restricted the ability of trees to mature; thereby growth of tree canopy has been limited. The majority of the site is open meadow. Non-native grasses (bent grass, velvet grass, tall and red fescue, and reed canary grass) and weedy herbaceous plants (soft rush, sickle-leaved rush, bird's foot trefoil, white clover, western dock, vetch, and hairy cat's ear) typical of disturbed meadows dominate the vegetation on the property. Trees that are present along the eastern edge of the property, abutting the SNSF Railroad right-of-way, include black cottonwood, red alder, Scouler's and Pacific willow. Although a tree inventory has been completed and trees larger than 10 inches in diameter identified, these tree species are exempt from Ren\on's tree retention regulations. Preservation of many of these trees has been proposed by the project applicant, but would not be required by the City of Renton. The steep banks of the open portion of the Gypsy Subbasin Drainage have cover consisting of red alder, black cottonwood, willow, Himalayan blackberry, and Scotch broom. The proposed project would relocate this open channel into a piped culvert and the existing vegetation would be removed. The lake-fed Baxter Cove wetland ha_s three types of vegetation structure with its 0.46 acre area. They are aquatic bed, emergent plants, and scrub/shrub. When trees planted in seasonally saturated wetland areas attain greater height, classification standards for forested wetland will be met. Trees planted in the wetland include Douglas fir, western hemlock, Sitka spruce, bigleaf maple, black cottonwood, Oregon ash, red alder, Pacific willow, bitter cherry, and cascara. Shrubs include vine maple, red osier dogwood, hawthorn, western crabapple, Sitka willow, hazelnut, salmonberry, nootka rose, Oregon grape, sword fern, snowberry, twinberry, and salal. Emergent plants include lady fern, slough sedge, hardstem bulrush, small-fruited bulrush, water parsley, and tall mannagrass. Shoreline vegetation, at the top of a 2-to 3-foot bank, consists of blackberry, purple loosestrife, Scotch broom, red alder, black cottonwood, and willow. Other than Himalayan blackberry extending several feet over the bank there is little vegetation along the water edge. All pervious areas of the development are required to be landscaped. Renton Municipal Code requires that parking areas be landscaped and all areas planted with plants other than drought-tolerant varieties must be irrigated. No known endangered, threatened, or sensitive plant species have been observed on the property. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required. Nexus: Not applicable Seahawks ERC Report 03 '<;;ity of Renton P/8/PW DepartmP ' i SEAHAWKS HEADQUARTERS I TRAINING FACILITY REPORT OF OCTOBER 16, 2006 10. Wildlife )mental Review Committee Staff Report LUA-06-073, ECF, SA-M, SA-H, SM Page 11 of 16 Impacts: Bolh upland and aquatic habitat value of the site is considered to be low due to the highly disturbed nature of the property. On-going and persistent site manipulation associated with the industrial business conducted on the upland portions of the property has resulted in limited vegetation and residual contamination. A 4-foot high beaver dam is located at the downstream end of the open portion of the Gypsy Subbasin Drainage channel at the east side of the site. This structure currently provides improved habitat value to the open channel that would otherwise be too shallow, muddy, and lacks instream structure and cover. There is little protection against winter storm events that result in high velocity fiows. Likewise, low fiows during summer atso limit habitat quality. Higher value habitat may be located along the shoreline, although the dominance of non-native invasive plant species, lack of vegetative diversity and structure, and lack of special habitat features such as snags also results in limitation on value. No known endangered, threatened, or sensitive animal species have been observed on the property. Turtles of unknown species, but probably painted or red-eared sliders, were present near the Baxter Cove wetland, a killdeer was seen at the center of the property, and Canadian geese were observed on the property to the north. Other fowl observed in the vicinity include red-winged blackbird, snipe, and numerous duck species along the shoreline. Osprey are present in the area from mid-March through August and have nested at various locations in the area including the Baxter properties and the Barbee Mill property through the years. Their nests and perch site are also frequented by Canadian geese and bald eagles. Three bald eagle nests have been known, historically, to be west and northwest of the site on Mercer Island. Given the size and location of the property it can be expected that deer, beaver, raccoon, opossum, skunk, and other small mammals and rodents frequent the property. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. Nexus: Not applicable 11. Environmental Health Impacts: The wood treating operations at the site ended in 1981 and the property was subsequently used for storage of bark mulch. Prospective Purchaser Consent Decrees (North Baxter, #00-2-11778-?KNT and South Baxter, #00-2-11779-SKNT) were negotiated with the Department of Ecology under the Model Toxics Control Act occurred in 2000. Cleanup of the South Baxter property consisted of excavation and replacement of soils in the Baxter Cove area and soil stabilization in the uplands. North Baxter remediation, consisting of capping contaminated soils. has been proposed to occur simultaneously with site construction. Although site cleanup occurred in 2002, as part of the Consent Decree for the North Baxter property, a "cap" is to be placed over the site to prevent incidental contact with potentially hazardous residual materials following site development. This cap would consist of both pervious and impervious materials including pavements, building foundation pads, athletic field materials, and imported fill. Where the cap consists of pervious materials, an indicator layer consisting of a fabric or geogrid textile would be placed over the 3 foot deep cap as a warning device for potential future excavation. The property abutting to the south, the Quendall Terminals, has been designated a superfund cleanup site. Cleanup will commence under the direction of the Environmental Protection Agency. The southern-most property, the Barbee Mill, has on-going, voluntary site remediation. Previous studies of the historic use of the properties in this area reveal that past industrial use, and resulting contamination, is property distinct, therefore cleanup plans are appropriately unique to each site. Natural turf field maintenance would be according to an Integrated Pest Management (1PM) Plan developed by the applicant. The 1PM would address management techniques and potential chemical uses on the natural turf practice fields. The plan also includes an accidental spill and response plan. The 1PM would utilize Best Management Practices (BPMs) to specify disease-resistant turf species and varieties, control of drainage and light, fertilization and watering regimes, and soil mechanics (Exhibit 8). Weed and insect pest damage threshold levels would be established and chemical treatment applied on an Seahal'A<s ERC Report 03 City of Renton P/8/PW Departmem ) SEAHAWKS HEADQUARTERS TRAINING FACILITY Er.-,hmental Review Commi,ttee Staff Report. LUA-06-073, ECF, SA-M, SA-H, SM REPORTOFOCTOBER 16, 2006 Page 12 of 16 as-needed basis, if necessary_ Alternative methods of cultural treatment control, however, would be preferred - and sought. The exception to this approach would be routine, seasonal preventative treatment against'fungus diseases. This would be necessary to prevent development of disease to levels that would require higher doses that would also render the fields unplayable. Pesticides would not be proposed for use. An on-site field manager and staff would monitor and record turf health, damage levels, and response thresholds_ Chemical analysis would be conducted to determine turf requirements. Field maintenance would comply with Washington State Industrial Safety and Health Act and Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations. The turf fertilizer program includes nutrients and trace minerals to maximize turf health and minimize the need for pesticides. Slow release fertilizer would be the preferred form at application to reduce nutrient transport from the turf root zone. Slow release nutrients are insoluble and generally take 4 to 12 weeks to become completely liberated and available for turf utilization_ Management of application rates would prevent overapplication of fertilizer. The potentially adverse impacts to water quality from the nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium in fertilizer would also be mitigated through source control. The depth of the sand filter underlying the natural turf fields has been increased to 18 inches, which would provide a high level of water quality treatment and would comply with recommendations of the 2005 King County Surface Water Manual for sensitive fish habitat environments. Another method of reducing escape of fertilizers from the area of application is through irrigation control to avoid overwatering. Preferred management of pests, like disease control, would be through a combination of cultural methods and accepted tolerance levels. No chemical control would be proposed for insects or broadleaf weeds. Instead, management would include selection and enhancement of competing vegetation that resists pests and disease. Mitigation Measures: No additional mitigation is required. Nexus: Not applicable 12. Aesthetics Impacts: Proposed site development would include the construction of an office and indoor training facility building, playing fields, surface parking lots, and landscaping. The aesthetic character of the currently vacant site would change as a result of the development. The office and indoor training facility structure would range in height from 55 feet (office) to 120 feet (training facility). Development of the site raises several issues to be considered related to aesthetics, including building siting on the property, building massing and architecture, shadows, landscaping, lighting (see discussion below), and altered and/or obstruction of views to and from the project. An assessment of potential aesthetic impacts was initiated by the project proponent. A visual assessment of the proposed project was performed by Crawford Architects, (Addendum 1, dated September 27, 2006). Over 70 views of the project were photographed and from this data, 11 potential view corridors to Lake Washington were evaluated. The 'worst case· situations are included herein, SE 76'" St, a publicly accessible upslope location, and two top-floor units of the Misty Cove Condominiums (Exhibit 11 ). The Headquarters building on the North Baxter property would be visible from off-site areas, and would be prominent on the site due to its height and bulk. A second, one-story building on the South Baxter property would not be within view from off-site areas to the east or west because of the screening vegetation of the wetland and BNSF Railroad right-of-way vegetation. Views of this building would be blocked from Misty Cove by the Headquarters building. It is anticipated that the Headquarters building would be visible from areas of both the City of Newcastle and Renton, from higher elevations. It is not anticipated that views from higher elevations would be obstructed or altered. Seahawl<s ERC Report 03 'City of Renton P!B!PW Departmer'' i F lmental Review Committee Staff Report ../ SEAHAWKS HEADQUARTERS =' ~=RA==IN=l=N=G=F.=A=C=IL=ITY'===========L=UA=..()~6..()==73"', =E=C;aiF,=S=A=·=M"='= SA=·=H"='= SM=== REPORT OF OCTOBER 16, 2006 Page 13 of 16 View impacts were evaluated from off-site areas including SE 761" Street upslope from the site, and from southwest facing units within the Misty Cove condominium complex, just north of the project site. Views to and from the site, and to the site from off-site locations, would be affected by the proposal. As evidenced in Exhibit 12, views from SE 76 1 " Street would change. Views of Mercer Island (to the west) from this location would be foreshortened. Views of Lake Washington, which are limited at this location due to existing vegetation on the BNSF Railroad right-of-way, would remain basically unaltered. Views from both the southbound and northbound lanes of Interstate 405, located between the SE 76 1" viewpoint and the site would be similar, with comparable impacts. Many units of the Misty Cove Condominium have enjoyed territorial views across the property. With development, foreground views from the Misty Cove Condominiums would be affected by the presence of a building on what has been a vacant site. Presently, unmanaged site vegetation limits some views across the project site to Lake Washington. Industrial activities and outdoor storage of materials have also been largely screened from view by trees and shrubs between the Misty Cove property and the project site. Exhibit 13 shows the existing and proposed view from a third-floor unit, number 312. Similar views are shown for unit 302, located closer to the lake than the previous unit (Exhibit 14). A derelict office building on the site (to be demolished) is also within the view corridor of unit 302. The view to Lake Washington would remain unchanged, while the view of the site would change from vacant and vegetated to developed and landscaped. The 120-foot high building would be prominent. Measures proposed to reduce or control aesthetic impacts of the project include architectural design treatments intended to diminish the bulk of the structure, including roofline treatment, window detailing, and exterior finishes and colors. In addition, the building is being setback 50 feet from the water's edge and approximately 170 feet from the common property line. Overhead wires, currently within the Misty Cove view corridor, would be undergrounded. Landscaping at the building perimeter and property boundaries would buffer the building from the residential area to the north. Trees, planted as part of the landscaping proposed to buffer the structure from the Misty Cove condominiums, would mature to heights greater than the existing trees. On-site vegetation growth has been limited historically, due to the industrial activities on the property, which resulted in removal of trees before they reached maturity (see Vegetation discussion, above). The Headquarters building siting, on the North Baxter property, is based on geotechnical and soil contamination issues (see discussion above). The office and support functions of the building would be located on the west side of the structure in order to reduce the apparent mass of the taller portion of the building in which the practice facility is located (Exhibit 15). The three story Headquarters portion of the building, at about 55 feet, would be adjacent to the shoreline. This would also maximize views to the lake from interior office space. Architectural details, such as arcades, horizontal lines, roof treatments, and window detailing would be used to reduce the scale and mass of the building. The building color palette would be warm earth tones including buff/sandstone, light gray, nickel, and cherrywood. Views to roof-mounted mechanical equipment would be limited from ground level on the site, on adjacent properties, and the Lake. The environment of the area would be significantly altered by the proposed project, as is almost always the case when land transitions from vacant to fully developed. Significant adverse impacts are not expected, however, beyond those impacts that can be mitigated by the project proposal. Mitigation Measures: N/A Nexus: N/A Seahawl<s ERC Report 03 City of Renton PIBIPW Departmer, - SEAHAWKS HEADQUARTER, l TRAINING FACILITY REPORT OF OCTOBER 16, 2006 13. Light and Glare El-;,,mental Review Committee Staff Report LUA--06-073, ECF, SA-M, SA-H, SM {;age 14 of 16 Impacts: Although some interior building lights in offices may be on after dark, practice fields would not be lit because football practice would not occur at night. It is not anticipated that light levels would be higher than typical for an office structure. Mitigation Measures: N/A Nexus: N/A 14. Historic and Cultural Preservation Impacts: Historic and cultural impacts have been analyzed in relation to information included in the report, "Cultural Resource Assessment JAG Development, King County, Washington," by Larson Anthropological I Archaeological Services, dated march 27, 1997. The 60-acre study area included the properties to the south of the Baxter site {Quendall Terminals and the Barbee Mill) and to the east {Pan Abode Cedar Homes). In addition to literature search and on-site subsurface exploration, the study included consultation with individuals representing the Muckleshoot and Duwamish Tribes. The area of the study is within the territory of the Duwamish, a Salish-speaking group predominant in the Seattle area. The Duwamish lived in cedar longhouses in villages located on most of the larger bodies of water in the central to southern portion of the Seattle area (Elliott Bay, Lake Washington, Lake Union, Salmon Bay, and on the Duwamish, Green/White, and Cedar/Black Rivers. A village of the Duwamish tribe was probably located in the vicinity of the Pan Abode property, upstream of the current mouth of May Creek. The lower portion of May Creek, which crosses the Barbee Mill property, would have been below the level of the Lake until exposed in 1916. All of the properties in the study area have been heavily influenced by fluctuations in lake levels over time due to earthquakes and the lowering of the Lake approximately 9 feet following construction of the Hiram Chittenden Locks and the opening of the Lake Washington Ship Canal in 1916. The first non-native inhabitant of the area within the study was James Madison {or Manning) Colman. In about 1875, he acquired 160 acres of property on both sides of May Creek. The study area encompasses this property. Colman Point, located about 0.5 mile south in Kennydale, is named for him. Except for about one acre of cleared land for the Colman house, the property was largely unused. The Baxter property is near an access road located to the north that was used for hauling coal from mines in Newcastle to Lake Washington for shipment to Seattle. In 1902, the timber on the Colman property was sold. In 1903, the Northern Pacific Railroad acquired a right-of-way through the property for construction of a railroad spur along the east side of Lake Washington. The railroad was built along the lake shore in 1905. The Colman family started selling the land in 1908. The portion that became the Baxter property was sold in 1914 to be used as a shingle production facility. The shingle mill was demolished sometime between 1939 and 1946. The Baxter Company purchased the property after leasing it from 1955. They used it primarily for wood treatment processes consisting of debarking and treatment for telephone poles and pilings. If present, it is unlikely that shallow remains of historic activity could have survived the severe manipulation of this site over the past sixty-plus years it has been used industrially. There may be archaeological features and artifacts deeply buried below the ground surface, dating from hunter-gatherer communities that existed in the vicinity of the property during historic times of low lake levels. Due to Consent Decree restrictions on exposing underlying soils, excavation on the site would be limited to borings for building structure pilings. Mitigation Measures: In the event that archaeological deposits are found during construction, work shall stop and the contractor(s) shall contact the State Archaeologist at the State of Washington Office of Archaeology Seahawks ERG Report 03 •,City of Renton P/8/PW Department\ I )mental Review Committee Staff Report SEAHAWKS HEADQUARTERS =' T,;;R;;;A;;;IN,;;l;;N,;;;G,,,,F;;;A,;;;C;;;/L;;;/T=Y========-·==""L"'U;;;A=-0"'6=-0=7=!3',;;;E;;;C,,,,F'=, S;;;A=·=M""';;;S;;;A;;-H.!a'=S=M~ REPORT OF OCTOBER 16, 2006 Page 15 of 16 and Historic Preservation, phone (360) 586-3065, the Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program, phone (253) 939-3311, and Duwamish Tribal Services (206) 431-1582. Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations E. Comments of Reviewing Departments The proposal has been circulated to City Departmental I Divisional Reviewers for their review. Where applicable, these comments have been incorporated into the text of this report as Mitigation Measures and/or Notes to Applicant. _.K._ Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File. =-Copies of all Review Comments are attached to this report. Environmental Determination Appeal Process Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM, November 6, 2006. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11 O.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. ADVISORY NOTES TO APPLICANT The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the administrative land use action. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for the land use actions Planning 1. RMC section 4-4-030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. The Development Services Division reserves the right to rescind the approved extended haul hours at any time if complaints are received. 2. Within thirty (30) days of completion of grading work, the applicant shall hydroseed or plant an appropriate ground cover over any portion of the site that is graded or cleared of vegetation and where no further construction work will occur within ninety (90) days. Alternative measures such as mulch, sodding, or plastic covering as specified in the King County Surface Water Management Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton may be proposed between the dates of November 1st and March 31st of each year. The Development Services Division's approval of this work is required prior to final inspection and approval of the permit. 3. Construction activities shall be restricted to the hours between seven o'clock (7:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m., Monday through Friday. Work on Saturdays shall be restricted to the hours between nine o'clock (g:OO) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m. No work shall be permitted on Sundays. 4. Regarding the wetland and wetland buffer, the applicant shall record a Native Growth Protection Easement. Fire Prevention 1. The fire flow is 3,000 gpm. Minimum commercial fire hydrant requirements are one hydrant required within 150- feet of the structures and additional hydrants are required within 300-feet of the structures. Looped fire mains are required for fire flows exceeding 2,500 gpm with maximum spacing of 300-feet between hydrants. 2. Fire Department access roads are required to be paved, 20-foot wide and within 150-feet of all portions of the building exteriors. Dead end roadways over 150 feet in length are required to have an approved turnaround. If "grasscrete" is proposed, Fire Prevention Bureau specifications for base material and construction must be followed. 3. The Headquarters and Training Facility building is required to have compete fire sprinkler, standpipe, kitchen hood suppression and fire alarm systems. The Maintenance building may also need sprinkler and fire alarm systems depending on the amount of hazardous materials stored in it. Separate plans and permits are required for the installation of all systems through the Renton Fire Department. 4. Fire lane signage is required per city ordinance on all private streets and fire access roadways. 5. Minimum vertical height for fire department access is 13 feet 6 inches. 6. For fire planning purposes an electronic copy of the individual building site plans, in acceptable format, shall be submitted to the Renton Fire Department. 7. Any building classified as "high-rise" shall meet all special requirements of the International Building Code Section 403 and all applicable sections of the International Fire Code. Seahawks ERG Report 03 City of Renton PIBIPW Departmen, j SEAHAWKS HEADQUARTER~ I TRAINING FACIUTY REPORTOFOCTOBER 16, 2006 Er, fnmental Review Committee Staff Report LUA-06.()73, ECF, SA-M, SA-H, SM fage 16 of 16 8. A complete hazardous material inventory statement is required to be submitted for review at lime of building permit· application. Use of city form or approved equivalent is required. Separate plans and permits are required for the installation of tanks, containing hazardous materials. Plan Review -Storm Drainage 1. The project does not include any connection to the Gypsy Creek drainage basin conveyance system ("Gypsy Subbasin") across the site, but the off-site conveyance facility is proposed to be moved outside of the footprint of the proposed building. Changes to the existing outfall are not proposed or authorized at this lime. 2. The Surface Water System Development Charge is $0.249 per square foot of new impervious surface. This fee is payable at the time the utility construction permit is issued. Plan Review -Water 1. A looped water main system around the building complex is required. The minimum size of the water main is 10- inches in order to provide the required fire flow. 2. A double check valve assembly in a vault is required behind the domestic water meter since the building is over 30 feet tall. 3. A pressure reducing valve is required downstream of the water meter since the working pressure is above 80 psi. 4. The maximum distance between fire hydrants for this project shall be 300 feet. Additional hydrants will be required to comply with City code. 5. New water meter(s) or upsizing of existing meter will trigger Water System Development Charges, in the amount of $0.273 I sf of the gross site area. This fee is payable at the time the utility construction permit is issued. Plan Review -Sewer 1. The Sanitary Sewer System Development Charge is $0.142 I sf of the gross site area. This fee is payable at the time the utility construction permit is issued. Plan Review -Street Improvements and Transportation 1. Ripley Lane shall be improved to provide a minimum of 20-feet of asphalt from the northerly access to Lake Washington Boulevard / N 44"' Street intersection. Due to the projected additional daily trips at this location, a turn-lane design may be required at the intersection in coordination with the City of Renton project. 2. All new wire utilities must be undergrounded. Plan Review -General 1. All plans shall conform to the Renton drafting standards. 2. Separate permits for side sewers, water meters, and backflow device are required. When plans are complete, three copies of the drawings, two copies of the drainage report, a construction estimate and application fee shall be submitted at the six1h floor counter in the Development Services Division, City Hall. Seahawks ERC Report 03 ). soum POINT LAKE SHINGTON 0 1/4 1/2 COLOW< POFltr 1 PROJECT LOCATION / ' I l I EXHIBIT 1 Scale In Miles Seahawlcs Headquarters and Practice Facility Renton, Washington i1 ;1 i '---.-----._--"_J 6 Reproduced with pennlssion granted by THOMAS BROS. MAPS®. 8 This map Is copyrighted by THOMAS. BROS. MAPS®. It is VICINITY MAP :;; 0 unlawful to copy or reproduce all or any part thereof, whetherfor September 2006 21-1-20525-003 personal use or resale, without pennlssion. All rights reserved. ,:; SHANNON & WILSON, INC. FIG. 1 ~ '-----------------------------..i.-"°""""""----"""-"""""""" ___ ..,_eon_"""" __ ~_ '. ' l I -~..(-:,,·1111 ,/ ... -:~ . . -~. ,.. ~· ,ef ... ~ ~ • • . J,i' ,::.~ .... ,,, ........ . ,t• .. r 'f~ r > ~ ' ff __ _:~/:,.,: ~c·lt ··-· ' ' •' ., :-- ,· --Figure 2 Historic Aerial Photo of North and B8Jo. ...... --- I Map legend /V., 111\eri;.Ultts 111.iJot Ro.ads. OLIH>f ~fo.H:! ,// h1!'1•~l.it11> s1111~ 111v1i .... ~~ ~ Uli hl~llw~y ~<>lldll • Cttlin 1: : l USGS Cu.ad tntlox 2.tK lowor4B Av<1llablt1 Wdttir. Non•DCQIY..I Dlgl LIi Ntt O.a~ t !!Sun ,, NHD StrOilms Counties 100K --O Stl:11:lls 100K D D South Amarlca Noirth Amerl-ci! EXHIBIT 2 ,, ' G)' C ;:a m _,_ ' 0 _,_ ' . . r:~ -·-------'------ ! ~ JP ' il -~ r m < I ! - _J 100% s,- <J, ' --~-1 J ' ;, I . -~ - 0 I ~I UCTION ~-----__ : _____ ~ --- 0 ---e i... ~ > ~ I i L:: ' i '< e I< l ! f< 0 II > ~ 0 1 ' ' • C ~ ~ ~ ii i a !-• • • ~ • ~ I r 0 ' i 0 .J ~ f.. ~ i r ~ ~-..\.----'------''---''----;;_-_ _::_ __ _..__ __ _;_ __ __:_ __ _:_ __ _c_ __ _,~--::-''--_:__---'-- 0 ':-' ~ ,l_i_'i_/,_,,-f:,._11, I tL Seahawks HeaFdqua11ers & [ ___ -H·J'ilµ_/;;;,_ ;1_. :::: S j+ Training ac1l1ty !" -i} Ji·_ \i; _; l ..... FOQT&\LLJ',ORTHWES1 LLC EXHIBIT : l~ "-!ll/ ! ~-' j I 111 , , ! I_----RF.NlOH WASfWIGTON 3 N 0 1 2 Scale in MIies NOTE ;11 Map based on Blakely et al., 2002, 'location, structure, EXHIBIT 4 Seahawks Headquarters Renton, Washington SEATTLE FAULT ZONE i:j and selsmlclty of the Seatle fault zone, Washington: ;. July2006 21-1-20525-001 , Evidence from aeromagnetic anomalies, geologic ~ ~ mapping, and seismic-reflection data' SHANNON & WILSON, INC. FIG. 3 w -and Eovir""""""'1 Coos<illlnls ir-------------=--~--~--~--- " ', ,..; ,.; -,-' .. o-'r " ,, .. ....,.._ c-: ., ' RE: L100 [flCl>RE 9 I) >'OR V.NOSCAPE &: HAAO::iCAPE INf'Ori:h.tATIO~ CUA~----. \'.~tSll~G P'O',ir~. -~ POL! LOCAll~ -i ~~~;~ rl~PE~RW \ ,1~ PSC E.4.SE'.1£NT L~l ('rBO) --··--·--........_ EX1S'1NC POWER I " ,o,.E LOC,."Os --,','.~C I.URl:I·---·--.___ , . ,' 'k -i N[W 1 'ilO+<Y -1.1.t.lNTENANCE S!if.O -------- 'h ··r.;: ~r (XISTINC POWER ·--n POU. LOCA110N -;;.: MAJNT. Pi1,RKING- 4 ST~LS S:EC,URITY CA.Tl; ~-.~---/ C(.A5S 1 o_ . ' = :aJ!l£61,l.J:i..lS> L,l,.Kf_ WASHINGTON GYPSY SUl:I SASIN ORAi~( CVSS :i: (R(.. FIGUH~ !:.1.J) ..:...;.... ':~ -i.. ... -:"'..:~ .... ' .L., .•. 'P ... C .O .. 'L.-.. .,!., • .J,J_....__L .... , _..:,:_ 'l J ··'-.. ·---.. " _,_.L.1 .. _,,_, _,_ . . 1 ,,---.._ ., .... _ ..! ·--'··-(( e ,..---,_~" ·'-~--,-'-'·-'--'--··-·-· •, 0 ~ ~ '""" in es:--=11=. ii¥) LAK[ WASHINC\ON ~ ~-~------------~ "'""'""--= ,. Gf.)J[RAL 5VR+ACr. PAkKrNG 19"~ STAU.S S(ClJ/i'C T(AM :i~K'N.G !O~ SlAI.LS ' ~~--~-------'--~~ rNOT(: OHW,..18.8 (NAV086) / OA 15.:2' ("IC\'029) . I 00 YE-'R FtOOROPLAIN AT l.AJ([ WA. 0.H,W.M. ~.::::-..:.·---- ---- RJ.Jl,WAY CROSS~G _ .. -- X\$1\NC EJIJIU)IN(; STRUClU6Ui: TO B£ 10' PUBLIC M:CESS 4' ACC£$S WAIJ< S(CURJTY f£NCE 1tf SERvlCE ROA,O j ------- z 0 t; ::::> a:::• o6 I-!!! " U) ~ :J~ 5, ~{!ii* u .gi'f!j a::: ~ 0) § 3' fi: iii~ I-cal-Q~ 0 .,:; ii: z ~ '' en f-z UJ ~.,,1:11 '·!I ! I ~-I H-H-1!~ o !Iii ::r u:l '[ii 1 ,il iri' I ,, ,,1 Cl l; !ll z Ii 1:1 c,. -, J+t1i\ ci5 w Cl _ -~OPME:NT P!.AN~,1.:r ~ ~ ----~ [RS I A 1 [ crry OF Rl:fv!91cL .. -lN1 _ -----:·:::-__ -:::---··· -------SEP-2.2-2l)06 . -·--' ---·--·-·--·-' . .. FIGURE 5.2 f AOOt_ tnr·l'I.AN RECEIVED ;o ~ ij i i ' ' ' > ' i ! • l i ' • I- r ffi 7'tl N ' "' < 21 ~ ; ' "Tl ' -I G>/ jJ m/ lil < om :-1~ Ole "llm ifi~ a~ Zz z G) ___ ; _____ . -··---'------·· --- . ' ---------. I ------, --------·· ---T ----· -----r-T - ! • I ' ~/'-. ----·-----·---~----------------i ,_. I ;_,, m N~; 0 fi •• "' ...,, .\ ~' ) + I '' ' ' J i: ' ' i ' ' , I 1 ~d iJ : ' I ' j /, i ' I i I:~:: i ,f {. --~ --r --·--a-l .. / < __ ___, / / ) ' J //;· / , , I' . \ •• ' / / l ' I EXHIBIT 6 \ \ c. (· Photo 5 ;;." - Photo of pilings (background) and washed up logs (foregronnd) along the northern portion of the restored Baxter Cove wetland. Photo 6 Aerial view looking east at north Baxter. Piles and a small dock are present along the shoreline. EXHIBIT 7 Page 3 of 8 ; / . Seahawks Co,-porate Heauqwirters and Training Facilicy Renton, Washington Table 3 Stream and lake Study!Mitigatian'Pian Riparian Habitat Functions and Values, Comparison of Existing versus Proposed Conditions ~---r -----------_ ~:-; Unbih1t i'mcmfof Existing Slrnrdine V1i'OfliiS1.;1ci Shnreliiw lfahitM ','.11lue , '. runctfon Jor Cfa~s Comlitions Cnnditiom Corn:p:.1dsm: ·-... ~ ... _. __ _f Lukfs _" ... ···----_ -~-__ .. · .--------·-·--_ "·-···--· ... · ..... ___ ................. Water Quality Low to Existing condition Jacks Future development is not Eouivalent Moderate width, plant density, and plant dependant on riparian function under diversity. Lack ofnative function for water quality both conditions vegetation also a minus. because it employs the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manua~ so width for water quality tteatment is not required. Native vegetation is a plus. Food Low Sparse non•native vegetation Vegetation optimized with ProB;osed action provides little beneficial leaf a diverse mix of native will have higher Jitter and small organic species. High habitat value value debris. nearlake. Microclimate Low to Existing shoreline area has Proposed shoreline area Eouivalont Moderate little effect on microclimate. will have little effect on function under microclimate. both conditions Temperature Low to Not a significant issue for Not a significant issue for . Eouivalent & Shade none large Class I waterbodies. large Class I waterbodies. function under both conditions . Human Low Lake Washington is a public Lake Washington is a Eguivalent Access access area so access control public access.area so access function under not a .habitat function issue control not a habitat both conditions function issue Large Woody Low Site periodically cleared so P )anting that will contribute Pro11osed action Debris unlikely to have any some minor woody debris will have higher significant future L WD in the future. value contribution. Channel Low Controlled lake level and no Controlled lake level and Eguivalent Migration surface channels on-site. No no surface chaiinels on~site. function under potential for channel No potential for channel both conditions migration migration Bank Stability Low to Exotic species dominated Root strength increased Pro11osed action Moderate shoreline. Banks partially with native shrubs and will have higher protected by large logs: trees. Banks partially value protected by large logs. Wildlife Not Rated Patchy exotic species Native plantings in a dense Pro11osed action Habitat dominated riparian vegetation multi-story contiguous will have highest of relatively low value as canopy will provide high value bird, amphibian, reptile, and wildlife habitat value. EXHIBIT rodent.habital Adapted from: A.C. Kindig & Co and Cedarock Consultants, Inc. 2003. September 20, 2006 Seolrawks!09·20-06 Lblzs Sl~itm R.qk)rt.doc CEDAROCK CONSULTANIT. INC. and A.C. KJNDIG &CO. Page 29 8 I Ir I . .:: I f : I . I f. ! I I I i l '. ! I J L --------,1-~- ' 1· ---~ EXHIBIT J ... / / 9 ( \ ' ' ., Seattle Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility Turf Integrated Pest Management Plan (IPM) Table2 .EXHIBIT 10 Summary of Pest Control Measures to be used for the Seahawks Practice Fields Disease or Pest Cultural Control Physical/ Mechanical Chemical Control Control Twfgrass Control Primo Maxx Turf growth suppressant Overseeding with (T rinexapac-ethyl) and Annual Bluegrass desirable during growing fPoa annuaJ control turfgrass; season Promote vigorous Prograss turf root growth to (ethofumesate) for with soil nutrient curative post- Weeds and irrigation emergence control Annual Bluegrass control, to out-of annual compete Poa bluegrass in fall annua. and in spring if warranted. Fungus Diseases Brown Patch (Rhizoctonia solani; R. blight) Corticum Red Thread (LBetisaria fuciformis) Dollar Spot (Lanzia spp. And Moel/erodiscus spp.) Fusarium Blight Chipco 26GT (Fusarium spp.) (lprodione) Fusarium Patch Good air as preventative (Microduchium nivale) . Gray Snow Mold Promote vigorous circulation; method of control Good drainage; fall and spring {Typhula spp.) turf root.growth to Helminthosporium with soil nutrient Avoid shading; (Dresch/era spp.) and irrigation Avoid irrigating in Necrotic Ring Spot late afternoon; (Leptosphaeria korrae) control, to out-Limit thatch; Pink Snow Mold compete weeds. Maintain soil pH (Fusairvm nivale) <7 Rust fPuccinia coronate} Fungus Diseases Brown Patch (Rhizoctonia solani; R. blight) Heritage Fusarium Patch (azoxystrobin) (Microduchium niva/e) as preventative Rust method of control (Puccinia coronate) Take-all Patch in fall and winter /Gaeumannomvces araminisl September 20, 2006 A. C. KINDIG & CO. Page 7 ·1-I , j '.~ •• C, C " 1m '" ' - [j ~ : ~ • Q C " m Seahawks Headquarters & Training Facility FOOTBALL HORTI-M'EST UC RENTON. WASHINGTON --- EXHIBIT 11 C i-• if I - j '.~ '. Q C ~ m f f 1 3 ___ -:::..::__~. ---I------·-·· , I fui~;-~ . ~ . ~ • Q C ~ m Seahawks Headquarters & Training Facility FOOT8M..l. NORTHWEST lLC ftEmON. WASHINGTON 12 'l I - j '.~ ' • G) C ~ m ~ ' - ~ ' ~ • G) C ~ m, ~ Seahawks Headquarters & Tlaining Facility FOdraALL NORTHWEST Ll.C RENTON. WASHINGTON EXIIJBTT 13 • ·1 ~ I - J '.~ . ~ •• Q • Q C C ~ ~ m m G I ' • . . > :: ; < ·'t '' 1. t IE [d Training Facility ti! Seahawks Headquarters_&__,I'-----~, J u,.,·,Jw, ' . • ,, G) C ;u m i/> J 'i q~ ·, <m I l !U l ! r pn 1--~~----1 11li \ .. -' ', ~ ; ,0 •0 ·0 • 0 h ., . 8 ->:: ' (i) @ 0) e @ © @ , e . 0 .. !" -~ l" ;1 g z r ·ti ln 1:. ' I ~ t 1 ~ f .. .< " ' 0 e @ @ El 0) e 0 0 0 (:-) • @ ' 0 • " DESl~N DEVELOPMENT; NOT fOR CPNSTl)UCTIQN J §l I l I ,. :::. : I Seahawks Headquarters & I »· · ',,,,ijfr:0 ; ~1 l1 . .~:'!=rlLC -~~--:. . · lij! \JiU I r" I I I I ' : • ,_ -SENTON. WASHINGTON EXHIBIT 15 CITY OF RENTON City Clerk Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 425-430-6510 Receipt N. 0856 Date _S~/ o'--'l_D_,__7 __ D Notary Service D Copy Fee ffi'i\ppeal Fee D _________ _ Description: C._ec1 ~~1511,uls fcY iii ' / ~; te_ V /d,(1 LC,fl -O!o-D7 3 fi01Xi:3\ -~c tiLX: ' l I Funds Received From: Name L<J LJJ(C I 'K 02.~\ ( Sf~ r I Amount $ 15. CD . Address 1. i"1 f Lj. ' ·, (7 ! 11 1):-Av o \.tYI U .U" I. ,_ ( --)C Seahawks' Headquarters and T&ng Facility File No.: LUA-06-073, SA-H, ~M, SM, ECF December 7, 2006 • Page 17 Football Northwest 505 Fifth Avenue S., Ste. 900 Seattle, WA 98104 Michael Cero 8300 Avalon Drive Mercer Island, WA 98040 Brian T. Sabey 5021 Ripley Lane N, Ste. 304 Renton, WA 98056 Steve Jansen 5021 Ripley Lane N, Ste. 4 Renton, WA 98056 Aaron Belenky, President Williamsburg Condo HOA 1800 NE 40th Street, Ste. H-4 Renton, WA 98056 Barbara Paxhia 5021 Ripley Lane N, Ste. 104 Renton, WA 98056 Richard Wagner Baylis Architects I 080 I Main Street, Ste. 110 Bellevue, WA 98004 Port Quendall Company 505 Fifth Avenue S., Ste. 900 Seattle, WA 98104 Thomas Peterson Socius Law Group PLLC Two Union Square 601 Union Street, Ste. 4950 Seattle, WA 98101 Eleanor Maargo Kennamer, President Misty Cove Condo Association 5021 Ripley Lane N, Ste. 309 Renton, WA 98056 Steve Gregerson 5021 Ripley Lane N, Ste. 302 Renton, WA 98056 Shelly Munkberg SECO Development 1083 Lake Washington Blvd N., Ste. 50 Renton, WA 98056 Jeffrey Taraday Foster Pepper 1111 Third A venue, Ste. 3400 Seattle, WA 98101 TRANSMITTED THIS 7'' day of December 2006 to the following: Mayor Kathy Keolker Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison Stan Engler, Fire Larry Meckling, Building Official Planning Commission Transportation Division Utilities Division • Woodinville, WA 98077 Ray Colliver 505 Fifth Avenue S., Ste. 900 Seattle, WA 98104 Thelma Sutherland 1205 N 29'" Street Renton, WA 98056 Jared Salstrom 5021 Ripley Lane N, Ste. 213 Renton, WA 98056 Elya George Baches 1414 N 34'" Street Renton, WA 98056 Elaine Wine Vulcan 505 Fifth Avenue S, Ste. 900 Seattle, WA 98104 Tom Ehrlichman Socius Law Group Two Union Square 60 I Union Street, Ste. 4950 Seattle, WA 98101 Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator Alex Pietsch, Economic Development Jennifer Henning, Development Services Stacy Tucker, Development Services King County Journal Neil Watts, Development Services Janet Conklin, Development Services Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section IOOGofthe City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., December 21, 2006. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. ·~· CIT' -OF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator '<i:Y , 0~"'·~ 0,-¢; ~ ~ ~ Kathy Keolker, Mayor 0N~Ory__;___;_ _______________________ _ April 25, 2007 David M. Murphy, Partner CRAWFORD ARCHITECTS LLC 1901 Main Street -Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64108 Re: Seattle Seahawks Headquarters & Practice Facility, LUA06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF -Request for Minor Adjustment to the Site Pla.n Dear Mr. Murphy I am in receipt of your letter dated April 9, 2007, wherein you request approval of a revision to the approved site plan for the Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility. As your letter states, a minor adjustment to the approved site plan is proposed, as follows: Maximum Building Height -115'-0" feet in lieu of 110'-6" feet as noted on Figure 10.6 (Sheet A401) ofthe Land Use, Shoreline & Master Plan Permit Application - Volume 1. Our understanding is that the rnquested adjustment is based on refinements to the final structural design and would accommodate a clear inside height d_imension of 95 feet as . noted in the application. Furthermore, the referenced height is measured to the highest point of the roof deck from the finished floor slab. The City of Renton Hearing Examiner approved the Practice Facility at a height of 111 feet above grade. Renton Municipal Code Section 4-9-2001, allows minor adjustments to an approved site plan, provided: 1. The adjustment does not involve more than a ten percent (10%) increase in area or scale of the development in the approved site plan; or 2. The adjustment does not have a significantly greater imp1:J.ct on the environment and facilities than the approved plan; or 3. The adjustment does not change the boundaries of the originally approved plan. Analysis of Request The site plan modification requested has been compared to the site plan as approved by the City of Renton Hearing Examiner on December 7, 2006. The proposed change in building height from 111 feet, as stated in the "Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations" section of the Hearing Examiner's decision (numbers 19 and 22) to the proposed modified height of 115 feet would result in an additional 4 feet of building height and approximately 350,064 square feet of building area. ~ -------l-0-55_S_o_u_th_G_'ra_d_y_W-ay---R-e-nt-o-n,-W-a,-s-h1-.n-gt-on_9_80_5_7 ______ RENT Q N Ln. AHEAD OF THE CURVE David M. Murphy April 25, 2007 Page 2 The proposed increase in area would not result in more than a 10 percent increase in area or scale of the development. Although the increased height could impact views from nearby properties, the modification would not have a substantial impact on the environment or facilities. The requested modification would not change the boundaries of the originally approved site plan. The project site is zoned Commercial / Office / Residential. All applicable setback, lot coverage, and landscaping standards would be achieved. The requested modification would not impact the building facades or other architectural features as proposed. Decision Based on the analysis and recommendation of staff, I have determined the proposed revision is within the parameters dl?fined by'tfle;'R'9,Q.tOn Municipal Code. -' ,·" ' . , ·'~ft,x,_ Therefore, the proposed. 11,)0dil\i~tion ~f th .. e site ,u)a'h.i;!s .d· eemed to be "minor" and therefore, is approved ~J;lfijectto the tollowi11.~ fn,ti&qi 1. Prior to _th_e issu,~c. e of the final. b.uildi_ng perr:tJ_!~ fg[.••h@':'Peahawks Headquarters and Tram mg_ F~c1hty1 t~r-ee full S,!?8.. and oll8 8 Y. '\ 11 inch contact prmt of revised bu1ld1n~ elevations shpll'jil to,he Development Services Division proje(it manager. · ....... · ·(.:., -:, , ,·<"~~., ., _'.<·.<' r~;;;.: ,-r ,;:, This .determination will be'fin")I unleqs 1r~ · peal of/this administrative de.termination, accomi;ianied by th'e'req~fred 00 filinkJ fee, isrfiled with the City's Hearing Examiner wltn\n 14.;<!liys ofthe date o ·· · de~fsleQ. ' •· "X" ,f ,%1 _., ,--1 •• ,_i -,,;;>" ..'f:°'.'",)'!,!f,;: ->· If you have any questioris,r~arping tllis deterfTli[:iaii~r-th~fequirements discussed in this letter, please contact Bi±?'ai;etll Higgin$,'$~nio~Pla~n~rat (425) 430-7382. {;~~-,._ -. 'i, ··%.ts-.,,,·:~,§~/ J;;~~ ~oy tv~·1 Walk • ··· · .:·"'~~. Neil Watts, Director Development Services Division cc: Parties of Record Jim Levin Lance Lopes Ray Colliver Tom Chiado Elaine Wine Roger Pearce Brian Dickson Jennifer Henning Elizabeth Higgins File City Clerk City of Renton Lqrry qn<.l Esther Bqtsher 6940 96th Ave. S.E. Mercer lsl:tn<.l, Wqshington 98040 206-212-9280 .... lesb~ t@cornqst.net CITY OF RENTON MAY O 8 2007 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE ti-/23L/f'M May 8, 2007 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 /J.p~al -lo llearln:J Examiner' ~ L l(.f/. ot,,-071, 511-fl, SIi -"1, 5((/,1:CP Re: Seattle Seahawks Headquarters & Practice Facility, Request for Minor Adjustment We appeal the City ofRenton's April 25, 2007 determination decision allowing the Seattle Scahawks Headquarters & Practice Facility, now under construction, to increase the height of the building to 115 feet This decision was based on the determination the request is a minor modification as defined by The City of Renton Code, which we also appeal. An increase of 4 and 1/2 feet in height is not a minor modification. It will make an already imposing ( 111 foot high by 340 long) large building even more imposing and larger to hundreds of people who view it across the lake on Mercer Island. This increase creates a significantly greater impact on the environment which Code Sec 4-9-2001 does not allow. At the initial examiner's hearing on November 21, 2006 l stated my family did not object to the construction of the facility and thought it would be a very attractive building viewed up close, however the structure will look like an enormous box as viewed from homes only one mile across the lake. We recommended that large evergreen trees reaching the height of at least I 00 feet at maturity be planted judiciously in front of the building to mitigate and soften its imposing size. Such landscaping would go a long way to return what use to be a tranquil vista of homes, a modest apartment building (Misty Cove) and a hillside covered with trees. Much to our chagrin the hearing examiner's approval of the project did not include this modest landscape addition. Now the request is for the "enormous box" to get even larger, which we appeal. However we would not object to an approval that included the addition oflargc evergreen trees reaching to approximately the roof elevation at maturity and planted judiciously close to the building. The trees would mitigate and soften its size and greatly reduce the enlarged Seahawk Facility's environmental impact on those viewing the building from a distance. This landscape requirement should be added as an additional condition to the proposed modification. The change will benefit hundreds of Mercer Islanders now and for generations to come. We contacted neighbors that live near us and they agree with our concem and solution. The attachment is a list with their addresses and phone numbers. The required $75 appeal fee is enclosed. Sincerely, .. ., L ..... _.. : . , -;? .:::._:. , \ i . . , ' ,,.-c>,£x-.i._ ~ .. _ r La~nd Esther Barshcr . ' Mercer Island Neighbors Agreeing With This Appeal and Mitigating Solution Name Address Phone# Dan & Jody Samson 6952 96th Ave. SE 232-015 I Dwight & Christine Schaeffer 6958 96th Ave. SE 236-2580 Les & Denise Klaff 6915 96th Ave. SE 232-4435 Carl Lindstrom 6910 96 Ave. SE 232-0933 Howard & Sue Robboy 6944 96th A VE SE 236-1162 Steven & Deanna Marshall 6934 96th Ave. SE 425-747-6755 Hal & Gerry Fardal 6920 96th Ave. SE 232-1936 Dr. Robert and Bee Dietz 7906 E. Mercer Way 230-6989 ..,, *" • ..ii • CIT-T OF RENTON Hearing Examiner Fred J. Kaufman o~-~~Y o~ ~ -? Kathy Keolker, Mayor . -~~N'\'O'~y ------------------------ May 10, 2007 Larry and Esther Barsher 6940 96•' Ave. SE Mercer Island, WA 98040 Re: Seattle Seahawks Headquarters & Practice Facility Appeal LUA 06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF Dear Mr. & Mrs. Harsher: \Ve are in receipt of your Appeal in regards to the above referenced matter. The appeal hearing has been scheduled for Tuesday, May 29, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. The hearing will take place in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. The address is 1055 S Grady Way in Renton. If this office can provide any further assistance, please address those comments in writing. Sincerely, Fred Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton FK/nt cc: Larry Warren, City Attorney Neil Watts, Development Services Elizabeth Higgins, Development Services Stacy Tucker, Development Services Roger Pearce, Foster Pepper Law Firm All Parties of Record -~ ----,-0-55_S_o_u_th_G_r-ad_y_W-ay--R-e_n_to_n_, W-as-h-in-gt_o_n_9_8_05_5_--(4_2_5_)_43-0--6-5_1_5 ____ RENTON @ This paper con tams 50%, recycled material. 30% post consumer ATIEAD or THE CURVF CIT'T OF REN:J'ON· May 10, 2007 Larry and Esther Barsher 6940 96th Ave. SE Mercer Island, WA 98040 Re: Seattle Seahawks Headquarters & Practice Facility Appeal LUA 06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF Dear Mr. & Mrs. Barsher: Hearing Examiner •• Fred J. Kaufman We are in receipt of your Appeal in regards to the above referenced matter. The appeal hearing has been scheduled for Tuesday, May 29, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. The hearing will take place in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. The address is 1055 S Grady Way in Renton. If this office can provide any further assistance, please address those comments in writing. Sincerely, Fred Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton FK/nt cc: Larry Warr en, City Attorney Neil Watts, Development Services Elizabeth Higgins, Development Services Stacy Tucker, Development Services Roger Pearce, Foster Pepper Law Firm All Parties of Record ----,-os_S_S_ou_t_h_G_ra_dy-W-ay---R-e-nt-o-n,-W-as-hi-ng-to_n_9_8_0_55---(-42_5_)_43-0--6-5-15 ____ ~ @ This paper contains 50% recyded material. 30% post consumer AHEAD or THE CURVE • ' • . ' ' l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ' ' I t BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON LARRY BARSHER and ESTHER BARSHER, Appellants, V. File No. LUA06-073 SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF 11 CITY OF RENTON, and FOOTBALL NORTHWEST LLC, HEARING BRIEF OF FOOTBALL NORTHWEST LLC 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Respondents. L INTRODUCTION Respondent Football Northwest LLC ("FNW") requests the Hearing Examiner to dismiss the appeal of La1Ty Barsher and Esther Barsher (the "Barshers"). The Barshers have appealed the issuance of a minor adjustment to the approved site plan for the Seattle Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility. The only issue before the Examiner is whether the minor adjustment criteria in Renton Zoning Code §4-9-200(1) have been met. The only change to the approved site plan is that the Indoor Practice Facility (the "IPF") will be allowed to be several feet higher than described in the City's original site plan approval. Because this minor change to the approved site plan clearly meets the minor adjustment criteria in Renton Zoning Code §4-9-200(1), the Examiner should dismiss the Barshers' appeal. HEARING BRIEF OF FOOTBALL NORTHWEST LLC -1 508167-12.2 ORIGINAL FOSTER PEPl'ER PLLC 1111 THIRD A VENUE, SUITE 3400 SEA TILE, W A.SHINGTON 98101-3299 PIIONE (206) 447-4400 FAX (206) 447-9700 . . ' • I II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 2 The evidence at the hearing will show the following: 3 The City's enviromnental review analyzed an IPF structure ofup to 120 feet in height 4 above slab, with a 95-foot clear interior space over the indoor practice field. The 95-foot clear 5 interior space is required for the facility to operate in the manner designed for professional 6 football practices. Based on its analysis of that proposal, the City issued a Determination of 7 N onsignificance ("DNS"). 8 After the issuance of the DNS, the project applicant moved the !PF structure (and other 9 project buildings) approximately 62 feet further back from the shoreline, in order to minimize IO view impacts to the neighboring condominium owners to the north of the site. In addition, 11 design development for the !PF structure showed that the interior 95-foot clear height could 12 likely be accomplished with an overall building height of approximately 111 feet in height. 13 Those design development drawings were the basis of the drawings and renderings presented to 14 the Examiner at the hearing on the original site plan for the Seahawks Corporate Headquarters 15 and Training Facility. Accordingly, the Examiner's site plan approval described the !PF as being 16 "up to 111 feet"' and "approximately 111 feet tall. "2 17 Subsequent to the Hearing Examiner's December 6, 2006, Site Plan Approval, the City 18 and FNW's contractors have been moving toward final design of the IPF. In response to City 19 building code requirements, FNW has made changes to the truss structure of the roof. In order to 20 maintain the 95-foot clear interior space for the !PF, this change to the truss structure will require 21 a building height of approximately 113 feet. To be cautious, FNW requested a minor adjustment 22 to allow up to 115 feet in height, although approximately 113 feet is the anticipated height. 23 This minor height variation to the !PF is the only change to the approved site plan. No 24 additional lot coverage is proposed, no expansion of the site plan boundary is proposed, and no 25 26 1 Examiner Site Plan Approval at Finding 19. 2 Examiner Site Plan Approval at Finding 22. HEARING BRIEF OF FOOTBALL NORTHWEST LLC -2 50816742.2 FOSTER PEPPER PLLC ]111 THIII.D AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3299 rHONE (206) 447-4400 hx (206) 447-9700 ' ' . ' '' ' ' . ' 1• expansion of any other planned building on the site is proposed. Transportation and parking 2 impacts would be unchanged. Use of public services and utilities would be unchanged. The 3 only impact will be to allow a small increase in the scale of the !PF building. 4 The massing of the !PF itself will increase less than four percent ( 4%) if the full 115 feet 5 in height were utilized. At the anticipated final !PF height of approximately 113 feet, there 6 would be only a two percent (2%) increase to the scale of the !PF. With respect to the scale of 7 all development approved by the site plan, the total building volume would increase only three 8 percent (3%) if the full 115 feet in height were utilized for the !PF. At the anticipated final !PF 9 height of approximately 113 feet, the overall site massing would only increase by one and one- IO half percent (I Y, %). I I III. LEGAL ARGUMENT 12 A. Burden of Proof and Standard of Review on Appeal. 13 The Barshcrs have the burden of proof to show that the City staffs approval of a minor 14 adjustment was either an error of law or clearly erroneous in view of the entire record. Renton 15 Zoning Code §4-8-11 O(E)(7)(b ). 16 The Examiner is required to give substantial weight to the City staffs decision to allow 17 the minor adjustment to the approved site plan. Renton Zoning Code §4-8-11 O(E)(7)(a). 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 B. The Small Increase to the IPF Height Clearly Meets the City's Minor Adjustment Criteria. The only issue before the Examiner is whether the slight increase in the height of the !PF building (up to four feet) meets the City's criteria for a minor adjustment to an approved site plan. The criteria in the Renton Zoning Code are as follows: MINOR ADJUSTMENTS TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN: Minor modifications may be permitted by administrative determination. To be considered a minor modification, the amendment must not: I. Involve more than a ten percent (10%) increase in area or scale of the development in the approved site development plan; or HEARING BRIEF OF FOOTBALL NORTHWEST LLC-3 FOSTER PEPPER PLLC 1111 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3299 PHONF: {206) 447-4400 fAX (206) 447-9700 . ' . # 2. Have a significantly greater impact on the environment and facilities than the 2 approved plan; or 3 3 Change the boundaries of the originally approved plan. 4 Renton Zoning Code §4-9-200(1). 5 Here, the !PF height increase clearly meets these criteria. 6 First, the ten percent limitation on area or scale of development is met. The area of 7 development is not increased whatsoever. The scale of development is increased slightly-up to 8 three percent (3%) if the full allowed 115 height for the !PF is utilized. While the !PF building is 9 anticipated to be only approximately I 13 feet in height, even at I 15 feet in height, the increase in IO scale of development is far below the allowable ten percent in the Renton Zoning Code. 11 Second, there are no new significant environmental impacts. The City's DNS analyzed 12 an !PF building of approximately 120 feet in height and over 60 feet closer to the shoreline. That I 3 DNS concluded that a building of that size in that location would not have any significant 14 adverse environmental impacts. The current proposal is for a shorter building (up to I 15 feet in 15 height) that is further back from the shoreline. In addition, the only change to the approved site 16 plan is the minor height addition to the !PF building. There is no additional impervious surface, 17 no additional grading or earth movement, no additional traffic or parking, no landscaping areas 18 are being eliminated, and no additional use of public services or facilities. The only possible 19 impact would be an aesthetic impact. As shown in the elevations and simulations submitted at 20 the hearing, a four-foot increase in height (up to 115 feet in height) will be barely noticeable. 21 And the actual impact of the City decision will be an even smaller impact, because the likely 22 height will be approximately 113 feet. 23 Third, the boundaries of the original approved plan are unchanged. 24 The Barshers assume that this appeal is an opportunity to reargue the overall size and 25 view impacts of the Seahawks Corporate Campus and Training Facility. That is incorrect. The 26 only issue is whether the minor adjustment criteria in Renton Zoning Code §4-9-200(1) are met. HEARING BRIEF OF FOOTBALL NORTHWEST LLC-4 50811>742 ~ FOSTER PEPPER PLLC 1111 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3299 rHONE (206) 447-4400 FAX {206) 447-9700 • ' < I "· t 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ' ,. "' Because those criteria are clearly met -especially after giving substantial weight to the City staffs decision to allow the minor adjustment-the Barshers' appeal must be dismissed. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 29 1h day of May, 2007. HEARING BRIEF OF FOOTBALL NORTHWEST LLC -5 50816742 2 FOSTER PEPPER PLLC Roger A carce, WSBA No. 21113 Attorneys for respondent Football Northwest LLC FOSTER PEPPER PLLC 1111 THIRD AVENUE, SurrF.3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3299 PHONE (206) 447-4400 FAX (206) 447-9700 lit-~ --fJ~ IJ1aA,4..Ad .:,fe l:,f/Jt/ 96'111~.JE. lldd re.ss aorra,flon.s ~ "1 CITY OF RFNTON Office o ... 1e City Clerk 1055 South Grady Way -Renton WA 98057 CITY OF RENTON JUN 2 7 2007 CITY &1:9f~'fuE8FF1CE Eileen Halverson 5021 Ripley Lane N., Ste. 302 Renton, WA 98056 o~.t, CITY OF RENTON ~~; Office of the City Clerk CJ; r,.;,,o I 055 South Grady Way -Renton WA 98057 CITY OF RENTON JUN 2 7 2007 RECEIVED CITY ClERK'S OFFICE Steve Janson NIXIE: !390 OF.: :1 oo os/2e RETURN TO SENDER ATTE:MPTE:0 -NOT KNOWN UNABLE TO FORWARD *-2189--03;1,J. 7-.26 II , I , I I, I I I II , II I I ii, I,, , I 111!,, , I, I II II , II I, I I I I I , I I , I I ll I 111 B 5021 Ripley Lane N., Ste. 302 Renton, WA 98056 990 CE: :l. 01 06/26 RETURN TO SENDER ATTEMPTED --NOT KNOWN UNA9LE TO FORWARD SC: 9BOS7323~S_IS *-~.189-·03:1:18-.2S- E-~~l!f3 ~C)S6 l l, I,, 1,, I, 11,,,, I, I, I,,, I,, 11,,, I,/,, 11,,, I, I ,I, I 11 I, I,,,, I I/ I 2 3 4 5 6 7 ORIGINAL }Ji. ,) 2 1ont t--\((1'\ ,{~Ci=lvtO CITY Cl FR~'S '"1FFICc BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON In re Appeal of City of Renton Hearing 8 Examiner Decision re Minor Adjustment to Approved Site Plan File No. LUA06-073 SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 DECLARATION OF SERVICE Helen M. Stubbert declares: I am a legal assistant to Roger A. Pearce. I am now, and at all times hereinafter mentioned was, a resident of the State of Washington, over the age of 18 years, and competent to be a witness in the above-entitled proceeding, and that, on July 2, 2007, I caused to be served, in the manner indicated, true and correct copies of: 1. Pre-Appeal Hearing Brief of Football Northwest LLC; and 2. this Declaration of Service on the following: Bonnie Walton City Clerk City of Renton I 055 S. Grady Way Renton WA 98055 [Original + 3 copies] Via Legal Messenger Lawrence J. Warren Warren Barber & Fontes, P.S. 100 South Second St. Renton WA 98055 Via Legal Messenger DECLARATION OF SERVICE -1 508241B 1 Paul O'Hainle Socius Law Group PLLC Two Union Square, #4950 601 Union St. Seattle WA 98101 Via Legal Messenger Larry & Esther Barsher 6940 96'h Ave. S.E. Mercer Island WA 98040 Via U.S. Mail OR\G\NAL FOSTER PEPPER PLLC 1111 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3299 PHONE (206) 447-4400 FAX (206) 447-9700 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Declared under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct. DATED this 2"d day ofJuly, 2007, at Seattle, Washington. ldL~~ Helen M. Stubbert DECLARATION OF SERVICE -2 50824123.1 FOSTER PEPPER PLLC 1111 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 5MIT1E, WASHINGTON 98101-3299 PHONE (206) 447-4400 FAX {206) 447-9700 June 21, 2007 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) § COUNTY OF KING ) BONNIE I. WAL TON, City Clerk for the City of Renton, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says that she is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Washington, over the age of2I and not a party to nor interested in this matter. That on the 21st day of June, 2007, at the hour of 5 :00 p.m. your affiant duly mailed and placed in the United States Post Office at Renton, King County, Washington, by first class mail to all parties ofrecord, notice of appeal filed by Northwest Football, LLC, represented by Roger A. Pearce, Foster Pepper, PLLC of the Hearing Examiner's decision regarding the Scahawks Headquarters and Training Facility Site Plan application. (File No. LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF) Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE me this 21st day of June, 2007. Jas Not ry Public in and for the State of Wa ington, residing in Renton ~. :!! /~ CITY _•F RENTON City Clerk Bonnie I. Walton :~lf('": ~ ~ ~ ~ Kathy Keo Iker, Mayor ~N"fo,;,---------------------------+- June 21, 2007 APPEAL FILED BY: Football Northwest, LLC, represented by Roger A. Pearce, Foster Pepper PLLC RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated 6/11/2007 regarding the Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility Site Plan application, 5015 Ripley Ln N. (File No. LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF) To Parties of Record: Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Renton City Code of Ordinances, written appeal of the hearing examiner's decision on the Barsher appeal of Seahawks Building Height has been filed with the City Clerk. In accordance with Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-1 lOF, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. Other parties ofrecord may submit letters limited to support of their positions within ten (I 0) days of the date of mailing of the notification of the filing of the appeal. The deadline for submission of additional letters is 5 :00 pm, July 2, 2007. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the written appeal and other pertinent documents will be reviewed by the Council's Planning and Development Committee at 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, July 5, 2007, in the Council Chambers, 7th Floor of Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA, 98057. The recommendation of the Committee will be presented for consideration by the full Council at a subsequent Council meeting. Attached are a copy of the appeal and a copy of the Renton Municipal Code regarding appeals of Hearing Examiner decisions or recommendations. Please note that the City Council will be considering the merits of the appeal based upon the written record previously established. Unless a showing can be made that additional evidence could not reasonably have been available at the prior hearing held by the Hearing Examiner, no further evidence or testimony on this matter will be accepted by the City Council. For additional information or assistance, please feel free to call me at 425-430-6502. Sincerely, Bonnie I. Walton City Clerk Attachments cc: Council Liaison 1055 South Grady Way-Renton, Washington 98057 -(425) 430-6510 / FAX (425) 430-6516 @ This paper contains 50% recycled material, 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CVRVE City of Renton Municipal Coue; Title IV, Chapter 8, Section I JO-Appeals 4-8-11 OC4 The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by a fee in accordance with RMC 4-1-170, the fee schedule of the City. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 4-8-1 lOF: Appeals to City Council -Procedures 1. Time for Appeal: Unless a specific section or State law providing for review of decision of the Examiner requires review thereof by the Superior Court or any other body, any interested party aggrieved by the Examiner's written decision or recommendation may submit a notice of appeal to the City Council, upon a form furnished by the City Clerk, within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the Examiner's written report. 2. Notice to Parties of Record: Within five (5) days of receipt of the notice of appeal, the City Clerk shall notify all parties ofrecord of the receipt of the appeal. 3. Opportunity to Provide Comments: Other parties of record may submit letters in support of their positions within ten ( 10) days of the dates of mailing of the notification of the filing of the notice of appeal. 4. Transmittal of Record to Council: Thereupon the Clerk shall forward to the members of the City Council all of the pertinent documents, including the written decision or recommendation, findings and conclusions contained in the Examiner's report, the notice of appeal, and additional letters submitted by the parties. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-1982) 5. Council Review Procedures: No public hearing shall be held by the City Council. No new or additional evidence or testimony shall be accepted by the City Council unless a showing is made by the party offering the evidence that the evidence could not reasonably have been available at the time of the hearing before the Examiner. If the Council determines that additional evidence is required, the Council shall remand the matter to the Examiner for reconsideration and receipt of additional evidence. The cost of transcription of the hearing record shall be borne by the applicant. In the absence of an entry upon the record of an order by the City Council authorizing new or additional evidence or testimony, and a remand to the Hearing Examiner for receipt of such evidence or testimony, it shall be presumed that no new or additional evidence or testimony has been accepted by the City Council, and that the record before the City Council is identical to the hearing record before the Hearing Examiner. (Ord. 4389, 1-25-1993) 6. Council Evaluation Criteria: The consideration by the City Council shall be based solely upon the record, the Hearing Examiner's report, the notice of appeal and additional submissions by parties. 7. Findings and Conclusions Required: It; upon appeal of a decision of the Hearing Examiner on an application submitted pursuant to RMC 4-1-050F 1, and after examination of the record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, it may remand the proceeding to Examiner for reconsideration, or modify, or reverse the decision of the Examiner accordingly. 8. Council Action: If, upon appeal from a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner upon an application submitted pursuant to RMC 4-l-050F2 and F3, and after examination of the record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, or that a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner should be disregarded or modified, the City Council may remand the proceeding to the Examiner for reconsideration, or enter its own decision upon the application. 9. Decision Documentation: In any event, the decision of the City Council shall be in writing and shall specify any modified or amended findings and conclusions other than those set forth in the report of the Hearing Examiner. Each material finding shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. The burden of proof shall rest with the appellant. (Ord 3658, 9-13-1982) I 0. Council Action Final: The action of the Council approving, modifying or rejecting a decision of the Examiner shall be final and conclusive, unless appealed within the time frames established under subsection GS of this Section. (Ord. 4660, 3-17-1997) -· Larry & Esther Barsher 6940 96th Ave. SE Mercer Island, WA 98040 Port Quendall Company 505 Fifth Ave. S., Ste. 900 Seattle, WA 98104 Carl Hadley Cedar Rock Consultants 19609 224th Ave. Woodinville, WA 98077 Michael Cero 8300 Avalon Drive Mercer Island, WA 98040 Jared Salstrom 5021 Ripley Lane N ., Ste. 213 Renton, WA 98056 Steve Gregerson 5021 Ripley Lane N., Ste 302 Renton, WA 98056 Torn Ehrlichrnan Socius Law Group 601 Union St., Ste. 4950 Seattle, WA 98 l O I Dwight & Christine Schaeffer 6958 96th Ave. SE Mercer Island, WA 98040 Jeffrey Tarada y Foster Pepper 1111 Third Ave., 34th Floor Seattle, WA 98101 Steve & Deanna Marshall 69M.96th Ave. SE J'I Mercer Island, WA 98040 Roger Pearce Foster Pepper 1111 Third Ave., Ste. 3400 Seattle, WA 98101 Lance Lopes VP Seahawks 800 Occidental Ave. S. Seattle, WA 98034 Eileen Halverson 5021 Ripley Lane N., Ste. 302 Renton, WA 98056 Thelma Sutherland 1205 N 29th St. Renton, WA 98056 Steve Janson 502 l Ripley Lane N., Ste. 302 Renton, WA 98056 Eleanor M. Kennamer, President Misty Cove Condo Association 5021 Ripley Lane N., #309 Renton, WA 98056 Barbara Paxhia 5021 Ripley Lane N., Ste. 104 Renton, WA 98101 Shelly Munkberg SECO Development 1083 Lk. Washington Blvd N. Ste. 50 Renton, WA 98056 Les & Denise Klaff 6915 96thAve. SE Mercer Island, WA 98040 Hal & Gerry Fardal 690 96th Ave. SE Merfer Island, WA 98040 Elaine Wine Football Northwest, LLC 505 Fifth Ave. S., Ste. 900 Seattle, WA 98104 Thomas Peterson Socius Law Group, PLLC 601 Union St., Ste. 4950 Seattle, WA 98101 Joe Burcar 3190160thAve. SE Bellevue, WA 98008 Brian T. Sabey 5021 Ripley Lane N., Ste. 304 Renton, WA 98056 Elya G. Baches 1414 N. 34th St. Renton, WA 98056 Aaron Belenky, President Williamsburg Condo Association 1800 NE 40th St., Ste. H-4 Renton, WA 98056 Dan & Jody Samson 6952 96th Ave. SE Mercer Island, WA 98040 Richard Wagner Baylis Architects 10801 Main St., Ste. 110 Bellevue, WA 98004 Howard & Sue Robboy 6944 96th Ave. SE Mercer Island, WA 98040 Dr. and Mrs. Robert Dietz 7906 E. Mercer Way Mercer Island, WA 98040 ... Carl Lindstrom 6910 96th Ave. SE Mercer Island, WA 98040 Cl Pr UI' RENTON A, .i'EAL TO RENTON CITY COUNCll., OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION/RECOMMENDATION JUN l a 2007 . RECEIVED 1;zq/,Jt APPLICATION NAME A f P£AL of l./£.AR.1,-1c-EiAM,,,€.11., ~G1s10,J FILE NO.Lul'i'~~z;'::q~~'J;'cE J, ,SIC!-H ,.r4-"'1 ,..,,,.., 15.c:? The undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the decision or recommendation of the Land Use Hearing Examiner, dated JU,..JE.... I ( , 20Q:j_. REPRESENTATIVE (IF ANY): I. IDENTIFICATION OF PARTY APPELLANf: Name: Foo-r(3AU., ,../Q/1:::r//WE.SI LLC... Name: (UX,£/l, A . fc.f/fl.CA-• f-D.STf/1... Pl:..Pf'e.R. /'l...l....C..... Address: Pt.,-,..J; 12..AY UOLL/1/E.J/.., Address: II/! -31!.,o ttve #34,00 J Sos -5d...A,E. s. #900 S-elf.,...,..-t..£ i,JA 9'81o'f I ) S&rr,L£ l,JA j'3 IO I Phone Number:------------ Email: --------------- Phone Number:(¢?b) t.j.,9-'.J -4-1.fOO Email: Pf..Aruz .. @ f-9srE..&. Co/Yl 2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Attach additional sheets, if necessary) Set forth below are the specific errors or Jaw or fact upon which this appeal is based: Finding of Fact: (Please designate number as denoted in the Examiner's Report) No. IO Error: .Su "'111AC/+E..]) Sl--l-eE..r Correction:---------------------------- Conclusions: N o.51 (, 1 :/ Error: __ .,_,'5:"-"f".t_"""----'A-"i..:...:..__:i..:.A.:.,C""H-ec,.,""·s:.D'---'"..,_')H=t:"=E'"-',------------- Correction:---------------------------- illh!U:: No. Error: ___________________________ __.:,._ __ Correction:---------------------------- :,. SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED The City Council is requested to grant the following relief: (Attach explanation, if desired) '>( Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relief: Modify the decision or recommendation as follows: St:£ ,c;--rrRC#l:J, .5.//cE-, Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows: Other: Type/Printed Name ~811' "1:-.:21 //3 illJrJS.. I 5,. J,o07 Date NOTE: Please refer lo Tille IV. Chapter 8, Mthe Renton Municipal Code. and Section 4·8-110!', for specifk appeal procedures. {j,[._ ', la..,,-/y 1-J~ ,/t!-,,, I {;_i f_j l't tty ;Vt,, ( '1/(), t/5 DeJ .s:'rvC:S j)/rt'cV ,::::.~~,,,( ~{,:.,:,,..., rf'('e,,,,-1",5 Exa,,...,,--e,...,,..- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON 9 In re Appeal of City of Renton Hearing Examiner Decision re Minor Adjustment to IO Approved Site Plan 11 12 13 File No. LUA06-073 SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF NOTICE OF APPEAL OF FOOTBALL NORTHWEST LLC 14 I. INTRODUCTION 15 Football Northwest LLC ("FNW") requests the City Council to modify the June 11, 2007 16 decision of the City of Renton Hearing Examiner in File Nos. LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, 17 ECF. This supplements the City's Notice Of Appeal form. 18 The appeal before the Examiner involved a minor adjustment to the approved site plan 19 for the Seattle Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility. The only change to the 20 approved site plan was to allow the Indoor Practice Facility (the "IPF") to be several feet higher 21 than described in the City's original site plan approval. Because this minor change to the 22 approved site plan clearly met the minor adjustment criteria in Renton Zoning Code §4-9-200(!), 23 the City's Department of Development Services issued the minor adjustment. On appeal, the 24 Examiner was required to give substantial weight to that administrative decision from the 25 Department of Development Services. In the Examiner's decision, the Examiner concluded that 26 all criteria for the issuance of the minor adjustment were satisfied. NOTICE OF APPEAL -I 50816742.2 FOSTER PEPPER PLLC 1111 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3299 PHONE (206) 447-4400 FAX (206)447-9700 I. Rather than uphold Development Services' decision, as the Examiner was required to do 2 once he found that the criteria for an approval of a minor adjustment were met, the Examiner 3 placed an additional condition on the Corporate Headquarters project. This additional condition 4 violated the review criteria in the Renton Zoning Code, failed to give substantial weight to the 5 decision of City staff, was unsupported by the evidence on appeal, was unrelated to any impact 6 from the minor adjustment, and imposed an unreasonable condition on the project. In particular, 7 the Examiner required 12 to 24 evergreen trees "along the lakeshore fai;ade of the Indoor 8 Practice Field [sic]." Even if the Examiner had authority to impose conditions on the project 9 after finding that all minor adjustment criteria had been met, this condition is not supported by IO any evidence in the record, which showed that the IPF would not look noticeably different from 11 the 111-foot tall building already approved. Moreover, the condition purports to require trees 12 along the IPF's "lakeshore fai;ade" but the great majority of that lakeshore fa<,:ade of the 13 Seahawks Corporate Headquarters does not even begin until an elevation of 55 feet in the air. It 14 is certainly unreasonable to plant evergreen trees 55 feet in the air on the roof of another 15 structure. 16 Because the Examiner's decision is not supported by the record or by the City's Code, 17 fails to give any deference to the City staff decision, and imposes an unreasonable condition, the 18 Council should modify the Examiner's decision to eliminate the "additional condition" required 19 by the Examiner. 20 II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 21 The evidence at the hearing and in the record of the hearing shows the following: 22 The City's environmental review for the Seahawks Corporate Headquarters master plan 23 analyzed an !PF structure ofup to 120 feet in height above slab, with a 95-foot clear interior 24 space over the indoor practice field. The 95-foot clear interior space is required for the facility to 25 operate in the manner designed for professional football practices. Based on its analysis of that 26 proposal, the City issued a Determination ofNonsignificance ("DNS"). NOTICE OF APPEAL -2 50816742 2 FOSTER PEPPER PLLC 1111 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATILE, WASHINGTON 98101-3299 PHONE (206) 447-4400 FAX (206) 447-9700 After the issuance of the DNS, the project applicant moved the IPF structure (and other 2 project buildings) approximately 62 feet further back from the shoreline, in order to minimize the 3 impact to the neighboring condominium owners to the north of the site. Design development for 4 the !PF structure showed that the interior 95-foot clear height could likely be accomplished with 5 an overall building height of approximately 111 feet in height. Those design development 6 drawings were the basis of the drawings and renderings presented to the City at the hearing on 7 the original site plan for the Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility. 8 Accordingly, the City's site plan approval described the !PF as being "up to 111 feet" and 9 "approximately 111 feet tall." IO After to the December 6, 2006, site plan approval, FNW worked with the City on the 11 final structural design of the IPF. In response to City building code requirements, FNW was 12 required to make changes to the truss structure of the !PF roof. In order to maintain the 95-foot 13 clear interior space for the !PF, the new truss structure requires a building height of 14 approximately 113 feet. To be cautious, FNW requested a minor adjustment to allow up to 115 15 feet in height, even though only approximately 113 feet in height is anticipated and currently 16 submitted to the City for permits. 17 This minor height variation to the IPF is the only change to the approved site plan. No 18 additional lot coverage is proposed, no expansion of the site plan boundary is proposed, and no 19 expansion of any other planned building on the site is proposed. Transportation and parking 20 impacts would be unchanged. Use of public services and utilities would be unchanged. The 21 only impact will be to allow a small increase in the scale of the IPF building. 22 The massing of the !PF itself will increase less than four percent ( 4%) if the full 115 feet 23 in height were utilized. At the anticipated final !PF height of approximately 113 feet, there 24 would be only a two percent (2%) increase to the scale of the IPF. With respect to the scale of 25 all development approved by the site plan, the total building volume would increase only three 26 percent (3%) if the full 115 feet in height were utilized for the !PF. At the anticipated final IPF NOTICE OF APPEAL -3 50816742.2 FOSTER PEPPER PLLC 1111 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEAITLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3299 PHONE (206) 447-4400 FAX (206) 447-9700 I height of approximately 113 feet, the overall site massing would only increase by one and one- 2 half percent (I Y, %). 3 III. APPEAL CRITERIA 4 A. Standing. 5 FNW is the permit applicant, one of the parties to the appeal hearing before the 6 Examiner, the owner of the property affected by the Examiner's appeal decision, and the ultimate 7 user of the Seahawks Corporate Headquarters. FNW will be directly affected by the Examiner's 8 decision and has standing to bring this appeal. 9 B. Time to File. 10 The Examiner's decision on the appeal of Development Services minor adjustment 11 approval was issued June 11, 2007. This appeal is filed within the required time limit in Renton 12 Zoning Code 4-8-1 IOF. 13 C. Notice of Appeal and Filing Fee. 14 The notice of appeal form from the Renton City Clerk accompanies this Notice. A check 15 for the filing fee specified in Renton Zoning Code 4-1-170 is enclosed. 16 B. Assignments of Error. 17 1. Finding of Fact 10. 18 In Finding of Fact 10, the Examiner purports to explain his authority on appeal. The 19 Examiner claims to have "all the powers of the office from whom the appeal is taken." This 20 finding ignores controlling City ordinances, which require the Examiner to give substantial 21 weight to any discretionary decision of City staff and require the Examiner to review the City 22 staff decision under the appropriate standard of review and modify that decision only if it is 23 made on unlawful procedure, is clearly erroneous, or is arbitrary and capricious. Renton Zoning 24 Code 4-8-l 10E7(a and b). Nothing in the record shows that staff followed any erroneous 25 procedure, committed any clear error oflaw, and made any arbitrary and capricious decision. 26 NOTICE OF APPEAL -4 50816742.2 FOSTER PEPPER PLLC 1111 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3299 PHONE (206) 447-4400 FAX (206) 447-9700 . I 1 The Examiner did not find that any of those standards of review were violated, and the Examiner 2 did not give any deference to the City staff decision as required by law. 3 2. Conclusions of Law 5, 6 and 7. 4 In Conclusions 5, 6 and 7, the Examiner makes multiple errors oflaw including the 5 following. 6 First, the Examiner fails to grant deference to the decision of Development Services to 7 issue the minor adjustment. 8 Second, the Examiner imposes an additional condition to the minor adjustment even after 9 concluding that all required criteria for issuance of the minor adjustment were met. IO Third, the Examiner misinterprets the wording of the minor adjustment Code section 11 ("Minor modifications may be permitted by administrative determination") to aggrandize 12 conditioning authority unto himself. That section of the Code merely distinguishes minor 13 adjustments from major adjustments. If the criteria for a minor adjustment are met, then 14 Development Services makes the decision on the site plan change. If the minor adjustment 15 criteria are not met, then a major adjustment application and public hearing are required. 16 Nothing in that Code section gives the Examiner authority to impose additional conditions. 17 Fourth, the conditions imposed by the Examiner are not even related to the change to the 18 project proposed by the minor adjustment. The only change to the IPF is a slight height increase 19 (from approximately 111 feet to approximately 113 feet in height at the crest of the IPF roof). 20 The condition imposed by the Examiner, however, does nothing to address this tiny increase in 21 height, but only addresses the overall bulk of the building, which was already approved in the 22 original site plan approval. 23 Fifth, the Examiner's condition is not supported by any evidence in the record. Both the 24 expert testimony and the photosimulation exhibits show that the additional height of the IPF 25 would not even be a noticeable change to the project. While the IPF is admittedly a significant 26 structure, the only issue when issuing the minor adjustment is the difference between the NOTICE OF APPEAL -5 50816742.2 FOSTER PEPPER PLLC 1111 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE,. WASHINGTON 98101-3299 PHONE (206) 447-4400 FAX (206)447-9700 1 structure as already permitted and the structure as amended (approximately two feet higher). 2 Because the Examiner's condition is not related to an impact of the minor adjustment, it is 3 plainly unlawful under controlling Washington law. 4 Sixth, the Examiner's condition is unreasonable. The existing site plan already has 5 significant landscaping along the shoreline, which will screen views from the water and provide 6 habitat amenities for the shoreline environment. The existing site plan proposed lower level 7 plantings in the northwest comer of the site in order to mitigate any view impacts that new 8 construction would have on the immediate project neighbors. The Examiner's condition would 9 require additional trees along the lakeshore fm;ade of the !PF. This condition ignores the fact IO that the 55-foot high administrative office building is shoreward from majority of the !PF. 11 According, the majority of the !PF fas;ade does not even begin until 55-feet in the air. A 12 condition purporting to require trees 55 feet in the air -on the roof of another structure -is 13 unreasonable. 14 IV. CONCLUSION 15 For all the reasons above and for the reasons to be shown at the closed record hearing 16 before the City Council, FNW respectfully requests the City Council to modify the Examiner's 17 decision by striking the additional condition added by the Examiner in his June 11, 2007, 18 decision on appeal of Development Services minor adjustment decision. 19 DATED this 15 1h day of June 2007. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 NOTICE OF APPEAL -6 50816742.2 FOSTER PEPPER PLLC Roger A.(Jiearce, WSBA No. 21113 Attorneys for Football Northwest LLC FOSTER PEPPER PLLC 1111 THIRD A VENUE, SUITE 3400 SEA TILE, WASHINGTON 9810]•3299 PHONE (206) 447-4400 FAX (206) 447-9700 CITY OF RENTON City Clerk Division Receipt N ~ 0891 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 425-430-6510 D Cash p{Check No nl-0 {p 7 7 D Copy Fee _9(Appeal Fee Description: Funds Received From: Name Address City/Zip I 11 I ~,,.j ll-ve,,,uC . 5~ ft: 3t/l)o ~Ct tfte; wlf q~; DI D Notary Service D ________ _ I Amount $ lo, 0{) ·06/15/,2007 15 20 FAX ~ 001/009 lfl F O STER PE PP ER "" FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET June 15, 2007 TO: FAX NUMBER: VOICE CONTACT: VOICE CONFIRM: Clerk, City of Renton (425) 430.6516 (425) 430.6510 From: Attachments: Roger A. Pearce Direct Dial: (206) 44 7-4676 Direct Fax: (206) 749-1997 Notice of Appeal Number of Pages (Including this cover page): 8 User & Client/Matter Number: 0487 76938-20 Return to/Location: 33-57 Message: We are sending you the original Notice and Check via messenger this afternoon. IF YOU HA VE: QUESTIONS REGARDING nlE TRANSMISSION OP THIS FAX PLEA.SE CONTACT THE FAX DEPARTMENT AT (206) 447-4660 THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS FACSIM/U COMMUNICATION IS P8.IVILEGED AND/OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF EACH INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED ABOVE. IF THE READER OF THIS COVER PAGE IS NOT AN INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTR/llUTION OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION OR THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HA VE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY US BY TEUPHONE AND RETURN IBIS FACSIM!lE TO US AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS VIA THE U.S. POSTAL SERVICE. THANK YOU. T6~ 206.447.4400 '"" 206.447.9700 1111nmt0AVCNU!i,SUITB341X), SEATil.E, WASHING'tON 9'101->"' WWW.FOSTER.COM SEA 111.E WASHlNGTON SPOKANE WA5tl!Nc;TON PORTLAND o .. oo, 06/15/~007 15 21 FAX ~ 002/009 APPEAL TO RENTON CITY COUNCIL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION/RECOMMENDATION APPLICATION NAME A f P£Al of f.lEArz.1dG-f>/lm,,-1u., JJcCISIQ,J FI.LB NO,J;~-Ob -07J) s,q --A~J'M EC,'.F The undeniigncd interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the declsion or recommendation o( the Land u~e He:iring Examine~. dated ,IUrJE.. I ( , 20Q:/..-, l. IDENTIFICATION OF PARTY APPEllANT: Name: foO"r"AA-u,.. ,..;oa=c~r LLC... Address: FYr,,..J; /LAY C..01.._1-11/E&, Sos -sd-R~". s. ,t;,900 s-64T"TI-£ i,JA ., '81of j ' Phone Number:----------- Email: -------------- REPRESENTA TTVE (IF ANY): Name: (LOC.£q A . ff.AR.CL ' f-osrl:A.. Pt:..PPU. /><-<-c..- Address; 11/ r -,3Jl.J) 11:11e # 3 If: o 0 I SfA-.rl,,£ J,.J~ 'fl IO I Phone N111nbcr:~b) Y.,Y,] -'f:'fOO Email: PEA1ut .. @ F9§'r1!&. Cg/VJ 2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Attaeh additional sheets, if necessary) Set forth below are rhe specific erron or Jaw or fact upon which this appeal is based: Finding of Fact: (Plcuse designate number as denoted in the E11arniner's Report) No. j_Q Error: .St:£ ATTAC.H;sl) ,Slf{:Fr: Correction:-------------------------- Conclll!llqns: No.~ Error: _ __,,..,_$i.,,,'f£=-..;~c.:.....:.......:...;:.:..:c:c:.1ff;.._.....1)1L......,;,,...$}1=€.:::aC,....:.•------------ Correction:--------...:.------------------ Q!!w:; No. Error: _________________________ __: __ Correctio11: -------------------------- l SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED The City Council is requested to grunt the following relief: (Artach e)(plan11tion, if desired) Reverse the decision or rec:ommend11tion and grunt the following-relief; Modify the decision or recommendation as follows: s~ ,r~ .s#c.J!. r Remand to the Examiner for further conllidsration as follows: Other. Typa!Printed N11me~ .fl:..:L. l//.3 NOTE: Pie•'"' rer.,,. rn TitJo IV. Chaple< 8, of lb<: Rent0n Municipal Code. and Section 4-B· l lOF, for spetifu: appeal procedures. , 08/15/2007 15 21 FAX 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON 9 In re Appeal of City of Renton Hearing Examiner Decision re Minor Adjustment to 10 Approved Site Plan 11 12 13 File No. LUA06-073 SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF NOTICE OF APPEAL OF FOOTBALL NORTHWEST LLC 14 I. INTRODUCTION ~ 003/008 IS Football Northwest LLC ("FNW") requests the City Council to modify the June 11, 2007 16 decision of the City of Renton Hearing Examiner in File Nos. LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, 17 ECF. This supplements the City's Notice Of Appeal form. 18 The appeal before the Examiner involved a minor adjustment to the approved site plan 19 for the Seattle Seahawks COIJ)orate Headquarters and Training Facility. The only change to the 20 approved site plan was to allow the Indoor Practice Facility (the "IIPF") to be several feet higher 21 than described in the City's original site plan approval. Because this minor change to the 22 approved site plan clearly met the minor adjustment criteria in Renton Zoning Code §4-9-200(1), 23 the City's Department of Development Services issued the minor adjustment. On appeal, the 24 Examiner was required to give substantial weight to that administrative decision from the 25 Department of Development Services. In the Examiner's decision, the Examiner concluded that 26 all criteria for the issuance of the minor adjustment were satisfied. NOTICE OF APPEAL -1 F09nR 1'"£Pl'III< PLLC 1111 T.HW)AVINUl,,9\.llTIIHOO S"":rru, WJl.&lm,,laro,, ,ai01-am PHONE (206) il41 ..... 00 FAX!20(i)ff7..,700 06/151,2007 15 21 FAX ~ 004/008 1 Rather than uphold Development Services' decision, as the Examiner was required to do 2 once he found that the criteria for an approval of a minor adjustment were met, the Examiner 3 placed an additional condition on the Corporate Headquarters project. This additional condition 4 violated the review criteria in the Renton Zoning Code, failed to give substantial weight to the 5 decision of City staff, was unsupported by the evidence on appeal, was unrelated to any impact 6 from the minor adjustment, and imposed an wu-ea:sonable condition on the project. In particular, 7 the Examiner required 12 to 24 evergreen trees "along the !akeshore fa9ade of the Indoor 8 Practice Field [sic]." Even if the Examiner had authority to impose conditions on the project 9 after finding that all minor adjustment criteria had been met, this condition is not supported by IO any evidence in the record, which showed that the IPF would not look noticeably different from I I the 111-foot tall building already approved. Moreover, the condition purports to require trees 12 along the IPF's "lakeshore fayade" but the great majority of that lakeshore f~ade of the 13 Seahawks Corporate Headquarters does not even begin until an elevation of 55 feet in the air. It 14 is certainly unreasonable to plant evergreen trees 55 feet in the air on the roof of another 15 structure. 16 Because the Examiner's decision is not supported by the record or by the City's Code, 17 fails to give any deference to the City staff decision, and imposes 1111 unreasonable condition, the 18 Council should modify the Examiner's decision to eliminate the "additional condition" required 19 by the Examiner. 20 II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 21 The evidence at the hearing and in the record of the hearing shows the following: 22 The City's environmental review for the Seahawks Corporate Headquarters master plan 23 analyzed an IPF structure ofup to 120 feet in height above slab, with a 95-foot clear interior 24 space over the indoor practice field. The 95-foot clear interior space is required for the facility to 25 operate in the manner designed for professional football practices. Based on its analysis of that 26 proposal, the City issued a Determination ofNonsignificance ("DNS''). NOTICE OF APPEAL -2 .SOIJ67Cl.2 FOSTBI. PIIPPER l'LLC 1111 nmw AVINIJI, surnuoo Sunu,. WA.11UHCTON 98101-5299 PIIONI 1206) 441-fAX 1206) 447.f700 06/15J2007 15.22 FAX ~ 005/008 1 After the issuance of the DNS, the project applicant moved the IPF structure (and other 2 project buildings) approximately 62 feet further back from the shoreline, in order to minimize the 3 impact to the neighboring condominium owners to the north of the site. Design development for 4 the IPF structure showed that the interior 95-foot clear height could likely be accomplished with 5 an overall building height of approximately 111 feet in height. Those design development 6 drawings were the basis of the drawings and renderings presented to the City at the hearing on 7 the original site plan for the Seahawb Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility. 8 Accordingly, the City's site plan approval described the IPF as being "up to 111 feet" and 9 "approximately 111 feet tall." 1 O After to the December 6, 2006, site plan approval, FNW worked with the City on the 11 final structural design of the IPF. In response to City building code requirements, FNW was 12 required to make changes to the truss structure of the IPF roof. In order to maintain the 95-foot 13 clear interior space for the IPF, the new truss structure requires a building height of 14 approximately 113 feet. To be cautious, FNW requested a minor adjustment to allow up to 115 15 feet in height, even though only approximately 113 feet in height is anticipated and currently 16 submitted to the City for permits. 17 This minor height variation to the IPF is the only change to the approved site plan. No 18 additional lot coverage is proposed, no expansion of the site plan boundary is proposed, and no 19 expansion of any other planned building on the site is proposed. Transportation and parking 20 impacts would be unchanged, Use of public services and utilities ,vould be unchanged. The 21 only impact will be to allow a small increase in the scale of the IPF building. 22 The massing of the IPF itself will increase less than four percent (4%) if the full 115 feet 23 in height were utilized. At the anticipated final !PF height of approximately 113 feet, there 24 would be only a two percent (2%) increase to the scale of the IPF. With respect to the scale of 25 all development approved by the site plan, the total building volume would increase only three 26 percent (3%) if the full 115 feet in height were utilized for the !PF. At the anticipated final !PF NOTICE OF APPEAL -3 SO&l6142.2 F OSTl!ll Pl!PPER PUC 1111 Tkla'b A~ 9'Urr6UOO SM.T11.& WASHINGTON !118lOW2.99 PltoNi (206) '147-HOO PAX (;206) ff7-97DO 06/15/.2007 15 22 FAX ~ 006/00S 1 height of approximately 113 feet, the overall site massing would only increase by one and one- 2 half percent (1 Y. %). 3 IIL APPEAL CRITERIA 4 A. Standing. 5 FNW is the pennit applicant, one of the parties to the appe&a hearing before the 6 Examiner, the owner of the property affected by the Examiner's appeal decision, and the ultimate 7 user of the Seahawks Corporate Headquarters. FNW will be directly affected by the Examiner's 8 decision and has standing to bring this appeal. 9 B. Time to File. 10 The Examiner's decision on the appeal of Development Services minor adjustment 11 approval was issued June 11, 2007. This appeal is filed within the required time limit in Renton 12 Zoning Code 4-8-1 lOF. 13 c. Notice of Appeal and Filing Fee. 14 The notice of appeal form from the Renton City Clerk accompanies this Notice. A check 15 for the filing fee specified in Renton Zoning Code 4-1-170 is enclosed. 16 B. Assignments of Error. 17 1. Finding of Fact 10. 18 In Finding of Fact 10, the Examiner purports to explain his authority on appeal. The 19 Examiner claims to have "all the powers of the office from whom the appeal is taken." This 20 finding ignores controlling City ordinances, which require the Examiner to give substantial 21 weight to any discretionary decision of City staff and require the Examiner to review the City 22 staff decision under the appropriate standard ofreview and modify that decision only ifit is 23 made on wtlawful procedure, is clearly erroneous, or is arbitrary and capricious. Renton Zoning 24 Code 4-8-l 10E7(a and b). Nothing in the record shows that staff followed any erroneous 25 procedure, committed any clear error oflaw, and made any atbitrary and capricious decision. 26 NOTICE OF APPEAL -4 !10i16'742.2 FOSTI!I!. PEPPEi!. PLLC un TlmtD A ViNU& Sum; l40tl SIAnu. W.fJilfllNc.J'ON" 98](ll-32H PMom (206) 447-1400 PAX (:Zllf) 447•9700 '06/15l2007 15 23 FAX 14] 007 /008 The Examiner did not find that any of those standards of review were violated, and the Examiner 2 did not give any deference to the City staff decision as required by law. 3 2. Conclusions of Law 5, 6 and 7. 4 In Conclusions 5, 6 and 7, the Examiner makes multiple errors of law including the 5 following. 6 First, the Examiner fails to grant deference to the decision of Development Services to 7 issue the minor adjustment. 8 Second, the Examiner imposes an additional condition to the minor adjustment even after 9 concluding that all required criteria for issuance of the minor adjustment were met. JO Third, the Exffllliner misinterprets the wording of the minor adjustment Code section 11 ("Minor modifications may be permitted by administrative determination'') to aggrandize 12 conditioning authority unto himself. That section of the Code merely distinguishes minor 13 adjustments from major adjustments. If the criteria for a minor adjustment are met, then 14 Development Services makes the decision on the site plan change. If the minor adjustment 15 criteria are not met, then a major adjustment application and public hearing are required. 16 Nothing in that Code section gives the Examiner authority to impose additional conditions. 17 Fourth, the conditions imposed by the Examiner are not even related to the change to the IR project proposed by the minor adjustment. The only change to the IPF is a slight height increase 19 (from approximately 111 feet to approximately 113 feet in height at the crest of the IPF roof). 20 Toe condition imposed by the Examiner, however, does nothing to address this tiny increase in 21 height, but only addresses the overall bulk of the building, which was already approved in the 22 original site plan approval. 23 Fifth, the Examiner's condition is not supported by any evidence in the record. Both the 24 expert testimony and the photosimulation exhibits show that the additional height of the IPF 25 would not even be a noticeable change to the project. While the !FF is admittedly a sigoificant 26 structure, the only issue when issuing the minor adjustment is the difference between the NOTICE OF APPEAL -5 FOSTEil i'EFPERPLLC 1111 nau, A V'£Nln,. surr, 3400 Su.nu, WASIDNaro.N 99101.-.U9' l'MONl!CUIOJ W-4400 fAX!l06)447-9700 ·06/15L2007 15 23 FAX ~ 008/008 1 structure as already pennitted and the structure as amended (appro11drnately two feet higher). 2 Because the Examiner's condition is not related to an impact of the minor adjustment. it is 3 plainly unlawful under controlling Washington Jaw. 4 Sixth, the Examiner's condition is unreasonable. The existing site plan already has 5 significant landscaping along the shoreline, which will screen views from the water and provide 6 habitat amenities for the shoreline environment. The existing site plan proposed lower level 7 plantings in the northwest comer of the site in order to mitigate any view impacts that new 8 construction would have on the immediate project neighbors. The Examiner's condition would 9 require additional trees along the Jakeshore fa.yade of the IPF. This condition ignores the fact 10 that the 55-foot high administrative office building is shoreward from majority of the IPF. 11 According, the majority of the IPF fa.yade does not even begin until 55-feet in the air. A 12 condition plllJ)orting to require trees 55 feet in the air-on the roof of another structure -is 13 unreasonable. 14 IV. CONCLUSION 15 For all the reasons above and for the reasons to be shown at the closed record hearing 16 before the City Council, FNW respectfully requests the City Council to modify the Examiner's 17 decision by striking the additional condition added by the Examiner in his June 11, 2007, 18 decision on appeal of Development Services minor adjustment decision. 19 DATED this 15th day of June 2007. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 NOTICE OF APPEAL -6 FOSTER PEPPER PLLC Roger A.Charce, WSBA No. 21113 Attorneys for Football Northwest LLC POSTER PBrnlt PLLC 1111 TJn• o A VBNV1., swn 3400 SIATTI.I, W,UNINGTON !1181.M...!299 f'HONi (2'Hi)ff1 .... 00 fAX(206) 447.,700 ~6/15/2007 15 24 FAX ' . TO TI-lE ORDER OF , City,9f~n1on .. ··; .. ·. . . FOS'TER PEPPER PllC 146774 Clly of Renton Invoice# 61507/RENTON ClienVMatter Code 76938.20 FOSTE~ PEPPER PLLC Invoice Dale 6/15/2007 6/15/2007 SEATTLE, WA 18101 Appeal fee SEAITLE, WA 11101 CATE Jun 15 2007 6/15/2007 $ ~ 008/008 AMOUNT ·······-···1s.oo· 0 2 9 6 °'2Js 77 75.00 75.00 029677 I I I I 1 7 31 I 4 I 1 I City Clerk's Office Distribution List Appeal, Seahawks Headquarter & Training Facility LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF June 21, 2007 Renton Reoorter City Attorney Larry Warren City Council * Julia Medze!!ian EDNSP/Economic Development Alex Pietsch Fire Deot/Fire Prevention I. David Daniels Planning Commission Judith Subia Parties of Record** ( see attached list) PBPW I Administration Gregg Zimmerman PBPW/Development Services Neil Watts Jennifer Henning Stacy Tucker Elizabeth Hig!!ins PBPW/Transportation Services Peter Hahn PBPW/Utilities & Tech Services Lys Homsbv LUA-06-073 • *City Clerk's Letter & POR List only ~ Appeal 6/15/07 ' • AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING STATE OF WASHING TON ) ) ss. County of King ) Nancy Thompson being first duly sworn, upon oath, deposes and states: That on the 11th day of June 2007, affiant deposited via the United States Mail a sealed envelope(s) containing a decision or recommendation with postage prepaid, addressed to the parties of record in the below entitled application or petition. Signature: SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this JJ!!day of _ __,.lt"".""-'1'.'.J...1 £"---~'' 2007 . . ' .. /, > ,.I -. \' Application, Petition or Case No.: Nota ublic in and for the State of Washington Res· ing at f<_vvt he-,/"--, , therein. Barsher Appeal of Seahawks Building Height LUA 06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF The Decision or Recommendation contains a complete list of the Parties of Record. June 11, 2007 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND DECISION APPELLANT: PUBLIC HEARING: Larry & Esther Barsher 6940 96th Ave SE Mercer Island, WA 98040 Barsher Appeal of Seahawks Building Height LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF After reviewing the Appellant's written requests for a hearing and examining available information on file, the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES Tltefollowing minutes are a summary of the May 29, 2007 hearing. The legal record is recorded on CD. The hearing opened on Tuesday, May 29, 2007, at 8:59 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No. I: Yell ow file containing the original Exhibit No. 2: Topographic Map of Mercer Island appeal letter and site information. Exhibit No. 3: Photograph of Seahawk's site from Exhibit No. 4: Photograph of Boeing site at south end Barsher property of Lake Washington Exhibit No, 5: Photograph of east Boeing site Exhibit No. 6: Site Plan File LUA 06-073 Exhibit No. 7: Environmental Checklist Exhibit No. 8: October 19, 2006 letter from the City of Renton regarding the Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility, acceptance from Environmental Review Committee Exhibit No. 9: Original Elevations (2 sheets) Exhibit No. 10: Hearing Examiner Decision dated submitted with the Site Plan application December 8, 2006 Exhibit No. 11: VA 102 -view study from Misty Cove (2 sheets) Parties Present: Larry Barsher, 6940 96'" Ave SE, Mercer Island, WA 98040 Barsher Appeal of Seahawks Bui,,.,mg Height LUA-06-037, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF June 11, 2007 Page 2 Larry Warren, City Attorney, City of Renton Roger Pearce, Foster Pepper, 111 l Third Ave, Ste. 3400, Seattle, WA 98101 Larry Barsher stated that he is a State of Washington Licensed Professional Civil Engineer and that he has lived on Mercer Island since 1980 and enjoyed the views and vistas for 27 years. He and his wife are alanned by the fact that the City would allow this large building to get even larger and not include in this modification some landscaping to soften and mitigate the appearance of this structure. He produced a topographic map of Mercer Island and surrounding areas. He pointed out where his home lies and where the new Seahawk facility will be located. The distance from their home to the Seahawk building is approximately 3,700 feet or% of a mile. He took more photographs of the Boeing plant, the width of that building is 840-feet and the height is approximately the same as the Seahawks is proposed to be. It shows approximately how much space the Seahawk building will actually take and the views that will be covered. There is a crane in the first photograph, it is 120-feet long, the Seahawk building is planned to be l I 5-feet tall. The new building will take up almost half of the hillside. A third photograph of the Boeing site shows an apartment building that is approximately 60-feet tall. They would not object to an approval of this increase in height provided it included the addition of some large evergreen trees that would reach approximately the roof elevation at maturity and planted judiciously close to the building. The trees would greatly reduce the facility's impact on those viewing the building from a distance. This small modification would greatly benefit the people of Mercer Island and generations to come. It seems reasonable that some large trees could be planted there. He is not asking for a total camouflage of the entire building. There should be some attention given to this matter. Esther Barsher, 6940 96'" Ave SE, Mercer Island, WA 98040 stated that large specimens could be used. Planting smaller trees further from the building will not have the same softening effect as if you planted larger trees now. Larry Warren, City Attorney stated that there is an underlying presumption that the Barshers have a right to a view, however, there is no such right that is recognized. Secondly their entire argument is based upon environmental impact of this particular project, this is not a SEPA Appeal, in fact the original proposal reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee has the height of the building between 95-fcet at the center of the field and 120-feet altogether, which is under the elevation that is now being approved by the minor modification. The actual building height will be approximately 113-fcet rather than 115-feet. This issue must focus on Code or 9-200.i on minor modifications. A four-foot increase and 120-feet is not 10%. Take into fact that 360-feet was the width and the increase in the fa9ade area, it is much smaller in percentage basis so it is much less than I 0%. The second factor, adding a significantly greater impact on the environment, this docs not have a significantly greater impact on the environment. This project was already reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee, and their decision was not appealed. The third item of the criteria changes the boundaries of the original approved plan, that does not occur at all. Mr. Warren referred the Examiner to the Staff Report to the ERC, page 2 of 16, third paragraph from the bottom, third line from the bottom of that paragraph. Barsher Appeal of Seahawks Bm,umg Height LUA-06-037, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF June 11, 2007 Page 3 Roger Pearce, Foster Pepper, 1111 Third Ave, Ste. 3400, Seattle, WA 98101 submitted a short hearing brief to the Examiner. The only issues before the Examiner are ones that require minor adjustments. The only change to the approved site plan is that the indoor practice facility is required to have a 95-foot height so that they can plan professional football inside. It required being 7-feet higher than it was described in the Examiner's original site plat approval. In the original application, the building was described as 120-feet high, and that was what the DNS was based on and the City found there was no environmental impact from a building of that height. Since that time, the building actually came down significantly in height. The Seahawks have no incentive to overbuild, all they need is a building that looks good and that has 95-feet clear height in the center of the field. At that time that the structure would be adequate and that the building could be I I I-feet and at that time they also moved the entire building back 62-feet to help out the view from the Misty Cove Apartments. They have had some unexpected seismic issues that must be dealt with so the roof structure had to be beefed up a little bit, they asked for I 15-feetjust to make sure they don't have to come back again in addition to this proceeding today, they now believe that the height of the building will actually be in the range of 112-113-feet when they get to the final building approval. The main issue today is the incremental change in the height of the building, which is two to four feet. There is not a significantly greater impact at 115-feet from 111-feet, in fact, from the Misty Cove building the increase in building mass is not going to be noticeable. They request that the Examiner uphold the City's Decision. Elaine Wine, Football NW, 505 Fifth Avenue S., Ste. 900, Seattle, WA 98104 stated that she is a licensed architect in the State of Washington and the project manager for Football NW design and construction of this facility. The Indoor Practice Facility (IPF) clear height has been specified to be 95-feet al the mid-point of the practice field. That is the optimal height where the kickers can actually punt the ball and not interfere with any of the roof structure. She was involved with all the land use permitting that occurred back in the fall of 2006. The Environmental Checklist lists the approximate overall height of the building at 120-fect from the lowest elevation. In Exhibit 8, page 12 of 16 it describes the height of the IPF building to range in height from 55-feet to 120-feet. The facility was originally designed using a single member structural steel roofrafter that would have minimized the height of the IPF, which was the goal at that time. They were required to add a substantial amount of bracing in the walls and roof, which required roof trusses. Those trusses are deeper than a single member rafter and that caused the height of the facility to increase approximately IS-inches. On Exhibit 10, page 8, paragraph 19 states that the office building would be located closest to the lake to take advantage oflake views, it would be "L" shaped and v,rrap around the southwest comer of the larger indoor practice field. The lPF situated on the north and east sides of the building would be up to 111-feet. And on the next page, paragraph 22 states that the office building would be 55-fcet while the practice facility will be approximately I I I-feet tall. VA I 02 was a view study showing what the impact of the adjusted height would be if it reached a maximum of 115-feet. A second study showed the view from the lake shows the added impact with the additional four feet of height added to the building. At this time the expectation is that the building height would be 113-feet. Barsher Appeal of Seahawks Bu .. _mg Height LUA-06-037, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF June 11, 2007 Page 4 There have been no site plan boundary changes, the footprint of the building has not been increased. The added volume to the !PF is approximately 4% and with the overall site the added impact was about 3% total volume. At 113-feet, which it is believed the building will actually be, the increase is about 2% to the overall volume to the !PF and 1.5% increase to the entire project. At a distance of% of a mile the proposed increase would not be noticeable. 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 10:00 am. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The appellants, Larry and Esther Barsher, hereinafter appellants, filed an appeal of an administrative decision approving an increase in the height of a building allowed under a previously approved Site Plan. The underlying proposal is for the development of the Seattle Seahawks Headquarters and Practice Facility. The height adjustment addresses the height of the Indoor Practice Facility. 2. The appeal was filed in a timely manner May 8, 2007. 3. The appellants were parties to the original Site Plan public hearing. They were concerned about the height of the original facility at that time. 4. The original Site Plan decision was issued on December 7, 2006. In that decision Finding 19 noted that the height of the Indoor Practice Facility would be up to 111 feet: "The height of the indoor practice field ... would be up to 111 feet." (Page 8, Seahawks' Headquarters and Training Facility, LUA-06-073). Similarly at Page 9: "The office building will be 55 feet tall while the practice facility will be approximately 111 feet tall." At Page 13 of the same report in Conclusion 8, the report states: "The building complex has been designed to terrace upward from the lake with the office building scaled to approximately 55 feet and the more easterly element, the indoor practice fields, at 111 feet." 5. The ERC, the body responsible for the original enviromnental determination, noted in its staff report: "The height of the 80,000 gross square foot indoor practice field, situation on the north and east sides of the building, would be between 95 feet at the center of the field and 120 feet." Barsher Appeal of Seahawks Bu .. -ing Height LUA-06-037, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF June 11, 2007 Page 5 6. A representative of the applicant submitted a written request for an adjustment to the height of the building on April 9, 2007. The request stated: "1. Maximum Building Height -115'0" feet in lieu of 110'6" feet as noted on figure 10.6 (Sheet A401) of the Land Use, Shoreline & Master Plan Permit Application -Volume 1. The requested adjustment is based on the refinements to the final structural design and accommodates a clear inside height dimension of 95 feet as noted in our application. The referenced height is measured to the highest point of the roof deck from the finished floor slab." 7. The Director, Development Services Division, issued a decision on the requested "Minor Adjustment to the Site Plan" on April 25, 2007. The Director approved the request. The Director noted: " ... the proposed modified height of 115 feet would result in an additional 4 feet of building height and approximately 350,064 square feet of area. The proposed increase in area would not result in more than a l O percent increase in area or scale of the development. Although the increased height could impact views from nearby properties, the modification would not have a substantial impact on the environment or facilities. The requested modification would not change the boundaries of the originally approved site plan." The Director's decision itself states: "Based on the analysis and recommendation of staff, I have determined the proposed revision is within the parameters defined by the Renton Municipal Code. Therefore, the proposed modification of the site plan is deemed to be 'minor' and therefore, is approved ... " 8. The appellants in their letter did indicate that they could accept the proposed height increase if the facade that faced their home and Mercer Island were screened with evergreen trees to soften the appearance of the facade. The appellants provided exhibits that provide a frame of reference for the final structure from their viewpoint (their home). These purport to show the mass of the building, how it will affect their view of the shoreline and background hillside. They use the relatively similar fa9ade width and height of the Boeing complex to provide a concrete example of the scale of the proposed complex from their distance and vantage point. There was concern by the applicant that landscaping might affect the view from the condominiums. 9. The provisions allowing "minor adjustments" to a site plan are contained in Section 4-9-2001. "MINOR ADJUSTMENTS TO AN APPROVED SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN: Minor modifications may be permitted by administrative determination. To be considered a minor modification, the amendment must not: Barsher Appeal of Scahawks Buuuing Height LUA-06-037, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF June 11, 2007 Page 6 I. Involve more than a ten percent (10%) increase in area or scale of the development in the approved site development plan; or 2. Have a significantly greater impact on the environment and facilities than the approved plan; or 3. Change the boundaries of the originally approved plan. (Ord. 4802, 10-25-1999; Amd. Ord. 4954, 2-11-2002; Ord. 5028, 11-24-2003)" 10. Section 4-8-110.E. provides the authority of the Examiner on appeal: "APPEALS TO EXAMINER OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATIONS: (Amd. Ord. 4827, 1-24-2000) I. Applicability and Authority: CONCLUSIONS: c. Authority: To that end, the Examiner shall have all of the powers of the office from whom the appeal is taken insofar as the decision on the particular issue is concerned.It I. The appellant has the burden of demonstrating that the decision of the City Official was either in error, or was otherwise contrary to law or constitutional provisions, or was arbitrary and capricious (Section 4- 8-11 O(E)(7)(b ). The appellants have demonstrated that the action of the City should be modified. 2. Arbitrary and capricious action has been defined as willful and unreasoning action in disregard of the facts and circumstances. A decision, when exercised honestly and upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances, is not arbitrary or capricious (Northern Pacific Transport Co. v Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, 69 Wn. 2d 472,478 (I 966). 3. An action is likewise clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing body, on the entire evidence, is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. (Ancheta v Daly, 77 Wn. 2d 255,259 (1969). An appellant body should not necessarily substitute its judgment for the underlying agency with expertise in a matter unless appropriate. 4. In this case the original Site Plan was reviewed and approved by the Hearing Examiner. That was the original reviewing body or "the underlying agency with expertise." The Director was then asked to approve a minor adjustment to that Hearing Examiner approved Site Plan. The Director's decision as to whether the adjustment was minor is correct and the appellants have not demonstrated that part of the decision should be reversed. The increase proposed by the applicant does not exceed ten percent in area or scale. The increase does not appear to have a greater impact on the environment and facilities than the approved plan and it does not change the boundaries, at least, the footprint of the originally approved plan although it does change the boundaries if one uses vertical extent as a delimiter in boundaries. 5. But the plans have been changed. The appellants produced evidence showing the scale of the building in reasonable juxtaposition to its locale and a frame of reference showing the similarly scaled Boeing complex. While the building might have nice design elements, it is still large. The applicant has Barsher Appeal of Seahawks Bu11ding Height LUA-06-037, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF June 11, 2007 Page 7 demonstrated a willingness to provide a "green screen" to soften the view from the northerly condominium and a softened appearance from Lake Washington of this now even taller building is reasonable. Code states: "Minor modifications may be permitted by administrative determination." Code does not require that minor modifications be approved. Minor modifications MAY be permitted by administrative determination. The term "may" denotes discretionary authority. That does not mean it must be approved. So while the Director is correct about this being a minor modification, that docs not mean it should necessarily be granted or that it should not be subject to a reasonable condition or conditions. 6. The appellants have demonstrated the building's favade will increase in height and while it may not be a monumental change, the addition of landscaping cannot help but soften that view. Significant impact is not necessarily required to condition a project so that it blends better with its environment and provides a reasonahle "streetscape" or in this case "waterscape." The originally proposed shoreward landscaping will not help soften the fa,ade as well as plantings closer to the favade. While these plantings could affect the view from the adjacent condominium complex, trees could also naturally spring up along the boundaries of the site and alter that view and there would be no requirement to remove them. 7. Therefore, to the extent that the Director did not consider requiring landscaping to soften the impact of the fa9adc change, the Director's decision is modified. The applicant shall be required to plant evergreen trees along the lakeshore facade of the Indoor Practice Field. The plantings should reflect a more natural arrangement and not necessarily be the same species or evenly spaced along the fa,ade. Nor at maturity should the all trees necessarily reach the height of the facility. This office will defer to the Development Services Division to determine the spacing and species but the applicant shall plant between 12 and 24 trees of a reasonable specimen size at maturity. DECISION: The decision of the Director is modified and an additional condition shall be required as follows: The applicant shall be required to plant evergreen trees along the lakeshore facade of the Indoor Practice Field. The plantings should reflect a more natural arrangement and not necessarily be the same species or evenly spaced along the fa,ade. Nor at maturity should the all trees necessarily reach the height of the facility. This office will defer to the Development Services Division to determine the spacing and species but the applicant shall plant between 12 and 24 trees of a reasonable specimen size at maturity. ORDERED THIS I l'h day of June 2007. HEARING EXAMINER Barsher Appeal of Seahawks Bt ing Height LUA-06-037, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF June 11, 2007 Page 8 TRANSMITTED THIS 11th day of June 2007 to the parties of record: Larry Warren City Attorney City of Renton Roger Pearce Foster Pepper 1111 Third Ave, Ste. 3400 Seattle, WA 98101 Lance Lopes VP Seahawks 800 Occidental Ave S Seattle, WA 98034 Eileen Halverson 5021 Ripley Lane N., 11302 Renton, WA 98056 Thelma Sutherland 1205 N 29'" Street Renton, WA 98056 Steve Jansen 5021 Ripley Lane N., #302 Renton, WA 98056 Eleanor !'vi. Kennamer, President Misty Cove Condo Assoc. 5021 Ripley Lane N., #309 Renton, WA 98056 Barbara Paxhia 5021 Ripley Lane N., #104 Renton, WA 98056 Shelly Munkberg SECO Development I 083 Lk. Washington Blvd N, Ste. 50 Renton, WA 98056 Les & Denise Klaff 6915 96th Ave SE Mercer Island, WA 98040 Steve & Deanna Marshall 6915 96'h Ave SE Mercer Island, WA 98040 Elizabeth Higgins Development Services City of Renton Elaine Wine Football NW 505 Fifth Avenue S., Ste. 900 Seattle, WA 98104 Thomas Peterson Socius Law Group PLLC 601 Union Street, Ste 4950 Seattle, WA 9810 I Joe Burcar 3190 160"' Ave SE Bellevue. WA 98008 Brian T. Sabey 5021 Ripley Lane N., #304 Renton, WA 98056 Elya G. Baches 1414 N 34'h Street Renton, WA 98056 Aaron Belenky, President Williamsburg Condo HOA 1800 NE 40" Street, Ste. H-4 Renton, WA 98056 Dan & Jody Samson 6952 96th Ave SE Mercer Island, WA 98040 Richard Wagner Baylis Architects 10801 Main Street, Ste. 110 Bellevue, WA 98004 Carl Lindstrom 6910 96"' Ave SE Mercer Island, WA 98040 Hal & Gerry Fardal 6915 96"' Ave SE Mercer Island, WA 98040 Larry & Esther Barsher 6940 96'h Ave SE Mercer Island, WA 98040 Port Quendall Company 505 Fifth Avenue S., Ste. 900 Seattle, WA 98104 Carl Hadley Cedar Rock Consultants 19609 244'" Avenue Woodinville, WA 98077 Michael Cero 8300 Avalon Drive Mercer Island, WA 98040 Jared Salstrom 5021 Ripley Lane N., #213 Renton, WA 98056 Steve Gregerson 5021 Ripley Lane N., #302 Renton, WA 98056 Tom Ehrlichman Socius Law Group 601 Union Street, Ste. 4950 Seattle, WA 98101 Dwight & Christine Schaeffer 6958 96'" Ave SE Mercer Island, WA 98040 Jeffrey Taraday Foster Pepper 1111 Third Ave, 34th Floor Seattle, WA 9810 I Howard & Sue Robboy 6944 96'" Ave SE Mercer lsland, WA 98040 Dr. and Mrs. Robert Dietz 7906 E Mercer Way Mercer Island, WA 98040 Barsher Appeal of Seahawks B1. . ing Height LUA-06-037, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF June 11, 2007 Page 9 TRANSMITTED THIS 11 '" day of June 2007 to the following: Mayor Kathy Keolker Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator Alex Pietsch, Economic Development Jennifer Henning, Development Services Stacy Tucker, Development Services King County Journal Larry Rude, Fire Marshal Larry Meckling, Building Official Planning Commission Transportation Division Utilities Division Neil Watts, Development Services Janet Conklin, Development Services Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section I OOGof the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., June 25, 2007. 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 e1rnrs 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, Sectwn 110, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of $75 .00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. Au appeal must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., .June 25, 2007. 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. I I l ! l i I ' ~--:~ \ .... ~ . ; ·. ~: 1'\ . . . . . ~ 7 U' I I ~ennydale ~11:-''/:-:-,~:r1] "i / '> G' 7' ,29.0' 9 April 2007 Mr. Neil R. Wans Director: Development Services Division City of Renton Renton City Hall -6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 ' ' ' ' /,.--\ ______ ~ i, CFIAWF=OFIC •, Regarding: SEATTLE SEAHAWKS HEADQUARTERS & PRACTICE FACILITY Renton, WA Project No. KC005-03 / File No.lPF1 Subject: MINOR ADJUSTMENT TO SITE PLAN REQUEST Dear Neil: We have been informed by Bayley Construction that the engineer of record for the Indoor Practice Facility (IPF), Mr. H. David Jeter PE SE of HCI Steel Building System Inc. has requested a minor adjustment to the approved Site Plan consisting of: 1. Maximum Building Height -115'-0" feet in lieu of 110'-6" feet as noted on Figure 10.6 (Sheet A401) of the Land Use, Shoreline & Master Plan Permit Application -Volume 1. The requested adjustment is based on refinements to the final structural design and accommodates a clear inside height dimension of 95 feet as noted in our application. The referenced height is measured to the highest point of the roof deck from the finished floor slab. Crawford Architects and the applicants -Port Ouendall Company and Football Northwest LLC concur with this request Please contact me at this office if you have any questions or require further information. Sincerely, CRAWFORD ARCHITECTS LLC David M. Murphy Partner Page 1 9 April 2007 Crawford Architects 1901 Main Street -Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64108 816 421 2640 telephone 816 421 2650 facsimile david.murphy@crawford-usa.com Enclosure: Copies: None Jim Levin -Bayley Construction (for distribution) Lance Lopes -Seattle Seahawks Ray Colliver -Vulcan Tom Chiado -Vulcan Elaine Wine -Vulcan Roger Pearce -Foster Pepper Brian Dickson -MKA Structural Filer Page 2 9 April 2007 Crawford Architects 1901 Main Street -Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64108 816 421 2640 telephone 816 421 2650 facsimile david.murphy@crawford-usa.com • ' i )> I -I:~ ,_ .. " ~ ~, ! .! " 0 ,: ,: ui ~ -< 0 0 < m "' " 0 ~ 5 0 2! I I I I I ---I ~ 1 --I _:_j --------==--r - I I \ ~·--~- '::. ,m a >< .. in ~ z G) < m " ~ " 0 ,: ,: ui ~ -< 0 0 < m "' " 0 ~ r 0 0 i!' Seahawks Headquarters & Training Facility FOOTBALL NORTHWEST LLC RENTON, WASHINGTON J -, ' ; i ,. I -! : :'.' ' 'G) C ~1 ,w ! "' m ~ L ! ! ·\r.ti ·,. :. \ ' ' ' 'I ' ;, I l. '1 '.1 . \ I ' ' 'I 'I ' i ·, • I I ' ' -\ ,1 LI 1 \ i. I o I l I• I ! '!-;~I \ \ , .. ·.1[.\' .. i' .. ·\·: [ '·,,, l ,,;i,1,,.:i' ' ...... "· ' 1 ' I ' ' ' f I • 'I • . \ 11,y·· ' ' I • ·' '' I ,, ' I ' ' ,j ' \ . i ' 1" I . j I. ' I '1 ,i 'I, I.' , I l ~ I I . I I. ' 1 ', I, _I·,·'. I\ f~.·1· ·._/' . l 'rir•) '\:{l·,1j1 '· 1' . I \ 'I'': ' ' ' . 1· · · ~ • I , . ', I I,. i I / , J •, i Ii 1 ( I I I I i I I ' f ] , , 1 ; I 11 'I" I I ' ~ • t ', •' L I ', ' 1) l ,I, 1 j I c ~t ! ' I ! '' ! j ( I \ i ir·,r 1(,'. i. -:.'!\ f 1 1(t'lj, , ' 1' , I \ 1 1 ,, I , J ( r, ; \ \ I I ' I " I ( I , , t ' ' I 1 j1; >,': ', I ,t ,I 1 I 1· ~ I I ,I ', ! I \ lj I. I.~ .. ! J -. -------.-. ' --- , ' '• 11 ' ' ' Seahawks Headquarters & I Training Facility FOOTBALL NORTHWEST LLC RENTON, WASHINGTON I ~ ' .~ • ~ • • ~ ~ ~ :,J m z z .; 0 :e 0 m :,J m m i ::0 0 m (/) -t r m -f I ::c j;: -; m m 0 ~-z r r (fJ m m 0 ~ I ~ C :,J ;o ' m -f -f z -; --0 0 • 0 m (fJ z z Gi z ~ ~ 0 l • : ,, ; ; ' "' ~ 1 ' '.i I -r: r \ "1 T l I i1't, ' ; ' ' t ',, _i J t t T. i , 1. _,l_, ' ' ' ~ I' ; ·? I -'"1 I i ~ '.ff _'. ' \t! ' ' ' ' '' ' . :i;;J l 1 jQI ,_ I ij , I I 0 • • I l Ii i •1 -it ! ;ii i( • l ' ti ' ; ' : i: ' • :, ' .1::- .,, ,_ 0 :;u m en ,~ e· p; z 1 I· 0 0 a I m ~ m i-:;u m C )> 0 I m -I "' : ii ' r m :::c: -I '. Ii l ! ; ' ; ' 6 m m z r-r-(J) m m ) • 0 < < C :;u )> >-)> :;u r m -I -I z -, --0 0 0 m (J) z z i Gi z , I ~ ... _,_, ' • 1r r s • I' • !II ' !I' ' ' _e -" :1 '.I , .. , , , ., North and South Baxter :::i,ce Development Plan New Seattle Seahawks Headquarters & Training Facility Renton, WA DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND City of Renton Development Services Division 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055 Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax: 425-430-7231 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: North and South Baxter Site Development Plan 2. Name of applicant: Port Quendall Company and Football Northwest LLC 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Mr. Ray Colliver Senior Director 505 Fifth Avenue South Suite 900 Seattle, WA 98104 206 342 2000 telephone 206 342 3554 facsimile rayc@vulcan.com email 4. Date checklist prepared: 24 May 2006 Revised 6 September 2006 4. Agency requesting checklist: City of Renton, Washington 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): a. Design and Documentation b. Final Remediation and Cap on Overall Site' c. Final Remediation and Cap under building footprint' d. Building Construction above the Cap March 2006 to May 2007 November 2006 until May 2007 December 2006 until June 2007 January 2007 until July 2008 Environmental Checklist 24 May 2006 Revised 6 September 2006 Page 1 North and South Baxter 0ne Development Plan New Seattle Seahawks Headquarters & Training Facility Renton, WA *Pursuant to Department of Ecology Approval as lead agency (Items band c). The project is required to open in June of 2008. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. No plans for future additions, expansion or further activity are anticipated with the proposal. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. The following information has been prepared: Past Studies In the past, several investigations of potential contamination at the Baxter Property have been performed, generating a large volume of chemical data and visual observations of soil quality. Comprehensive summaries of project area historical information, regulatory records and environmental data were provided in the Draft Remedial Investigation Report (Woodward Clyde, 1990). Those data were incorporated with data collected by ThermoRetec during the previous due diligence process and during 1998 and 2000 to develop an interpretation of site conditions currently present. These data were presented in the South Property Feasibility Study ([FS]; ThermoRetec, 2000) and the North Property Feasibility Study and Cleanup Action Plan ([FS/CAP]; ThermoRetec, 2000). SEPA was completed in 2000 for the site representing compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA") environmental review requirements for the proposed remedial actions to be performed as stated in the Consent Decree. Ecology has been established as the agency lead pursuant to SEPA for all cleanup actions under the consent decree. Remedial actions occurred in 2002 and 2004 at the South Baxter property. Baxter Cove Wetland Monitoring Reports have been prepared in 2005 and 2006. In 1989, the City of Renton began work on development of a Comprehensive Plan affecting the Property and surrounding properties. Between 1990 and 1993, extensive public hearings and meetings were held, and notification was provided to impacted property owners and the general public concerning Comprehensive Plan land use alternatives and proposed Renton Zoning Code amendments. In addition, in 1996 and 1997, an Environmental Impact Statement ("EIS") scoping process was conducted in association with proposed development of the Facility. This EIS scoping process involved significant public participation, including mailings, formal comment, and public meetings. The proposed development was never pursued. In preparing this submittal, the following reports were referenced: Environmental Checklist 24 May 2006 Revised 6 September 2006 Page 2 i \ -, 9. North and South Baxter :::i1te Development Plan New Seattle Seahawks Headquarters & Training Facility Renton, WA OTHER REFERENCES -Past Studies City of Renton, Gypsy Sub Basin Analysis Technical Memorandum No. 2, April 1995 City of Renton. Gypsy Sub Basin Drainage Improvements Design Memorandum, September 1997 City of Renton. Zoning Map, updated 10 January 2006 Washington Department of Transportation, 1-405 Renton to Bellevue Project Environmental Assessment. March 2006 Washington State Department of Ecology, Consent Decree #00-2-11778-?KNT and #00-2- 11779-5KNT. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. Remediation and mitigation has been substantially completed on the South Baxter property as documented in the Completion Report (2005) and approved by the Department of Ecology by the April 1 o. 2006 Partial Certificate of Completion. Capping of residual soil impacts to prevent direct contact to humans, institutional controls to insure cap integrity and future groundwater monitoring remain to be completed pursuant to the Consent Decrees and Cleanup Action Plans which were previously subject to a SEPA review and a Mitigated Determination of Significance issued by the Department of Ecology in 2000. 10. List any governmental approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. a. City of Renton Master Plan approval b. City of Renton Shoreline Substantial Development Permit c. City of Renton Critical Areas Review d. City of Renton SEPA Review Remaining cleanup (capping and institutional controls) will be performed under Consent Decrees between the Department of Ecology and Port Quendall Company as part of initial work on the properties. As a result, certain state and local permits are preempted pursuant to the Model Toxics Control Act, although substantive requirements of those statutes and regulations will be satisfied by the cleanup approval. 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. Proposed Uses Proposed uses include administrative offices for professional football franchise and accessory Environmental Checklist 24 May 2006 Revised 6 September 2006 Page 3 North and South Baxter ;:,1te Development Plan New Seattle Seahawks Headquarters & Training Facility Renton, WA training and practice facilities. Potential tenant space may include accessory retail and office uses. Size of the Site The Project site is approximately 19.6 acres (853,776 square feet) in size. Facility Features • A permanent indoor practice field structure • Approximately 215,000 gross square feet of enclosed space will be constructed including the indoor practice field • Approximately 50,000 gross square feet of training facilities will be provided. • Approximately 15,000 gross square feet of player meeting space will be provided. • Approximately 48,000 gross square feet of administrative offices will be provided. • Approximately 15,000 gross square feet of technical and support areas will be provided. • Approximately 6,000 gross square feet of freestanding maintenance/ storage building. Training Camp The new facility will accommodate annual training camp on site. Training camp parking demand in excess of normal operations will be accommodated off-site. The Transportation Impact Analysis from TRANSPO Group, Inc., discusses parking and transportation issues in greater detail. Please refer to Section 12. On Site Parking 275 to 315 Cars (final count to be verified) Setbacks & Wetlands A fifty foot setback from Lake Washington for structures will be provided consistent with Renton development regulations and the Renton Shoreline Master Program. Existing wetlands that are constructed on South Baxter with 50 foot buffer pursuant to Consent Decree, CAP and mitigation analysis in 2000 will be maintained. Environmental Checklist 24 May 2006 Revised 6 September 2006 Page 4 North and South Baxter 01te Development Plan New Seattle Seahawks Headquarters & Training Facility Renton, WA 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. Location As indicated by the attached site plans, the Baxter properties are located at 5015 Lake Washington Boulevard North, in the northeastern portion of Renton, Washington. They are located in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 29, Township 24 North, Range 5 East, King County. The Baxter site occupies approximately 19.6 acres adjacent to Lake Washington, three miles south of the junction of Interstate Highways 405 and 90, and has approximately 1,887 feet of shoreline. The legal descriptions of the North and South properties are provided below. Access Interstate 405 provides regional access to the site. Other vehicular access is also provided by Lincoln Avenue from the east, Ripley Avenue from the north and Lake Washington Avenue SE from the northeast via 441" Street interchange. Legal Description BAXTER SOUTH PROPERTY That portion of the "South Parcel," as shown on Survey recorded under King County Recording No. 20000209900005, Records of King County, Washington, lying Southerly of the following described line: Beginning at the most Northerly corner of said "North Parcel"; Thence S 45 26'31" W along the Northwesterly line thereof a distance of 912.56 feet to the True Point of Beginning of the herein described line; Thence S 58 13'14" E a distance of 918.82 feet to a point on the Southeasterly line of said "North Parcel," distant thereon 267.64 feet Northerly of the angle point in said Southeasterly line and the terminus of the said line. BAXTER NORTH PROPERTY That portion of the "North Parcel", as shown on Survey recorded under King County Recording No. 20000209900005, Records of King County, Washington, lying Northerly of the following described line: Beginning at the most Northerly corner of said "North Parcel"; Thence S 45 26'31" W along the Northwesterly line thereof a distance of 912.56 feet to the True Point of Beginning of the herein described line; Thence S 58 13'14" Ea distance of 918.82 feet to a point on the Southeasterly line of said "North Parcel", distant thereon 267.64 feet Northerly of the angle point in said Southeasterly line and the terminus of the said line. Please refer to Section 1 for detailed Title Report. Environmental Checklist 24 May 2006 Revised 6 September 2006 Page5 ) North and South Baxter .::,1te Development Plan New Seattle Seahawks Headquarters & Training Facility Renton, WA Location and Vicinity Map Please refer to the attached location and vicinity map for additional detail. Topographic Map Please refer to the attached topographic map in Section 8 (Figure 8.1 and Figure 8.2) for additional detail regarding existing conditions. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. EARTH a. General description of the site (circle one); flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, or other. The site is located on the shore of Lake Washington and is generally flat. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope?) The slope of the site is generally 1 % to 2% with a maximum slope of approximately 5%. c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. The Baxter Property (both North and South) is located on the eastern shore of Lake Washington on the former delta of May Creek, which is an under fit stream remaining within the glacial Kennydale Channel. The subsurface geology of the site is a combination of fluvial deltaic, lacustrine near shore and constructed fill deposits overlying Pleistocene glacial sediments and Eocene volcanic and sedimentary bedrock. The shallow geology at the project area has been heavily influenced by recent human activity, beginning with construction of the Lake Washington Ship Canal in 1916. This lowered the level of Lake Washington approximately 8 feet, and exposed a significant area of the May and Gypsy Creek Sub Basin Deltas which had formerly been submerged. Subsequent filling of low-lying areas was performed in 1955 to extend the shoreline and raise the grade for construction of industrial facilities at the Baxter North and South Properties. The source of the fill material is not well documented. The combination of naturally complex deltaic deposits with numerous dredging and backfilling episodes has resulted in a highly heterogeneous subsurface mixture of clay, silt, peat, sand, gravel and cobbles, as well as discarded debris and abandoned subsurface structures from former site activities. Geology and subsurface conditions for the project area were determined based on the geologic field reconnaissance, current and previous borings and published Environmental Checklist 24 May 2006 Revised 6 September 2006 Page 6 North and South Baxter ;:,1te Development Plan New Seattle Seahawks Headquarters & Training Facility Renton, WA geologic data. Based on field explorations, the depth to bedrock is varied with depths from 17.5 feet to depths greater than 50 feet. In general, the subsurface soils under the building footprint and fields consist of either fill material, soft estuarine deposits, loose alluvial soils and underlying very dense bedrock, or stiff to very stiff silt and clay and medium dense sand overlying bedrock. The fill is generally 2 to 3 feet thick, while the soft estuarine and loose alluvial soils extend to depths ranging from 17 to 38 feet below the existing ground surface under most of the building footprint. The alluvial and estuarine deposits contain layers of loose sand that are susceptible to liquefaction, as well as layers of highly compressible peat. The bedrock consists of highly weathered Andesite and is a competent bearing material for building foundations. The professional geotechnical report submitted in conjunction with this Environmental Checklist provides additional detail, including detail regarding constructability concerns for larger structures on the south portion of the site. Please refer to Volume 2, Appendix 2 of this application for additional information. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. Recent subsurface exploration in 2006 included 6 borings and 29 backhoe test excavations. Liquefaction and settlement were identified as potential concerns. The upper 50 to 60 feet of soil within the May Creek delta are loose and potentially susceptible to liquefaction during a strong earthquake. In addition, consolidation of near-surface peats and clays from placement of the environmental cap fill upon this material may result in minor surface settlement. Please refer to Volume 2, Appendix 2 of this application for additional information. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Filling and grading will proceed pursuant to the Consent Decrees and Cleanup Action Plans, and subject to review and approval by the Department of Ecology. Some cleanup work and associated grading have been performed and documented in the Completion Report (2005) and approved by the Department of Ecology by the April 10, 2006 Partial Certificate of Completion. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Final capping of site will be conducted to complete remediation and cleanup activities in accord.ance with the Consent Decree. As a result erosion could occur but is not likely due to the shallow grade of the site. Environmental Checklist 24 May 2006 Revised 6 September 2006 Page 7 ;' ) North and South Baxter .:Jlte Development Plan New Seattle Seahawks Headquarters & Training Facility Renton, WA Please refer to Sections 5 and 6 for additional detail regarding TESC Plan. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Approximately 40% of the site will be covered by impervious materials including buildings, plazas, surface parking and driveways. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Erosion will be controlled by maintaining a shallow grade to the site. Storm water will be managed consistent with best management practices to prevent any adverse effects from erosion. 2. AIR a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Dust may be generated during construction activities. On-site construction equipment and hauling vehicles will generate emissions from internal combustion engines. b. Are there any off-site sources of emission or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. No, there are no off-site sources of emission or odor that will affect the new facility. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Dust will be suppressed by spraying water, as necessary, during construction. Stockpiles will be covered to the extent practicable to further minimize dust during construction. 3. WATER a. Surface Water: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. The project area includes approximately 1,887 feet of Lake Washington shoreline. 250 feet of shoreline is adjacent to the Baxter Cove inlet and wetland Environmental Checklist 24 May 2006 Revised 6 September 2006 Page 8 North and South Baxter .:i1te Development Plan New Seattle Seahawks Headquarters & Training Facility Renton, WA which is not being altered. The current shoreline characteristics range from gently sloping vegetated shorelines to vertical exposed dirt banks, with a minor portion of bulkhead. As part of cleanup activities, a 0.46-acre wetland and a 50- foot vegetated buffer was restored along the South Baxter shoreline. In addition, the Gypsy Sub Basin drainage is located on the North Property; this system conveys storm water from 1-405 and the interchange to Lake Washington. A minor portion of this drainage is exposed while most is piped. The Ordinary High Water (OHW) is approximately 18.8 feet (NAVD88) or 15.2 feet (NGVD29). 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Yes. The following work efforts are anticipated: a. Soil cover placement will occur within 200 feet of the shoreline on the North and South Properties consistent with the Department of Ecology Consent Decree requirements. b. Construction of Headquarters Facility c. Construction of natural grass Practice Fields d. Shoreline improvements within 50 foot setback per statute including riparian plant zone. e. Construction of retaining walls and driveways. f. Capping the site pursuant to Ecology regulations will require covering the short stretch of Gypsy Sub Basin that is not piped. Mitigation for any lost functions will be provided pursuant to Ecology capping approval. 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. No fill or dredge will be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands. 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 flood plain? If so, note location on the site plan. No 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. There will be no discharge of waste material into surface waters. Environmental Checklist 24 May 2006 Revised 6 September 2006 Page 9 b. Ground Water: North and South Baxter 01te Development Plan New Seattle Seahawks Headquarters & Training Facility Renton, WA 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals ... ; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. There will be no discharge of waste material into the ground from septic tanks or other sources. c. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters, If so, describe? Storm water is the only source of runoff at the site. Stormwater will be collected and managed in accordance with applicable regulations and best management practices. Some storm water will infiltrate or evaporate but most will drain to Lake Washington after proper treatment. 2) Could waste material enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. No. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: Storm water runoff from impervious surfaces subject to vehicular use will be treated prior to release. Best construction management practices will be in-place to prevent erosion and sedimentation impacts to surface water. Previous cleanup has improved ground water quality at the site. Final storm water controls will be designed to applicable Ecology and/or City of Renton storm water management requirements. 4. PLANTS. a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: 1) _x__ deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other Environmental Checklist 24 May 2006 Revised 6 September 2006 Page 10 North and South Baxter 01te Development Plan New Seattle Seahawks Headquarters & Training Facility Renton, WA a. Including: Red alder saplings, sapling and seedling sized black cottonwood, red-osier dogwood, sitka willow, Pacific Madrone, Pacific willow 2) _X_ evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine other a. Including in restored wetland and buffer area: Douglas fir, Sitka spruce, western red cedar 3) _X_shrubs a. Himalayan blackberry, Scotch broom, willow b. Restored wetland and buffer area: willows, snowberry, nootka rose, black twinberry, salmon berry, vine maple 4) _X_grass a. Non-native grasses and soft rush , bentgrass, red fescue, rye grass, white clover 5) __ pasture 6) __ crop or grain 7) _X_wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other: soft rush. yellowflag iris, reed canary grass, small fruited bulrush. slough sedge 8) __ water plants: water lily, eel grass, milfoil, other 9) __ other types of vegetation Please refer to the Stream and Lake Study in Section 7 for additional habitat data. b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? A great deal of pre-existing vegetation was removed during cleanup activities as prescribed in the 2000 SEPA. The North and South Properties are largely devoid of vegetation -approximately 10% of the property contains trees/brush. Almost all vegetation on the South Property will be removed to facilitate final cleanup and capping activities; however, no native vegetation in the restored wetland will be removed. Most vegetation, including grasses, invasive shrubs (Himalayan blackberry and Scotch broom), and trees (sapling red alder, willow, and cottonwood) on the North Property will be removed prior to placement of the soil cover. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. To the best of our knowledge, there are no threatened or endangered plant species known to be on or near the site. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Previous mitigation for wetland removal included creation of 0.46-acres of enhanced, forested wetland. Previous planting in this wetland and the any new planting in the associated 50-foot buffer will be maintained with native vegetation as described in the Mitigation Analysis Memorandum. If removed due to construction, existing vegetation along the shoreline, whether invasive or native species, will be replaced per the City of Renton Critical Areas Ordinance and Environmental Checklist 24 May 2006 Revised 6 September 2006 Page 11 5. North and South Baxter .::,1te Development Plan New Seattle Seahawks Headquarters & Training Facility Renton, WA associated Shoreline Master Program. Mature native trees immediately adjacent to the shoreline ( outside of the limit of grading) will be preserved where possible. All invasive shrubs along the shoreline will be removed and replaced with native shrub species as indicated in the current drawings. The proposed vegetation for this area will consist of native riparian species found in the King County Native Plant Guide and the King County, Washington -Surface Water Design Manual. Existing concrete and pavement debris that currently exists along the water's edge will be removed and replaced with large woody debris such as root wads and large trunk sections. Preserving mature trees, removing invasive species, planting native species, removing shoreline debris, and providing large woody debris are all actions that will provide enhanced functional habitat compared to pre- development conditions along the shoreline. ANIMALS a. Circle or underline any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: 1) Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other a. Red-winged blackbird, snipe, mallards, Canada geese, osprey 2) Mammals: ~. bear, elk, beaver. other 3) Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other a. Lake Washington contains Chinook, Coho, and sockeye salmon, steelhead, cutthroat trout, bull trout, kokanee salmon, speckled dace, three-spine stickleback, northern squawfish, yellow perch, black crappie, largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, mountain whitefish, large scale sucker, longfin smelt, prickly sculpin -See Mitigation Analysis Memorandum (AES, 2000). b. Crayfish, freshwater shrimp, freshwater clams -See Mitigation Analysis Memorandum (AES, 2000). c. ALSO: Turtles (painted and slider) Please refer to the Stream and Lake Study in Section 7 for additional habitat data. b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Chinook salmon, bull trout, bald eagle c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain Adult Chinook Salmon in Lake Washington migrate past the site on their way to the Cedar River each summer. Juvenile Chinook pass the site on their way back to Puget Sound, and may spend some time rearing in the site vicinity. Sockeye juveniles rear in Lake Washington and may utilize the shoreline and offshore habitat along the project for rearing. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: None Environmental Checklist 24 May 2006 Revised 6 September 2006 Page 12 North and South Baxter 01te Development Plan New Seattle Seahawks Headquarters & Training Facility Renton, WA 6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Electricity will likely be used for cooling. Natural gas will be used for cooking and potentially heating. During final capping and construction, the only energy to be used is diesel to operate construction equipment. No manufacturing will be conducted on site. No. The project will not affect potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, If any: 7. ENVIRONMENTAL 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. The South Baxter remediation will restore a contaminated, abandoned industrial/manufacturing site to allow project redevelopment. Adherence to institutional controls will minimize the potential for releases during development construction and thereafter. Where warranted, a site-specific health and safety plan will be prepared and used to limit worker exposure to hazards on site. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. The site-specific health and safety plan will include emergency contacts and procedures. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: Adherence to institutional controls will minimize the potential for releases during development construction and thereafter. Where warranted, a site-specific health and safety plan will be prepared and used to limit worker exposure to hazards on site. Environmental Checklist 24 May 2006 Revised 6 September 2006 Page 13 North and South Baxter ;:;ite Development Plan New Seattle Seahawks Headquarters & Training Facility Renton, WA b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? There are no noises in the area that occur on a regular basis that will adversely impact the project. Interstate 405 is located near the site, although traffic noise is not expected to adversely affect the project. There is periodic railroad traffic on the adjacent rail line. 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)? During construction, there will be noise from construction equipment that will have minimal impact to adjacent uses. Impact-type noises will be limited and will occur during restricted hours to minimize any potential adverse impacts to adjacent uses. Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. These noises will occur during daylight hours and will vary seasonally. Once the building is enclosed, these noises will be contained within the enclosed building. Construction is anticipated to take approximately 18 months with approximately 6 months of exterior noise possible. Hours of construction operation will likely be 7:00 AM-5:00 PM, 5 days a week. Based on project needs, weekend work may be required to keep the project on schedule to meet occupancy dates. If this measure is necessary, adjoining property owners will be notified in advance. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Any adverse noise impacts will be minimal and will likely be lower in frequency to the adjacent Interstate 405 and adjacent railroad. Exterior construction will be limited to daylight hours as permitted by the City of Renton. Contact with adjacent neighbors who may be adversely impacted will be made and information provided when loud noises, if any, will occur. The applicant is evaluating a request for restrictions on horn operation by the railroad at adjacent crossings. 8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Current Use of the North Baxter Site: Vacant Current Use of the South Baxter Site: Vacant Environmental Checklist 24 May 2006 Revised 6 September 2006 Page 14 ) North and South Baxter ;:;ite Development Plan New Seattle Seahawks Headquarters & Training Facility Renton, WA At the Baxter Property, wood treating operations ceased in 1981. Adjacent properties include: • Quendall Terminals, a former refining facility that is currently used for log sorting and storage, is located to the south; • Barbee Mills, a former lumber mill, is located south of Quendall Terminals; • Pan Abode, a cedar homes manufacturing facility, is located to the southeast; • Lake Washington Boulevard and 1-405 are located to the east; • Lake Washington is located to the west; • Condominiums and residences are located to the north. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No, the site has not been used for agriculture in the recent past. c. Describe any structures on the site. Asphalt pad, a small one-story office building, and a small dock and boathouse are located on the North Property. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? The small one-story office building will be demolished. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? Commercial/Office/Residential (COR-2) f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Commercial/Office/Residential g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Urban 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? Daily on-site personnel -approximately 200 people on a typical work day. Environmental Checklist 24 May 2006 Revised 6 September 2006 Page 15 North and South Baxter vite Development Plan New Seattle Seahawks Headquarters & Training Facility Renton, WA j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: Not Applicable I. Proposed measures to ensure that the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: Adjacent Use to the North: Landscape buffers and potential fencing will be provided to buffer the project from adjacent residential uses Adjacent Use to the South: Landscape buffers and fencing will be provided to provide necessary visual separation between the project and adjacent logging operation and storage and remediation activity. 9. HOUSING C. a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. No housing will be provided. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. No housing will be eliminated. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: Not Applicable. 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. The bulk of the building is approximately 52 to 55 feet in height. The indoor practice facility is approximately 120 feet in height from its lowest elevation. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? Views from the lake will be altered because the site is currently vacant. Views to the lake from adjacent uses located to the north and south should not be adversely affected. Views to the lake from structures located to the east, across Interstate 405 may be altered above existing tree lines. In this instance, approximately 30 to 40 feet of view above existing trees could be obstructed by the highest building masses. Visual simulations showing the view impact on nearby residential properties are being provided to the City of Renton in conjunction with the submittal of this Environmental Checklist. Environmental Checklist 24 May 2006 Revised 6 September 2006 Page 16 , \ -, North and South Baxter 01te Development Plan New Seattle Seahawks Headquarters & Training Facility Renton, WA The design of the facility has maintained view corridors to Lake Washington from adjacent properties. The bulk of the building on site has been sited furthest from the shoreline to mitigate visual impacts to the condos located to the north. The majority of the site has no structures above grade, thus preserving views to the lake. As detailed design proceeds, these view corridors will be developed further. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Traditional architectural devices to reduce the apparent scale and mass of the project are being explored including: 1. horizontal expression lines at changes of materials and fenestration 2. roof treatments 3. fenestration and glazing systems 4. Setbacks of building mass from the shoreline 5. Maintaining view corridors to Lake Washington. At the lakefront, the office components are placed in front of high mass elements associated with indoor-practice facility in order to minimize view impacts from neighboring properties. This approach occurs at the south fai;:ade as well. To the north, landscaping will be incorporated at the building perimeter as well as the property line to buffer the facility from the adjacent residential uses. The majority of the site will have little or no structure above grade, which will effectively preserve a view corridor to Lake Washington over the majority of the site. The building has been set back from the north property line, and the higher element of the building has been located on the furthest landward part of the building, in order to mitigate view impacts from the residential use to the north. Significant view impacts are not anticipated from that site. The building has been sited to take advantage of the most stable soils and to minimize deep foundations. The south portion of the site is the area containing the soils of most environmental concern, and the applicant does not wish to disturb the Ecology-approved cap with foundation elements on that portion of the site. And functionally, the south portion of the site is further from the site entries and other structures, so it is more suitable for the training field elements of the proposed facility. 11. LIGHT AND GLARE a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would It mainly occur? No permanent field lighting will be provided. Thus, no glare or light is anticipated that will adversely impact adjacent land uses, or land uses located in adjacent municipalities to the east or west with views of the properties from upland locations or across portions of Lake Washington. Environmental Checklist 24 May 2006 Revised 6 September 2006 Page 17 I North and South Baxter 01te Development Plan New Seattle Seahawks Headquarters & Training Facility Renton, WA b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No. It is not anticipated that any light or glare will pose a safety hazard. c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? There are no off-site sources of light or glare that we are currently aware of that will impact the project. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Not Applicable 12. RECREATION a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Public access to the shoreline will be provided as indicated by the Conceptual Site Plan. Access is proposed along the north property line with connections to the lakefront. The proposed access will include seating areas, a landscaped walkway and access to the lake for active and passive recreational use. Due to the security requirements associated with the daily operation of the Practice Facility, public access to the overall site is limited to the designated public access areas. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: Not Applicable 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. No b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. A Cultural Resource Assessment (Larson, 1997) was performed for the Baxter Properties Environmental Checklist 24 May 2006 Revised 6 September 2006 Page 18 North and South Baxter 0ite Development Plan New Seattle Seahawks Headquarters & Training Facility Renton, WA and properties south of Baxter in 1997. This assessment did not identify any cultural resources eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places were identified in the area. Literature review suggested that a Duwamish site may have been present at the historic mouth of May Creek, assumed to have been located on a nearby property south of the Baxter Properties. A copy of the Larson report is being submitted with this Environmental Checklist. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: Monitoring for archeological materials will be included in development activities involving excavation in portions of the site designated "High Probability Areas" in the Cultural Resource Assessment (Larson, 1997). Monitoring could include having a professional archeologist on site to monitor any subsurface excavation to insure that no intact archeological materials or features are adversely affected by such activities. 14. TRANSPORTATION a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. Greater detail on all transportation and parking issues can be found in the Transportation Impact Analysis (TRANSPO 2006) in Section 12. A more general discussion is provided below. Interstate 405 provides regional access to the site. The site is served by Lake Washington Boulevard, the primary access to which is via exit 7 (NE 44th Street) from 1-405. Other vehicular access is also provided by Lincoln Avenue from the east, Ripley Avenue from the north and Lake Washington Avenue SE from the northeast via 44th Street interchange. Two existing on grade crossings provide access to the site as shown on the attached site plans. Preliminary discussions between the Seahawks and the BNSF Railroad have commenced regarding a third (new) crossing, located halfway between existing crossings. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? The site is not served by public transit. The nearest transit stops are located at Park Ave N/N 33'd and 1161h/76'h. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? New Parking: 275 to 315 cars Displaced Parking: No parking will be displaced or eliminated Environmental Checklist 24 May 2006 Revised 6 September 2006 Page 19 ~ ·.j North and South Baxter 01te Development Plan New Seattle Seahawks Headquarters & Training Facility Renton, WA 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? Improvements will likely be required at the following areas: 1. Ripley Avenue 2. Existing at grade crossings @ BNSF Railroad right of way 3. Potential new at grade crossing @ BNSF Railroad right of way as indicated above e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. The Seahawks will continue to use commercial and charter air transportation at their current levels. Please refer to Section 12 for additional information. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: Please refer to Section 12 for proposed measures. 15. PUBLIC SERVICES a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. No. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. Not applicable 16. UTILITIES a. Circle or underline utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. 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. The following utilities will be provided by municipal systems : 1. Water 2. Sanitary Sewer Other utilities will be required including. 1. Electricity -Puget Sound Energy Environmental Checklist 24 May 2006 Revised 6 September 2006 Page 20 North and South Baxter --,1te Development Plan New Seattle Seahawks Headquarters & Training Facility Renton, WA 2. Natural Gas -Puget Sound Energy 3. Fiber -Qwest 4. DSL or T1 Telecommunication Lines -Qwest These utilities are available immediately adjacent to the site. Please refer to Section 5 tor preliminary utility plans. C. SIGNATURE D. I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non-significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part. Proponent: Name Printed: Ray Colliver Date: SUPPLEMENTAL SHEETS FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS Not Used Environmental Checklist 24 May 2006 Revised 6 September 2006 Page 21 2 3 4 5 6 7 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON 8 LARRY BARSHER and ESTHER BARSHER, 9 10 Appellants, V. CITY OF RENTON, and FOOTBALL File No. LUA06-073 SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF 11 NORTHWEST, NOTICE OF APPEARANCE ON BEHALF OF FOOTBALL NORTHWEST LLC 12 Respondents. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 TO: AND TO: Fred Kaufman, City of Renton Hearing Examiner; and Larry Barsher and Esther Barsher, Appellants PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Roger A Pearce, and Foster Pepper PLLC, enter their appearance as counsel for Respondent football Northwest LLC, by and through the undersigned attorney, and request that service of all papers and pleadings in this lawsuit, except original process, be made upon the undersigned attorney at the address stated below. DATED this 9th day of May, 2007. NOTICE OF APPEARANCE ON BEHALF OF FOOTBALL NORTHWEST -I 50813270 I FOSTER PEPPER PLLC Roger earce, WSBA No. 21113 Attorney for Respondent Football Northwest LLC FOSTER PEPPER PLLC 1111 T!IIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3299 PHONE (206) 447-4400 FAX (206) 447-9700 1 DECLARATION OF SERVICE 2 Helen M. Stubbert declares: 3 I am a legal assistant to Roger A. Pearce, and competent to be a witness in the above- 4 entitled proceeding. On May 9, 2007, I caused to be delivered in the manner indicated below 5 true and correct copies of a Notice of Appearance and this Certificate of Service to the following: 6 7 8 9 JO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington 98055 Via US Mail Larry and Esther Barsher 6940 96 1h Ave. S.E. Mercer Island WA 98040 Via U.S. Mail I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct. DATED this 9th day of May, 2007, at Seattle, Washington. /~~{~ NOTICE OF APPEARANCE ON BEHALF OF FOOTBALL NORTHWEST -2 50813270. l Helen M. Stubbert FOSTER PEPPER PLLC 1111 THJRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTlE, WASIIINGTON 98101-3299 PHONE (206) 447-4400 FAX (206) 447-9700 Seahawks' Headquarters and Trau,mg Facility File No.: LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF December 7, 2006 Page 16 7. Fan parking during training camp will be accommodated at a parking lot or parking facility off the project site, with fans then being bused to the site. 8. The project dumpster/recycling area will use containers with lids, and the container storage area will be screened from the Misty Cove property. The garbage and recycling pickups will occur during normal business hours on weekdays -not at nights or very early morning hours. All non-recyclable materials placed in the containers will be in sealed plastic bags. 9. FNW shall replace the existing property line fence between the Misty Cove property and the project site with a new fence of at least equal quality. 10. No athletic field lighting is being proposed under the permit. The Seahawks agree not to seek any permit to do so for a period of 15 years from the date of this Agreement. All project exterior lighting will be designed so that the lighting is directed away from the Misty Cove residences. 11. FNW will provide signage that clearly indicates the main entrance to the project site, so that visitors to the site can easily find the entrance. Any signage will have to comply with City and State regulations. 12. The proposed shoreline area planting plan shall include lower-level plantings in the north section of the project shoreline area, in order to minimize impacts of views of the water from the adjacent Misty Cove Condominium property. 13. The mitigation and design measures in the Lake and Stream Study and the Turf Integrated Pest Management Plan submitted to the City as part of the project application shall be conditioned to permit approval. ORDERED THIS 7th day of December 2006. FRED J. KAUFMAN HEARING EXAMINER TRANSMITTED THIS 7th day of December 2006 to the parties of record: Elizabeth Higgins 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Lance Lopes VP Seahawks 800 Occidental A venue S Seattle, WA 98034 Eileen Halverson 5021 Ripley Lane N, #302 Renton, WA 98056 Kayren Kittrick Development Services Renton, WA 98055 David Murphy Crawford Architects 1801 McGee St., Ste. 200 Kansas City, MO 64108 Joe Burcar 3190 160th Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98008 Roger Pearce Foster Pepper 1 111 Third A venue, 34 th Floor Seattle, WA 98101 Larry & Esther Barsher 6940 96" Avenue SE Mercer Island, WA 98040 Carl Hadley Cedar Rock Consultants 19609 244th Avenue Minutes APPLICANT: OWNER: CONTACT: LOCATION: SUMMARY OF REQUEST: SUMMARY OF ACTION: OFFICE OF Tiffi HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON Football Northwest 505 Fifih A venue S., Ste. 900 Seattle, WA 98104 Port Quendall Company 505 Fifih Avenue S., Ste. 900 Seattle, WA 98104 Ray Colliver 505 Filth Avenue S., Ste. 900 Seattle, WA 98104 December 7, 2006 RECEIVED DEC 8 2006 FOSTER PEPPER PLLC Seattle Scahawks' Headquarters and Training Facility File No.: LUA 06-073, SA-1-1, SA-M, SM, ECF 5015 Lake Washington Boulevard N (also addressed as 5015, 4801, and 4635 Ripley Lane) Applicant requested Master Plan and Site Plan Review for the development of the Seattle Seahawks' Headquarters and Training Facility. The project would be a single building consisting of 135,534 sf of office space on two levels and 89,423 sf indoor practice facility. There would be up to four outdoor practice fields. The zoning designation is Commercia 1-0 ff, ce-Rcsi dent i a I. Development Services Recommendation: Approve with conditions DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT: The Development Services Report was received by the Examiner on November 14, 2006. PUBLIC HEARING: Af\er 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 swnma,y oftlze November 21, 2006 hearing. The legal record is recorde,I on CD. The hearing opened on Tuesday, November 21, 2006, at 9:01 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affim1ed by the Examiner. / 0 Scalrnwks' Headquarters and Training Facility File No.: LUA-06-073, Si\-1-1, SA-M, SM, ECF December 7, 2006 Page 2 The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No. 1: Yellow file containing the original application, proof of posting, proof of publication and other documentation ocrtinent to this reauest. Exhibit No. 3: Historic Aerial Photo of North and South Baxter Properties Exhibit No. 5: Mitigation Site Plan -Alternative Plan Exhibit No. 7: N011h and South Building Elevations Exhibit No. 9: Base Site Plan Exhibit No. 11: Green Screen Wall A Exhibit No. 13: Existing View from Misty Cove Unit 302 Exhibit No. JS: View from Misty Cove Unit 302, Mitigated Site Plan Exhibit No. 17: Existing View from Misty Cove Unit 312 Exhibit No. 19: View from Misty Cove Unit 312, Mitieated Site Plan Exhibit No. 21: Daily Shadow Studies -Base Plan Exhibit No. 23: Seasonal Shadow Studies -Existing Conditions Exhibit No. 25: Seasonal Shadow Studies -Mitigated Alternative Plan Exhibit No. 27: Foster Pepper Appeal Settlement Letter - Exhibit No. 29: Anneal File bv Reference Exhibit No. 31: Geotech Summary Exhibit No. 33: Draft Engineering Design Plan Exhibit No. 2: Vicinity Map Exhibit No. 4: Zoning Map Exhibit No. 6: Plan Diagrams Exhibit No. 8: South View Transverse Section Exhibit No. 10: Building LocatJon Options -- --~ Exhibit No. 12: Green Screen Wall B Exhibit No. 14: View from Misty Cove Unit 302, Base Site Plan Exhibit No 16: View from Misty Cove Unit 302, Comoarison Exhibit No. 18: View from Misty Cove Unit 312, Base Site Plan Exhibit No. 20: View from Misty Cove Unit 312, Comnarison Exhibit No. 22: Daily shadow Studies -Mitigated Alternative Plan Exhibit No. 24: Seasonal Shadow Studies -Base Plan Exhibit No. 26: List of25 Exhibits from Staff Report Exhibit No. 28: Petersen Appeal Settlement Letter Exhihit No. 30: Shoreline Exhibit No. 32: Power Point Presentation Scahawks' Headquarters and Training Facilily File No.: LUA-OG-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF December 7, 2006 Page 3 The Examiner stated there were two appeals, which had been filed by the Misty Cove Association of Apartments Owners and Steve Jensen, who filed on his own behalf as a separate individual. Letters have been received staling that the parties had reached a settlement in those 1wo appeals. Zanetta Fontes staled that that was correct. She had been notified and she would let the parties go over the conditions to which they have agreed. It was noted that Mr. Jensen was not in the hearing room. Ro~er Pearce, Foster Pepper stated that they had reached a fonnal settlemenl agreement with Misty Cove Association of Apartment Owners who are rcpresenled by Mr. Peterson. The settlement Jetter did include 7 permit conditions that should be placed on the project. With respect to Mr. Jensen's appeal, he indicated 1he he was withdrawing and would fax a formal withdrawal to the Hearing Examiner's Office. lie did ask that Mr. Jensen's appeal be dismissed if a Jetter were not forthcoming from Mr. Jensen. Tom Peterson slated that he represents Misty Cove, they have filed a dismissal of their appeal along with a letter identifying permit conditions, which arc identical to the ones that Mr. Pearce submitted. The Examiner stated that Mr. Jensen's appeal is dismissed. The settlement is acceptable and the appeal is dismissed for both Misly Cove and Mr. Jensen. The Land Use Hearing began al 9: I I am with a presentation of the staff report by Elizabeth Higgins, Senior Planner, Development Services. The applicant is requesting both Master Plan and Site Plan review of currently vacant I 9.6-acre property in the Kennydale area of northeast Renton. The pro1ect consists of one building at approximately 135,534 square feet, outdoor and indoor practice fields and an accessory building that would be used for maintenance. The project is located in the area known as Port Quendall in northeast Renton, just west ofl-405. To the south is the Quendall terminals property, south of that the Barbee Mill property, the entire area is zoned Commercial-Office-Residential (COR). North of the project site is the Misty Cove Condominium and north of that the Ripley Lane neighborhood. To the east of the property is the !'an Abode properly and the interchange to 1-405. The site was considered to be in the distant country early on, and was used for wood processing afler it was logged off. It has remained vacant since wood processing ended in 1981. It has been used for storage since then. The site has been subject to clean up by consent decree with the Department of Ecology. A cap will be required to be placed over soil that still has residual contamination. Currently, the sile is largely vacant, there is one building that will be removed. The indoor practice facility would be lhe farthest away from the Jake and lhe office building would be a 2-slory with a mezzanine level between the two stories and closest lo the Jake. This is parl of the settlement between Misty Cove owners and the Sea hawks, the fields were shifted around but remain on the south side of the property. The public access to the Jake was extended to approximately 250 feet along the Jake. The public access will be handled as a county park, open only during the daylight hours. The Shoreline Management Act allows uses that are water related, this is not water related, however the access to the Jake for the public allows this property to meet lhc requirements. Access to the property currently is at the northeast corner and the southeast comer of the property. There are ongoing negotiations with the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad to have an additional private crossing al about the mid-point of the property. This would be the primary entrance for the site. This project went to the Environmental Review Committee, the decision was appealed and has been settled. There were seven mitigation measures. Scahawks' Headquarters and Training Facility File No.: LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF December 7, 2006 Page 4 The redevelopment of COR sites is intended to provide economic development and remediation of formerly impacted industrial sites. This site certainly provides that criteria. The Seahawks' building has been designed to be an archttecturnlly sii,'Tliiicant state of the art facility for a professional football team. The community design element rs met through the design of the project. The north fa,ade of the indoor practice facility will be softened by use of a "green-screen wall". The project meets the development standards by being lower than the maximum building height, by covering only 17% of the property with buildings and by moving the project the applicant has attempted to mitigate the impacts of this building on the neighboring property. Visual assessment studies were done as well as shadow studies in order to study impacts to the Misty Cove condominiums. The outside practice fields will not be lit and not used at night so there wil\ be no lighting that would interfere with the Misty Cove condominiums. There are no regulations on the types of fencing provided in this area, they will be replacing the fence along the border of Misty Cove Apartment Condominiums. The general parking consists of 91 stalls would be along the east side of the building, the secured team parking would be along the north and nonhwest comer of the building. The field is open to the public for three weeks in August and it is presumed that thousands of people will attend training. There will be a plan to shuttle people from off-site parking areas. Roger Pearce, Foster Pepper, 1111 Third Avenue, 34"' Floor, Seattle 98101 stated that he is the Attorney for Seahawks and that there were several people that would be speaking today. There are no specific height limits in the urban environment, the Shoreline Master Program docs allow new commercial uses if public access to and along the water is provided. A significant public access has been provided and it wil\ be open just like a City park. It will only be open during the day, there will be on-site security. Lance Lopes, VP Seahawks, 800 Occidental Avenue S., Seattle, WA 98034 stated that he also serves as the general manager for this project. Ile identified goals in acquiring this location, the Kirkland facility was too small and had become obsolete in terms of what teams need to handle their requirements. The site in eastern Washington has served them wel\ for many years, in recent times there has been a drop-off in attendance at the training camp, the fans from western Washington have not been able to get over there. The number of users for this property varies, there are approximately 130 full-time employees and a varying number between 30 and 90 players depending on the time of year. The site is laid out with the fields to the south, with three fields they can rotate during the training camp, the founh field may or may not be built. That location will provide an area where fans will be able to view the practices of the team. The office building was built with the views in mind, both lake and practice !iclds. The nineteen acres is really the minimal amount :::mdjust about all ofit has been used for this facility. The month of August is the best time to thrnk about training camp, it typically is a 25-Jay period and can vary from year to year. Thal is the time of year that the players are trying out for the team, the public is very interested in that process. The number of fans coming out for training camp could be in the range of 1,500 and 2,000 per day. A Saturday or Sunday could rise to perhaps 2,500. Practice is in the morning and the afternoon each day. They have asked the City about developing a bus turnaround on Ripley Lane, which can be shared with the current school bus stop, they propose to make it a nicer bus stop. That would allow the shuttle busses to drop people off right at the front gate. Burlington Northern Railway has indicated they would allow an easement over the center entrance area. Off site parking has not yet been determined. There are some locations that they are looking at currently. Seahawks' Headquarters and Training Facility File No.: LUA-06-073, SA-I!, SA-M, SM, ECF December 7, 2006 Page 5 The indoor facility is standard for the industry, which allows special teams to practice their pun ling and kicking. Public access will be from ihc north side of the property down to the lake and still keep the practice fields privalc. The plan is for a cyclone fence with a green screen on the fence. Between the Misty Cove and Seahawks a quality wood fence has been planned. David Murphv, Crawford Architects, l 80 l McGee St., Ste. 200, Kansas City, MO 64 l 08 gave a power point presentation of the project with site layout, vegetation and design details. The design materials allow them the ability to create a corporate image that is appropriate for the City of Renton and the Seattle Seahawks. The facility will be desih'11Cd specifically to the Pacific Northwest. They are currently in design development stages, the south side of the office will be facing the practice fields and would be constructed with a series of cementiuous materials. The practice facility would consist of cementiuous panels or metal panels that would make up the composition of the fa,ade. On the east elevations there would be cemcntiuous panels, wood, and translucent materials that would allow daylight to come into the indoor practice facility. The north side, facing Misty Cove would be designed with horizontal lines with shadows to break down the scale of the building. The green screen at the base would be 30-feet of lattice with green plantings to cover and allow for privacy. The west elevation of the building is proposed to be two stories and the south three stories. However, the west may go to J stories, it has not been fully determined as yet. The dumpsters and loading dock areas will be screened from the public. To study the view impacts on the project from the Misty Cove property, the owners of units 302 and 312 allowed access to their property and they were able to photograph views from those sites. The lower levels on the south side have blocked views to the shoreline and to the site. Several photos were shown with various views to the south. Their goal was to maintain and enhance as many view corridors as possible. A 5-minute break was taken. Larry Barsher, 6940 96'" Avenue SE, Mercer Island, WA 98040 stated that he lives directly west of the facility across Lake Washington and from the front of his house he can see the training facility. From a close up perspective, it looks very attractive however, from a mile away it still is going to appear as a big box. When the final landscape plan is prepared he would like to suggest that some consideration would be given to soften the view as much as possible by the addition of perhaps some trees that could reach heights of 100-fecl at maturity. In addition, perhaps a green wall could be installed on the roof of the office building in the center to add some contrast and softening. He did appreciate the fact that the lights would not be on in the evening. Eileen Halverson, 5021 Ripley Lane N, #302, Renton, WA would like to know where the parking would be located for the public access. Esther Barshcr, 6940 96"' Avenue SE, Mercer Island, WA 98040 stated that she was concerned about the lighting for the parking area, would it be lit all night? Joe Burcar, 3190 160"' Avenue SE, Bellevue, WA 98008 stated that he is a shoreline specialist with the Washington Stale Department of Ecology. Considering the City Shoreline Master Program, would the use of this facility be considered a Conditional Use within the Master Program or is it in fact a permitted use and _how would that translate into the final shoreline permitting, would it be a substantial shoreline permit or a conditional use permit? Ms. Higgins staled that there would be some buffer averaging. The wetland buffer is 50-feet and extends into the field area, however there is some buffer mitigation outside the field area that has been approved. The indoor praclice facility which is 95-fecl lo the center clear height on the interior is outside of the 200 foot line. The Seahawks' Headquarters and Training Facility File No.: LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECf December 7, 2006 Page 6 City of Renton Shoreline Master Program docs not regulate buildings below 75-fcet that are within the 200-foot buffer. Mr. Burcar stated that he is testifying on behalf of the State. And finally, the parking area along the north of the facility, is there any buffer averaging happening in that area as well? He further was concerned as to the use of fertilizers and pesticides and what kind of plan would be in place to ensure that water quality of the lake would be protected. Ms. Higgins stated that this project does not require a Conditional Use Permit. The Shoreline permit is being processed separately. The ERC report states that the applicant is proposing an integrated pest management program with extremely limited use of chemicals on the fields and landscape areas. Carl Hadley, Cedar Rock Consultants, 19609 244"' Avenue, Woodinville, WA 98077 stated that he is a professional fisheries biologist with 18 years of experience in the Seattle area. He was part of the team that wrote the lake and stream study, which was a requirement of the Renton Municipal Code. That study was required because there is a direct impact to a water body, the Gypsy sub-basin drainage and secondly, the site contains a shoreline of the slate. The study takes a look at existing functions and values and compares that to future conditions based on mitigation and other things that are proposed for the site. It must be shown that there are equivalent or better values for the fish habitat and wildlife habitat on the site. The Gypsy sub-basin has been declared a fish bearing water, it drains 320 acres of the slope to the east with runoff from paved surfaces via roadside ditches, culverts, and parking lots with a bad history of flooding. There is a 500-foot long, 2-foot wide culvert, with a 125-foot open reach at the bottom ofa 15-foot deep manmade ditch. The 125-foot open reach will be filled with capping, there can be no exposed water. The culvert will run between the playing fields and the side of the building. A new outfall will be built for the pipe with a 25-foot channel on the Jake as mitigation for filling that existing open section of channel. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has initially approved the proposed plan. An Integrated Pest Management plan has been established for the site and will include a set of rules regarding the use of pesticide and fertilizer. Air, sunlight and drainage for the fields are an important part of pest control. A small amount of chemicals will be used for fungus only. Mr. Pearce stated that there is no proposed parking for the public access to the lake, the public most likely will use il more when the Burlington Northern tracks become a trail. There is a landscape plan in the application materials that points out species that will be planted including some larger species such as Douglas fir and Western Red Cedar. Regarding Mr. Burcar's comments, !his is a permitted use so long as significant public access is provided to and along the shoreline. No variance is required for height under the City Shoreline Master Prot,.rram. There is a 50-foot setback for commercial buildings from the shoreline, not for paved surfaces or playing fields or grading. Kayren Kittrick, Development Services staled that they are working with the applicant regarding Ripley Lane and the Gypsy Creek flooding onto Ripley Lane. If a security gate is being provided for Misty Cove, is there a turnaround being provided for those people that like to wander in and will then need access to get out. That will all be covered during the design phase. 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 dosed al 11 :34 am. Scahawks' Headquarters and Training Facility File No.: LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF December 7, 2006 Page 7 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: I. The applicant, Football Northwest, for the Seattle Seahawks' Headquarters and Training Facility, filed a request for a Master Plan and Site Plan review. 2. The yellow file containing the staff repor1, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEP A) documentation and other pertinent materials was entered into the record as Exhibit# 1. 3. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC), the City's responsible official issued a Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M). An appeal of this determination was filed by adjacent property owners. The appeal was settled with an agreement to include certain additional conditions on the development of the subject site if those conditions were found appropriate after public hearing and review. 4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter. 5. The subject site is located at 5015 Lake Washington Boulevard N and is also addressed as 5015, 4801 and 4635 Ripley Lane. The site is just north or west of the NE 44th Street (Exit 7) 1-405 interchange. The site is located on the shoreline of Lake Washington. The Burlington-Northern railroad tracks run between the site and Ripley Lane. 6. The site actually runs at a diagonal from the southwest toward the northeast along the lakeshore but is commonly thought of as running south to north. Therefore for illustrative purposes and descriptions this common reference will be used and so the lake will be considered the western edge of the site and Ripley Lane the eastern edge of the site -readers will be able to orient facilities and buildings to their location on the site from the lake and roadway locations. 7. Misty Cove residential complex is localed immediately north of the site. As noted above, the homeowners in Misty Cove had filed an appeal of the SEPA decision but they, along with a separate resident of that complex settled the appeal prior to the hearing after reaching an agreement with the applicant. 8. Immediately south of the subject site is the Port Quendall site. That site is a "Superfund Site" that is highly contaminated and subject to separate cleanup regulations. 9. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as suitable for the development of commercial, office and residential uses, but does not mandate such development without consideration of other policies of the Plan. 10. The subject site is currently zoned COR-2 (Commercial, Office, Residential). 11. The subject site was annexed lo the City with the adoption of Ordinance 1823 enacted in April 1960. 12. The size of parcel is approximately 19.6 acres or 853,776 square feet. Seahawks' Headquarters and Training Facility File No.: LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF December 7, 2006 Page 8 13. The site is essentially flat. Gypsy Creek runs through the site in an open ditch for approximately 125 feet before entering a 490-fool culvert. The culvert empties above the surfoce of the lake in an unnatural drop. Plans are to restore the shoreline in this area, creale a cove and create a more natural entry into the culvert. 14. A Category 3 wetland has been restored. It would remain in a protected area at the southwest portion of the property, adjacent to Lake Washington. It probably would not be open to the public. I 5. The subject site is under a cleanup agreement with the State. Remediation involves removing contaminated soils and capping depending on the proposed use and contaminants involved. The contamination was the result of the former use of the property for wood-processing activities. Site !,'fading for the project would be coordinated with continuing remediation. Calculations indicate the capping of the site and grading would require approximately 29,600 cubic yards of cut and 52,900 cubic yards of fill material. Some cut material would be removed from the site and the remainder reused. Any fill material will be tested or require a 11 source statement" to assure clean materials. As noted, the adJaccnt site to the south is under Superfund cleanup governance. 16. Two existing structures remain on the site. A single-story, 1,300 square foot wood-frame office building on the north portion of the site that would be removed. An existing boathouse and dock are located at the northwest shoreline. Currently, there are no plans for these facilities. 17. The underlying geology of soils dictated where the building would be located. Soils generally dictated that the large building would need piles for structural support and the soils on the south half of the site were not appropriate without additional remediation. In addition, the proposed practice playing fields require more and appropriately shaped space, which the wider south half provided. 18. The proposed complex consists of the Seahawks administrative offices and accessory training and practice facilities and a smaller maintenance building. The two major components are the atlached office and indoor practice facility located on the north portion of the subject site and four practice fields including three with natural turf and one with artificial turf on the south portion of the property. TI1e maintenance shed will be located at the southeast comer of the property. 19. Offices, meeting and classrooms, kitchen and dining area, lockers and exercise areas, football equipment storage areas, and an indoor practice field would be within a 224,957 square foot building on the North Baxter property. The office or Headquarters portion of the building would be up to 55 feet in height and contain two stories and a mezzanine level that would be open to the indoor practice field. The office building would be located closest to the lake to take advantage of the lake views. It would be L-shaped and wrap around the southwest corner of the larger indoor practice field. The height of the indoor practice field, situated on the north and east sides of the building, would be up to 111 feet. Originally, the roof was desi1,'lled to swing upward along its edges to screen rooftop mechanical equipment. That equipment has since been moved into the building proper. The practice building has been designed to have an inside height clearance of approximately 95 feet to accommodate realistic passing and kicking moves. 20. The building would be a steel frame building. It would be faced with synthetic stone, masonry, and storefront systems on the lower level. Clear-glazed windows and cementiuous or metal wall panels would be used on upper portions and vary depending on location. The color palette would be earth tones with light beiges, buff, light b"""Y and browns and greens would be used for exterior treatments. The settlement agreement requires a green-screen or lattice wall with vegetation growing on it on the north facade, the facade facing Misty Cove. There will be horizontal banding breaking the building into Seahawks' Headquarters and Training Facility File No.: LUA-06-073, SA-I-!, SA-M, SM, ECF December 7, 2006 Page 9 thirds to reduce the apparent height and vertical modulations and articulations will also be used to reduce the apparent bulk of the building. Additionally, the administrative office portion of the building will be about half as tall as the indoor practice portion, providing a terraced or stepped aspect. There will be a fonnal entiy along the Ripley Lane facade and a canopy will connect parking with the forn1al entrance. Other entries are provided along various aspects of the building complex. 21. The appeal settlement resulted in the building being moved toward the east approximately 62 feet and away from the shoreline. ll1e taller indoor practice building is now located outside of the 200-foot shoreline management area. The move will reveal more of the shoreline and sky for the residents of Misty Cove. It will also move the mass of the building away from the shoreline. 22. The COR 2 zone permits lot coverage of 65 percent and a building height of 10-storics or 125 feet. The office building has a footprint of approximately 55,674 square feet, the indoor practice complex has a footprint of approximately 89,423 square feet and there is the 6,000 square foot maintenance shed for a total of 151,097 square feet or 17 .7 percent of the 19.6 acre site. The office building will be 55 feet tall while the practice facility will be approximately 111 feet tall. Staff reports that the office building which falls within the 200-foot shoreline management zone complies with lhc Urban Shoreline designation ofRcnlon's Shoreline Master Program. Although it is not a water-dependent use, the complex will provide access to the portions of the shoreline that have been off-limits to the public in the past. The one-story, 6,000 square fool maintenance and equipment storage building would be localed in the southeast corner of the site. 23. There would be three or four outdoor practice fields. Some of the fields can be rotated to account for wear patterns. The three natural grass practice fields would be located on the portion of the property. The one artificial turf practice field would be parallel and adjacent to the east property line. The four practice fields would cover 8.3 acres. 24. The site would contain secured area to protect the practice fields, the players and to provide security and privacy during practices. 25. There is a variety of vegetation on the subject site including weeds, weed trees and some limited natural vegetation along the lake shore. The site will be landscaped with a variety of native trees and shrubs. Some of the larger trees would be preserved. As indicated a "green wall" would be located along the north facade as part oflandscaping and screening. 26. Parties from Mercer Island with a view across the lake to this facility were concerned about views and screening as well as night lighting. 27. Primary access to the site would be from Lake Washington Boulevard and Ripley Lane. Any access or accesses will have to cross the Burlmgton Northern Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way. Currently, the primary access would be at the northeast comer of the subject site near the Misty Cove complex. A secondary access is available at the southeast corner of the property to Lake Washington Boulevard. Negotiations are undenvay with the railroad for a crossing about midway along the east property line. This would become the primary access if agreement can be reached. 28. On-site roads would be private and there would be parking for 252 vehicles. Parking would include 9! stalls for general surface parking and 161 secure (fenced) surface parking stalls for team members. Due to both limited access and on-site parking, the annual training camp, held for three weeks in August, would require off-site parking with a scheduled shuttle bus service in order to accommodate visitors. Scahawks' Headquarters and Training Facility File No.: LUA-06-073, SA-ll, SA-M, SM, ECF December 7, 2006 Page 10 29. As noted, there will be access to approximately 250 feet of Lake Washington shoreline. Access to the shoreline path would be via an east-west paved walkway located parallel to the north property boundary. A landscaped seating area and viewpoint would be provided. This path will typically be available to the public on the same schedule as City parks. 30. The development will increase traffic approximately 555 average vehicle trips per day. Traffic during open public sessions, mainly in August would be generally confined to normal traffic as well as some fom1 of shuttle service lo limit the amount of traffic and avoid taxing the local roads and the parking facility. 31. The applicant proposes using an "integral pest management plan" to limit the use of chemicals on the site. CONCLUSIONS: I. The following general criteria are applicable to the subject site, which is zoned COR: Section 2 4-9-200 SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW: A PURPOSE AND INTENT: The purpose of site development plan review shall be to assure that proposed development is compatible with the plans, policies and regulations of the City of Renton as outlined in the City's Comprehensive Plan and the City's Business Plan Goals. Site development plan review may be used to analyze plans al varying levels of detail to ensure continuity of project concept and consistent implementation. Elements subject to this Section include, but are not limited to, site layout, building orientation and design, pedestrian and vehicular environment) signage, landscaping, natural features of the site, screening and buffering, parking and loading facilities, and ilJumination. Site development plan review is divided into two types: Master Plan and Site Plan. 1. Master Plan: The purpose of the Master Plan process is to guide phased planning of development projects with multiple buildings on a single large site. The Master Plan is required to demonstrate how the major elements of a development arc proposed on the site at sufficient detail to demonstrate the overall project concept. In addition, the Master Plan must ilJustrate how the major project elements, combined, create an urban environment that implements City goals. An additional purpose is to allow consideration and mitigation of potential impacts that could result from large-scale site and facility development, and to allow coordination with City capital improvement planning. Master Plan review should occur at an early stage in the development of a project, when the scale, intensity and layout of a project are known. 2. Site Plan Review: The purpose of the Site Plan process is the detailed arrangement of project elements so as to be compatible with the physical characteristics ofa site and with the surrounding area. An additional purpose of Site Plan is to ensure quality development consistent with City goals and policies. For those developments that do not require Master Plan first, Site Plan Review should occur at an early stage in the development ofa project, when the scale, intensity and layout of a project are known. Seahawks' Headquarters and Training Facility File No.: LUA-06-073, SA-1·1, SA-M, SM, ECF December 7, 2006 Page I I The intent of the tiered site development plan review process is to provide an opportunity to review projects at broad levels for the Master Plan and with increased specificity as development plans becomes refined to the level of Site Plan. Intent statements below shall guide review of the plans al a specificity appropriate to the level of review. 1. To promote the orderliness of community growth, protect and enhance property values and minimize discordant and undesirable impacts of development both on-and off-site; 2. To promote high quality design meeting criteria set forth in the City's Urban Center Design Overlay, where applicable; 3. To protect and enhance the desirable aspects of the natural landscape and environmental features of the City; 4. To ensure convenience and safety of vehicular and pedestrian movement within the site and in relation to adjacent areas, and ensure that road and pedestrian circulation systems implement land use objectives for the zone in which the project occurs; 5. To promote coordination of public or quasi-public elements, such as walbvays, driveways, paths, and landscaping within segments oflarger developments and between individual developments; 6. To protect neighboring owners and uses by assuring that reasonable provisions have been made for such matters as sound and sight buffers, light and air, and those other aspects of site plans which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses; 7. To minimize conflicts that might otherwise be created by a mix of uses within allowed zones~ 8. To provide for quality, multiple family or clustered housing while minimizing the impacts of high density, heavy traffic generation, and intense demands on City utilities and recreational facilities; 9. To provide a mechanism to more effectively meet the purposes and intent of the State Environmental Policy Act; I 0. To supplement other land use regulations by addressing site plan elements not adequately covered elsewhere in the City Code and to avoid violation of the purpose and intent of those codes. 2. More specific guidance is provided in the following criteria: I. General Review Criteria for Both Master Plans and Site Plan Review: a. Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, its elements, goals, objectives, and policies. In determining compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, conformance to the objectives and policies of the specific land use designation shall be given consideration over city~wide objectives and policies; b. Conformance with existing land use regulations; c. Mitigation of impacts to surrounding properties and uses; d. Mitigation of impacts of the proposed site plan to the site; e. Conservation of area-wide property values; f. Safety and efficiency of vehicle and pedestrian circulation; g. Provision of adequate light and air; h. Mitigation of noise, odors and other harmful or unhealthy conditions; Seahawks' Headquarters and Training Facility File No.: LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF December 7, 2006 Page 12 ,. Availability of public services and facilities to accommodate the proposed use; and J. Prevention of neighborhood deterioration and blight. 3. The criteria for a Master Plan and Site Plan review overlap or coincide in a number of paniculars. Frankly, the Master Plan criteria are intended for a large multi-dimensional project with a variety of components, probably spread over a larger area. The Master plan would be more appropriately applied to a large, multi-phase or multi-building project where the aim is to achieve a cohesive, blended, harmonious whole. The Master Plan review would be to make sure to knit a uniform project that looks as if all of the clements and a variety of buildings had a basic design theme or one which made sure that all of the elements worked together as far as access, circulation and similar features spread over a larger proposal. A Master Plan review does not necessarily identify with the current proposal where one purpose is identified by the applicant -a complex in which to manage and train a professional football team. In the current proposal there really is only the one building, served by one, linear access road and the associated outdoor spol1s fields. The site pretty much stands alone. If and when development occurs south of the proposed complex on additional COR 2 propeny that will be under separate ownership and development criteria. 4. A fair number of City goals and objectives all point to redeveloping this very under-utilized propcl1y. The City has always envisioned more interesting, one could say, grand plans for this former industrial area along the Jakeshore. It has been years since a major industrial use that was water-related could utilize lakeshore property and not potentially inflict environmental damage on the shoreline or the lake and its water quality. Of course, some questions could be raised about the limited scope of this proposal in tcm1s of creating new as opposed to relocated employment and of basically leaving fallow, the spaces dedicated to practice fields that might have been developed with additional office buildings or research park. Might a mixed-use complex been more appropriate rather than one focused solely on the Seahawks football team? Possibly, but than again, a pol1ion of this property still requires remedial capping of environmentally questionable soils probably mediating against development of housing. Similarly, disturbance of some pol1ion of the underlying soils would not be advisable for building foundation work whereas outdoor practice fields present a good match since there would be limited disturbance of the soils. The proposed plan will bring executive and administrative offices to this site. The site will be a focus for public visitation -practice and pre-season games. The proposed complex is also quite well-designed and has metamorphcd into a better plan. The building has been moved funher from the lake to reduce its visual impacts on both neighbors and those using the lake itself or viewing it across the lake. The four playing fields also keep about half of the site visually unencumbered. The complex will also be screened by landscaping along its facades and the site's perimeter. The building couplet has been scaled and terraced and utilizes visual elements to reduce its bulk and increase its visual interest. Clearly, any pem1issiblc use of the site, other than open space or parkland would create impacts on neighbors, boaters and Mercer Island residents. The plan also accommodates public use of a shoreline that has been closed to the public for decades. 5. The comprehensive plan suggests the redevelopment of former industrial sites with large-scale projects while remediating the impacts of the former industrial pollution. The proposed Seattle Seahawks administrative offices and practice facilities appear to fulfill these objectives with a high profile tenant in a highly styled complex. The complex as noted offers a mix of structural components, the office building and the indoor practice facility, and open space and landscaping, the four open-air practice fields and the general landscaping found around the grounds. The shoreline location suggests public access and that will be provided by the approximately 250 feet of trail along the lake shore as well as the connecting trail to the public rights-of-way east of the subject site. The offices will provide an urban focus and a center for employment. The site, of course, provides built-in amenities. It has the lakeshore Scahawks' Headquarters and Training Facility File No.: LUA-06-073, SA-1·1, SA-M, SM, ECF December 7, 2006 Page I 3 and wetlands and views out over the Joke. These will be well exploited by the orientation of the building. 6. The building meets the bulk standards for the COR 2 zone in tenns of height and lot area coverage. Staff reported that it complies with the urban definition requirements of the City's current Shoreline regulations. Compliance with building and fire code requirements will be determined when appropriate permits are submitted for actual development. 7. The building complex has been moved away from the lake an additional 62 feet to offset to some extent its impacts on the adjacent residential complex. It has also redesib'fled its north facade treatment to reduce its visual impact on its near neighbors. There is no question that any permissible development of this site that adds buildings above grade will have an impact. That cannot be prevented save for keeping privately owned property as open space. That is not currently an option and the proposed plan appears to have achieved some reasonable compromise. After all, approximately half of the site, the entire south portion of the property will be open space -it will be practice llelds. The applicant is seeking to create its own, new crossing of the railroad to reduce trafllc impacts on its northerly residential neighbors who all share Ripley Lane. The applicant proposes replanting areas of the lakcshorc with native plants and some larger specimens. Those efforts will serve to provide some screening without closing off tbc site's own visual access to the lake view. 8. The building complex has been designed to terrace upward from the lake with the office building scaled to approximately 55 feet and the more easterly element, the indoor practice fields, at 111 feet. Open space is a featured element on the entire south half of the parcel. Landscaping will be used to soften facades and enhance the perimeter of the site near the railway and the road system. The building has a formal entry and focal point. It also has the public shoreline walkway. The exterior treatment combines a variety of high-quality materials and finishes, colors and textures. Both horizontal and vertical banding and articulation will also be used in the facades to add visual interest and break the bulk into faceted planes. Recognizing past industrial pollution and current sensitivities, the applicant will be using Integrated Pest Management (!PM) techniques on all ornamental landscaped areas and natural turf practice fields. 9. The redevelopment of this will increase property values although there is no avoiding the fact that construction and occupancy on what has been a vacant site for quite a while will have an impact on the immediate community. The construction impacts should be relatively short-lived. The impacts of reuse and occupancy were anticipated when this site was comprehensively planned and the zoning was put in place. It was expected that this site and its neighbors to the south would be developed with a variety of more intensive uses bringing with those more intensive uses additional traffic, people, urban scale development and the general tumult of a vibrant urban lake shore. I 0. The settlement agreement provides assurances that for an e,tende<l period of time there would be no night activities or lighting to accommodate night activities. Normal considerations will limit exterior lighting and parking lots and building entrances would be equipped with cut-off features to avoid light spillage onto adjacent properties. Again, though, interior lights will change the character or visual canvas that a vacant site provided from the lake's vantage point or even for those looking down on the site from the east. 11. The site's somewhat isolated location limits the complexity of access and circulation although the site does share Ripley Lane with others north of the site. The applicant is seeking an additional access which, would help improve access for both visitors to the site and to adjacent properties. The internal circulation appears reasonable. Additional visitor access during open events on the campus will be Seahawks' Headquarters and Training Facility File No.: LUA-06-073, SA-II, SA-M, SM, ECF December 7, 2006 Page !4 accommodated by shuttle vehicles from remote parking areas to help limit the amount of traffic to the site. A canopied walkway connects parking to the main entrance. Interior walkways will accommodtHc pedestrians moving between facilities on the property. 12. The large open spaces on the south as well as the setback between the residential complex to the north and the cunent proposal allows entry of light and air to both the side and neighboring properties. The east aspect is already fairly open given the parallel roadways and railroad. The relocation of the building will reduce some shadow impacts although, again, any development of the subject site by legally pern1issible development would have an impact. The impacts have been reduced but not eliminated. 13. Construction will generate the most noise and this should be limited in duration. As noted above, there will be additional hubbub when the site is occupied and a bit more during the open practices during the summer season. 14. The site will be served by City water and sewer service. The Baxter Lift Station will need lo be utilized and appropriately updated. Stormwatcr will be directed to the lake. The development will comply with the Department of Ecology and King County regulations. The creek's alignment will be altered and its outfall enhanced but it will remain cu!verted for a majority of its run through the subject site. The applicant will be paying mitigation fees imposed by the ERC to offset some impacts of the development on the City's facilities. 15, The redevelopment of the subject site will enhance the site and prevent deterioration or additional blight on the subject site 16. In addition to the above criteria the COR Zones provide additional criteria for reviewing a proposal. Those criteria include: a. The plan is consistent with a Planned Action Ordinance, if applicable; b. The plan creates a compact, orban development that includes a compatible mix of uses that meets the Comprehensive Plan vision and policy statements for the Commercial/Office/Residential or Urban Center North Comprehensive Plan designations; c. The plan provides an overall urban design concept that is internally consistent, and provides quality development; d. The plan incorporates public and private open spaces to provide adequate areas for passive and active recreation by the occupants/users of the site, and/or to protect existing natural systems; e. The plan provides view corridors to the shoreline area and Mt. Rainier where applicable; f. Public access is provided to water and/or shoreline areas; g. The plan provides distinctive focal points such as public area plazas, prominent architectural features, or other items; h. Public and/or private streets are arranged in a layout that provides reasonable access to property and supports the land use envisioned; and 1. The plan accommodates and promotes transit, pedestrian, and other alternative modes of transportation. 17. There is no Planned Action Ordinance involving the subject site. Scalrnwks' Headquarters and Training Facility File No.: LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF December 7, 2006 Page I 5 18. The proposal is basically self-contained. The site's limitations include the poor and/or contaminated soils on the south half leaving commercial and office development a reasonable accomplishment. In addition, the COR zoned property to the south provides a residential component. It meets the comprehensive plan's goal of redeveloping the subject site with high quality uses. 19. The plan provides both public and private open space. There is the walking path along the shoreline and there arc the open practice fields for team workouts. The applicant proposes to enhance the shoreline by restoring natural plants and protecting the existing wetland. 20. Shoreline view corridors will be provided both by the shoreline trail as well as the open views across the playing fields. Views of the lake will be available from the office building and other open areas on the subject site. 21. The proposal will provide a focal point as an icon of a professional football team as well as when it is open to the public for practice sessions in the summer. The building is well designed and should be attractive even at its larger scale. 22. The access for the site is focused along Ripley Lane and/or Lake Washington Boulevard. It should rtason;,ibly serve the site for both vehicles and ptJes1nan.s. DECISION: The proposed Master Site Plan and Site Plan are approved subject to the following conditions: I. The applicant shall submit a color and materials board demonstrating extcnor materials and finishes to the Development Services project manager for approval prior to obtaining building permits. 2. The applicant shall submit a detailed landscape plan for the riparian zone along the shoreline of Lake Washington and install landscaping ofa type and in a manner so as to enhance wildlife riparian habitat. Such submittal shall be prior to obtaining building permits and installation of landscaping shall be completed prior to building occupancy. 3. The applicant shall submit a detailed project landscape plan, meeting the requirements ofRMC 4-8- 120DJ2, to the Development Services project manager for approval prior to obtaining building permits. 4. The applicant shall submit a detailed landscape plan and maintenance program for the public right-of- way landscaping along Ripley Lane abutting the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way. The plan shall be submitted to the Development Services project manager for approval prior to obtaining buil<ling permits <md installation shall be prior to building occupancy. 5. The applicant shall submit a plan demonstrating locations of outdoor light fixtures, their function, light levels, and illumination coverage to the Development Services project manager for approval prior to obtaining building permits. 6. Football Northwest shall develop the project with the office buildmg and the Indoor Practice Facility located as shown in the Mitigation Site Plat-Alternative. FNW shall develop a green screen wall, planted with ivy or other appropriate landscaping materials, along the bottom thirty (30) feet of the northeasterly elevation of the indoor practice facility. In addition, FNW will develop the north elevation of the indoor practice facility substantially in accordance with the principles stated in the Settlement Agreement. Seahawks' Headquarters and Training Facility File No.: LUA-06-073, SA-I-I, SA-M, SM, ECF December 7, 2006 Page 16 7. Fan parking during training camp will be accommodated at a parking lot or parking facility off the project site, with fans then being bused to the site. 8. The project dumpster/recycling area will use containers with lids, and the container storage area will be screened from the Misty Cove property. The garbage and recycling pickups will occur during normal business hours on weekdays -not at nights or very early morning hours. All non-recyclable materials placed in the containers will be in scaled plastic bags. 9. FNW shall replace the existing property line fence between the Misty Cove property and the project site with a new fence of at least equal quality. I 0. No athletic field lighting is being proposed under the permit. The Sea hawks agree not to seek any pem1it to do so for a period of I 5 years from the date of this Agreement. All project exterior lighting will be designed so that the lighting is directed away from the Misty Cove residences. 11. FNW will provide signage that clearly indicates the main entrance to the project site, so that visitors to the site can easily find the entrance. Any signagc will have to comply with City and State regulations. 12. The proposed shoreline area planting plan shall include lower-level plantings in the north section of the project shoreline area, in order to minimize impacts of views of the water from the adjacent Misty Cove Condominium property. 13. The mitigation and design measures in the Lake and Stream Study and the Turf Integrated Pest Management Plan submitted to the City as part of the project application shall be conditioned to permit approval. ORDERED THIS 7'" day of December 2006. HEARING EX INER F FREDJ.KAU AN TRANSMITTED THIS 7 11' day ofDeeember 2006 to the parties of record: Elizabeth Higgins I 055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Lance Lopes VP Seahawks 800 Occidental Avenue S Seattle, WA 98034 Eileen Halverson 5021 Ripley Lane N, #302 Renton, WA 98056 Kayren K,ttrick Development Services Renton, WA 98055 David Murphy Crawford Architects 1801 McGee St., Ste. 200 Kansas City, MO 64108 Joe Burcar 3190 160'" Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98008 Roger Pearce Foster Pepper l 111 Third Avenue, 34 1 h Floor Seattle, WA 9810 I Larry & Esther Barsher 6940 96'" A venue SE Mercer Island, WA 98040 Carl Hadley Cedar Rock Consultants 19609 244 "'Avenue Seahawks' Headquarters and Training Facility File No.: LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF December 7, 2006 Page 17 Football Northwest 505 Fifth Avenue S., Ste. 900 Seattle, WA 98104 Michael Cero 8300 Avalon Drive Mercer Island, WA 98040 Brian T. Sabey 502 l Ripley Lane N, Ste. 304 Renton, WA 98056 Steve Jansen 5021 Ripley Lane N, Ste. 4 Renton, WA 98056 Aaron Belenky, President Williamsburg Condo HOA 1800 NE 40'" Street, Ste. H-4 Renton, WA 98056 Port Quendall Company 505 Fifth Avenue S., Ste. 900 Seattle, WA 98104 Thomas Peterson Socius Law Group PLLC Two Union Square 601 Union Street, Ste. 4950 Seattle, WA 98 l O I Eleanor Maargo Kennamer, President Misty Cove Condo Association 5021 Ripley Lane N, Ste. 309 Renton, WA 98056 Steve Gregerson 5021 Ripley Lane N, Ste. 302 Renton, WA 98056 Woodinville, WA 98077 Ray Colliver 505 Fifth Avenue S., Ste. 900 Seattle, WA 98104 Thelma Sutherland 1205 N 29'" Street Renton, WA 98056 Jared Salstrom 5021 Ripley Lane N, Ste. 213 Renton, WA 98056 Elya George Baches 1414 N 34"' Street Renton, WA 98056 Elaine Wine Vulcan 505 Fifth A venue S, Ste. 900 Seattle, WA 98104 Barbara Paxhia Shelly Munkberg Tom Ehrlichman 5021 Ripley Lane N, Ste. 104 Renton, WA 98056 Richard Wagner Baylis Architects 10801 Main Street, Ste. 110 Bellevue, WA 98004 SECO Development 1083 Lake Washington Blvd N., Ste. 50 Renton, WA 98056 Jeffrey Taraday Foster Pepper 1111 Third Avenue, Ste. 3400 Seattle, WA 98101 TRANSMITTED THIS 7"' day of December 2006 to the following: Mayor Kathy Keolker Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison Stan Engler, Fire Larry Meckling, Building Official Planning Commission Transportation Division Utilities Division Socius Law Group Two Union Square 60 I Union Street, Ste. 4950 Seattle, WA 981 0 I Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator Alex Pietsch, Economic Development Jennifer Henning, Development Services Stacy Tucker, Development Services King County Journal Neil Watts, Development Services Janet Conklin, Development Services Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 100Gofthe City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., December 21, 2006. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a wntten 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. Scahawks' Headquarters and Training Facility File No.: LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF December 7, 2006 Page 18 An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of$75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance arc available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. An appeal must be flied in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., December 21, 2006. If the Examiner1 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 flle. You may contact this office for information on formatting covenants. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. Project Location: 5015 Lake Washington Boulevard N (also addressed as 5015, 4801, 4635 Ripley Lane) S(XJT1{ l'O[lff LAKE PROJECT LOCATION / / i ! l l.l-------l-------1-----·--...l 0 EXHIBIT 2 1/4 SHINGTON 1/2 1 Scaia In Mllos l'J Reproducad wl1h permission granted by THOMAS BROS. MAPS0. 0 This map Is copyrighted by THOMAS BROS. MAPS11. It Is lii unlawful to oopy or reproduce all or any part thereof, whether for Seahawks Headquarters and Practice Facility Renton, Washington VICINITY MAP September 2006 21-1-20525-003 ~ personal use or resale, wtlhout permission. All rights reserved . .., SHANNON & WILSON, INC. ~ L-----------------------------l...-<a_o_:1-~c_r,_""'-"""-"""""""'----°""""""---...L-----'--' \ ----CDR ',,_ ·_:_:.l ' ,.,,,! ',,;/ ______ ) , __ _ ' :c, ! ' / I I I / -----~·-·~--------_,~ CDR ZONING MAP cv, .... __ _ E:XISTING POWE:f/1 POU: LOCI.T10N Me----- ~~SY l!Oll CO'v(REO CAA -«.-.SN ~~~~ JI._.\ I.WNT, PARKIN 10 STAU.S S~IJRIT!' !.'.TE: = ,, SIBBY 0.1.SS LAKE W~lNGTON -CL.ASS CY'l'SY SVB B>SIN DRAIW.CE ~~~.;~.fC§l"i..AN ' -CV.SS 2 (RE: rlCtJRE 8.J) • ~ " " LAKE WASHINGTON IBI,,,~ . --·-~ " " • ., • rsTIN(l auiLO:NG STRUCTlrRt TO Bt 11~ovto \j - ··-·-·-··---~s&J \ ®I -I ~~w ------=-~;- .. ¥-5=--~ .. "ffu:~· "' ~ ~ .01 "'·-J ::i= CT U i ~tf t! "' 0, ' :r: .s f ~ .S: i J ;: m • ro i:: ] .c -m s "' (f) ~ --1:.=-~ -·-··~··-··--·-··-··-··-··-t wz . -··-·--· ---- -··-··-··-··-· ·-I PRO-POS(O RAILW.I.':' CROSSINC P6.Sl<!NG COi r'i! 5 -CEN£FW. SUR>'ACE PARKINC 1-' I STAU.S _ SEct/RE "'"""'""G "' s:r= T [Rs T AT(: 4 0 TOTAL m lN -----·-··-· -----·--··--·-··- - EXHIBIT 9 bi:,;r ----·--- ® ..... 1'1< ·~ f\C',ffto-\l~~tl't ::; 0 a. - 0 ti ...J ::, w a: > >-w (f) Oz zo~-II (!) u - ci5 a: -· WO-· 0 l1. ~ 1-o O "' z •. -~ ..• ~~~.tlt:cl.:,1,:.-.......::.: Misty Cove Unit 312 -Existing View s /,;~:~;... 11lf1"t • - J,-•. ,r.~~ (4. :,",;;•, . .,_.,. / .,.,, """ ' t~ .,,,t, '1a11ll EXHIBIT 17 )> m ;;a -)> r < -m ~ I -I ~ -z -z G') (") )> :s:: /_:,'.'.. '1J , j 'U •;., < - < -m I""' ~ o"TI O;;o ~o G) s: CJ) r 0 )> c:: " :t m ' ' ' Y' , : I ! . I,. ). ~ .: } . i ;~ I I , ' i i' . I· _l . '! . ·I i ' 1 Cily of Renton PIB/PW Department SEATTLE SEAHAWKS' H!cADQUARTERS ANO TRAINING FACIUTY PUBLIC HEARING DAT£: November 21, 2006 Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM. ECF Paga 7 o/20 appeal period commenced on October 23, 2006 and ended on November 6, 2006. Two appeals of the threshold determination were filed. It is anticipated that these appeals would be heard on November 21, 2006, prior to the public hearing on the Master and Site Plan Reviews. 3. ERG MITIGATION MEASURES Based on an analysis of probable impacts from the proposed project. the following mitigation measures were issued for the Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated: 1. The applicant shail comply with the recommendations included in the geotechnical report, "Supplemental Preliminary Geotechnical Report Seahawks Headquarters and Practice Facility Renton, Washington," by Shannon & Wilson, Inc., dated September 13, 2006, including recommendations for excavation, backfill materials, structural concrete blocking, and soil remediation for the water mains. 2. This project shall be subject to the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual for water quality. 3. The applicant shall be required to provide a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) designed pursuant to the Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements, outlined in Volume II of the 2001 Stormwater Management Manual and provide staff with a Construction Mitigation Plan prior to issuance of construction permits. 4 .. The applicant shall work with the City to alleviate upstream flooding that may impact access to the site. Additional details of pipe sizing and/or street improvements would be addressed through site plan review. 5. A traffic mitigation fee of $75 per additional daily trip shall be assessed based on the submitted calculation of 555 ADT. The fee of $41,625.00 shall be assessed at building permit issue. 6. A fire mitigation fee of $0.52 per square foot of building space shall be assessed at building permit issue. 7. In the event that archaeological deposits are found during construction, work shall stop and the contractor(s) shall contact the State Archaeologist at the State of Washington Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, phone (360) 586-3065, the Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program, phone (253) 939-3311, and Duwamish Tribal Services (206) 431-1582. 4. STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS Representatives from various city departments have reviewed the application materials to identify and address site plan issues from the proposed development. These comments are contained in the official file, and the essence of the comments has been incorporated into the appropriate sections of this report and the Departmental Recommendation at the end of the report. 5. SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW The purpose of site development plan review is to assure that proposed development is compatible with the plans, policies, and regulations of the City of Renton as outlined in the City's Comprehensive Plan and the City's Business Plan Goals. Site development plan review is divided into two types: Master Plan and Site Plan. HEX staff rpl 06--073.doc ['.Ej FOSTER PEPPER''" VIA MESSENGER Mr. Fred J. Kaufo1an Hearing Examiner City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington 98055 November 17, 2006 Re: Seattle Seahawks Headquarters Facility City of Renton Application No. LUA06-073 Dear Mr. Kaufinan: Di reel Phone (206) +17-4676 Dirc(I Pacsimik' (206) 749-1997 E-Mail Pe.:irR~ifoskr.com As paii of its settlement with the Misty Cove Association of Apartment Owners, pennit applicant Football Northwest LLC ("FNW") agrees to the following pennit conditions with respect to its Master Plan and Shoreline Pennit Applications for the Scahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility under the above-referenced project number (the "Project") and respectfully requests they be made conditions ofpennit approval. Building Location/Indoor Practice Facility North Elevation Design. FNW shall develop the Project with the office building and the Indoor Practice Facility ("!PF") located as shown in the Mitigation Site Plan-Alternative, which is attached as Exhibit A to this letter. FNW shall develop a green screen wall, planted with ivy or other appropriate landscaping materials, along the bottom thirty (30) feet of the northeasterly elevation of the !PF (the !PF elevation to the south of the Misty Cove Condominium). In addition, FNW will develop the north elevation of the !PF substantially in accordance with the principles staled in Exhibit B lo this letter. Training Camp Oft~Site Fan Parking. Fan parking during training camp will be accommodated at a parking lot or parking facility off the Project site, with fans then being bused to the Project site. Project Dumpstcr/Recyling Area. The Project dumpster/recycling area will use containers with lids, and the container storage area will be screened from the Misty Cove property. The garbage and recycling pickups will occur during nom1al business hours on weekdays -not at nights or very early morning hours. All non-recyclable materials placed in the containers will be in sealed plastic bags. Misty Cove/FNW Property Line Fence. FNW shall replace the existing property line fence between the Misty Cove property and the Project site with a new fence of at least equal quality. 50i-1~(,JU Mr. Fred J. Kaufman November 17, 2006 Page 2 Proiect Outdoor Lighting. No athletic field lighting is being proposed under the pem1it. The Seahawks agree not to seek any pennit to do so for a period of 15 years from the date of this Agreement. All project exterior lighting will be designed so that the lighting is directed away from the Misty Cove residences. Signagc. FNW will provide signage that clearly indicates the main entrance to the Project site, so that visitors to the site can easily find the entrance. Any signage will have to comply with City and state regulations. Shoreline Plantings. The proposed shoreline area planting plan shall include lower-level plantings in the north section of the Project shoreline area, in order to minimize impacts of views of the water from the adjacent Misty Cove Condominium property. Shoreline Impacts. The mitigation and design measures in the Lake and Stream Study and the Turflnteb>rated Pest Management Plan submitted to the City as part of the Project application shall be conditions to pem1il approval. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Very truly yours, FOSTER PEPPER PLLC ~3~!-~l Roger A. Pearce Attorneys for applicant Football Northwest LLC cc: Ms. Elizabeth Higgins, City of Renton Tom Peterson, Esq. Mr. Lance Lopes Ms. Elaine Wine ' \ CUR8---- [~t$,I~ POl'ILF! "OL( LOCJ. TIC-'1 ----------{ SOUTH PROP(RTY ro,c~ LINC - PS( EAS[JJ.[NT LINC(T30)~ E <LSTINC PQ"N[.R PC~E lOC1.,T:ON CURS<----- !··1 :11 \,, !I ij I ( °"I I' -l !• I '----J• NEW 1-sro;sr J 1· 'F~ VAINTE'1.WC( j '1 Ii, s11ED I I , COV.::RED CA'! WAS"' f>AD ----'--'---- EXISTING f>OW(R POlt LDCA110N--- I -I ff' .. l 1-i-··.··· --,I . TT. - i \j J_L _ '1 :_AKE WASHING-0/\J = JJ l I I r · 1 I 1 i I I I I i m X I [IJ ----j ~ ' l i ' " (X1Sl1NG ~Ull(Ji.';G ST1HOC1URL ro 0( Rt..,OVi:D \ \ \,j ii SE"C~~-; CAiE ) j & . -·:z__..-/ 'h-sECl:'11rY C.-.1£ f J. ,~.__,,,, "' 7 =~ ~~~-,~~;;~===:J--li' ==·30·-----;-----;------~-----=----rJ11== ~"GTON N ViH[~I <AN, ,-, ... ~\L . .:.::'·?"St .. --.~. I I -----=------------' .~.:s,r? _:_·;:::· '"-eic;:'.:::-. : "'ti= ,;~,o~(D "'': ""'"o ------ ---- ~=,,.,,.... = 1 <>A,''<KINC CO\'f:lT j C(NE!lAL ! SECURE T~;FAC( PAAKING ; · PARKING 91 ST;.Ll'S I TOTA!.. l6\ STA:..LS -------"' ''""' 1N1[RS1 A T[--405 STR'"-1.1 CIASS LAKE WA.S!-<INCTO.\I -CLASS GYPSY SUB BASIN O'l.O,•N.O.GC: -CLASS 2 (RE: f"ICVRi;" B . .3) - __ .. _ .. _ ---,, -------j A 1 MlTfGATlON SITE PLAN -Al TERNATIVE t.:.:.:J-···-t<" .. ---------------- ~~ ® ,0,,M f=/Jll(FI. ~t0,JJIIOYt).a0G~ @ :T~~::""::~ ·=r~;- "7f~~ "" ~ ~ ~qi & g z@ I ]~ J, I c: H in :s ~£ ..-..:: ro !: 3 ~ • I "' f-,; 11 ' ~ I · :S-;=-. ~ 11-t§1i -I OU , , ...J ::, I w 0:: > f-w (/) Oz zO C.,UI~ iii 0:: WO 0 U.1· ---~ )-j -,n,:;.,.,,:,~ 0 OIi $n{.,._.,~ "' z [A:?.'-~ Indoor Practice Facility (IPF)-North Elevation The design features the use of traditional architectural devices to reduce the apparent scale and mass of the project including: horizontal expression lines, special roof treatments plus fenestration and glazing systems. At the north elevation of the IPF. three exterior wall systems are being developed: 1. Base -The first 30 feet of the fa<;:ade will consist of cementious wall panels and/or nonreflective metal siding to a height of approximately 30 feet. Additional shade and shadow will be created by a "green-screen" that is comprised of a metal lattice grid with vegetation. 2. Middle -The middle portions of the elevation will consist of cementious wall panels and/or nonrefiective metal siding to a height of approximately 80 feet with no "green screen." 3. Top -The "top" portions of the elevation will include a high percentage (up to 70% to 85% of translucent panels) and sculpted roof. The sculpted component of the roof would add visual interest and reduce the apparent scale of the fa<;:ade by casting varying shadow on the IPF fa<;:ade. Each layer of the fa<;:ade will be defined by horizontal expression lines as mentioned above. In addition, the composition of the materials being proposed for the fa<;:ade will have a texture which will further reduce the apparent mass of the structure. A range of color palettes are being studied for the fa<;:ade including: 1. Metal Panels/Siding -Nickel to light gray 2. Cementious Panels -Buff/Sandstone to light gray/nickel 3. Translucent Panels -white to "off-white"/light gray 4. "green-screen" -stainless/metal wire mesh with vegetation growing on the screen. Final color palettes will be based on actual materials selected. An example of potential final colors, massing and roof design is included on the following page. :::x1-11s1r _'&;____ I~..,_ EXHIBIT ~ 2o+2-- ' . Q~~y ~~ CIT.OF RENTON ~ Planning/Building/PublicWorks Department ·~. ~~ O<:~-K-•th_y_K_eo_lk-er_. M-•y_o_r --------------G-r-egg_Zi_·_m_m_e_r_m_a_n_P..,.E_._, A-d-m-in-is-tr-a-to_r __ _ ~·Nrt October 19, 2006 Ray Colliver Port Quendall Company 505 5th Avenue S ste: #900 Seattle, WA 98104 SUBJECT: Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility LUA06-073, SA-M, SA-H, SM, ECF Dear Mr. Colliver: RECEIVED OCT 2 o ?er, A:>SiER PEPPER PLLC This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) to advise you that they have completed their review of the subject project and have issued a threshold Determination of Non- Significance-Mitigated with Mitigation Measures. Please refer to the enclosed ERC Report and Decision, Part 2, Section B for a list of the Mitigation Measures. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed. in writing on or before 5:00 PM on November 6, 2006. Appeals must be filed. in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.8. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. · A Public Hearing wHI be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, Washington, on November 21., 2006 at 9:00 AM to consider. the Master Site Plan and Site Plan. The appiicant 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 ·10 do so. If you have any questions or desire clarification of the above, please call me at (425) 430-7382. For the Environmental Review Committee, Elizabeth Higgins Senior Planner cc: Parties of Record Enclosure _______ I0_5_5_So~u-th_Gr_ad_y_W_a_y---R-en-to-n-',-W-as-h-in_gt_o_n_9_80-~-5-----~ ~ AHEAD OF. THE CURVE ) REPORT City of Renton & Department of Planning / Building I Public Works DECISION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT ERC MEETING DA TE: October 16, 2006 Project Name: Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility Owner: Port Ouendall Company Applicant: Football Northwest Contact: Mr. Ray Colliver 505 Fifth Avenue S, Suite 900 Seattle, WA 98104 File Number: LUA06-073, ECF, SA-M, SA-H, SM Project Manager: Elizabeth Higgins, Senior Planner Project Description: The project proponent is requesting SEPA environmental review for development of the Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility. The proposed project would consist of a three-story office building and indoor practice facility in a single structure and four outdoor practice fields for the sport of professional football. An ancillary building for football-related equipment storage is also planned. Continued next page Project Location: 5015 Lake Washington Boulevard N (also addressed as 5015, 4801, 4635 Ripley Lane) Exist. Bldg. Area SF: NIA Proposed New Bldg. Area (footprint): 129,595 sf Proposed New Bldg. Area (gross): 215,000 sf Site Area: 19.68 acres (853,776 sf) Total Building Area GSF: 215,000 sf RECOMMENDA T/ON: Staff recommends that the Environmental Review Committee issue a Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M). Project Location Map Seahawks ERC Report 03 City of Renton P/8/PW Departme SEAHAWKS HEADQUARTERS , j TRAINING FACfUTY REPORT OF OCTOBER 16, 2006 E hmentaf Review Committee Staff Report LUA.()6-073, ECF, SA-M, SA-H, SM Paga 2 of16 IPART ONE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND, CONTINUED The proposed project location is a vacant site between the shore of Lake Washington and the NE 44'" Street interchange with Interstate 405 (Exit 7) in Northeast Renton (Exhibit 1 ). The site consists of two tax parcels, known as Baxter North and Baxter South Properties. The 19.6 acre Baxter property is a former timber processing/wood treatment facillty (Exhibit 2). The wood treating operations at the site ended in 1981 and the property was subsequently used for storage of bark mulch. Cleanup of the property was prescribed by Prospective Purchaser Consent Decrees (North Baxter, #00-2- 11778-?KNT and South Baxter, #00-2-11779-SKNT) negotiated with the Department of Ecology under the Model Toxics Control Act. Cleanup of the South Baxter property consisted of excavation and replacement of soils in the Baxter Cove area and soil stabilization in the uplands. North Baxter remediation, consisting of capping contaminated soils, has been proposed to occur simultaneously with site construction. The site is within the Gypsy Subbasin Drainage, a 320 acre area north of and near, but independent of May Creek. The drainage way for the Gypsy Subbasin enters the property in a pipe from the BNSF Railroad right-of-way. Once on the property it flows from east to west first in a 125 foot open channel and then for 490 feet in a pipe to an outfall at the shoreline of Lake Washington. The dominant character of the site is an abandoned open field. There are no significant buildings on the property at the present time. A single-story, 1,300 sf wood-frame office building built on Baxter North in 1963, would be removed from the property, as would asphalt-paved interior roads. An existing boathouse and dock are located at the northwest shoreline. There is currently no plan to utilize these features and they would be fenced from the area of the site accessible to the public. On-site clean-up activities, remediation from the former wood-processing activities, have consisted of soil excavation, contaminant removal, and in situ soil stabilization. Site grading for the project would be coordinated with continuing remediation. Calculations indicate the capping of the site (see Environmental Health discussion, below) and grading for site features would require approximately 29,600 cubic yards of cut and 52,900 cubic yards of fill material. Some cut material would be removed from the site and the remainder reused. A source statement for fill material would be required at the time of site construction. The property is zoned Commercial I Residential / Office 2 (COR 2). The stated purpose of the Commercial / Residential/ Office zone is, "to provide for a mix of intensive office, hotel, convention center, and residential activity in a high-quality, master-planned development that is integrated with the natural environment." Although a major, national sports franchise headquarters was not anticipated as a use at the time this policy statement was formed, the following adopted policy is applicable, "Also, commercial uses that provide high economic value may be allowed if designed with the scale and intensity envisioned for the COR zone." The proposed project consists of administrative offices for a professional football franchise and accessory training and practice facilities (Exhibit 3). The office and an indoor practice field would be within a 215,000 gross square foot building on the North Baxter property. Administrative offices would be 48,000 sf and technical I support and player meeting space would be 15,000 sf each. Four outdoor, practice fields covering 8.3 acres would be located on the Baxter South property. Three would be natural and one artificial turf. The proponent's vision is for a building that would be both functional and aesthetically significant. Of the total building area, 131,000 gross square feet of office space would be located on three levels. Most of the building would be between 52 and 55 feet in height. The height of the 80,000 gross square foot indoor practice field, situated on the north and east sides of the building, would be between 95 feet at the center of the field and 120 feet. There would be three natural grass practice fields, oriented east-west on the South Baxter property. A one-story, 6,000 sf maintenance I equipment storage building would be located near the south property line. The steel frame building would be faced in buff/sandstone to light gray synthetic stone, masonry, and storefront systems on the lower level. Clear-glazed windows and either buff/sandstone to light gray cementious, or nickel to light gray metal, wall panels in on upper portions. (Building siting and design will be discussed to a greater extent during the Site Plan Review). The scale and intensity of the proposed project balances City policies that intend high intensity use, with both the natural amenities of the shoreline and wetland, both of which will have been enhanced by project completion, and residual contamination from the former industrial use. Seahawks ERC Report 03 II City of Renton P/B!PW Departme, SEAHAWKS HEADQUARTERS A.._ TRAINING FACILITY E }mental Review Committee Staff Report . LUA-06-073, ECF, SA-M, SA-H, SM REPORT OF OCTOBER 16, 2006 Page 3 of t 6 Access would be from Lake Washington Boulevard (Ripley Lane) on the east and would require crossing the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way with a private street On-site roads would be private. There would be parking for 299 vehicles; 195 stalls for general surface parking and 104 secure (fenced) surface parking stalls for team members. Due to both limited access and on-site parking, the annual training camp, held for three weeks in August, would require off-site parking with a scheduled shuttle bus service. Portions of the site not covered with pavement, buildings, or fields would be either restored with native vegetation (wetland and shoreline) or landscaped appropriately for its function. Irrigation systems would be installed in all landscaped areas with temporary irrigation for the shoreline riparian plantings until they are established. (Landscaping will be discussed to a greater extent during the Site Plan Review). A viewpoint at shoreline of Lake Washington would be accessible to the public by means of an east-west paved walkway located parallel to the north property boundary. This viewpoint would be landscaped and furnished with benches. A Category 3 wetland has been restored and would remain in a protected area at the southwest portion of the property, adjacent to Lake Washington. The wetland would not be accessible to the public, although public access to the shoreline of Lake Washington would be provided by the proponent at the northwest corner of the property. IPART TWO: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 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. A. Recommendation Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommends that the Responsible Officials make the following Environmental Determination: DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE Issue DNS with 14-day Appeal Period. B. Mitigation Measures X DETERMINATION OF NON· SIGNIFICANCE· MITIGATED. Issue DNS-M with 14-day Appeal Period. Issue DNS-M with 15-day Comment Period with a Concurrent 14-day Appeal Period. 1. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations included in the geotechnicai report, "Supplemental Preliminary Geotechnical Report Seahawks Headquarters and Practice Facility Renton, Washington,· by Shannon & Wilson, Inc., dated September 13, 2006, including recommendations for excavation, backfill materials, structural concrete blocking, and soil remediation for the water mains. 2. This project shall be subject to the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual for water quality. 3. The applicant shall be required to provide a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) designed pursuant to the Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements, outlined in Volume ii of the 2001 Stormwaler Management Manual and provide staff with a Construction Mitigation Plan prior to issuance of construction permits. 4. The applicant shall work with the City to alleviate upstream flooding that may impact access to the site. Additional details of pipe sizing and/or street improvements would be addressed through site plan review. 5. A traffic mitigation fee of $75 per additional daily trip shall be assessed based on the submitted calculation of 555 ADT. The fee of $41,625.00 shall be assessed at building permit issue. 6. A fire mitigation fee of $0.52 per square fool of building space shall be assessed at building permit issue. 7. In the event that archaeological deposits are found during construction, work shall stop and the contractor(s) shall contact the State Archaeologist at the Stale of Washington Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, phone (360) 586-3065, the Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program, phone (253) 939-3311, and Duwamish Tribal Services (206) 431-1582. Seahawks ERC Report 03 City of Renton P/BIPW Departme SEAHAWKS HEADQUARTERS 'rRAINING FACILITY E !>mental Review Committee Staff Report LUA.()6.()73, ECF, SA-M, SA-H, SM REPORTOFOCTOBER 16, 2006 C. Exhibits Exhibit 1 Exhibit 2 Exhibit 3 Exhibit 4 Exhibit 5 Exhibit 6 Exhibit 7 Exhibit 8 Exhibit 9 Exhibit 10 Exhibit 11 Exhibit 12 Exhibit 13 Exhibit 14 Exhibit 15 Vicinity Map (September 2006) Historic Aerial Photo of North and South Baxter Properties (date unknown) Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility, Building Plan (September 2006) Seattle Fault Zone (July 2006) Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility, Site Plan (September 2006) Baxter Cove Wetland Mitigation Plan (August 2006) Lake Washington Shoreline, Existing Conditions (2006) Riparian Habitat Functions and Values Chart (September 2006) Gypsy Subbasin Culvert Replacement and Relocation Plan (August 2006) Summary of Pest Control Measures (September 2006) Visualization Assessment Viewpoints (September 2006) Visualization Assessment, NE 76 1• Street Viewshed (September 2006) Visualization Assessment, Misty Cove Unit 312 Viewshed (September 2006) Visualization Assessment, Misty Cove Unit 302 Viewshed (September 2006) Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility, Elevations (September 2006) D. Environmental Impacts Page 4 of 16 The Proposal was circulated and reviewed by various City Departments and Divisions to determine whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed environmental impacts anticipated lo occur in conjunction with the proposed development. Staff reviewers have identified that the proposal is likely to have the following probable impacts: 1. Earth Impacts: An Environmental Checklist submitted by the project proponent and a report, "Supplemental Preliminary Geotechnical Report Seahawks Headquarters and Practice Facility Renton, Washington," by Shannon & Wilson, Inc .. September 13, 2006, forms the basis of analysis of impacts classified within the category of "earth". Additional, existing reports were reviewed for consistency with the literature study and on- site investigation. Site exploration consisted of drilling 6 borings and excavating 29 backhoe test pits. Borings were based on proposed location of building corners and the estimated building center. The test pits were spaced across the site to provide an overview of near-surface soils. Some pits were more closely spaced where deeper excavation for site preparation would occur. The subsurface geology is a combination of naturally-occurring and artificial conditions. Fluvial deltaic, lacustrine near-shore deposits and constructed fill overlie Pleistocene glacial sediments and Eocene volcanic and sedimentary bedrock. The site has undergone many influences over past decades including the lowering of the lake approximately 8 feet when the Lake Washington Ship Canal was constructed in 1916. In the mid 1950s, filling occurred on the site to extend the shoreline and raise the grade for construction of industrial facilities. Ongoing dredging and backfilling increased the complexity of the soil so that the subsurface material consists of a highly heterogeneous mix of clay, silt, peat, sand, gravel, and cobbles. Intermixed are abandoned subsurface structures and discarded debris from past industrial activities on the site. Generally, subsurface soils in the building and fields locations consist of either fill material to a depth of 2 to 3 feet, soft estuarine deposits and loose alluvial soils to depths of between 17 and 38 feet. The estuarine and alluvial deposits have layers of loose sand and compressible peat making them subject to liquefaction (see discussion below). The depth to bedrock varies greatly across the site with depths from 17.5 feet to more than 50 feet. It consists of highly weathered Andesite and is a competent bearing material for building foundations. The site slopes gently at about a 1 percent grade across the property from northeast to southwest. There are isolated slopes at about 5 percent along the north of the site. There is an elevation change from 33 feet in the northeast corner to about 21 feet where a wetland is located in the southwest corner (see below). The proposed access road would gain elevation between the railroad crossing and the proposed office building. The elevation of the driveway and parking lot at the building entrance on the east side of the building Seahawks ERG Report 03 City of Renton PIBIPW Departmer i SEAHAWKS HEADQUARTERS A.._ TRAINING FACILITY REPORT OF OCTOBER 16, 2006 E )mental Review Committee Staff Report LUA-06-073, ECF, SA-M, SA-H, SM Page 5 of 16 is proposed to be approximately 14 feet above the existing grade. The parking area would slope downward as it wraps around the north end of the building to the west, where it would meet the existing grade. A loading dock at the northwest corner of the office building would be approximately 1 foot above existing grade. This configuration would require construction of walls designed to retain up to 14 feet of fill adjacent to the office building. The remainder of the site, consisting primarily of outdoor practice fields, would require an average of approximately 4 feet of fill, with cuts on the east side and up to 3 feet of fill on the west. The site is located approximately 3 miles south of the "Seattle Fault," (Exhibit 4) and is therefore considered to lie in a moderately active seismic zone. Due to subsurface conditions, the site is subject to earthquake- induced liquefaction and settlement. This susceptibility to liquefaction extends to a depth of about 40 feet. The office/indoor practice building would have typical loads for a structure of this type and size (verified by Magnusson Klemencic Associates, project structural engineers, in conversation with Shannon & Wilson). The recommended foundation design for the building would include 24-to 36-inch concrete shafts drilled to bedrock. The practice equipment building would be supported sufficiently on spread footings. These proposed site improvements would not be anticipated to have adverse long-term impacts on surrounding properties, although drilling to bedrock may have temporary sound, emissions, and vibration impacts during construction (see Advisory Notes to Applicant, below). Mitigation Measures: The applicant will be required to comply with the recommendations included in the geotechnical report, "Supplemental Preliminary Geotechnical Report Seahawks Headquarters and Practice Facility Renton, Washington," by Shannon & Wilson, Inc., dated September 13, 2006, including recommendations for excavation, backfill materials, structural concrete blocking, and soil remediation for the water mains .. Nexus: RMC 4-4-060, "Grading, Excavation and Mining Regulations" 2. Air Impacts: It is anticipated that some temporary adverse air quality impacts could be associated with site work and building construction required to develop this property. Project development impacts during construction may include dust resulting from grading, exhaust from construction vehicles, odors from roofing installation, and roadway paving. Dust would be controlled through the use of temporary erosion control measures and sprinkling of the site with water as needed. Odor impacts during construction are unavoidable and would be short-term in nature. Post development impacts potentially include vehicle and heating and cooling systems exhaust. These emissions are regulated by state and federal agencies. Nor further site specific mitigation for the identified impacts from exhaust is required. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation is required. Nexus: Not applicable 3. Water Impacts: The site is within the Gypsy Subbasin Drainage of the Lake Washington East Basin. The Gypsy Subbasin is a 320 acre, Class 2 water north of and near, but independent of May Creek. Class 2 waters are salmonid-bearing perennial waters during years of normal rainfall. The drainage collects at a point on the west side of the project site where it flows for 125 feet in an open ditch prior to entering a 24-inch piped culvert. The culvert length is 490 feet to an outfall at the shore of Lake Washington. Lake Washington is a Class 1 water, a salmonid-bearing perennial water also classified as Shorelines of Statewide Significance (see Shoreline discussion below). Reconfiguration of this feature of the Gypsy Subbasin (see Stormwater discussion below) and site development within 200 feet of a Shoreline of the State would occur as a part of the proposed project. For Seahawks ERG Report 03 City of Renton P/B/PW Departme SEAHAWKS HEADQUARTERS REPORTOFOCTOBER 16, 2006 }TRAINING FACILITY E !,mental Review Committee Staff Report LUA-06-073, ECF, SA-M, SA-H, SM Page 6 of 16 these reasons, both Standard and Supplemental Stream/Lake studies were required. A report, "Stream and Lake Study, Supplemental Stream and Lake Study, Stream Mitigation Plan, Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility, Renton, Washington," by Cedarock Consultants, Inc. and A.C. Kindig & Co, dated September 20, 2006, was submitted for review. The overall goal of the cumulative remediation, as determined by the Consent Decrees, has been improved water quality in Lake Washington. The proposed project incorporates the final remediation with the initial phases of development. This action is laying a 3-foot deep clean soil cap across the site. At the building location, the floor slab would serve as a part of this cap. Upsizing of the Gypsy Subbasin Drainage culvert, prior to completing the cap, would alleviate upstream flooding. Replacement of exotic species along the shoreline and replanting to improve functions and values of the riparian zone has been proposed. Most native plants and large trees along the shoreline would be preserved. These improved conditions would improve the shoreline role in protecting aquatic habitat values critical to Lake Washington. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation is required. Nexus: Not applicable 4. Wetlands Impacts: Two on-site wetlands were excavated and filled in association with the remediation plan that resulted from the negotiated Consent Decrees. Also as part of the Consent Decrees, approximately 0.46 acre of mitigation wetland was restored in November 2002, along 250 feet of the shoreline of the Lake near the southwest comer of the property (Exhibit 5) at Baxter Cove. The Baxter Cove wetland is designed to be a forested wetland with open water and emergent components within the cove. Ultimately, it will be a forested wetland, but currently trees planted in seasonally saturated wetland areas have not attained the required height to meet classification standards for this wetland type. The open water component is less than 40 percent of the total wetland area. The emergent classification can be applied to the open water area when the lake level is low and to the edges of the cove when levels are high. This lake-fed wetland meets the Renton standards for a Class 3 wetland (newly emerging). It complies with performance standards and is intended to remain as an undisturbed component of the project proposal. (Initial conceptual plans had a public access to the lake shoreline constructed through this area, but the final plan has public access to the lake outside of the protected wetland and its buffer). A 50-foot vegetated and enhanced wetland buffer was also restored as part of the mitigation. A portion of this buffer would be subject to buffer averaging, as allowed by the City of Renton Critical Areas Ordinance, but no part of the buffer would be reduced to less than 40-feet in width and the total amount of buffer area would not be reduced. Approximately 1,220 feet of the wetland buffer would be filled, with replacement of buffer area at a 1 :1 ratio (Exhibit 6). Subsequently, a wetlands site assessment was conducted by The RETEC Group, Inc. in May 2006 and the results included in their report, "Shoreline and Wetland Survey, North and South Baxter Parcels, Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility, City of Renton," dated August 30, 2006. No jurisdictional wetland areas were identified on the project site during the wetland reconnaissance, other than the Baxter Cove wetland. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation is required. Nexus: Not applicable 5. Shoreline Impacts: The proposed project site has 1,887 feet of shoreline along Lake Washington, a Class 1 Inventoried Shoreline of the State (Exhibit 7). There are approximately 1.23 acres of vegetated area within 100-feet of the shoreline (excluding 0.36 acres of the Baxter Cove area that is part of the restored wetland). The character of the shoreline is a steep bank of between 2 and 3 feet high with vegetation rooted at the top of bank. A covered boathouse with pier and a dock are at two locations along the shoreline. Seahav.1<s ERG Report 03 City of Renton PIBIPW Departme SEAHAWKS HEADQUARTERS REPORT OF OCTOBER 16, 2006 ) TRAINING FACILITY £ }mental Review Committee Staff Report LUA-06--073, ECF, SA-M, SA-H, SM Page 7 of 16 The proposed project would require the following work within 200 feet of the shoreline of Lake Washington: • Capping (soil cover placement) consistent with the Department of Ecology Consent Decree • Construction of the Seahawks Headquarters building • Construction of natural grass practice fields • Shoreline improvements per statute within the 50 foot setback, including riparian plant zone • Construction of retaining wall and driveways • Piping a section of Gypsy Creek drainage to an existing Gypsy Creek outfall at the lakeshore Proposed improvements are features allowed within the Renton Shoreline Master Program under the Urban Environment designation. Lake water elevations fluctuate depending on US Army Corps of Engineers regulation of water level at the Lake Washington Ship Canal. Typically, the elevation of Lake Washington in June is about 18.8 feet above sea level and 16.8 (the lowest level) during December and January. An Ordinary High Water Mark of 19.5 has been noted on this site, however, possibly due to erosion caused by a combination of lack of vegetation on the steep bank slope and wind and boat-generated waves. As part of the wetland restoration, large woody debris was anchored along the shoreline at Baxter Cove. Other logs, pilings, and seawalls along the shoreline may act to reduce the effects of wind and wave erosion. A Lake Washington shoreline planting plan is part of the proposed project. All trees 10 inches or larger in diameter at breast height within 100 feet of the shoreline have been inventoried and would be retained wherever possible. The vegetated area of 1.23 acres would be maintained or increased. All non-native vegetation would be removed and replaced with native plants that provide moderate to high shoreline protection and wildlife function. The existing 0.82 acres of tree canopy would be matched or exceeded, with cover objectives being met within 5 to 10 years (Exhibit 8). The shoreline restoration and management program is included in the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Application component of this Land Use Action. Mitigation Measures: [Mitigation of shoreline development is included in the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Application component of this Land Use Action.] Nexus: Not applicable 6. Stormwater Impacts: The project site is located in the Gypsy Subbasin. Stormwater currently sheet flows from east to west across the weedy brush-covered, but vacant site, free draining into Lake Washington. An existing, degraded storm drain system crosses the site conveying stormwater from offsite to an outfall at the Lake. The site soils are a minor factor when considering the stormwater control system due to their heavily degraded nature and the manipulation of the site through filling, grading, and dredging over many years. For purposes of drainage analysis, soils would be designated as from Hydrologic soil Group C, moderate runoff soils (till). As part of the Consent Decree remediation, a "cap" is to be placed over potentially hazardous materials on site to prevent incidental contact following site development. This cap would be a factor to be considered during design of the stormwater control system (see Environmental Health discussion below). A report, "Stormwater Technical Information," by Magnusson Klemencic Associates, dated August 30, 2006 has been submitted by the project proponent and would be the primary basis for stormwater control systems design. Stormwater management would be based on the requirements of the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM), which would be applicable for this project. The project is exempt from detention as it discharges into Lake Washington. a direct discharge receiving water. The system would include water quality treatment, however, prior to discharge. The KCSWDM designates areas draining to Lake Washington as subject to the requirements of Basic Treatment. The proposed water quality treatment system, however, would provide Enhanced Basic water quality. Treatment systems would vary according to functions at different zones on the site, as follows: Seahawks ERC Report 03 City of Renton PIBIPW Departme, i SEAHAWKS HEADQUARTERS .... ti TRAINING FACILITY REPORT OF OCTOBER 16, 2006 E ·,mental Review Committee Staff Report LUA-06-073, ECF, SA-M, SA-H, SM Page 8 of 16 Pedestrian hardscape (sidewalks, plaza), non-sports field landscaping, and building/roof areas: As non- pollution generating surfaces (roofs do not consist of unpainted metal), stormwater runoff will drain to Lake Washington as direct discharge. The synthetic turf field consists of a 12-inch base course of imported crushed rock, a minimum 1.5 inch porous asphalt layer, a fiber polyurethane woven fabric, 5/8 inch energy absorbing layer of granular rubber, 1.5 inch granular rubber and sand mix overlain by synthetic field turf. Rainwater on the synthetic field would infiltrate through the surface material and base layers to subdrains to be conveyed to the Lake for discharge. Natural turf fields: The natural turf fields would overlay an 18 inch layer of sand, which would function as a filter. As with the synthetic turf field, subdrains would convey runoff to the Lake. An Integrated Pest Management (1PM) Plan would be utilized for turf management (see Environmental Health discussion below). The /PM Plan would address the use of fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides so that field runoff meets water quality standards. Parking lots and driveways: Stormwater runoff from paved areas subject to vehicle traffic would be collected and directed to four sand filters. Three of the filters would be grass covered to provide pre-treatment and maintain the surface permeability of the sand filters. Pretreatment at the fourth filter would be provided by an additional layer of sand. This filter would function, additionally, as a football practice area. To maintain the filter system and protect the health of the football players, the sand layer would be cleaned of potential pollutants annually or more often as needed. Subdrains would convey collected stormwater to the Lake for discharge. Peak rate runoff control in not required or provided for this project because the site discharges directly to Lake Washington, a major receiving water body. Therefore, retention/detention analysis and design would not be required. The Baxter Cove wetland is hydraulically connected to Lake Washington and will not be part of the project stormwater management systems. Discharge to Lake Washington would be through five new drainage system outfalls. The pipe outfalls would release stormwater above the ordinary high-water mark (OHWM) of Lake Washington and subsequently drain over energy dissipating rock-lined channels to the OHWM. The channels would be located at areas of the shoreline where non-erosive material is located that would protect the shoreline during periods of lowered water levels. A portion of the Gypsy Subbasin drainage system, which conveys stormwater from the east side of Interstate 405 to the Lake, currently daylights for 125 feet east of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way. This section consists of a below-grade, man-made ditch with steep, rock-lined side slopes. There is minimal fish habitat present. This open channel enters a 24-inch corrugated metal pipe that slopes approximately 0.1 percent to the Lake. The outfall is about 1 foot above the lake level, when the lake is at a low elevation. When the water level is at higher elevations, the culvert experiences backwater that makes upstream fish travel possible, although it has not been observed. The proposed project would require replacement and relocation of this Gypsy Subbasin drainage feature. The Headquarters building footprint conflicts with the current pipe location. The 490 foot pipe would be realigned around the building and lengthened to approximately 860 feet (Exhibit 9). The existing outfall would remain in place at its current condition. The Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA) for this work states the following potential impacts: "elimination of 125 feet of open channel, a slightly larger culver across the project site, will affect riparian vegetation along the Gypsy Subbasin and Lake Washington, and will result in some disturbance to the shoreline of Lake Washington above and below the ordinary high water mark." The existing outfall would be used and shoreline restoration at the outfall would occur as part of this work. Alternatives to piping, including daylighting the entire drainage channel and maintaining the existing open portion were studied. The capping requirement of the Consent Decrees, however, is premised on the need to avoid direct contact of flowing water with residual contaminated soils on the property. The capping and culvert together isolate the Gypsy Subbasin Drainage and Lake Washington from site soils. Therefore, the open section of the drainage would be included in the new piped system. Seahawks ERG Report 03 City of Renton PIB!PW Departme, SEAHAWKS HEADQUARTERS Am, TRAINING FACILITY E )mental Review Committee staff Report LUA-06-073, ECF, SA-M, SA-H, SM REPORT OF OCTOBER 16, 2006 Page9 of 16 The applicant shall work with the City to alleviate upstream flooding that may impact access to the site. Additional details of pipe sizing and/or street improvements would be addressed through site plan review. Surface Water System Development Charges of $0.249 per square foot of new impervious surfaces would be required. Mitigation Measures: This project shall be subject to the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual. The applicant shall be required to provide a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) designed pursuant to the Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements, outlined in Volume II of the 2001 Stormwater Management Manual and provide staff with a Construction Mitigation Plan prior to issuance of construction permits. The applicant shall work with the City to alleviate upstream flooding that may impact access to the site. Additional details of pipe sizing and/or street improvements will be addressed through the site plan review process. Nexus: SEPA Regulations 7. Transportation Impacts: Transportation impacts have been analyzed in the report, "Traffic Impact Analysis Seahawks' Headquarters,' by The Transpo Group, dated September 2006. Vehicle access to the site would be from Ripley Lane (also known as Lake Washington Boulevard North). Lake Washington Boulevard intersects with Northeast 44'" Street near the project site. Exit 7 of Interstate 405 is located at NE 44'" St. Currently, Ripley Lane is improved with minimal pavement and no pedestrian amenities. There are two existing at-9rade crossings of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way. The southern one crosses the Quendall Terminals property. There is an access easement recorded granting access rights across the Quendall property to the proposed development site. The project proponent is discussing the possibility of a third crossing at a mid-point of the project site. A third crossing would not be a necessity for project access however. The City of Renton Transportation Division has requested that street improvements along Ripley Lane include roadway widening to provide one vehicular traffic lane in each direction, bicycle lanes in each direction, and a paved shoulder area to serve as a pedestrian walkway (one side only) abutting the bicycle lane. These improvements should extend from Lake Washington Boulevard/NE 44th St on the south (beyond the project site) to the north end of the Seahawks Headquarters site. The City of Renton would contribute toward these improvements. In is estimated that the proposed project would contribute an additional 555 average daily weekday trips (ADT) to the City's transportation system. Therefore, the proposed project would be subject to a transportation mitigation fee of $75 per trip. The fee of $41,625.00 would be assessed at building permit issue. Parking for up to 315 cars would be provided on-site, with 104 spaces within a secure, fenced parking area. The site is not served by public transportation. The nearest transit stops are to the north in the City of Newcastle at 1161 h and 76 1 h or south, in Kennydale, at Park Avenue N and N. 33'" St. Mitigation Measures: A traffic mitigation fee of $75 per additional daily trip shall be assessed based on the submitted calculation of 555 ADT. The fee of $41,625.00 would be assessed at building permit issue. Nexus: SEPA 8. Fire Protection Impacts: Fire Prevention staff indicates that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development; subject to the condition that the applicant provides required improvements (see Advisory Notes Seaha"1<s ERG Report 03 City of Renton P/8/PW Departml 1 SEAHAWKS HEADQUARTERS ~ .• v TRAINING FACILITY L .nmental Review Committee Staff Report LUA-06-073, ECF, SA-M, SA-H, SM REPORTOFOCTOBER 16, 2006 Page 10of16 to Applicant, below) and mitigation fees are paid prior to building permit issue. The mitigation fee, for commercial space, is $0.52 per square foot. Mitigation Measures: A fire mitigation fee of $0.52 per square foot of building space shall be assessed at building permit issue. Nexus: SEPA 9. Vegetation Impacts: The project site has been periodically cleared of vegetation over the years of its industrial use. Comprehensive site clearing took place in 1990. Vegetation was also removed during Consent Decree cleanup activities. Currently, approximately 10 percent of the site has trees and other plants. Final cleanup including the placement of the 3-foot deep cap will require removal of most existing vegetation from the site, excluding that in the wetland and wetland buffer. Existing vegetation varies on the site depending on past activities and current situation. Vegetation zones include open meadow, which is the predominant condition, BNSF Railroad right-of-way edge, Gypsy Subbasin Drainage feature, Baxter Cove Wetland, and Lake Washington shoreline. Past industrial activities on the site, including clearing, have restricted the ability of trees to mature; thereby growth of tree canopy has been limited. The majority of the site is open meadow. Non-native grasses (bent grass, velvet grass, tall and red fescue, and reed canary grass) and weedy herbaceous plants (soft rush, sickle-leaved rush, bird's foot trefoil, white clover, western dock, vetch, and hairy cat's ear) typical of disturbed meadows dominate the vegetation on the property. Trees that are present along the eastern edge of the property, abutting the SNSF Railroad right-of-way, include black cottonwood, red alder, Scouler's and Pacific willow. Although a tree inventory has been completed and trees larger than 10 inches in diameter identified, these tree species are exempt from Renton's tree retention regulations. Preservation of many of these trees has been proposed by the project applicant, but would not be required by the City of Renton. The steep banks of the open portion of the Gypsy Subbasin Drainage have cover consisting of red alder, black cottonwood, willow, Himalayan blackberry, and Scotch broom. The proposed project would relocate this open channel into a piped culvert and the existing vegetation would be removed. The lake-fed Bax1er Cove wetland has three types of vegetation structure with its 0.46 acre area. They are aquatic bed, emergent plants, and scrub/shrub. When trees planted in seasonally saturated wetland areas attain greater height, classification standards for forested wetland will be met. Trees planted in the wetland include Douglas fir, western hemlock, Sitka spruce, bigleaf maple, black cottonwood, Oregon ash, red alder, Pacific willow, bitter cherry, and cascara. Shrubs include vine maple, red osier dogwood, hawthorn, western crabapple, Sitka willow, hazelnut, salmonberry, nootka rose, Oregon grape, sword fern, snowberry, twinberry, and salal. Emergent plants include lady fern, slough sedge, hardstem bulrush, small-fruited bulrush, water parsley, and tall mannagrass. Shoreline vegetation, at the top of a 2-to 3-foot bank, consists of blackberry, purple loosestrife, Scotch broom, red alder, black cottonwood, and willow. Other than Himalayan blackberry extending several feet over the bank there is little vegetation along the water edge. All pervious areas of the development are required to be landscaped. Renton Municipal Code requires that parking areas be landscaped and all areas planted with plants other than drought-tolerant varieties must be irrigated. No known endangered, threatened, or sensitive plant species have been observed on the property. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required. Nexus: Not applicable Seahav.i<s ERC Report 03 City of Renton PIB!PW Departme i SEAHAWKS HEADQUARTERS A .. u TRAINING FACILITY REPORT OF OCTOBER 16, 2006 10. Wildlife '= )mental Review Committee Staff Report . LUA-06-073, ECF, SA-M, SA-H, SM Page 11 of 16 Impacts: Both upland and aquatic habitat value of the site is considered to be low due to the highly disturbed nature of the property. On-going and persistent site manipulation associated with the industrial business conducted on the upland portions of the property has resulted in limited vegetation and residual contamination. A 4-foot high beaver dam is located at the downstream end of the open portion of the Gypsy Subbasin Drainage channel at the east side of the site. This structure currently provides improved habitat value to the open channel that would otherwise be too shallow, muddy, and lacks instream structure and cover. There is little protection against winter storm events that result in high velocity flows. Likewise, low flows during summer also limit habitat quality. Higher value habitat may be located along the shoreline, although the dominance of non-native invasive plant species, lack of vegetative diversity and structure, and lack of special habitat features such as snags also results in limitation on value. No known endangered, threatened, or sensitive animal species have been observed on the property. Turtles of unknown species, but probably painted or red-eared sliders, were present near the Baxter Cove wetland, a killdeer was seen at the center of the property, and Canadian geese were observed on the property to the north. Other fowl observed in the vicinity include red-winged blackbird, snipe, and numerous duck species along the shoreline. Osprey are present in the area from mid-March through August and have nested at various locations in the area including the Baxter properties and the Barbee Mill property through the years. Their nests and perch site are also frequented by Canadian geese and bald eagles. Three bald eagle nests have been known, historically, to be west and northwest of the site on Mercer Island. Given the size and location of the property it can be expected that deer, beaver, raccoon, opossum, skunk, and other small mammals and rodents frequent the property. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. Nexus: Not applicable 11. Environmental Health Impacts: The wood treating operations at the site ended in 1981 and the property was subsequently used for storage of bark mulch. Prospective Purchaser Consent Decrees (North Baxter, #00-2-11778-7KNT and Sooth Baxter, #00-2-11779-SKNT) were negotiated with the Department of Ecology under the Model Toxics Control Act occurred in 2000. Cleanup of the South Baxter property consisted of excavation and replacement of soils in the Baxter Cove area and soil stabilization in the uplands. North Baxter remediation, consisting of capping contaminated soils, has been proposed to occur simultaneously with site construction. Although site cleanup occurred in 2002, as part of the Consent Decree for the North Baxter property, a "cap" is to be placed over the site to prevent incidental contact with potentially hazardous residual materials following site development. This cap would consist of both pervious and impervious materials including pavements, building foundation pads, athletic field materials, and imported fill. Where the cap consists of pervious materials, an indicator layer consisting of a fabric or geogrid textile would be placed over the 3 foot deep cap as a warning device for potential future excavation. The property abutting to the south, the Quendall Terminals, has been designated a superfund cleanup site. Cleanup will commence under the direction of the Environmental Protection Agency. The southern-most property, the Barbee Mill, has on-going, voluntary site remediation. Previous studies of the historic use of the properties in this area reveal that past industrial use, and resulting contamination, is property distinct, therefore cleanup plans are appropriately unique to each site. Natural turf field maintenance would be according to an Integrated Pest Management (1PM) Plan developed by the applicant. The 1PM would address management techniques and potential chemical uses on the natural turf practice fields. The plan also includes an accidental spill and response plan. The 1PM would utilize Best Management Practices (BP Ms) to specify disease-resistant turf species and varieties, control of drainage and light, fertilization and watering regimes, and soil mechanics (Exhibit 8). Weed and insect pest damage threshold levels would be established and chemical treatment applied on an Seahawks ERC Report 03 City of Renton PIBIPW Departme 1 E hmental Review Committee Staff Report SEAHAWKS HEADQUARTERS ~ .. ti TRAINING FACILITY LUA-()6-()73, ECF, SA-M, SA-H, SM REPORTOFOCTOBER 16, 2006 Page 12of16 as-needed basis, if necessary. Alternative methods of cultural treatment control, however, would be preferred · and sought. The exception to this approach would be routine, seasonal preventative treatment against fungus diseases. This would be necessary to prevent development of disease to levels that would require higher doses that would also render the fields unplayable. Pesticides would not be proposed for use. An on-site field manager and staff would monitor and record turf health, damage levels, and response thresholds. Chemical analysis would be conducted to determine turf requirements. Field maintenance would comply with Washington State Industrial Safety and Health Act and Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations. The turf fertilizer program includes nutrients and trace minerals to maximize turf health and minimize the need for pesticides. Slow release fertilizer would be the preferred form at application to reduce nutrient transport from the turf root zone. Slow release nutrients are insoluble and generally take 4 to 12 weeks to become completely liberated and available for turf utilization. Management of application rates would prevent overapplication of fertilizer. The potentially adverse impacts to water quality from the nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium in fertilizer would also be mitigated through source control. The depth of the sand filter underlying the natural turf fields has been increased to 18 inches, which would provide a high level of water quality treatment and would comply with recommendations of the 2005 King County Surface Water Manual for sensitive fish habitat environments. Another method of reducing escape of fertilizers from the area of application is through irrigation control to avoid overwatering. Preferred management of pests, like disease control, would be through a combination of cultural methods and accepted tolerance levels. No chemical control would be proposed for insects or broadleaf weeds. Instead, management would include selection and enhancement of competing vegetation that resists pests and disease. Mitigation Measures: No additional mitigation is required. Nexus: Not applicable 12. Aesthetics Impacts: Proposed site development would include the construction of an office and indoor training facility building, playing fields, surface parking lots, and landscaping. The aesthetic character of the currently vacant site would change as a result of the development. The office and indoor training facility structure would range in height from 55 feet (office) to 120 feet (training facility). Development of the site raises several issues to be considered related to aesthetics, including building siting on the property, building massing and architecture, shadows, landscaping, lighting (see discussion below), and altered and/or obstruction of views to and from the project. An assessment of potential aesthetic impacts was initiated by the project proponent. A visual assessment of the proposed project was performed by Crawford Architects, (Addendum 1, dated September 27, 2006). Over 70 views of the project were photographed and from this data, 11 potential view corridors to Lake Washington were evaluated. The "worst case" situations are included herein, SE 76th St, a publicly accessible upslope location, and two top-floor units of the Misty Cove Condominiums (Exhibit 11 ). The Headquarters building on the North Baxter property would be visible from off-site areas, and would be prominent on the site due to its height and bulk. A second, one-story building on the South Baxter property would not be within view from off-site areas to the east or west because of the screening vegetation of the wetland and BNSF Railroad right-of-way vegetation. Views of this building would be blocked from Misty Cove by the Headquarters building. It is anticipated that the Headquarters building would be visible from areas of both the City of Newcastle and Renton, from higher elevations. It is not anticipated that views from higher elevations would be obstructed or altered. Seahawks ERG Report 03 City of Renton P/8/PW Departmer SEAHAWKS HEADQUARTERS A .. w TRAINING FACILITY REPORT OF OCTOBER 16, 2006 E, )mental Review Committee Staff Report LUA--06-073, ECF, SA-M, SA-H, SM Page 13 of 16 View impacts were evaluated from off-site areas including SE 761" Street upslope from the site, and from southwest facing units within the Misty Cove condominium complex, just north of the project site. Views to and from the site, and to the site from off-site locations, would be affected by the proposal. As evidenced in Exhibit 12, views from SE 761 " Street would change. Views of Mercer Island (to the west) from this location would be foreshortened. Views of Lake Washington, which are limited at this location due to existing vegetation on the BNSF Railroad right-of-way, would remain basically unaltered. Views from both the southbound and northbound lanes of Interstate 405, located between the SE 761" viewpoint and the site would be similar, with comparable impacts. Many units of the Misty Cove Condominium have enjoyed territorial views across the property. With development, foreground views from the Misty Cove Condominiums would be affected by the presence of a building on what has been a vacant site. Presently, unmanaged site vegetation limits some views across the project site to Lake Washington. Industrial activities and outdoor storage of materials have also been largely screened from view by trees and shrubs between the Misty Cove property and the project site. Exhibit 13 shows the existing and proposed view from a third-floor unit, number 312. Similar views are shown for unit 302, located closer to the lake than the previous unit (Exhibit 14). A derelict office building on the site (to be demolished) is also within the view corridor of unit 302. The view to Lake Washington would remain unchanged, while the view of the site would change from vacant and vegetated to developed and landscaped. The 120-foot high building would be prominent. Measures proposed to reduce or control aesthetic impacts of the project include architectural design treatments intended to diminish the bulk of the structure, including roofline treatment, window detailing, and exterior finishes and colors. In addition, the building is being setback 50 feet from the water's edge and approximately 170 feet from the common property line. Overhead wires, currently within the Misty Cove view corridor, would be undergrounded. Landscaping at the building perimeter and property boundaries would buffer the building from the residential area to the north. Trees, planted as part of the landscaping proposed to buffer the structure from the Misty Cove condominiums, would mature to heights greater than the existing trees. On-site vegetation growth has been limited historically, due to the industrial activities on the property, which resulted in removal of trees before they reached maturity (see Vegetation discussion, above). The Headquarters building siting, on the North Baxter property, is based on geotechnical and soil contamination issues (see discussion above). The office and support functions of the building would be located on the west side of the structure in order to reduce the apparent mass of the taller portion of the building in which the practice facility is located (Exhibit 15). The three story Headquarters portion of the building, at about 55 feet, would be adjacent to the shoreline. This would also maximize views to the lake from interior office space. Architectural details, such as arcades, horizontal lines, roof treatments, and window detailing would be used to reduce the scale and mass of the building. The building color palette would be warm earth tones including buff/sandstone, light gray, nickel, and cherrywood. Views to roof-mounted mechanical equipment would be limited from ground level on the site, on adjacent properties, and the Lake. The environment of the area would be significantly altered by the proposed project, as is almost always the case when land transitions from vacant to fully developed. Significant adverse impacts are not expected, however, beyond those impacts that can be mitigated by the project proposal. Mitigation Measures: N/A Nexus: N/A Seahawks ERC Report 03 City of Renton P/8/PW Departmer SEAHAWKS HEADQUARTERS. .. TRAINING FACILITY REPORTOFOCTOBER 16, 2006 13. Light and Glare E1 ,mental Review Committee Staff Report LUA-1)6-073, ECF, SA-M, SA-H, SM Page 14 of 16 Impacts: Although some interior building lights in offices may be on after dark, practice fields would not be lit because football practice would not occur at night. It is not anticipated that light levels would be higher than typical for an office structure. Mitigation Measures: N/A Nexus: N/A 14. Historic and Cultural Preservation Impacts: Historic and cultural impacts have been analyzed in relation to information included in the report, "Cultural Resource Assessment JAG Development, King County, Washington," by Larson Anthropological / Archaeological Services, dated march 27, 1997. The 60-acre study area included the properties to the south of the Baxter site (Quendall Terminals and the Barbee Mill) and to the east (Pan Abode Cedar Homes). In addition to literature search and on-site subsurface exploration, the study included consultation with individuals representing the Muckleshoot and Duwamish Tribes. The area of the study is within the territory of the Duwamish, a Salish-speaking group predominant in the Seattle area. The Duwamish lived in cedar longhouses in villages located on most of the larger bodies of water in the central to southern portion of the Seattle area (Elliott Bay, Lake Washington, Lake Union, Salmon Bay, and on the Duwamish, Green/White, and Cedar/Black Rivers. A village of the Duwamish tribe was probably located in the vicinity of the Pan Abode property, upstream of the current mouth of May Creek. The lower portion of May Creek, which crosses the Barbee Mill property, would have been below the level of the Lake until exposed in 1916. All of the properties in the study area have been heavily influenced by fluctuations in lake levels over time due to earthquakes and the lowering of the Lake approximately 9 feet following construction of the Hiram Chittenden Locks and the opening of the Lake Washington Ship Canal in 1916. The first non-native inhabitant of the area within the study was James Madison (or Manning) Colman. In about 1875, he acquired 160 acres of property on both sides of May Creek. The study area encompasses this property. Colman Point, located about 0.5 mile south in Kennydale, is named for him. Except for about one acre of cleared land for the Colman house, the property was largely unused. The Baxter property is near an access road located to the north that was used for hauling coal from mines in Newcastle to Lake Washington for shipment to Seattle. In 1902, the timber on the Colman property was sold. In 1903, the Northern Pacific Railroad acquired a right-of-way through the property for construction of a railroad spur along the east side of Lake Washington. The railroad was built along the lake shore in 1905. The Colman family started selling the land in 1908. The portion that became the Baxter property was sold in 1914 to be used as a shingle production facility. The shingle mill was demolished sometime between 1939 and 1946. The Baxter Company purchased the property after leasing it from 1955. They used it primarily for wood treatment processes consisting of debarking and treatment for telephone poles and pilings. If present, it is unlikely that shallow remains of historic activity could have survived the severe manipulation of this site over the past sixty-plus years it has been used industrially. There may be archaeological features and artifacts deeply buried below the ground surface, dating from hunter-gatherer communities that existed in the vicinity of the property during historic times of low lake levels. Due to Consent Decree restrictions on exposing underlying soils, excavation on the site would be limited to borings for building structure pilings. Mitigation Measures: In the event that archaeological deposits are found during construction, work shall stop and the contractor(s) shall contact the State Archaeologist at the State of Washington Office of Archaeology Seahawks ERG Report 03 City of Renton PIBIPW Departmer l SEAHAWKS HEADQUARTERS Anu TRAINING FACILITY E, jmental Review Committee Staff Report LUA-06-073, ECF, SA-M, SA-H, SM REPORT OF OCTOBER 16, 2006 Page 15 of 16 and Historic Preservation, phone (360) 586-3065, the Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program, phone (253) 939-3311, and Duwamish Tribal Services (206) 431-1582. Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations E. Comments of Reviewing Departments The proposal has been circulated to City Departmental I Divisional Reviewers for their review. Where applicable, these comments have been incorporated into the text of this report as Mitigation Measures and/or Notes to Applicant. _lL Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File. __ Copies of all Review Comments are attached to this report. Environmental Determination Appeal Process Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM, November 6, 2006. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. ADVISORY NOTES TO APPLICANT The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the administrative land use action. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for the land use actions Planning 1. RMC section 4-4-030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 am lo 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. The Development Services Division reserves the right to rescind the approved extended haul hours at any time if complaints are received. 2. Within thirty (30) days of completion of grading work, the applicant shall hydroseed or plant an appropriate ground cover over any portion of the site that is graded or cleared of vegetation and where no further construction work will occur within ninety (90) days. Alternative measures such as mulch, sodding, or plastic covering as specified in the King County Surface Water Management Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton may be proposed between the dates of November 1st and March 31st of each year. The Development Services Division's approval of this work is required prior to final inspection and approval of the permit. 3. Construction activities shall be restricted to the hours between seven o'clock (7:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m., Monday through Friday. Work on Saturdays shall be restricted to the hours between nine o'clock (9:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m. No work shall be permitted on Sundays. 4. Regarding the wetland and wetland buffer, the applicant shall record a Native Growth Protection Easement. Fire Prevention 1. The fire flow is 3,000 gpm. Minimum commercial fire hydrant requirements are one hydrant required within 150- feet of the structures and additional hydrants are required within 300-feet of the structures. Looped fire mains are required for fire flows exceeding 2,500 gpm with maximum spacing of 300-feet between hydrants. 2. Fire Department access roads are required to be paved, 20-foot wide and within 150-feet of all portions of the building exteriors. Dead end roadways over 150 feet in length are required to have an approved turnaround. If "grasscrete" is proposed, Fire Prevention Bureau specifications for base material and construction must be followed. 3. The Headquarters and Training Facility building is required to have compete fire sprinkler, standpipe, kitchen hood suppression and fire alarm systems. The Maintenance building may also need sprinkler and fire alarm systems depending on the amount of hazardous materials stored in it. Separate plans and permits are required for the installation of all systems through the Renton Fire Department. 4. Fire lane signage is required per city ordinance on all private streets and fire access roadways. 5. Minimum vertical height for fire department access is 13 feet 6 inches. 6. For fire planning purposes an electronic copy of the individual building site plans, in acceptable format, shall be submitted to the Renton Fire Department. 7. Any building classified as "high-rise" shall meet all special requirements of the International Building Code Section 403 and all applicable sections of the International Fire Code. Seahawl<s ERC Report 03 City of Renton PIBIPW Departme, SEAHAWKS HEADQUARTERS A.. TRAINING FACILITY REPORT OF OCTOBER 16, 2006 E !nmental Review Committee Staff Report LUA-06-073, ECF, SA-M, SA-H, SM Page 16 of 16 8. A complete hazardous material inventory statement is required to be submitted for review at time of building permit application. Use of city form or approved equivalent is required. Separate plans and permits are required for the installation of tanks, containing hazardous materials. Plan Review -Storm Drainage 1. The project does not include any connection to the Gypsy Creek drainage basin conveyance system ("Gypsy Subbasin") across the site, but the off-site conveyance facility is proposed to be moved outside of the footprint of the proposed building. Changes to the existing outfall are not proposed or authorized at this time. 2. The Surface Water System Development Charge is $0.249 per square foot of new impervious surface. This fee is payable at the time the utility construction permit is issued. Plan Review -Water 1. A looped water main system around the building complex is required. The minimum size of the water main is 10- inches in order to provide the required fire flow. 2. A double check valve assembly in a vault is required behind the domestic water meter since the building is over 30 feet tall. 3. A pressure reducing valve is required downstream of the water meter since the working pressure is above 80 psi. 4. The maximum distance between fire hydrants for this project shall be 300 feet. Additional hydrants will be required to comply with City code. 5. New water meter(s) or upsizing of existing meter will trigger Water System Development Charges, in the amount of $0.273 / sf of the gross site area. This fee is payable at the time the utility construction permit is issued. Plan Review -Sewer 1. The Sanitary Sewer System Development Charge is $0.142 / sf of the gross site area. This fee is payable at the time the utility construction permit is issued. Plan Review -Street Improvements and Transportation 1. Ripley Lane shall be improved to provide a minimum of 20-feet of asphalt from the northerly access to Lake Washington Boulevard/ N 44th Street intersection. Due to the projected additional daily trips at this location, a turn-lane design may be required at the intersection in coordination with the City of Renton project. 2. All new wire utilities must be undergrounded. Plan Review General 1. ·· All plans shall conform to the Renton drafting standards. 2. Separate permits for side sewers, water meters, and backflow device are required. When plans are complete, three copies of the drawings, two copies of the drainage report, a construction estimate and application fee shall be submitted at the sixth floor counter in the Development Services Division, City Hall. Seahawks ERC Report 03 S0011I POINT LAKE SHINGTON 0 1/4 1/2 EXHIBIT Scale In Miles 1 _ _ __ j NOTE COLD<Wl POlNr 1 lsl Reproduced wfth permission granted by THOMAS BROS. MAPS... a This map Is copyrighted by THOMAS B.ROS. MAPS&. It Is PROJECT LOCATION / / ' I !r '·-1 ·J '; \ ~. l I Seahawks Headquarters and Practice Facillty Renton, Washington VICINITY MAP ~ unlawful to copy or reproduce all or any part thereof, whether for September 2006 21-1-20525-003 ~ personal use or resale, without pennlsslon. All rights reserved. SHANNON & WILSON, INC. FIG. 1 ~ '---------------------------·----·"""-""'------""""-"811-~-"~' - ~-:,.~ .. r-- ~ 4 -·~ ' " .:f ·. ·' ' ,·., ··'< ,.. > · .. ,.,.,..-· ... ...: _i~-~_:~(-~ .";ii'"'' .•.. ;-..... C i I Map Legend /'•/ lnte rr.tatto M.-.jor Ro.ddb. OLIH.tl RQ,Hl ,,.,/ l111t-oi;1.it,: Sl11te h1trhYt'A1 /•/ 1,J~ hl'l)hw,y Ro.1di; • Cltle1, i: : I USC3S Oua(l lntln 24K lowcir48 AvaHah\t1 Wt>t1ond NOl'l•D•gll.ll Digit.ti Ntt O,ta t :!Ian 0 D D NHOStraamt: Count!H 1DOK St.ilt:u, 100K South ArnCJric6 North Amlilrlca EXHIBIT 2 ..,, ' G) i C ;u m . . . f > -l , llll ' "' .. ~ ~ ~ ~ ;,, § ~ ./ll<)------!r--=- I - %.~cl. _ __; '1QQD' C·' /'J , . ..'' _,,. I ,, ----, I •••vi., I ; s --.,', : (ti I I / I · • I / i I ! ; ~ I / ::I UC,ION I ' I _ _/ . . -------~--- 0 '- ~ ' f.. ! f~ ' I ts: ' ! @ ' ' ! f< i ' ! r' a ;a i I l! d r • ' 0 f ~ ,• ~ l ii ~ i 0 ·" e • • • . ~ L,;: a • a { ho a • I "' -4---''---''---"----=----...:..---'----'----'----'----"---''--,=-'---'--_j_- Seahawks .Headquarters & I »·. ·j'il~ ('~--.;\ i Training Facrhty , ii 1, \ ! 1 1 I FOOTB/\LL NORTHWEST LLC EXHIBIT : ,, '-..J j l/ I RENTON WASHINGTON . _ I lj- 1 k:1 __ -I 3 N ' -------------;i 0 1 2 Scafe in Miles NOTE ,;, Map based on Blakely et al., 2002, 'Location, structure, 1 EXHIBIT' 4 Seahawks Headquarters Renton, Washington SEATTLE FAULT ZONE ~. and seismlcity of the Seatfe fault zone, Washington: :::, July 2006 21-1-20525-001 Evidence from aeromagnetic anomalies, geologic '" mapping, and seismic-reflection data' SHANNON & WILSON, INC. FIG. 3 ~ ---------------~---~--....L.---~· andEnvi<xvneolalConstAtan~ ; ' Q,, ., C!l~ '• !"~t ~, ii o, ,~ ' , 0 ~ ~ N ,; ffl ' I! ~ ~ i:: ' N :!l l1 i;; 1 i I i i I i I i -z l -l / r'1 :;o (/) --1 J> --1 1;1 i -j~,~ ·--I "r1m ~ ,V ! ii?~ I o Mill 1 ,,; 1_: I \ -I i · \ G)i ; I ~i ' \ ~j ~ \ ~ >.1 ; I i ·_:1:1 _ I g { '' r',l I 1 , ~ • ?_ ·, ) i \ ' ,, ,, ,. ,, \ j " ,.--- " DESl~N DEYELOP.MENT: NOT fOR C,ONSTijUCTIQN ./ EXHIBIT 5 • • r r '• i i ; ~ _j-•--'-·+· ·------··--' ; j I ; ~ 1 ~ 0; ::---------' : i ~ : ; ------------:; :_ ___ ., ~ ~,,... - I· f 0 ~ '%J ~ om ~ ~~ 03: m N "Tlm < N ill~ ;..., ai m ~ C Zz ; z I G) :!! I G). ci ;;o ! m: --" ' -----~---' -~-----. -----· - -------·----·-·------------------. ·--·--------~--------------------' ; "i' '. . ' I i: ' i ' I ' i . ' ~I f~~ ' ' ' l ] _____ _ -, -----------1------·-----------·--·--_-' i ' ' ; ' j I I ,~ ! I·,.; I I 1- i_ --------·--_ _(' . /. . ,/ ____ __.., ., ; ' . i ' { \ • \ < • :;;; H H h B •• lj ' ' r ' ' i" : ' ' '. '< ' ·' r_ r- r t ' ;..,--; ~ ' ;- EXHIBIT , · '1 f • I /['" I 6 Ji 1 / ~ ~;~-1----~N~o=r~F=o=R~-0=~=s=r~c=r=,o=Nc,---,---lt-/,'--------~""'"'~.+;~f -,-.-' , · , · ,_:_:_ __ --=----,,-' 4===~-:~- --r------~ ------ T:t!-!-..-rt/illiiif ... --1 , f ------ Seahawks Headquarters & Training Facility FOOTIIAUNORlHW!aSTU.C RENl'ON.~ Photo 5 ~?~·j' :,,·:' .,;:-,ii,,,··"?!¥'',"',.·"'", ,/' ,;, ~J~'~ .•: :· ;_;~~tff i:ii:'r¢+;i~:,,itt·i~)flt T' .~,· . Photo of pilings (background) and washed up logs (foreground) along the northern portion of the restored Baxter Cove wetland. Photo 6 ¥ ,.·, Aerial view looking east at north Baxter. Piles and a small dock are present along the shoreline. EXHIBIT 7 Page 3 of 8 ) Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility Renton, Washington Stream and Lake Siudy!Mitigation Plan Table 3 Riparian Habitat Functions and Values, Comparison of Existing versus Proposed Conditions ~ Fu11c1ion !labiM l'o1cnlinl I:,isting S!wrdiJH' J>rnpos,'ti Shnrdill<' ll:lbitat ~:riJue : rurn·tion Jot Cla" Comliti{l)1s Cundith,m Cornp~rl'isou .__..,.., --------J r a!:(·~ __ -.,-----~-·---------___ , -· -----, ·-----· ~ -~----~--------Water Quality Low to Existing condition lacks Future development is not Eguivalent Moderate width, plant density, and plant dependant on riparian function under diversity. Lack of native function for water quality both conditions vegetation also a minus. because it employs the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual, so width for water quality treatment is not required. Native vegetation is a plus. Food Low Sparse non~native vegetation Vegetation optimized with Prol!osed acdon provides little beneficial leaf a diverse mix of native will have higher litter and small organic species. High habitat value value debris. near lake. Microclimate Low to Existing shoreline area has Proposed shoreline area Eouivalent Moderate little effect on microclimate. will have little effect on function under microclirnate. both conditions Temperature Low to Not a significant issue for Not a significant issue for ~uivalent & Shade none large Class l waterbodies. large Class I waterbodies. function under . both conditions - Human Low Lake Washington is a public Lake Washington is a Eauivalent · Access access area so access control public access.area so access function under not a habitat function issue control not a habitat both conditions function issue Large Woody Low Site periodically cleared so Planting that will contribute Prouosed action Debris unlikely to have any some minor woody debris will have higher significant future LWD in the future. value contribution. Channel Low Controlled lake level and no Controlled Jake level and Eguivalent Migration surface channels on-site. No no surface channels on~site. function under potential for channel No potential for channel both conditions migration migration Bank Stability Low to Exotic species dominated Root strength increased Prol!:osed action Moderate shoreline. Banks partially with native shrubs and will have higher protected by large logs. trees. Banks partially value protected by large logs. Wildlife Not Rated Patchy exotic species Native plantings in a dense Prouosed action Habitat dominated riparian vegetation multi-story contiguous will have highest of relatively low value as canopy will provide high value . bird, amphibian, reptile, and wildlife habitat value. EXHIBIT rodent habitat. Adapted from: A.C. Kindig & Co and Cedarock Consultants, Inc. 2003. Sep/ember 20, 2006 &ohawla/09-20-061.aka Slreorn Rt!p()rl.doc CEDAROCK CONSULTANTS, INC. and A.C. KINDIG & ·CO. Page 29 8 ' i ' ; - ' -I 1: 1 l ' ' I !. j. I j J f i'\. I J. I !: I I I ' ----···--~ •.• J '- ~ )· f i-t I -;: ' " .... _, ,=--r .------------------~'--~ ~;:===::;::===·'· A! ;' -Ji i Seahawks Headquarters & l Training Facility FOOTBAu. NORTHwEstuc REHTON. WASfffNOtt>tl EXHIBIT 9 f ! __ : --.. 1~11@1 ! ' ' Seattle Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility Twf Integrated Pest Management Plan (IP M) Table 2 EXHIBIT 10 Summary of Pest Control Measures to be used for the Seahawks Practice Fields Physical/ Disease or Pest Cultural Control Mechanical Chemical Control Control Turfgrass Control Primo Maxx Turf growth suppressant Overseeding with (Trinexapac-ethyl) and Annual Bluegrass desirable during growing rpoa annual control turfgrass; season Promote vigorous Prograss turf root growth to (ethofumesate) for with soil nutrient curative post- Weeds and irrigation emergence control Annual Bluegrass control, to out-of annual competePoa bluegrass in fall annua. and in spring if warranted. Fungus Diseases Brown Patch (Rhizoctonia solani; R. blight) Corticum Red Thread (Lsetisaria fuciformis) Dollar Spot (l.snzia spp. And Moellerodiscus spp.) Fusarium Blight Chipco 26GT (Fusadum spp.) (lprodione) Fusarium Patch Good air as preventative (Microduchium niva/e) Gray Snow Mold Promote vigorous circulation; method of control Good drainage; fall and spring (Typhula spp.) turf root.growth to Helminthosporium with soil nutrient Avoid shading; (Dresch/era spp.) and irrigation Avoid irrigating in Necrotic Ring Spot late afternoon; (Leptosphaeria korrae) control, to out-Limit thatch; Pink Snow Mold compete weeds. Maintain soil pH (Fusairum nivale) <7 Rust rPuocinia corona ta 1 Fungus Diseases Brown Patch (Rhizoctonia solani; R. blight) Heritage Fusarium Patch (azoxystrobin) (Microduchium niva/e) as preventative Rust method of control (Puccinia coronata) in fall and winter Take-all Patch fGaeumannomvces nraminisl September 20, 2006 A. C. KINDIG & CO. Page 7 il I - 1 :~ ' . " C ~ 0..1> =~ .. 0 •• I I:~ I"' ,~ ' . ( 1. I.I ----------. -. --. -. -. l I ~ . ~ . " C ~ "' Seahawks Headquarters & I Training Facility FOOT6All NOA.TH'WEST U.C RENTON, WASHINGTON I EXHIBIT 11 '[f I - 'f ' -Q C /= ~ E~l j . f o :e I ' ..... ::::l : I j •: I 1 , "' . ~ -" C ~ m Seahawks Headquarters & Training Facility FOOTB.AU.. NORTHWEST LLC RENTON, WASHINGTON ----- i EXHIBIT~ 12 • i ,: - I ~ I'.! . ~ ' . " . " C C " " m m Q ~ )> =~ -........---~ =~ -f-----,< ··t t l I I ~ .. l I Seahawks Headquarters & I Training Facility ~-----, 13 ----------liii'-iiiii~lliiiiiill-~ '! :'i l - J '. ~ : ~ ,·o . " C C ~ ~ m m ~ ! l . t I Seahawks Headquarters & I,. · ~j@) Training Facility .---'----, • 1 I FOOTBAU. NORTHWEST LLC RENT\JN, WASHINGTON EXHIBIT 14 .,, G) C ;:o m ij ff ' 11 11 !! ,. JI fi ' -·• i .. !1 I ~ !:l ·© •@ ·8 •0 ' E) ,@ ,e ·G -e ,e ·© •@ ·0 ·0 '-~ .. > t , . •• r ·ti ln ~\ ' ! I I ' ; . I r t t I " DESIQN DEVELOPMENT: NOT fOR CPNST8UCTIQN J l I I I , . : I Seahawks Headquarters & I ~!ii 1, 1·. I _;_ -·=~~LLC E 15 $ ;,l l1 0 e e © ' e 0) e © ' G 0 6 - @ © - CITY OF RENTON City Clerk Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 425-430-6510 0 \;ash lf £! _7 &r"Check No.____,_,J U'"--'_) __ _ Description: D Copy Fee ~ppea!Fee LLfl -00-D7 3 --tlQ.~\ Funds Received From: Name Lcl[i_)(f'\ ··(.Q_ ,:2-x~'( ·":,)ref Address (f'f lj 0 <1 iJ ··1}-Av(_ s E City/Zip l \1tr(£f ·-r~)c)rd Receipt N. 0856 0 Notary Service o _________ _ t1E)( i I .... -------,.:1,li:· Amount $ I 5 -CD ., ' / \~ Ci Staff Signature Seahawks' Headquarters and Tru,.,ing Facility File No.: LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF December 7, 2006 Page 17 Football Northwest 505 Fifth Avenue S., Ste. 900 Seattle, WA 98104 Michael Cero 8300 Avalon Drive Mercer Island, WA 98040 Brian T. Sabey 5021 Ripley Lane N, Ste. 304 Renton, WA 98056 Steve Jansen 5021 Ripley Lane N, Ste. 4 Renton, WA 98056 Aaron Belenky, President Williamsburg Condo HOA 1800 NE 40'h Street, Ste. H-4 Renton, WA 98056 Port Quendall Company 505 Fifth Avenue S., Ste. 900 Seattle, WA 98104 Thomas Peterson Socius Law Group PLLC Two Union Square 601 Union Street, Ste. 4950 Seattle, WA 98101 Eleanor Maargo Kennamer, President Misty Cove Condo Association 5021 Ripley Lane N, Ste. 309 Renton, WA 98056 Steve Gregerson 5021 Ripley Lane N, Ste. 302 Renton, WA 98056 Woodinville, WA 98077 Ray Colliver 505 Fifth Avenue S., Ste. 900 Seattle, WA 98104 Thelma Sutherland 1205 N 29'" Street Renton, WA 98056 Jared Salstrom 5021 Ripley Lane N, Ste. 213 Renton, WA 98056 Elya George Baches 1414 N 34th Street Renton, WA 98056 Elaine Wine Vulcan 505 Fifth Avenue S, Ste. 900 Seattle, WA 98104 Barbara Paxhia Shelly Munkberg Tom Ehrlichman SECO Development Socius Law Group 5021 Ripley Lane N, Ste. 104 Renton, WA 98056 1083 Lake Washington Blvd N., Ste. 50 Renton, WA 98056 Two Union Square Richard Wagner Baylis Architects 10801 Main Street, Ste. 110 Bellevue, WA 98004 Jeffrey Taraday Foster Pepper 1111 Third A venue, S le. 3400 Seattle, WA 9810 I TRANSMITTED THIS 7'" day of December 2006 to the following: Mayor Kathy Keolker Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison Stan Engler, Fire Larry Meckling, Building Official Planning Commission Transportation Division Utilities Division 601 Union Street, Ste. 4950 Seattle, WA 98101 Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator Alex Pietsch, Economic Development Jennifer Henning, Development Services Stacy Tucker, Development Services King County Journal Neil Watts, Development Services Janet Conklin, Development Services Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section lOOGofthe City's Code, request for recousideratiou must be filed iu writiug ou or before 5:00 p.m., December 21. 2006. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. '\,~y 0 + l *" + CITY )F RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator (!~·~ :,1:; ~ !:!! '~,' ~ I! ,-::: Kathy Keolker, Mayor !t,N,ro:r--..;...--..;...--------------------- April 25, 2007 David M. Murphy, Partner CRAWFORD ARCHITECTS LLC 1901 Main Street -Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64108 Re: Seattle Seahawks Headquarters & Practice Facility, LUA06-073, SA-H. SA-M. SM, ECF -Request for Minor Adjustment to the Site Plan Dear Mr. Murphy I am in receipt of your letter dated April 9, 2007, wherein you request approval of a revision to the approved site plan for the Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility. As your letter states, a minor adjustment to the approved site plan is proposed, as follows: Maximum Building Height -115'-0" feet in lieu of 110'-6" feetas noted on Figure 10:6 (Sheet A401) of the Land Use, Shoreline & Master Plan Permit Application - Volume 1. ( Ourunderstanding is that the requeste/adjustment is based on refinements to the final structural design and would accommodate a clear inside height dimension of 95 feet as noted in the application. Furthermore, the referenced height is measured lo the highest point of the roof deck from the finished floor slab. The City of Renton Hearing Examiner approved the Practice Facility at a height of 111 feet above grade. Renton Municipal Code Section 4-9-2001, allows minor adjustments to an approved site plan, provided: 1. The adjustment does not involve more than a ten percent (10%) increase in area or scale of the development in the approved site plan; or 2. The adjustment does not have a significantly greater impact on the environment and facilities than the approved plan; or 3. The adjustment does not change the boundaries of the originally approved plan. Analysis of Request The site plan modification requested has been compared to the site plan as approved by the City of Renton Hearing Examiner on December 7, 2006. The proposed change in building height from 111 feet, as stated in the ''Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations" section of the Hearing Examiner's decision (numbers 19 and 22) to the proposed modified height of 115 feet would result in an additional 4 feet of building height and approximately 350,064 square feet of building ---a-re_a_. --,-0-55_S_o_u_th_G_rad_y_W_ay---R-e-nt_o_n.-W-a-s-hi-n-gt-on_9_80_5_7 ______ ~ Lo. AHEAD OF THE CURVE • David M. Murphy April 25, 2007 Page 2 The proposed increase in area would not result in more than a 10 percent increase in area or scale of the development. Although the increased height could impact views from nearby properties, the modification would not have a substantial impact on the environment or facilities. The requested modification would not change the boundaries of the originally approved site plan. The project site is zoned Commercial / Office / Residential. All applicable setback, lot coverage, and landscaping standards would be achieved. The requested modification would not impact the building facades or other architectural features as proposed. Decision Based on the analysis and recommendation of staff, I have determined the proposed revision is within the parameters defined by theHenton Municipal Code . . ,, Therefore, the proposed modffication of the site R)'lrn;Js deemed to be "minor" and therefore, is approved sµbject to the following ~ndjtfon: 1. Prior to the issuance of the final building permit "{9r,the Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility, three full size pri11ts and one 8 Y. K 11 inch contact print of revised building elevations shall b.e su~i\';tl!Ef,d to the Development Services Division project m;mager. .· ·. )1 ··. • This .determination wtll be' final unless a·wflUfE:ti ~~~eal of;thfsadministrative determination, accompanied by the req1.Hrect'f:i,OO filin$ fee, isJiled with the City's Hearing Examiner withi.n 14 days ofthe date ofitils decision. . . ' . . . ~ .f If you have any questions re9arding this determjnation,pr th!;l:fequirements discussed in this letter, please contact Elizabeth Higgins, Se11iorfla~n.~r(at (425) 430-7382 . ~;w~ ro..-Ntil Walk . Neil Watts, Director Development Services Division cc: Parties of Record Jim Levin Lance Lopes Ray Colliver Tom Chiado Elaine Wine Roger Pearce Brian Dickson Jennifer Henning Elizabeth Higgins File . -;:-i::··i·" r City Clerk City of Renton Lclrty clnd Esther Bclrsher 694-0 96th Ave. S.E. Mercer lslclnd, Wclshington 9804-0 206-232-9280 .... lesb~,@comqst.net CITY OF RENTON MAY O 8 2007 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE "ti' / 2:3L/ (fM May 8, 2007 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 flppca I -to flearlfl;J Eta.mine,. LU.fl. D'1-0iJ, 511-tl, ~fl-rrt, strl,eCP Re: Seattle Seahawks Headquarters & Practice Facility, Request for Minor Adjustment We appeal the City ofRenton's April 25, 2007 determination decision allowing the Seattle Seahawks Headquarters & Practice Facility, now under construction, to increase the height of the building to 115 feet. This decision was hased on the determination the request is a minor modification as defined by The City of Renton Code, which we also appeal. An increase of 4 and 1/2 feet in height is not a minor modification. It will make an already imposing (l 11 foot high by 340 long) large building even more imposing and larger to hundreds of people who view it across the lake on Mercer Island. This increase creates a significantly greater impact on the environment which Code Sec 4-9-2001 does not allow. At the initial examiner's hearing on November 21, 2006 I stated my family did not object to the construction of the facility and thought it would be a very attractive building viewed up close, however the structure will look like an enormous box as viewed from homes only one mile across the lake. We recommended that large evergreen trees reaching the height of at least 100 feet at maturity be planted judiciously in front of the building to mitigate and soften its imposing size. Such landscaping would go a long way to return what use to be a tranquil vista of homes, a modest apartment building (Misty Cove) and a hillside covered with trees. Much to our chai,>Tin the hearing examiner's approval of the project did not include this modest landscape addition. Now the request is for the "enormous box" to get even larger, which we appeal. However we would not object to an approval that included the addition of large evergreen trees reaching to approximately the roof elevation at maturity and planted judiciously close to the building. The trees would mitigate and soften its size and 1,>reatly reduce the enlarged Seahawk Facility's environmental impact on those viewing the building from a distance. This landscape requirement should be added as an additional condition to the proposed modification. The change will benefit hundreds of Mercer I slanders now and for generations to come. We contacted neighbors that live near us and they agree with our concern and solution. The attachment is a list with their addresses and phone numbers. The required $7 5 appeal fee is enclosed. Sincerely, \:a~d Esth: ~a~;~e:~~ ( r:>°'.7 ,'!/'~ C ( Mercer Island Neighbors Agreeing With This Appeal and Mitigating Solution Name Address Phone# Dan & Jody Samson 6952 96th Ave. SE 232-0151 Dwight & Christine Schaeffer 6958 96th Ave. SE 236-2580 Les & Denise Klaff 6915 96thAve. SE 232-4435 Carl Lindstrom 6910 96 Ave. SE 232-0933 Howard & Sue Robboy 6944 96th A VE SE 236-1162 Steven & Deanna Marshall 6934 96th Ave. SE 425-747-6755 Hal & Gerry Fardal 6920 96th Ave. SE 232-1936 Dr. Robert and Bee Dietz 7906 E. Mercer Way 230-6989 May 10, 2007 Larry and Esther Barsher 6940 96th Ave. SE Mercer Island, WA 98040 CIT Re: Seattle Seahawks Headquarters & Practice Facility Appeal LUA 06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF Dear Mr. & Mrs. Barsher: OF RENTON Hearing Examiner Fred J. Kaufman We are in receipt of your Appeal in regards to the above referenced matter. The appeal hearing has heen scheduled for Tuesday, May 29, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. The hearing will take place in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. The address is 1055 S Grady Way in Renton. If this office can provide any further assistance, please address those comments in writing. Sincerely, Fred Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton FK/nt cc: Larry Warren, City Attorney Neil Watts, Development Services Elizabeth Higgins, Development Services Stacy Tucker, Development Services Roger Pearce, Foster Pepper Law Firm All Parties of Record ____ 10_5_5_S_ou_th_G_r_a_dy-W-ay---R-e-nt-on-,-W-as-h-in_gt_o_n_9_8_05-5---(4_2_5)_4_3_0--6-51_5 ____ ~ @ This paper contains 50% recycled material, 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE O~ <(Y ~~ ,~ . ""' . ~~ ~ KathyKeolker, Mayor &'Neto CIT OF RENTON Hearing Examiner Fred J, Kaufman May 10,2007 Larry and Esther Barsher 6940 96th Ave. SE Mercer Island, WA 98040 Re: Seattle Seahawks Headquarters & Practice Facility Appeal LUA 06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF Dear Mr. & Mrs. Barsher: We are in receipt of your Appeal in regards to the above referenced matter. The appeal hearing has been scheduled for Tuesday, May 29, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. The hearing will take place in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. The address is 1055 S Grady Way in Renton. If this office can provide any further assistance, please address those comments in writing. Sincerely, Fred Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton FK/nt cc: Larry Warren, City Attorney Neil Watts, Development Services Elizabeth Higgins, Development Services Stacy Tucker, Development Services Roger Pearce, Foster Pepper Law Finn All Parties of Record ----l-05_5_S_o_u_th_G_r-ad_y_W-ay---R-e-nt_o_n,-W-a-s-hi_n_gt_on_9_80_5_5_--(4_2_5)_4_3_0_-6_5_15 ____ ~ @ This paper contains 50% recycled material, 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CTIY OF RENTON LARRY BARSHER and ESTHER BARSHER, Appellants, V. File No. LUA06-073 SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF 11 CITY OF RENTON, and FOOTBALL NORTHWEST LLC, HEARING BRIEF OF FOOTBALL NORTHWEST LLC 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Respondents. I. INTRODUCTION Respondent Football Northwest LLC ("FNW") requests the Hearing Examiner to dismiss the appeal of Larry Barsher and Esther Barsher (the "Barshers"). The Barshers have appealed the issuance of a minor adjustment to the approved site plan for the Seattle Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility. The only issue before the Examiner is whether the minor adjustment criteria in Renton Zoning Code §4-9-200(1) have been met. The only change to the approved site plan is that the Indoor Practice Facility (the "IPF") will be allowed to be several feet higher than described in the City's original site plan approval. Because this minor change to the approved site plan clearly meets the minor adjustment criteria in Renton Zoning Code §4-9-200(1), the Examiner should dismiss the Barshers' appeal. HEARING BRIEF OF FOOTBALL NORTHWEST LLC -1 508167422 ORIGINAL FOSTER PEPPER PLLC 1111 THIRD A VENUE, SUITE 3400 SEA TILE, WASHINGTON 98101-3299 PHONE (206) 447-4400 FAX (206) 447-9700 I II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 2 The evidence at the hearing will show the following: 3 The City's environmental review analyzed an IPF structure ofup to 120 feet in height 4 above slab, with a 95-foot clear interior space over the indoor practice field. The 95-foot clear 5 interior space is required for the facility to operate in the manner designed for professional 6 football practices. Based on its analysis of that proposal, the City issued a Determination of 7 Nonsignificance ("DNS"). 8 After the issuance of the DNS, the project applicant moved the IPF structure (and other 9 project buildings) approximately 62 feet further back from the shoreline, in order to minimize 10 view impacts to the neighboring condominium owners to the north of the site. In addition, 11 design development for the IPF structure showed that the interior 95-foot clear height could 12 likely be accomplished with an overall building height of approximately 111 feet in height. 13 Those design development drawings were the basis of the drawings and renderings presented to 14 the Examiner at the hearing on the original site plan for the Seahawks Corporate Headquarters 15 and Training Facility. Accordingly, the Examiner's site plan approval described the IPF as being 16 "up to 111 feet"1 and "approximately 111 feet tall."2 17 Subsequent to the Hearing Examiner's December 6, 2006, Site Plan Approval, the City 18 and FNW's contractors have been moving toward final design of the IPF. In response to City 19 building code requirements, FNW has made changes to the truss structure of the roof. In order to 20 maintain the 95-foot clear interior space for the !PF, this change to the truss structure will require 21 a building height of approximately 113 feet. To be cautious, FNW requested a minor adjustment 22 to allow up to 115 feet in height, although approximately 113 feet is the anticipated height. 23 This minor height variation to the !PF is the only change to the approved site plan. No 24 additional lot coverage is proposed, no expansion of the site plan boundary is proposed, and no 25 26 1 Examiner Site Plan Approval at Finding 19. 2 Examiner Site Plan Approval at Finding 22. HEARING BRIEF OF FOOTBALL NORTHWEST LLC -2 50816742.2 FOSTER PEPPER PLLC 1111 THIRD A VENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3299 PHONE (206)447-4400 FAX (206) 447-9700 1 expansion of any other planned building on the site is proposed. Transportation and parking 2 impacts would be unchanged. Use of public services and utilities would be unchanged. The 3 only impact will be to allow a small increase in the scale of the IPF building. 4 The massing of the !PF itself will increase less than four percent (4%) if the full 115 feet 5 in height were utilized. At the anticipated final !PF height of approximately 113 feet, there 6 would be only a two percent (2%) increase to the scale of the IPF. With respect to the scale of 7 all development approved by the site plan, the total building volume would increase only three 8 percent (3%) if the full 115 feet in height were utilized for the !PF. At the anticipated final !PF 9 height of approximately 113 feet, the overall site massing would only increase by one and one- 10 half percent (IY, %). 11 III. LEGAL ARGUMENT 12 A. Burden of Proof and Standard of Review on Appeal. 13 The Barshers have the burden of proof to show that the City staffs approval of a minor 14 adjustment was either an error oflaw or clearly erroneous in view of the entire record. Renton 15 Zoning Code §4-8-11 O(E)(7)(b ). 16 The Examiner is required to give substantial weight to the City staffs decision to allow 17 the minor adjustment to the approved site plan. Renton Zoning Code §4-8-l 10(E)(7)(a). 18 B. The Small Increase to the IPF Height Clearly Meets the City's Minor Adjustment Criteria. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 The only issue before the Examiner is whether the slight increase in the height of the IPF building (up to four feet) meets the City's criteria for a minor adjustment to an approved site plan. The criteria in the Renton Zoning Code are as follows: MINOR ADJUSTMENTS TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN: Minor modifications may be permitted by administrative determination. To be considered a minor modification, the amendment must not: I. Involve more than a ten percent (10%) increase in area or scale of the development in the approved site development plan; or HEARING BRIEF OF FOOTBALL NORTHWEST LLC -3 FOSTER PEPPER PL LC 1111 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 34-00 SEATILE, WASHINGTON 98101-3299 PHONE (206) 447-4400 FAX (206)447-9700 5081(,74'.! 2 1 2. Have a significantly greater impact on the environment and facilities than the 2 approved plan; or 3 3 Change the boundaries of the originally approved plan. 4 Renton Zoning Code §4-9-200(!). 5 Here, the IPF height increase clearly meets these criteria. 6 First, the ten percent limitation on area or scale of development is met. The area of 7 development is not increased whatsoever. The scale of development is increased slightly -up to 8 three percent (3%) if the full allowed 115 height for the IPF is utilized. While the IPF building is 9 anticipated to be only approximately 113 feet in height, even at 115 feet in height, the increase in 1 O scale of development is far below the allowable ten percent in the Renton Zoning Code. 11 Second, there are no new significant environmental impacts. The City's DNS analyzed 12 an IPF building of approximately 120 feet in height and over 60 feet closer to the shoreline. That 13 DNS concluded that a building of that size in that location would not have any significant 14 adverse environmental impacts. The current proposal is for a shorter building (up to 115 feet in 15 height) that is further back from the shoreline. In addition, the only change to the approved site 16 plan is the minor height addition to the IPF building. There is no additional impervious surface, 17 no additional grading or earth movement, no additional traffic or parking, no landscaping areas 18 are being eliminated, and no additional use of public services or facilities. The only possible 19 impact would be an aesthetic impact. As shown in the elevations and simulations submitted at 20 the hearing, a four-foot increase in height (up to 115 feet in height) will be barely noticeable. 21 And the actual impact of the City decision will be an even smaller impact, because the likely 22 height will be approximately 113 feet. 23 Third, the boundaries of the original approved plan are unchanged. 24 The Barshers assume that this appeal is an opportunity to reargue the overall size and 25 view impacts of the Seahawks Corporate Campus and Training Facility. That is incorrect. The 26 only issue is whether the minor adjustment criteria in Renton Zoning Code §4-9-200(!) are met. HEARING BRIEF OF FOOTBALL NORTHWEST LLC -4 50816742.2 FOSTER PEPPER PLLC 1111 THIRD A VENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATILE, WASHINGTON 93101-3299 PHONE (206) 447-4400 FAX (206) 447-9700 I Because those criteria are clearly met -especially after giving substantial weight to the City 2 staffs decision to allow the minor adjustment -the Barshers' appeal must be dismissed. 3 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 29'h day of May, 2007. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 HEARING BRIEF OF FOOTBALL NORTHWEST LLC -5 50816742.2 FOSTER PEPPER PLLC FOSTER PEPPER PLLC 1111 THIRD AVENUE, SurrE 3400 SEATTI.E, WASHINGTON 98101-3299 PHONE (206) 447-4400 FAX (206) 447·9700 TO: Address: Phone: Fax: I SUBJECT: REMARKS: Citv of Renton Development Services Division Planning/Building/Public Works Department Renton City Hall, Sixth Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Roger Pearce FROM: Foster Pepper PLLC 1111 -Third Ave, Suite 3400 Seattle WA 98101-3299 (206)447-4400 Phone: (206)447-9700 Fax: LETTER TRANSMITTAL Date: May 16, 2007 Elizabeth Higgins, A/GP Senior Planner Current Planning ( 425)430-7382 (425) 430-7300 Seahawks/Barsher Appeal Number of items including cover sheet: [l As D Urgent D Reply D Please [] For your Requested ASAP Comment review • Letter of April 9, 2007 Murphy to Watts requesting minor modification 10 • Decision of April 25, 2007 Watts to Murphy approving request for minor modification • LUA06-073, Parties of Record, dated April 26, 2007 • Barsher appeal letter of May 8, 2007 • Letter of May 10, 2007 Hearing Examiner to Barsher re: appeal hearing date 2 3 4 5 6 7 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON 8 LARRY BARSHER and ESTHER BARSHER, 9 10 Appellants, v. CITY OF RENTON, and FOOTBALL File No. LUA06-073 SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF 11 NORTHWEST, NOTICE OF APPEARANCE ON BEHALF OF FOOTBALL NORTHWEST LLC 12 Respondents. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 TO: AND TO: Fred Kaufman, City of Renton Hearing Examiner; and Larry Barsher and Esther Barsher, Appellants PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Roger A Pearce, and Foster Pepper PLLC, enter their appearance as counsel for Respondent Football Northwest LLC, by and through the undersigned attorney, and request that service of all papers and pleadings in this lawsuit, except original process, be made upon the undersigned attorney at the address stated below. DATED this 9th day of May, 2007. NOTICE OF APPEARANCE ON BEHALF OF FOOTBALL NORTHWEST -I sos l 3270 l FOSTER PEPPER PLLC Roger earce, WSBA No. 21113 Attorney for Respondent Football Northwest LLC FUSTER PEPPER PLLC 1111 TH!llD AVENUE, SUJTE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3299 PtlONE (206) 447-4400 FAX (Z06) 447-9700 DECLARATION OF SERVICE 2 Helen M. Stubbert declares: 3 I am a legal assistant to Roger A. Pearce, and competent to be a witness in lhe above- 4 entitled proceeding. On May 9, 2007, I caused to be delivered in the manner indicated below 5 true and correct copies of a Notice of Appearance and this Certificate of Service to the following: 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington 98055 Via U.S. Mail Larry and Esther Barsher 6940 96 1h Ave. S.E. Mercer Island WA 98040 Via U.S. Mail I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct. DATED this 9th day of May, 2007, at Seattle, Washington. /cLL'~ NOTICE OF APPEARANCE ON BEHALF OF FOOTBALL NORTHWEST -2 508JJ270 1 Helen M. Stubbert FOSTER PEPPER PLLC 1111 ·rttmD A VENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, VVASHJNGTON 98101-3299 PHONE (206) 447-4400 FAX (206) 447-9700 9 April 2007 Mr. Neil R. Watts Director: Development Services Division City of Renton Renton City Hall · 6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 /// ··,\\ / I -------' [ C:FI.AWt=OFIC ' ' ' ',, ,/ ,,,,/ ~-/,' ---------· Regarding: SEATILE SEAHAWKS HEADQUARTERS & PRACTICE FACILITY Renton, WA Project No. KC 005-03 / File No. I PF1 Subject: MINOR ADJUSTMENT TO SITE PLAN REQUEST Dear Neil: We have been informed by Bayley Construction that the engineer of record for the Indoor Practice Facility (IPF), Mr. H. David Jeter PE SE of HCI Steel Building System Inc. has requested a minor adjustment to the approved Site Plan consisting of: 1. Maximum Building Height-115'-0" feet in lieu of 110'-6" feet as noted on Figure 10.6 (Sheet A401) of the Land Use, Shoreline & Master Plan Permit Application -Volume 1. The requested adjustment is based on refinements to the final structural design and accommodates a clear inside height dimension of 95 feet as noted in our application. The referenced height is measured to the highest point of the roof deck from the finished floor slab. Crawford Architects and the applicants -Port Ouendall Company and Football Northwest LLC concur with this request. Please contact me at this office if you have any questions or require further information. Sincerely, CRAWFORD ARCHITECTS LLC David M. Murphy Partner Page 1 9 April 2007 Crawford Architects 1901 Main Street -Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64108 816 421 2640 telephone 816 421 2650 facsimile david.murphy@crawford-usa.com Enclosure: Copies: None Jim Levin -Bayley Construction (for distribution) Lance Lopes -Seattle Seahawks Ray Colliver -Vulcan Tom Chiado -Vulcan Elaine Wine -Vulcan Roger Pearce -Foster Pepper Brian Dickson -MKA Structural Filer Page 2 9 April 2007 Crawford Architects 1901 Main Street-Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64108 816 421 2640 telephone 816 421 2650 facsimile david.murphy@crawford-usa.com ~.~~<~ CITY )F RENTON Planning/Building/PublicWorks Department Gregg Zimmerman P .E., Administrator jl~ Kathy Keolker, Mayor ~'N'1'0/" ----------------------------- April 25, 2007 David M, Murphy, Partner CRAWFORD ARCHITECTS LLC 1901 Main Street -Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64108 Re: Seattle Seahawks Headquarters & Practice Facility, LUA06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF -Request for Minor Adjustment to the Site Plan Dear Mr. Murphy I am in receipt of your letter dated April 9, 2007, wherein you request approval of a revision to the approved site plan for the Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility. As your letter states, a minor adjustment to the approved site plan is proposed, as follows: Maximum Building Height -115'-0" feet in lieu of 110'-6" feet as noted on Figure 10.6 (Sheet A401) of the Land Use, Shoreline & Master Plan Permit Application - Volume 1. Our understanding is that the requested adjustment is .based on refinements to the final structural design and would accommodate a clear inside height dimension of 95 feet as noted in the application. Furthermore, the referenced height is measured to the highest point of the roof deck from the finished floor slab. The City of Renton Hearing Examiner approved the Practice Facility at a height of 111 feet above grade. Renton Municipal Code Section 4-9-2001, allows minor adjustments to an approved site plan, provided: 1. The adjustment does not involve more than a ten percent (10%) increase in area or scale of the development in the approved site plan; or 2. The adjustment does not have a significantly greater impact on the environment and facilities than the approved plan; or 3. The adjustment does not change the boundaries of the originally approved plan. Analysis of Request The site plan modification requested has been compared to the site plan as approved by the City of Renton Hearing Examiner on December 7, 2006. The proposed change in building height from 111 feet, as stated in the ''Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations" section of the Hearing Examiner's decision (numbers 19 and 22) to the proposed modified height of 115 feet would result in an additional 4 feet of building height and approximately 350,064 square feet of building ---a-re_a_. __ 1_0_55_S_o_u_th_G_r_ad_y_W-ay ___ R_e_n_to-n.-W-as-h-in-gt_o_n_9_80_5_7 ______ ~ """ AHEAD OF THE CURVE David M. Murphy April 25, 2007 Page2 The proposed increase in area would not result in more than a 10 percent increase in area or scale of the development. Although the increased height could impact views from nearby properties, the modification would not have a substantial impact on the environment or facilities. The requested modification would not change the boundaries of the originally approved site plan. The project site is zoned Commercial / Office/ Residential. All applicable setback, lot coverage, and landscaping standards would be achieved. The requested modification would not impact the building facades or other archite.ctural features as proposed. Decision Based on the analysis and recommendation of staff, I have determined the proposed revision is within the parameters 1~fined1l)''~g~ Municipal Code. -~ . . ~ Therefore, the proposed. ll)OdiU(j\tion qf the site .RJah~s d.· eemed to be "minor" and therefore, is approved s!,ffiject to the fo.Uov,:J.!1.~ <t6njti3u: 1. Prior to the issu. ahce. of the final .. b.· u ... i.lding pehQ.iff£.i;Jhe,se. a hawks Headquarters and Training Facility, three full si;ze. rints and o.(le !! Y. X.11 inch contact print of revised building elevations shat!~ · ' d to:the Development Services Division project m.inager. : , . . .. ,,r · This.determination will be:final uriie"~~:~~,,i' ;eal o~thrg'administrative determination, accompanied by theteqe!tred 00 filin~ fee, is filed with the City's Hearing Examiner within 14 _days of the date of de/rsfsn. ·,,,v,,:,._.,,;·+: ... If you have any questions, r~_-·. 'ar~ng this deter111ipat1~rth~;;requirements discussed in this Jetter, please contact /51jzal:feth Higgins, Senioit,Plal)n\i'lf at (425) 430-7382. . ·---·. \• -<!5:~;,.,/ ___ ;;-0:" ~~~ Pov tv<ll Wal-k . Neil Watts, Director Development Services Division cc: Parties of Record Jim Levin Lance Lopes Ray Colliver Tom Chiado Elaine Wine Roger Pearce Brian Dickson Jennifer Henning Elizabeth Higgins File •;f;:;i·,$~'!'' PARTIES OF RECORD Seahawks Training Facility LUA06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF Ray Colliver Port Quendall Company 505 5th Avenue S ste: #900 Seattle, WA 98104 tel: (206) 342-2000 eml: rayc@vulcan.com (owner/ applicant/ contact) Thelma Sutherland 1205 N 29th Street Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) Jared Salstrom 5021 Ripley Lane N ste: #213 Renton, WA 98056 eml: ja red .salstrom@vil la nova. ed u (party of record) Eileen Halverson 16226 Crystal Drive E Enumclaw, WA 98022 (party of record) Roger A. Pearce Foster Pepper PLLC 1111 Third Avenue ste: #3400 Seattle, WA 98101-3299 (party of record) Elaine Wine Vulcan 505 Fifth Avenue S ste: #900 Seattle, WA 98104 tel: (206) 342-2397 eml: elainew@vulcan.com (party of record) Updated: 04/26/07 Michael Cero 8300 Avalon Drive Mercer Island, WA 98040 tel: (206) 419-0657 eml: mscero@comcast.net (party of record) Joe Burcar Department of Ecology Shorelands & Environmental Assistance Program 3190 160th Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98008 tel: (425) 649-7145 (party of record) Steve Jansen 5021 Ripley Lane N ste: #4 Renton, WA 98056 eml: smjansen@msn.com (party of record) Elya George Baches 1414 N 34th Street Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) Steve Gregerson 5021 Ripley Lane N ste: #302 Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) Barbara Paxhia 5021 Ripley Lane N ste: #104 Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) Thomas F. Peterson Socius Law Group PLLC Two Union Square 601 Union Street ste: #4950 Seattle, WA 98101 tel: (206) 838-9112 eml: tpeterson@sociuslaw.com (party of record) Brian T. Sabey 5021 Ripley Lane N ste: #304 Renton, WA 98056 eml: bsabey@comcast.net (party of record) Eleanor Maargo Kennamer, President Misty Cove Condo Association 5021 Ripley Lane N ste: #309 Renton, WA 98056 tel: (206) 650-8855 eml: margok@msn.com (party of record) Aaron Belenky, President Williamsburg Condo HOA 1800 NE 40th Street ste: #H-4 Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) Lance Lopes Qwest Field 800 Occidental Avenue S ste: #100 Seattle, WA 98134 tel: (206) 381-7835 eml: lancel@seahawks.com ( party of record) Shelly Munkberg SECO Development 1083 Lake Washington Blvd N ste: #50 Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) (Page 1 of 2) Larry Barsher 6940 96th Avenue SE Mercer Island, WA 98040 (party of record) Jeffrey Taraday Foster Pepper PARTIES OF RECORD Seahawks Training Facility LUA06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF Tom Ehrlichman Socius Law Group Two Union Square 601 Union Street ste: #4950 Seattle, WA 98101 (party of record) Mike Creegan Richard Wagner Baylis Architects 10801 Main Street ste: #110 Bellevue, WA 98004 (party of record) Jim Levin 1111 Third Avenue ste: #3400 Seattle, WA 98101 1236 S Director Street Seattle, WA 98108 (party of record) Bayley Construction 8005 SE 28th Street PO Box 9004 (party of record) Tom Chiado Chiado LLC ' tel: ( 206) 550-8363 eml: tom@chiadollc.com (party of record) Updated: 04/26/07 David M. Murphy, Partner Crawford Architects LLC 1901 Main Street ste: #200 Kansas City, MO 64108 (contact) Mercer Island, WA 98040-9004 tel: (206) 621-8884 eml: jimlevin@bayley.com ( party of record) (Page 2 of 2) City Clerk City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 L-irry ;incl Esther B;itsher 6940 96th Ave. 5.E. Mercer lsfan<l, W;ishington 98040 206-232-9J.80 .... lesh~r@coroQ5i..net CITY OF RENTON MAY O 8 2007 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE f/ I z :3 I./ fl'1tl. May 8, 2007 Re: Seattle Seahawks Headquarters & Practice Facility, Request for Minor Adjustment We appeal the City ofRenton's April 25, 2007 determination decision allowing the Seattle SeaJ1awks Headquarters & Practice Facility, now under construction, to increase the height of the building to I 15 feet. This decision was based on the determination the request is a minor modiiication as defined by The City of Renton Code, which we also appeal. An increase of 4 and 1/2 feet in height is not a minor modification. It will make an already imposing (111 foot high by 340 long) large building even more imposing and larger to hundreds of people who view it across the lake on Mercer Island. This increase creates a significantly greater impact on the environment which Code Sec 4-9-200 I does not allow. At the initial examiner's hearing on November 21, 2006 I stated my family did not object to the construction of the facility and thought it would be a very attractive building viewed up close, however the structure will look like an enormous box as viewed from homes only one mile across the lake. We recommended that large evergreen trees reaching the height of at least I 00 feet at maturity be planted judiciously in front of the building to mitigate and soften its imposing size. Such landscaping would go a long way to return what use to be a tranquil vista of homes, a modest apartment building (Misty Cove) and a hillside covered with trees. Much to our chagrin the hearing examiner's approval of the project did not include this modest landscape addition. Now the request is for the "enormous box" to get even larger, which we appeal. However we would not object to an approval that included the addition of large evergreen trees reaching to approximately the roof elevation at maturity and planted judiciously close to the building. The trees would mitigate and soften its size and &>reatly reduce the enlarged Sealiawk Facility's environmental impact on those viewing the building from a distance. This landscape requirement should be added as an additional condition to the proposed modification The change will benefit hundreds of Mercer Islanders now and for generations to come. We contacted neighbors that live near us and they agree with our concern and solution. The attachment is a list with their addresses and phone numbers. The required $75 appeal fee is enclosed. Sincerely, /~d &,ht~;:!"'--'-, Mercer Island Neighbors Ai,>reeing With This Appeal and Mitigating Solution Name Address Phone# Dan & Jody Samson 6952 96th Ave. SE 232-0151 Dwight & Christine Schaeffer 6958 96th Ave. SE 236-2580 Les & Denise Klaff 6915 96th.Ave. SE 232-4435 Carl Lindstrom 6910 96 Ave. SE 232-0933 Howard & Sue Robboy 6944 96th A VE SE 236-1162 Steven & Deanna Marshall 6934 96th Ave. SE 425-747-6755 Hal & Gerry Fardal 6920 96th. Ave. SE 232-1936 Dr. Robert and Bee Dietz 7906 E. Mercer Way 230-6989 '\-(\'.Y 0 CIT OF RENTON o~l· ~. d + + ..II + Hearing Examiner ~-(0N,ro~,;,,,,-K-a-th_y_K_e_ol-ke_,_. M_•y_o_, ______________________ F_r_e_d_J_._K_a_u_rm_a_n __ _ May 10, 2007 Larry and Esther Barsher 6940 96th Ave. SE Mercer Island, WA 98040 Re: Seattle Seahawks Headquarters & Practice Facility Appeal LUA 06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF Dear Mr. & Mrs. Barsher: We are in receipt of your Appeal in regards to the above referenced matter. The appeal hearing has been scheduled for Tuesday, May 29, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. The hearing will take place in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. The address is 1055 S Grady Way in Renton. If this office can provide any further assistance, please address those comments in writing. Sincerely, Fred Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton FK/nt cc: Larry Warren, City Attorney Neil Watts, Development Services Elizabeth Higgins, Development Services Stacy Tucker, Development Services Roger Pearce, Foster Pepper Law Firm All Parties of Record ----l-0-55_S_o_u_th_G_r_a_dy-W-ay--R-e-n-to_n_, W-as-h-in_gt_o_n_9_8_05-5---(-42_5_)_43-0--6-5_l_5 ____ ~ AHEAD OF THE CURVE '\-~y 0 (J~;..¢, CITY F RENTON ~ ·~. ~ :! :;:;: Kathy Keolker, Mayor Planning/Building/Public Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator ~v~o,r-------------------------~ April 25, 2007 David M. Murphy, Partner CRAWFORD ARCHITECTS LLC 1901 Main Street -Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64108 Re: Seattle Seahawks Headquarters & Practice Facility, SM, ECF -Request for Minor Adjustment to the Site Plan Dear Mr. Murphy IIU3A-H, SA-M, I am in receipt of your letter dated April 9, 2007, wherein you request approval of a revision to the approved site plan for the Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility. As your letter states, a minor adjustment to the approved site plan is proposed, as follows: Maximum Building Height-115'-0" feet in lieu of 110'-6" feet as noted on Figure 10.6 (Sheet A401) of the Land Use, Shoreline & Master Plan Permit Application - Volume 1. Our understanding is that the requested adjustment is based on refinements to the final structural design and would accommodate a clear inside height dimension of 95 feet as noted in the application. Furthermore, the referenced height is measured to the highest point of the roof deck from the finished floor slab. The City of Renton Hearing Examiner approved the Practice Facility at a height of 111 feet above grade. Renton Municipal Code Section 4-9-2001, allows minor adjustments to an approved site plan, provided: 1. The adjustment does not involve more than a ten percent (10%) increase in area or scale of the development in the approved site plan; or 2. The adjustment does not have a significantly greater impact on the environment and facilities than the approved plan; or 3. The adjustment does not change the boundaries of the originally approved plan. Analysis of Request The site plan modification requested has been compared to the site plan as approved by the City of Renton Hearing Examiner on December 7, 2006. The proposed change in building height from 111 feet, as stated in the "Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations" section of the Hearing Examiner's decision (numbers 19 and 22) to the proposed modified height of 115 feet would result in an additional 4 feet of building height and approximately 350,064 square feet of building ---a-re_a_. __ 1_0_55_S_o_u_th_G_r-ad_y_W_a_y ___ R_e-nt-on-,-W-a-,h-i-ng_t_on-98_0_5_7 ______ ~ @ This paper contarns 50% recycled material. 30% post consurnei AHEAD OF THE CFRVE David M. Murphy April 25, 2007 Page 2 The proposed increase in area would not result in more than a 1 O percent increase in area or scale of the development. Although the increased height could impact views from nearby properties, the modification would not have a substantial impact on the environment or facilities. The requested modification would not change the boundaries of the originally approved site plan. The project site is zoned Commercial / Office / Residential. All applicable setback, lot coverage, and landscaping standards would be achieved. The requested modification would not impact the building facades or other architectural features as proposed. Decision Based on the analysis and recommendation of staff, I have determined the proposed revision is within the parameters defined by the Renton Municipal Code. Therefore, the proposed modification of the site plan is deemed to be "minor" and therefore, is approved subject to the following condition: 1. Prior to the issuance of the final building permit for the Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility, three full size prints and one 8 Y:. x 11 inch contact print of revised building elevations shall be submitted to the Development Services Division project manager. 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. If you have any questions regarding this determination or the requirements discussed in this letter, please contact Elizabeth Higgins, Senior Planner, at (425) 430-7382. ~~~ F"ov f,J~'I Watk Neil Watts, Director Development Services Division cc: Parties of Record Jim Levin Lance Lopes Ray Colliver Tom Chiado Elaine Wine Roger Pearce Brian Dickson Jennifer Henning Elizabeth Higgins File STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY Northwest Regional Office• 3190 160th Avenue SE• Bellevue, Washington 98008-5452 • (425) 649-7000 December 8, 2006 Port Quendall Company Attn: Ray Colliver 505 Fifth Ave South, Suite 900 Seattle, WA 98104 Dear Mr. Colliver: Olo--073 Subject: City of Renton Permit# LUA i;l.'.J l'.lS Approved ,- '· Port Quendall Company (Seattle Seahawks Training Facility) -Applicant Shoreline Substantial Development Permit# 2006-NW-10029 Purpose of this letter: 1 2006 This letter is to inform you that on December 6, 2006, the Department of Ecology received notice that the City of Renton approved your application for a substantial development permit. Your permit is for construction of the Seattle Seahawks training facility and headquarters including four outdoor fields, an office building and indoor training facility within shoreline jurisdiction of Lake Washington. (Chapter 90.58 Revised Code of Washington). What happens next? The law requires that you must wait at least twenty-one (21) days from the date that we received this decision from City before you begin the specific activities authorized by this permit. Therefore, you cannot lawfully begin those activities until after December 27, 2006. This waiting period is to allow anyone disagreeing with any aspect of your permit to appeal to the state Shorelines Hearings Board. If anyo11e does appeal your permit, you must wait until the appeal is over before you start work. The Shorelines Hearings Board will notify you by letter if they receive an appeal. To be sure that the Shorelines Hearings Board has not received an appeal, we advise you to contact them at (360) 459-6327 or http://www.eho.wa.gov/Boards/SHB.asp before you begin work. If you want to appeal this decision, you can find appeal instructions (Chapter 461-08 WAC) at the Shoreline Hearings Board website above. They are also posted on the website of the Washington State legislature at http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac. Other federal, state and local permits may be required in addition to this shoreline permit. Port Quendall December 8, 2006 Page 2 of2 If you have any questions about this letter, please contact Joe Burcar at 425-649-7145 jobu461@ecy.wa.gov. Sincerely, Joe Burcar, orelands Specialist Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program JGB:cja cc: Elizabeth Higgins, City of Renton I. "',1~~073 ~ STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY Northwest Regional Office • 3190 160th Avenue SE• Bellevue, Washington 98008-5452 • (4~49-7000 a';frAti;,.,,_ J, o"" /:/f5~'fvG ~N 19 January 17, 2007 fiSi 20{)7 Ccll/tD Ms. Elaine Wine Vulcan 505 Fifth Ave S Suite 900 Seattle, WA 98104 • Elaine, Ecology hereby appr ves the Engheering Design Reptr. (t:f)R) <luted December 29, 2006. The construction activities may star, ac1.0ording to the requirements specified in the EDR. By approving the EDR, Ecology is agreeing that the proposed cleanup actions are consistent with the requirements of the J.H. Baxter (North) and (South) Consent Decrees. However, by approving the EDR, Ecology is not warranting the success of the proposed remedial actions. City of Renton and Fish and Wildlife Department also reviewed the EDR and provided the requirements specified in the letters (see attachments). Ecology's approval of the EDR is contingent upon your full compliance with the requirements listed in these attachments. If you have any questions, please call me at (425) 649 -7187. Sincerely, ~~ Sunny Lin Becker, P.E. Toxics Cleanup Program Department of Ecology Cc: Ecology Ching-Pi Wang Fish and Wildlife: Stewart Reinbold City of Renton: Elizabeth Higgins Ecology AG's Office: Melissa Rourke 0